Preliminary genetic results about Sarmatians from the Carpathian Basin

[Riverman]

That paper failed to note that such a profile being older and more widespread since earlier periods.

Your Scythians just show Tumulus culture uptakes. In the Scythian period, the main group of interest is the cremating people in Vekerzug, with thier stronghold in the Eastern Sanislau group. The others are irrelvant for the debate.

[corrigendum]

That paper failed to note that such a profile being older and more widespread since earlier periods.

Your Scythians just show Tumulus culture uptakes. In the Scythian period, the main group of interest is the cremating people in Vekerzug, with thier stronghold in the Eastern Sanislau group. The others are irrelvant for the debate.

I replied to two specific inaccurate statements based on what the data show.

As for your third statement, it is also inaccurate. The paper noted the situation in the most accurate manner possible. Balkan profiles are not widespread in any earlier period in Hungary.

[Riverman]

That paper failed to note that such a profile being older and more widespread since earlier periods.

Your Scythians just show Tumulus culture uptakes. In the Scythian period, the main group of interest is the cremating people in Vekerzug, with thier stronghold in the Eastern Sanislau group. The others are irrelvant for the debate.

I replied to two specific inaccurate statements based on what the data show.

As for your third statement, it is also inaccurate. The paper noted the situation in the most accurate manner possible.  Balkan profiles are not widespread in any earlier period in Hungary.

Wait for Basarabi which reached Hungary...

[PopGenist82]

I think it does suggest that “ Dacians” were rich in E-V13 but it also shows they’re recent arrivals from Iron Age Bulgaria, as outlined by Auriel Rustiou

Well, that's possible, but to dig deeper into that, we should first define what Dacians were. Because I would distinguish between the Dacian kingdom and Dacians in the sense of the Northern Thracian tribes (basically Basarabi and everything North of the Danube, extending up to the Northern Transcarpathian zone and the forest steppe.

That's where my interpretation differs, although I understand that some archaeologists, esp those from Romania, refer to those groups as a sort of 'Thracian Halstatt''.
But there's in fact no link. There is a chronological hiatus and several cultural shifts, most nobaly, the Scythian interlude.
The Gava- Holihrady forts were evacuated by 650 BC, whilst the new 'Getic forts' appear after 450 BC. A gap of 200 years a wholly different materail culture does not sit well with continuity.

Because we do know that a certain "warrior elite" package spread before the historical Thracians from around the Lower Danube. Not Bulgaria exclusively, but the Lower Danube zone with a hotspot in Southern Romania, the so called "Padea–Panagjurski kolonii group" according to Rustoiu. 

Yes lower Danube , Celtic infused, Thracian wariror culture

[Riverman]

The most interesting groups for a local continuity is of course the Eastern Vekerzug Sanislau group and Kustanovice. Kustanovice in particular seen by some authors as Proto-Dacian. There is no complete hiatus in the North, only in some regions and like Yamnaya in the EBA, the Scythians were more like guests by comparison.
E-V13 being found in all stages, the steppe pastoralists come and go.

The borderline between South and North Thracian/Dacian is blurred anyway, but still, not Thracian, because the Danube zone was not South Thracian. If we go by the place names, you can see the borderline between North and South Thracian:

https://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_8.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Da...fortresses
https://alchetron.com/List-of-ancient-ci...ze-750.jpg

The Lower Danube was already Geto-Dacian. The area from which we got the South Thracian samples like Svilengrad was from the start South Thracian/post-Psenichevo.

Maximal extension of the organised Dacian rule-influence:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ry-Map.jpg

[PopGenist82]

The most interesting groups for a local continuity is of course the Eastern Vekerzug Sanislau group and Kustanovice. Kustanovice in particular seen by some authors as Proto-Dacian. There is no complete hiatus in the North, only in some regions and like Yamnaya in the EBA, the Scythians were more like guests by comparison.
E-V13 being found in all stages, the steppe pastoralists come and go.

The borderline between South and North Thracian/Dacian is blurred anyway, but still, not Thracian, because the Danube zone was not South Thracian. If we go by the place names, you can see the borderline between North and South Thracian:

https://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_8.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Da...fortresses
https://alchetron.com/List-of-ancient-ci...ze-750.jpg

The Lower Danube was already Geto-Dacian. The area from which we got the South Thracian samples like Svilengrad was from the start South Thracian/post-Psenichevo.

Maximal extension of the organised Dacian rule-influence:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ry-Map.jpg

I agree that “actual” Scythians were a minority, and “Carpathian Scythians” were mostly local , or at least Europioids, but the degree of cultutral shift was huge. We cant use  Vekerzug as a claim for "Dacian" continuity , it merely signposts population cntinuity. Theyre different things

[FR9CZ6]

[img][/img]

Thanks for sharing this! So, this is the poster from a talk at the recent ISBA? Are you aware of any further, more detailed information being available anywhere?

Welcome. All I know is that these results were presented on the Hungarian Molecular Life Science Conference this year. I don’t know about any further information available regarding this study, but I’ll let you know when I do.

[Riverman]

The most interesting groups for a local continuity is of course the Eastern Vekerzug Sanislau group and Kustanovice. Kustanovice in particular seen by some authors as Proto-Dacian. There is no complete hiatus in the North, only in some regions and like Yamnaya in the EBA, the Scythians were more like guests by comparison.
E-V13 being found in all stages, the steppe pastoralists come and go.

The borderline between South and North Thracian/Dacian is blurred anyway, but still, not Thracian, because the Danube zone was not South Thracian. If we go by the place names, you can see the borderline between North and South Thracian:

https://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_8.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Da...fortresses
https://alchetron.com/List-of-ancient-ci...ze-750.jpg

The Lower Danube was already Geto-Dacian. The area from which we got the South Thracian samples like Svilengrad was from the start South Thracian/post-Psenichevo.

Maximal extension of the organised Dacian rule-influence:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ry-Map.jpg

I agree that “actual” Scythians were a minority, and “Carpathian Scythians” were mostly local , or at least Europioids, but the degree of cultutral shift was huge. We cant use  Vekerzug as a claim for "Dacian" continuity , it merely signposts population cntinuity. Theyre different things

Vekerzug in general and Eastern Vekerzug, the Sanislau group in particular mainly adopted some Scythian customs, but remained in a direct tradition of Mezocsat-Gáva and late Gáva locals, with a bit of Basarabi influence. So the whole base was largely Daco-Thracian.

We have a pendant to Eastern Vekerzug further to the South, which is the mostly Basarabi derived Ferigile group: Same thing, superficially some Scythian elements, mainly weaponry, but the base is local and Daco-Thracian. And those two groups even communicated with each other.

Ferigile lived on and many authors claim its the archaeological complex which led to the Triballi people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi

The only reason we have no such confirmation for Vekerzug is
a) that they weren't as lucky up to the histoircal period
b) Literal societies which could have recorded their fate were not close enough.

However, we have a later "historical report" on the matter, because there were the Agathyrsi:

The Agathyrsi were a people of mixed Iranic Scythic and Geto-Thracian origin[5] whose bulk were Thracian while their aristocracy was closely related to the Scythians.[6]

Note how the Agathyrsi cover most of the later Dacian or earlier Gáva territory:

After being expelled westwards from the steppe, the Agathyrsi settled in the territories of present-day Moldavia, Transylvania, and possibly Oltenia, where they mingled with the indigenous population who were largely Thracians.[5][11] In the 5th century BC, Herodotus of Halicarnassus mentioned the presence of the Agathyrsi in the area of present-day Moldavia, to the north of the Danube and the east of the Carpathian Mountains, by which time they had become acculturated to the local Getic populations[11] and practised the same customs as the Thracians, although the names of their kings, such as Agathyrsus and Spargapeithes, were Iranic.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathyrsi#Legacy


But even if we put the Vekerzug groups beside, what we also have is to their North East, the Kustanovice group, the closest relative of the cremating people in the Vekerzug Sanislau group in my opinion. And there are authors which consider Kustanovice a Proto-Dacian group - in any case, if being asked for its ethnicity, practically all authors which gave an answer put them into a Daco-Thracian category.

Here is a map which shows a tremendous oddity of the Scythian period:



https://indo-european.eu/2018/10/iranian...d-r1b-l23/

Originally, Transylvania was one of the, if not THE centre for Daco-Thracians. However, in the Scythian and to some degree also in the later Celtic period, because of its favourable habitat, it was the most settled by Scythians and later Celts.

In the Scythian period, the more Daco-Thracian culture of all groups around it (Vekerzug-Sanislau group, Kustanovice, Bosut-Basarabi) is absolutely clear. Even the Podolian group has more post-Gáva, Channelled-Stamped pottery traditions to some degree. Because it seems that a large fraction of the steppe Scythian elite was concentrated in some areas of the Carpathian basin.

If you look at the map, the densest Scythian centre in the Eastern Carpathian basin was surrounded by more local derived people and their cultures, of which practically all were either fully Daco-Thracian or heavily influenced.

Kustanovice was connected to the South and East (Bosut-Basarabi) though, but this might have been, exactly because they were related people and probably had the same tongue.

[jamtastic]

[img][/img]

Thanks for sharing this! So, this is the poster from a talk at the recent ISBA? Are you aware of any further, more detailed information being available anywhere?

Welcome. All I know is that these results were presented on the Hungarian Molecular Life Science Conference this year. I don’t know about any further information available regarding this study, but I’ll let you know when I do.

köszönöm! Thank you again, friend!

[TanTin]

It may take some time until we get the new geno data from this study available.
In the meantime can you guys share the previous Hungarian data:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...2.full.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddac106

The Bam/fastq files are available here:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49842
I guess this data has been already converted .
Thanks,

[FR9CZ6]

It may take some time until we get the new geno data from this  study available.
In the meantime  can you guys share the previous Hungarian data:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...2.full.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddac106

The Bam/fastq  files are available here:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49842
I guess this data has been already converted .
Thanks,

Yes, I also wonder if the G25 cords for these samples are available. 

These are the cords for two samples from the Uyelgi site:

Uyelgi1_scaled,0.086506,-0.132019,0.106725,0.086887,-0.068013,-0.027331,0.043712,0.025153,-0.027815,-0.050297,0.068528,-0.023379,0.032111,-0.041012,-0.02158,0.022275,-0.020601,-0.02065,-0.026271,-0.030014,-0.049662,0.010881,-0.009367,-0.01458,0.008622

Uyelgi2_scaled,0.106994,-0.114755,0.083721,0.088179,-0.082785,-0.063587,0.019506,-0.017076,-0.019021,-0.057222,0.041734,-0.023079,0.007433,-0.054499,-0.044381,-0.011535,0.000782,-0.022297,-0.035698,-0.033766,0.021213,0.026214,0.034879,0.010845,0.019639

And one from Kusnarenkovo culture:

RUS_Kusnarenkovo_Karajakupovo_MED:MS20,0.093335,-0.140143,0.082967,0.058786,-0.070782,-0.013387,0.006345,0.011538,-0.009204,-0.033714,0.02241,-0.003147,0.017096,-0.055049,-0.005429,-0.002519,0.001043,-0.008868,-0.004525,-0.009004,-0.012353,0.013478,0.003944,-0.001928,-0.006227

The samples from Uyelgi cluster with the Mansi, while the Kusnarenkovo sample clusters with the Hungarian Conqueror 'core'.

[Alain]

I think with E-V13 it's really difficult to give an answer, I'm conflicted, it could come from provincial Romans or could be a Neolithic heritage from the Carpathian-Balkan region, we needed more results for E-V13 with certain cultural groups and among the Dacians will find it difficult due to practiced cremation however I think it might have been present in Dacians but my personal assessment is that the proportion of R1b - Z2103 was also present and some I2a clade

[Capsian20]

[img][/img]

who has G25 this samples ?