• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
God man, you and your long responses. :bigsmile:

I think that NW Anatolia to South-East Europe would be cool, but quite surprising if you ask me. Nothing supports that, neither archaeology, neither modern phylogenetic tree.

Nevertheless, if it's NW Anatolia, it would be one of the biggest surprises coming from aDNA.

The crucial point is that the E-V13 has a timing, and in this time window, E-V13 was still largely living together, and had a sizeable population, especially for the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, a bigger one. So any scenario needs to account for this large population which rapidly expanded in that specific time window into the Balkans, wether E-V13 was in the Balkans before or not. Clearly, you need an archaeological culture and phenomenon to explain that and there is in fact none other, so far untested or undertested, than Channelled Ware. And its the only undertested phenomenon in the right time frame, of the right size, still undertested, which was considered ancestral to the Daco-Thracians by a couple of authors in past and presence.
North Western Anatolia doesn't fit into anything of this at all. I would rather bet on Brnjica from Southern Serbia-Kosovo than on North Western Anatolia, because they were at least connected to the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block and played a role in that time frame, even though they seem to have been largely degraded by Channelled Ware later and might be associated with a different people.
But that just shows how bad North Western Anatolia looks, really bad.
 
These are the territories of the Triballi according to Papazoglu
FyXY7oOXsAE7v1b

Silver & gold artefacts from ~500BC, almost entirely found in the region of the Triballi, known as "Mramorac type belts" despite lacking buckles or fastening devices.


They appear in elite graves, and in pairs, and mainly carry symbols of swastikas and palmettes.

Because they appear in pairs and are commonly decorated with the same iconography, they are argued to have been worn on the shoulders, broad end facing forward, as some sort of elite insignia for secular or religious leaders.

Fy5czR1WIAEqMlT

Fy5gWnIWYAELBI5
 

I find it still remarkable how many splits date to around 200-100 BC for some branches, especially if comparing the well-tested English and Sardinians, and that the timings being best aligned with the start of the Celtic invasion of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. Therefore Celtic era backflow will prove to be a factor I guess, at least for some of the branches, especially those I deem North Thracian/Dacian. The map they posted reminded me on that:
map-showing-ancient-thracian-territory.jpg


The Dacians themselves incorporated Celtic elements during their revival and expansion, in fact, the later Dacians are Daco-Thracians with Celtic influences so to say, coming from those communities which weathered the Celtic expansion before.
 
Daco-Thracians form a clear cline, the Himera's E-V13 are the only possible Dacian profiles we have.

d96ddsn.png




The Mezocsat are like the Hungarian, east Europe, west Europe, Balkan and steppe, the same ingredients going back to Iron Age, repeating themselves.

tSkarxN.png


Using Ph2ter's Slavic proxy.

SA5G0cO.png



The Himera E-V13 are in no way central Balkan, the elevated Slavic drift clearly indicates eastern Balkans, and they have to be north of the Bassarabi Skopje and MK12 sample, this is without a doubt the Dacian cluster.
 
Using Ph2ter's Slavic proxy.

SA5G0cO.png



The Himera E-V13 are in no way central Balkan, the elevated Slavic drift clearly indicates eastern Balkans, and they have to be north of the Bassarabi Skopje and MK12 sample, this is without a doubt the Dacian cluster.

Vatya was a culture practically north of Vatin and Danube, ph2er took that example as sort of like a proxy because of the WHG-EEF ratio. The ratio of Himera E-V13 having less than Mezocsat support that they were from somewhere in North-Central Balkans, so Dacians, Moesians be it.

Here is mine:



[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Hawk_scaled
Distance: 2.7246% / 0.02724637
[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]56.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]TUR_Barcin_N[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]36.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Yamnaya_RUS_Samara[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]4.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Baltic_drift_as_HUN_MBA_Vatya_o_RISE479[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]1.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Levant_PPNB[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]1.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]CHG__KK1[/TD]
 
Himera would be a great fit for a G?va group with North-Central Balkan local admixture in my opinion, so Belegis II-G?va into Basarabi. However, similar kind of people were living from around Western Ukraine, Moldova down to Northern Bulgaria in all likelihood. Belegis II-G?va and Basarabi migrated to and colonised directly areas of Moldova-Ukraine.
 
Himera would be a great fit for a G�va group with North-Central Balkan local admixture in my opinion, so Belegis II-G�va into Basarabi. However, similar kind of people were living from around Western Ukraine, Moldova down to Northern Bulgaria in all likelihood. Belegis II-G�va and Basarabi migrated to and colonised directly areas of Moldova-Ukraine.

Technically Hungarian and Romanian archaeologists agree that the Early Hallstatt Cultures splitted into Northern group: Gava/Channeled and Southern groups: Stamped-Ware were the Proto-Thracians.
 
Vatya was a culture practically north of Vatin and Danube, ph2er took that example as sort of like a proxy because of the WHG-EEF ratio. The ratio of Himera E-V13 having less than Mezocsat support that they were from somewhere in North-Central Balkans, so Dacians, Moesians be it.

Here is mine:



[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Hawk_scaled
Distance: 2.7246% / 0.02724637[/TH]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]56.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]TUR_Barcin_N[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]36.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Yamnaya_RUS_Samara[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]4.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Baltic_drift_as_HUN_MBA_Vatya_o_RISE479[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]1.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Levant_PPNB[/TD]

[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]1.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]CHG__KK1[/TD]

Hawk, you have a considerable Germanic drift, that's why it is low in your profile.

bv45tJr.png



The Mezoscat are not E-V13/Gavians, they are a conglomerate of early-Celtic, pseudo-Slavs and other layers, kind of like modern Hungarians, east, west and local impulses merging into one. At the end of the day, we will get samples from Transylvania, and they will be E-V13 and they will cluster with the Himeras. I'll wait until then.

Also these mercenaries likely lived near the coast/ had easy access to the coast, vs being recruited from the center of the Balkans, than shipped to Sicily.
 
Hawk, you have a considerable Germanic drift, that's why it is low in your profile.

The Mezoscat are not E-V13/Gavians, they are a conglomerate of early-Celtic, pseudo-Slavs and other layers, kind of like modern Hungarians, east, west and local impulses merging into one. At the end of the day, we will get samples from Transylvania, and they will be E-V13 and they will cluster with the Himeras. I'll wait until then.

Also these mercenaries likely lived near the coast/ had easy access to the coast, vs being recruited from the center of the Balkans, than shipped to Sicily.

The Mezocsat are mixed, but their base is clearly G?va, no doubt about that. If G?va was the primary source, we will get different clusters from it, and that (Mezocsat) is the Western one, with some Kyjatice-Middle Danubian admixture possibly (what you refer to as "early Celtic") and other influences, but majority G?va - to their South would be the Belegis II-G?va/Basarabi group (probably like the Himerans) which however did expand into Southern Transylvania later. To their North was at that time Late G?va in Transcarpathia and above those mixed group with Lusatians and later Iranians to the North East.
In the South on the other hand the incoming Knobbed Ware groups mixed with local MBA-LBA Bulgarian groups and Greco-Anatolians, which caused the Southern Thracian profile.
 
Technically Hungarian and Romanian archaeologists agree that the Early Hallstatt Cultures splitted into Northern group: Gava/Channeled and Southern groups: Stamped-Ware were the Proto-Thracians.

The question is not whether this split is real, but rather what was before that and where Stamped Ware was coming from in the first place. There is no tradition outside of the Channelled Ware sphere in the region which was strong and influential enough, but rather post-local admixture Southern Channelled Ware colonies became Stamped Pottery under Eastern and Southern influence.

So there were two main causes for the split, one being the Southern and Eastern influences, the other being the Thraco-Cimmerian wedge which kind of split the Channelled Ware sphere. There was no continuous communication, to the same degree as before, between say Transcarpathia and the Lower Danube-Thrace for some generations as there was before the Cimmerian invasion.


That's why we got three groupings:
1) Northern grouping with Lusatian-mixed groups, the Late G?va Transcarpathian group
2) Mezocsat as the central group, based on a G?va substrate, the Thraco-Cimmerian wedge
3) The Southern groups, which started to form their own, new specific horizon under different local (Including Encrusted Pottery), Southern (including Greco-Anatolian) and Eastern (Noua-Coslogeni and alter steppe) influences. Stamped Pottery has no tradition of its own completely outside of the Channelled Ware horizon. As a rule, different influences just fused to creaste Stamped Pottery on the basis of Channelled Ware-related provinces.
 
Hawk, you have a considerable Germanic drift, that's why it is low in your profile.

bv45tJr.png



The Mezoscat are not E-V13/Gavians, they are a conglomerate of early-Celtic, pseudo-Slavs and other layers, kind of like modern Hungarians, east, west and local impulses merging into one. At the end of the day, we will get samples from Transylvania, and they will be E-V13 and they will cluster with the Himeras. I'll wait until then.

Also these mercenaries likely lived near the coast/ had easy access to the coast, vs being recruited from the center of the Balkans, than shipped to Sicily.

How much do i differ on that North_Germanic with other Albs and Balkanites? Because as far as i remember i only have slightly higher elevated Yamnaya than the average Albs.
 
How much do i differ on that North_Germanic with other Albs and Balkanites? Because as far as i remember i only have slightly higher elevated Yamnaya than the average Albs.

Here are the Alb sample that show this mixture:

QmR9tlE.png


Germanic mixture seems to be noticeable only with northerners, I don't think this profile exists with Tosks outside of trace amounts, also the Montenegrin average scores 6-7% Germanic, it is probably related to Macura tribes that lived in both sides of the border, maybe some assimilation of Saxon miners helped too, I don't know much about Germanic presence, but that's my thought on it. Croats have the highest Germanic admixture in the Balkans 7-8% which is on top of their 62% Slavic slice.
 
Three important samples ignored in the paper are:

Code:
[TABLE="width: 64"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"]MKD_Skopje_Anc_I10379,0.129758,0.149283,0.021873,-0.027132,0.027082,-0.012829,0.005875,0.001846,0.002659,0.034989,-0.001461,0.01169,-0.007284,-0.003716,-0.019137,0.008353,0.029206,-0.002154,0.005656,0.001876,-0.018093,0.002349,-0.002095,0.008435,-0.004311[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast_I18832_E-V13,0.125205,0.148267,0.018102,-0.028101,0.029236,-0.016176,0.00141,-0.003231,0.008999,0.03262,0.005846,0.005095,-0.017691,-0.007844,-0.027551,0.003978,0.027772,0.005448,0.008547,-0.004877,-0.015473,0.004204,0.003328,0.006025,-0.00012[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]UKR_Cimmerian_o_MJ12,0.135449,0.138112,0.015462,-0.012274,0.020927,-0.008088,0.00235,-0.007384,-0.006545,0.034625,0.000487,0.008542,-0.008325,-0.008533,-0.014522,0.005171,0.025946,-0.000127,0.011439,0.005878,-0.019091,0.007666,0.004067,0.011929,-0.000239[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Hungarian sample is clearly displaced from their home, but in any case if you were to put these related profiles on the map, what possible population is suggested, who do they represent?

pyWcFtl.png



Most likely culture block that binds them culture, babadag is just a related branch.
1RHKT6B.png



And the Roman provinces of Moesia.
RomanEmpire_117_-_Moesia_Superior_and_Moesia_Inferior.svg

I want to add on to this, we have another sample from Nish that shows the same profile, the only issue is, this sample is half middle eastern.

e6TOQjI.png



This E-V13 persons father would have been an IA local, and if we take 50 of that 59.4 MENA, subtract it away and allocated it to the IE clusters, his father would have roughly clustered the following way.
82.57% MJ Cimmerian
3.124% South Thracian
4.91% Ingria IA
9.4% ME

Another piece of evidence that points to this profile being part of the Daco-Moesian block, which in turn is Bassarabi derived.
 
Gomolava is probably very important, but rather the Bronze/Iron Age samples.
I mean yes, obviously. Deciphering the native Balkan LBA/EIA demographics in that area is much more important.

It also seems like the new samples are known to the people in the know because on the Slavic project someone added a new sample to google maps from Gomolova (post-Roman Slavic), hopefully there are additions other than Gomolova, I prefer to see more samples from eastern Serbia.

It does seem like samples have been taken all over but there is a bottleneck in publishing them.
I have found the map you talked about here. I noticed the paper linked is the Cosmopolitanism preprint:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...lH&ll=52.34183091458199,25.59322430000001&z=5
 
I mean yes, obviously. Deciphering the native Balkan LBA/EIA demographics in that area is much more important.


I have found the map you talked about here. I noticed the paper linked is the Cosmopolitanism preprint:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...lH&ll=52.34183091458199,25.59322430000001&z=5


I will have to recheck the supplementary, but I don't remember gomalova being part of the original preprint, I remember it was only three sites, timucus minus, some other nearby site and vicinacium.
 
I will have to recheck the supplementary, but I don't remember gomalova being part of the original preprint, I remember it was only three sites, timucus minus, some other nearby site and vicinacium.

They can't be included, because the numbers they are talking about would have shifted any sort of result for the whole region in a new direction in any case. They plan to test a fairly high number from that mass burial or hopefully have done so already.
 
They can't be included, because the numbers they are talking about would have shifted any sort of result for the whole region in a new direction in any case. They plan to test a fairly high number from that mass burial or hopefully have done so already.

We are talking about the new Slavic sample from Gomolava, the map Mount posted is referencing the original Danubian paper but Gomolava was not part of the original paper. The author of google maps has inside knowledge of the revised version the paper, he knows the new samples added.
 
Last edited:
They plan to test a fairly high number from that mass burial or hopefully have done so already.
Considering an abstract has been out there for some months now I would argue they already have and a study will be published in the future.
This should be another interesting entry : "Isotopic and genetic analysis of the individuals buried in the Early Iron Age mass grave from Gomolava, Serbia"
I think in a journal catalogue there was another renewed abstract about Gomolava that specifically mentions EIA samples and dates ranging from oldest 1200 BCE onwards.
I will have to recheck the supplementary, but I don't remember gomalova being part of the original preprint, I remember it was only three sites, timucus minus, some other nearby site and vicinacium.

Yes, Gomolava isn't part of that preprint. There are many options as to why that preprint was linked. Perhaps because all of these samples together with this mdv. Gomolava sample will be part of an upcoming study. The EIA mass grave samples will likely be published in a separate study.

Whoever posted that unpublished sample likely knows what results the EIA samples will yield.
 
Given that Carles included Gomolava in his location map in last years presentation, I would think the mystery BA and IA samples in his graph are likely from Gomolova where most samples likely fall under 1,100-1,200 BC = LBA with the remainder around 1,000 BC = EIA.

The other mystery BA samples from Serbia Riverman was discussing in the other forum probably come from the other study "The Fall of 1200BC".

On top of that, Carles is working on a EBA project which includes Bosnia, probably focused on ex-yugo areas. That's my best guess as what is happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top