Neolithic Refuge and Continuity in Transylvania

Babadag is radiocarbon dated as a site very new, for instance in comparison with Saharna Solonceni in Middle Dniestr.

If Babadag was formed by Kapitan Andreevo invaders, then logically they should have pushed more north to Saharna and the pattern should emerge Eastern Rhodope > Babadag > Saharna Solonceni but that's not the case, Saharna is radiocarbon dated as older than Babadag so the pattern should be different.

Also if you start with the premise that Carpathian and Danube is WHG reach then one should assume the more north and west you go the more WHG you encounter, but that pattern is broken by more Bell-Beaker and Corder-Ware rich population the more west and north you go. Point being, why not a more EEF-rich isolated population with some Steppe autosomal. Some high altitude cattle herders and metal-workers who had the right tools to do an upset.

WHG-rich I2a people had their increase from Late Neolithic up to Middle Bronze Age in Carpathian-Pannonian basin that's true, but it was localized phenomenon although to a good degree of territory until the Tumulus/Hubelgraber shepherd-warriors caused their disruption with their innovative Naue I swords who probably pushed Corder-Ware R1a people as well until somehow they were beaten during LBA by a combination of the Thracian-Hallstatt and Noua-Sabatinovska Iranic-like people.

I assume the Hubelgraber were some kindred people of Italo-Celtic people who lost their identity in history, although by MBA they were the stronger by any margin in comparison with other Bell-Beaker groups sometimes things just turn bad for you.
 
Last edited:
Ralf claimed Gava is high WHG because one of the Kartal samples is an outlier, he seems to think the sample is from Holihrady, but there are none, the outlier is from Kartal.

Saharna is the group that expanded into Chernoles territory and mixed with them. This movement leads to the Bilsk fort samples, who are also high in EEF but at the same time partially mixed with locals and shifted toward Slavic-like population, with some samples even showing east Asian admixture too.
CQe5ubq.png


The sample highest in EEF labeled as Greek(E-V13 too), is actually South Thracian in profile, maybe with a tiny bit more Yamnaya(24-25%).
 
I finally go to look at the Danubian frontier paper. There were four E-V13 samples that were championed as being Illyrian. It turns out, only one of the E-V13 has an Illyrian profile. The rest show closer relationship to Bessarabi profile (which could also be the main Dacian profile).

The results make sense, in Viminacium only two J2b-L283s have shown up in a sample size of almost 50. It simply would not make sense to have more E-V13s with Illyrian profile than actual Illyrian haplogroups.

Let start with some basic component G25 runs:
MEuGblE.png

d2OE2E4.png


What distinguishes Illyrians is Iron Gates HG component, which is likely from corded and beaker admixture. The Brygian samples which have similar Yamnaya to farmer component as Illyrians, lack this HG admixture, as unlike Illyrians they were not in intense contact with corded groups, or marrying their women.

First sample is Viminacium I15507, which the Serbian paper modeled as 81% Croatia IA, and 19% Aegean BA. This is the only Illyrian profile that has a good score in qpdam. I tried to see if this was Celtic + Thracian and other Italian IA + Thracian scenarios but to no avail. The only model that gets an acceptable score is Illyrian plus a little imperial admixture. I do not think though that this sample is a Dardanian but rather an unsampled Illyrian profile from western Serbia.
bSF0AqG.png



Second sample is Timinacium I5544, it turns out to be just a Bassarabi profile and not really Illyrian. In the Serbian paper it was modeled as 56% IA Croatia and 44% BA Aegean, and most likely it did not pass in their models. Not only do most Illyrian models fail but when they pass, they barely do, but when it comes to E-V13s it passes even with a model as Bulgaria EIA +slavic drift.
70hcMta.png


Next sample is Viminacium I15495, in the paper it was modeled as IA Croatia 48%, BA Aegean 52%. But this is the most Bessarabi sample of all. Illyrian models do not even pass on this sample.
WEPbauS.png


Last sample is Timinacium I15553, the paper modeled this fellow as Albania BA(lol). Illyrian models just fail with this sample. The E-V13 populations do a better job as the models pass though not at p-values I prefer (0.45 and higher). The issue is this sample has a small Slavic drift and a small imperial/ME admixture(refer to G25) and such it's difficult to capture on qpdam though it does come close in the last model.
is947Zf.png

The mythical Dardani E-V13 has yet to show up and save the day. The argument so far has been, the Dardanian kingdom might have ruled east of Morava for 50 years and those people magically converted into Illyrians because we badly need E-V13 to be Illyrian. Not a very good argument, it comes off as desperate.
 
Last edited:
The medieval Sicilian coordinates jut got uploaded in the genarchivist:

Code:
Segesta:SGBN1,0.067156,0.139128,-0.018102,-0.041667,0.015387,-0.025658,-0.013161,-0.009923,0.007363,0.018953,-0.002273,0.004796,-0.004014,0.005918,-0.008415,0.001193,0.000782,0.001774,0.003771,-0.002251,-0.006863,-0.005688,-0.002835,-0.008676,-0.001197
Segesta:SGBN2,-0.583913,0.063978,0.012822,0.009367,-0.000615,0.008925,-0.033607,0.035537,0.005931,-0.013485,0.004222,0.004796,-0.00773,-0.000138,0.005972,-0.009546,0.004955,-0.006588,0.006411,-0.006628,-0.003743,0.000247,-0.002095,0.00253,0.003832
Segesta:SGBN4,0.055773,0.137096,-0.007165,-0.052003,0.019388,-0.018128,-0.007755,0.001615,0.024747,0.016219,0.002923,-0.008393,0.010406,-0.006606,0.006922,0.003182,0.00665,-0.015076,-0.020866,0.008254,-0.00287,-0.004081,0.002342,0.004699,0.002395
Segesta:SGBN5,0.067156,0.137096,-0.009805,-0.042636,0.017849,-0.022869,-0.016686,-0.010846,0.016566,0.021139,0.008119,0.012739,0.000595,-0.003578,-0.011265,0.003315,0.005346,-0.005701,-0.006411,0.000625,-0.012603,0.000866,0.00456,0.002289,-0.005748
Segesta:SGBN6,0.062603,0.142174,-0.017725,-0.047158,0.00954,-0.008088,-0.002585,0.003,0.009613,0.015672,0.002273,-0.00015,-0.001933,-0.000688,-0.002714,-0.008353,-0.004955,0.002407,0.009804,-0.007128,-0.006239,-0.00643,0.001849,-0.005543,0.001676
Segesta:SGBN7,0.027318,0.129988,-0.003771,-0.042959,0.007694,-0.020638,-0.00893,0.007154,0.018816,0.016948,0.002436,0.003147,0.000743,-0.009358,0.003257,0.010342,0.0236,-0.003674,-0.015712,0.007379,-0.010107,-0.007543,0.017255,-0.007832,0.011975
Segesta:SGBN10,0.092197,0.133034,0.000377,-0.018411,0.038469,-0.009203,-0.013396,0,0.001023,0.021322,-0.001624,0.008093,-0.001933,-0.001376,-0.004886,0.003315,0.006128,0.005574,-0.007668,0.006753,-0.008111,-0.013973,-0.000246,0.009278,-0.007664
Segesta:SGBN12,0.08992,0.139128,0.004525,-0.033269,0.008001,-0.030678,0.001645,-0.008538,0.009204,0.015855,0.004709,-0.006294,-0.013528,-0.006744,0.010043,0.013126,0.018906,0.006334,0.008673,-0.002626,-0.007362,0.004699,-0.000616,0.002892,-0.001676
Segesta:SGBN17,0.092197,0.137096,-0.008674,-0.034561,0.011694,-0.008088,-0.001175,0,0.000818,0.008383,0.000974,3e-04,-0.005798,0.001376,-0.013979,0.015513,0.009909,-0.00228,-0.003645,-0.003627,-0.006613,0.000618,0.002218,-0.000361,0.001197
Segesta:SGBN19,0.118376,0.151314,0.012068,-0.003876,0.044624,-0.001952,-0.00705,0.003692,0.003681,0.029887,-0.009094,0.005245,-0.01115,-0.010872,-0.007872,0.028109,0.019427,0.013049,0.007668,-0.008129,-0.009234,-0.002226,-0.005176,0.013134,-0.00934
Segesta:SGBN20,0.112685,0.133034,0.023004,-0.00646,0.037238,0.000837,0.004935,-0.007154,0.008385,0.021139,-0.002111,0.003147,-0.014271,-0.013625,0.001629,0.014717,0.017863,-0.005701,0.003268,0.005253,-0.007237,0.000618,-0.003944,0.005061,-0.009221
Segesta:SGBN22,0.114961,0.14319,0.010182,-0.02907,0.017542,-0.007251,0.00094,-0.003,0.009204,0.01713,0.004222,0.005245,-0.004757,-0.005092,-0.004614,-0.000663,-0.004172,0.002534,0.000628,-0.002126,-0.006738,0.000371,0.002465,0.004579,0.00012
Segesta:SGBN23,0.113823,0.152329,0.020365,-0.015181,0.030159,0.012829,0.027966,0.007384,0.005727,0.013485,-0.001624,0.005095,-0.027056,-0.001651,0.016829,-0.005967,-0.006128,-0.001267,0.005531,-0.001,0.022211,0.000618,-0.003204,-0.007832,0.005508
Segesta:SGBN24,0.113823,0.148267,0.011691,-0.027455,0.025235,-0.008925,0.00047,0.003231,0.00225,0.023873,0.001624,0.001798,-0.010555,-0.006193,0.001493,0.005834,0.005215,-0.002914,0.004651,-0.003627,0.003619,0.006801,-0.012571,-0.000964,-0.000479

If you recall two siblings were E-V13. SGBN 19 and 20. SGBN 10 is also E-V13. I ran some quick models on G25 and these brethren seem to be mdv Albanians, part admixed with Normans.

kdia2TL.png


Using kukes-post mdv as a source
veW6rnt.png

OiH6AXF.png


SGBN10 appears to be a quarter mdv Albanian, SGBN19 half, and his brother a quarter, which does not make sense.
 
PS This was one my predictions, all from intuition, no knowledge of subclades, involved, just a good natural detective. You will never get such cool observations and insight from rrenjet. You can give those crooks and nerds all the cheat codes, it will not beat natural talent.

 
I decided to add Italian mdv averages, and the only thing that changed was, Italian IA got shifted to Italian mdv, the other ratios stayed the same. I also added Alb mdvs(the two samples from Albania) as a clear demonstration, these two samples are not Albanian, I explained it before but will not bother to go into it again. The reps from rrenjet are incredibly inept and I'll leave at that.

Q9yeB8g.png
 

Yes, the Croatian spear hoard has many fine examples of flame shaped casted spearheads.

Interactions between the northern Balkans and
the Carpathian Basin, as well as with the western and
northern regions of Europe, intensified between 1200
and 1100 BC. This process is well illustrated by the
presence of defensive weapons (such as helmets,
greaves, and shields) of Carpathian Basin origins
at sites in the northern Balkans, as well as the deposi-
tion of flange-hilted swords that followed Central
European design trends. This is also the time when
spearheads from the eastern Carpathian Basin
appeared in the northern Balkans. Fine examples
include those with profiled mid-ribs or stepped
blades from Serbia.85 On the other hand, the long,
Alpine-type specimens indicate contacts with
western Europe.86 Unlike the previous period, when
Mycenaean weapons arrived exclusively through
trading activities or down-the-line exchange, in this
era, these weapons, and likely their bearers, reached
the central Balkans directly.
Apparently, population
movements typically unfolded via the valley of the
Morava River.

During this era, the decrease in the number of
weapons in the northern and central Balkans coin-
cided with a dramatic decrease in metal hoarding.88
In parallel with the emergence of a new pottery style
in the northeastern Carpathians (Gáva style pottery),
swords with cup-shaped pommels characteristic of
that territory became prevalent across many regions

(see Figures 7.12 and 7.13).89
 
The Boiu sword which has ornamentations and spiral decorations appear in South-Eastern Hungary, North-Western Bulgaria and North-Eastern Serbia and interesting enough North-Eastern Italy where Veneti latter appear.
 
The Boiu sword which has ornamentations and spiral decorations appear in South-Eastern Hungary, North-Western Bulgaria and North-Eastern Serbia and interesting enough North-Eastern Italy where Veneti latter appear.

Boiu seems to have been pretty specific subtype. The less typical but most common generalised Naue II-type slashing sword in the Gáva expansion zone was type Reutlingen AFAIK:

This is also an interesting read on the evolution and spread of Naue II in general.

Fig 1 Typological diversity of metal artefacts in the 3rd (left) and 2nd (right) millennium BC is highly interesting, since it shows that formerly less prominent regions, like the Tisza region and Northern Italy, became absolutely prominent in the 2nd mill BC. This shows that from Nyirseg onwards it became a centre for metal production and weaponry.

And those two regions (Upper Tisza and Northern Italy) being also culturally closely connected, as the similarity of the production of Protovillanovans and Gáva proves. Burial rites, ceramic and swords are more similar to each other, than to many of their direct neighbours.

About 80% of the artefacts that suggest Aegean and Mediterranean contacts
with continental Europe are found in the Danubian-Carpathian area and in Italy
(Bouzek
1985, 240). It is possible to differentiate between an early (18/17th to 13th centuries BC) and
a late (13th to 12/11th centuries BC) phase
of objects exchange, representing a two-phased
development of mutual relations (e.g. Bouzek 1985, 240-244; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 120-
130; Suchowska-Ducke 2016, 177-188).
The early phase was more about "learning", the later phase was expansion.

Among the metal artefacts of so-called “northern origin” that reached the Mediter-
ranean (see above) are the preserved remains of at least 79 impressive bronze weapons
that belong to the famous flange-hilted swords of Naue II type used for cutting and thrust-
ing (Suchowska-Ducke 2015, 259). These weapons are characterised by their parallel-sided
cutting edges and thickened cross sections, making them more resistant against bending
and allowing them to deliver a higher amount of kinetic energy via the edge of the blade
(Kristiansen 2002; Jung, Mehofer 2008; Molloy 2011). With these advantageous properties,
Naue II swords spread rapidly and far, due to the high mobility of warriors and the great
intensity of warfare as a form of social interaction. Indeed, these innovative new swords
turned out to be so efficient in combat, that by the 12th century BC they were widely used
in continental Europe, the Aegean and the Near East, often replacing local types of swords

Fig 3 shows the distribution of Naue II swords, which in the East pretty much overlaps with Gáva-related Channelled Ware.

Chronologically (fig. 4), the earliest flange-hilted swords have been recorded in Italy
and in the Carpathian Basin, where one can find clear typological predecessors of Naue II
in the form of Sprockhoff Ib type swords (Cowen 1955; Foltiny 1964, 247-258; Jung, Mehofer
2008, 134, fig. 3

The wide-spread appearance of Naue II is indicative of the rise of a warrior aristoc-
racy in European continent during the Late Bronze Age. There is no doubt that it was the
weapon of a professional warrior with sharp edges that were frequently re-sharpened after
use in combat. Naue II swords were used for both thrusting and cutting, and were suitable
for close hand-to-hand combat. Undoubtedly, their emergence must have brought about a
significant change in the fighting techniques of the Late Bronze Age.
The expansion of this new warrior aristocracy, especially after 1300 BC, coincides
with the emergence of the Urnfield Culture characterised by intensive development and
great mobility. This must be explained in the context of the region’s position on the periph-
ery of the more advanced and richer centres of the Mediterranean Basin. The challenging
question is how these processes in the European peripheries were related to contemporane-
ous developments in the palatial centres of the Mediterranean, and whether there are any
links with the influx of the so-called “Sea Peoples” into the south and the eventual destruc-
tion of its centres after 1200 BC.

 
Three samples from a Norman site in Sicily have Albanian ancestry, these samples also happen to be the only E-V13 samples in the site. No relationship with Greeks, but most importantly the original Albanian population must have been extremely high before J2b-L283, R-Z29758 and Slavic lineages were incorporated to the corpus.
 
Last edited:
On Insula Banului, which was situated between Belegis II-Gáva and Vartop, occupying the core zone of what was Encrusted Pottery territory before:

Attila-Laszlo-Fig-1.jpg

Source of the map: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jj.15135885.8.pdf

Some large, bitronconic vessels even have the lip decorated inside with printed motifs. On some vessels, the printed ornamentation is combined with the fluted one, on others the two types of ornamentation are exclusive. The grooves are arranged horizontally on the neck of the vessels and obliquely or vertically on the convex body, which, very rarely, is faceted horizontally.
Sometimes the lip of the vessels is faceted inside. After this comprehensive presentation of Hallstatt ceramics by about Banului Island it is necessary to make some clarifications. The pottery from sector A stands out for its rich ornamentation with printed decorations. There is no lack of grooved ornamentation, it being mostly associated with the printed one. Exclusively fluted vessels are rare.

There we can observe an addition of a formerly rare method (stamping, printing), rather than a fundamentally new complex. This is something we can also observe in Psenichevo, Cozia-Saharna and Babadag. All of them used horns/knobs and flutes/cannelure/black burnished outside still, and all can be connected to each other and the earlier layers of Gáva-related Channelled Ware. Just like the new fibulae, tools and weapons, buldings etc. from the Carpathian basin don't disappear as well in the EIA.

The transition can be observed on the same site, from exclusively Channelled Ware to cannelure + printing:
In sector B, the proportion of ceramics decorated by printing is smaller in relation to that in sector A, and the exclusively fluted vessels
they are more numerous. This fluted pottery certainly appears together with the print-decorated one. However, two pits were discovered
in which there is only fluted pottery. Regarding the work technique and a shapes, the ceramics from these two pits do not differ because of that
from the other complexes in sector B, in which the pottery decorated by printing is quite numerous.

This is also what to expect, because why should there be, in the midst of Gáva-related Channelled Ware, be a chance for a completely different people and tradition to grow out of nowhere. Rather due to the integration of new influences and regionalisation, foreign influences, new patterns and styles emerged, in a process of regionalisation. Just like Belegis II-Gáva and Vartop too were regionalisations within the more strictly Gáva-related sphere.

Also worth to mention, Insula Banului had iron items, associated with channelled pottery, like they were found in other Gáva sites as well:

Also in this sector were found: an iron knife, an iron ax with fins (fig. 7 /12), which appeared in a pit with few ceramics, decorated exclusively by grooves, two 12fragments of bracelets (fig. 7 /2, 9) and a button (fig. 7 /8), these being bronze.

Clearly Gáva-related Channelled Ware:

From what has been shown, the Hallstattian cultural aspect identified in southwest Romania, characterized by ceramics decorated by printing, is best represented by the Hallstattian deposits on Banului Island. Similar or even identical materials have also appeared, on the occasion of recent research in the Iron Gates area, in Pcnicova Cave6 and in the shelter under the rock called Cuina 1'urcului& (both in Dubova commune). Among the Hallstatt ceramic materials from Cuina Turcului, those decorated by printing are quite rare, much more numerous being those with grooved ornament. On the other hand, the Hallstatt pottery discovered in the old excavations at Ostrovul Cortului is characterized - on the basis of the di&pune:m material - in particular by bc gat pottery ornamented by printing, identical to that from Banului Island. IN A unspecified point, materials of the same type were also found on Ostrovul Mare7• in the neighboring area in the north-east of Yugoslavia, we currently know only a few isolated ceramic fragments, ornamented by imprinting.1·e, similar or, more precisely, identical to those discovered in the aforementioned from Romania. In this respect we quote: Korbovo8, Prahovo9, Zuto-Brdo10, Zajdar11 and Mediana12 (near Nis). In northwestern Bulgaria, similar materials were discovered in the Magura Cave13 near the Rabisa river and in a cave near Dolni Lorn14• The exposed ceramic material shows specific Hallstatt elements. From a technical point of view, we emphasize the burning method of some vessels with the surface brick-chestnut inside and black outside, characteristic feature of some early Hallstatt cultures, as well as the outer surface with metallic luster. We then note the frequency of typical Hallstattian forms: bitronconic urn with projections and the strachina with the arched edge towards interior; and in terms of ornamentation, use, more or less frequent, of fluted ornaments. If the shown constitute general Hallstattian elements and in especially the early Hallstatts, the rich ornamentation by printing is specific only to certain Hallstatt groups.

Insula Banului and Ostov have clearly similarities to Psenichevo. No doubt about that. But these elements, the main characteristics, can't have come from the South, because they weren't there. They spread from Trasnylvania down southward, with Belegis II-Gáva, Insula Banului and Vartop being in between.

Now a good question is, where did the Southern groups got the stamping from? It was used before, even in Verbicoara, but there is another possible road, with some aspects coming from Encrusted Pottery/Garla Mare:

A series of elements prove strong traditions from the Zuto-Brdo-Gîrla Mare culture15, namely: the ornaments that use strings of S's, rows of stamped concentric circles, garland printed decoration and zigzag band with concentric circles at angles; the "lunate loop" and "cornucated loop" type torches and, in rarer cases, the baking dish and the salt dish. The frequency of the S-shaped ornament is typical of the Middle Hallstatt of the Bessarabian type. as a whole, however, Hallstatt pottery from Banului Island differs from that of the Basarabi culture. We mention some elements characteristic of Bessarabi culture that are non-existent at Banului Island: the spirals together in the form of a vortex, the excised ornament, the cross-shaped ornament with a square in the middle and triangular arms, the flared strachin and the vessel with a high foot16• In this way, we find that the Hallstattian aspect researched in Banului Island contains elements of the iuto type Brdo-Gîrla Mare and Basarabi, but obviously different from them.

We saw that in Fundeni-Govora/Verbicoara and Bistret-Islanita into Vartop, even some Northern Zimnicea, they had EPC influences. That's what I stressed so often, EPC had a bit of a cultural legacy, but obviously no or only very little genetic one. Some aspects of its repertoire were integrated into the canon of Channelled Ware groups, like e.g. Bistret-Isalnita, Vartop, Insula Banului - you see the geographical distribution, but they as a people were not as lucky.

Insula Banului and Vartop are both between the end of Garla Mare and Basarabi. That's their position. Channelled Ware groups picked Garla Mare techniques up and started a regional evolution, leading up to Basarabi. From where got they their main features from?

thus it is obvious that the aspect from Banului Island follows the Zuto-Brdo-Gîrla Mare culture and precedes the Basarabi culture, placing itself in the early Hallstatt. The numerous relationships established with early Hallstatt groups from the surrounding regions confirm the relative chronology of aspect identified in Banului Island. The technique of burning dishes, red inside and black outside, it is known in the Gava-Lăpuş 17 group as in the Babadag group. The large protrusions on the body of the urn vessels, made by pushing from the inside, framed by circular, concentric grooves, are also known in the Lăpuş-Gava 18 and Babadag 19 groups• The horizontally widened lip on the outside of large vessels existed in the Gîrla Mare culture, but it is characteristic of the early Hallstatt group of the Reci type 20• The grooved ornament in garlands is specific to the Reci and Mediaş cultural groups garlands, which appear in Reci, Babadag, Susani22, Balta Verde23
Vîrtop 24•
Relatively rare are the inner grooved slats like those from
Medias. The profile of large, strongly convex vessels, with a faceted shoulder, recalls forms from Mediaş 25• The cup, whose surface is decorated with grooves in garlands, very frequent in the Susani-Bobda group 26, appears at Insula.

Summing that up its Gáva, Gáva, Gáva, because its Lapus II-Gáva and Reci and Medias group are just part the Gáva group. Babadag is clearly getting the same features also from the Upper Tisza-Transylvania. Same goes for Susani-Bobda (Belegis II-Gáva), Vartop, Balta Verde site etc.

Insula Banului shares many features with Psenichevo not by accident:

At Psenicevo 291 near Stara Zagora (Bulgaria), an early Hallstatt settlement was identified where we frequently find the association, sometimes even on the same vessel, of the decoration of rows of Ss with that one. from strips of circles joined by tangents, made by printing.
near Plovdiv, at Rascopaniţa 30, the two ornamental motifs also appear on different ceramic fragments. Fragments of ornamental vessels with rhombuses and triangles of similar appearance were also found there or even identical to the one from Banului Island. It is clear that the two settlements mentioned illustrate an early Hallstatt group related to those of Banului and Babadag type.

The author also notes the potential influence from the East Banat, associated with Vatin, which in my opinion can only make sense if speaking of Belegis I and the Vatin influence on Verbicoara. Otherwise we can most clearly distinguish in the material two aspects: Encrusted Pottery/Garla Mare substrate and Gáva-related Channelled Ware spreading on top of it, with a fairly sudden increase of fluted decorations etc.

 
I wonder if the Kotuz from Kreshnik songs is a reference to the Dacian king Cotiso.

“Kuer u bâ Kotuzi ndand vjeç

Aj ndand vetë në mejdan i kà pritë,

Aj ndand drume kà zaptue,

Aj ndand shehre tuj urdhnue, etj.”

Kotuz from Kreshnik songs seems to have been an important ruler, Cotiso the Dacian King was certainly moreso than that, it is rumored that Augustus the founder of Roman Empire wanted to betrothe his daughter to Cotiso to gain the Dacian support.

I know there are other Cotiso like the one from Odrysian Thracians, but i think the song refers to Dacian Cotiso.

Following representation of Odrysian Cotiso, typical robust Dinarid features IMO.

kotys.jpg
 
This was the best model for the Hungarian E-V13 sample. Other models with Celtic or Illyrian were plain failures. To me it looks like Noua impact on some of the northern E-V13 population was more permanent in nature. Belegis II and Insula groups were untouched by Noua and these population remained most EEF and are responsible for the southern Thracian profile. That would be my guess.


1uhzbLF.png
 
Talking about increased steppe in the Upper Tisza zone and the groups leading up to Gáva, I think that Füzesabony-Otomani is a better candidate and was far more influential. Keep in mind those were essentially Epi-Corded people from Mierzanowice. BUt its possible that Noua left some legacy too.
 
What samples would represent Füzesabony-Otomani? When I get some free time I'll run a test.
 
On the Sicilian samples, I played around by throwing the other segesta samples into the source to see if the results would shift, the Alb(mdv) ancestry remains consistent. The same model does not work when introducing the two mdv samples from Albania, it's pretty obvious they are not Albanoid profiles as I argued long before using both G25 and qpdam demonstrations.

gh0eoqH.png

LFhMBJs.png


Also noteworthy, SGNB19 represents two people, the paper noted he has a twin brother and only one their profiles was used for autosmal reading. So in these samples there are four E-V13s and one J2b-L283 with Albanian ancestry. That translates to 80% E-V13 for 1200 AD Albs.
 
What samples would represent Füzesabony-Otomani? When I get some free time I'll run a test.

You can try that one:
Hungary_MBA_Fuzesabony:I20750,0.122929,0.131003,0.063356,0.061693,0.029544,0.026774,0.010575,0.00923,0.003272,-0.008565,-0.004222,-0.001798,0.005798,0.006606,0.011265,0.011138,0.003129,-0.004307,-0.001885,0.005753,0.008984,0.002226,0.008011,-0.007953,-0.00012
 
Spot on Riverman. The formula even works for the Himera's, though I think those are more likely Cernoles admixed.

hOKFsVn.png
 
Same model applied to Babadag does not work.

TX9sU9Q.png



But it does work with LBA Ukranian pastoralist. This indirectly strongly implies the high EEF profile is the BA profile of E-V13, and variations began to emerge in LBA and IA as E-V13 expanded.
 
Back
Top