Neolithic Refuge and Continuity in Transylvania

[Riverman]

I think the whole concept is now pretty solid, since we see already in mixed Bodrogkeresztur-Salcuta context, like from Urzizeni, a strong shift towards Gumelnita, which must be attributed to (first?) Salcuta migrants in the vicinity of this (still) Bodrogkeresztur dominated settlement.
The shift should be even more drastic in actual Salcuta dominated Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon/Scheibenhenkel context, which, going by latest C14 callibrated data, was the direct successor of many Bodrogkeresztur settlements.

On top of that, there are a couple of authors which already pointed to Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon and Salcuta directly being one of the main, if not the main genetic contributor to Cotofeni - note that Hunyadi-Vajska is largely equivalent to Hunyadihalom–Lažňany, because Vajska is a crucial site for the Salcuta influence on Bodrogkeresztur:

It is not hard to establish the relative chronology of Cernavoda III-Boleraz. Most archaeologists agree that in the east it succeeded Cernavoda I (type Renie II), Salcuta IV, and Gumelnita (Karanovo VI); in the central parts, the Yugoslav Danube Basin, and most of the Pannonian Plain, it was later than Bodrogkeresztur, Hunyadi-Vajska, and Balaton-Lasinja I-II; in the north, it followed the final stages of the Lengyel (Ludanice) culture. Through out most of this area it was succeeded by the Baden culture, except in the east, where an early stage of Cotofeni (Cotofeni I) emerged. In absolute terms, and on the basis of uncalibrated C-14 dating, Cernavoda III-Boler£z would cover the period between 2850 and 2700 B.C. (data provided by the Berlin and Groningen laboratories).152

So Cotofeni emerged exactly in the area of the heavily Salcuta shifted Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon and Salcuta proper territory.

Viewed throughout its extent, the Cotofeni culture may be described as a phenomenon typical of the southern Carpathians and the Danube Basin. The culture affected the area of Transylvania, Marumures, the uplands of Banat, Oltenia, Muntenia, northwest Bulgaria along the Danube (Magura, Vidin, Vraca), and northeast Serbia.

Tasic also explains the difference to the related Baden-culture, which emerged, by and lage, from Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur amd related Pannonian core groups (unmixed with Salcuta):

The question of the origin of the Cotofeni culture should be viewed within the framework of the emergence and expansion of Boleraz-Cernavoda III and, for a somewhat later period, of Baden, as well. Numerous elements of Cotofeni pottery, especially as found at Romanian sites, derive from the style of Cernavoda III: the use of plastic bands, a rather coarse version of the herringbone motif, and broad channelling. This kind ofpottery from Romanian sites (Petresti, Brateiu-NiSiparie, the earlier layers of Locusteni) 209 is dated by P. Roman to phase I of the Cotofeni culture. This phase is also characterized by the complete absence of Furchenstich decoration and of the motif of cuts organized into chequer patterns in Kostolac manner (Herculana-PesteraHotilor, Girbova de Sus).210 The presence of BolenHz-Cernavoda III elements in the early phase of Cotofeni does not indicate, however, a direct evolution. The Cotofeni culture probably came into being as a result of the very same process which gave rise to Baden in the Pannonian Plain. Only their autochthonous bases were different: in the case of Baden, the line followed was Balaton-Boleraz-Baden, while the basis of Cotofeni was a combination of Cernavoda III and Salcuta. In the context of the other contemporaneous phenomena in the Carpathian-Danubian-Balkan region, the relative chronology of the Cotofeni culture would be as follows: phase I of P. Roman's coincides with the emergence of the Baden culture in the Pannonian Plain (in the Serbian Danube Basin at the time, Boleraz-Cernavoda III settlements were still in existence here and there: Vajuga near Korbovo, Brza Vrba near Kovin); Cotofeni II would be parallel with the further development of Baden (classical phase) and the appearance of Kostolac elements; Cotofeni III was contemporaneous with the mature Kostolac culture and the first Vucedol settlements in Srem and Slavonia.211 It is hard to say what exactly happened in the Serbian Danube Basin and eastern Serbia after the Cotofeni culture. The next settlements there belong to the Verbicioara and Vatin cultures, but this does not exclude the possibility of a temporal hiatus between the two cultures.

For Eastern Serbia a hiatus between Salcuta and Cotofeni being sometimes proposed, which would suggest a kind of "back migration" of Salcuta-related elements from the Cotofeni sphere to some areas, but in any case, in a lot of places there is Salcuta followed by Cotofeni, like ZLOTSKA PECINA NEAR BOR (EAST SERBIA) Stratified cave-type settlement

A. The earliest Bubanj-Salcuta culture settlement with remains of house floors, hearths, and working surfaces was best preserved. The importance of this horizon was its pottery, abundance of antler tools, flint implements and particularly copper objects (awls, pins, flat ax). The pottery was decorated with carving, channels, white and dry red painting, and also black burnishing. However, along with this manner of decoration, pots with Sclieibenlienkel type handles appear, which could suggest that we deal here with one late phase of the Bubanj- Salcuta culture. B. Above the previous horizon, the settlement of the final Eneolithic was formed. According to its pottery (carved lines, lens-shaped plastic ornaments) this settlement belongs to the Cotofeni culture with elements of the Kostolac culture style (Furchenstich decoration) . Alarge number of tools, predominantly made ofantler, was also found in this horizon.

Source: https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/bitstream/id/44576/bitstream_44576.pdf

Since we find near 100 % ANF outliers in Urzizeni, in the mixed Bodrogkeresztur-Salcuta context, we can assume that if anything early Salcuta was indeed even more ANF-heavy than Gumelnita, but overall similar to Gumelnita, which being also supported by the paper publishing the samples, since they could model some outliers with just Gumelnita as a source.
We have now a clear reason as to why Cotofeni was indeed different from the Baden culture: Because of the strong Salcuta-tradition which got injected into the East Carpathian sphere. And this is not just based on archaeological material, which already suggested so, but also on actual samples from the Bodrogkeresztur site of Urzizeni, in which we see this shift in the direction of an ANF/Gumelnita-like people.

If we add to that the extremely high likelihood of not just E-L618, but most specifically E-CTS1975 being present in Gumelnita (with two data points, one directly from Varna, the other from Myceaneaen Greeks in Crete), we now have a suggested path for both E-V13 and the ANF-rich ancestry which leads to Cotofeni. And this is so important because Cotofeni is now not just a better fit archaeologically for the later Thracian cultures, but also genetically.

Because Gumelnita and the Salcuta shifted samples from Bodrogkeresztur are way better fits than the Ezero-type samples, with its core coming from Horodistea-Foltesti and looking like the EBA Tell Yunatsite samples.

 

[Riverman]

I thought about how to best demonstrate the Salcuta influence and I think plotting the most obviously Salcuta/ANF-shifted samples from Urzizeni (in Satu Mare) is the right way to go.

Basically I used all non-Urzizeni samples from Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztur and the ones available for Transylvanian sites from the earlier Late Neolithic-Early Copper Age period and plotted them against the selection of Bodrogkeresztur samples which are clear outliers with strongly increased EEF, lower HG ancestry and practically no steppe.

I also plotted the Karanovo samples from Yunatsite, Thrace, which best represent the pure Gumelnita core before the steppe admixture and the Late Neolithic sample from Southern Romania, from later Salcuta territory. I only used one Gumelnita sample, not those from Pietrele, because they are already too admixed in my opinion, as you will see.

These are the samples I used:

Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I16551__BC_4420__Cov_21.16%,0.112685,0.1635,0.031301,-0.060724,0.061242,-0.02259,-0.000235,0.011769,0.035178,0.076357,-0.000325,0.013038,-0.017542,0.007432,-0.033523,0.013392,0.043548,0.002154,0.013952,-0.007379,0,0.008656,-0.010723,-0.022413,0.002395<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I16560.SG__BC_4315__Cov_31.09%,0.117238,0.169593,0.032055,-0.06137,0.072937,-0.026216,-0.00752,-0.002769,0.038655,0.062143,-0.011854,0.010491,-0.024083,0.008945,-0.016015,-0.011403,-0.007041,-0.002154,0.017975,-0.005878,0.007362,0.018919,-0.014543,-0.022413,-0.00946<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I18638__BC_4350__Cov_27.93%,0.127482,0.189904,0.03017,-0.057494,0.070475,-0.040439,-0.017156,0.001154,0.042745,0.073623,-0.001137,0.015736,-0.02557,-0.005505,-0.035287,0.001061,0.037811,-0.002027,0.008925,-0.000875,-0.004617,0.012736,-0.010476,-0.020846,0<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I21848__BC_4315__Cov_33.02%,0.124067,0.175687,0.034318,-0.068476,0.070475,-0.036535,-0.00282,-0.007846,0.037428,0.080184,0.008119,0.007943,-0.012339,0.006881,-0.03393,-0.008884,0.017732,0.004687,0.01433,-0.014632,-0.005241,0.00643,-0.006902,-0.014098,-0.011616<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I21849__BC_4235__Cov_36.01%,0.135449,0.170609,0.029415,-0.057171,0.080323,-0.039045,-0.003525,0.002769,0.048881,0.078362,0.008444,0.009891,-0.026164,0.00812,-0.029723,-0.012729,-0.006258,0.005828,0.009427,-0.009379,0.002371,0.0115,-0.011339,-0.029281,-0.001437<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I21895__BC_4235__Cov_36.34%,0.114961,0.175687,0.026021,-0.059755,0.072321,-0.039324,-0.003055,-0.003692,0.055017,0.086198,-0.000487,0.005545,-0.015758,0.00578,-0.019137,-0.009546,0.004824,-0.004434,0.008673,-0.019384,0.008485,-0.012736,-0.008997,-0.018557,-0.005389<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I21896__BC_4235__Cov_37.89%,0.125205,0.17264,0.032809,-0.052649,0.075091,-0.031794,-0.005405,0.003461,0.041518,0.082371,0.000487,0.006894,-0.014569,-0.000688,-0.040716,-0.005967,0.019688,-0.004054,0.009176,-0.024387,-0.005615,0.008779,-0.012078,-0.017472,-0.003952<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I29888__BC_4345__Cov_43.21%,0.120652,0.173656,0.034318,-0.057817,0.066782,-0.027889,-0.001645,-0.005077,0.033951,0.06925,0.007795,0.009292,-0.016204,0.004266,-0.024701,0.001591,0.021383,-0.005701,0.006662,-0.011255,0.002371,0.009769,-0.010476,-0.023497,-0.002395<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I5101__BC_4280__Cov_31.25%,0.140002,0.158423,0.05506,-0.027778,0.075706,-0.020638,-0.00329,0.007384,0.03886,0.07417,0.000974,-0.005545,-0.031367,0.004679,-0.02728,-0.002519,0.018123,0.008235,0.003142,-0.000125,0.008735,0.017064,-0.014543,-0.036993,0.003592<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I5105__BC_4215__Cov_31.81%,0.114961,0.178733,0.036581,-0.049419,0.077861,-0.029005,-0.00282,0.004384,0.047859,0.080366,0.000162,0.002248,-0.011298,0.005918,-0.030401,-0.007027,0.022426,-0.004181,0.000126,-0.008379,0.004991,0.01694,-0.012571,-0.005784,-0.001916<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I5106__BC_4235__Cov_19.87%,0.117238,0.168578,0.038843,-0.063631,0.065243,-0.028447,0.005405,0.002077,0.038041,0.070343,-0.001137,0.002098,-0.02334,-0.003991,-0.040173,-0.013259,0.001695,0.005701,0.016718,0.007128,-0.004243,0.002968,-0.016022,-0.005904,0.005508<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I5107__BC_4140__Cov_31.79%,0.12862,0.182795,0.039221,-0.057817,0.059088,-0.026216,-0.011281,0.000692,0.047654,0.081277,0.009094,0.010491,-0.020664,0.011698,-0.026194,-0.021082,-0.017341,0.010895,0.009302,-0.013256,-0.00025,0.012365,-0.005793,-0.019641,-0.003832<br>Hungary_Tiszapolgár_ECA:I5108__BC_4010__Cov_30.88%,0.121791,0.173656,0.025644,-0.059755,0.063089,-0.035698,-0.00188,0.009692,0.036201,0.077815,0.007307,0.006444,-0.028394,0.007707,-0.042888,-0.001326,0.024512,0.000253,0.01169,-0.02076,-0.01148,0.008656,-0.003697,-0.012652,-0.005868<br>Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar.AG:I2353.AG__BC_4250__Cov_23.83%,0.125205,0.178733,0.01697,-0.083011,0.066474,-0.043507,-0.0047,0.001615,0.043359,0.07581,0.007632,0.005245,-0.035679,0.002615,-0.032437,-0.015248,0.012647,0.003167,0.009553,-0.017508,-0.014849,0.010634,-0.014173,-0.016267,0.002754<br>Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar.AG:I2354.AG__BC_4250__Cov_31.01%,0.125205,0.174671,0.028661,-0.062662,0.069551,-0.037929,-0.006815,0.003231,0.054199,0.081095,0.012666,0.015286,-0.021556,0.001514,-0.02443,-0.012994,0.001304,0.007855,0.011941,-0.012256,-0.01722,0.000618,-0.003204,-0.011327,-0.000958<br>Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar.AG:I2395.AG__BC_4250__Cov_10.56%,0.129758,0.185842,0.034318,-0.068799,0.053856,-0.015897,-0.001645,0.005077,0.061153,0.080913,0.004384,0.020382,-0.010109,0.01679,-0.047502,0.001061,0.022035,-0.003927,0.004148,-0.025012,-0.010107,0.011252,-0.007888,-0.01687,0.000599<br>Serbia_C_BA_Tiszapolgar_Bodrogkerestur.AG:I17914.AG__BC_4175__Cov_61.61%,0.126344,0.179749,0.033941,-0.072675,0.066166,-0.036256,-0.00094,0.001154,0.046427,0.078362,0.003573,0.019633,-0.015907,0.000138,-0.028908,-0.006497,0.016689,0.004687,0.012444,-0.003377,-0.008111,0.004204,-0.011339,-0.006868,-0.002275<br>Serbia_C_BA_Tiszapolgar_Bodrogkerestur.AG:I17915.AG__BC_4175__Cov_59.67%,0.122929,0.176702,0.026398,-0.068799,0.060934,-0.043228,0.00094,-0.002769,0.05154,0.079455,0.002598,0.013038,-0.030029,0.00578,-0.03298,-0.012729,0.025555,0.009375,0.006788,-0.006128,0.001373,0.010387,-0.012695,-0.025546,-0.010298<br>Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I2793.AG__BC_4323__Cov_73.32%,0.130897,0.17264,0.025267,-0.070091,0.068628,-0.040439,-0.003525,-0.003,0.048881,0.083829,0.006333,0.011989,-0.015758,-0.000413,-0.035423,-0.007292,0.027902,-0.002027,0.012193,0.001251,-0.006613,0.002102,-0.007025,-0.012532,0.000599<br>Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar_Bodrogkeresztur:I2793_enhanced__BC_4323__Cov_42.63%,0.121791,0.169593,0.023759,-0.065569,0.07663,-0.048806,0.002115,0.000231,0.055017,0.079637,0.015752,0.007943,-0.013082,-0.010459,-0.033523,-0.004508,0.033509,0.006081,0.016341,0.003252,-0.006863,0.012365,-0.005176,-0.010724,-0.001557<br>Hungary_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21910__BC_4235__Cov_33.65%,0.119514,0.183811,0.04186,-0.056848,0.069859,-0.034304,-0.00517,0.002077,0.049904,0.078179,0.013153,0.013488,-0.016799,0.012524,-0.036102,-0.025192,-0.008345,0.007221,0.014078,-0.009755,0.009483,0.004204,-0.007765,-0.020726,-0.004071<br>Hungary_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I5099__BC_4165__Cov_31.15%,0.120652,0.184826,0.033564,-0.067184,0.072321,-0.024821,0,0.000231,0.047654,0.082553,-0.003085,0.007493,-0.010109,0.006881,-0.035152,-0.018695,-0.003781,0.005828,0.020112,-0.022886,-0.007736,0.007419,-0.017624,-0.015544,0.001557<br>Hungary_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I5100__BC_4130__Cov_31.03%,0.1161,0.17264,0.044877,-0.060401,0.065551,-0.047133,0.005405,-0.001154,0.040291,0.07581,-0.002761,0.009741,-0.011596,-0.004679,-0.035016,0.013126,0.040289,-0.004434,0.007165,0.001376,-0.004991,0.002968,-0.002711,-0.006025,-0.002155<br>Hungary_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I5102__BC_4205__Cov_31.58%,0.112685,0.164516,0.039221,-0.049096,0.065858,-0.033746,-0.00799,-0.001846,0.037632,0.071437,0.002436,0.011839,-0.011447,-0.004817,-0.043702,0.009944,0.046026,0.001267,0.012067,-0.001,0.00262,0.009645,-0.007518,-0.020123,-0.004191<br>Hungary_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I5104__BC_4150__Cov_28.97%,0.12862,0.17264,0.038466,-0.055879,0.06832,-0.020359,0.005405,-0.000231,0.05563,0.079455,0.007145,0.008393,-0.025867,0.000413,-0.028773,-0.004641,0.021122,-0.004687,0.010182,-0.005378,-0.002246,-0.000742,-0.006039,-0.011086,-0.00946<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23121__BC_4115__Cov_35.73%,0.1161,0.186857,0.014331,-0.102714,0.054472,-0.039881,-0.003055,-0.013384,0.028224,0.083282,0.008931,0.01079,-0.023637,-0.002615,-0.03773,0.008353,0.038072,0.007601,0.006285,-0.016383,-0.004991,0.00272,-0.008997,0.00494,0.005628<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20830__BC_4115__Cov_31.27%,0.126344,0.170609,0.003771,-0.089471,0.066166,-0.036535,0.00705,0.001154,0.035383,0.086015,0.009094,0.013638,-0.030624,0.004954,-0.046281,-0.014717,0.007693,-0.000253,0.014078,-0.02001,-0.012353,0.009398,-0.011092,0.006386,-0.014011<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20832__BC_4115__Cov_33.34%,0.124067,0.168578,0.004903,-0.099161,0.060319,-0.041834,-0.01081,-0.002538,0.05154,0.07745,0.006658,0.015736,-0.030029,-0.009771,-0.036102,0.010342,0.036899,0.00266,0.009302,-0.003627,-0.008984,0.000618,-0.013927,0.00723,-0.002634<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7132.SG__BC_4135__Cov_48.26%,0.126344,0.176702,0.011314,-0.088825,0.052933,-0.033188,-0.0047,-0.008307,0.043155,0.095127,0.004384,0.018583,-0.019326,-0.001514,-0.030401,0.00358,0.028945,0.009122,0.026019,-0.011005,-0.003494,0.01286,0,-0.001928,-0.002275<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20868__BC_4115__Cov_33.74%,0.117238,0.187873,0.012822,-0.082365,0.058165,-0.033188,-0.006815,-0.016615,0.025565,0.085469,0.00065,0.016036,-0.026313,-0.006193,-0.040716,-0.021745,0.012256,0.005068,0.011564,-0.023511,-0.015597,-0.001484,-0.002095,-0.018677,-0.000239<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7128.SG__BC_4095__Cov_48.19%,0.120652,0.17264,0.01961,-0.089794,0.06432,-0.034304,-0.013396,-0.001385,0.036201,0.085651,0.000812,0.019782,-0.020069,0.010322,-0.041802,-0.007558,0.019427,0.006334,0.023631,-0.018509,-0.003244,0.00507,-0.005793,-0.008676,-0.003952<br>Romania_Garlesti_Salcuta_EN.SG:buk010.SG__BC_5461__Cov_15.01%,0.132035,0.192951,0.006034,-0.10336,0.052317,-0.039045,-0.0094,-0.016384,0.042132,0.078726,0.017213,0.015436,-0.028394,0.007294,-0.038545,0.000663,0.033118,-0.00152,0.011816,0.006878,-0.014599,0.013973,-0.003081,-0.005663,-0.005029<br>Romania_Iclod_LN_Eneolithic:rom046dr__BC_4628__Cov_22.39%,0.124067,0.171624,0.026398,-0.062016,0.059088,-0.034025,-0.003995,-0.01223,0.042745,0.075992,-0.004547,0.013488,-0.029583,-0.00867,-0.028773,0.012463,0.0236,0.008488,0.012821,-0.006878,-0.004367,0.015457,0.00419,-0.015303,-0.005628<br>Romania_Iclod_LN_Eneolithic_contam.SG:rom011.SG__BC_4761__Cov_32.18%,0.124067,0.173656,0.037712,-0.067507,0.061858,-0.029284,-0.006345,-0.006231,0.043155,0.081277,0.006658,0.005395,-0.019326,0.002477,-0.023208,-0.006099,0.017211,0.002407,0.006788,0.001,-0.001373,0.007296,-0.014297,-0.028799,0.000479<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN001.AG__BC_4431__Cov_42.72%,0.12862,0.183811,0.007542,-0.085595,0.052933,-0.035977,-0.00987,-0.005077,0.029247,0.07581,0.00682,0.006594,-0.020812,-0.001927,-0.036102,-0.005569,0.012908,0.006461,0.008045,-0.009505,-0.016596,0.007914,-0.007518,-0.001325,-0.011496<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN003_049.AG__BC_4400__Cov_75.13%,0.120652,0.177718,-0.003017,-0.090763,0.05201,-0.043786,0.00141,-0.010153,0.030065,0.070525,0.013803,0.009442,-0.015758,-0.001927,-0.03393,-0.001989,0.021122,0.00114,0.009553,-0.010005,-0.013975,0.013602,-0.009983,-0.007471,-0.010538<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN005.AG__BC_4401__Cov_35.46%,0.119514,0.180764,0.012068,-0.091086,0.055703,-0.047133,-0.003525,0.002769,0.032928,0.084193,0.004872,0.01094,-0.019326,0.001789,-0.03773,-0.021214,0.014603,-0.000887,0.017095,-0.011631,-0.005865,0.008656,-0.00986,-0.002289,-0.003712<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN006_031.AG__BC_4408__Cov_72.66%,0.125205,0.165531,0.006411,-0.085918,0.0437,-0.039324,0.000705,-0.007846,0.02802,0.073806,0.00341,0.007643,-0.023191,0.003991,-0.038002,-0.008221,0.015385,0.004814,0.018729,-0.006628,-0.005366,0.012242,-0.004437,-0.004458,0.0097<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN007.AG__BC_4395__Cov_59.70%,0.124067,0.175687,0.002263,-0.096577,0.053241,-0.049085,0.00282,-0.002538,0.03886,0.077633,-0.000162,0.012439,-0.027056,-0.008945,-0.033116,-0.001856,0.032857,0.000253,0.007416,-0.003502,-0.017594,0.005317,0.001725,0.004338,-0.001557<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN009.AG__BC_4394__Cov_49.71%,0.126344,0.177718,0.003017,-0.087856,0.048932,-0.039881,-0.00517,-0.002077,0.036201,0.077268,0.009581,0.009891,-0.02557,0.000413,-0.041123,0.004773,0.029336,0.003547,0.016844,-0.003627,-0.000125,0.007666,-0.002588,-0.009158,-0.002155<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN012.AG__BC_4400__Cov_63.08%,0.125205,0.173656,0.015839,-0.08398,0.04647,-0.037092,0.001645,-0.003692,0.035383,0.076357,0.012017,0.013638,-0.033895,0.007156,-0.035966,-0.017502,0.012386,0.000253,0.006034,-0.01038,-0.021088,0.005935,-0.004437,-0.001807,-0.002036<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN013.AG__BC_4442__Cov_44.74%,0.119514,0.179749,0.006788,-0.07752,0.049548,-0.029284,0.003995,-0.014307,0.03436,0.090571,0.007632,0.017984,-0.02438,-0.003578,-0.028908,-0.010342,0.009779,0.003801,0.008673,-0.011005,-0.009358,-0.002473,-0.007641,-0.000482,-0.011735<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN014.AG__BC_4404__Cov_39.73%,0.122929,0.171624,0.003017,-0.082365,0.034468,-0.04267,-0.00564,0.005077,0.027406,0.069614,0.004709,0.01139,-0.014271,-0.00578,-0.031487,-0.000398,0.014603,0.004181,0.015712,-0.009129,-0.009858,0.004451,0.007765,-0.008676,0.004191<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN015.AG__BC_4391__Cov_15.04%,0.112685,0.189904,0.001886,-0.101422,0.049548,-0.034025,0.00141,-0.003231,0.034974,0.073077,0.02582,0.002997,-0.023637,-0.004129,-0.036373,-0.023734,0.00352,0.004941,0.018352,0.0005,-0.007487,0.011623,-0.003944,-0.008314,-0.001078<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN019.AG__BC_4400__Cov_57.94%,0.120652,0.183811,-0.00264,-0.085272,0.044316,-0.045738,-0.003055,0.002308,0.030474,0.077815,0.004547,0.01154,-0.022894,-0.002752,-0.04058,0.003447,0.032074,0.008615,0.014581,-0.022636,-0.015098,0.008779,0.002218,0.002651,-0.013053<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN021.AG__BC_4289__Cov_49.48%,0.117238,0.179749,0.015839,-0.084949,0.050163,-0.047411,-0.004935,0.001846,0.044177,0.071983,0.006983,0.010041,-0.017393,0.005092,-0.033387,-0.003447,0.007823,0.001394,0.012193,-0.01113,-0.010856,0.007419,-0.006162,-0.009399,-0.00479<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN025.AG__BC_4400__Cov_50.68%,0.117238,0.180764,0.003017,-0.104006,0.047393,-0.040718,0.00611,0.000231,0.036405,0.083282,-0.001299,0.005695,-0.022596,-0.004129,-0.047095,0.001326,0.029467,-0.005321,0.011313,-0.001126,-0.008984,0.004699,0.004314,0.00253,-0.004191<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN026.AG__BC_4461__Cov_40.15%,0.124067,0.175687,0.002263,-0.09044,0.057241,-0.039881,0.000705,0.005077,0.031701,0.076904,0.001786,0.018583,-0.025867,-0.004266,-0.035966,-0.001326,0.014081,-0.006208,0.010559,-0.017633,-0.018717,0.000371,-0.002465,-0.006868,-0.002395<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN027_I0781.AG__BC_4400__Cov_65.70%,0.125205,0.174671,0.010936,-0.088502,0.041854,-0.039324,-0.00658,0.002769,0.035792,0.070343,0.003248,0.009442,-0.017839,-0.002064,-0.034473,-0.015911,0.010822,0.001647,0.013701,-0.017633,-0.011355,0.004699,0.007641,0.000361,-0.011256<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN028.AG__BC_4443__Cov_33.68%,0.125205,0.175687,0.006034,-0.079135,0.047701,-0.032351,-0.001175,-0.002077,0.031497,0.073988,-0.000487,0.008692,-0.020218,0.003991,-0.035966,-0.008884,0.017341,0.007095,0.016215,-0.011631,-0.01123,0.006677,-0.010969,-0.008676,-0.016406<br>Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG:YUN048.AG__BC_4485__Cov_28.39%,0.127482,0.175687,-0.004148,-0.087533,0.040315,-0.038208,-0.00564,-0.005077,0.031906,0.080913,-0.004384,0.016335,-0.030773,0.01734,-0.042073,-0.032352,0.002086,0.008488,0.008547,-0.019009,-0.012852,0.010881,-0.002465,0.00241,0.000359<br>Romania_Gumelnita_Gumelnita_LN_Eneolithic.SG:buk004.SG__BC_3930__Cov_12.73%,0.117238,0.177718,0.011314,-0.083334,0.045547,-0.028726,0.003995,-0.011307,0.028633,0.070343,0.007957,0.006294,-0.028246,-0.001789,-0.042888,-0.012729,0.031944,-0.000887,0.017975,-0.013256,-0.007736,0.009274,0.006039,-0.00241,0.000359

And here is the resulting PCA (West Eurasian plot):

1) The first thing to note is that the Salcuta admixed Bodrogkeresztur samples are completely off the chart for the earlier Carpathian basin samples from Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur and other sites from Transylvania. They don't overlap at all, they are completely different people.

2) The second most astonishing thing is that these samples from Urziceni are more purely ANF than the vast majority of Karanovo samples from Tell Yunatsite! That's absolutely mind blowing to think about. They represent these Balkan Late Neolithic-Early Copper Age core better, than the samples from Thrace! Or from a different perspective: They mirror very closely the late Neolithic sample from Salcuta/Southern Romania, which was more than 99 % ANF:

BUK010 - Ancient DNA Sample - Genetic Ancestry Analysis

Ancient DNA sample BUK010 from United Kingdom. England_Saxon_Kent

www.exploreyourdna.com

3) Thirdly, you can see that one single Tiszapolgar individual being already shifted in the same direction, like being half-half mixed (Tiszapolgar-Salcuta mixed). It is this individual:

I2353 - Ancient DNA Sample - Genetic Ancestry Analysis

Ancient DNA sample I2353 from Hungary. Hungary_EarlyC_Tiszapolgar

www.exploreyourdna.com

But he is the only one, the only one from the earlier samples and all samples from Hungary and Serbia we got looks like having that type of ancestry on a significantly elevated level.

4) The Decea Muresului sample, which is very interesting, might represent Petresti or Transylvanian Bodrogkeresztur in the earlier phase, is already a bit shifted towards Salcuta as well. Only a bit, but it shows the trend even in the earlier period, due to the proximity to the Salcuta-Gumelntia sphere would be my guess.

5) The highest steppe indivdual from the site, presumably postdating the influx from Cernavoda, Usatovo and/or Suvorovo, which Indoeuropeanised the Salcuta people, shows low HG ancestry as well!

So this is a late phase, post-steppe admixture individual, and he is clearly leaning more towards the Salcuta trend, than towards the Tiszapolgar core. This proves the association of the Salcuta-admixed sphere with the steppe - note he is one of the closest samples to South Thracians of the whole current data base (!):

Target: Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_o1.AG:I15623.AG__BC_4138__Cov_57.84%
Distance: 2.0784% / 0.02078393
83.0 TUR_Barcin_N
12.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
1.2 Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic
1.0 WHG

He looks like a mix of Salcuta with Cernavoda/Usatovo.

If anybody has still doubts, we knew it from archaeology, that it was no transition from simply Bodrogkeresztur -> Cotofeni in Transylvania. And the newest C14 dates confirm this: Even before Cernavoda there was first clearly visible Salcuta influence, resulting in the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany/Scheibenhenkel horizon and in the next phase, with the steppe influence, it was again rather Salcuta and HL derived groups which mixed with incoming steppe groups to create Cotofeni.
The unmixed Bodrogkeresztur-type ancestry seems to have been largely replaced.

And we have the samples from Urziceni which prove that, because the most admixed samples are, as you can see, as clealry closer related to earlier Neolithic layers in Southern Romania and Gumelnita-Karanovo as it gets. Actually, Gumelnita is more admixed (!) than these most Salcuta shifted individuals from Urziceni.

To put things into context, and why this is such a big deal and I can't stop writing about it - this is Urziceni on the map:

That's the Upper Tisza zone! This makes it extremely likely, that we would see the same trend all the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon! Remember, this is a Bodrogkeresztur site with only limited Salcuta influence!!!

What will the core settlements of the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon, from which these individuals presumably came from, look like?

This could indeed mean, that the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany horizon was way more impactful demographically, genetically, than many scholars thought.

And it also proves that the high ANF ancestry existed in Oltenia and Transylvania, whereas it was already more shifted and admixed in Karanovo, let alone Pietrele and being completely off for Ezero (Tell Kran, Tell Yunatsite, Pietrele EBA 078 etc.), which was basically a Horodistea-Foltesti offshot from the late Tripolye-Cucuteni into GAC sphere.

 

[Riverman]

In the next step I did a full scale comparison of these ANF-shifted Bodrogkeresztur/Bodrogkeresztur-Salcuta samples from Urziceni vs. the whole Carpatho-Balkan sphere of the Late Neolithic into Early Bronze Age (only exception are the Bulgarian EIA South Thracians I plotted as well).

The most astonishing fact is, that even from the wider area, there is nothing in between Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur (core) vs. the Salcuta/ANF-shifted samples from Urziceni, there is just one big gap, only closed by one admixed Tiszapolgar individual I already mentioned (likely 50:50) and other samples from Urziceni, from the same site. Otherwise, there is practically nothing proximate in (time and space) between AT ALL.

Here is the selected plot:

In the next step I looked up what groups both overlap with these ANF-shifted cluster from Salcuta and which were in between. Other than the Tiszapolgar outlier and the mixed Bodrogkeresztur individuals from Urziceni, there is primarly the Lasinja group from Croatia in between. But they don't overlap, they are just intermediate like mixed Bodrogkeresztur individuals.

The best overlap comes the most ANF shifted samples from Gumelnita-Karanovo, but really just a handful, one potential late outlier from the same source from Dzhulyunitsa EBA. Not that much going on. But the best proxy for the pure ANF source seems to be the sample from Southern Romania, Oltenia, Salcuta site, Late Neolithic I used before and Vinca samples from Hungary!

But overall, this makes the ANF-rich source in Bodrogkeresztur pretty isolated in the Copper Age. This has to be a nearly pure ANF source, with unusual haplogroups for the time and place, and it likely did influence the main non-steppe dominated Carpatho-Balkan block(s):

- Boleraz, Baden, Rivnac
- Cotofeni
- Kostolac-Vucedol

They seem to have been at the centre of the Copper Age/ANF-rich groups survival in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, contributing less to Baden-Rivnac, mostly in the mixed form from Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur, like visible in the Urziceni mixed group, but even more to Kostolac-Vucedol (the ANF-dominated Vucedol samples is very close!) and their actual centre seems to have been later Cotofeni, which got the most of it, with less other admixture.

We therefore have found the primary ANF-rich source of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere in the Copper Age into Early Bronze Age. And the connection seems to go back to Vinca and early Pre-Gumelnita-Karanovo sources, because later Gumelnita-Karanovo and especially Varna are clearly more admixed with Tripolye-Cucuteni and early steppe groups like Cernavoda-Usatovo.

The only group which is really close to these samples from Southern Romanian Late Neolithic-Eneolithic and Salcuta-Bodrogkeresztur samples are those of the Vinca culture.

Vinca did settle in Oltenia and samples like https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/romania/buk010.htm from the actual site of Salcuta are practically pure ANF.

Another valuable indication is that the "natural Western genetic neighbour" of this ANF-rich population is the Lasinja group, which had

Distribution map for Vinca:

It came into the sphere of Tisza-Banat-Oltenia-Transylvania.

The issue is just, that the samples from the Tisza-Transylvanian zone we got, don't really reflect their admixture in the Early Copper to any remotely similar degree as in Urziceni. Only one individual from Tiszapolgar is half-Vinca/Salcuta.

Therefore I still think this source population was Salcuta, which represents a reservoir from Vinca/Pre-Karanovo nearly pure ANF ancestry in Southern Romania. These are the most relevant samples:

Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23121__BC_4115__Cov_35.73%,0.1161,0.186857,0.014331,-0.102714,0.054472,-0.039881,-0.003055,-0.013384,0.028224,0.083282,0.008931,0.01079,-0.023637,-0.002615,-0.03773,0.008353,0.038072,0.007601,0.006285,-0.016383,-0.004991,0.00272,-0.008997,0.00494,0.005628<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20830__BC_4115__Cov_31.27%,0.126344,0.170609,0.003771,-0.089471,0.066166,-0.036535,0.00705,0.001154,0.035383,0.086015,0.009094,0.013638,-0.030624,0.004954,-0.046281,-0.014717,0.007693,-0.000253,0.014078,-0.02001,-0.012353,0.009398,-0.011092,0.006386,-0.014011<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7132.AG__BC_4136__Cov_75.09%,0.121791,0.179749,0.015462,-0.098192,0.060011,-0.042112,-0.001175,-0.004154,0.037223,0.082735,0.00341,0.013338,-0.025272,0.001514,-0.034609,-0.005701,0.031423,0.005828,0.009176,-0.006503,-0.011729,0.003957,-0.00456,0.000602,-0.006706<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20832__BC_4115__Cov_33.34%,0.124067,0.168578,0.004903,-0.099161,0.060319,-0.041834,-0.01081,-0.002538,0.05154,0.07745,0.006658,0.015736,-0.030029,-0.009771,-0.036102,0.010342,0.036899,0.00266,0.009302,-0.003627,-0.008984,0.000618,-0.013927,0.00723,-0.002634<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20868__BC_4115__Cov_33.74%,0.117238,0.187873,0.012822,-0.082365,0.058165,-0.033188,-0.006815,-0.016615,0.025565,0.085469,0.00065,0.016036,-0.026313,-0.006193,-0.040716,-0.021745,0.012256,0.005068,0.011564,-0.023511,-0.015597,-0.001484,-0.002095,-0.018677,-0.000239<br>Salcuta_adm_Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7128.SG__BC_4095__Cov_48.19%,0.120652,0.17264,0.01961,-0.089794,0.06432,-0.034304,-0.013396,-0.001385,0.036201,0.085651,0.000812,0.019782,-0.020069,0.010322,-0.041802,-0.007558,0.019427,0.006334,0.023631,-0.018509,-0.003244,0.00507,-0.005793,-0.008676,-0.003952<br>Romania_Garlesti_Salcuta_EN.SG:buk010.SG__BC_5461__Cov_15.01%,0.132035,0.192951,0.006034,-0.10336,0.052317,-0.039045,-0.0094,-0.016384,0.042132,0.078726,0.017213,0.015436,-0.028394,0.007294,-0.038545,0.000663,0.033118,-0.00152,0.011816,0.006878,-0.014599,0.013973,-0.003081,-0.005663,-0.005029

Their top 20 matches by distance speak for themselves, because many have Middle Neolithic Croatian, LBK and early Neolithic Barcin, so actual references for ANF ancestry!

These results strongly suggest that in Southern and Western Romania an early Neolithic reservoir survived at least up to the later Copper Age! We now have to make sure whether it was Petresti or Salcuta, or both. Both had Vinca and Gumelnita-Karanovo influences. Both interacted with Bodrogkeresztur. The reason I prefer the Salcuta-version is obvious:

1) Iclod and Decea Muresului Eneolithic samples from Transylvania have lower but still high (about 10 %) HG ancestry and resemble closer core Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur.

2) Whereas Urziceni has no clear evidence of Petresti influence, there is obvious and strong Salcuta influence, like it spread over the whole territory of Eastern Bodrogkeresztur with the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany/Scheibenhenkel horizon.

That Salcuta is that purely ANF, in the favoured hypothesis, can only be explained by regional Vinca survival and/or early Pre-Gumelnita-Karanovo movements, before developed Gumelnita-Karanovo became admixed from the Tripolye-Cucuteni and steppe zone. Considering the material, cultural background of Salcuta, I would suggest both or in combination:

Like strong Vinca substrate with early, still fairly unmixed Gumenita-Karanovo influences on top.

Here a PCA showing the near perfect overlap with Vinca - one Vinca individual ourlier from Hungary deviates towards an HG-rich source:

I think this explains the observable pattern better, since the Gumelnita-Karanovo samples appear to be too mixed for being the main or at least only source. With Vinca as the primary or as an additional source, these ANF-rich cluster from Urziceni makes in my opinion the most sense. The Hungarian Vinca samples appear to be more mixed than the South Romanian Salcuta site sample, which is the purest representative still.

Here is a map which shows late Vinca-Plocnik, Salcuta and Gumelnita:

Source: https://www.persee.fr/doc/valah_1584-1855_2013_num_15_1_1135

Salcuta being situated right between late Vinca and Gumelnita. Whether the whole complex of Sălcuţa- Krivodol-Bubanj was similar is something I don't know, because I found no relevant samples up to this point, probably I'm just missing some.

In any case, we deal with a nearly purely ANF population which expanded into Bodrogkeresztur territory, presumably with Salcuta influence in the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany/Scheibenhenkel horizon, presumably from a source population Oltenia.

And this element became one of the, or more likely THE main constitutive elements for Cotofeni.

Since the South Thracian Post-Psenichevo samples show practically zero IBD matching with the Greeks, I think it is extremely likely that this is the main source for the ANF/EEF-rich profile of these Thracians, regardless of whether or not they received additional Aegean-Anatolian admixture in the South East, when migrating to Thrace.

If plotting these samples, from a steppe source, especially the Cernavoda-Usoatovo early mixed groups, to South Thracians, it is a straight line which can be effortlessly extended towards these Bodrogkerezstur-Salcuta samples. They are the single best source for the ANF/EEF-rich ancestry found in Thracians.

This is one huge additional reason to put Transylvania-Oltenia in the pole position for the E-V13 expansion and the Proto-Thracians. Because we also know they were Indoeuropeanised, primarily from groups like Suvorovo, Usatovo, but especially Cernavoda, and here the Celei group in particular. And we see this process also in the Urziceni samples, with the steppe enriched outlier with a profile pretty close to the South Thracian EIA cluster.

 

[Riverman]

As for how these Salcuta-related groups in South Western Romania and Transylvania became Indoeuropeanised, there are two options or waves if you like, which seem to have been more than just a superficial influence, like Yamnaya seems to have been. And that's first Suvorovo, already in its early phase, visible in individuals with increased admixture, but also in the repertoir, like horse scepters, and second and more direct probably Cernavoda, especially from the so called Celei group, which led to an increase of e.g. corded decorations on the pottery and other elements.

The early steppe influence being visible in the steppe shifted high ANF individual from Urziceni, as well as such individuals in Southern Romania, from the wider sphere of Salcuta-Gumelnita.

The maps from the indoeuropean site are quite useful for every reader to get a better grasp on the interactions:

Going by the available data, the Bubanj-Salcuta-Krivodol complex was the msot ANF-rich big block still in existence in this period and at least for Salcuta we can say now with near certainty that they were very ANF-rich, like these profiles from South Romania and the Tisza site Urziceni show us.

The problem for BSK is, that it was by and large broken up. The only route to a bigger scale survival into the later Bronze Age was to the North, in the area covered by Salcuta and Hunyadihalom–Lažňany, which transformed under Bodrogkeresztur and steppe influences (Suvorovo and Cernavoda, potentially also Usatovo-Gorodsk inspirations) into Cotofeni.

Note which blocks we can now fairly safely exclude for the Pre-/Proto-Thracian ethnogenesis:
- Yunatsite, Ezero - the samples are nearly unambiguously a much worse fit and there is a material gap and hiatus anyway.
- Southern Vucedol - Southern Vucedol was probably an additional influence on the Thracians, but the main block was clearly Illyrian-associated
- Late Tripolye-Cucuteni, Horodistea-Foltesti - associated most closely with Ezero, like at Tell Yunatsite, definitely not a good source
- Yamnaya intruders - all very bad fits, obviously and no clear signal towards the Thracian profile in its sphere of influence
- Baden - again a bad fit, since Baden was still dominated by the ancestry we find in the Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur core - too high HG ancestry and too low steppe at the same time
- Aegean sphere - again bad fit, the samples don't add up because they show a too strong shift towards the Aegean-Anatolian population profiles, the steppe ancestry too appears to be different and the IBD matching is bad - there is no archaeological link towards the Daco-Thracian Iron Age cultures and the population sphere is much too small.
- Remains of Bubanj being later largely subdued by their neighbours and scattered on the long run, as it appears by now.

Therefore the only good candidate still standing:
- overwhelming ANF-type ancestry
- early steppe influence, independent from Greeks and Illyrians
- material cultural and genetic continuity from the Copper Age well into the Bronze Age
- material culture and traditions clearly associated with the later known Thracians

is indeed Cotofeni, which emerged in the borderzone between Salcuta and Cernavoda influence. The next map shows nicely which groups evolved out of early Cotofeni and why samples from the other groups around them don't matter:

As you can see, on the territory formerly occupied by Cotofeni groups, three groups follow, from North to South:
- Nyirseg (with Northern Vucedol-Vinkovci influences)
- Late Cotofeni (later evolving under Jigodin-Eastern influence into Copaceni, Soimus, Livezile etc.)
- Early Glina-Schneckeberg (with more Cernavoda, Yamnaya and Eastern influences possibly)

And I'm now more than 90 % sure that we will find in this sphere both the main source for high ANF ancestry in the South Eastern European Bronze Age and E-V13.

Having now a clear path as to why Transylvania-Oltenia/Cotofeni was more ANF-rich (because of Salcuta presumably!) makes everything fall into place neatly.

Both the expansion of the ANF-rich ancestry and early steppe admixture started already before/around 4000 BC, in the time of the Salcuta influence on Bodrogkeresztur, the emergence of the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany/Scheibenhenkel horizon in the Tisza-West Transylvanian region.

And this is no speculation, no conjecture, it can be proven with the samples from Urziceni and a whole path from early steppe/Cernavoda sites like Kartal, through Southern Romania, along the Danube, into Oltenia, and from there up towards the Tisza-Transylvanian region.

Therefore the current best path for E-V13 prior to the developed Bronze Age is:
1) Late Neolithic Balkan - sphere preceding BSK and/or Gumelnita-Karanovo or Tisza-region (Eastern LBK, Tisza groups)
2) Bodrogkeresztur OR (more likely) Salcuta
3) Hunyadihalom–Lažňany/Scheibenhenkel horizon or Salcuta directly
4) Cotofeni

From Cotofeni onwards we can't be sure about which group was the main block, because like written above there were three:
- Nyirseg (with Northern Vucedol-Vinkovci influences)
- Late Cotofeni (later evolving under Jigodin-Eastern influence into Copaceni, Soimus, Livezile etc.)
- Early Glina-Schneckeberg (with more Cernavoda, Yamnaya and Eastern influences possibly)

From there we get to the big block, with at least Eastern Otomani and/or Western Wietenberg plus Verbicoara(-Tei?), with Vatin-Belegis remaining an unknown.

 

[Riverman]

The source for the Cotofeni distribution might have been taken from Tünde Horvath (2016), which provided some excellent maps for our debate, like in figure 2:

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322483423_4000-2000_BC_in_Hungary_The_Age_of_Transformation

As you can see, Cotofeni II covered all the areas previously occupied by Hunyadihalom–Lažňany (Transtisza-Transylvania) and late Salcuta (Oltenia). However, the Western sphere formerly under HL being now occupied partly by Baden and Yamnaya, while some of the Bodrogkeresztur groups moved (fled?) to the territory of Tripolye, with Gordinesti. From this interaction of Tripolye, Cernavoda, GAC and Bodrogkeresztur Horodistea-Foltesti-related groups moved South, destroying Gumelnita-Karanovo and mixing in some areas with remains of the earlier inhabitants, this creates Ezero-Yunatsite.

To the South of Cotofeni remains of Bubanj (related to Salcuta) still exist.

In the vicinity of Nyirseg exists a Cotofeni-Baden sphere, which was by and large Yamnaya free territory, as you can see on the second map of fig. 4 in her paper - as well as other source.

Her maps of the following periods are also excellent, showing the Northern Vucedol influence on Nyirseg, as well as the pre-Füzesabony Otomani sphere, and the Glina influence on Rosia culture in Transylvania:

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322483423_4000-2000_BC_in_Hungary_The_Age_of_Transformation

She also presents another North Vucedol survivor group, with Vinkovci B. Perjamos = Maros culture.

As far as I can see, some of the last remains of Bubanja were also soaked up by Cotofeni, e.g.:

At the beginning of fourth millennium BC, after the disintegration of the Bubanj-Sălcuța-
Krivodol cultural complex, the so-called Transitional period from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age
began in the territory of Oltenia (western Bulgaria and Serbia). We still lack a lot of data about this
period. In northwestern Bulgaria this period is defined by the Galatin group, and in Romania by
the Sălcuța IV group, while in Serbia it is almost completely unknown. Stratigraphical observations
from new excavations (2008 to 2014) at the Bubanj site near Niš in southeastern Serbia suggest that
elements of Bubanj-Hum I culture lasted longer there than in Oltenia and western Bulgaria, and
that the hiatus between this culture and the Cernavodă III culture was very short. Excavations at
the Mokranjske stene site in eastern Serbia, where the Coțofeni cultural layer lies directly above
the Bubanj-Hum I culture layer, provide similar evidence.

Cotofeni is by and large the main heir of the BSK complex, but with strong additional influences from Bodrogkeresztur, Gumelnita and especially the steppe groups, here mainly Suvorovo and Cernavoda, Cernavoda-Celei.

I also read in various sources that in some areas Cernavoda proper, not the fusion of Salcuta-Cernavoda, which produced Cotofeni, was pushed back and out by Cotofeni from Transylvania-Northern Oltenia in the following periods. This leaves us with the option that it doesn't matter what Horodistea-Foltesti and Cernavoda III groups looked like in the area, since they were replaced in the developed Cotofeni phase.

A significant proportion of the stylistic and typological elements of this culture are identical to those
originating on Coțofeni territories in Oltenia and Transylvania. The impacts of these cultures
reached far to the south, all the way to the Aegean coast, but in the late Eneolithic, Vučedol culture
came to be a significant influence on the cultural milieu of the central Balkans.

Therefore all relevant regions and groups, which played any significant role for the Thracian ethnogenesis and were ANF-rich, from Nyirseg down to Brnjica and ZPC, seem to have ultimately two groups of origin, like previously stated: Cotofeni and Vucedol. The two big heirs of the Carpatho-Balkan Copper people and influenced by the BSK complex.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322483423_4000-2000_BC_in_Hungary_The_Age_of_Transformation

 

[Riverman]

I didnt have the time to read the entirey of your posts, but some things should be mentioned . The abstract cited in this thread is not accurate.
Secondly, I cant recall seeeing any Eneolithic Salculta samples published as yet

How can you know the abstract is not accurate? We don't have proper sampling from any of the later CA-BA groups in Transylvania.

Secondly, the closest proximate sources related to Salcuta are Vinca and Gumelnita-Karanovo. Thirdly, we know how the Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur core looked like, and then we see the strong deviation from that standard at the site of Urziceni, in which we have signficant archaeological influence from Salcuta. We can essentially identify three to four groups in the Urziceni samples:
1) The strongest group is Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur core profiles, pretty much the same as earlier ones and later Baden samples too.
2) The second group is mixed in the direction of the Vinca/Gumelnita-Karanovo profiles
3) The third group is purely Vinca-like, pretty close to the ANF-reference. Only some samples from Eastern LBK, Körös, Cris etc. are as or more ANF-shifted. But by this time these populations were largely gone and the only material foreign influence in the area of significance was coming from Salcuta
4) A group which deviates in the direction of Tripolye-Cucuteni and some even with increased GAC-HG ancestry, possible. But this is a very small outlier group, showing the presence of Eastern contacts as well.
5) Individuals with increased steppe, like the "outlier 1" in the G25 data set, which looks like Salcuta + Cernvado-Gumelnita admixture. This individual is particularly interesting, as he might provide evidence for the steppe ancestry to come from the South (Oltenia-Muntenia), from the area of Salcuta and Salcuta-Gumelnita which came under Suvorovo and later Cernavoda influence.

On top of that, Urziceni is no singular case, because there is a whole horizon of Hunyadihalom-Lažňany and the "pill shaped handles" ceramic, which directly precedes Cotofeni I/Cernavoda III in various sites - in others they direclty overlay Salcuta and even Bubanj by the way:

Thus, the Bodrogkeresztúr group was divided into two or three phases: by the typological resemblance with the Tiszapolgár ceramic, especially of the long stem vessels (of the early period), or by the presence of the pill-shaped handles and of the decoration with successive stitches (the early phase of the Bodrogkeresztúr group, or another cultural group referred to as Hunyadi-halom), there existing also a "pure" Bodrogkeresztúr phase (devoid of these elements). The planimetric analysis (fig. 8) proves the existence of different groups of tombs with Tiszapolgár ceramic (to the west of the necropolis) and with Bodrogkeresztúr ceramic (to the east of the necropolis and in its middle), which caused H. Parzinger to believe in an uninterrupted evolution of the necropolis from the west to the east, bearing upon the type II associations as well; in his opinion, this type could be further subdivided, by considering the smaller or greater distance of the Bodrogkeresztúr tombs from the Tiszapolgár ones and from the obvious vase groups in certain groups of the necropolis. These conclusions, however, need to be certified by the (as yet inexistent) stratigraphic data for these settlements.

The stratigraphical observations made in Oltenia and Muntenia regarding the unmediated successions of, respectively, Sălcuţa IV- early Coţofeni (Sălcuţa, Retevoieşti, Băile Herculane) and Sălcuţa III-Cernavoda III (Şimnic), Sălcuţa III-Sălcuţa IV (Sălcuţa, Ostrovul Corbului, Teliš) indicate a probable contemporariness, or at least a partial contemporariness of the discoveries of the Sălcuţa IV type with the Cernavoda III type ones. On the other hand, the typological closeness of some ceramic material ( cups and especially the decorations with trestle motifs, overlapping strands, handle decorations) attributed to the Coţofeni I culture of Transilvania and to the Boleráz culture of Slovakia ostensibly suggests some kind of closeness, at least chronologically speaking, between these two categories of discoveries.

From the end of the eneolithic and until the formation of the "cultural block" Baden - Coţofeni, in the middle and lower Danube basin, several wide-spread ceramic styles succeed each other (those with pill-shaped handles, the ceramic decorated by successive stitches, the Boleráz, Cernavodă III and Cernavodă I). There was a short period of time when these styles were in existence, and, for some reasons which I have tried to discuss previously, the "tiered" model for their evolution ought to be revised.​

S. Oan: Some Issues Regarding the Late Eneolithic in the Middle and Lower Danube Basin

The custom of these types of cemeteries, like in Urziceni, spread from East to West and seems to have spread from Salcuta to Bodrogkeresztur:

This new custom of formal cemeteries spreads west from the western Pontic coast, and is found slightly later in Salcuța, Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkereztúr-contexts, where large cemeteries can contain more than 100 graves with rich assemblages of pottery, shell ornaments, metal tools and weapons as well as long flint blades in male graves (see Bognár-Kutzian 1963; Patay 2008).

The cemetery has strong Salcuta influences:

The Urziceni cemetery belongs to this tradition and can be broadly dated to between 4250 and 4000 bc, based on Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon determinations. Its period of use is estimated between 25–165 years (Chmielewski et al. 2021). It also contains pottery of the Salcuţa style, common in south-west Romania, Serbia and north-west Bulgaria, ornamented with grooves.

The economic power and the importance of the community whose members are buried at Urziceni is also demonstrated by the provenance of the raw materials used. Certain materials were procured over long distances: obsidian from eastern Slovakia (Cejkov-Vinicky source), flint from the Prut/Dniestr area, Spondylus shells from the Aegean or the Black Sea and imports of ceramic materials, including a large number of vessels with Sălcuța stylistic elements, placed in graves together with the local Bodrogkeresztúr pottery, indicating connections with communities to the south.

The Eneolithic necropolis at Urziceni-Vamă, Romania: excavations in 2023

This article comprises a brief report on the 2023 excavations of an extensive Eneolithic cemetery undertaken as a UCL collaboration with colleagues from the Muzeul Județean Satu Mare. The site represents the largest cemetery of the Middle Eneolithic Bodrogkeresztúr culture in Romania and has...

journals.uclpress.co.uk

The crucial point is, that we have in the earlier Copper Age no such profiles as the ANF-rich and steppe-shifted individuals in the area at all. Then we get a significant influence from Salcuta with the Hunyadihalom-Lažňany culture/phase/horizon and the presence of Salcuta elements in sites like Urziceni, despite being overlal still Bodrogkeresztur, and suddenly this type of ancestry - mixed and pure (!) appears in numbers!

Chances for this type of ancestry (nearly pure ANF) coming from Salcuta are extremely high, because again, we have earlier finds from the same region and we have core ancestries from Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur and both are different. There is also no other significant material infuence at the site of Urziceni. So unless we are missing local Eastern LBK/Vinca/Cris-Körös direct survivors, for which there is little evidence, this cluster represents Salcuta and implies Salcuta, the strongest material contribution to Cotofeni together with Cernavoda, was probably the most purely ANF ancestral source of the Early to MIddle Copper Age still in existence in the wider Carpatho-Balkan sphere.

Because all the other samples/groups are different, only Salcuta/BSK looks fairly ANF still, of the larger complexes.

 

[Riverman]

This is the clearest quotation on the matter, showing that Salcuta derived Hunyadihalom–Lažňany with pill-shaped handles ceramic did succeed Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur and strongly influencing Bodrogkeresztur, like in sites like Urziceni. "Torţi pastilate" is the equivalent to pill-shaped handles and the translation (Google) sometimes translate into "torches" from Romanian. I didn't correct that, but so you know what is meant:

Thus, in the Danube regions, the oldest vessels with applied/pillate torches (known only through fragments, including cups with varied profiles) appear in the settlements of the early stage of phase IV of the Sălcuţa culture in Oltenia (pl. 3/1-3).42 In the opinion of P. Roman, these settlements are later than the Herculane I phase, but earlier than the Herculane II period with which they nevertheless present some common elements, including the vessels with pillate torches.43 (In other words, this is the moment when the spread of this type of ceramic outside the actual area of the Sălcuţa culture began, both towards the interior of the Carpathian Basin and towards the Balkan regions.) Vessels similar to the cups with pillate torches from Ariuşd, Mereşti, Poduri and Văleni were discovered in different levels (specified or not) of the Băile Herculane site. and belong to a wider time interval, corresponding to the Herculaneum II-III period (pl. 3/4-12).44 Other analogies for the vessels discussed here are also found in the lower level of the settlement at Pecica-Şanţul Mare (Hungarian: Pécska-Nagysánc; pl. 5/4),45 as well as in the caves at Cheile Turzii (Hungarian: Tordai-hasadék; pl. 5/1, 2),46 discoveries that were attributed to the Herculaneum III period.47 Later, the Cheile Turzii type “complexes” were equated (also) with the Herculaneum II period.48 Cups with a bitronconical-globular body and two torches connecting the rim and the shoulder of the vessel (without applied “pills”) were also included in the repertoire of ceramic forms of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture in Transylvania (including the formation phase, with alleged influences Sălcuţa.49 In eastern Hungary, vessels with pastillated torches of various types, most often fragmentary, appear in the Bodrogkeresztúr (phase B) and Hunyadi-halom cultures, but vessels similar to the cups discussed here will be widespread only in the Hunyadi-halom culture (see pl. 3/13-15 and pl. 4/1-4).50 We mention, at least in passing, that the sites of the Bodrogkeresztúr and Hunyadihalom cultures, in which vessels with pastillated torches also appear, were initially considered to be contemporary and strongly influenced by the Sălcuţa IV culture;51 it was later proven that the two cultures succeed each other in time, approximately in the same area of distribution.52 Compared to the stratigraphy from Băile Herculane, the Bodrogkeresztúr culture has correspondences in the Herculane II period, and culture Hunyadi-halom belongs to the Herculaneum III.5 phase

The conclusion from this paper is absolutely crucial, absolutely decisive, especially under the impression of the genetic data we got from Urziceni and the new C14 data which proved that the Hunyadihalom–Lažňany postdating Bodrogkeresztur proper:

The relationships between the cultures with painted pottery (Petreşti, Ariuşd) and the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures are presented even in recent monographic works in a very different and contradictory manner.118 As for the “horizon” of the pastillate torches from Transylvania, some archaeologists consider that it is placed not only after the cultures with painted pottery of Petreşti and Ariuşd, but also after the Bodrogkeresztúr culture,119 while others consider that the “cultural aspect” of the pottery with pastillate torches appears as early as the classical phase (A) of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture, becomes generalised in the final phase (B) and then survives for a while,120 or that this type of torch making belongs to stage B of the Bodrogkeresztúr “cultural aspect” (which would be nothing more than the third phase of the Tiszapolgár culture)121 etc. Under these conditions, the cultural and chronological affiliation of most discoveries of pottery with pastillated torches from the intra-Carpathian regions of Romania remains uncertain (see map, pl. 7, as well as the list of discoveries). Given the few landmarks we have and to which we have referred throughout the work, it can be admitted that the cultural current to which the vessels with pastillated torches are linked originated in the Lower Danube region, in the Sălcuţa IV cultural environment, and spread towards the interior of the Carpathian Basin starting with the Herculaneum II period through the Timiş-Cerna corridor, where the Băile Herculane site also belongs. First received in the Banat and lower Mureş areas, this current could then spread both westward, towards the Tisa Plain, and towards Transylvania, in cultural environments with a different evolution. The connections that we have tried to highlight between this world and the Ariusd–Cucuteni world, based on the discoveries of pottery with pastillate torches, took place on the two successive chronological levels, Herculane II–Bodrogkeresztúr and Herculane III–Hunyadi-halom–Pecica (Şanţul Mare, lower level), a time interval that can be synchronized, at least partially, with the period of existence of the late Ariusd culture and the Cucuteni A-B 2 and Cucuteni B 1 phases. The nature of these cultural connections (direct and/or mediated) cannot yet be satisfactorily specified.

So it first spread in Bodrogkeresztur, then intensified and started to replace Bodrogkeresztur. In the East, Bodrogkeresztur elements ending up in Tripolye-Cucuteni (like Verteba cave with an E-L618 carrier!) brought already, since this was the late phase, HL influences with them! Transylvania was, at that time, already covered by Salcuta influences-colonisation!

Original source: https://www.academia.edu/2295398/A_...iculica_2010_p_171_194?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[Riverman]

Since everything truly relevant from the ancient DNA for my posts from the last pages comes from the highly important Urziceni sample, I took the batch of 34 samples from G25 and sorted them by admixture ratios.

My approach is that the indivduals with more than 94 % ANF are basically predominantely Salcuta derived. Those between 95-91 % are mixed, the ones having more than 15 % HG ancestry are HG-outliers, and those with more than 5 % steppe are steppe-admixed.

The whole sample looks like there was long lasting admixture between the groups overall, but some of the Salcuta-labelled samples MUST be fresh arrivals from another community with a completely different, nearly pure ANF genetic profile.

1) Predominantely Salcuta: 7 (9,72 %)
2) Mixed Salcuta-Bodrogkeresztur: 12 (16,67 %)
3) Regular Bodrogkeresztur: 43 (59,72 %)
4) Steppe admixed: 5 (6,94 %)
5) HG-enriched (Tripolye-admixed?): 5 (6,94 %)


Of category 4, all appear to be mixed (between Gumelnita, Salcuta, Bodrogkeresztur and an early Western steppe source, presumably Suvorovo/early Cernavoda?).
Three (absolute majority) are clearly Salcuta leaning. Making the whole steppe admixed group generally mixed to Gumelnita-Salcuta leaning, rather. Only one HG outlier has at least 4-5 % steppe. All the other signfiicantly steppe admixed individuals are either Bodrogkeresztur or, and that's the clear majority, mixed and Salcuta-Gumelnita.

1) Predominantely Salcuta: 7 (9,72 %)
2) Mixed Salcuta-Bodrogkeresztur: 12 (16,67 %)
3) Regular Bodrogkeresztur: 43 (59,72 %)
4) Steppe admixed: 5 (6,94 %)
5) HG-enriched (Tripolye-admixed?): 5 (6,94 %)

The two additional steppe admixed individuals are clearly more Salcuta leaning. Making the whole steppe admixed group generally mixed to Gumelnita-Salcuta leaning, rather. Only one HG outlier has at least 4-5 % steppe. All the other signfiicantly steppe admixed individuals are either Bodrogkeresztur or, and that's the clear majority, mixed and Salcuta-Gumelnita.

Sorted total data set:

HG_rich:Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I18115.AG__BC_3950__Cov_81.70%,0.126344,0.171624,0.032809,-0.040698,0.063089,-0.023427,0.00329,-0.004615,0.040087,0.063236,0.001949,0.001948,-0.015015,0.011285,-0.03203,-0.005569,0.017211,0.007348,0.01169,-0.001876,-0.002371,0.004822,-0.017378,-0.015183,-0.001317 <br>HG_rich:Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14158.AG__BC_3950__Cov_56.17%,0.129758,0.162485,0.050911,-0.031008,0.080015,-0.018686,0.00423,0.009,0.042745,0.068339,0.006658,0.003747,-0.004014,-0.006468,-0.017508,0.02201,0.024643,0.005954,0.010684,0.009505,0.008111,0.006306,-0.010723,-0.026871,-0.009939 <br>HG_rich:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20869__BC_4115__Cov_33.89%,0.124067,0.186857,0.043369,-0.056202,0.066474,-0.027331,-0.004465,0.005769,0.05379,0.076539,0.005521,0.005995,-0.013677,-0.004954,-0.02538,-0.002917,0.012517,0.012669,0.009427,-0.003377,0.009483,0.007666,-0.01442,-0.01446,-0.000718 <br>HG_rich:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7127.SG__BC_4055__Cov_47.08%,0.124067,0.177718,0.049403,-0.058463,0.082785,-0.025937,-0.00611,-0.002077,0.06013,0.077086,-0.001949,0.009741,-0.01665,0.008945,-0.03203,-0.023601,-0.000522,0.007728,0.014707,-0.008379,-0.010232,-0.000124,-0.021938,-0.019039,-0.005748 <br>HG_rich:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_o2.AG:I18154.AG__BC_3950__Cov_14.14%,0.113823,0.165531,0.025267,-0.042313,0.061242,-0.01757,0.000705,0.003923,0.039269,0.065605,0.008769,0.005995,-0.023786,-0.000138,-0.037052,0.005038,0.012126,0.003421,0.011816,0.003126,-0.00549,-0.004699,-0.006779,-0.008555,-0.00946 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I18117__BC_4115__Cov_34.30%,0.125205,0.18178,0.025644,-0.058463,0.057549,-0.024821,-0.00846,0.002769,0.034974,0.072712,0.003248,0.012589,-0.008474,-0.011147,-0.039087,0.009016,0.025164,-0.008488,0.006788,0.004127,-0.003993,0.003586,-0.016515,-0.008796,-0.00455 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20831__BC_4115__Cov_22.76%,0.120652,0.17264,0.029793,-0.073967,0.060934,-0.026216,-0.014571,-0.011307,0.0407,0.069614,0.00065,0.01154,-0.019772,0.007432,-0.017236,-0.010872,0.022687,0.004181,0.007416,-0.001376,-0.012478,0.004328,-0.009613,-0.015062,-0.001796 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20834__BC_4115__Cov_32.46%,0.117238,0.178733,0.037335,-0.072029,0.067397,-0.051874,-0.008695,-0.006231,0.046836,0.069796,0.00406,0.013488,-0.020812,0.005367,-0.025651,-0.028242,-0.011735,0.004687,0.013575,-0.003252,0,0.015828,-0.005176,-0.02663,-0.006227 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20835__BC_4115__Cov_30.18%,0.114961,0.193966,0.039221,-0.067184,0.067397,-0.036256,-0.012691,0.001154,0.053176,0.073806,0.001624,0.01109,-0.020664,-0.002202,-0.042209,-0.024927,0.000652,0.011275,0.003771,-0.004127,0.004742,0.001237,-0.012695,-0.024341,0.000599 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20836__BC_4115__Cov_31.23%,0.1161,0.186857,0.041483,-0.065892,0.066474,-0.038208,-0.0094,-0.015692,0.052972,0.070161,0.003735,0.009891,-0.02215,-0.000138,-0.032844,-0.015115,0.026598,0.009502,0.01081,-0.006503,0.008111,0.012118,-0.005546,-0.008435,-0.005628 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20837__BC_4115__Cov_28.34%,0.12862,0.175687,0.024513,-0.069122,0.048624,-0.032351,-0.00282,-0.001846,0.032724,0.074717,0.004222,0.002698,-0.009217,0.006744,-0.031487,-0.031954,0.002086,0.007348,0.014958,0.006503,0.000374,0.009769,-0.005176,-0.004579,0.003592 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21713__BC_4115__Cov_37.01%,0.119514,0.175687,0.032432,-0.072998,0.060011,-0.031515,-0.00705,-0.000462,0.034769,0.086015,0.008282,0.01109,-0.020218,0.014863,-0.031487,-0.019623,0.001173,0.0019,0.017095,-0.007003,0.007736,0.014962,-0.006409,-0.004458,0.000718 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I22561__BC_4115__Cov_34.71%,0.124067,0.169593,0.027153,-0.063631,0.062781,-0.039881,-0.00987,-0.001846,0.032519,0.072894,0.004547,0.010641,-0.018434,-0.002615,-0.040988,0.003978,0.046547,0.005828,0.013701,0.000125,-0.001622,0.019784,-0.000246,0.005302,-0.005748 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23122__BC_4115__Cov_36.79%,0.117238,0.18178,0.026021,-0.063631,0.069551,-0.028168,0.002115,-0.000462,0.047245,0.080366,0.00406,0.009891,-0.011596,-0.001927,-0.030401,0.009679,0.008736,0.003674,0.011313,-0.000625,-0.001248,0.004081,-0.00456,-0.010845,0.00479 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23348__BC_4115__Cov_35.90%,0.126344,0.177718,0.040352,-0.07106,0.068936,-0.030399,-0.003995,-0.009461,0.040905,0.084011,0.004547,0.008992,-0.027056,-0.004954,-0.035559,0.005569,0.042375,-0.004054,0.011313,0.001251,-0.004617,-0.003833,-0.004807,-0.006266,-0.002395 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23349__BC_4115__Cov_36.22%,0.127482,0.176702,0.02225,-0.066861,0.074475,-0.039602,-0.009165,-0.007384,0.040087,0.085651,0.002273,0.013638,-0.020664,-0.005505,-0.036237,-0.014187,0.027511,0.002407,0.010936,-0.013632,-0.001872,0.008532,0.004314,-0.020364,-0.001557 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23351__BC_4110__Cov_35.70%,0.122929,0.19092,0.034318,-0.0646,0.076014,-0.039881,0.000705,-0.005307,0.048268,0.074352,0.01023,0.003447,-0.015609,0.002752,-0.038545,-0.015646,0.022817,-0.001014,0.010182,-0.004877,0.000125,0.012365,0.003451,-0.010483,-0.013172 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7129.SG__BC_4140__Cov_47.80%,0.122929,0.185842,0.026776,-0.069122,0.064935,-0.043228,0.001645,-0.006,0.048881,0.0831,-0.003573,0.005995,-0.023042,0.005505,-0.025515,0.003315,0.007041,0,0.015209,-0.002376,-0.008235,-0.000247,-0.008504,-0.014942,0.003233 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7130.SG__BC_4130__Cov_48.38%,0.113823,0.183811,0.029038,-0.078489,0.064627,-0.031794,-0.004465,-0.000692,0.047654,0.075081,0.015427,0.005395,-0.013825,0.01101,-0.033251,-0.020021,-0.001434,0.001267,0.008925,-0.008254,-0.005366,0.007172,0.003451,-0.01687,-0.003473 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I7136.SG__BC_4125__Cov_48.44%,0.129758,0.175687,0.028661,-0.066861,0.063704,-0.034304,-0.00564,-0.008769,0.032724,0.076175,0.009743,0.006294,-0.02661,0.001376,-0.033251,-0.010209,0.018515,0.00114,0.002388,-0.018259,0.002745,0.001607,-0.017501,-0.01217,0.000718 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I11902.AG__BC_4162__Cov_80.20%,0.126344,0.173656,0.021496,-0.063308,0.06832,-0.037929,-0.000235,0.002077,0.047654,0.076175,0.005684,0.011839,-0.013528,0.005367,-0.022394,-0.017104,-0.004042,0.006334,0.01433,-0.009755,-0.004866,0.009274,-0.009244,-0.015785,0.002275 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I11906.AG__BC_3950__Cov_72.11%,0.122929,0.174671,0.031301,-0.059432,0.063396,-0.03765,-0.004465,-0.000923,0.043155,0.076721,0.009256,0.005845,-0.02661,0.000826,-0.026058,0.011535,0.030379,-0.000127,0.00817,-0.005878,-0.002745,0,-0.004437,-0.010724,-0.002036 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14157.AG__BC_3950__Cov_68.34%,0.126344,0.186857,0.025267,-0.067507,0.070782,-0.035419,0.00564,0.013384,0.044995,0.07909,0.006333,0.006294,-0.017245,-0.002615,-0.03013,-0.004508,0.003651,0.001267,0.012067,-0.0005,-0.003743,0.006801,-0.015283,-0.010604,0.001317 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14160.AG__BC_3950__Cov_69.51%,0.124067,0.177718,0.023381,-0.069445,0.064935,-0.037371,-0.003055,0.001615,0.045404,0.074535,0.000974,0.01154,-0.017245,0.000688,-0.033523,0.009016,0.033509,0.002027,0.009302,0.002626,0.002496,0.011994,-0.003697,-0.010965,-0.006945 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14161.AG__BC_3950__Cov_67.86%,0.127482,0.170609,0.039598,-0.06137,0.071398,-0.034582,-0.002115,0.004615,0.039269,0.080184,-0.000812,0.012439,-0.016204,-0.002202,-0.028637,-0.003713,0.013038,0.002914,0.006411,-0.000875,-0.005241,0.008779,-0.003204,-0.016749,-0.000958 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14162.AG__BC_3950__Cov_68.86%,0.125205,0.185842,0.027907,-0.061047,0.069551,-0.023985,0.002585,0.000462,0.045813,0.077633,0.005034,0.006594,-0.013528,-0.009083,-0.030944,-0.010872,0.011995,-0.000887,0.00088,-0.008254,-0.00262,0.008161,-0.010723,-0.01458,-0.00491 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14164.AG__BC_3950__Cov_63.23%,0.127482,0.18178,0.025644,-0.063308,0.071706,-0.043507,-0.001175,-0.000462,0.042336,0.075264,0.003248,0.013638,-0.022002,-0.005918,-0.037866,0.012198,0.038203,-0.004561,0.012821,-0.001876,-0.010107,0.005317,-0.010599,-0.011206,-0.007305 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14166.AG__BC_3950__Cov_67.34%,0.127482,0.173656,0.022627,-0.07429,0.069244,-0.034025,-0.008225,0,0.040291,0.082917,0.002111,0.010341,-0.017245,-0.007707,-0.036644,0.006762,0.031944,0.007348,0.016592,-0.006378,-0.003119,0.007048,-0.010723,-0.00976,-0.0097 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I15616.AG__BC_3950__Cov_71.99%,0.12862,0.184826,0.031678,-0.068153,0.059088,-0.02761,-0.008225,0.001385,0.051745,0.077086,0.010393,0.013638,-0.02438,0,-0.030944,-0.001989,0.026077,0.00038,0.012696,-0.004127,-0.004617,0.005935,-0.009367,-0.008555,-0.004191 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I15619.AG__BC_3950__Cov_64.20%,0.121791,0.189904,0.030547,-0.069445,0.070782,-0.046854,-0.00235,0.004154,0.049495,0.0831,0.005846,0.017235,-0.02334,-0.001514,-0.032573,-0.026518,0.007693,-0.000633,0.013073,-0.008629,-0.010232,0.003586,-0.018364,-0.016508,-0.000838 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I15620.AG__BC_3950__Cov_77.87%,0.120652,0.178733,0.016593,-0.06783,0.072937,-0.037929,-0.00423,-0.003461,0.042336,0.073259,-0.001461,0.008243,-0.017988,-0.001927,-0.043973,-0.007027,0.01343,0.003801,0.007668,-0.006878,-0.01148,0.012365,-0.00912,-0.01699,-0.004311 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I15621.AG__BC_3950__Cov_58.95%,0.137726,0.186857,0.027153,-0.065569,0.060011,-0.030399,-0.000705,0.003923,0.041314,0.067974,0.004709,0.013038,-0.016501,0.001927,-0.038137,-0.009281,0.018123,0.004561,0.00905,-0.007629,-0.010482,0.009027,-0.004683,-0.009037,-0.001197 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I18113.AG__BC_3950__Cov_36.37%,0.132035,0.18178,0.027153,-0.067184,0.06832,-0.04016,-0.00047,0.003231,0.040291,0.085651,0.001786,0.013638,-0.018583,0.00055,-0.02158,0.002652,0.021122,0.006334,0.017095,0.002251,0.000374,0.007296,-0.020336,-0.013616,-0.007424 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I18116.AG__BC_4178__Cov_77.46%,0.118376,0.182795,0.023004,-0.068476,0.061858,-0.038487,-0.00611,-0.000462,0.043768,0.073259,0.009094,0.012139,-0.022745,0.005643,-0.027551,-0.013392,0.014473,0.003801,0.012067,-0.011631,-0.006364,0.008285,-0.007395,-0.005663,-0.003113 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I20806.AG__BC_3950__Cov_76.53%,0.130897,0.175687,0.021496,-0.071383,0.067705,-0.030957,-0.00423,-0.007154,0.037019,0.080002,0.00747,0.004046,-0.007879,-0.011285,-0.036916,0.00716,0.032596,0.000507,0.00352,-0.012756,-0.004742,0.004822,-0.010476,-0.006627,0.000239 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I20810.AG__BC_3950__Cov_74.23%,0.121791,0.170609,0.025267,-0.07106,0.059088,-0.041555,-0.00047,-0.006923,0.0407,0.070708,0.002923,0.013488,-0.019029,0.00867,-0.033251,-0.008618,0.014603,-0.004181,0.008422,-0.003627,-0.006364,0.008408,-0.006162,-0.012652,0.001078 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I4088.AG__BC_4241__Cov_62.13%,0.122929,0.174671,0.027153,-0.063631,0.062781,-0.0251,-0.000235,-0.005307,0.032519,0.068339,0.00406,0.007493,-0.017393,-0.004404,-0.030809,0.003845,0.03729,-0.00228,0.004651,-0.002001,-0.005865,0.007543,-0.010353,-0.011809,-0.009101 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7127.AG__BC_4056__Cov_78.11%,0.126344,0.179749,0.041483,-0.061693,0.076937,-0.032072,-0.00047,-0.007384,0.050517,0.077086,0.001624,0.004346,-0.019177,0.008945,-0.024022,-0.024662,-0.004172,0.004687,0.00993,-0.013381,-0.009358,0.009521,-0.011092,-0.014942,-0.007424 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7129.AG__BC_4140__Cov_72.98%,0.130897,0.182795,0.028284,-0.068153,0.067089,-0.044344,-0.00564,-0.006923,0.048677,0.088567,0.00406,0.006744,-0.021556,-0.001514,-0.027008,0.00358,0.009388,0.006968,0.013701,-0.009004,-0.004492,0.000618,-0.012571,-0.016267,0.000838 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7130.AG__BC_4128__Cov_79.01%,0.118376,0.182795,0.03017,-0.068476,0.05601,-0.034025,0,-0.000231,0.040496,0.083464,0.006496,0.008393,-0.016353,0.007707,-0.035016,-0.019491,-0.004955,0.005828,0.011313,-0.01138,-0.00025,0.005441,-0.005546,-0.019762,-0.005269 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7131.AG__BC_3950__Cov_67.06%,0.129758,0.18178,0.029793,-0.073321,0.068628,-0.033746,-0.008225,-0.004615,0.040496,0.075628,0.009256,0.006744,-0.016501,-0.001376,-0.043159,-0.010607,0.017341,0.010262,0.014958,-0.011506,0.001747,0.013231,-0.012695,-0.009037,-0.001317 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7135.AG__BC_3950__Cov_77.61%,0.121791,0.17264,0.029038,-0.061047,0.064935,-0.03263,-0.000235,-0.005077,0.03845,0.073441,-0.000812,0.010341,-0.019772,-0.005367,-0.02823,0.006762,0.032857,0.003801,0.007039,-0.013131,-0.001497,0.014591,-0.016638,-0.010242,-0.007664 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7136.AG__BC_4124__Cov_79.09%,0.124067,0.173656,0.026776,-0.065246,0.064012,-0.03514,-0.00564,-0.007384,0.034565,0.079273,0.005846,0.010341,-0.020664,0.001376,-0.033794,-0.005304,0.018775,-0.002407,0.008422,-0.013506,-0.00549,0.008903,-0.011955,-0.009519,-0.000958 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7137.AG__BC_4022__Cov_77.28%,0.119514,0.18178,0.032055,-0.067507,0.056934,-0.031236,-0.00658,0.004154,0.042336,0.075446,0.012666,0.009891,-0.012636,-0.000688,-0.036916,-0.000133,0.032596,0.001774,0.005279,0.004127,-0.012728,-0.000989,-0.008874,-0.009399,-0.007903 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur:I4089__BC_3686__Cov_90.35%,0.119514,0.168578,0.018479,-0.060401,0.059703,-0.030678,0.00047,0.006692,0.035792,0.065241,0.000487,0.010491,-0.018137,0.007294,-0.035694,-0.015646,-0.001043,0,0.01345,-0.016133,-0.006364,0.002473,-0.009367,-0.015906,-0.00455 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_brother.I11906.AG:I7134.AG__BC_3619__Cov_78.46%,0.124067,0.17264,0.028661,-0.056202,0.065551,-0.031515,-0.009635,-0.006461,0.042132,0.070161,0.006496,-0.000599,-0.013528,-0.001101,-0.02348,0.007823,0.028033,-0.002027,0.006034,-0.000375,-0.002246,0.000618,-0.008751,-0.011206,-0.003233 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_brother.I15617.brother.I7135.AG:I18114.AG__BC_3950__Cov_75.67%,0.122929,0.176702,0.037712,-0.056848,0.064935,-0.03263,-0.00282,-0.001846,0.045813,0.077086,-0.000812,0.001948,-0.019921,-0.004817,-0.031623,0.005967,0.033248,0.000253,0.004651,-0.005253,-0.005989,0.009027,-0.008134,-0.016026,-0.00958 <br>Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_brother.I18114.brother.I7135.AG:I15617.AG__BC_3950__Cov_64.98%,0.126344,0.185842,0.036204,-0.068153,0.065858,-0.034861,-0.00564,-0.003461,0.043768,0.077997,0.000974,0.010191,-0.023637,-0.006331,-0.033794,0.01074,0.036116,-0.006334,0.003394,-0.002251,-0.003619,0.010758,-0.007395,-0.013134,0.002994 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7133.AG__BC_4128__Cov_78.91%,0.120652,0.178733,0.013199,-0.075582,0.062781,-0.033746,-0.000235,-0.000231,0.042132,0.076357,0.000812,0.013338,-0.026908,-0.002615,-0.031487,0.008618,0.028945,0.005574,0.008799,-0.013882,-0.004243,0.004204,-0.004437,-0.009881,0.006107 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21822__BC_4115__Cov_24.73%,0.114961,0.176702,0.013199,-0.075905,0.056626,-0.034304,0.00658,0.000692,0.041723,0.080184,-0.009743,0.019183,-0.021258,-0.00812,-0.032437,0.005569,0.046547,-0.000127,-0.001508,-0.004377,0.000749,0.013849,-0.015776,-0.009519,-0.007065 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23119__BC_4115__Cov_34.94%,0.122929,0.167562,0.004525,-0.074936,0.061242,-0.045459,0.004465,0.005538,0.044791,0.080366,0.007957,0.005545,-0.02111,-0.000275,-0.028501,-0.014585,-0.011735,0.003041,0.016969,-0.018509,-0.00549,0.012365,-0.006162,-0.025546,-0.004191 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Bodrogkeresztúr:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_sister.I7133.AG:I15622.AG__BC_3950__Cov_55.51%,0.119514,0.173656,0.011314,-0.076228,0.060011,-0.034861,-0.00282,-0.003923,0.039269,0.073623,-0.001949,0.010641,-0.033003,-0.000826,-0.030537,0.000398,0.028945,0.003547,0.014078,0.0005,-0.003244,0.004699,-0.002835,-0.021449,0.000958 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20838__BC_4115__Cov_33.54%,0.125205,0.17264,0.030924,-0.08398,0.057549,-0.027889,-0.00188,0.002769,0.044382,0.094034,0.007145,0.009142,-0.031962,-0.009496,-0.031216,-0.004508,0.022948,0.006714,0.00905,-0.003877,-0.008111,0.011623,-0.016392,-0.018436,0.011256 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21711__BC_4115__Cov_28.77%,0.126344,0.177718,0.027153,-0.071383,0.057549,-0.029005,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.034565,0.087473,0.002111,0.009591,-0.024232,0.003028,-0.043159,0.001989,0.014081,0.009375,0.013701,-0.019509,-0.016845,-0.006925,-0.007025,-0.004458,-0.00946 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21712__BC_4115__Cov_35.74%,0.124067,0.179749,0.023004,-0.078812,0.066782,-0.04267,-0.001175,-0.003,0.03436,0.073259,0.002436,0.004046,-0.015312,0.000963,-0.042209,0.01074,0.044982,0.004307,0.006411,-0.003377,0.001497,0.009521,-0.004314,0.008073,0.003832 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I21823__BC_4115__Cov_30.96%,0.126344,0.187873,0.015839,-0.076874,0.065858,-0.031515,0.00376,0.003923,0.045813,0.07745,-0.005359,0.014987,-0.029881,0.000138,-0.028773,-0.007292,0.022948,0.010008,0.008547,-0.014007,-0.008111,0.004822,-0.006409,-0.006989,-0.00491 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23126__BC_4115__Cov_16.40%,0.125205,0.174671,0.024136,-0.079135,0.068628,-0.040439,-0.009635,0.003461,0.033542,0.091665,-0.006658,0.015286,-0.024232,0.006055,-0.029723,-0.028242,-0.020079,0.000887,0.012444,-0.024637,-0.014974,-0.005688,-0.005546,-0.028799,-0.004071 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14159.AG__BC_3950__Cov_71.29%,0.121791,0.17264,0.025644,-0.081396,0.061858,-0.032072,-0.00141,-0.005307,0.041314,0.083282,0.001786,0.012739,-0.019029,0.000413,-0.034337,-0.012994,0.017211,0.0019,0.011564,-0.006128,-0.015597,0.001484,-0.00912,-0.014821,-0.005628 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14163.AG__BC_3950__Cov_67.09%,0.125205,0.180764,0.018856,-0.084949,0.067705,-0.040718,-0.002585,0.001846,0.037837,0.081095,0.003735,0.013638,-0.018731,0.006881,-0.033387,-0.020684,-0.00691,0.006968,0.009553,-0.018134,-0.008735,0.01422,-0.007641,-0.018195,-0.003592 <br>Urziceni_mixed:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I15618.AG__BC_3950__Cov_59.88%,0.117238,0.18178,0.024513,-0.073644,0.068936,-0.047133,0.002585,-0.003461,0.042541,0.084193,-0.001624,0.005245,-0.021258,-0.000688,-0.034609,-0.031026,0.000782,-0.00266,0.009679,-0.000125,-0.007986,0.005193,-0.00949,-0.017954,-0.000718 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20830__BC_4115__Cov_31.27%,0.126344,0.170609,0.003771,-0.089471,0.066166,-0.036535,0.00705,0.001154,0.035383,0.086015,0.009094,0.013638,-0.030624,0.004954,-0.046281,-0.014717,0.007693,-0.000253,0.014078,-0.02001,-0.012353,0.009398,-0.011092,0.006386,-0.014011 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20832__BC_4115__Cov_33.34%,0.124067,0.168578,0.004903,-0.099161,0.060319,-0.041834,-0.01081,-0.002538,0.05154,0.07745,0.006658,0.015736,-0.030029,-0.009771,-0.036102,0.010342,0.036899,0.00266,0.009302,-0.003627,-0.008984,0.000618,-0.013927,0.00723,-0.002634 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I20868__BC_4115__Cov_33.74%,0.117238,0.187873,0.012822,-0.082365,0.058165,-0.033188,-0.006815,-0.016615,0.025565,0.085469,0.00065,0.016036,-0.026313,-0.006193,-0.040716,-0.021745,0.012256,0.005068,0.011564,-0.023511,-0.015597,-0.001484,-0.002095,-0.018677,-0.000239 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23121__BC_4115__Cov_35.73%,0.1161,0.186857,0.014331,-0.102714,0.054472,-0.039881,-0.003055,-0.013384,0.028224,0.083282,0.008931,0.01079,-0.023637,-0.002615,-0.03773,0.008353,0.038072,0.007601,0.006285,-0.016383,-0.004991,0.00272,-0.008997,0.00494,0.005628 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I14165.AG__BC_3950__Cov_70.66%,0.121791,0.183811,0.019987,-0.082688,0.054779,-0.039324,0.000235,0.002308,0.039882,0.082188,0.005034,0.008243,-0.017691,0.006881,-0.038409,-0.019358,-0.001825,0.004054,0.017346,-0.014507,-0.00836,0.00643,-0.002588,-0.001446,-0.000718 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7128.AG__BC_4096__Cov_73.07%,0.125205,0.17264,0.012822,-0.087533,0.061858,-0.044901,-0.006815,-0.007384,0.03845,0.086744,0.005521,0.017984,-0.015907,0.007156,-0.042888,-0.008353,0.017341,0.001394,0.019483,-0.011005,-0.009483,0.002968,-0.007148,-0.007591,-0.004431 <br>Urziceni_Salcuta:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I7132.AG__BC_4136__Cov_75.09%,0.121791,0.179749,0.015462,-0.098192,0.060011,-0.042112,-0.001175,-0.004154,0.037223,0.082735,0.00341,0.013338,-0.025272,0.001514,-0.034609,-0.005701,0.031423,0.005828,0.009176,-0.006503,-0.011729,0.003957,-0.00456,0.000602,-0.006706 <br>Urziceni_steppe:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23118__BC_4115__Cov_35.85%,0.119514,0.168578,0.010559,-0.060401,0.042469,-0.032909,-0.000235,-0.002077,0.021884,0.071254,0.008607,0.005995,-0.018583,0.004129,-0.030809,-0.005834,0.009909,-0.004561,0.004022,-0.005127,-0.010731,0.02065,-0.012078,-0.004217,0.001317 <br>Urziceni_steppe:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23120__BC_4115__Cov_35.34%,0.121791,0.169593,0.024513,-0.050388,0.041854,-0.018686,0.00846,-0.009461,0.034769,0.056129,0.010555,-0.005395,-0.005352,0.004404,-0.024294,-0.008221,0.007562,-0.006081,0.013701,0.002376,-0.003244,-0.00272,-0.003821,0.003856,0.006945 <br>Urziceni_steppe:Romania_Bodrogkeresztúr_ECA:I23123__BC_4115__Cov_36.61%,0.118376,0.149283,0.023004,-0.037791,0.040315,-0.017291,-0.00517,-0.008769,0.024134,0.047564,0.00406,0.002548,-0.012487,-0.009358,-0.020901,-0.006497,0.010431,0.003167,0.02074,0.001626,0.001123,0.000618,0.000863,0.002771,0.000599 <br>Urziceni_steppe:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur.AG:I20809.AG__BC_4197__Cov_76.44%,0.125205,0.167562,0.011314,-0.085595,0.051394,-0.033467,-0.00564,-0.001615,0.028633,0.07909,0.005196,0.010041,-0.020961,-0.005092,-0.036102,-0.002519,0.01369,-0.004307,0.002514,-0.01013,-0.014974,0.013849,-0.001356,0.00241,-0.004191 <br>Urziceni_steppe:Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_o1.AG:I15623.AG__BC_4138__Cov_57.84%,0.1161,0.166547,0.006788,-0.069445,0.042162,-0.02259,0.00094,0.000231,0.025565,0.053031,0.015102,0.013188,-0.024826,-0.006331,-0.02823,-0.005304,0.013951,0.006081,0.012193,-0.008254,-0.008859,0.009027,-0.006409,-0.003012,-0.006826

PCA with grouped clusters:

As you can see, this are clearly separated clusters. The only real overlap, to some degree, is between Bodrogkeresztur Urziceni core vs. Urziceni mixed. And the reason for this seems to be, that Urziceni-Bodrogkeresztur as a whole being rather shifted towards Vinca/Salcuta to some degree.

But still, we see clear clusters, so the Salcuta admixture seems to have been fairly recent and probably happening in the first generation. Because the majority looks either pure Salcuta or Salcuta 50:50 mixed. There is still very little good overlap which would make the transition more fluent. In my opinion the whole pattern suggests and earlier Vinca/Salcuta-like admixture and a big pulse admixture later, right in the period of the this cemetery, resulting in pure newcomers and first generation mixed individuals.

In the next PCA I added the most likely sources for the respective profiles and admixtures, as you can see, plus one exception being the EIA South Thracians, the likely descendants, which position is intriguing obviously:

The HG-rich outliers in Urziceni have two different origins. One group moves towards Tripolye-Cucuteni, the other towards Ukrainian GAC (HG-enriched groups). These samples prove that migrants from the East were present in Bodrogkeresztur. Either from Ariuszd group and first GAC-pioneers in the South East of Transylvania, or directly from the East, going over longer distances.

This group is however a small minority in this population (n = 5).

The Bodrogkeresztur core group is clearly like the earlier Tiszapolgar samples or the Hungarian and Serbian Bodrogkeresztur samples. Already in earlier Tiszapolgar from Hungary was one outlier with about 50 % BSK/Salcuta/Vinca admixture and as one can see, the Serbian samples and many of the Urziceni Bodrogkeresztur samples shift a bit towards Salcuta already. So a small admixture from that or a similar source seems to have been present in both Romania and Serbia.

The Salcuta-type cluster is clearly mostly derived from Vinca and local South Romanian Late Neolithic groups.

Now the steppe shifted individuals: As one can see, they being pulled from Bodrogkeresztur, mixed and Salcuta samples towards Cernavoda Kartal (ANF-shifted cluster sample 2, 4, 5) or a more distant steppe source.
The 3 on the left are clearly between steppe/Cernavoda and Salcuta, which proves that the majority of the steppe admixed individuals being from the Salcuta/Salcuta-Gumelnita cluster rather.

The South Thracian Bulgarian Early Iron Age samples can be put right between the Salcuta-Cernavoda individuals and Cernavoda or a more distant steppe source. Their position just needs a bit of "extra steppe" to get there.

Since we know that the dominant group in the whole region and the following period became Hunyadihalom-Salcuta IV, out of which Cotofeni emerged with additional Cernavoda admixture, this is in my opinion close to a "solved case" for the E-V13/Proto-Thracian question.

Because this is by far the best source and best model of all available ones. It doesn't matter, for that hypothesis, whether the ANF-rich/E-V13/Proto-Thracian group was rather concentrated in the Upper Tisza, Transylvania, Banat or Oltenia in the following period, crucial is that the roots and source was Cotofeni, because Cotofeni was the primary big and influential heir of Salcuta and in the centre of the Carpatho-Danubian cremation blocks core and cultural tradition, which led, ultimately, to the various Thracian and/or Thracian-related cultures prior to the Early Iron Age in the Eastern Carpathain basin and at the Lower Danube.

Keep in mind, Urziceni was just Salcuta-influenced, and still they are about more than 1/3 Salcuta and Salcuta-admixed, all in all. It is pretty obvious that the nearby settlements of Hunyadihalom are likely to be dominated by that type of ANF-rich and steppe admixed ancestry.

 

[Riverman]

I want to come back a bit to the IBD sharing evidence, because it is so important and shouldn't be underestimated:

E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

Some conclusions from the IBD segments are pretty unambiguous.

First conclusion: All early Daco-Thracian, Thracian-related/influenced archaeological cultures share E-V13 and IBD segments.
IBD segments for Vekerzug-Chotin, Mezocsat locals, Glinoe Scythians, Iron Age Thracians, Post-Psenichevo South Thracians - safely assumed for Thracian Hallstatt Kartal, Himera mercenary duo, Phrygian valley.
E-V13 for Vekerzug-Chotin, Glinoe Scythians, Iron Age Thracians, Post-Psenichevo South Thracians, Thracian Hallstatt Kartal, Himera mercenary duo and Phrygian valley - safely assumed for Mezocsat locals

Second conclusion: There is a fairly strict IBD barrier to the Mycenaean Greeks, despite contacts even into Anatolia and beyond of the Thracians.
So far there was no E-V13 in and IBD sharing with the Aegean and Mycenaean Greeks AT ALL.

Third conclusion: The main Proto-Thracian population was pretty isolated from so far tested populations (in the outdated IBD reference I used - could have changed in the meantime with more data!) and had a fairly broad, large population base.
This is based on the comparison of the South Thracians with other populations: South Thracians have far less IBD matches in general and they do not share strongly among each other as well. So they don't come from a small founder population which experienced a very recent expansion, they come from a very large scale population which didn't went through a bottleneck or grew from small numbers exponentially.

Fourth conclusion: The strongest IBD ties in the LCA-EBA point towards the Eastern Carpathian basin, primarily to Bell Beakers, Nagyrev and Maros culture.
Beside older steppe segments, shared with Corded Ware and Yamnaya-Afanasievo, the by far strongest connection is with Bell Beakers, secondarily with the Maros culture (indirectly we can assume Nagyrev as a possible mediator - which couldn't be tested because the Proto-Nagyrev are not in the data base I had).

Here is a map showing the Pre-La Tene Iron Age Thracian-related groups and samples with E-V13 and/or IBD sharing up to January 2026:

The big elephant in the room, the big gap, remains Romania. That's so painfully obvious if looking at the current sampling and considering that e.g. Southern Thrace and Anatolia prior to the Late Bronze Age are just completely out of question for being the place of origin of this huge, stable, in the EBA-MBA already rapidly growing, E-V13/Proto-Thracian source population.
Because we have the earlier samples (Horodistea-Foltesti, Ezero, Anatolian Bronze Age etc.) and they are all no viable option. At the same time the even for me quite surprising strict IBD barrier towards the Greeks ruins every idea of Greeks being the main source for the ANF shifted finally - after the regional Greek Iranian-Caucasian admixture and uniparentals making it a worse fit already before.

The isolation and Northern contacts leave us with Romania, Eastern Serbia and North Eastern Bulgaria. Which are however completely undertested up to this point.

The most likely path of the Bell Beaker segments might have been - going by direct interactions and likely gene flow from:

(Modified from Duffy - note that Berkesz-Felsöszöcs = Suciu de Sus-Cehalut equivalent)

Note that the direct IBD matching with Bell Beakers is the most consistent pattern and more consistent than with Maros, present in all Thracian IBD samples I could use (South Thracians, Glinoe, Mezocsat, Vekerzug Chotin), while Maros was not (but present in South Thracians nevertheless!).

The Nagyrev-Maros influence wouldn't have just affected the groups leading to Gáva (Otomani, Wietenberg), but also the Vatin-Verbicoara block. It is however hard to argue that such influences reached much further South, especially considering the general lack of other IBD sharing of the Thracians (!).

Nagyrev-Nyirseg are therefore the by far most likely pathways for this kind of influence and they likely spread in Proto-Thracian networks very early on.

Bell Beaker influences in Vatin, Verbicoara and Wietenberg get filtered and re-arranged, while they get more dominant in Maros.

This means the locals stay on top, they don't get replaced, but they have direct and indirect contacts to Beaker and with Beaker mixed (like Nagyrev and Maros) groups.

Again, this points to the now well-established Thracian-related/candidate groups: Otomani, Wietenberg, Verbicoara, Tei and Vatin.

 

[Riverman]

So there are connections to Carpathian basin roots, whereas there are near complete blocks to
1) The Illyrian West Balkans (Cetina and descendants)
2) The Aegean-Mycenaean Greeks
3) The Encrusted Pottery-Monteoru-Ezero groups with increased Eastern GAC ancestry (Kisapostag, Horodistea-Foltesti).
4) The newer steppe groups - only a couple of later pick-ups from Sabatinvoka and Cimmerian remains, but no stronger, post-Bell Beaker steppe contribution of any sort, unlike in Greeks

If you draw those blocks on a map, what remains is again the BSK into Cotofeni into Carpathian cremation block. Because these blocks sit right in the middle, being reasonably isolated from those influences, since they represent a sphere of their own.

In addition to the fact that the two cultures: Vatina (through the
Corneşti-Crvenka group) and Verbicioara are neighbouring and
contemporary during the Middle Bronze Age, I consider that they
originated on a common background, represented by the Gornea-Orleşti

group (ceramics decorated with textile ornaments, tree bark-like incisions
or made with brooms or combs)119. This explains once again the many
common characteristics found in the early stages of these cultural
manifestations120 .

Cornesti-Crvenka will be tested in the South Pannonian study AFAIK. Like for the Transylvanian samples, we have to wait for those too...

Compared to the elements underlying the formation of the Corneşti-Crvenka group of the Vatina culture and the Verbicioara culture, the genetic
background of the "Danube" group of the Vatina culture seems to have been
partly different. Thus, for the settlements of the southern Bačka, Srem,
Šumadija, it is considered that the so-called "proto-Vatina" materials were
the origin of this culture123. This is what M. Garašanin has more convincingly
defined as the "Pančevo-Donja Varoš, Bubanj-Hum IIIb, Vecina Mala-Majur
Grube 2" horizon124. In addition to the Pančevo "Donja Varoš" settlement125
and Vecina Mala near Svetozarevo126, similar finds have also been identified
after the later level of the Baden-Kostolac stage at Omoljca127, or in what is
Ljuljaci I128. Unornamented vessels with globular bodies and two handels
have also appeared at Ostrovul Corbului129, proving a wide spread of the
phenomenon. This also prompted L. Nikolova to include them in a so-called
"horizon of two-handled beakers" or the Bubanj III-Pernik culture and
Pančevo-Donja Varoš type130.

From a stratigraphic point of view at Ljuljaci or Omoljica these
materials would be directly superimposed on the "Pančevo-Omoljca
phase"131. However, at Ostrovul Corbului a different stratigraphic situation
occurs. There, subsequent to some discoveries with "…gute Analogien mit
dem Bubanj III, Vecina und Armenochori – Funden"132, a Gornea-Orleşti
settlement has been identified. Also from Ostrovul Corbului we know that
later there is a level whose "Materialien an die Otomani II-Periode von
Vărşand erinnerten"133. They demonstrate the sense of evolution of the
Gornea-Orleşti group towards the Middle Bronze Age.
Pottery decorated with broom and comb has also been identified in the lowest levels at

Židovar134. From the above, one may ask the following question: are these
discoveries, which belong to the "horizon of two-handled beakers", the
only ones that contribute to the formation of the Vatina culture in the Danube
region?

The common denominator is, going by this author, the Besenstrich-horizon and Gornea-Orleşti. This connects North Vatin, South Vatin, Verbicoara and Otomani. One might add Wietenberg too, so the whole block being at the very least influenced by this source.

Some conclusions on Vatin:

Summing up this complex debate, I believe that when discussing
the Vatina culture, the following realities must be considered:
1. Suggestive for absolute dating are the 14 C samples from
Feudvar, Ljuljaci and Omoljica or those from other sites in our
area of interest, which actually belong to other cultures: Mureş,
Otomani-Füzesabony, Wietenberg (cultures for which connections
with the Vatina have already been confirmed). These dates roughly
places the Vatina culture in the first half of the 2 nd millennium
BC170.
2. The use of tripartite relative chronology is based on the stratigraphy
documented in several sites (the situation at Foeni "Gomila
lupului", Feudvar, Ljuljaci), but also supported by the metal
artefacts. Accepting these two basic premises will make it
possible to establish a common chronological language for the
whole of south-eastern Central Europe and further west, as well
as for the Balkan and Helladic world in the south.
3. By placing the Vatina culture only in the Middle Bronze Age, we
are responding to the realities of communities adapting to a
relatively different environment than in the previous or subsequent
period. The Early Bronze Age in the Romanian Banat is marked
by the Makó-Koshi-Čaka culture171, Somogyvár-Vinkovci172,
Sânpetru-German-Pančevo finds173, the Mureş I culture174 and
the Gornea-Orleşti group175 (Fig. 1; Pl. VIII). If at the beginning
of the sub-Boreal the rainy climate gradually changes, making
the transition to a colder176 and, in the opinion of some, drier
period177, around 2000 BC the temperature gradually increased.
Compared to the previous Late Eneolithic period, we are
witnessing an increase in climate warming and rainfall178. These
climatic factors are accompanied by the control of an abundant
natural resource area and an advantageous geographical
position, to which other interdependent primary factors should
be added, such as: a predominantly surface dwelling architecture
made of wood and clay; a population concentration determined
by insecurity, religion, housing tradition and social evolution; an
economy showing a more pronounced sedentarisation of the
communities compared to the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze
Age period and, last but not least, subjective factors, almost
impossible to prove archaeologically, led to the formation of the
first Bronze Age tells179. During the Middle Bronze Age, this
phenomenon becomes widespread, as this way of life becomes
distinctive of this period180. Other climatic changes are supposed
to occur around 1500 BC181. To a great extent, the geographical
distribution of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture is overlapping on the
previous area of the Corneşti-Crvenka group182. With the
beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the tells are abandoned, new
metal artefacts are developed, and a new burial rite and ritual is
adopted – the urnfields graves183.
The abandonment of the Vatina tells and flat settlements is a long
process. Their end should not necessarily be seen as sudden and
violent184, but gradual, as living conditions worsen and different
groups of allogenic populations appear in the Pannonian Plain.
The following examples are suggestive. Take the case of the
settlement of Vršac "Crvenka"185. If the Szeremle pottery discovered
in several Vatina settlements suggests a possible coexistence with
those buried at Vršac "At", the Cruceni-Belegiš necropolis (with
numerous Dubovac-Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare imports) at Vršac
"Ludoš" is certainly later, bringing the evolution of this site to an
end186. The same situation occurs at Vatin "Bela Bara". However, it
is difficult to say whether "tumulus" communities
(Hügelgräberkultur), as suggested by the well-known warrior
grave187, reached the area before the Cruceni-Belegiš culture. In
southern Serbian Banat, the end of the Vatina tell at Židovar is
due, I believe, to a population that used a baroque pottery
decorated and encrusted with white. This may explain the
presence of graves in the vicinity, under the present-day village
in Orešac, in which there are elements of Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo,
Dubovac-Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare and Cruceni-Belegiš188. A similar
situation occurs at Omoljica, where graves that can be linked to
the populations that uses encrusted ornaments have been
found189. In the Danube Gorge, the Vatina communities were
replaced by the Dubovac-Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare culture190. Taken
into account the finds in the key settlement of Ostrovul
Corbului191, this new type of pottery started to be used in the late
Middle Bronze Age192.
4. A comparison of ceramic assemblages published by G.
Crăciunescu193 and M. Nica194 from southern Oltenia with those
from the Banat clearly shows that we cannot speak of a presence
of the Verbicioara culture here, just of common elements
surviving from the same Gornea-Orleşti background. Initially
numerous, these elements gradually disappear, eventually
resulting in a totally different development during the last phase
of the Middle Bronze Age195. While there are possible Verbicioara
imports in the historical southern Banat196, their number remains
within the range of typical intercultural connections. Moreover,
if there had been an effective presence of Verbicioara in the south
of historical Banat, there would be no explanation for the
existence of clear Vatina settlements, such as those on the
"Stenca" at Liubcova (Pl. V), Gornea "Păzărişte" (Pl. VI) or
Ostrovul Mare at Moldova Veche (Pl. I-II), in the region of the
Danube Plain (Đerdap)197. The discoveries at Visag198 and the
settlement at Iaz "Damb"199 do not belong to the Verbicioara
area200 and even less to the Balta Sărată group201. P. Roman saw in
these finds (Visag-Iaz type) a distinct cultural manifestation202,
which I have classified as early Middle Bronze Age203. The
hypothesis of their inclusion in the complex process of formation
of the Cornesti-Crvenka group cannot be excluded; however,
this requires a more detailed analysis that exceeds the framework
of this paper204.
The existence of at least two groups within the Vatina culture is
an older idea, proposed by M. Garašanin as early as the late 1950s205.
This idea was adopted by N. Tasić who, however, saw the Pančevo-
Omoljica group as a western variant of the Vatina culture206. Later it
was called "westliche Variante der Vatin-Kultur" or "Sremer Variante
der Vatina-Kultur"207. Based on the strong links in Eastern Slavonia
and Syrmium between the early phase of the Vatina culture and the
Mureş culture, N. Majnarić-Pandžić believes that it is possible to
speak of a Slavonic-Syrmian variant of the Vatina culture at this
time208. Such a remark, as I tried to argue above, seems to be correct.
As a further argument, I would add the comparison between the
pottery shapes and ornaments discovered in Corneşti or Foeni on the
one hand and Feudvar on the other. Compared to this group, the
finds from western Serbia (outlined by M. Garašanin) from Dobrača,
Jančići, Krstac and Kriva Reka209 or Lugovi-Bent210 are clearly
different, suggesting the existence of a regional group. Although the
archaeological material published by M. Stojić is in small amount211,
it is possible that a new group is emerging in the Morava Valley. In
this case the Cornesti-Crvenka group may not be the only regional
expression of Vatina culture, adding to those of Eastern Slavonia and
Syrmiun, the Danube (Pančevo-Omoljiaca) or the Moravian area

Note that the South Vatin/Serbian group is the ancestor of Paracin-Brnjica, whereas the Northern group being closer connected to Belegis. Also, we get a common source group suggested again, which is Gornea-Orleşti for both Vatin and Verbicoara.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...Banat_Old_Controversies_on_the_Vatina_Culture

After reconsidering all data, I agree with the poster on Thracian origins that the most likely source for the main branch of E-V13 specifically, for E-BY3880, is Gornea-Orleşti.

It is the last common ground for all Carpathian cremation groups and it is the main mediator of advanced Bronze technology to all of them! It would make perfect sense if the leading clan of Gornea-Orleşti would have spread not just to one successor, but to all of them. Gruppe Gornea-Orleşti (Foeni) shows close connections to Glina, which in turn is, by and large, a Cotofeni descendant.

Gornea-Orleşti as the main multiplicator especially for E-BY3880 is therefore a viable working model, but it needs to be verified.

In any case, what we can see from these analyses is that everything goes back to BSK and Cotofeni for all these groups (Otomani, Wietenberg, Vatin, Verbicoara) and their descendants (Suciu de Sus, Cehalut, Belegis, Brnjica, Paracin, Fundeni-Govora, Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna etc.).

There is a direct path to Wietenberg-Otomani too, by the way, if following this interpretation of the Soimus group:

In western and south–western Transylvania (Fig. 2), the so–called Șoimus group was also identiied (Andriţoiu 1992, 19–26; Ciugudean 1996, 101–110; Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 29–37; Rişcuţa– Andriţoiu 2007, 29–52, with the old literature). Its connection with the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture was mentioned above. Based on these facts, the Șoimuş group should be contemporaneous with the Livezile group and placed also in both stages EBA I and EBA II, not only in EBA II (Popa 2011, 189; Ciugudean 2013, 22). However, it is diicult to establish its connections to other cultural manifestations in Transylvania.31 In my opinion, the following statement is still valid: “what we can certainly specify is that the ceramic fragments presented here occupy a chronological position in between the latest Coțofeni evolutionary phase and the Gornea–Orleşti–Alba Iulia–Zoltan horizon (pottery decorated with textile impressions, shallow incisions made with broom strokes, or deeper ones, resembling tree bark)” (Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 36) (Fig. 10).

The following chronological situation was suggested along with the existence of Roşia group: early Roşia–Makó–late Vučedol– Coțofeni III–Schneckenberg B–Glina III (phase Govora Runcuri)–Jigodin group; Roşia–Nir Ia (Nyirség)–late Makó–early Vinkovci–Glina IV (phase Ostrovul Corbului) group (Roman–Németi 1986, 230)

Source: https://www.academia.edu/25047000/T...the_Carpathian_Basin_Revisited_after_15_Years

Cotofeni into Gornea-Orleşti is therefore a possible, viable option for all Carpathian cremation groups and the massive spread of E-BY3880.

Gornea Orleşti achieves the following requirements:
- high ANF background, BSK-Cotofeni ancestry (checked)
- Timing (checked)
- Spread (checked)
- New technology and social organisation (checked)
- Demographic explosion due to new organisation, technology and improved (warmer) climate (checked)

Here we might see the direct expansion of E-V13 and E-BY3880 specifically into Transylvania:

This kind of pottery is similar to that attributed to the end of Early Bronze Age from Hungary (Nyirseg and Hatvan cultures) and Romania (the /ernut group in Transyi lvania and Gornea-Orlesti group in Oltenia and Banat). It is the Gornea-Orlesti group pottery which shows the closest similarities to that from Zoltan. That is why the appearance of this kind of pottery in south-eastern Transylvania seems to have been due to the penetration in this area of some human groups from south of Carpathians, along the Olt river.

Previously, it was believed that the last manifestation of the Early Bronze Age in this area was represented by the final stage of the Schneckenberg culture and that it was followed immediately by the Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg culture.

Gornea/Foeni is the direct ancestral component and reason for the formation of the Carpathian cremation block in all likelihood:

The discovery of this cultural aspect at Zoltan and its chronological framing between the end of the Schneckenberg culture and the start of the Wietenberg one imposed the modification of the Bronze Age development picture in this area. It showed also that the cultural area characterized by the pottery with ridged and textile-printed surface in the final stage of the Early Bronze Age passed much beyond the eastern part of Central Europe (Hungary, Slovakia and western Romania), up to the eastern Carpathians. In this conditions it is much more explicable the appearance of the ridged pottery in all the CarpathoDanubian cultural groups in the immediately following period.

Source: https://biblioteca-digitala.ro/revi...-Transylvania-2003.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

My revised model for E-V13/BY3880 and high ANF spread is therefore:

1) Bubanj-Salcuta-Krivodol + Cernavoda
2) Cotofeni / Cotofeni-Kostolac
3) Southern Cotofeni - Glina
4) Gornea–Orleşti - Soimus
5) Wietenberg, Verbicoara, Vatin

Rest known.

Gornea-Orlesti is, in combination with Soimus. I had the problem of having a grip on the actual movement of people from the common centre which formed all the main groups (Wietenberg, Verbicoara, Vatin). Now I have it, under the assumption that Soimus represents the Transylvanian manifestation of a Gornea-Orlesti/Foeni expansion!

Again, the good thing is: We have samples from Soimus in the pipeline and we have Cornesti-Crvenka samples in the pipeline - two different papers, both delayed, both absolutely central for the debate.

Site of Soimus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Șoimuș

Gornea/Foeni is exactly what's needed: A development from within the Cotofeni sphere, which drastically changed the successor cultures and made them more advanced. Any leading element in this phenomenon was likely to prosper and gain ground pretty quick within already established Cotofeni networks. It split up, subsequently, into regional groups - which explains the following split of E-BY3880.

This is an ideal case scenario for E-V13.

 

[Riverman]

With Gornea-Foeni in the focus, here would be a new working hypothesis model genealogy:

What makes Gornea-Foeni so central is that it was the last group which kind of united-influenced all Proto-Thracian/E-V13 candidate groups the last time before they broke up and many of which had very limited contacts up to the Gáva-related Channelled Ware period, when again all were under just one flag, with the possible exception of a couple of groups which fled to the South Balkan-Greek mountains and into Anatolia - primarily related to Brnjica and their coarse handmade pottery found in Northern Greece and Anatolia before fully developed Channelled Ware.

This would create two unified horizons of the Daco-Thracians:
1) Gornea-Orlesti-Foeni in the EBA
2) Gáva-related Channnelled Ware in the LBA-EIA

The first would explain the rapid spread of the 2nd even in territories in which there was no large scale replacement due to already existing ties and networks, possible means of communication, common language, predating Channelled Ware.

Just like in the later period nearly all North Thracians were unified in the Dacian kingdom for a couple of generations. Again based on already existing routes of communications and ethnocultural relatedness.

 

[Riverman]

I made a map for Gornea-Orlești-Foeni - just a rough sketch, for its main distribution and successor cultures, groups with strong influence from it. The first thing to note is that the Gornea-Orlești successor cultures in the more developed Bronze Age overlap near 100 % with the earlier distribution of Cotofeni/Cotofeni-Kostolac! So basically the new cremating Bronze Age cultures with Gornea-Foeni infusions distribution is based on earlier Cotofeni networks and traditions. That's a very clear overlap.

Just like the core zone of later Gáva-related Channelled Ware, is, again, the same zone.

Here is the map:

Note that all these cultures emerge during or shortly after Gornea-Foeni ended! Like if Gornea-Foeni was split into different dynasties which founded separate spheres of influence.

Appoximate values:

Wietenberg: 2000 BC
Otomani: 2100 BC
Balta Sarata: 2000 BC
Vatin: 2000 BC
Verbicoara: 2000 BC
Tei culture: 2000 BC

And the commonalities are obvious, and they are not just restricted to "neighbourhood exchange", but genetic. Most notably, all these groups were dominated by cremation and often had a high rate of "invisible burials".

Disclaimer: Otomani always refers to Pre-Füzesabony Otomani, the local variant prior to the Kostany invasion. This local tradition survived primarily in the East, in Gyulvarsand and while fusing with Wietenberg remains contributed to Suciu de Sus and Cehalut, the primary sources for Gáva. The Füzesabony-Otomani variant is completely different, because its based on the Kostany peoples invasion and its burial rite is most commonly associated with inhumation burial in row graves.

Füzesabony stayed in contact with the local Otomani, but also the other groups (Vatin, Balta Sarata, Wietenberg, Verbicoara), but ethnically, they were clearly different, a separate group of people from the others. Just like Monteoru people were completely different with much stronger Horodistea-Foltesti and generally Eastern Globular Amphora traditions.

Otomani, Northern Vatin and Tei were probably the most mixed, whereas Wietenberg, Balta Sarata, South Vatin and Verbicoara appear to be almost purely Cotofeni/Gornea-Orlești-Foeni.

Balta Sarata might have been a major contributor to Belegis and Belegis II-Gáva respectively and South Vatin is ancestral to Brnjica-Paracin, whereas Verbicoara-Tei gave rise to Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna. Otomani-Wietenberg is via Suciu de Sus-Cehalut ancestral to Gáva-Holigrady.

Gornea-Orlești-Foeni was the central hub for the further development of the Cotofeni derived people and network into the full Bronze Age, late Early to Middle Bronze Age period.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

The E-V13 batch with R-L2 and R1a(non-Slavic), are likely from this very paper, BA Transylvania. If they are moderns, it would be like the Avar samples with all sorts of other haplos, MENA/Roman, Germanic, Asian and Slavic all mixed, but such a consistent clean Tumulus and BA steppe R1a points to BA.

 

[Riverman]

The E-V13 batch with R-L2 and R1a(non-Slavic), are likely from this very paper, BA Transylvania. If they are moderns, it would be like the Avar samples with all sorts of other haplos, MENA/Roman, Germanic, Asian and Slavic all mixed, but such a consistent clean Tumulus and BA steppe R1a points to BA.

The branches appear much too young and one younger E-V13 branch is pretty dominant in the sample. Probably Celtic-Dacian-Sarmatian, rather?

Of this huge data sete, the Thraco-Illyrian/Albanian-related sets and especially this one are the most interesting:

I41060.TW
I41062.TW
E-BY6039 = TMRCA 1100 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY6039/tree
I41063.TW
G-S10654 = 6000 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-S10654/tree
I41064.TW
C-FT251331 = 9800 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...51331/tree
I41065.TW
R-FTF106 = 7700 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FTF106/tree
I41066.TW
T-L446 = 6800 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/T-L446/tree
I41067.TW
G-FTB14640 = 9200 BC - incredibly rare, found in Lengyel and Bodrogkeresztur-Urziceni! https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...38832/tree
I41068.TW
I41070.TW
G-BY133179 = 8700 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...33179/tree
I41071.TW
R-F3867 = 7700 BC - incredibly rare, common in Gumelnita-Varna https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-F3867/tree
I41072.TW
I41073.TW
I41076.TW
I41078.TW
E-FGC71980 = 180 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...71980/tree
I41079.TW
E-Z21362 = 1000 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-Z21362/tree
I41080.TW
I-Y91535 = 290 AD! https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Y91535/tree
I41081.TW
I41082.TW
R-A12332= 2140 BC Armenian branch https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-A12332/tree
I41083.TW
J-FT106289 = 3400 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...06289/tree
I41084.TW
I41085.TW
I-FTA67160 = 188 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...67160/path
I41087.TW
I41088.TW
I41089.TW
E-BY55806 = 4500 BC - E-V22 https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY55806/tree
I4109.SG
I41090.TW
I-FTA73226 = 790 AD with a close Croatian match! https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...73226/tree
I41091.TW
R-Y41402 = 100 AD Slavic https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Y41402/tree
I41092.TW
I41093.TW
I41098.TW
I41099.TW
Q-BZ450 = 2000 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/Q-BZ450/tree
I41100.TW
J-Y23163 = 1410 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Y23163/tree
I41101.TW
E-CTS5856 = 2500 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-CTS5856/tree
I41102.TW
I41103.TW
I41106.TW
J-FT184963 = 7330 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...84963/tree
I41108.TW
I41109.TW
I41114.TW
J-Y33968 = 3180 Greek lineage rather https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Y33968/tree
I41119.TW
J-Z27871 = 8500 https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z27871/tree
I41120.TW
I41121.TW
E-BY6283 = 1200 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY6283/tree
I41122.TW
E-CTS5856 = 2500 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-CTS5856/tree
I41123.TW
E-BY4600 = 1850 BC https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY4602/tree


This series can be split in different parts: One Balkan Neolithic to Chalcolithic one, followed by a strong E-V13 presence, followed Greek-Near Eastern, then by Slavic branches, potentially from Croatia-Bosnia/South Slavic sphere rather.

It is an interesting series, but not homogeneous at all. Again, if the assignments are correct, we deal with different layers and the E-V13 bunch looks fairly Northern-Central rather, so these COULD be Dacian-related samples! Note, there, is not a lot of J-L283 or R-Z2103 there - at all.
So this is an extremely interesting sample series, especially the E-V13 core for the Iron Age. I did take notes and hope we get G25 data for these E-V13 individuals. That's an interesting bunch, because they are clearly distinct from the earlier or later samples in this series.

These are the ID's to look for when the G25 is out:
I41062.TW
I41078.TW
I41079.TW
I41101.TW
I41121.TW
I41122.TW
I41123.TW

They are also pretty diverse, actually, so most definitely not just one founder lineage or something like that.

On second thought, that kind of strata might point to something close to the Lower Danube or Eastern Carpathian basin to East Balkan. Like a territory which was Gumelnita-Karanovo to BSK at some point (like Northern Bulgaria, Oltenia etc.) and then turned Daco-Thracian in the Iron Age.
This is really the highlight of the whole series.

Concerning the Transylvanian Bronze Age, its done by the Max Planck institute, I'm not even sure Reich lab processes their samples? But if, best chances are actually for the above mentioned ones with I41XXX.TW - even though I guess they are from elsewhere, but surely from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, former Gumelnita-Karanovo/BSK territory.

Also, it looks like Haak being now more deeply involved in the project: https://ben-rohrlach.owlstown.net/p...sformations-in-the-prehistory-of-transylvania

 

[PaleoRevenge]

There are no Thraco-Illyrian branches, lol. You keep extending olive branches to those talibans that literally wish you dead.

The following samples appear to be from Avar sites, because these IDs are amidst other samples from are all sorts of non-Balkan haplos, but also plenty of E-V13s, rarely any J-L283 and usually of isolate branch that are not Albanian.

Albanian
I39569.TW R-BY611 R-BY611 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L576621>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>
I40319.TW R-BY611 R-BY611 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L771681>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>
I43465.TW R-PH970 R-PH970 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L579641>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>
I41663.TW R-Y32147 R-Y32147 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L679671>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>

Close relative to Albanian
I46264.TW R-FTD60421 R-FTD60421 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L776611>uLn3s8ta9b>lPe_2d9o7w>Mns2t6re9a>mL23>Z2103>M12149>
I34877.TW R-BY99751 R-BY99751 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L679661>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>

Distant relative
I41636.TW R-BY99751 R-BY99751 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L679681>..L.389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M12149>I47256.TW R-BY99751 R-BY99751 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L774671>..


None of these samples based on the IDs next to them appear Illyrian. I think these are Avar sites due to diversity of Slavic, MENA, German, Asian haplos. These are the real IDs, so they are not scrambled. If these were from some homogenic ethnic unit they would all be within the same ID numbering sequence. Very few Albanian specific E-V13s, I think there was one under FGC11451. Either way R-Z2705 appears to be related to E-V13. Tough luck.

 

[Riverman]

THis is a decisively Carpatho-Balkan/Balkan series, unlike some others which are more Northern/Western/Eastern etc. and I'm not saying they are Illyrian at all, but they are at an intersection of Daco-Thracian and Illyrian. And take the sample from above, which looks to be older and more core Daco-Thracian: Zero R-Z2103, zero J-L283!

You see the difference? This sample is likely later and likely more mixed, that's it. And I think it can close to or related to the Albanian sphere, to put it that way. That's all. I don't think these are all Avar samples, because they are "too Balkan" for that. But probably I'm wrong, but even then it would be an Avar subset which is very Paleobalkan oriented. Very much so.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

What do you make of this Riverman, a cousin to Albanian R=Z2705 is found among E-V13s and a rare R-L151 branch R-Z37, lots of R-Z37

Seems like a Hungarian population before E-V13 expansion, likely the one that migrated into the PO valley during MBA/LBA.

The Albanian parallel branch in question.

In regards to R-Z37, it's modern decedents are in Florence region of Italy, one branch in Slovenia and one branch even Serbian. There has been discussion in archeological circles that Villanuevan culture had it's roots or big impulse from Bronze Age Hungary. These samples have to be from MBA Hungary.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

A little AI help:

1. The Urnfield Model

• Origin: Archaeological research indicates the "urnfield model"—cremating the dead and burying ashes in ceramic urns—developed within the territory of the tells in Hungary as early as the 15th century BCE.
• Transmission: This model was introduced to the Po Valley and Danube plains at least a century before it became standard across Central Europe.
• Local Adaptation: Rather than a single mass migration, scholars often describe this as a "spread of a novelty" where local Po Valley populations, such as the Terramare, hybridized or adopted these eastern practices.

2. Ceramic Affinities

• Biconical Urns: The specific shape of Villanovan urns—two-storied or biconical—finds close parallels in the ceramic styles of Hungary and Romania.
• Gáva Culture: Some theories link the Proto-Villanovan to the Gáva culture of northeastern Hungary, noted for its distinctive dark-faced, burnished pottery and advanced metalworking.

The Tell people that moved to the Po Valley were R-Z37.

R-Z37 YTree

www.yfull.com

 

[Riverman]

I looked into this sample series, but left it behind when I saw that most E's being non-E-V13. We don't really know where the sample sites were and this single lineage R-Z37 dominance is very peculiar, that's all I have to say atm.

The population which migrated into Italy seems to have had some Baden-Boleraz branches, at first glance, in my opinion. R-Z37 could have been more Western by default.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

All Es from this site are E-V13
E-Y19509, https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y19508/
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>P2>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13>CTS8814>CTS5856>BY4877>BY3880>Y19509

E-BY143121, upstream of https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-A20085/
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>P2>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13>CTS8814>CTS5856>BY4877>BY3880>FTT49>Z5018>S2979>FGC11457>FGC11451>FGC67001>FT367866>BY143121

E-Z21291, https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-Z21291/tree
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>P2>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13>CTS8814>CTS5856>BY4877>BY3880>FTT49>Z5018>S2979>FGC11457>FGC11451>FGC11450>Z21291

These are all E-V13s, what am I missing?