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

I have checked the Himeran E-V13 again and the Naissus, used this model (objective criticism accepted, done it on the fly anyway).













The Naissus E-V13 sample is Post-Roman i think, so he might have gotten some early Roman-Byzantine Greek autosomal.

Although i admit these tools are not coincise the model gives me an approximate clue as to what they were, and the LBA spread from Balkan-Carpathian sphere makes the most sense considering that they are diverse autosomally.

Looks like potential E-V13 in Pre-Slavic Slovenia per new study.


Bled area, Slovenia.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4331032

Bled area during Iron Age was a Hallstatt site. The picture gets more and more in favor of Urnfield origin for E-V13.

Hawk said:

Looks like potential E-V13 in Pre-Slavic Slovenia per new study.


Bled area, Slovenia.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4331032

Bled area during Iron Age was a Hallstatt site. The picture gets more and more in favor of Urnfield origin for E-V13.

Click to expand...

Funny, I just posted this concerning the potential Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene era E-V13 expansions into Northern Italy:
Case Report: The British & Sardinian connection

With better sampling we can better reconstruct the migration and expansion of E-V13 lineages. The best NGS sampled areas up to now are the British Isles, Sardinia (because of one major study done on the island population) and Albanians in moderns and Early Medieval Hungary.

Looking at the data on FTDNA and YFull, there is a non random relationship between Hungarian samples from the early Avar and early Hungarian period, with Western people and a particularly close one of Sardinians and British E-V13 carriers, to the, largely, exclusion of the Southern Central Balkans in a specific time window.

Like we can reconstruct with time windows: When did these E-V13 carriers migrate out of Hungary, when did they reach Sardinia and when, sometimes even how, did they reach the British Isles.

There are many examples of this peculiar pattern of British lineages sharing their most recent ancestor with Sardinian ones, nearly always to the exclusion of the Balkans, sometimes, but not always, with the inclusion of other Italians, Germans and French.
It is also noteworthy that the Sardinians are likely not the primary source on the Westward route, but these were North Western Italian people, mostly from the area of Liguria, Genua, from where the majority of these Sardinian lineage is supposed to come from, but from which we have simply not as many samples.

Here some of the definining branches in question (TMRCA is always just the average, range must be considered):

E-BY6162 (TMRCA of 476 BC between the Hungarian-Avar and Italian)
E-FTB70721 (TMRCA of 60 AD between British and Sardinian)
E-Z21367 (TMRCA of 500 BC between British/Irish/German and Hungarian-Avar and Sardinian, Sardinian diversify 200 AD)
E-Z21291 (TMRCA of 624 BC between French, British and Sardinian, with Sardinian diversification 200 BC)
E-BY4991 (TMRCA of 143 AD between German, Hungarian Arpad and British)
E-FT92232 (TMRCA of 417 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY159978 (TMRCA of 398 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY6263 (TMRCA of 317 BC between British and Swiss)
E-FTA40200 (TMRCA of 456 BC between British and modern Hungarian)
E-BY4404 sticks out as one of the few Eastern Balkan connections with (TMRCA of 153 BC between British and Bulgarian, Turkish, not sure if its an ethnic English lineage)
E-FT106938 (TMRCA of 760 BC between Irish and modern Hungarian)

E-Z16988 is particularly interesting, because it combines in different of its subclades ancient Hungarian, Sardinian-Italian, German, Serbian and British lineages:
E-Z21350 (TMRCA of 576/552 BC between German and English, which start to diversify 826 AD, and Irish, Polish and Sardinian, with Sardinian starting to branch 50 AD)
E-A11837 (TMRCA of 601/448 BC between Serbian and Sardinian which diversify 500 AD, and Serbian and Italian)

What are the big takeaways from this data?
- There is very little to no overlap with the more Southern and Eastern Balkans and these British, Sardinian-Italian branches after the initial E-V13 dispersion in the Transitional Period (younger than 900 BC).
- Most of the later overlap with other macro-regoins, in ancients and moderns, is with Hungarians and Serbs dating to about 500-400 BC. Therefore it looks that the source group for these E-V13 branches was in the area of Hungary-Western Romania-Northern Serbia about 500-400 BC.
- The branching in North West Italia started likely earlier, but the proven diversification in situ starts in Sardinia/North Western Italia between about 300 BC-100 AD.
- The British branched off from these Sardinian-Italian branches about 100 BC-100 AD.

This means it looks to me like a good portion of these British E-V13 ancestors lived in or close to North Western Italy 300 BC-100 AD. The start of the local founding events in North Western Italy overlaps with the last common ancestors of the British and North Western Italians.

When these E-V13 lineages entered Britain is unknown, but the latest date for their arrival is definitely before 800 AD for many, with potential stop in or around Germany and France in between. That's not known.

This leaves a variety of options of how these modern British E-V13 lineages migrated, but it makes a stop of their ancestors in or close to North Western Italy-Switzerland highly likely, which is a curious thing in itself I'd say. Possible explanations are Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene migrations (backflow from the Carpathian Basin and North Balkan?), to Romans assimilating those North Italians or transfering people from the Carpatho-Balkan/Middle Danubian zone towards North Western Italy in that time frame, which later migrated onwards to Britain.

Because of the scope of this, we see it in many British lineages which have sufficient testing and can be put into a network of non-British testers, I would rather suggest a Celtic La Tene backflow event, after Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug, Illyrian and Thracian areas integration into the La Tene Celtic sphere.

Also noteworthy: For these lineages is more overlap with areas like Poland other than any other Balkan country than Serbia, which is closest ot the Danubian region. There is no other noticeable, recent Balkan overlap for these branches. Probably somebody knows one, but it won't change he overall impression for the great majority.

This also shows how far the reconstruction of pathways can go with enough modern and ancient DNA testing combined. Because things got really narrowed down for some of these branches, like fairly recent (AD) TMRCA dates for the English-Irish vs. Sardinian-Italian lineages.

Now it would be interesting to explore whether we can associate a specific event(s) and movement(s) of people from North Western Italy with an arrival in Britain or alternative scenarios to explain the observable pattern.


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...-amp-Sardinian-connection&p=908262#post908262


Fits in.

Riverman said:

Funny, I just posted this concerning the potential Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene era E-V13 expansions into Northern Italy:
Case Report: The British & Sardinian connection

With better sampling we can better reconstruct the migration and expansion of E-V13 lineages. The best NGS sampled areas up to now are the British Isles, Sardinia (because of one major study done on the island population) and Albanians in moderns and Early Medieval Hungary.

Looking at the data on FTDNA and YFull, there is a non random relationship between Hungarian samples from the early Avar and early Hungarian period, with Western people and a particularly close one of Sardinians and British E-V13 carriers, to the, largely, exclusion of the Southern Central Balkans in a specific time window.

Like we can reconstruct with time windows: When did these E-V13 carriers migrate out of Hungary, when did they reach Sardinia and when, sometimes even how, did they reach the British Isles.

There are many examples of this peculiar pattern of British lineages sharing their most recent ancestor with Sardinian ones, nearly always to the exclusion of the Balkans, sometimes, but not always, with the inclusion of other Italians, Germans and French.
It is also noteworthy that the Sardinians are likely not the primary source on the Westward route, but these were North Western Italian people, mostly from the area of Liguria, Genua, from where the majority of these Sardinian lineage is supposed to come from, but from which we have simply not as many samples.

Here some of the definining branches in question (TMRCA is always just the average, range must be considered):

E-BY6162 (TMRCA of 476 BC between the Hungarian-Avar and Italian)
E-FTB70721 (TMRCA of 60 AD between British and Sardinian)
E-Z21367 (TMRCA of 500 BC between British/Irish/German and Hungarian-Avar and Sardinian, Sardinian diversify 200 AD)
E-Z21291 (TMRCA of 624 BC between French, British and Sardinian, with Sardinian diversification 200 BC)
E-BY4991 (TMRCA of 143 AD between German, Hungarian Arpad and British)
E-FT92232 (TMRCA of 417 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY159978 (TMRCA of 398 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY6263 (TMRCA of 317 BC between British and Swiss)
E-FTA40200 (TMRCA of 456 BC between British and modern Hungarian)
E-BY4404 sticks out as one of the few Eastern Balkan connections with (TMRCA of 153 BC between British and Bulgarian, Turkish, not sure if its an ethnic English lineage)
E-FT106938 (TMRCA of 760 BC between Irish and modern Hungarian)

E-Z16988 is particularly interesting, because it combines in different of its subclades ancient Hungarian, Sardinian-Italian, German, Serbian and British lineages:
E-Z21350 (TMRCA of 576/552 BC between German and English, which start to diversify 826 AD, and Irish, Polish and Sardinian, with Sardinian starting to branch 50 AD)
E-A11837 (TMRCA of 601/448 BC between Serbian and Sardinian which diversify 500 AD, and Serbian and Italian)

What are the big takeaways from this data?
- There is very little to no overlap with the more Southern and Eastern Balkans and these British, Sardinian-Italian branches after the initial E-V13 dispersion in the Transitional Period (younger than 900 BC).
- Most of the later overlap with other macro-regoins, in ancients and moderns, is with Hungarians and Serbs dating to about 500-400 BC. Therefore it looks that the source group for these E-V13 branches was in the area of Hungary-Western Romania-Northern Serbia about 500-400 BC.
- The branching in North West Italia started likely earlier, but the proven diversification in situ starts in Sardinia/North Western Italia between about 300 BC-100 AD.
- The British branched off from these Sardinian-Italian branches about 100 BC-100 AD.

This means it looks to me like a good portion of these British E-V13 ancestors lived in or close to North Western Italy 300 BC-100 AD. The start of the local founding events in North Western Italy overlaps with the last common ancestors of the British and North Western Italians.

When these E-V13 lineages entered Britain is unknown, but the latest date for their arrival is definitely before 800 AD for many, with potential stop in or around Germany and France in between. That's not known.

This leaves a variety of options of how these modern British E-V13 lineages migrated, but it makes a stop of their ancestors in or close to North Western Italy-Switzerland highly likely, which is a curious thing in itself I'd say. Possible explanations are Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene migrations (backflow from the Carpathian Basin and North Balkan?), to Romans assimilating those North Italians or transfering people from the Carpatho-Balkan/Middle Danubian zone towards North Western Italy in that time frame, which later migrated onwards to Britain.

Because of the scope of this, we see it in many British lineages which have sufficient testing and can be put into a network of non-British testers, I would rather suggest a Celtic La Tene backflow event, after Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug, Illyrian and Thracian areas integration into the La Tene Celtic sphere.

Also noteworthy: For these lineages is more overlap with areas like Poland other than any other Balkan country than Serbia, which is closest ot the Danubian region. There is no other noticeable, recent Balkan overlap for these branches. Probably somebody knows one, but it won't change he overall impression for the great majority.

This also shows how far the reconstruction of pathways can go with enough modern and ancient DNA testing combined. Because things got really narrowed down for some of these branches, like fairly recent (AD) TMRCA dates for the English-Irish vs. Sardinian-Italian lineages.

Now it would be interesting to explore whether we can associate a specific event(s) and movement(s) of people from North Western Italy with an arrival in Britain or alternative scenarios to explain the observable pattern.


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...-amp-Sardinian-connection&p=908262#post908262


Fits in.

Click to expand...

I think some subclades under E-V13 back to Anglo-Saxon and Norman but i think most subclades in the UK under E-V13 back to era Roman or maybe Celts too ?

capisan said:

I think some subclades under E-V13 back to Anglo-Saxon and Norman but i think most subclades in the UK under E-V13 back to era Roman or maybe Celts too ?

Click to expand...

I think Normans played a role, but many British branches look older.
But the Italian connection is now pretty clear and likely Alpine Celtic related, both pre-Roman and Roman era for Germany-France-Britain.

Would be great to have more Swiss tested too

Fox might be including Bulgaria in the Iron Age, strange comparison graph to omit Bulgaria in Bronze Age and Roman period but include it in Iron Age. He might be doing it consciously to prevent people from figuring out the new samples.

Iron Age Serbia:

7 E-V13 (0 if Bulgaria is included)
0 J2b-L283
2 J2a
2 R-Z2103
2-3 R-M269
2 R-xM269
1 G2a
3 R-L51 (one in southern Arc, 2 new)
1 I1
1-2 R1a-Z93 (2 if Bulgaria is excluded)
1 I2-L621
3 other (0 if Bulgaria E-M78s are included)

capisan said:

I think some subclades under E-V13 back to Anglo-Saxon and Norman but i think most subclades in the UK under E-V13 back to era Roman or maybe Celts too ?

Click to expand...

Yeah i thinks some Celts and Germanic too belong a Haplogroup E-V13
Like this subclade is seemed to is very likely Germanic cluster
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-S3003/tree

Riverman said:

Funny, I just posted this concerning the potential Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene era E-V13 expansions into Northern Italy:
Case Report: The British & Sardinian connection

With better sampling we can better reconstruct the migration and expansion of E-V13 lineages. The best NGS sampled areas up to now are the British Isles, Sardinia (because of one major study done on the island population) and Albanians in moderns and Early Medieval Hungary.

Looking at the data on FTDNA and YFull, there is a non random relationship between Hungarian samples from the early Avar and early Hungarian period, with Western people and a particularly close one of Sardinians and British E-V13 carriers, to the, largely, exclusion of the Southern Central Balkans in a specific time window.

Like we can reconstruct with time windows: When did these E-V13 carriers migrate out of Hungary, when did they reach Sardinia and when, sometimes even how, did they reach the British Isles.

There are many examples of this peculiar pattern of British lineages sharing their most recent ancestor with Sardinian ones, nearly always to the exclusion of the Balkans, sometimes, but not always, with the inclusion of other Italians, Germans and French.
It is also noteworthy that the Sardinians are likely not the primary source on the Westward route, but these were North Western Italian people, mostly from the area of Liguria, Genua, from where the majority of these Sardinian lineage is supposed to come from, but from which we have simply not as many samples.

Here some of the definining branches in question (TMRCA is always just the average, range must be considered):

E-BY6162 (TMRCA of 476 BC between the Hungarian-Avar and Italian)
E-FTB70721 (TMRCA of 60 AD between British and Sardinian)
E-Z21367 (TMRCA of 500 BC between British/Irish/German and Hungarian-Avar and Sardinian, Sardinian diversify 200 AD)
E-Z21291 (TMRCA of 624 BC between French, British and Sardinian, with Sardinian diversification 200 BC)
E-BY4991 (TMRCA of 143 AD between German, Hungarian Arpad and British)
E-FT92232 (TMRCA of 417 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY159978 (TMRCA of 398 BC between British and Italian)
E-BY6263 (TMRCA of 317 BC between British and Swiss)
E-FTA40200 (TMRCA of 456 BC between British and modern Hungarian)
E-BY4404 sticks out as one of the few Eastern Balkan connections with (TMRCA of 153 BC between British and Bulgarian, Turkish, not sure if its an ethnic English lineage)
E-FT106938 (TMRCA of 760 BC between Irish and modern Hungarian)

E-Z16988 is particularly interesting, because it combines in different of its subclades ancient Hungarian, Sardinian-Italian, German, Serbian and British lineages:
E-Z21350 (TMRCA of 576/552 BC between German and English, which start to diversify 826 AD, and Irish, Polish and Sardinian, with Sardinian starting to branch 50 AD)
E-A11837 (TMRCA of 601/448 BC between Serbian and Sardinian which diversify 500 AD, and Serbian and Italian)

What are the big takeaways from this data?
- There is very little to no overlap with the more Southern and Eastern Balkans and these British, Sardinian-Italian branches after the initial E-V13 dispersion in the Transitional Period (younger than 900 BC).
- Most of the later overlap with other macro-regoins, in ancients and moderns, is with Hungarians and Serbs dating to about 500-400 BC. Therefore it looks that the source group for these E-V13 branches was in the area of Hungary-Western Romania-Northern Serbia about 500-400 BC.
- The branching in North West Italia started likely earlier, but the proven diversification in situ starts in Sardinia/North Western Italia between about 300 BC-100 AD.
- The British branched off from these Sardinian-Italian branches about 100 BC-100 AD.

This means it looks to me like a good portion of these British E-V13 ancestors lived in or close to North Western Italy 300 BC-100 AD. The start of the local founding events in North Western Italy overlaps with the last common ancestors of the British and North Western Italians.

When these E-V13 lineages entered Britain is unknown, but the latest date for their arrival is definitely before 800 AD for many, with potential stop in or around Germany and France in between. That's not known.

This leaves a variety of options of how these modern British E-V13 lineages migrated, but it makes a stop of their ancestors in or close to North Western Italy-Switzerland highly likely, which is a curious thing in itself I'd say. Possible explanations are Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug into La Tene migrations (backflow from the Carpathian Basin and North Balkan?), to Romans assimilating those North Italians or transfering people from the Carpatho-Balkan/Middle Danubian zone towards North Western Italy in that time frame, which later migrated onwards to Britain.

Because of the scope of this, we see it in many British lineages which have sufficient testing and can be put into a network of non-British testers, I would rather suggest a Celtic La Tene backflow event, after Late Hallstatt-Vekerzug, Illyrian and Thracian areas integration into the La Tene Celtic sphere.

Also noteworthy: For these lineages is more overlap with areas like Poland other than any other Balkan country than Serbia, which is closest ot the Danubian region. There is no other noticeable, recent Balkan overlap for these branches. Probably somebody knows one, but it won't change he overall impression for the great majority.

This also shows how far the reconstruction of pathways can go with enough modern and ancient DNA testing combined. Because things got really narrowed down for some of these branches, like fairly recent (AD) TMRCA dates for the English-Irish vs. Sardinian-Italian lineages.

Now it would be interesting to explore whether we can associate a specific event(s) and movement(s) of people from North Western Italy with an arrival in Britain or alternative scenarios to explain the observable pattern.


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...-amp-Sardinian-connection&p=908262#post908262


Fits in.

Click to expand...

During Iron Age that Bled area was known for having cremation cemeteries. Now, i don't know the ethnic affiliations, perhaps some people related to Veneti and Pannonians? Perhaps they were separate ethnicity from Illyri proprii dictii? It's becoming a pattern finding E-V13 to a degree in Hallstatt, remember we have one potential even among La Tene in Southern France.

Hawk said:

During Iron Age that Bled area was known for having cremation cemeteries. Now, i don't know the ethnic affiliations, perhaps some people related to Veneti and Pannonians? Perhaps they were separate ethnicity from Illyri proprii dictii? It's becoming a pattern finding E-V13 to a degree in Hallstatt, remember we have one potential even among La Tene in Southern France.

Click to expand...

Riverman said:

We have new ancient DNA evidence, this time from Romanised people in Slovenia - not sure if its E-V13 though, but chances are good - probably someone experienced can check the values for a confirmation?



Some details:


Could be a non-E-V13 from the E1b1b spectrum as well, of course. Without a better analysis, it remains speculative.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4331032

Click to expand...

Worth to note, the local population belonged originally to the Eastern Hallstat cremating groups, probably associated with the Fr?g group, but often seen independent, as an independen Ljubljana group:

The town of Bled lies on the shore of lake Bled - an Alpine lake with glacial and tectonic origin. Lake is located in the Blejski kot that is most northern and highest part of the Savska ravan. To the west and south, Blejski kot is surrounded with high Alpine plateaus of Pokljuka and Jelovica where altitudes reach over 1000 m. A deep river bed of Sava that has cut numerous terraces is separating Blejski kot from the lowland areas towards east. With the island that is located in the middle of the lake, Lake Bled has become a prominent tourist destination from the 19th century onwards. But Lake Bled has attracted continuous human settlement at least from the Neolithic period. Majority of the discovered remains indicate that 4 locations on the shores were most suitable for earlier activities. The most dominant position in the microregion belongs to the ridge that is extending along the northern shore of the lake with the peak on which stands the Medieval castle. Large scale excavations that were conducted on Pristava - the northern and lower part of the ridge - have revealed a large necropolis with burials characteristic for Prehistory, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, more than 70 cremation graves were atributed to the Early Iron Age. Remains of the Early Iron Age settlement were discovered on the northern slopes of Castle hill, layers with high concentration of Early Iron age pottery fragments indicate that the settlment was also on the elevated part of Pristava. Prehistoric graves that were discovered at the end of 19th century on the northern edge of town Bled indicate that another area was used as necropolis. Excavations were also conducted on the Bled Island where terrain was vastly modified due to construction of a church. Among older phases of the church the remains of a Prehistoric hearth is mentioned. The context was atributed to Hallstatt period and also to Neolithic, so the dating remains questionable. Numerous finds of Prehistoric metal objects that were discovered submerged, near the Lake outflow Jezernica, indicate that ritual activities were practiced there. Earliest objects belong to Middle Bronze Age, an iron one-sided winged axe suggest that tradition was practiced in Younger Hallstatt also.

Click to expand...

https://www.iron-age-danube.eu/archiv/site/detail/11149

Die Gegend von Gorenjsko, die zwischen den
beiden st?rksten Gruppen, der Unterkrain- und der
Sv. Lucija-Gruppe, liegt, haben wir als Ljubljana-
Gruppe bezeichnet. Dazu veranla?te uns die
Urnenfeldnekropole in Ljubljana, womit wir die
eigenst?ndige urnenfelderzeitliche Ljubljana-Gruppe
begr?ndet haben (Gabrovec 1973). Diese setzt
sich noch in der Hallstattzeit fort und beh?lt die
alte Bestattungsweise bis zum Certosa-Horizont
bei. Das gilt vor allem f?r die Nekropole von
Ljubljana im Hof der Slowenischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften und K?nste (SAZU). Flache
Brandgr?ber gibt es auch auf dem Molnik (Pu?
1984, 1991), in Bled (Gabrovec 1960a), Kranj -
Prah-Villa (Gabrovec 1960c) und Menge? (Gabro-
vec 1965) - diese Nekropolen beginnen sp?ter als
die von Ljubljana - mit der Stufe Podzemelj.

Click to expand...

Here met Urnfield with Illyrian-related influences:

Diese Bestattungsvielfalt ist nur ein Beweis
daf?r, da? Gorenjsko keinen einheitlichen Kul-
turraum darstellt, wie es in Dolenjsko oder im
Soča-Gebiet der Fall ist, und da? wir nicht von
einer Kulturgruppe im selben Sinne wie in den
beiden anderen Gruppen sprechen k?nnen. Nach
dem heutigen Forschungsstand handelt es sich
um eine intensivere Besiedlung zur Zeit der Ur-
nenfelderkultur von Ljubljana, die noch in der
Hallstattzeit weiterlebt, die materielle Kultur dieser
Zeit ?bernimmt, aber die alte Bestattungsweise
beibeh?lt. Der Bereich f?gte sich in der j?ngeren
Zeit der Sv. Lucija-Gruppe, so im Bohinj-Tal
(Gabrovec 1974b), oder der Unterkrain-Gruppe,
so auf dem Molnik. Auf diese Weise k?nnen wir
heute Gorenjsko eher als Durchgangsgebiet denn
als Kulturgruppe im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes
bezeichnen.

Click to expand...

http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/50/AV_50_Gabrovec.pdf

Since these relevant Eastern Hallstatt groups, of which some had Thraco-Cimmerian and Basarabi connections, later Vekerzug ones, did all cremate before the Roman era, we might deal with a similar situation as in Viminacium, with these Roman era samples being the first to appear after the cremation rite stopped in late Roman and early Christian times. The Basarabi-related hotspot of Fr?g is nearby and did influence this group, which did bury its dead in flat urn cremation graves.

Fr?g with its strong Thraco-Cimmerian and Basarabi connections, is one of these Eastern Hallstatt groups for which I always did bet on an E-V13 presence. These samples might, just might, be the first harder evidence for this. There are also connections to the Este culture (Veneti), Northern Italy and the West Balkan in general.

Would be great to get E-V13 confirmed, even a subclade and their autosomal profile.

There is a massive time gap in Bulgarian Bronze Age data (all is EBA). I think we should consider that the population of southern Bulgaria had shifted toward a Aegean profile and this is the reason southern Thracians were so southern shifted, they took the local females after they conquered the place. From the Fox paper we will see that many E-V13 in Roman period will carry large amounts of BA R-Z2103 aDNA profile. For me this is already visible in I10379, I18832 and Cimmerian MJ12. The Gava folks seem to have been very prone into snatching females from rival defeated tribes.

Kapitan Andrenevo are the earliest of southern Thracians we have and the only component they share with the Moesian-Triballi and the Himera (likely Dacian) is Romanian neolithic. This does align well with Riverman's hypothesis as to where E-V13 first hatched out as a ethnic entity.

Some interesting info on Brnjica.

Abstract
Cremation of the deceased and the burying of their remains in urns stands out as one of the essential characteristics of the Brnjica culture, despite the fact that certain necropolises of the Brnjica culture contain inhumations. Such graves are interpreted as earlier, although some contain identical grave goods as the cremated ones. A total of eight necropolises of the Brnjica culture containing both cremations and inhumations are known from the territories of Kosmet and Pešter. The period in which such graves occur (Br B2/C-Ha A1) corresponds to the chronol-ogy of the Brnjica culture (Br C/D-Ha A2), which further indicates that both burial manners were concurrent, meaning that a biritual form of burial was practiced. The reason behind such form of burials on the necropolises of the Brnjica culture in the territories of Kosmet and Pešter could have been a somewhat prolonged contact with their western neighbours, where inhumation in mounds represents the dominant form of burial. The unity of those who had different approaches to burial led to the formation of regional forms of material culture of the communities of the Brnjica culture in those areas, which are subsequently reflected in the amount, types, and distribution of bronze finds. At the same time, obvious differences concerning the amount of bronze jewellery and weapons between graves with cremation and inhumation indicate that women lavishly presented with precious jewellery, and inhumed warriors with deadly arms, were at the very top of social scale and represented a particular ruling class. The appearance of such graves in the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and especially during the Late Bronze Age, emphasizes the significance of a privileged group of aristocrats, hero-protectors, in a period that directly precedes the gradual disintegration of the traditional Bronze Age culture in the area of the central Balkans.

https://www.academia.edu/39499733/Г...ased_at_the_Necropolis_of_the_Brnjica_Culture

Click to expand...

Western Brnjica was mingling with Illyrians during BA. I think this map shows biritual sites in red.

Bronze Age in eastern Serbia and Kosovo:






https://www.academia.edu/1823992/The_Bronze_Age_in_South_Morava_Basin_and_Pcinja_Valley_Cyrilic_


Another paper though argues that Brnjica survived and recovered, and in Kosovo it was largely unscathed by the Belegis II invasion.








https://www.academia.edu/5365107/La...on_Age_architecture_in_the_Južna_Morava_basin

PaleoRevenge said:

Some interesting info on Brnjica.



Western Brnjica was mingling with Illyrians during BA. I think this map shows biritual sites in red.

Click to expand...

Brnjica culture is part of the Pannonian plain

The cultural group formed out of this culture is the Thracian tribe of Moesi. It is also the non-Illyrian component in the Dardanian ethnogenesis.

The bulk of Illyrians lived west of the dinaric alps ......except in modern slovenia and northern croatia, where they where on both sides

The ethnic line during IA was Novi Pazar and Cacak.




https://www.academia.edu/2250325/SO...AVES_IN_NOVI_PAZAR_AREA_SOUTH_WESTERN_SERBIA_






https://www.academia.edu/2250308/FUNERARY_PRACTICES_IN_THE_REGION_OF_ČAČAK_DURING_THE_IRON_AGE


The ethnic frontier had slightly shifted in Illyrian favor by Roman rule, and maybe even during Roman rule.

If extending the map to the North, for the North Thracians/Dacians, it just follows the Tisza with the area between the Danube and Tisza being the borderzone. The Danube was also no clear borderline between North Thracians/Dacians and Southern Thracians. More fluent of a border than to the Western neighbours which were definitely more distinct by comparison.

Bronze and Early Iron Age Burial Tumuli across the Western Balkans





Burial tumuli are a major characteristic of the Bronze and Early Iron Age of the Balkan Peninsula. Hundreds have been excavated (over 130 only in Albania), and many more have been identified, while recent projects continue to reveal a great number of tumuli in key areas such as Northern Albania and Dalmatia.

A workshop recently organised by Ole Christian Aslaksen (University of Gothenburg), Maja Gori (University of Bochum), Tobias Krapf (Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece) and Giulia Recchia (University of Foggia), who co-authored this presentation, gathered scholars from nine countries to discuss ongoing research projects on tumuli across the Western Balkans on the occasion of the Athens Balkan Archaeology Days (8-10 December 2017).

The event was organised by the Balkan Prehistory Initiative, the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, the Institute for Transbalkanic Cultural Cooperation and the French Albanian archaeological mission in the Korçë basin. It also included the presentation of the book “Balkan Dialogues, Negotiating Identity between Prehistory and the Present” edited by Maja Gori and Maria Ivanova, which aimed at stimulating discussion on theoretical frameworks and interpretation. This was the third workshop of a series that started with the Balkan Bronze Age Borderland Workshops in 2015 and in 2016 (Krapf et al. 2017). Six papers were presented by Anne-Zahra Chemsseddoha (France), Christos Kleitsas (Greece), Rovena Kurti (Albania), Esmeralda Agolli (Albania), Maja Gori (Germany), and Anna Touchais (Greece) and Nikos Papadimitriou (Greece). John Papadopoulos (USA) and Giulia Recchia (Italy) acted as discussants for the book presentation and the workshop respectively.

From Attica through Epirus and Albania to the Cetina valley


Although many differences can be observed in tumulus dimensions, architecture and position within landscape, it must be noted that there is a continuum in the use of burial mounds throughout the Bronze and the Iron Age in a territory stretching from the Peloponnese, Central and Northern Greece through Albania to the Dalmatian coast up to the Caput Adriae. A short overview of the phenomenon will be presented here, following the same geographical order as the workshop contributions.

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 is entirely 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).
The temporal dimension of the construction of a tumulus constitutesa central issue. Several steps can be recognised in the life of a tumulus, from theinitial construction, mostly identified as a central grave to the development into a monument accommodating dozens of further graves, the role as a marker in the landscape and later reuse. Tumuli on ridges, but also in plains, were mostly visible from afar and thus structured the topography of the area, creating “ancestral landscapes” (see e.g. Borgna – Müller 2011 and Henry – Kelp 2016 for recent research). Tales and “histories” developed about tumuli up to nowadays, as has been documented for the Lofkënd tumulus in Albania (Papadopoulos et al. 2008). Although of later date, the Great tumulus over the royal tombs of Vergina and the Athenian tumulus of the Marathon battle, both built near earlier tumulus necropoles, best illustrate their function as memorials. Furthermore, tumuli were sometimes built over earlier settlements (Goutsoura, Epirus) or buildings (Lerna, Peloponnese), or constructed with soil taken from older settlements (Lofkënd, Albania).

The workshop ended with a presentation and visit of the Middle Bronze Age tumuli at Vrana/Marathon in Attica that are currently being re-examined by an interdisciplinary team. One of the workshop highlights was the discussion on the spatial and chronological distribution of tumuli and their coexistence with other types of funerary practises, especially during the Late Bronze Age, such as e.g. cist graves and Urnfield cemeteries. This diversity was pointed out for Macedonia, where a broad variety of burials is attested. During the workshop, it has been demonstrated once more that in many aspects the separating between Balkan and Aegean archaeology is artificial. This became clear to the Athenian public through the direct comparison of e.g. Northern Greek and Albanian sites, but also through the fact thatthe tumuli at Vrana/Marathon, less than one hour drive from Athens, were included in the discussion on the Balkan origin of tumuli.

https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247


A quick summary of important details:

1) South Albania tumulis culture is the same culture block as those in Greek Epirus and Greek Macedonia. R-PF7563 is the most likely candidate for the leading haplogroup and what makes this group clan membership unique.
2) Brnjica is also being studied.
3) North Albania is part of Cetina sphere as soon as Cetina comes into life.

There are large amounts of human remains from these sites. In Kamenica(single site) alone there is about 100.

PaleoRevenge said:

Bronze and Early Iron Age Burial Tumuli across the Western Balkans

Burial tumuli are a major characteristic of the Bronze and Early Iron Age of the Balkan Peninsula. Hundreds have been excavated (over 130 only in Albania), and many more have been identified, while recent projects continue to reveal a great number of tumuli in key areas such as Northern Albania and Dalmatia.
A workshop recently organised by Ole Christian Aslaksen (University of Gothenburg), Maja Gori (University of Bochum), Tobias Krapf (Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece) and Giulia Recchia (University of Foggia), who co-authored this presentation, gathered scholars from nine countries to discuss ongoing research projects on tumuli across the Western Balkans on the occasion of the Athens Balkan Archaeology Days (8-10 December 2017).
The event was organised by the Balkan Prehistory Initiative, the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, the Institute for Transbalkanic Cultural Cooperation and the French Albanian archaeological mission in the Korçë basin. It also included the presentation of the book “Balkan Dialogues, Negotiating Identity between Prehistory and the Present” edited by Maja Gori and Maria Ivanova, which aimed at stimulating discussion on theoretical frameworks and interpretation. This was the third workshop of a series that started with the Balkan Bronze Age Borderland Workshops in 2015 and in 2016 (Krapf et al. 2017). Six papers were presented by Anne-Zahra Chemsseddoha (France), Christos Kleitsas (Greece), Rovena Kurti (Albania), Esmeralda Agolli (Albania), Maja Gori (Germany), and Anna Touchais (Greece) and Nikos Papadimitriou (Greece). John Papadopoulos (USA) and Giulia Recchia (Italy) acted as discussants for the book presentation and the workshop respectively.
From Attica through Epirus and Albania to the Cetina valley

Although many differences can be observed in tumulus dimensions, architecture and position within landscape, it must be noted that there is a continuum in the use of burial mounds throughout the Bronze and the Iron Age in a territory stretching from the Peloponnese, Central and Northern Greece through Albania to the Dalmatian coast up to the Caput Adriae. A short overview of the phenomenon will be presented here, following the same geographical order as the workshop contributions.
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 is entirely 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).
The temporal dimension of the construction of a tumulus constitutesa central issue. Several steps can be recognised in the life of a tumulus, from theinitial construction, mostly identified as a central grave to the development into a monument accommodating dozens of further graves, the role as a marker in the landscape and later reuse. Tumuli on ridges, but also in plains, were mostly visible from afar and thus structured the topography of the area, creating “ancestral landscapes” (see e.g. Borgna – Müller 2011 and Henry – Kelp 2016 for recent research). Tales and “histories” developed about tumuli up to nowadays, as has been documented for the Lofkënd tumulus in Albania (Papadopoulos et al. 2008). Although of later date, the Great tumulus over the royal tombs of Vergina and the Athenian tumulus of the Marathon battle, both built near earlier tumulus necropoles, best illustrate their function as memorials. Furthermore, tumuli were sometimes built over earlier settlements (Goutsoura, Epirus) or buildings (Lerna, Peloponnese), or constructed with soil taken from older settlements (Lofkënd, Albania).
The workshop ended with a presentation and visit of the Middle Bronze Age tumuli at Vrana/Marathon in Attica that are currently being re-examined by an interdisciplinary team. One of the workshop highlights was the discussion on the spatial and chronological distribution of tumuli and their coexistence with other types of funerary practises, especially during the Late Bronze Age, such as e.g. cist graves and Urnfield cemeteries. This diversity was pointed out for Macedonia, where a broad variety of burials is attested. During the workshop, it has been demonstrated once more that in many aspects the separating between Balkan and Aegean archaeology is artificial. This became clear to the Athenian public through the direct comparison of e.g. Northern Greek and Albanian sites, but also through the fact thatthe tumuli at Vrana/Marathon, less than one hour drive from Athens, were included in the discussion on the Balkan origin of tumuli.
https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247
A quick summary of important details:
1) South Albania tumulis culture is the same culture block as those in Greek Epirus and Greek Macedonia. R-PF7563 is the most likely candidate for the leading haplogroup and what makes this group clan membership unique.
2) Brnjica is also being studied.
3) North Albania is part of Cetina sphere as soon as Cetina comes into life.
There are large amounts of human remains from these sites. In Kamenica(single site) alone there is about 100.

Click to expand...

thanks
have any been found in these Greek places ( named in yellow text ) on map below ?

No these sites are not colonies from southern Greeks but locals. The most studied area in southern Albania is the Korca plain and the area of Mallakaster (famous site of Lofkend), these two regions have high concentrations of burial mounds. In material culture they are similar to the adjacent regions of northern Greece, sometime elements of Cetina material shows up briefly but never takes a hold, which points to this region being a ethnic frontier and exposed to Illyrians from the BA. From memory, I recall that in the Korca basin there is a change in tradition in the 6th century BC, with the burial mounds being covered in stones, which points to Illyrian takeover (my assumption based on the description of Cetina burial rite) which lasted about 3 centuries until Macedonians pushed the Illyrians back.

I can't find any info on what cultures from north intruded into this region of southern Albania. Without a doubt a branch of Brnjica must have settled among them during LBA and from there they migrate to Apulia, bringing R-Z2103 and R-PF7563. A J2b-L283 tribe might have mediated the crossing and even joined in the migration, but in the end J2b-L283 was already established in Apulia before the Messappi showed up. It's too bad the upcoming Italian paper will only include samples post 1,000 BC, because I am 100% confident J2b-L283 will be present in BA without any R-Z2103 and R-PF7563, while after BA, they are all present.

PaleoRevenge said:

No these sites are not colonies from southern Greeks but locals. The most studied area in southern Albania is the Korca plain and the area of Mallakaster (famous site of Lofkend), these two regions have high concentrations of burial mounds. In material culture they are similar to the adjacent regions of northern Greece, sometime elements of Cetina material shows up briefly but never takes a hold, which points to this region being a ethnic frontier and exposed to Illyrians from the BA. From memory, I recall that in the Korca basin there is a change in tradition in the 6th century BC, with the burial mounds being covered in stones, which points to Illyrian takeover (my assumption based on the description of Cetina burial rite) which lasted about 3 centuries until Macedonians pushed the Illyrians back.

I can't find any info on what cultures from north intruded into this region of southern Albania. Without a doubt a branch of Brnjica must have settled among them during LBA and from there they migrate to Apulia, bringing R-Z2103 and R-PF7563. A J2b-L283 tribe might have mediated the crossing and even joined in the migration, but in the end J2b-L283 was already established in Apulia before the Messappi showed up. It's too bad the upcoming Italian paper will only include samples post 1,000 BC, because I am 100% confident J2b-L283 will be present in BA without any R-Z2103 and R-PF7563, while after BA, they are all present.

Click to expand...

Epirus lands was from Durres to the gulf of corinth ( entrance )

there are 14 Epirote tribes..............the 2 biggest tribes seem to not be exactly in sync.



Daunians landed where the land pops out in the adriatic ................messapic is in the lower half of the heel of italy, but did not include Taranto ( which was Argos and sparta land )