Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 626 to 640 of 640

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

  1. #626
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    More about the Scytho-Sarmatian connection, about the E-V13 Sogdian, from Karatau 1:

    ...Karatau 1 (E-CTS9320) share a common direct paternal line ancestor (E-BY3880) who lived around 1900 BCE (3 900 years ago).

    Karatau 1 was a man who lived between 245 and 343 CE during the Iron Age Central Asia and was found in the region now known as Konyrtobe, Kazakhstan.

    He was associated with the Otyrar cultural group.

    His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup I1c1.

    Reference: KNT001 from Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021
    Also notable, that the other male from the same site was J2a1h2 (J-L25).

    The individuals from the ancient city of Otyrar Oasis in southern Kazakhstan show a quite distinct genetic profile. Three of five individuals (“Konyr_Tobe_300CE”) fall close to the published Kangju_250CE individuals from a similar time period and region (11), between Sarmatians and BMAC (Fig. 2C). KNT005 is shifted toward BMAC in PCA (Fig. 2C and fig. S1). Furthermore, KNT005 is the only one carrying a South Asian Y haplogroup, L1a2 (data file S1), and showing a South Asian genetic component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2D and fig. S2). KNT004 is shifted in PC1 toward East Asians (figs. S1 to S3). Admixture models including ~10% South Asian and ~50% eastern Eurasian influx adequately explain KNT005 and KNT004, respectively (data file S4). In contrast, the individuals from the site of Alai Nura (Alai_Nura_300CE) in the Tian Shan mountains (~200 km east from the Konyr Tobe site) still lay along the IA cline of the Tian Shan Saka, with four individuals falling closer to Konyr_Tobe_300CE and four closer to the Tasmola/Pazyryk cloud (Fig. 2C and figs. S1 to S3).
    The individual being from Konyr Tobe:
    The highly variable admixture proportions and dates obtained for those individuals suggest that this was an ongoing process that characterized the first centuries CE (first to fifth century at least; Fig. 3C, fig. S4, and table S3). Additional genetic data from the first millennium CE will allow a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and the extent of this heterogeneity. Instead, in the southern Kazakhstan region, the individuals from the Konyr Tobe site located in the ancient city of Otyrar Oasis show a different genetic turnover mostly characterized by an increase in Iranian-related genetic ancestry, most likely reflecting the influence of the Persian empires (Fig. 4C) (20, 29). Outliers, with high eastern Eurasian admixture or with gene flow from South Asia, suggest that the population of this city at that time was heterogeneous (Fig. 2C and data file S4). During this period, Otyrar was a main center of the Kangju kingdom and a crossroad along the Silk Road (29). In the neighboring region of the Tian Shan mountains, in the third century CE site of Alai Nura, a genetic profile typical of the much earlier IA Tian Shan Sakas can still be found (Fig. 3B and data file S4).
    The sample being from this paper:
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

    The samples are in G25 and plot between Karelians and Udmurts or RUS_Tagar.
    Code:
    KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1:KNT004,0.069432,-0.138112,0.000754,-0.01938,-0.043085,-0.006136,0.011751,0.011769,-0.011862,-0.000364,-0.016401,-0.003147,0.006392,-0.004679,0.002036,0.003315,-0.004303,0.00038,0.001257,-0.001126,-0.015098,-0.00272,-0.003574,-0.003856,0.006227
    KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT001,0.093335,0.061947,-0.011691,0.033915,-0.039084,0.016733,0.00423,-0.004615,-0.031088,-0.031345,-0.005034,-0.004046,0.011001,-0.025735,0.019815,0.020949,0.01017,0.00114,-0.00264,0,0.005615,-0.005193,-0.003081,0.00976,0.002874
    KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT002,0.106994,0.058901,0.010182,0.045866,-0.028621,0.024263,0.00188,-0.007384,-0.025361,-0.029887,0.009581,-0.003297,-0.003419,-0.015414,0.016422,0.013126,-0.008345,0.001394,0.004022,-0.008504,-0.017594,-0.006554,0.000246,0.003735,0.000239
    KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT003,0.101303,0.059916,-0.008674,0.042959,-0.039084,0.018965,-0.00376,-0.011538,-0.035383,-0.02606,-0.001299,-0.004346,0.003717,-0.025047,0.021172,0.025722,-0.001043,-0.005068,0.000251,-0.006378,-0.005989,-0.005564,-0.001356,-0.005302,0.005269
    KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT005,0.086506,0.067025,-0.073161,0.040698,-0.065243,0.027331,0.00423,0.003461,-0.02802,-0.024602,-0.003248,-0.007044,0.000743,-0.006331,0.006243,0.015646,-0.008214,-0.00152,0.007668,-0.022761,-0.003868,-0.001731,0.004437,-0.00494,0.008263

    We have a Sarmatian from the Transtisza area with E-V13, from about the same time, so this kind of proves the Scytho-Sarmatian backflow.

    If you look at the Chinese samples, for those with subclades, we find primarily E-S2979 and subclades like E-FGC11457/E-B409 and E-L241:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....E-V13-in-China

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2979/ (TMRCA of about 3.700 BC).

    These are the same which being widespread in Europe today and were found in Pannonian Avar era samples as well. We now have the step in between the Sarmatian from Transtisza which was E-V13, the Sogdian in Central Asia and the samples from China, which prove the trail.



    Archaeological evidence suggests that the Kangju spoke an Eastern Iranian language, which was probably identical to Sogdian,[10] or derived from it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangju

    The admixture is also pretty clear. There was just an increase, compared to older Sarmatian groups, of Iranian-related ancestry.

    The map nicely shows why among the Western Chinese and Northern Chinese populations more E-V13 was found. Especially in the Uyghurs, some Muslim groups and in the Northern Chinese provinces - there parallel to the R-Z93 presence, which is of course much higher.

  2. #627
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,131


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Well, as expected.

    And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.
    Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.
    Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias.
    The genetic ethnogenesis of Balkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
    Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.
    Last edited by ihype02; 19-07-22 at 11:46.

  3. #628
    Regular Member mount123's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-12-21
    Posts
    442


    Country: Kosovo



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias.
    The genetic enthogenisis of Ballkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
    Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.
    Pardon, which Bronze Age samples were from Greece? It is not "geography bias" the majority of the samples in the chart are from the Western/ Central Balkans. One who goes through the phylogeny of E1b-V13 will clearly see when it heavily expanded. What all of this just further tells us is that the Bronze Age expansion hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere.

    Also, it is totally unrealistic that it spread as some sort of secondarily absorbed lineage amongst other groups later on. It does not work with its phylogeny.

  4. #629
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias.
    The genetic enthogenisis of Ballkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
    Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.
    It is very clear what mount123 already said and I may add that if anything, E-V13 is a "funerary rite bias" = they largely cremated. Yet you have to ask yourself, which groups did largely cremate and which regions being undertested in general. In the Balkans were large formations which did cremate as well, but these had close relations to the Carpathian groups and many didn't use the rite uninterrupted. Therefore what the current results show very clearly is first and foremost that E-V13 can't be primarily associated with the Illyrians, especially the early/Proto-Illyrians. Because the distinctive feature of those was that they preferred most of the time, especially in the Balkans, inhumation in collective tumuli. It's like their signature, just like all/most early Thracian associated groups did cremate in the LBA-EIA.

    Therefore we have to search for the E-V13 source to the North and East of the Illyrians, not in the midst of them. Among the cremating horizons of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. And considering the modern phylogeny of E-V13, which is glass-clear, the best association can be made with Channelled Ware, which expanded into the Balkans right when E-V13 did (proven case) expand rapidly, in the Transitional Period (1.300-1.000 BC). Almost all major subclades of E-V13 came up, split and spread in that time period big time. This was a huge series of founder effects, much bigger than Illyrian J-L283 had it in that time frame. And the only phenomenon big and influential enough, affecting all the regions from which we know E-V13 in later periods, was Channelled Ware and the following Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon, which can be largely equated with Thracians.

    Everybody can check that:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/

  5. #630
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,131


    Country: Albania



    There are like 7 E-V13 samples from the Iron Age this could easily be sample bias or geographical bias. Let's wait and see where the Bronze Age samples are from and then we can compare the ratio of E-V13 BA vs. IA in those locations.

  6. #631
    Regular Member mount123's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-12-21
    Posts
    442


    Country: Kosovo



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    It is very clear what mount123 already said and I may add that if anything, E-V13 is a "funerary rite bias" = they largely cremated. Yet you have to ask yourself, which groups did largely cremate and which regions being undertested in general. In the Balkans were large formations which did cremate as well, but these had close relations to the Carpathian groups and many didn't use the rite uninterrupted. Therefore what the current results show very clearly is first and foremost that E-V13 can't be primarily associated with the Illyrians, especially the early/Proto-Illyrians. Because the distinctive feature of those was that they preferred most of the time, especially in the Balkans, inhumation in collective tumuli. It's like their signature, just like all/most early Thracian associated groups did cremate in the LBA-EIA.
    Thanks for adding the cremation factor, which I forgot to add to my response, sorry for that. Very important point and it will clearly show with further samples that it cannot legitimately be ignored when it comes to the overall aDNA picture (it actually is already evident).

  7. #632
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    There are like 7 E-V13 samples from the Iron Age this could easily be sample bias or geographical bias. Let's wait and see where the Bronze Age samples are from and then we can compare the ratio of E-V13 BA vs. IA in those locations.
    So far, there is not a single E-V13 from the Bronze Age, actually there is none from anywhere, but we know that it will come up in North Eastern Hungary, in the borderzone of Gáva in the LBA. Before that there is another E1b1b sample from BA Hungary, we need to check those. Even more important would be Romania, but the key groups largely cremated...

  8. #633
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,480

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Something about Illyrians:

    Mënyra e lashtë e djegies së të vdekurve dhe e vënies së eshtrave të djegura e të hirit drejtpërdrejt në varr e jo nëpër urna, është ruajtur nëpër viset ilire deri në shek. III të e.r. pra deri në kohën kur romanizimi kishte përfshirë shumë viset ilire.
    https://balkancultureheritage.com/fi....son%C3%AB)/79
    Më së miri janë hulumtuar tumulat në Gllasinc, në këtë nekropolë të madhe në të cilën janë varrosur pjesëtarët e fisit të desidiatëve. Supozohet se në rajonin e fushës së Gllasincit (midis maleve Romania dhe Devetakut, si edhe lumit Drina dhe degës së saj Praça) gjenden nja 20 000 tumula, prej të cilave që nga viti 1880 janë zbuluar gjithsejt 1000. Tumulat ishin të ngritura nga dheu dhe gurët mbi të vdekurin i cili ishte shtrirë drejtpërdrejt në tokë, ndërsa kur i vdekuri ishte djegur, atëherë në varr është vënë hiri i tij. Analiza e kujdesshme e tumave na bën të mundur të mendojmë mënyrën e punimit të atyre tumave si dhe ceremonitëe komplikuara lidhur me varrimin e të vdekurve në atë nekropoL Afer vendit ku do të ngrihej tumula është ndezur turra e druve ku është djegur trupi i të vdekurit. Kur digjej kufoma, mbeturinat, hiri dhe eshtrat, mblidheshin dhe viheshin në varr, në të cilin më pas hidhej dheu dhe gurët Gjatë ngritjes së tumulave bëhej thyerja rituale e enëve të baltës, e kjo vazhdonte edhe atëherë kur tuma ishte e gatshme. Pjesë përbërëse e ceremonisë ishin edhe vallëzimet mortore që në artin figurativ të ilirëve janë paraqitur prej shek. V. para e.re. (në një urnë guri të japodëve nga Ribiçi) deri në periudhën romake. Mbi varr pjesëmarrësit e varrosjes hanin e pinin dhe kështu vinin lidhjen me të ndjerin, i cili edhe si i vdekur nuk do të pushojë kurrë të ishte anëtar i gjinisë, por për të do të kujdesen edhe më tutje anëtarët e gjinisë dhe do ta ndihmojnë në rastet e vështirësive.
    Nëtruallin ilir hasim gjithashtu edhe llojetëtjera varresh: madje edhe në të njëjtat nekropola përzihen mënyra të ndryshme të varrimit. Në vendbanimin e njohur të lakustrave në Donja Dolina, për shembull, gjejmë në të njëjtën kohë tri lloje varrezash. Në vetë vendbanimin, nën dyshemetë e shtëpive janë varrosur të vdekurit në arka druri. Varrimi nën shtëpi kishte domethënie të thellë: anëtari i vdekur i klanit mbetet edhe më tutje në shtëpi dhe do t’i mbronte anëtarët e shtëpisë. Natyrisht, nën shtëpi nuk janë varrosur të gjithë të vdekurit, por vetëm anëtarët me autoritet të klanit të cilët janë konsideruar si anëtarë të shtëpisë. Të vdekurit e tjerë janë varrosur jashtë vendbanimit në nekropol, kështu që janë vënë drejtpërdrëjt në tokë dhe janë mbuluar me dhe, ose disa janë djegur, ndërsa hiri i tyre është vënë në urna.
    So, technically Albanian archaeologists say that cremation was present among Illyrians but limited in comparison with the older Bronze Age tradition of inhumation, besides that, they mention that cremation in Illyrian graves didn't involve using urns but they scattered the ashes in the grave most commonly.

    I wouldn't expect all E-V13 people to cremate their death but in Balkans and in Europe during Bronze/Iron Age i would expect this lineage to be related with the cultures with the most conservative practice of this ritual. I read in some sources that even Celts were influenced by Pannonian natives in adopting this ritual and spreading far in Central-Western Europe.

    After all, earliest E-V13 we got is from Early Iron Age Psenichevo Culture, a Early Hallstattian/Eastern Urnfielder descended culture. People known for practicing this ritual in addition with several material culture packages like ritual pits, knobbed pottery with channeling/stamping/incision/flutes, Naue II swords.

  9. #634
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Something about Illyrians:


    So, technically Albanian archaeologists say that cremation was present among Illyrians but limited in comparison with the older Bronze Age tradition of inhumation, besides that, they mention that cremation in Illyrian graves didn't involve using urns but they scattered the ashes in the grave most commonly.

    I wouldn't expect all E-V13 people to cremate their death but in Balkans and in Europe during Bronze/Iron Age i would expect this lineage to be related with the cultures with the most conservative practice of this ritual. I read in some sources that even Celts were influenced by Pannonian natives in adopting this ritual and spreading far in Central-Western Europe.

    After all, earliest E-V13 we got is from Early Iron Age Psenichevo Culture, a Early Hallstattian/Eastern Urnfielder descended culture. People known for practicing this ritual in addition with several material culture packages like ritual pits, knobbed pottery with channeling/stamping/incision/flutes, Naue II swords.
    Cremation appeared among Illyrians do to contacts with both Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Eastern Channelled Ware Urnfielders. Especially the latter often scattered the ashes, like related groups did earlier already in Nyirseg and Vatin. But the point is, its no Illyrian/Proto-Illyrian ritual, but came from this foreigners. Just like the opposite is true for the E-V13 dominated cremating groups. So even the E-V13 present in Illyrians after the LBA will be likely harder to find, because they will more often cremate and stick to that ritual.

  10. #635
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,480

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Something more about Vatin from Draga Garasanin.

    The region of Vojvodina, just like the Morava Lands area, is for the most part related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex. However, on the other hand there are certain factors which are more closely related to the region of Pannonia. Today, in general, in this region we can distinguish two cultural groups: the Vatin group named after the type site at Vatin near Vrsac and the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group after the types sites of Dubovac near Kovin and Zuto Brdo in the village of Vinci near Golubac in Serbia. It must be immediately noted that the characteristics of these groups can be traced in the Serbian region of the Danube Lands, in the same form as in Vojvodina, however they don't extend more south than Central Serbia and the Morava Lands area. The events in Western Serbia, on the basis of the material culture are closely related to Vojvodina, even though the burial rite is different and connected to the west Balkan complex, and shall be treated later in this survey.

    The Vatin group has been known in archaeology ever since the beginning of this century. Its typical forms and the extent of its culture are throughout the whole of the Vojvodina, although the main center is however in the Banat, the area nearest to the Carpathians. In question is a typical Middle Bronze Age culture, which has been investigated in settlements such as Vatin and Zidovar. In these settlements the remains of rectangular prehistoric houses have been found built on the surface of the ground. Their shape and form in general, corresponds to similar features that have been noticed in other areas of the Balkano-Carpathian complex. Here, although there are differences in the shapes as well as the ornamentation of objects we can also put the Paracin group. The burial rite consisted of the cremated remains of the deceased being placed in an urn, along with the grave gifts which were arranged around the urn and other different vases, while the metal objects were placed in the urn. However, skeletal burials in an extended position certainly existed. But until now we still have no definite evidence of this, that burial under a tumulus was practised as it was in the west Balkan area. It is evident that what we have here are flat graves, that formed small groups, which on the basis of the available information would lead us to believe that they were the graves of families or small clans.


    As is the case with other culture groups of the Bronze Age, the basis for following culture patterns and changes, is the detailed study of the pottery of each group. Very often in the pottery we have the imitation of metallic vessels, a characteristic example of this would be the double handled vase whose handles surpass the rim from Omoljica near Pancevo. Aside from this, characteristic are the single handled vases that surpass the rim, a footed jug, lids with crossed handles, and urns, often with cylindrical necks and curved shoulders and strap handles and lugs on the belly, arranged in a definite order similar to the Paracin Grave 1962-2. There is also a rich variety of handle shapes: the so called ansa lunata, homed and volute types. The decoration on these vases as relatively poor. Of the ornaments present we have sometimes wide flutes, ribbed channels which are arranged horizontally and diagonally. More often we have incised ornaments in the shape of a gar land with spiral terminations. Sometimes on the urns these decorations are done with the aid of a cord. In any case the main esthetic value of this pottery are its proportions, the sharply profiled shapes that certainly imitate original metal shapes. Other art forms such as sculpture and the plastic arts which were so common in the Neolithic period, and which do not exist in the Bronze Age groups of the Morava valley, are somewhat better represented here, especially the animal shaped vases from Vatin, and the well known bird vase from Starcevo, where we also have the remains of a late Vatin phase grave. Today, chronologically it is possible to divide the Vatin group into three phases. This has been accomplished mainly on the basis of the differences of the material from different sites and closed assemblages from graves. At the well known site of Zidovar near Vrsac there exists well differed levels that belong to the Vatin group and other groups of the Metal Age. When this material is published in it entirety it shall no doubt offer us a clearer picture of the situation.

    The oldest phase of the Vatin group is the so called Pancevo-Omoljica phase named after the type sites in Pancevo and Omoljica. They can be placed at the very beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (according to Reinecke A2/B1) and are characterized generally by the vases that have one or two ansa lunata handles, rarely they are of a developed form. In Pancevo, a small vase with three feet was found, it has been related to the so called Madarovce group of Central Europe, which also belongs to this period. The next phase, the Vatin-Vrsac phase, is actually the classical stage of the Vatin group. During this phase we have many different typical ceramic forms as well as the ones from the previous phase. The inventory of the metal finds from one of the graves from Vatin itself furnishes us with the data necessary to date this phase. The material in question is a characteristic bronze axe and a disc-like shaped headed pin. Finally, we have the large urnfield necropolises, where the urns are decorated by the use of a cord, e.g. Belegis, Surcin, Islands as well as Rospi Cuprija in Belgrade, which all belong to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Also of importance for dating, is the bronze pin with a grooved head from one of the graves from Islands, which is typical of the Bronze C period according to Reinecke.

    This phase in any case lasts into the next period, and we can therefore count on an uninterrupted evolution till the next phase of transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Although the rite of burial in an urn remained, the decoration of the urns is much different now, especially the use of flutings such as we have in the Grave 1962/2 from Paracin or in Grave 13 from Rospi Cuprija. Here the urn had a somewhat higher neck, a curved fluted shoulder and handles that were covered by bowl. The closest analogy to this type of bowl comes from the graves in Debark near Kragujevac which also belongs to the Late Bronze Age and transition to the Iron Age. The territory where we find the Vatin group, aside from the already mentioned Banat and Serbian Danube Lands area, is Srem, but in a separate variant. The datation of these finds was made possible by the use of the metal objects from the hoards of Lovas and Vukovar, which belong to the Middle Bronze Age. We shall return later in this survey to the West Serbian variant.

    According to its character the Vatin group, is no doubt to be related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex, characterized by a series of groups that are similar to it chronologically as well as in burial rite and grave goods that are to be found. Such groups would be to Otomani, Verbicioara or Tie in Oltenia, Transylvania, and Wallachia.
    It is especially interesting to note the position of the west Serbian variant in relation to the Vatin group, which must be given a somewhat different ethnic interpretation.


    https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dg...the_bronze.htm

  11. #636
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Something more about Vatin from Draga Garasanin.
    The piece just proves the two points I made, with data being hidden due to mainly two factors:
    - undersampled Romania
    - cremation horizon

    All related groups being affected by this, with E-V13 surely being present in one or more of them in the MBA.

  12. #637
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,480

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    As we can see, Draga Garasanin was thinking that the Western variant of Vatin Culture was greatly influenced and mixed with Belotic-Bela Crkva. And the influence of Belotic Bela Crkva is what made this variant different from other Balkan-Carpathian cultures.

    I must say that perhaps those Pannonian-Illyrian remains from Roman times might be this Vatin Culture influence. This is of course yet to be seen.

    ***

    On the basis of its geomorphological position, and on the basis of the character of its material culture, it is evident that the region of Western Serbian is an entity in itself. In our survey so far it has been mentioned several times, that the characteristics and shapes of the movable inventory of the cultures of this region must be related to the Vatin group, i.e. with Pannonia and in the long run with the Balkano-Carpathian region. On the other hand, if we bear tin mind that the funeral rite that was practiced in this region, is the reflection in an ethnic sense of the population of this region. It can be seen that this region is related to Bosnia and to the evolution of the western part of the Balkan Peninsula as a whole, where on the basis of a given symbiosis of the Indo-European nomads from the Steppes and the indigenous population of this region, we have the nascence of the foundation for the later development of the Illyrian tribes.
    ***

    Although the archaeological information has not been able to give us definite answers to all the questions that exist, we still must analyze the data that it offers us and on that basis try to solve the historical problems concerned with it in a broader sense.
    The type of settlement that is characteristic of the West Serbian variant of the Vatin group is the so called gradina or hillforts. These settlements to be found on a dominating well fortified position, and with understandable internal evolution during different prehistoric periods can be with certainty traced to the Iron Age, the era when with certainty we can speak of the existence of the Illyrian tribes. Unfortunately, archaeological research is still not developed enough, that on the basis of it we could with certainty follow this long evolution, that chronologically encompasses several centuries. On a site in Ljuljaci near Kragujevac, where a similar gradina and archeological material has been found, it has been noticed on the basis of typology that there exists several phases of the above mentioned variant of the Vatin group. The above site unfortunately was never excavated in the modern way and this is the reason that we have to rely on typology as a means of differentiation of levels. It seems sure that a systematic excavation would have the possibility of differentiating several phases of building levels and parts of the settlement. Unfortunately, no such type of research has been undertaken and the question has to remain open for the moment.

    The burial rite of this group is the characteristic tumulus burial. The existence of this type of necropolis, had already been noticed at the end of the last century. This was due primarily to the excavations that took place on a series of necropolises in the regions of Valjevo, Loznica and in Dragacevo in the vicinity of Cacak. It has only been since World War II that the systematic excavations on some of the necropolises, especially in Belotic and Bela Crkva and to some extent in the surrounding of Cacak, that we have been able to gain some new and more complete information.
    There is no doubt that the most common form of burial during this period was under a tumulus, in small or large necropolises which probably represent the cemeteries of large families or clans. Where the settlements are located that belong to these necropolises is still an unsolved problem. All attempts during the excavations that have taken place so far on the necropolises to locate the settlements have been futile. Does this mean that these settlements were made up only of groups of huts, from some sort of ephemeral material that has left no traces that modern archeological techniques can determine. Or is it possible, that during the summer the inhabitants lived in tents in the mountains, this would lend a partial answer as to why there have been no traces of their settlements. This is a question that has not been posed by archaeologists so far and it might contain a possible answer.
    The burial under the tumulus was effected on the basis of two principles, that, have already been described in the Early Bronze Age in the Belotic-Bela Crkva group:cremation and burial of the deceased. The construction and appearance of these tumuli does not differ greatly from the earlier ones: aside from the regular tumuli, those simply covered with earth, and those that have a typical ring of stones going around the base of the tumulus.Contrary to this, in the cremated graves there are definitely new moments: now in the central part of the tumulus, we find a stone nucleus, that was formed by piling up stone blocks in the shape of a cone, under which the urn was placed and in which we have the cremated remains of the deceased. In the urn or next to it there are to be found the grave goods, such as small ceramic vases or different sorts of metal objects, usually jewelry (sometimes amber) that followed the deceased into his grave. Contemporaneous, with these graves as is shown by the grave goods, (as in the earlier Belotic-Bela Crkva), are skeletal graves. Here the deceased is placed on the earth, usually in an extended position not in a flexed position as was the case earlier). Sometimes, the deceased was placed In a sort of stone cist, e.g. in the central grave of Tumulus 14 in Belotic. The skeleton in the central grave of Tumulus 19 in this same necropolis was placed in a similar manner. This is very important for determining and following the internal evolution of the Bronze Age in these parts. In some cases on the basis of certain archaeological observations, we have been able to draw very interesting conclusions. For instance in Tumulus 16, we have an urn in which the remains of the deceased were very carefully placed. The tumulus itself was formed on the pyre where the cremation of the deceased was practiced, and we can very clearly distinguish between the remains of the deceased and the burnt earth and ash. Under the pyre, where the urn had been placed in a special stone construction, we discovered a skeletal grave, and it is quite clear that the pyre was not damaged in order to place the skeleton there. It is evident then, that the grave existed before the cremation and the collecting of the remains of the deceased that were placed in the urn. In this grave we fund a vase that is in type very similar to some of the other finds from the necropolis in Belotic. On the basis of the above mentioned it seems possible that the skeletal burial took place before the urn grave, and that we are most likely dealing with a human sacrifice.

    Although modem systematic excavations have offered us much information about the burial rites in this region it is still not possible to state any sort of reason for the preference of one type of burial to another. For instance, in the tumulus necropolis in Debark, in one of the excavated tumuli the urn graves appear in a sort of double cist, built of stone slabs. In front of these cists in which we have the urns, v/e have vases that are an integral part of the grave inventory. On one of the cist cover slabs, on the longer side, there are some incised signs, which perhaps may be interpreted as some primitive form of writing. As far as the archaeological material of the West Serbian variant of the Vatin group is concerned, the most typical feature is its pottery. Aside from the typical urns, bowls, double handled vases that often have a sharp profile and handles that surpass the rim and terminate in a bottonlike shape, we have double cups, and the characteristic incised and channeled decorations, which are closely related to the typical shapes of the Vatin group, However, the basic features are markedly more primitive and roughly worked. This would indicate, that aside from the definite connection with the Vatin group, that local manufacture was practised, and that contacts with this group could only have taken place at the very beginning of this phase.
    The West Serbian variant of the Vatin group lasted for a long time, in any case during the Middle and to the Late Bronze Ages, as can be seen from the inventory of the metal finds from some of the graves. On one of the decorated slabs from the stone cist in Tumulus III of the Bela Crkva necropolis, we have a thorn-like ornament which along with the rest of the inventory of the grave indicates the Middle Bronze Age as a date. Contemporaneous with this grave would be a short sword with a tang from a tumulus grave in Joseva, where pottery also was found, that according to its character, can be related to the Vatin-Vrsac phase in the Banat of the Vatin group. Large pins with flat heads and a somewhat widened upper part, decorated with geometric ornaments, are one of the local features of the necropolises of Western Serbia in the Middle Bronze Age. Especially interesting are the metal finds from the central grave of Tumulus 19 in Belotic. A bracelet, that comes from this grave, which is ellipsoidal in shape and ends that are opposite to each other, belongs to the bracelet type called Gucevo-Barajevo-Jajcic. This type of bracelet is very common to the beginning of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Reinecke's Phase D-Hallstatt Al) and is found in almost every hoard and tumulus grave in Serbia. As far as the long spindle-shaped pins are concerned, which first appear at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Reinecke's Phase C), their unnaturally long length (length 117,5 cm.), might be considered as a sign of respect. The distribution of these needles is common throughout a wide portion of Europe at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the transition into the Iron Age. The fact that these features are not solitary or accidental in Belotic is proved by the fact that we have similar finds from a tumulus grave in Rocevici near Zvornik. Finally, in the already mentioned tumulus from Debark, in one of the graves, a tanged arrowhead was inbedded in the spinal chord of the deceased and it is evident that this was the reason for death. The shape of this arrowhead belongs to the Late Bronze Age and to the beginning of the transition to the Iron Age.
    The character of the pottery of the West Serbian variant of the Vatin group, indicates close contacts with this group in Vojvodina. The distribution of this group during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages has already been mentioned earlier in this survey. The metal finds which can be chronologically divided into several phases, illustrates here as well, that this bronze industry is very closely related to Central Europe and the Carpathian region. On this basis, these finds can without any difficulty can be attributed as a whole to the Vatin group, i.e. the Balkano-Carpathian complex of the Bronze Age. The important difference here, however, is the method of tumulus burial. According to the traditions, that can be traced in these parts from the Early Bronze Age, the burial rites practiced in southern Pannonia must have known a different evolution. In western Serbia the rites that were performed along with the local variations could be found on the whole area of the western Balkans all the way south to Marathon, and can be traced even during the Iron Age when we have the complete development of the Illyrian population of these parts. It must not be forgotten that burial rites, as has already in archaeological literature been pointed out, always remain rather conservative. Therefore, they offer very often a much sounder basis for the ethnic interpretation of a population, than is the case with movable grave goods that can be much more easily adapted to the existing local forms. If one keeps this in maid, especially the existing cultural continuity and development in the western portion of the Balkan Peninsula, it is not difficult to see that we are dealing with the Indoeuropeanization of the indigenous population that later is to be the foundation for the Illyrian tribes. This assimilation and regrouping of ethnic elements on the western part of the Balkan Peninsula took place at the end of the Aegean Migration, during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age around the year 1200 BC

  13. #638
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,131


    Country: Albania



    From which regions are the E-V13 samples from?
    I read in Anthrogenica some days ago that all or most of J2a samples in Bronze Age came from Greece.


    If, hypothetically, we had only samples from Greece dating to the Iron Age and none to the Bronze Age and given the fact that J2a was probably rare outside of Greece in Balkans, in that scenario we would see J2a popping out in considerable percentages in the Iron Age Chart. But does this not prove that there was a mass explosion of J2a in LBA/EIA Balkans? No it is only sample and geographical bias.

    Hawk's E-V13 theory is not out of question but I am just correcting some not necessarily true conclusions from the leaked data.

  14. #639
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,635


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    From which regions are the E-V13 samples from?
    I read in Anthrogenica some days ago that all or most of J2a samples in Bronze Age came from Greece.


    If, hypothetically, we had only samples from Greece dating to the Iron Age and none to the Bronze Age and given the fact that J2a was probably rare outside of Greece in Balkans, in that scenario we would see J2a popping out in considerable percentages in the Iron Age Chart. But does this not prove that there was a mass explosion of J2a in LBA/EIA Balkans? No it is only sample and geographical bias.

    Hawk's E-V13 theory is not out of question but I am just correcting some not necessarily true conclusions from the leaked data.
    The huge difference for E-V13 is that we know a lot about its later distribution in Central and South Eastern Europe from ancient DNA, as well as having a solid base of modern samples and a well-to reconstruct phylogeny. So we know that E-V13 must have been just huge, which excludes any kind of minor, hidden population segment just within the Balkans. And considering all data we have, its practically impossible that large portions of Eastern Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Southern Poland-Western Ukraine were not E-V13 heavy by the LBA-EIA transition.

    You can't hide an elephant in a small doghouse.

  15. #640
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,480

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I tried to watch the video. And, i must say from past experience Stamov has very confusing ideas, probably pushed by nationalism, he is claiming Myceneans, Trojans and Thracians were I2a and they are related to Bulgarians/Slavs, but he mentions Bronze Age Thracians, by that we don't really know what he means, proto-Thracians or just people who geographically lived there.



    Stamov is clearly confused and shouldn't be taken literally what he says. Early Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age is a lot of time, during this time we see a lot of E-V13 appearing in Central Balkans among Moesians/Triballi who were considered one of the strongest Thracian tribes, then the koine cultures like Psenichevo/Babadag, all related to Central Balkans Mediana/Parachin.

Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526

Posting Permissions

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