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

[Riverman]

Thanks for the links!

I beg to differ e. g. one could also just wright E1b

Not really, because its a Bronze to Iron Age expansion of huge size. And that just shows. So it's an important information that its E-V13 and not just any E.

The G being primarily used to represent the farmer lineages and I doubt they have high resolution data for the all old ones. And even if, you see in the graph better how dominant farmer G2a was initially in the Neolithic, and how it dropped later.

I-L621 instead of I-Y3120, which was introduced by the Slavic incursions into South East Europe in the Early Middle Ages.

Agreed, especially on that one. On the other hand it mainly appears in the latest period, so its clearly associated with Slavs.

[mount123]

Not really, because its a Bronze to Iron Age expansion of huge size. And that just shows. So it's an important information that its E-V13 and not just any E.

The G being primarily used to represent the farmer lineages and I doubt they have high resolution data for the all old ones. And even if, you see in the graph better how dominant farmer G2a was initially in the Neolithic, and how it dropped later.



Agreed, especially on that one. On the other hand it mainly appears in the latest period, so its clearly associated with Slavs.

I mean it certainly is and that was not meant as a comparison but rather to show that I really don't like that some papers do the proper work on some haplogroups and on the other hand use macro haplogroup designations for others. Also, with G we are talking about ~48500 ybp of formation, G2a also being old and predating any of these affiliations, so not a specific haplogroup but rather a macro haplogroup. It is just my personal view on the matter I tried to get across.

[Riverman]

To stress how important Gáva/Channelled Ware was, already the predecessors in Suciu de Sus-Lapus did create some of the largest and richest tumulus burials, as well as some of the largest ritual buildings in Europe - and when they marched South, they built the largest fortified settlements known from the South Eastern European Bronze Age, like Teleac and Corneşti Iarcuri.

Here a video from an excavation site in Romania from 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_umwC8wOOU

More about the excavations:

The tumulus necropolis of Lăpuş in Northwest Romania has a long history of research. Past excavations
revealed a rich record of Late Bronze Age inventories of cremation graves of the 13th to 12th c. B.C., which
are so far unique within the contemporary Carpathian basin. Embedded into a river valley at the foot of a
mining mountain area, it seems a convincing explanation that the Lăpuş Late Bronze Age community placed
their ancestors in a guardian position close to the source of its presumed wealth. The burial rituals in Lăpuş
are diverse; not all mounds can be classiied as proper graves but rather barrow shaped ritual monuments,
one of which, tumulus 26, is presently being excavated by the authors and the preliminary results are being
published here. The monument so far has revealed a complex multi-layered occupation with traces of burning,
multi-phased pits with various shapes and illings, hearths and a wooden threshold construction. The pottery
assemblage indicates ritual feasting as well as depositions of ritual rubbish. A series of 14C-dates marks an early
beginning of the channelled pottery style, as early as the 13th or even early 14th c. B.C. The series also indicates
the use of the monument over roughly 100 years. After the burial activities within the necropolis ceased, a shift
of ritual activities to metal depositions can be observed and seen in the context of ancestral worship.

https://www.academia.edu/3196534/New..._L_D_Nebelsick

When they marched Southward, it was, quite obviously, an organised conquest and settlement. The fortified settlements being built within a short time and were, like mentioned, some of the biggest of the European Bronze Age, if not the biggest. Ritual pits and later hoards appear there as well.

There was continuous, dense settlement, up to the Iron Age. When the technological shift from bronze to iron took place, most of the people seem to have left the area:

The irst traces of settlement activity
date to the Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg Culture (dating to the 1st half of the 2nd mill. B.C.). There is
massive evidence for an all but contiguous settlement of the Lăpuş river terraces, which is accompanied
by bronze deposition sets of the Late Bronze Age (Bz D) and continues until the end of this Period (ha B).
There is as yet no evidence for an iron Age occupation of the valley and sporadic inds indicate a resumption
of settlement in the Roman imperial Period. it is only in the Middle Ages that there is historical and material
evidence for a renewed intensive settlement of this isolated region.2

I think they migrated southward, as new settlements and fortifications start to pop up all along the Tisza to the Danube. This started what became a Late Bronze Age chain reaction event of multiple migrations, one group pushing the other.

Development of the pottery style from Suciu de Sus over Lapus to developed Gáva:

from the excavated material and its contexts is must be concluded that the cemetery of Lăpuş, which
has been traditionally dated to the 13th to 12th c. B.C., is an outstanding site, as its barrows have produced
a selection of artefacts hitherto unknown from any other contemporary burial site. Different pottery styles
could be distinguished: the irst is a rich curvilinear style in incised Kerbschnitt manner, which occurs on
bowls. it has parallels in the suciu de sus pottery style, which has been traditionally dated to the middle
Bronze age in central European terms (Bz B1-Bz D) 24 and whose type site, a cemetery, is located in the
neighbouring valley ca. 5 kilometres east of Lăpuş. inventories of these heavily decorated bowls were used
by Carol Kacsó to deine the irst phase of the cemetery’s use.25
This décor also occurs on large high necked vessels which are decorated with, among other things,
igurative motifs like animal head protomes and incised friezes with zoomorphic and anthropomorphic
décor combined with symbolic motifs such as the target design (solar symbol?) which only become an
integral part of east central European art in the hallstatt period.26 A second style is represented by channelled
ware and is associated with huge high necked vessels with black exteriors and red inside surfaces but also
with many other smaller forms in the assemblage. These vessels are similar to the so-called late Bronze Age
Gáva-style pottery whose inception is usually dated to the 12th c. B.C.27 Lastly channelled vessels with a
developed character, which correspond to the late Gavá style mark a more developed phase of the Lăpuş
channelled ware. Kacsó has used this stylistic differentiation as the basis of a chronological sequence seeing
an initial Lăpuş 1 phase as being characterized by incised pottery, channelled ware introduced in Lăpuş 2
and developed channelled pottery in Lăpuş 3.28

The burial rite resembles that of Nyirseg and later Dacian customs. Unfortunately, there were no inhumation burials:

The funerary practices in the cemetery are surprisingly varied. There are barrows with cremations in
urns, as well as in the form of scattered cremations. A third kind of barrow did not reveal any evidence of
human burials but instead contained profuse amounts of burnt animal bones, large quantities of fragmented
and/or reired pottery and casting remains. structural evidence includes stratiied sequences of construction,
burning and mound building including large pits set out in symmetrical rows and depositions of burnt wattle
and daub structures.

Like later among Dacians and Thracians, ritual pits being found at the site - but only animal, no human bones were found:

The largest and most complex of these pits in the centre of the barrow is one of the most striking
features on the site so far. The pit, which was re-cut after a period of inilling, was inally sealed with large
fragments of a large red and black channelled vessel. its laminated illing included only very few sherds as well
as calcinated animal bones including remains of a stag. it was the abundant charcoal from this pit which was
the primary focus of 14C-probing (see below).

Similar rituals appeared in many parts of Romania, but also Eastern Slovakia:

Considering the integration of this structure into a necropolis, ritual feasting in the context of funerary
ritual and/or ancestor worship would, of course, be a highly likely explanation for the use pattern seen in this
monument. interestingly, evidence for broadly contemporary and analogous ritual activity has been discovered
in other locations in Romania, which show a wider context for material intensive feasting and deposition.
The well known barrow like structure of susani in the Banat excavated by ion stratan and Alexandru Vulpe31
revealed pottery masses with a clear dominance of bowls, cups and burnt material, among which a large
deposition of burnt grain is remarkable, but no obvious evidence of a funerary context. At the site of Meri in
Muntenia, discovered by Emil Moscalu, a different structure under a barrow shaped mound was uncovered. it
contained several ire places in a central position in the mound, accompanied by pottery depositions.32 There are
also sites, such as those found on the edge of the Bistreţ lake in oltenia, excavated by ion Motzoi-Chicideanu,33
or Carol Kacsó’s excavation in Libotin,34 in the Lăpuş valley, which show similar depositions but without
tumulus-like coverings in what looks more like settlement contexts.
Perhaps the Late Bronze Age communities of Lăpuş were adapting broader based contemporary ritual
practices to the commemoration of their dead. it is also worth recalling that monumental Late Bronze Age
tumuli from the western Carpathian Basin such as Čaka in western slovakia also betray evidence of analogous
ritual complexity: in the latter example of the well known corselet grave, the tumulus covered a central
platform with evidence of intensive burning. Depositions of metal and pottery depositions, here however
together with burnt human bones, were recorded in ancillary pits and the body of the tumulus itself revealed
a multiphase construction.35

summing up, we can conclude that the emergence of channelled pottery in Lăpuş can be dated perhaps as
early as the late 14th and clearly to the early 13th c. B.C., which is roughly around one hundred years earlier than
previous scholarship had assumed. While the fact that the samples are derived
from charcoal might be seen as a cautionary factor in accepting such a high
dating range, the fact that the sequence of the dates matches the stratigraphy
makes it highly likely that the absolute dating range seen in tumulus 26 relects
chronological reality. furthermore, it is interesting to note that the use, reuse
and reilling of the central pit complex in barrow 26 of Lăpuş presumably took
place over a hundred year period.
on the basis of these dates we may assume that the Late Bronze Age in
central European terms and, in a phenomenological sense, the Urnield cultural
complex, which included the use of channelled pottery, began as early as the 14th
c. B.C. in the Lăpuş valley.

https://www.academia.edu/3196534/New..._L_D_Nebelsick

Note especially that after about 400 years of continuous development, in which the Lapus-people produced highly important impulses and products for the rest of Europe, especially the Urnfield sphere, the whole areas seems to have been largely abandoned at the beginning of the Iron Age!

I would most definitely put this into the context of a large scale migration, after the first introduction of iron working, as it has been seen e.g. in Teleac among other sites, and the opportunities which came from the technological edge they developed already in the Late Bronze Age.

It is not by chance that roughly at the time the Lapus area was left, in all of South Eastern Europe Channelled Ware sites pop up like mushrooms.

[Hawk]

One thing which is puzzling me is the Barbarian-Ware/Knobbed-Ware in Greece, so we have two waves flooding Balkans the Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni-like (probably E-V13 as well) and Late Urnfield/Early Halstattian-like (E-V13 Psenicevo-Babadag/Gava).

So, subsequently questions arise, why did Early Iron Age Greeks turn to cremation? Was it because of new population admixture, and what language did they speak? On her book, on Central-Eastern Europe during Bronze/Iron Age Marija Gimbutas boldly proposed that we should connect the so called Pelasgians with the Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo Culture, and that they were intruders in Greece and whatever was left of Bronze to Iron Age invaders, the people who contributed on the fall of Mycenae. The classical Greek authors were probably just confused according to Gimbutas, they were not earlier Aegean populations.

Well, no way to proof that, they might or might not have been, they might have indeed been earlier Aegean population, instead of descending from Tell Cultures from Danube basin migrating in Aegean during Bronze Age collapse.

But, one does wonder when Vatin/Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto-Brdo sometimes reminded archaeologists of Proto-Villanovans/Proto-Etruscan culture. Were some of the Tell Cultures from Pannonia Proto-Tyrrhenian speaking? The Y-DNA from Etruscan paper were rather disappointing on proving this, a lot of R1b for a non IE people. But the G2a presence was on spot. This looks like the original Proto-Tyrrhenian lineage, and G2a was somewhat present as well among Hallstatt, so likely among Encrusted Pottery People and on general Tell Cultures from Pannonia.

[Riverman]

One thing which is puzzling me is the Barbarian-Ware/Knobbed-Ware in Greece, so we have two waves flooding Balkans the Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni-like (probably E-V13 as well) and Late Urnfield/Early Halstattian-like (E-V13 Psenicevo-Babadag/Gava).

I don't think Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni was E-V13 oriented. Some things to note about those people:
- They came from the Western steppe and were largely pastoralists, which moved aggressively into the Carpathian basin and down to the Lower Danube. 100 % like Yamnaya earlier. They likely were Iranian speakers and pushed Wietenberg West, before fusing and mixing with them (Noua-Wietenberg), while pushing down at the Lower Danube, Thrace too, where they potentially caused the Proto-Greeks moving into the Aegean in my opinion. I guess they will be overwhelmingly steppe and R1a. However, since they crashed into various related cultures of Romania, its perfectly plausible that they picked up some E-V13 along the route, like later steppe pastoralists did as well.
- This happened earlier, before Gáva developed in the MBA (about 1.600). Like when the Tumulus culture came from the West, these steppe people came from the East. Both together crashed the old Carpatho-Balkan cultures and Unetice in the middle. Both influenced the East Carpathian survivors, which fought them off. So they influenced Piliny/Suciu de Sus/Lapus into Gáva, but they are more of the competitors, than the E-V13 clans.

So, subsequently questions arise, why did Early Iron Age Greeks turn to cremation? Was it because of new population admixture, and what language did they speak? On her book, on Central-Eastern Europe during Bronze/Iron Age Marija Gimbutas boldly proposed that we should connect the so called Pelasgians with the Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo Culture, and that they were intruders in Greece and whatever was left of Bronze to Iron Age invaders, the people who contributed on the fall of Mycenae. The classical Greek authors were probably just confused according to Gimbutas, they were not earlier Aegean populations.

The Urnfield rites spread with Urnfield people, in this case with limited settlement and mixture in Greece. But the Channelled Ware influence was nowhere in actual Greece strong enough on the longer run. They were more of an intrusion and influence, which the Greeks either fought off (some returned North or moved on) or incorporated and assimilated (presumably especially the Doric, Northern Greeks).

At that time the Greeks themselves might have been in the region no much longer than 400 years, if coming after having fled the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni invasion themselves. So we don't know which pre-Greek and non-Greek people were around. Surely more than just Channelled Ware people, which were, overall, mostly important in the very North, and that was Thracian territory, not actual Greek.

But, one does wonder when Vatin/Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto-Brdo sometimes reminded archaeologists of Proto-Villanovans/Proto-Etruscan culture. Were some of the Tell Cultures from Pannonia Proto-Tyrrhenian speaking? The Y-DNA from Etruscan paper were rather disappointing on proving this, a lot of R1b for a non IE people. But the G2a presence was on spot. This looks like the original Proto-Tyrrhenian lineage, and G2a was somewhat present as well among Hallstatt, so likely among Encrusted Pottery People and on general Tell Cultures from Pannonia.

That's indeed very confusing, but it seems to me that the G2a groups of the Alpine zone were the original carriers of the Tyrsenian languages, Rhaetic-Etruscan, which could turn some of the Tumulus culture/Italic people during Urnfield. But I have no strong opinion on that at the moment. It's in any case strange that even though Proto-Villanovan and Gáva being so close culturally, we don't see an exact overlap, be it E-V13 or other, in patrilineages between the Rhaetic-Etruscan and the East Carpathian groups. So probably some sort of cultural connection with limited gene flow. The Ligurians and Venetic/cremation group of the North East (with Histrians and Liburnians) are the secret, whether they show some more overlap. Because they could be in an intermediate position between Illyrians and Thracians concerning the Carpatho-Balkan influences. But again, no strong opinion on that.

[Hawk]

Something from South-West Serbia. Quoted just the conclusion, in details it talks about how before 700 B.C the Dardanians prevailed before the incursion of Glasinac-Mat people which lasted until 500-400 B.C before the Dardanians supressed their former opressors.

Conclusions.
The Novi Pazar region is a boundary area, where zones of influencefrom Glasinac-Mati cultural complex (ethnically identified with the Autariatae) and aboriginalDaradaninan populations met and even overlapped. Connection of this area with the originalwestern zone of the Glasinac culture is much stronger during the period that immediatelysucceeds the penetration of the newcomers to the Pešter plateau. The Glasinac culturestarted to diminish in the last decades of 4th century BC. Its branches in Serbia, although vitalduring the whole 5th century BC, are so conservative, that it is hard to separate older culturalachievements from the new ones (Сре�овић 1981: 61). Starting from the 5th century BC up tothe 2nd century BC, the influence of the Autariatae on the Dardanians weakened. TheDardanian society became class, its culture being under the Greek infuence, which isconfirmed by the numerous finds of the Greek pottery and the pottery locally produced under the Greek influence, and even by the find of princely grave under the St. Peter and Paul’schurch near Novi Pazar.Dardanian supremacy at the Pešter plateau is confirmed up to 700 BC, when this areawas overwhelmed with the communities that had come from the west – from the Lim valley,and which in ethnical sense can be connected with the Autariatae. A number of archaeological finds from the tumular graves of the Pešter plateau are similar to the findsbelonging to the Glasinac culture. On the other hand, exept the graves with the material fromthe earlier phase Glasinac IVb (beginning of the 7th century BC) originating from the siteLatinsko groblje in the Glogovik village (the 3rd burial horizon at the mound I), which may onlyconfirm a short penetration of the Glasinac populations at the Pešter plateau, this regionbelongs to the Glasinac complex probably from the end of middle and the beginning of thelate phase of the Hallstatt period. It is worth mentioning that the hillforts from the Novi Pazar region also have a thin Hallstatt layer, which seems to be contemporary with massivepresence of the Glasinac finds in the necropolises (Jevtić 1990: 116). Local populations, mostprobably Dardanians, which could not resist the newcomers carrying iron swords and spears,descended to the Raška valley, where they developed their distinctive culture during theHallstatt period (Летица 1982: 16).Since the time of stabilization of Paleo-Balkan tribes (7th century BC) until the firstmentioning of Dardanians in historical sources (approximately middle of 4th century BC) inthe Raška vally there was no inflow of people from abroad, except perhaps during the short-term Thraco-Cimerian penetration, when most of Kosovo and Southern Serbia were involvedin the Basarabi cultural circle (Сре�овић 1977: 74). It is very interesting that a number of Basarabi elements were determined on the material from the mound with incinerations inMelaje. There is a tempting idea, according to which a woman originating from the Triballitribe (or Norht-Thracians) was cremated and buried among some local inhabitants of North-Dardanian origin. Etnical attribution of the deceased is confirmed by both the sherds of theBasarabi bowls found at the mound base, and the small ceramic cogged tool, used for thepottery decoration. Such tools have been found mainly in the western part of the vastBasarabi complex, where the
tremollo
pottery was most common, and to which the earlyTriballi can be cautiously connected (�евтић 1992: 15).Finally, the picture of funerary practice during the Hallstatt period in the Novi Pazar area reveals neither chronological nor ethnical unity. Two groups of graves can be sortedout: an older one, with skeletal burials in stretched position, within massive, rectangular or oval stone grave constructions, and a younger one, in which cremations predominate, withhuman remains scattered across foundations made of pebbles and broken stones. Accordingto grave goods (more elaborated and refined bronze jewelery and ceramic vessels,sometimes imported or made under the influence of the material from north Greece or southMacedonia, or even from the Thracian world as it is the case with the Latinsko groblje fibula),these younger biritual burials are much stronger connected to Kosovo and southern parts of the Balkan peninsula, in constrast to the older ones, which are incorporated in the wider complex Glasinac-Mati.


https://www.academia.edu/2495871/SOM...ESTERN_SERBIA_

[Hawk]

From my understanding, from the above paper these Serbian archaeologists although a bit cautious they try to assign ethnical designation to cultures:

Glasinac-Mat => Autariate/Illyrians invaders from the West starting from 700 B.C and lasted until somewhere 500-400 B.C
Brnjica and Channeled-Ware => Dardanians aboriginal population from Late Bronze Age.

and they propose that the latest to come are the West Bassarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian => Thracoid invaders from the North/East which associate with Triballi.

Could be wrong though, but i got that impression reading them.

[Riverman]

Talking about the Brnjica group, which expanded big into Greece, its important to stress that it was heavily influenced from the Carpathian basin especially in its late phase:

From a chronological perspec-
tive, it is important that this channel decoration has
not yet been found on sites dated to the early phase of
the Brnjica group (Br C–C/D), such as Svinjarička
Čuka, Medijana and Svinjište.24 The earliest appear-
ance of channel decoration in the area of the Brnjica
group is recorded in Končulj (Pl. IV/2, 3), in a context
dated to the 13 th century calBC (Tab. 1). At Končulj,
the channelled ornaments are reminiscent of those on
the pottery of Middle Bronze Age groups in southern
Pannonia and Late Bronze Age groups in western Ser-
bia. That said, the vessel shapes on which this occurs
in the Južna Morava basin have few if any similarities
with the vessels of the LBA in western Serbia. 25 The
semi-globular channel-decorated deep bowl from
Končulj (Pl. IV/2) has its closest analogies in the Balta
Sarata IV group in southern Transylvania, which also
dates to the 13 th century BC. 26 A bowl very similar to
the S-profiled bowl with two handles and short chan-
nel decoration elements on the belly from Končulj
(Pl. IV/3) was discovered in a LBA grave in Dobrača,
Šumadija.27 These vessels, mostly bowls with bellies
decorated with wide, oblique channel decoration, close-
ly reminiscent of the bowls with twisted bellies char-
acteristic of the Brnjica group, are very common in the
Wietenberg group in Transylvania.28 Channel deco-
ration as a decorative device was present in this group
from the end of the Early Bronze Age (phase A).29

Oblique channel decoration is also a common mo-
tif on pottery at LBA sites in the south-eastern part of
the Carpathian Basin, and dates from the end of 16 th
to the early 13th century calBC.33
Regarding the absolute chronology of this atypi-
cal pottery of the Brnjica group with oblique channel
decoration, it is documented on vessels dated to the
15 th Century BC.

Taking account of the pottery and metal-
work together, the evidence indicates that there were
clear links already in place connecting societies in the
Central Balkans with those in the northern Aegean
and the southern Carpathian Basin during the 15 th to
13th centuries BC.

Brnjica migrated on a large scale into Greece and Bulgaria, in part because of the pressure exerted by the already connected (see above) Belegis II-Gáva expansion:

This had been exca-
vated into the natural subsoil. Sealing this feature, and
after its abandonment, a substantial layer of debris from
a burnt and collapsed fortification palisade was docu-
mented. Cut into this burnt layer was a pit with Belegiš
II–Gava ceramics.81 The absolute date of the pithouse
is not yet known, but results are expected soon.82

Belegis II-Gáva is unthinkable without migration, but the extent of which is unclear without ancient DNA comparisons of Gáva (proper) vs. Belegis II-Gáva:

From the 12 th century (possibly as early as the
late 13 th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.
This new style of pottery derived from the tradition of
channel-decorated pottery of the Pannonian Plain,
commonly called Belegiš II (or part of the Gava com-
plex in Hungarian literature). The development of this
style after ca. 1200 BC is called Belegiš II–Gava, to
account for minor, but chronologically relevant, de-
velopments in identifying features. Belegiš II–Gava is
typified by channel decoration, and it is used on bi-
conical urns, bowls with inverted rims, small juglets,
carinated cups and other shapes. While an intimate and
direct relationship is clear, the pottery is not a direct
facsimile of the shape-ware-decoration schema of
vessels in the Pannonian Plain. The deposition of this
Belegiš II–Gava alongside Brnjica pottery has been
observed at Hisar from at least the second half of the
12th century BC, but its use probably began somewhat
earlier (feature 7, Tab. 1/7, 9).
It is probable that the vast majority of Belegiš II–
Gava was locally made, on account of minor idiosyn-
crasies. This might suggest they are not the product of
migrant potters, but rather local products designed to
meet a stylistic expectation of consumers.88 There are
very few cases of hybridisation/entanglement with
earlier traditions and so while they are local expres-
sions of a style, they present a schism with previous
conventions.89

On the one hand its a completely new package, a clear break from the local traditions and associated with movements of locals to the hills. On the other side while clearly being a descendant of Gáva, Belegis II-Gáva is no 1:1 copy. Therefore the proportion of the gene flow from Gáva proper into Belegis II-Gáva can only be properly assessed with ancient DNA.

What is big time in favour of migration is the combination of the timing of the expansion from Gáva plus the modern E-V13 phylogeny. When Gáva expands, E-V13 branches kind of explode in rapid series of founder effects. Archaeologically, its also unthinkable that this change came without migration:

However, it appears more likely
that migration played a key role. Ruppenstein’s “gen -
eral and rough” principles for archaeological recogni-
tion of migration in this same context are salient as
they require 1) introduction of a set of cultural novel-
ties, 2) their rapid and widespread appearance, and 3)
a clear area of origin where there was older use of the
object types (Ruppenstein 2020: 107). In this case, it
is clear that cultural conventions from the Pannonian
Plain that had been used since ca. 1400 BC were
adopted in the Južna Morava area at a time of sub -
stantial change in both areas around 1200 BC.

As archaeology becomes more comfortable with exploring
tangible markers for migration91, the argument that
people moved at increased rates within existing net-
works at times of social stress is a compelling model
in this case for the introduction of Belegiš II–Gava
styles. The earliest date for Belegiš II–Gava pottery in
the Južna Morava area comes from a sealed context at
Hisar. Two grains of millet were selected for absolute
dating from a larger quantity of 320 grains from the
same pit (feature 7, Tab. 1). These were deposited be-
tween the end of the 13th and middle of the 11th century
BC with a probability of 95.4%, or the period of the
first two thirds of the 12 th century BC, with a proba-
bility of 68.2% (Tab. 1).

Characteristic
amphorae with a long conical neck with an everted
rim with fluted decoration often on the neck, belly
and rim and with two protrusions or four sets of two
parallel tongue-shaped protrusions on the belly are
also documented, with one protrusion pointing down-
wards and the other upwards (Pl. VIII/5, 7).92 This
type of amphora is characteristic of the Belegiš II–
Gava and Gava groups and is widespread in southern
Pannonia93 and throughout the Pomoravlje (Južna
Morava and Velika Morava basins) region.94 The ear-
liest examples of the mature form of these amphorae are
absolutely dated to the late 15th to 14th centuries BC.

Parallel to the appearance of Reutlingen swords,
the so-called flame shaped spearhead was also intro-
duced in Ha A1. This had no predecessors in the MBA
Central Balkans, and its distribution is similar to the
swords. 110

Very important for the differentiation from the locals:

In the area where bronze swords of the Central
European type and spears with flame-shaped blades
appear, bronze axes of the so-called Montenegrin-Al-
banian type do not appear. Their distribution is more
clearly related to the area of Montenegro and south-
western Serbia.117 Also, arrows made of bronze sheet,
common in the previous period on the Morava–Vardar
axis, are unknown from the period Ha A1/A2. Some
rare examples of this date were found in the Central
Balkans far from these major river valleys.

Channelled Ware people introduced or intensified the cultivation of millet, just like all Eastern Urnfielders did - like the Lusatians as well, which can be seen in the analysis of the Tollense warriors. Millet was either consumed directly, or used for raising pigs for pork production:

This was the marked
increase in the cultivation of millet alongside other
plant species. It was found at Hisar in feature 7 (12th
century calBC), as well as in Ranutovac in feature 3c
(late 9th–early 8th century BC). 133 Millet can be culti-
vated as a springtime crop, which increases temporal
diversification in agricultural risk management in a
community by providing fresh crops in different sea-
sons, perhaps a reason for its popularity at this time.134
According to recently published paleobotanical
analysis partnered with absolute dates, it has been con-
firmed that a major increase in the use of millet occur-
red in Europe in the middle of the 2 nd millennium. 135
This large-scale cultivation pattern began in Ukraine
in the 16th century BC (Vinogradnaya Sad), spreading
into the south Carpathian Basin by the 15th century BC
and Central Europe by the 13 th–12th century BC. 136 A
large quantity of millet was recorded together with
Belegiš II–Gava pottery at Hisar in feature 7, suggest-
ing it may have been introduced to this region along-
side this pottery.

Gáva expanded to the Balkans while in the Carpathian basin fortified settlements being abandoned! Remind you on Lapus and how this major Bronze Age centre was left - same for various Pannonian settlements. It was clearly a North -> South migration:

The material typologically related to the Belegiš II–Gava
group has been recorded throughout the Morava and
Vardar/Axios valleys and as far as the Aegean coast,
demonstrating a long chain of interacting societies.
Importantly, this distribution of Belegiš II–Gava style
pottery began after the abandonment of most or all
mega-fort sites and related cemeteries in the Pannoni-
an Basin.148

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ication_detail


In end its not about whether Gáva people migrated South, but how big their impact was, genetically. And they must have left a mark, on the Balkans, that goes without a doubt as well. And E-V13 is simply the only/best candidate, especially if considering its modern phylogeny and distribution, as well as the available ancient DNA samples, which prove the late E-V13 in various areas of the Balkans. Its also important that the influences from the Carpathian basin started already before Gáva, the connection was there before already, with e.g. Wietenberg and Pre-Gáva connections down to Paracin and Brnjica.

[Riverman]

From my understanding, from the above paper these Serbian archaeologists although a bit cautious they try to assign ethnical designation to cultures:

Glasinac-Mat => Autariate/Illyrians invaders from the West starting from 700 B.C and lasted until somewhere 500-400 B.C
Brnjica and Channeled-Ware => Dardanians aboriginal population from Late Bronze Age.

and they propose that the latest to come are the West Bassarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian => Thracoid invaders from the North/East which associate with Triballi.

Could be wrong though, but i got that impression reading them.

Brnjica seems to have been connected to the Carpathian basin before, see above. Already to Wietenberg, which is highly interesting, because some researchers assumed that Pre-Gáva received an Eastern input. They being connected to later Channelled Ware/Gáva territories already before the Gáva expansion, which is apparent in their customs as well (cremation, channelled pottery appears etc.).

It seems to me, you should read the full paper linked, that Brnjica kind of incorporated a lot of the Channelled Ware people which settled in the lowlands, while they had retreated to the hillforts, while some groups moved deep into Greece and Bulgaria - where they later being caught by Channelled Ware people and fused with them.

On top of Basarabi came Scythian influences, this formed in some regions the so called Ferigile culture, a group which corresponds to Vekerzug, just to the South. And its with these Scythianised Basarabi people, with which some more safely associate the Triballi later. So basically Basarabi-Ferigile in a certain regional context.

I'd agree with that, and its clear that Basarabi evolved from Belegis II-Gáva -> Gornea-Kalakaca (local influences!) -> Basarabi (Thraco-Cimmerian influences!) -> Ferigile (Scythian influences!)

In my opinion Basarabi should be one if not the main group carrying E-V13 in the earlier stages of the Iron Age and because of local and Thraco-Cimmerian influences, they started to use inhumation more often. This is dangerous though, because of the foreign influences and some biritual cemeteries, but its still the best chance we got, since earlier groups, before Kalakaca, had no regulars buried with their intact body.

By the way, I read an interesting theory about cremation in the Late Bronze Age: When the warriors were on long campaigns, long raidings and conquests, the dead bodies would have began to decompose. So it was better and more dignified to burn their remains at home, rather than using the old customs. I don't think that was the main or original meaning, but thinking about the constant, large scale campaigning of Urnfielders, it could have been an additional reason for making the rite more popular. Just an additional one.

Glasinac-Mati surely is the main Illyrian culture in the North (of Albania). Matt pained pottery is likely having been part-Illyrian too, especially in Albania, related to the Iapygian/Messapians (?).

[mount123]

The real issue is that in the core Illyrian groups and territories, we have dense sampling with a lot of J-L283. That's not the primary home for both E-V13 or R-Z2103. Even if it would pop up, among outliers and as a very small minority, for E-V13 we need a way bigger home, and the Balkans being sampled already. Only the Serbian Danube area, where Belegis II-Gáva came up can still be considered, but even that is rather unlikely, everything considered. The Transtisza zone is the last option remaining and its the best anyway with Gáva into Channelled Ware.

I have quoted your post from the other forum, hope you don't mind Riverman.

I agree, that is what the data clearly shows and upcoming data will too. The thing that the person you referenced knows but chooses to ignore is the absence of E1b-V13 in the Bronze Age in that region. We have a continuity for both BA and IA J2b-L283 samples from the East Adriatic, we have the archeology, the data is there in front of all of us, these were Illyrians.

The BA hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere and it came down during the transitional BA-IA period, obviously. IA samples as being a clear minor component in other areas does not make them the main haplogroup, the data speaks for itself.

[Riverman]

I have quoted your post from the other forum, hope you don't mind Riverman.

I agree, that is what the data clearly shows and upcoming data will too. The thing that the person you referenced knows but chooses to ignore is the absence of E1b-V13 in the Bronze Age in that region. We have a continuity for both BA and IA J2b-L283 samples from the East Adriatic, we have the archeology, the data is there in front of all of us, these were Illyrians.

The BA hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere and it came down during the transitional BA-IA period, obviously. IA samples as being a clear minor component in other areas does not make them the main haplogroup, the data speaks for itself.

At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.

[mount123]

At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.

That is the point and didn't he actually repetitively claim Belotic-Bela Crkva to be the EBA hub of E1b-V13? As far as the graph shows, and there is a good chance for Belotic samples to be a part of that Serbia Bronze Age cluster too, E1b-V13 is not even mentioned. So, even if E1b-V13 would part of that "others" graph it still won't be significant and such a place won't be the expansion area.

[Johane Derite]

At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.

He has proven over and over again that he is a bad faith actor / malicious.

Some of the most obvious cases being when he tries to deny Brnjica culture existed when this is accepted as plain fact by most Albanian archaeologists, international archaeologists, etc.

Another important one was his claims about the indo european /sk/ cluster in Albanian, which must have been long lost before the Roman era, which he tries to minimise because it is a big problem for Illyrian names like Skerdilaidis, Skenobardus, etc.

Seeing him brazenly lie and manipulate about these two issues made it clear that he is willing to bend facts without blinking to force an Illyrian -> Albanian linguistic continuity.

He also intentionally attempts to frustrate with bis gaslighting and provocations to get people banned.

Also, that he selectively uses papers like the famous Nenova one, where he uses one quote about Thrace, but totally ignores the more relevant one that outright claims that channelled ware overcame major territories, etc. This shows him to be a totally untrustworthy character that misrepresents authors arguments.

Not to say that everything he says is false, but if it is something that potentially endangers or problematises illyrian to Albanian continuity, he is totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous.

Note how he has totally ignored the latest book on illyrians.

[Riverman]

He has proven over and over again that he is a bad faith actor / malicious.
Some of the most obvious cases being when he tries to deny Brnjica culture existed when this is accepted as plain fact by most Albanian archaeologists, international archaeologists, etc.
Another important one was his claims about the indo european /sk/ cluster in Albanian, which must have been long lost before the Roman era, which he tries to minimise because it is a big problem for Illyrian names like Skerdilaidis, Skenobardus, etc.
Seeing him brazenly lie and manipulate about these two issues made it clear that he is willing to bend facts without blinking to force an Illyrian -> Albanian linguistic continuity.
He also intentionally attempts to frustrate with bis gaslighting and provocations to get people banned.
Also, that he selectively uses papers like the famous Nenova one, where he uses one quote about Thrace, but totally ignores the more relevant one that outright claims that channelled ware overcame major territories, etc. This shows him to be a totally untrustworthy character that misrepresents authors arguments.
Not to say that everything he says is false, but if it is something that potentially endangers or problematises illyrian to Albanian continuity, he is totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous.
Note how he has totally ignored the latest book on illyrians.

He says false things. Like talking about Thrace, he always comes back to the diversity and continuity, yet he ignores the Fluted/Channelled Ware horizon in the transitional period. Funnily, the same being done by many archaeologists though, claiming first large scale continuity, but then, in detail, you see there is nothing of a continuity in the LBA-EIA. Just one group after another crashing into Thrace/Bulgaria.

By the way, here is the current sampling situation - note especially the total lack of relevant Brone Age samples from the Gáva core regions:


Source: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../45.699/19.775

Zero samples from the Gáva core zone, especially nothing which fits into the Gáva Proto- or developed culture proper. We have females and a sample from Kyjatice (J2a) though. We have close samples from the Avar and early Hungarian period, from areas where Gáva expanded into, and there was significant E-V13 in all sample groups, but that's of course too late to be sure about that.

Belegis II-Gáva territory being better sampled, but again largely from irrelvant times and cultures, mostly too late. But Belegis II-Gáva core and expansion territory, which includes Viminacium, was later packed with E-V13.

The unsampled Balkan area is not enough for the massive E-V13 position and expansion from the MBA-MIA. And its in between J-L283 dominated zones, which makes it extremely unlikely if taking both into consideration, as well as the geographically bad position for the Northern expansions E-V13 had, going by both modern and ancient DNA.

[Hawk]

It's interesting to me how these knobs appear in Bubanj-Hum, latter to reappear among Vatin up north to Gava/Ottomany/Cotofeni in Eastern Carpathians.

Ceramic goblet, Bubanj-Hum I cultural complex, Chalcolithic period (Copper age), around 3000 years BC, found at Livade-Kalenić archaeological site, vicinity of Ub, western Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Valjevo





Ceramic goblet decorated with linear ornaments, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 years BC found at Zlatica archaeological site in Omoljica village, vicinity of Pančevo, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade





Ceramic urn decorated with linear ornaments, Dubovac-Žuto brdo culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in eastern Serbia.
The ornaments are filled with white inlay, in a typical manner of Dubovac-Žuto brdo art.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia



Ceramic goblets, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Dimensions - height 11 cm.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade



Ceramic goblet, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in vicinity of Paraćin, central Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Paraćin



Ceramic goblet richly decorated with linear ornaments, Belegiš culture, Late Bronze age – early Iron age, around 1300 – 1000 years BC, found at Siglova ciglana archaeological site in Bela Crkva, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Bela Crkva



Ceramic goblet with two handles, polished terracotta, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 BC found at Zlatica archaeological site in Omoljica village, vicinity of Pančevo, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Surface of the goblet is decorated with ornaments composed of curved lines.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
During the middle Bronze age at Zlatica site existed settlement, fortified by trenches and possibly defensive walls, but unfortunately possible traces of fortifications were destroyed by construction of the drainage channel.
Archaeologists have discovered traces of 7 trenches, few houses, several pits and deposits



Crescent-shaped gold pendants, Dubovac-Žuto brdo culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in Velika Vrbica, vicinity of Kladovo, eastern Serbia.
On ending opposite to the crescent ornaments there are holes used for attaching these pendants to the clothes.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
Pendants are part of group find, which consisted of one lavish composite necklace made of 9 strings with several hundred gold beads of various shape and size, gold plate and 2 gold snake-shaped hair rings. They were made in a local workshop, and used to be worn by a woman who was a high-ranked member of prehistoric society.
Motif of a crescent is common on jewelry among many contemporary Bronze age cultures from the territory of Serbia




Bronze swords, part of hoard of various bronze items discovered at Pađina Larga archaeological site in Topolnica, vicinity of Donji Milanovac, eastern Serbia.
Late Bronze age – early Iron age, around 1100 – 1000 years BC.
Dimensions – length of the lonest sword 67.5 cm.
Collection of Krajina Museum in Negotin




Posts/pictures made by: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia

[Hawk]

Ceramic burial urn, Western-Serbian cultural group of the late Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 years BC, found in one of the graves at necropolis at Dubac archaeological site, in Jančiči village, Kablar mountain, vicinity of Čačak.
Collection of Museum in ÄŚaÄŤak.
Burial urns were used for depositing ashes and remains of burnt deceased after cremation



Ceramic urn, older Iron age - Hallstatt A period, around 1000 BC, excavated in Orašje, vicinity of Varvarin, central Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade



Hair rings, gold, middle Bronze age, around 1600-1500 years BC, found in eastern Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade

[Hawk]

Stone mold for casting bronze spearheads, middle-late Bronze age, around 1500 - 1200 years BC, found in Serbia.
Dimensions - length around 17 cm.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade

[Hawk]

Bronze sword, transition period between tje ate Bronze age and early Iron age, around 1200-1000 years BC, found in Konjuša village at Cer mountain, western Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia

[Hawk]

Ceramic urns and goblets, late Bronze age, Gava cultural complex, around 1200 – 900 BC, found at remains of prehistoric settlement in vicinity of Banatski dvor, Banat region, northern Serbia.
At this site archaeologists have found remains of fortified late Bronze age settlement, with visible remains of houses, pits and defensive trench. Excavated items consist mostly of pottery and some terracotta moulds for casting bronze weapons and tools

[Hawk]

Ceramic goblet, Belegiš culture, Middle-late Bronze age, around 1300 – 1000 BC, excavated at Gomolava archaeological site in Hrtkovci village, Srem region, northern Serbia.
Dimensions – height 15.6 cm.
Collection of Museum in Ruma.
Gomolava is one of the most important and richest archaeological sites in Serbia, laying along the Sava river, with traces of different cultures starting from 7000 year ago. Many communities founded their settlements there, oldest being VinÄŤa culture from the Neolithic period 5000 BC. After that site was occupied by different cultures from Bronze age, Iron age, from the Roman period and Medieval times. Cultural layer is more than 6 meters thick



Ceramic burial urn, Belegiš culture, Middle-late Bronze age, around 1300 – 1000 BC, found at Kovačica-Vinogradi archaeological site, Banat region, northern Serbia.
Collection of Museum in PanÄŤevo.
Burial urns were used for depositing ashes and remains of burnt deceased after cremation

[Riverman]

Yes, the connections to the Central and Eastern Balkan are there and strong.
When Gáva expanded however, it seems to have had a drastic impact nevertheless.

[Dinaric Superman]

Although I agree that it looks as if E-V13 spread from Carpathian region, maybe even close to Slovakia, some here have a tendency to overstate the 'proto-Thracian'' character of Chanelled Ware (e.g. as if the the MBA period R1a-Z93 & EBA -I2a2/ R1b-Z2103 had no impact)
As far as pottery goes, there was a massive incursion of 'Anatolian Grey Ware ' in the late Iron Age also... So much for pottery styles

[Riverman]

Although I agree that it looks as if E-V13 spread from Carpathian region, maybe even close to Slovakia, some here have a tendency to overstate the 'proto-Thracian'' character of Chanelled Ware (e.g. as if the the MBA period R1a-Z93 & EBA -I2a2/ R1b-Z2103 had no impact)
As far as pottery goes, there was a massive incursion of 'Anatolian Grey Ware ' in the late Iron Age also... So much for pottery styles

But the spread of this pottery style was much more limited in comparison and more cultural-trade shifted, quite obviously. But there could have been an Anatolian influx even, with an autosomal effect.

Yet the big difference to Channelled Ware is, especially if talking about Thracian, that they covered all later Thracian regions and connected them, from the Transitional period, to one big koine. If you think that Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni steppe groups were the Proto-Thracians, possible, but rather unlikely, in my opinion. Because it was Channelled Ware in particular, which might have picked up some of these influences, but in the end pushed them back.

[Hawk]

I have drawn a line where i believe E-V13 was residing in Middle to Late Bronze Age. I believe E-V13 during Middle to Late Bronze Age was already present in South-East Pannonia, Western Serbia/Eastern Croatia, down to Brnjica, Paracin to a degree and Northern Aegean, but the core groups resided within Wietenberg-Cotofeni and Gava/Ottomany as well. This is the cultural horizont, so called Balkan-Carpathian, Danubo-Carpathian.

[Riverman]

I have drawn a line where i believe E-V13 was residing in Middle to Late Bronze Age. I believe E-V13 during Middle to Late Bronze Age was already present in South-East Pannonia, Western Serbia/Eastern Croatia, down to Brnjica, Paracin to a degree and Northern Aegean, but the core groups resided within Wietenberg-Cotofeni and Gava/Ottomany as well. This is the cultural horizont, so called Balkan-Carpathian, Danubo-Carpathian.

The issue is that we have influences and connections from various directions. But more generally speaking, I still think that Suciu de Sus/Lapus/Berkesz-Demecser is the main thing, but there could be connections not just into Wietenberg, but also deeper into Romania. Related formations with connections down to the Lower Danube.