Tárnoki Judit szerk.: Tisicum - A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 19. (2009)

Természettudomány és régészet - Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann - Biostatistical data on the origin of Bronze Age ethnic groups in the Carpathian Basin

Természettudomány és régészet | through them, more exactly through the Tiszapolgár and the Bodrogkeresztúr ethnic groups, with the Late Neolithic entity of the Carpathian Basin on the one hand and with the SE European late Neolithic entity through the Baden-Boleraz population on the other. The significant direct connection with the SE population groups, which could be observed at a number of series (Cernica of the Boian culture, the Neolithic Troy and the population groups of the Neolithic-EH period from Greece) afford the possibility that SE European ethnic components also contributed to the evolution of the MarosPerjámos culture beside the autochthonous components. A Central European connection with the Austrian Gemeinlebarn ethnic group and the Moravian Aunjetitz ethnic group can only be observed in the case of the Mokrin series. The slightly different Penrose connections of the series from the MarosPerjámos culture imply that the interbreeding proportions of the ethnic components show local differences. - Finally, a strongly significant value appeared between this culture and the population of the chronologically and territorially subsequent Tumulus culture of Southern Alföld represented by the Tápé series. It should be added that in the case of the latter series, a significant Penrose connection can also be observed with the Ukrainian population of the Srubnaja culture through the ethnic groups of the Monteuoru, or rather the Noua cultures. (ZOFFMANN 2006.) 4. It cannot be called a group, but the community that used the cemetery of the Maros-Perjámos culture at Csanytelek, and the one that buried the dead in the last chronological phase of the Szőreg C cemetery (Szó'reg-C 3) appear as isolated elements. They suggest that yet another alien group could appear in the second half of the Maros-Perjámos culture, which had originally evolved from various components. From the other results of the Penrose analysis, it deserves special mentioning: - The origin of the Hamangia population, which played a prominent role in the formation of the Boian population and which did not have any SE connection, can probably be traced back to autochthonous pre-Neolithic population groups. - The bearers of the Romanian Copper Age Pitgrave culture had significant connections with the NE European Fatjanovo and Balanovo cultures. - The bearers of the Greek MH-LH II period did not have local Neolithic/Copper Age connections as it is in the case of the series of the Greek LH III period, but significant Penrose connections could be observed between them and the ethnic groups of the Ukrainian Catacomb culture. (ZOFFMANN 2006, ZOFFMANN unpublished). Nevertheless as the most important result of the applied analyses it should be stressed once again that according to the results, the Late Neolithic ethnic groups of the Carpathian Basin formed a more or less unified closed block without any connection outside the Carpathians and that, beside the biological impacts of the late Copper Age ethnic groups that arrived from the SE and from nearly every geographical direction in the Bronze Age, the biological continuity of the autochthonous Neolithic populations could be demonstrated to a certain degree even in the Middle Bronze Age. Table 2 - Cranial series included into the Penrose analysis from territories, outside the Carpathian Basin MIDDLE EUROPE 1 CORTAILLOD CULTURE, Barmaz 2 CORTAILLOD CULTURE, Chamblandes 3 LINEAR POTTERY, Bohemia 4 LINEAR POTTERY, Germany & Alsace 5 LINEAR POTTERY, Bruchstedt 6 LINEAR POTTERY, Sondershausen 7 WALTERNIENBURG-BERNBURG C„ Schönstedt 8 GLOBULAR AMPHORA CULTURE, Poland 9 JORDANOWO CULTURE, Brzesc Kujawski 10 ZtOTA CULTURE EASTERN EUROPE 1 BALANOVO CULTURE DEBEC 1973 2 FATJANOVO CULTURE DEBEC 1973 3 TRIPOLJE CULTURE, Bilcze Zlote WIERCINSK1

1973 4 TRIPOLJE CULTURE, Further finds DEBEC 1973 5 DNJEPRO-DONJEC CULTURE, Dereivka ZINEVlC 1967 6 DNJEPRO-DONJEC CULTURE, Nikolskoje ZINEVlC 1967 7 DNJEPRO-DONJEC CULTURE, Volnoje SURNINA 1961 8 DNJEPRO-DONJEC CULTURE, Vovnigi ZINEVlC 1967 9 SREDNJIJ STÖG CULTURRE 2 ZINEVlC—KRUC 1968 SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE & ANATOLIA 1 NEOLITHIC PERIOD, Al'Ubaid KEITH 1927 2 NEOLITHIC PERIOD, Troy l-V ANGEL 1951 3 NEOLITHIC PERIOD, Nea Nikomedeia ANGEL 1973 4 HAMANGIA CULTURE, Cernavoda-C NECRASOVetal. 1984 5 BOIAN CULTURE, Cernica NECRASOV 1986 6 CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD, Angel 1951 Middle & East-Anatolia 7 GUMELNITA CULTURE, Ruse BOEV 1972 8 NEOLITHIC & EH PERIOD, Greece ANGEL 1944 Finally, it must be emphasised that the applied biostatistical method is only one of the possible methods, which can complete the archaeological investigations as an experiment to see how the question of the biological origin of the ethnic groups that formed the certain archaeological cultures can be approached from other aspects than the classical anthropological methods. SAUTER 1973 SAUTER 1973 JELINEK 1973 RIQUET 1970 BACH 1978 BACH 1978 BACH-BACH 1972 SCHWIDETZKY

1989 WIERCINSK1

1973 WIERCINSK1

1973 495 I