To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case

[Riverman]

But your sources are vague. Indirect and nothing conclusive. I wouldn't rush so much IMO. Initially i would generalize the region then when we have more facts we can scope it down to specific culture if that really happened.

I brought up some papers dealing with that specifically. The Middle Danubian expansion had nothing to do with the Channelled Ware ceramic and customs. If talking about the name giving ceramic alone, the predecessors all belong to the Pannonian local cultures which were pushed by the invading Tumulus culture. Like Otomani-F?zesabony. Also the very direct predecessors of Channelled Ware groups, like Berkesz and Piliny. You can read up on those, they had nothing to do with the TC invaders. Even when they themselves joined the TC network, probably under pressure, when being forced to the Upper Tisza region, where all the refugees and locals amalgamated to something new = Channelled Ware. For this process and development, the Middle Danubian TC groups were rather a push factor, but not the creators themselves.
Surely they influenced each other, but for G?va-Kyjatice its more about groups like F?zesabony and the direct ancestors Piliny -> Kyjatice and Berkesz-Demecser -> G?va.

If you go back in time, important cultures are always F?zesabony-late Otomani and even older Ny?rs?g, the latter occupy exactly the later G?va core region:

Almost all locations of the Ny?rs?g culture lie in the north-east Hungarian lowlands and the neighbouring regions in north-west Romania and east Slovakia.

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version

The sites in question for the earliest phase of Berkesz, Ny?rs?g and Demecser are all very close in the North East of Hungary, in the classical triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. And they being connected with Proto-Thracians even before:

A. Mozsolics made an important statement according to which the finds of Ny?rkar?sz?Gyulah?za are c?osely linked with the material of the areas east of the Carpathian Basin by the tumulus burials and by a few bronze types (e. g. wart-necked pin, the socketed celt of the Transylvanian type) and the parallels of several bronze finds from Ny?rkar?sz?Gyulah?za occur in the hoards coming to light in Eastern Hungary. 8 These results are supported by several proofs in her article evaluating the hoard of Op?lyi. According to her final conclusions numerous hoards were put into the earth in the second half of the В IV period mainly in Szabolcs-Szatm?r County (Hungary), in the Carpathian Ukraine and in the area of Northern Transylvania which included several objects in common and the material from the tumulus of Ny?rkar?sz (Felsőszőcs culture) 9 provide important aid in dating those finds. According to I. Bona the eastern forms appearing in the pottery and metallurgy of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin in the 12th century was the result of the immigration from the East which affected the whole area of Transylvania and the Great Hungarian Plain. (With the exception of the daggers of eastern type he treats these only in general.) In his opinion, in a ?transitory period" ? a term he coined for Late Bronze Age 3 ? (R BD ? HA,) a Thracian population (the ethnic group represented by the cemeteries of Muhi, Berkesz, Demecser) invading from the East culturally superseded the Egyek cultural group. It is important for us that he by collecting parallels determined the age and eastern origin of the dagger found at Berkesz ?Csonk?sdűlő. 1 0 In brief, from the quoted opinions it is clear that both Mozsolics and Kalicz noted that some of the finds of the Felsőszőcs culture (called by Kalicz the Felsőszőcs group) is younger than the Felsőszőcs pottery with deeply incised decorations, but they still treated as part of one cultural unit the material which in reality was only genetically related. The cause of this seems that Mozsolics did not take into consideration several assemblages of finds from the Ny?rs?g (in particular those typical of Berkesz ? Demecser) while Kalicz discussed only those pieces of these assemblages of finds which closely resemble in form the Felsőszőcs types. Thus he neglected those which primarily prove that the inheritace of other ethnic components is traceable in the material of several cemeteries (e. g. Berkesz, Demecser, Ny?regyh?za? Bujtos).
A. Mozsolics and I. Bona also emphasized the eastern relations or origin of the Felsőszőcs culture (on the basis of the Ny?rkar?sz?Gyulah?za finds) or that of the Thracian ( ?) population indicated by the Muhi? Berkesz ? Demecser cemeteries.

The fact that those hoards which mark the end of the life of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group 106 were hidden in the earth indicates an outside attack. As it is commonly held, the inheritance of the invaders are the finds of the
G?va 107 type among which several ceramic forms occur which have their roots in local development. 108 Among the hoards which were buried in the Early Iron Age there are also several metal types of local origin. This indicates that a considerable part of the population did not move. It can be surmised that the path of those compelled to flee is traceable in the material of a few graves unearthed in the cemetery on the outskirts of Soldanesti.

https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/FoliaArchaeologica_18/?pg=29&layout=s

The picture is complex, but there is no way around that triangle for Channelled Ware/G?va. It also proves why there were no finds of E-V13 in the Early and Middle Bronze Age from most of Pannonia, but, if we are lucky, only from the very North East, at the end of the period: Because they came there just late probably.

Cultural formations which should be remembered, also for future sampling, are Berkesz, Demecser, Egyek group, Ny?rs?g group among others. All pretty much in the same region of the triangle, all related sites and groups, but with newcomers influencing and transforming them in part or fully, which is not yet fully understood, just like the true origin of G?va in this context remains elusive.

 

[Hawk]

I brought up some papers dealing with that specifically. The Middle Danubian expansion had nothing to do with the Channelled Ware ceramic and customs. If talking about the name giving ceramic alone, the predecessors all belong to the Pannonian local cultures which were pushed by the invading Tumulus culture. Like Otomani-F�zesabony. Also the very direct predecessors of Channelled Ware groups, like Berkesz and Piliny. You can read up on those, they had nothing to do with the TC invaders. Even when they themselves joined the TC network, probably under pressure, when being forced to the Upper Tisza region, where all the refugees and locals amalgamated to something new = Channelled Ware. For this process and development, the Middle Danubian TC groups were rather a push factor, but not the creators themselves.
Surely they influenced each other, but for G�va-Kyjatice its more about groups like F�zesabony and the direct ancestors Piliny -> Kyjatice and Berkesz-Demecser -> G�va.

If you go back in time, important cultures are always F�zesabony-late Otomani and even older Ny�rs�g, the latter occupy exactly the later G�va core region:


http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version

The sites in question for the earliest phase of Berkesz, Ny�rs�g and Demecser are all very close in the North East of Hungary, in the classical triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. And they being connected with Proto-Thracians even before:




https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/FoliaArchaeologica_18/?pg=29&layout=s

The picture is complex, but there is no way around that triangle for Channelled Ware/G�va. It also proves why there were no finds of E-V13 in the Early and Middle Bronze Age from most of Pannonia, but, if we are lucky, only from the very North East, at the end of the period: Because they came there just late probably.

Cultural formations which should be remembered, also for future sampling, are Berkesz, Demecser, Egyek group, Ny�rs�g group among others. All pretty much in the same region of the triangle, all related sites and groups, but with newcomers influencing and transforming them in part or fully, which is not yet fully understood, just like the true origin of G�va in this context remains elusive.

I don't think you realize that you are wrong by two factors, both timeline and location.

According to Frano Prendi the Illyrian tumuli are descended from Cetina tumuli. And Cetina Phenomenon was a phenomenon from 2200-1600 B.C which predates Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture even on their initial expansion from Southern Bavaria to Carpathian Basin/Pannonia.

Since the excavation of the Early Iron Age tumulus cemetery of Vergina (Bräunig – Kilian-Dirlmeier 2013) in the middle of the 20th century, these mounds have definitely become an emblematic feature of the funerary landscape of Northern Greece. Tumuli have been equally characteristic ofthe Epirote highlands already sincethe Bronze Age, and their use continues deep into the Iron Age, not to mention the Medieval graves found in some of the mounds, as in Albania just across the border. In Epirus, most important are the tumuli of Pogoni, Liatovouni, a newly discovered mound near Igoumenitsa, and those in the monumental settlement of Xylokastro/Ephyra (Tartaron 2004: 148). Both Epirote and Southern Albanian tumuli (for the most recent publication of a tumulus excavation see Papadopoulos et al. 2014) often contained large numbers of graves (88 at Parapotamos, 202 at Rehovë) and the pottery and other finds are very similar on both sides of the modern borders. While the Macedonian, Epirote, and South-Albanian tumuli are built as earth mounds surrounded by a stone circle, the tumulus structure is quite different in Northern Albania and Dalmatia, where the overwhelming majority of them isentirely built with stones, making excavation extremely difficult.

Dozens of tumuli have been recently identified on coastal ridges in the Albanian districts of Lezha and Shkodra close to the border with Montenegro thanks to a new project carried out since 2014 by the Albanian Archaeological Institute. Their structure is quite similar to Montenegrinian tumuli, e.g. those of the Planinica Hill (Bugaj et al. 2013) and those even further North in Dalmatia. There, mounds became an extremely popular form of burial monument already during the Early Bronze Age, when the so-called Cetina culture spread over Dalmatia. Within the Cetina tumuli both inhumation and cremation are attested. Cist graves are often – but not exclusively – placed in the middle of the tumulus, while simpler graves are built with smaller stones and placed in different parts of the tumulus (Marović 1991). Within the CEVAS – Cetina VAlley Survey project clusters of burial mounds excavated by Marović in the Cetina valley from the 1950s to the 1990s are being mapped, and, together with newexcavations and intensive survey, the transregional cross-cultural connections of tumulus landscapes are being re-evaluated (Tomas 2017). In the same area, archaeometric analyses of various archaeological materials combined with a thorough study of the ceramics have been undertaken on the tumuli of Brnjica and Poljakuše as part of the project “Cultural Encounters across the Adriatic and Ionian Seas 2500–2000 BC”. Besides focusing on the chronological dimension of the tumulus phenomenon, this project has produced new data regarding mobility, ritual practices and cross-cultural interconnections, which have been analysed in the wider framework of the spread of the Cetina phenomenon across the Central Mediterranean (Gori – Recchia forthcoming). The eastern Adriatic coast is indeed important for the study of the diffusion of tumuli: it is no coincidence that the first Early Bronze Age tumuli of Greece appeared in the West, as on Lefkada island. Some grave goods from the EH IIB burial mound cemetery at Steno appears to have parallels with those from the early 3^rd millennium BC burial mounds at Mala Gruda and Velika Gruda in Montenegro (Della Casa 1995).


https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247

So, if tumulis were introduced from somewhere from the Alps, it must have been some Bell Beaker culture similar or brother/sister to ancestral culture to the actual Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus Culture somewhere from 2500-2000 B.C who has different timeline and indeed could have made an influence at Illyrians via Danubian Urnfielders during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition. Frano Prendi calls this the Pannono-Balkan migration at exactly LBA to EIA transition.

In this transitional period which was to last some three centuries with each century providing new elements in its material culture, several components are discernible: the autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric civilization, and elements of Cental European origin which were spread through Albania by the second wave of the Pannono-Balkan migration (end of the twelfth and the eleventh centuries B.C.). This wave, unlike the first, had a marked influence on Albania, although only in some areas.

 

[Riverman]

Yes, Albania was completely taken just later, but gor the larger region the trend and influence started already much earlier.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Boys, I am out of my depth here.

But could one of you enlighten me on smth.

Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?

 

[Aspurg]

Boys, I am out of my depth here.

But could one of you enlighten me on smth.

Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?

Illyrian tumulii descend of Tumulii of Posušje culture dominated by J2b2, Posušje culture adopted this tradition from Cetina culture which preceded it. Some say this tradition came from NE (Glina culture), while others claim this tradition came from Peloponesus, is of Southern, non-IE Near Eastern/East Mediterranean origin.

 

[Hawk]

Boys, I am out of my depth here.

But could one of you enlighten me on smth.

Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?

That's what i am thinking and i actually said in my post earlier.. If J2b2-L283 was a major Cetina lineage who initially got assimilated by some Bell-Beaker lineage R1b-L51. Before that, it could actually spoke some earlier Yamnaya language. Who knows, let's see.

 

[Riverman]

That's what i am thinking and i actually said in my post earlier.. If J2b2-L283 was a major Cetina lineage who initially got assimilated by some Bell-Beaker lineage R1b-L51. Before that, it could actually spoke some earlier Yamnaya language. Who knows, let's see.

That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.

Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.

I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.

 

[Aspurg]

That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.
Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.
I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.

Cetina was a syncretic culture.

1. Adriatic Ljubljana culture
1.1. Ljubljana culture looking EEF heavy R-Z2103 per new study
1.2. Dalmatian EEF locals G2a, C-V20, E-L618 etc
2. Bell Beaker R-L51
3. Yamnaya in East Herzegovina R-Z2103
4. Glina III and Ezero influences J2a, I2a etc

Posušje culture dominated by J2b2 was a new culture which had nothing to do with Cetina culture. Posušje overwhelmed Cetina, and assimilated its remnants. Per consensus they were of different origins.

 

[Riverman]

Cetina was a syncretic culture.

1. Adriatic Ljubljana culture
1.1. Ljubljana culture looking EEF heavy R-Z2103 per new study
1.2. Dalmatian EEF locals G2a, C-V20, E-L618 etc
2. Bell Beaker R-L51
3. Yamnaya in East Herzegovina R-Z2103
4. Glina III and Ezero influences J2a, I2a etc

Posušje culture dominated by J2b2 was a new culture which had nothing to do with Cetina culture. Posušje overwhelmed Cetina, and assimilated its remnants. Per consensus they were of different origins.

How do you see their relationship with the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture?

 

[Hawk]

Here is something about Posusje:

https://books.google.de/books?id=he...F6BAgSEAM#v=onepage&q=posusje culture&f=false

 

[Riverman]

Here is something about Posusje:

https://books.google.de/books?id=he...F6BAgSEAM#v=onepage&q=posusje culture&f=false

I have to confess I didn't look too much into that group before, because I think its influence and scope was to weak to account for the J-L283 spread. Because J-L283 appears so widely in territories clearly being influenced by the Middle Danubian TC and UF expansions, that they have to be in some way associated with it. Its just like it is with E-V13 to the East, they need a big vehicle to gain that momentum, not a localised group, unless it can be linked to larger movements of which it was "a passenger".

 

[Aspurg]

How do you see their relationship with the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture?

No relationship whatsoever, these tumulii in Cetina/Posušje culture were of totally different origin and nature. The only thing is common is that their burials are called "Tumulii", Cetina/Posušje burial are stone cists. Just two different burial types going under "Tumulus" umbrella.

Cetina stone cyst from Orah, East Herzegovina. Does this resemble Pannonian/C.European Tumulus culture?

Pannonian study has multiple Tumulus culture sites, R-L51 dominates, no J2b2.

 

[Riverman]

No relationship whatsoever, these tumulii in Cetina/Posušje culture were of totally different origin and nature. The only thing is common is that their burials are called "Tumulii", Cetina/Posušje burial are stone cists. Just two different burial types going under "Tumulus" umbrella.

Cetina stone cyst from Orah, East Herzegovina. Does this resemble Pannonian/C.European Tumulus culture?

Pannonian study has multiple Tumulus culture sites, R-L51 dominates, no J2b2.

But the Tumulus culture expansion went Southward too, at least in a more "localised form" and the second thrust went on with the Middle Danubian Urnfielders. I think there was some kind of transitional group in Slovenia-Croatia from which J-L283 spread, but probably I'm wrong.

Do you know from where exactly the E1b1b find was coming from in the Pannonian study by now and from what time frame?

 

[Archetype0ne]

Wrong thread, so sorry.

But do we know the context of the dozen Slovenian/Croatian BA L283 samples? Maybe working back from Glasinac-Mat to whichever is more appropriate is the way to go?

There has been various surveys done in North Albania regarding tumuli recently. Albeit these are preliminary surveys from what I gather documenting them, and not proper digs.

 

[Hawk]

Wrong thread, so sorry.

But do we know the context of the dozen Slovenian/Croatian BA L283 samples? Maybe working back from Glasinac-Mat to whichever is more appropriate is the way to go?

There has been various surveys done in North Albania regarding tumuli recently. Albeit these are preliminary surveys from what I gather documenting them, and not proper digs.

Nah, it's the correct thread actually, we are talking about Late Bronze Age Balkans, case of inhumating groups and cremating.

I don't know about the L283 sample assignments, but none was from actual Glasinac-Mat so far. But i guess all of these are somewhat interrelated cultures.

 

[Hawk]

That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.
Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.
I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.

I am going by latest Matzinger claims, if he is right that Proto-Illyrians were from East Alpine to West Balkans scretch and he doesn't think it belongs to classical Balkan languages like: Proto-Albanoid, Messapian, Thracian, Greek then we must look something from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age, a push from Eastern Alps to Western Balkans, i know Hugelgraberkultur would make sense but somehow the timeline doesn't fit, Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture pushed into Pannonia and further into Carpathians somewhere during 1500-1400 B.C. It might be some Bell-Beaker spinoff culture related to the ancestor of Hugelgraberkultur likely.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Nah, it's the correct thread actually, we are talking about Late Bronze Age Balkans, case of inhumating groups and cremating.

I don't know about the L283 sample assignments, but none was from actual Glasinac-Mat so far. But i guess all of these are somewhat interrelated cultures.

Thanks.

Yes. I was more referring to the morphology of the burials. Was it mounds at all? If so, what type? So we can test this Posusje / Cetina debate. And if it was, can such types of burials be found further south and/or east? What were the first instances of such etc...

 

[Hawk]

Thanks.

Yes. I was more referring to the morphology of the burials. Was it mounds at all? If so, what type? So we can test this Posusje / Cetina debate. And if it was, can such types of burials be found further south and/or east? What were the first instances of such etc...

Yes, mounds were used by all, even by Thracians, if u check the link i shared the South-Albania and North Epirus tumuli differed from the ones from North Albania and Dalmatia which had a continuus cline.

You can read Frano Prendi about Cetina and Mat-Glasinac: https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727-2548_1985_num_15_2_1360

Of course we need samples in order to confirm something, because sometimes archeological evidences can be missleading actually.

 

[Aspurg]

But the Tumulus culture expansion went Southward too, at least in a more "localised form" and the second thrust went on with the Middle Danubian Urnfielders. I think there was some kind of transitional group in Slovenia-Croatia from which J-L283 spread, but probably I'm wrong.

Do you know from where exactly the E1b1b find was coming from in the Pannonian study by now and from what time frame?

Culture J2b2 was found in is simply not related to Central European Tumulus culture, and it even slightly precedes it.

E1b1b1a find from Pannonian study? All LBA sites are from the very NE Hungary. He should be from Pácin (Slovakian border town and 20 km away from Ukrainian border), where there are 3 Y-DNA LBA finds. Eastern Gava culture. E1b1b1a find has most Steppe ancestry of any LBA find.

 

[torzio]

I don't think you realize that you are wrong by two factors, both timeline and location.

According to Frano Prendi the Illyrian tumuli are descended from Cetina tumuli. And Cetina Phenomenon was a phenomenon from 2200-1600 B.C which predates Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture even on their initial expansion from Southern Bavaria to Carpathian Basin/Pannonia.

So, if tumulis were introduced from somewhere from the Alps, it must have been some Bell Beaker culture similar or brother/sister to ancestral culture to the actual Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus Culture somewhere from 2500-2000 B.C who has different timeline and indeed could have made an influence at Illyrians via Danubian Urnfielders during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition. Frano Prendi calls this the Pannono-Balkan migration at exactly LBA to EIA transition.

in 1967 mr.Prendi and mr.Hammond where claiming what you stated...........he( Prendi ) also said this occurred around 2100 BC and with further claims that Dorians and Macedonians are also of Illyrian origins ...................are we really going down this path which is nearly 50 years old????