In the _Journal of Human Genetics_, volume 56, issue 11(15 November 2011), an article about the Early Neolithic genetic composition of the Carpathian Basin was published. The article claims

that some of the individuals examined in the course of this study belong to the mitochondrial haplogroup (hg) N9a, which is common in East Asian and virtually absent in European/West

Eurasian populations. The inferred discontinuity between the first farmers in Hungary and the modern population is specifically based on the appearance of this haplogroup, hitherto absent in

the European Neolithic dataset. Here we wish to point out a number of serious mistakes in the dating of the skeletons investigated as well as the phylogenetic classification of the

skeletons have to be handled with special care to the archaeological contexts. If there is any doubt about the date, it is essential to establish the absolute date of each skeleton

investigated. In the article in question, the following examples are wrongly dated: (I) _Szarvas 23_, with two graves claimed to belong to the Early Neolithic ‘KSC’ (Körös–Starčevo–Criş)

period. Szarvas 23 is a multi-period site, with findings from the Early Neolithic Körös culture (6000–5450 cal BC) and, among others, a cemetery of the Sarmatian period (1st–4th centuries

AD) as well as graves of the Hungarian Conquest period (10th century AD). The skeletons involved in the Guba _et al_1 article come from two graves, Nos. 20 and 22, both indicated as Early

Neolithic. In fact grave 22 is Sarmatian with special Roman pottery, (_terra sigillata_) placed near the skeleton as a grave good.2, 3, 4 According to the excavator, I. Juhász, grave 20 is

in fact a Hungarian Conquest period (Magyar) skeleton buried with a horse, dated to the 10th century AD. (II) _Csongrád–Bokros_, with one grave claimed to belong to the Neolithic ‘ALP’

(Alföld Linear Pottery end of 6th Mill. BC) culture. However, this site is also a Sarmatian (1st–4th centuries AD) settlement. According to the documentation of the excavation (7–8 August,

1979, pp 35–37) the following is reported: ‘Inside Pit No. 20, at a depth of -50 cm ... parts of a human skeleton were found. The remains consisted of a left arm and left leg, as well as

some ribs... the fill of the pit contained both Neolithic and Sarmatian pottery fragments, Sarmatian sherds were found even below the skeleton’. An oral communication was added by the

archaeologist LA Horváth, who studied the findings of the site: ‘the fragmented skeleton was considered Sarmatian already during the excavation’. (III) _Szakmár–Kisülés_, with one grave

claimed to belong to the Neolithic ‘KSC’ (Körös–Starčevo–Criş) period. This site is a settlement of the Körös culture, which was disturbed by diggings of a series of later periods, including

a Sarmatian cemetery. In the excavation report it was stated that graves 2 and 3 belonged to the Early Neolithic Körös culture.5 About grave 8 the following description can be found in the

1976 excavation documentation (pp. 2–3): ‘Each of the graves 5–8 were disturbed, none of them belonged to the Körös culture. Grave No. 8: a skeleton disturbed and robbed, the bones are not

in anatomic order. Grave goods: a piece of bronze, a spiral of a bronze fibula, several glass and chalk pearls. The grave can be dated to the Sarmatian period’. (IV) The individual from

_Kisköre–Gát_ can probably be assigned, and one specimen from _Szegvár_ can definitely be assigned, to the Late Neolithic Tisza culture (5000–4500 BC) instead of the indicated earlier

periods of the Neolithic.6, 7 The Late Neolithic dating of the Kisköre–Gát grave is estimated by the excavator, on the basis of its position.8 Consequently, six out of the eleven graves

considered to be Neolithic were clearly misdated. In addition, six individuals of this dataset were attributed to an East Asian hg (three N9a, one D1/G1a1, one M/R24 and one C5). Obviously,

the presence of East Asian hg in European sites is unusal and presents an important finding for the reconstruction and timing of past population movements. However, exactly the three

individuals with the N9a hg (Szarvas 23 grave 20, Szakmár–Kisülés 8, and Csongrád–Bokros, grave inside Pit 20) can be considered to the Sarmatian and, in one case, early Hungarian (Magyar)

period. Thus, all N9a specimens from the Early Neolithic dataset (the first half of the 6th millennium BC) originated from a much younger period than reported: the 1st millennium AD.

Additionally the D1/G1a1 individual from Kisköre–Gát was also misdated. Furthermore, we have detected inaccuracies concerning the hg classification of the mitochondrial sequences. In three

graves, the HVS-I sequences are insufficient for a definite classification into the known mitochondrial phylogeny (Szarvas 23 grave 22, Kisköre–Gát 15 and Mezőkövesd 25). In these cases, the

authors listed all possible hg or indicated the sequence as ‘novel’. However, in some cases these assignments are incorrect. The haplotype of Szarvas 23 grave 22 should not be determined as

‘novel’ because this sequence most likely belongs to the European hg H.9 Similarly, the 16324C haplotype of the Mezőkövesd individual was previously described from several studies as hg

H.10 As a result, these unspecific haplogroup classifications introduced a higher frequency of East Asian hg. In all these cases, additional analysis of diagnostic coding region SNPs are

required in order to unambiguously assign the correct hg. This also includes the three CRS individuals reported as hg H (Aszód, Folyás 111 and Szegvár 25), which also could belong to the hg

HV, R or U. Owing to the fact that six skeletons of the supposed Neolithic dataset had been misdated, and some haplotypes had been insufficiently classified, we cannot support the conclusion

of a high frequency of East Asian hg (especially N9a) in Neolithic cultures of the Carpathian Basin. In fact, only two Neolithic individuals remain with an East Asian hg (Vörs, hg C5 and

Kisköre–Gát 15, hg D1/G1a1) (Table 1) while only Vörs can be ascribed to the Early Neolithic (Starčevo culture). In the light of all these facts both results now seem questionable. In

contrast to the misdating itself, we do not question the integrity of the finding of hg N9a in a Sarmatian and Magyar context. Sarmatians migrated in the early first Millennium AD, Magyars

in the late first Millenium, from the steppe region of present Russia and Ukraine to Eastern Hungary. The highest frequency of the published N9a haplotype (16223T 16257a 16261T) can be found

in modern populations of East Asia (Vietnam (0,78%), China (0,23%), Thailand (0,14%)) as well as Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan (0,28%), Kazakhstan (0,22%), Uzbekistan (0,21%) and the Buryat

Republic (0,13%)) (references available upon request). Thus, the observation of high N9a frequencies in a Sarmatian and Magyar population may well support an (East?) Asian affinity. The data

presented in this study were claimed to be the first archaeogenetic dataset of Neolithic cultures of the Carpathian Basin. However, the fact that previously published data were included is

not obvious in the article, which is misleading. Some of these samples have already been published (Ecsegfalva 23A11 and Szarvas 23 grave 2012). The latter article by Burger _et al_ mentions

the very same grave (Szarvas 23 grave 20), presented in the paper by Guba _et al_ as belonging to the Early Neolithic Körös culture, while they are, as shown above, 6000 years later. In the

Burger _et al_ study this misdating occurs repeatedly, with yet another, Sarmatian grave (Szarvas 23, grave 4). All these cases of misdating could have been avoided by applying 14C dating.

In the article by Guba _et al._ there is a general reference to 14C dates,13 but this study is focused on another period. Unfortunately, all efforts to produce authentic ancient DNA data are

worthless if the archaeological background to a genetic project is missing or insufficiently explored. The problems discussed represent a _caveat_ for all contributors to the archaeogenetic

literature. Mistakes can occur when authors of archaeogenetic studies neglect both the archaeological context of the skeletons studied and the archaeological literature about the sites

involved. While one cannot expect molecular biologists to scrutinise minor excavation reports, l_et al_one hunt for unpublished documentation, it is all the more important to integrate

archaeologists into the research process. This would not only solve the problem of dating a skeleton 6000 years earlier than its real age, but would also share responsibility for the results

and establish real interdisciplinarity between archaeology and the natural sciences. REFERENCES * Guba, Z., Hadadi, É., Major, Á., Furka, T., Juhász, E., Koós, J. _et al_. HVS-I

polymorphism screening of ancient human mitochondrial DNA provides evidence for N9a discontinuity and East Asian haplogroups in the Neolithic Hungary. _J. Hum. Genet_ 56, 784–796 (2011).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Jankovich, B. D., Makkay, J., Szőke, B. M. (eds) _Magyarország régészeti topográfiája 8. A szarvasi járás (The Archaeological Topography of Hungary 8. - the

Szarvas district)_, Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, (1989). Google Scholar  * Juhász, I. Mázas római edény Szarvasról. _A Békés megyei múzeumok közleményei_ 23, 89–97 (2002). Google Scholar  *

Makkay, J. _The excavations of the early neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the final report. Vol. I: The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves_,

Societa per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia: Trieste, (2007). Google Scholar  * Bognár-Kutzián, I. Ausgrabungen in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975.

_Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_ 7, 13–17 (1977). Google Scholar  * Korek, J _Die Theiss-Kultur in der mittleren und nördlichen

Theissgegend_, Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae III: Budapest, (1989). Google Scholar  * Korek, J _Szegvár-Tűzköves, in The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region_ ed L Tálas 47–60 Kossuth

Press: Budapest-Szolnok, (1987). Google Scholar  * Siklósi, Zs. A társadalmi egyenlőtlenség nyomai a késő neolitikumban a Kárpát-medence keleti felén (Traces of social inequality in the Late

Neolithic, in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin). Unpublished PhD dissertation, ELTE Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Budapest, (2010). * Sykes, B. _Blood of the Isles_, Bantam

Press: London, (2006). Google Scholar  * Behar, D. M., Rosset, S., Blue-Smith, J., Balanovsky, O., Tzur, S., Comas, D. _et al_. The Genographic Project public participation mitochondrial DNA

database. _PLoS Genet._ 3, e104 (2007) Erratum in: PLoS Genet. September 14;3(9):1785 (2007). Article  Google Scholar  * Haak, W., Forster, P., Bramanti, B., Matsumura, S., Brandt, G.,

Tänzer, M. _et al_. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. _Science_ 310, 1016–1018 (2005). CAS  Google Scholar  * Burger, J., Kirchner, M., Bramanti,

B., Haak, W., Thomas, M. G. Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 104, 3736–3741 (2007). Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Hertelendi, E., Svingor, É., Raczky, P., Horváth, F., Futó, I., Bartosiewicz, L Durationof tell settlements at four prehistoric sites in Hungary. _Radiocarbon_ 40, 659–667 (1998).

Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank I Juhász and LA Horváth for their kind oral information about the Szarvas grave 20 and Csongrád grave

in Pit No. 20 datings. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Eszter

Bánffy * Institute of Anthropology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany Guido Brandt & Kurt W Alt Authors * Eszter Bánffy View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Guido Brandt View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kurt W Alt View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Eszter Bánffy. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE

Bánffy, E., Brandt, G. & Alt, K. ‘Early Neolithic’ graves of the Carpathian Basin are in fact 6000 years younger—Appeal for real interdisciplinarity between archaeology and ancient DNA

research. _J Hum Genet_ 57, 467–469 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2012.36 Download citation * Published: 07 June 2012 * Issue Date: July 2012 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2012.36

SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy

to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative