Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 590

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

  1. #501
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Riverman, perhaps this can be of your interest.

    Archaeological research is currently redefining how large-scale changes occurred in prehistoric times. In addition to the long-standing theoretical dichotomy between ‘cultural transmission’ and ‘demic diffusion’, many alternative models borrowed from sociology can be used to explain the spread of innovations. The emergence of urnfields in Middle and Late Bronze Age Europe is certainly one of these large-scale phenomena; its wide distribution has been traditionally emphasized by the use of the general term Urnenfelderkultur/zeit (starting around 1300 BC). Thanks to new evidence, we are now able to draw a more comprehensive picture, which shows a variety of regional responses to the introduction of the new funerary custom. The earliest ‘urnfields’ can be identified in central Hungary, among the tell communities of the late Nagyrév/Vatya Culture, around 2000 BC. From the nineteenth century BC onwards, the urnfield model is documented among communities in northeastern Serbia, south of the Iron Gates. During the subsequent collapse of the tell system, around 1500 BC, the urnfield model spread into some of the neighbouring regions. The adoption, however, appears more radical in the southern Po plain, as well as in the Sava/Drava/Lower Tisza plains, while in Lower Austria, Transdanubia and in the northern Po plain it seems more gradual and appears to have been subject to processes of syncretism/hybridization with traditional rites. Other areas seem to reject the novelty, at least until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. We argue that a possible explanation for these varied responses relates to the degree of interconnectedness and homophily among communities in the previous phases.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0



    The earliest examples of urnfields in the area under consideration can be found in the Carpathian Basin, where this new and complex way of treating and disposing of the dead tends to be juxtaposed with and/or replace the traditional flat inhumations, primary cremations (‘in situ cremations’), or scattered cremations from at least the twenty-fifth century BC. However, it is during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC—and more intensively around the sixteenth–fifteenth centuries BC—that the urnfield custom crosses its original boundaries and starts to be intensively practised in other regions, or isolated sites still surrounded by communities practising other kinds of funerary ritual. To what extent the spread of the urnfield model is the result of cultural transmission rather than (at least partially) a demic diffusion can be debated, but unfortunately not easily verified, since cremation destroys DNA and therefore the identification of any population movement via aDNA analysis. Beside the ideological aspects, the new biomolecular evidence of virulent pathogens, most notably Yersinia pestis, found in individuals dated to the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, from Central Asia to Central/Northern Europe (Andrades Valtueña et al., 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2015; Spyrou, 2018; Rascovan et al., 2019), suggests that the diffusion of certain epidemics, especially in densely populated and well-interconnected regions, might have triggered practical responses by societies attempting to limit transmission. The burning of corpses may be one of these.
    What appears clear from the current archaeological evidence is that the neighbouring regions maintained a range of attitudes towards the exogenous innovation, spanning from radical acceptance to gradual introduction, or from hybridization to complete rejection (see also Falkenstein, 2012, p. 329; Rebay-Salisbury, 2012, p. 21).

  2. #502
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    For the E-V13 story I would especially follow from Nyrsg -> Suciu de Sus/Berkesz-Demecser ->Lăpuș/Csorva -> Gva -> Belegis II-Gva.
    Especially the scattering of the ashes and burial in urns, two types of burial common throughout most of the unchanged Thracian groups, being already proven for Nyrsg.

    I think a concentration of the irregular group/mass burials of Bosut-Basarabi and Babadag would be very interesting, as well as later inhumation burials of Basarabi. If its possilbe to connect Basarabi <-> Babadag <-> Psenichevo, it proves the huge Thracian network, the Thracian koine. And I expect E-V13 in all three. The Northern Dacians which remained more in the old tradition are harder to grasp, but the Maslomecz yDNA might help somewhat. Hopefully they get more E-V13 and don't drop the sample they had low coverage.

  3. #503
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.

    In general, it can be concluded that the first groups meeting all essential criteria of the urnfield package started in the central Balkans between the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries BC (northeastern Serbia). In the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, several local groups along the Danube (DGŽ, Belegiš 1) and in the Morava valley (Paraćin, Brnjica) also fully accepted and implemented cremation in urn graves, but with different regional traditions regarding the grave constructions. Except for scattered cremation graves in some of the local groups of the time around 2000 BC (Glasinac, Belotić-Bela Crkva and Cetina), the concept of cremation was completely rejected by Bronze Age groups in the Dinaric Alps or in the western Balkans. The start and spread of the urnfield phenomenon at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (fourteenth/thirteenth centuries BC) primarily influenced the regions between the Rivers Sava, Drava and Danube. Cremation graves with urns became the standardized burial custom, yet again with considerable regional peculiarities (Virovitica/Barice-Gređani group). At the same time, cremation was radically rejected during the Middle and Late Bronze Age of the Dinaric Alps, regardless of specific cultural or regional groups.
    This is where J2b2-L283 is popping out.


    Anyway, a lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.

    The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.

  4. #504
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.


  5. #505
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.

    A lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.

    The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.
    It's really the Tisza-Danube area which expands down, with its rituals and customs. The Illyrian core fully rejected the cremation indeed, and stuck with its custom of burying the dead in collective clan tumuli. That's a major cause for having so many J-L283 vs. so few E-V13 in the Bronze to Early Iron Age. Because the whole zone from Lusatians to Brnjica - so all candidate groups for more E-V13, was one big cremation horizon community.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.

    The area in North Eastern Italy should be relevant, as it could have used the Alpine route to spread and its a potential hotspot for E-V13 (Liguaria, Western Switzerland, Eastern Switzerland-St. Gallen). At least going by the now available modern results.

  6. #506
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    Something more...

    Nonetheless, flows of people and cultural/ideological change do not necessarily occur under peaceful conditions, especially if we consider the strong propensity of Middle Bronze Age societies for warfare (Frieman et al., 2017), which implies a high degree of conflict and competition for resources. The fact that the diffusion of the urnfield package occurs simultaneously with the collapse of the Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary raises a crucial question: is there any connection between these two phenomena? After several centuries of demographic growth and economic prosperity (c. 2000–1500 BC), concurrently with the appearance of the Tumulus culture in present-day Hungary, the tell system experienced a phase of crises, which brought, in some cases, substantial depopulation and/or reorganization of the settlement pattern (Sánta 2010; Fischl et al., 2013). Most of the tell sites were gradually abandoned, leaving space for a more dispersed and less structured settlement system.

    It is not impossible that the supposed penetration of ‘Tumulus people’ into Hungary, perhaps when the tell settlement systems were already suffering a general crisis, provoked diasporas of refugees, especially along the corridors previously established towards more ‘friendly’ (or homphilous) communities, and consequently, a certain degree of admixture and cultural syncretism. Reflecting on the complex geopolitical scenario of the mid second millennium BC, Risch and Meller have openly suggested considering ‘how much these societies (Terramare) profited from the economic and political crises and/or collapse of other societies (Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary)’ (Risch & Meller, 2015, p. 253). A parallel can be seen in the spread of the urnfield tradition across peninsular Italy during the final phases of the Bronze Age (after 1150 BC), which coincides with the collapse and diaspora of the terramare people and the wide diffusion of the urn cremation rite throughout the peninsula (Cardarelli et al., 2009).

  7. #507
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Something more...

    I think the Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures being interconnected and largely cooperating. There came a rebellion from the Southern German EBA groups which were maximally in the Unetician sphere of influence (like Straubing, Adlerberg etc.). From these groups that the Tumulus culture emerged and threatened the combined Unetician core and Carpathian sphere, which were in fact in some ways as close or closer. Basically the Unetician-Carpathian Tell culture sphere got threatened from two sides: Kind of Rebelling Bell Beaker derived groups which created the Tumulus culture - supposed to have included Italo-Celtic - and Eastern chariot complex groups from the steppe, related to the NouaSabatinovkaCoslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. These two took the middle group into a firm grip, until they both broke (Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures) and this created the MBA scene.
    In the LBA it reverted back to a dominance of a middle group in many respects (Lusatians-Kyjatice-Gva, Urnfield culture), just to end similarly.
    The same repeated itself once more when both La Tene and Scythians took the Hallstatt core into their grip, until it broke and both Celts and Scythians expanded once more on top of the middle groups.

    In this context its in any case remarkable that I-M253 did grow with the Unetician networks, and suffered from its collapse.

    So the first part of the weakening of the Unetician-Pannonian Tell sphere came from the East, being related to the NouaSabatinovkaCoslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. They hit the networks first, then the rebellions from the West brought it almost completely down. Its just in the North Carpathians that they survived, not without being influenced by TC, but still, largely independent. And its from there, at the Tisza-Krs area of Eastern Hungary-Western Romania, that Gva/Channelled Ware emerged as the expansive factor for the Balkans.

  8. #508
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    This archaeological paper is very important, we have a systematic explanation of Urnfield phenomena. It didn't dwell on particular sub-cultures but totally understandable.

  9. #509
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,920

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.


    Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155

  10. #510
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings
    I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours.

    About Romania and the Dacians:

    Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data:

    It is known to have been practised by the peoples who inhabited the
    Romanian Lands during the Bronze Age (Schuster, Comşa and Popa
    2001). Indeed, it is known to have been practised even earlier than that:
    cremain deposits dating from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods have
    been found. Although these deposits are not numerous, and are
    geographically concentrated in north western Romania, they are very
    similar to examples from the Starcervo Cris and Zau regions (Lazăr and
    Băcueţ 2011).
    = homeland area of Nyrsg, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, Gva.

    The oldest documented archaeological
    evidence of cremation is the group at Gura Baciului (Shepherds Mouth),
    which has been dated to the early Neolithic period (c.66005500 BC)
    and
    consists of seven deposits of cremated remains. Overall, the gradual
    replacement of burial by cremation du ring that period indicates that a
    profound change of spiritual belief was taking place. Furthermore, the
    Eneolithic period witnessed an interesting synthesis of different types of
    disposal practices, for example in the Eastern Carpathians, where the
    raised grave (tumulus) was combined with cremation
    (Lazăr and B ăcueţ
    2011).
    Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Romanian archaeologists there
    have been few discoveries to confirm that either burial or cremation was
    the normal method of disposal during the Roman period. Although there
    has been a considerable amount of assertion and speculation, very little in
    the way of conclusive proof has been forthcoming. Even for the early
    Classical period, both burials and deposits of cremains are relatively few
    in number. Various hypotheses have been proposed, for example that the
    Dacians scattered their ashes in rivers or that excarnation was practised.

    Although both of these are plausible suggestions, the lack of archaeological
    evidence makes it difficult to state with any degree of certainty how
    extensive any such practices might have been.
    What can be said is that from the Bronze Age onwards, cremation
    became the norm in Romania
    . It arrived due in part to central European
    influences, but also as a consequence of internal developments within the
    indigenous communities. Indo-Europeanisation played a significant role
    here. The solar cult was highly influential on prehistoric funerary ritual,
    cremation being a clear and straightforward means of separating the soul
    from the body and raising it to heaven. According to contemporary belief,
    this led to an increased sense of direct contact with the divine. Fire thus
    acquired divine attributes; it was viewed as a means of making direct
    contact with the divine, and it was a convenient means of conveying the
    soul to the afterlife, helping to separate it from the body and also fulfilling
    a purifying role.
    The link between the solar cult
    and cremation is clear: academic studies have established that the Dacian
    religion was centred on this cult, which emerged in the Eneolithic period

    and replaced the older fertility cult from then onward. These studies have
    proposed that this new religion included a sun god, whose name could not
    be read
    . Archaeological excavations in the sacred area of the enclosure at
    Sarmizegetuza Regia, the Dacian state capital, have uncovered a complex
    of rectangles and round sanctuaries of the andesite solar disc, which
    represents the sun, indicating the Ur anus-solar character of the Dacian
    religion. Thus it has been shown that the Dacians, who were important
    ancestors of the modern Romanian people, practised cremation on a large
    scale (Cri şan 1986). The Dacians were a branch of the Thracian people,
    who inhabited the lands to the north of the Danube
    .
    https://www.cambridgescholars.com/re...2-8-sample.pdf

    Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible.

    Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).

  11. #511
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings
    The map is from the paper.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0

    And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.

  12. #512
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The text is more specific:
    In contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0

    Compare with this paper:

    The Veneti were still able to maintain their independence both when the Celts invaded the Po plain in the 4th century BC and when the Romans began their expansion in northern Italy at the end of the 3rd. Roman politics in Veneto became more aggressive in the 2nd century BC and the region was definitively annexed to the Roman State in the 1st century BC. Cremation was the most common funerary ritual during the Iron Age. (Bondini 2005; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006; Ruta Serafini 1990). Inhumation was also practised, possibly for low-ranking people only. The structure of cremation graves could vary from stone and wooden rectangular containers (cassette) to pit graves and depositions within large ceramic pots (dolia) (fig. 3). Cremated human bones were usually placed in an urn. Grave goods and offerings such as ornaments, tools, vessels, food and weapons were placed in the tomb container with the urn. Multiple graves were common. This may imply the deposition of more than one urn in a tomb and/or the placing of more than one individual in an urn. The wealth of the grave assemblage, the location of the tomb in the cemetery and the structure of the tomb container probably depended on the rank, age, gender and social affiliation of the deceased. Inhumation graves were usually very simple, with scanty or no grave goods at all. Cremation tombs were generally covered with a small earth mound and a layer of pyre debris.
    The present work is based on the analysis of a database of around 1,000 graves dating between c.900 and 50 BC (a full dataset and bibliography in my PhD thesis, in preparation; a preliminary analysis of magic in Iron Age Veneto in my MA dissertation: Perego 2007). This material has been excavated over a period of around 135 years (1876 - present) in several Venetic localities, such as Este, Montagnana and Padua in central Veneto, Altino near Venice, Lovara and Gazzo Veronese in the Verona countryside, and Montebelluna in the Piave Valley. Due to the brevity of this paper, my main focus is on well-studied grave assemblages from the Benvenuti, Ricovero, Muletti Prosdocimi, Alfonsi and Via Versori cemeteries at Este (Bondini 2005; Bianchin Citton et. al. 1998; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006) and the Via Tiepolo cemetery at Padua (Ruta Serafini 1990). This restricted dataset includes a total of c. 345 graves, mainly cremations (c. 320). A table which summarises findings from Este Benvenuti is at the end of the present article.
    https://student-journals.ucl.ac.uk/pia/article/id/278/

  13. #513
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,920

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    The map is from the paper.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
    And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.
    Ok
    My paper is 2014 ..............it states as I stated....with the exception that about 10% of men had inhumation burials as they died in battle away from home. I state only early iron age period

  14. #514
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,920

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours.
    About Romania and the Dacians:
    Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data:
    = homeland area of Ny�rs�g, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, G�va.
    https://www.cambridgescholars.com/re...2-8-sample.pdf
    Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible.
    Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).
    It seems that bronze-age Venetics practiced inhumanation in the bronze age and early iron age male death ( about 90% ) had cremations, other who died at war away from home where inhumaned

  15. #515
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,920

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The text is more specific:
    n contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
    Compare with this paper:
    Interesting areas...as per strabo, Roman Historian , these non cremation areas are all Illyrian tribal areas

  16. #516
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

    https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

    A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.

  17. #517
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

    https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

    A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.
    Its nice to have such summaries for the cultural formations. Especially the so called "West and Central" zone being of interest, with Nyrsg and Mak.
    Das Verhltnis der Mak6-Kultur zu der
    von N yirseg wurde .in den siebziger Jahren
    geklrt. Neuere Forschungen erga'ben, da sich
    die Mak6-Kultur auf dem Territorium von
    Nyirseg ausbreitete, ohne Mischung ihrer
    Fundkmplexe und Berhrungspunkte aufzuweisen
    (KALICZ, 1981, 67-74). So z.B. hat P.
    Patay in letzteren Jahren in der Gemarkung
    von Tiszaluc (Nordungarn) einige Siedlungsobjekte
    der Mak6-Kultur freigelegt. Annhernd
    1,5 km davon entfernt hat der Verfasser 1960
    auf Dankadomb Teile einer reicheren Siedlung
    der Nyirseg-Kultur freigelegt. In diesem Falle
    ist die zeitliche Entsprechung der beiden Kulturen
    auszuschlieen. So betont der kleine
    Mako-Komplex aus Tiszavasvari weder die zeitliche
    Pa:rallele und Verbindung mit Nyirseg,
    sondern er weist ganz im Gegenteil seine Eigenstndigkeit
    aus.
    Two separate entities, but related in an evolutionary sense. Most of the inhumation burials of Mak being non-typical ones, the rule was cremation in most times and provinces, especially for the typical areas. Like the Tumulus culture/Koszider horizon, the invasion of the Bell Beakers caused a shift and transformation:

    Die gemeinsame
    Wifokung mehrerer Falktoren hat auf zur
    Zeit noch unbekannte Weise und mit noch unbestimmter
    Geschwindigkeit die Mako-Kultur
    im Gebiet von Ungarn in die Kultur von Nagyrev
    und Nyirseg umgeformt.
    Nagyrev und Nyirseg as potential transformed descendants.

    A basic connection between them all being the Zok-network/horizon:

    Wegen der auffallenden hnlichkeit
    der Keram'ik hat der Verfasser die
    Funde vom Typ Nyirseg zusammen mit Mako
    und Vucedol als Teil der Zok-Kultur
    , als
    Nyirseg-Gruppe !bezeichnet, die auf ihrem Ausbreitungsgebiet
    den Beginn der Bronzezeit andeutet
    Its area is practically the same as the later Gva core:
    Auch die slowakische Forschung hat auf
    einem kleinen Gebiete der Ostslowakei Funde
    vom Nyirseg-Typ gemacht, und sie verwendet
    fr die Nyirseg-Kultur die Bezeichnung Nyirseg-
    Zatin (VLADAR, 1970, 224-229, 282-283).
    In Rumnien, 1n den Teilen der Tiefebene, die
    an Siebenbrgens nordstlichen Teil ans tassen,
    wurden ebenfalls Siedlungs- und Grberfunde
    vom Nyirseg,Typ gemacht. (KACSO, 1972, 31-
    44; BADER, 1978, 20-30, 134). Die Ostgrenze
    ihrer Ausbreitung wurde festgestellt und T.
    Bader verwendet, da er ihren selbstndigen
    Chara'kter erkannt hat, den Namen Nir-Kultur.
    = very Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, NW Romania.

    The Nyirseg people seem to have been fairly mobile and largely pastoralists, but there was a great density of small scale and also a lot of large scale settlements. The author speculates about "winter quarters" when the clans moved together again. In winter and times of danger. All burials being crematon burials:
    Trotzdem kann die Bestattungsweise
    der Kultur mit ziemlicher Entschiedenheit
    beurteilt werden. Alle Grberfunde
    enthielten Reste von Brandbestattung

    (KALICZ, 1968, 73-74). Am al1gemeinsten
    sind die Einzel-Urnengrber.
    Most of the time the ashes were in single urns or scattered, without a vessel.

    Gewisse Anzeichen
    lassen darauf schliessen, dass in der NyirsegKultur
    auch Brandschttungsbestattung blich
    war. Auf einigen Fundorten ohne Siedlungserscheinungen
    sind mehrere ganze Gefsse zusammen
    zum Vorschein gekommen (Tiszapalkonya,
    Tiszanagyfalu usw.). Aus Mangel an
    przisen Beobachtungen nehmen wir nur an,
    dass diese Gelsse aus Brandschttungsgrbern
    stammen, wo man die Asche (kalzinierte
    Knochen) nicht sammelte. In den Siedlungen
    ist das Vorkommen unversehrter Gefsse nmlich
    ausserordentlich seHen.
    The only known inhumation burials on their territory are untypical - non-representative:
    Wir verfgen ber zwei unsichere Angaben,
    die Krpergrab-Bestattung erwhnen. Die hierzu
    gehrenden Gefssebeiga1)en sind - trotz
    ihres frh bronzezeitlichen Cha.rakters - fr
    d'ie Nyirseg-Kulturd nicht bezeichnend
    .
    Nyirseg being largely a culture on its own, with only limited relations to other groups in the wider region. Closest parallels can be seen with the older Vucedol culture:
    Wegen des speziellen Charakters des Fundmaterials
    der Nyirseg-Kultur finden wir zur
    Zeit im Karpatenbecken keine verwandte kulturelle
    Einheit. Die auffallendsten Merkmale
    der materiellen Kultur, fast ausnahmslos die
    Verzierungen der Keramik, scheinen an die in
    Raum und Zeit entfernte (ltere) Vucedol-Kultur
    Ibzw. an deren Keramik-Verzierungen anzuklingen.
    Chronologically its a descendant of Mak. Hatvan and Otomani are the descendants. The evolution of Mak and Nyirseg had strong inputs from the South, the relationships to Vucedol are distant, but possible:

    Heute beurteilen wir den Ursprung der
    Nyirseg-Kultur bereits anders als am Anfang
    der sechziger Jahre. Die Bereinigung der Chronologie
    hat auch geholfen das Abstammungsbild
    zu berichtigen. Grundlage der materiellen
    Kultur der Nyirseg-Kultur war die Mako-Kultur,
    die mit der Somogyvar-Vinkovci und mit
    der Schneckenberg-Glina III-Kultur einen verwandtschaftlichen
    Block bildet.
    Es ist also am
    Beginn der Bronzezeit ein von der Sdostslowakei
    bis zur unteren Donau ziehender kultureller
    Block zustandegekommen, in welchem
    eine Sd-Nord-Bewegung der kulturellen
    Diffusion beobachtet werden kann.

    https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

  18. #518
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The chain for E-V13 likely goes, in bracket the dominant funerary rite:

    Eastern Mak (cremation) -> Nyrsg (cremation) -> Hatvan-Early Otomani (cremation) -> Suciu de Sus/Berkes-Demecser (cremation) -> Lăpuș/Csorva/Susani into Gva generalised horizon (cremation) -> Belegis II-Gva (cremation)

    The next phases are already going post-Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and into Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi, Northern Gva remnants into Scythianised groups (Eastern Vekerzug: cremation).

    Map for Nyirseg:


    From: https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

    Note that the Nyirseg core region is nearly identical with that of later Gva, its kind of a revival after some intrusions from Unetice-Nitra-Kostany (Fzesabony) and the Tumulus culture people. Typically, both (Fzesabony and Tumulus culture) used inhumation, whereas the local "resurgence" from the Nyirseg-Otomani substrate used cremation again.

  19. #519
    Regular Member mount123's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-12-21
    Posts
    368


    Country: Kosovo



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

    https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

    A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.
    I was thinking of what you were suspecting about the delay of the Kapitan Andreevo samples Hawk.

    Quote from the other thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Radka View Post
    You are right, something is off with the organisation here. I collected 30 samples from Plovdiv from iron age to roman and talked with archeologists around BG how to preserved newly find and to prepare them for sending (I have a papers how from few laboratories). But the problem was how and to whom to send the samples. I found out that we (Bulgaria) had an agreement with Harvard laboratory so I wrote them an email. They liked all the samples but the samples needed a document for travelling. Then I called the director of the institution and told him about the samples and the emails with Harvard, after all we had an agreement for 500 samples from all the ages. And he told me that he will just decide what to send and will prosecute everyone who sends a sample abroad. So we have samples, but noone asks for them, or they don't know who to ask or somehow the link is broken We are waiting almost 2 years for the paper from Harvard...
    I do not really know what to think of this but it does not surprise me at all. There are many things that come up to my mind e. g. the "misdating" of the Slavic sample from Bezdanjaca cave, mod. d. Croatia or individuals from institutions like Stanford who are supposedly of great renown being clueless and not schooled on the events of late antiquity/early medieval in South East Europe by making the bizarre claim of genetic continuity in the regions in question.

    I am also not taking a stand here since this person is an amateur, at least that is the impression she makes, considering some of her statements about Slavs being autochthonous in the Balkans in earlier posts of hers I have read (I regret this ).

  20. #520
    Regular Member blevins13's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-10-16
    Location
    Tirana
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,011

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103>BY611
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7i1

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    The myth origin of Berisha (the Sopis were very likely just a very early split-offs of Berisha who lost track of their origin since very early split and sometimes considered themselves as either Thaq or close to Bytyqi both of whom are wrong, they either come from Shopel or Fierz villages expanding on Kukes/Topojan and then Kosovo and primarily Nish).



    translation:
    Cudia me Berishet eshte se jane te për hapur vetem ne Kosove dhe Veri, por jo ne Jug. Nje nga linjat qe kane lulezuar gjate perandorise turke si pak kush.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

  21. #521
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by blevins13 View Post
    Cudia me Berishet eshte se jane te për hapur vetem ne Kosove dhe Veri, por jo ne Jug. Nje nga linjat qe kane lulezuar gjate perandorise turke si pak kush.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
    In fact it is the Sopis who benefited the most from Ottoman Empire not the Berishas, the Sopis were kicked out either from Berishas or Thaqis from Malesi because we were relatively very small family/tribe in Malesi but in Nish, Toplic, Vranje and all surrounding the Sopis were the most numerous tribe and very likely the most powerful in that region(though they were never unified and there was no kinship between fellow tribesmen like the other tribes from Malesi), they converted from Catholicism to Islam in some small numbers, then their most powerful members instigated their cousins to do so, that's how they rose in numbers, and probably in Kosove it got boosted by Muhajers.

    AbdulKerim Pasha a Sop ruler from Vranje was one of the most hateful figures from Serbs around that region during that time.

    Otherwise, if there is any lineage who didn't benefit and was far more powerful before Ottoman Empire it was the Berishas, their number shattered and scattered around due to their war with the Pasha of Peja, Mahmud Pashe Begolli who burned their settlement to the ground, (Begolli was a Bardh-Gash, these people on general, Gashi-Bardhi benefited a lot from Ottoman Empire along with Luzha/Guri and Shipshani, so Gashi in general).

    There is a lot of Berishas in Kosove, but they didn't come as beneficiaries, likely they started to expand much latter, the FGC33625 was likely boosted yet again by the Muhajers from Nish, Toplic who didn't have so strong tribal affiliations for other Sopis, and many have different surnames likely other than Sop.

  22. #522
    Regular Member blevins13's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-10-16
    Location
    Tirana
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,011

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103>BY611
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7i1

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    In fact it is the Sopis who benefited the most from Ottoman Empire not the Berishas, the Sopis were kicked out either from Berishas or Thaqis from Malesi because we were relatively very small family/tribe in Malesi but in Nish, Toplic, Vranje and all surrounding the Sopis were the most numerous tribe and very likely the most powerful in that region(though they were never unified and there was no kinship between fellow tribesmen like the other tribes from Malesi), they converted from Catholicism to Islam in some small numbers, then their most powerful members instigated their cousins to do so, that's how they rose in numbers, and probably in Kosove it got boosted by Muhajers.

    AbdulKerim Pasha a Sop ruler from Vranje was one of the most hateful figures from Serbs around that region during that time.

    Otherwise, if there is any lineage who didn't benefit and was far more powerful before Ottoman Empire it was the Berishas, their number shattered and scattered around due to their war with the Pasha of Peja, Mahmud Pashe Begolli who burned their settlement to the ground, (Begolli was a Bardh-Gash, these people on general, Gashi-Bardhi benefited a lot from Ottoman Empire along with Luzha/Guri and Shipshani, so Gashi in general).

    There is a lot of Berishas in Kosove, but they didn't come as beneficiaries, likely they started to expand much latter, the FGC33625 was likely boosted yet again by the Muhajers from Nish, Toplic who didn't have so strong tribal affiliations for other Sopis, and many have different surnames likely other than Sop.
    I thought we have proved that Sopis and Berisha are the same or not?
    Last edited by blevins13; 18-05-22 at 08:00.

  23. #523
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by blevins13 View Post
    I thought we have proved that Sopis and Berisha are the same or not?
    They have the same subclade, that's right, but they did split somewhere during 1000-1200 and they lost any kind of memory of common kinship, i suspect that there is more E-V13 => L241 than E-V13 => FGC33625 in Kosove and North Albania on general, as i said, Berishas were probably far more powerful before Ottoman Empire, then the Begolli of Bardhi attacked them somewhere during 1700-s (forgot exact date), but he attacked them as an Ottoman beylerbeyler of Rumelia not in the name of his family or fis. Anyway both him and his two sons were killed as revenge.

  24. #524
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    E-L241 is somewhat younger main clade, looks like it spread between Early Hallstatt-Basarabi, into the Scythianised groups (Vekerzug/Ferigile) and from there into La Tene period Celts. The bulk was staying in the Tisza-Danube area I'd say.

  25. #525
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,392

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Something about Southern Albania

    By the middle of the Bronze age, Maliq IIIc and Neziri cultures reveal many common elements. (Ceka, N.,Iliret, p.35) By the end of Broze Age, Maliq IIId shows wares to be decorated with geometric motives over a lustrous brown background. The motifs follow the earlier linear geometric style, naturally enriched by new motifs and more complex designs. The pottery painted before firing links Maliq IIId3 firmly with western Macedonia, represented by Boubousti, and equally with the Late Bronze Age painted pottery of central Macedonia. Frano Prendi saw a similarity in painted pottery found in Epirus with that of Maliq.N. L. G. Hammond wrote about Maliq and pointed to the autochthonous origin of the pottery painting, indicating that the “painted pottery like that of Maliq III d3 has been known in Epirus, but opinions vary as to when it first appeared in north-west Greece. We do not know of any site outside the Korce basin which has this pottery painted after firing and is of autochthonous origin, as it is at Maliq. Further, it is only at Maliq that we see the origins of this style. (N. L. G. Hammond indicated that the tumulus at Pazhok has dating that corresponds to Middle Helladic period. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1, 2008, p. 222)


    A study done by Barbara Horejs indicates that a total of eight different stylistic groups in Late Bronze Age mattpainted pottery have been discerned north of Central Greece. It is indicated that all these centers have a local tradition in mattpainted pottery with clear links to older prototypes. (Barbara, Horejs, Phenomenon of Mettapainted pottery in Northern Aegean, 2007)
    This pottery has been named devollite. It originated and flourished at the basin of River Devoll. During the Iron Age, this pottery characterized the whole of southern Illyrian areas. It is this pottery that is considered to provide a direct link between the Bronze Age population and the historical time population known as Illyrian. (Ceka, N., Iliret, p. 36) The area has also shown a similarity in the construction of fortifications, which became characteristic during the later Bronze Age. This construction is characterized by the placement of multi walls, use of confining tumuli, and leaving a wall encircled open space at the entrance. These construction elements could be seen In Borsh, QeparoLleshan, Tren and as far as Glasinac (Verecevo, Stipanic, Zagrovoc) and Liburnia (Budin, Oton, Dusar). (Ceka, N., Iliret, p. 36)
    According to the Albanian archaeologists, these common cultural similarities indicate formation of an ethnicity with specific cultural attributes that had taken shape during the Middle Bronze period. This was the result of a reality in which life from the Neolithic period had continued uninterrupted in the development of a distinct culture. The introduction of pastoral economy, as well as economic advances, associated with changes in means of production, must have been prime contributors in the integration of the population. The new economy would have necessitated a breakdown of the existing tribal structures.
    The next sizable population movement took place at the end of the second millennium B.C., which some have called Doric invasion, some others Illyrian invasion, and others have used other names. The invaders were a group of people that are identified to have brought urnfield culture south. Krahe (1955) had indicated that the Illyrians were the bearers of this culture which had developed by the fusion of the Danubian Yamnaya cultures. Elements of this civilization, reached Albania towards the end of the Bronze Age. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1, 2008, p. 228) The well known Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi summarized the evidence and the scope of impact of settlemets at the end of Bronze Age that Albanian territories had faced.
    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.
    Of the number of cultural objects which spread from the north in all directions, there are swords with a tongue-shaped hilt (see Plates Vol.), flame-shaped spear-heads and socketed axes, which become fairly common in this period, and also pins with conical or vase-shaped heads (Vasenkopfnadeln), simple arched fibulae with or without buttons, whose origin, in all likelihood, is from the Liburno-Dalmatian coast, and so on. The earliest examples of this type with its many variants are recorded so far in the regions bordering southern Albania, as for example, at Dukat in Vlore, and are completely absent in the interior, as far as we know. This phenomenon suggests a purely maritime circulation of these eleventh and tenth century fibulae via the Adriatic.
    In spite of the special influence of the Urnfield civilization which played an important role in the enrichment of the Early Iron Age civilization in Albania, especially in the south, one must emphasize that it did not impose any essential difference on the autochthonous foundation of Albanian civilization, and even less on the ethnic structure of the population. This can be seen most clearly in the uninterrupted practice of burial rites in tumuli, the customary inhumation in the Illyrian manner being in the contracted position. The small number of urn-burials, for instance in the Bare tumuli, can be associated with the influence of the second wave of the Pannono- Balkan migration in Albania, but the objects found in them are with a few exceptions typically Illyrian objects. The pottery particularly is derived without stylistic modifications from the Late Bronze Age. Thus, for example, in the Korce basin and the adjoining areas, the pottery of the first era of the Iron Age is almost identical in technique, shape and decoration with the Late Bronze Age painted pottery of Maliq, so that it is often difficult to distinguish between them. This is an important factor in demonstrating the continuity of the tradition of the’ Devollian’ pottery from the Late Bronze Age period into the Early Iron Age and even down to the sixth century B.C.

    http://old.njekomb.com/?p=111640

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •