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

**Hawk** · 27-11-22, 13:50

In previous page i shared this article in German: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post662076

Possible source for E-V13 appearance in North-Eastern Croatia?!

TIIE "BELEGIS II" GROUP IN EASTERN SLA VONIA from Staso Forenbaher

In this communication I shall present a number of Late Bronze Age sites and fmds fromeastem Slavonia (Croatia). They belong to a group for which different authors have proposedmany alternate names, such as "Belegi§-Ilandfa"1, "Surcin-Belcgis"2, "Belegis-Bobda"3,"Belegis- Cruceni"4, or "Pecska-Belegi§"~. For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term "Relegi§IJ"6.

The definition of the Belegis II group is mainly based upon the stylistic traits of its blackburnished, fluted pottery. The most characteristic and readily recognizable pottery type is thelarge carinated vessel with horizontally fluted neck and everted rim, sometimes refercd to as"Pseudo-Protovillanova urn"7. Tbe core area of this group is the Banat, Backa aild Srijem, butit also encompasses the Iron Gates, the lower Morava valley, the southem banlc of the Danubearound Belgrade, and - as will be sbown - eastern Slavonia. Archaeological remains throughoutthe area are fairly homogeneous, although some regional variation is discernable primarily indetails of shape and decoration of pottery. Most of the representative finds come from largeincineration cemeteries, a number ofwhicb have been extensively excavated since the beginningof the century. In contrast to that, settlements bave been less systematically studied. Severalboards ofbronze artefacts which were contained within cbaracteristic pottery vessels, as well asbronze finds fr9111 cemeteries and - less often - from settlements, allow the relative chronologicalposition ofthis group tobe determined as roughly contemporaneous to the Br. D and Ha. Alphases of the Central European Late Bronze Age8.

In order to avoid possible misunderstandings, the relation between the Belegis II and the. Gii.va groups bas to be shortly discussed. At a time when neither group was properly defined,Amalia Mozsolics used the term "Gii.va" in a reference to the typical Belegis II "urn" whichcontained the Pecica hoard9. A number of se ho I ars accepted this rather uncritically, widening thisterm's meaning until "Gii.va" eventually encompassed a wide variety ofblack-bumished, flutedpottery ofBr. D - Ha. A borizon from al! over the eastem part of the Middle Danube Basin. Sincethen, bowever, the Gii.va group bas been comprehensively studied in its core area on the upperTisza river, and its pottery assemblage is now well defined10• It is clearly distinct from thc BelegisII assemblage, in spite of general similarities in shape, decoration and firing technology. Tbecharacteristic Gava "urn" can be easily distinguisbed from its Belegi§ counterpart by its bigh,hollow, concentrically fluted "boms" protruding from the upper side ofthe belly whicb are.neveraccompanied by a handle undemeath (Fig. I /I). In contrast, the smaller pointed nipples ofBelegisII "urns" are always massive and as a rule appear paired with a handle or opposing nippleundemeath (Fig. 1/2). As to my knowledge, nota single typical fragment of thus defined Gava"urn" has been found in the Belegis II area south of the Maros river; reciprocally, no typicalfragment of Belegi§ II "um" bas been publisbed from the Gii.va area north of the Koros river.

Therefore, if the definition of regional groups is to be based mainly on stylistic traits of pottery- which is still the most common approach in this particular period and area - then Gava and BelegisII should be considered to be'i"oughly contemporary and related but clearly distinct groups, eachoccupying iţs own well defined area within the Middle Danube Basin. What would be the sociocultural correlates ofthus defined groups is a different question, the discussion ofwhich surpasses.the objectives <_>f this short communication.

So far, a dozen sites in eastern Slavonia have yielded characteristic Belegis II pottery 11 .Ali are located within a 20-kilometer wide belt.along the right bank ofthe Dan~e (Figure 2). Half·of them are settlements, while the rest are chance finds or isolated finds without proper contextual• information._ Large incineration cemeteries, otherwise so characteristic for this gruup, areconspicuously missing, but this might pe due to the incomplete state of research ih the area.· The settlement pattern seemingly follows the major rivers. Most of the known sites -including all the proven settlements - are situated along their banks, either on top of high loess_ plateaus overlooking the Danube, or on Jesser promontories above the brava and Bosut. Suchpositions must havţ: been particularly valued, both because of their economic advantages ( accessto a greater variety of natural resources ), as well as for safety reasons ( above the flood levei and,possibly, for defense purposes).

This is, however, an incomplete picture, since systematic survey data are not available.The sample is probably heavily biased because of the more likely chance discoveries of sitessitua.ted on top of prominent elevations. These are well-known as favorite positions for settlementthroughout the post-pleistocene prehistory. In every single case, the Belegis II occupation phaserepresents just one of the components of a multi-strata prehistoric settlement site. In contrast, small. settlements on the p lain would ~ less readily recognizab le, more vulnerab le to damage by modernagriculture, and would pass unreported by local enthusiasts due to the Jack of attractive material. .The distance between the known sites is often ten kilometers or more: considerably denser ·settlement distribution should be expected for what must have been basically a farmingpopulation 12

We can only speculate about the subsistence base for these Late Bronze Age settlements,. since the relevant data are almost totally absent. The area o:ffers a variety of natural resources.

which could have been exploited using a number of different subsistence strategies. Soils arehighlyproductive and suitable for agriculture, particularly the well drained, loess-based chernozemsalong the Danube, which today provide for one of the richest agricultural areas in this part ofEurope. The aquatic environment, particularly ofthe Danube and the marshes close to the mouthof the Drava river, is rich in fauna : fo;h and shellfish, as well as birds and mammals. Large anddensely wooded low-lying areas shelter a significant number of big game, such as red and fallowdeer and wild boar.

Structural remains ofBelegis II settlements are not particularly impressive. They are limitedto pits ofroughly oval or irregular floor plan which are usually 2-3m wide and rather shallow. Thefill commonly consists of household garbage • broken pottery and refuse from meals - althoughsome pits contained complete vessels or bronze objects. No traces ofhouses have been detectedso far, although this might{)artly be due to greater vulnerability of above-surface structures todamage by modern agriculture. However, the total absence of evidence for substantial houses,as well as the generally low density of pits and thin cultural deposits, suggest a rather simple andephemeral characterof occupation. Defensive works of ditch-and-rampart type have been notedin a few cases, but these are supposed to be either of an earlier (Late Copper Age) or a later (LateIron Age) date.

General characteristics ofBelegis II pottery in eastem Slavonia are: clear preference fordark (usually black) burnished outer surf ace ofthe fmer vessels; fluted·decoration, with horizontalchanneling of the neck; frequent application of characteristically shaped pointed nipples;expressed tendency towards carinated shape and quadrilateral symmetry of the vessels.

The pottery assemblage is dominated by large, carinatcd vessels with conical or cylindricalneck and everted rim, decorated by fluting, and usually provided with four groups ofnipples andhandles along the belly (Fig. 5). They are usually labelled as "urns", since they often served asash containers in the incineration cemeteries ofthe Vojvodina and the Romanian Banat~ however,they appear to be as frequent within settlement contexts (Table 1 ). There is a considerablevariability regarding the details of their shape and decoration, some of which arguably bastemporal significance. It bas been proposed that those Belegis II '"ums" which are the closestin shape to the preceding Belegis I type are the earliest (Fig. 5/2), while the later ones tend to differmore and more from them, eventually assuming a distinct form of their own (Fig 5/3-4). Thishypothesis bas been supported by the spatial analysis ofthe incineration cemetery ofKaraburmaneai Belgrade, where three variants of Belegis II "urns" could he distinguished and the pattemoftheir distribution in relation to the earlier Belegis I graves was studied in some detail22. It isimportant to note that all of the mentioned variants - from the earliest to the latest. - appear alsoin eastern Slavonie. The later variailts were often (but not always) fired in a technique thatproduced black outside and reddish-brown inside surfaces.

The next most frequent pottery form is the conical bowl with incurving rim, which.appearsinanumberofvanants (Fig. 6/1-4). Shallowcarinated bowlswithevertedrims (Fig. 6/5-6) andsmall.pedestelled cups with two handles (Fig. 711-2) might be an eastem Slavon~an specifity, since sofer none have been reported from the area east of the Danube. Lerger cups, either conical orcarinated, with a single tall handle seem tobe much kss frequent (Fig. 7 /3-4 ). Several other potteryforms ere known from Belegis II· context but the representative specimens are too few andfragmented to allow defmition oftypes (Fig. 7 /6-8). Coarse ware is poorly known;judging by the· few existing p,otsherds, one common form was a cylindrical pot with massive horizontal handfos,sometimes decorated by finger-impressed bands - an almost universally present Late Bronze Ageshape.

Only some half a dozen bFOnze artifacts from eastern Slavonia were found in secureassocietion with Belegis II pottery. Four ofthem come frorn Vucedol, each one from a differentpit (Fig. 8/1-4 ). Neither one is a părticularly sensitive time marker: club-shaped pins are usually_ascribed to Br. Dor Ha. Al 23, while the flange-hilted dagger could be contemporary to the Br.D, He. Al or even Ha. A2 phase ofthe Central European Late Bronze Age24 . In addition to these,a few bronze artifacts of similar date have been recovered in Osijek and Vinkovci. •Sorne dozen more bronze pins attributable to Br. Dor Ha. A 1 are known from the seme erea.They were acquired by the Archaeological Museurn in Zagreb around the turn of the century,but the details of their provenience are unknown25. However, in several instances they werecollected at sites which also yielded Belegis II pottery. Considering this, as well a~ knowing the..distribution ofBelegis li and the conternporary Central European Umfield Cui ture sites, it is verylikely that most ofthem came frorn B~fegis II contexts (Fig. 2).

ce of conclusioil•SemŢhe existing archaeological record for the eastern Slavonian Late Bronze Age is selecuve,patchy and incomplete; with many relevant categories of data - such as systeinatic survey orsubsistence - being completely absent: Nevertheless, some general remai-ks can be made fortemporary guidance.What is beyond doubt is the presence ofthe Belegis Il.group in eastern Slavonia, whichhas been confirmed by recent research. It is roughly contemporary to Br. D aild Ha. A 1 phasesofthe Central European Late Bronze Age, and possibly continues to the end ofthe Ha. A period.The continuity between 'the late Vatin (or Belegis I) and the Belegis II groups in this areais suggested by the fact that the same positions were often sequentially occupied by both ofthesegroups. Too little is known about these settlements to allow a discussion about their permanency,but some sort of continuity is evident - if not continuous occupation in the strict sense, then atleast multiple t~qiporary occupations on a regular basis.The observed changes in pottery design might have been brought about by local potterswho could have !ldopted the new decorative trends and fiting technology and applied them tothe pottery forms which were being produced during the previous period. These changes weregradual and can be followed as such in the recovered material. Later, during the Ha. B period, thesame geographical area is occupied by the Dalj group26, whose.pottery might be viewed as afurther modification of the Belegis II assemblage.· The bronze artifacts are practically indistinguishable from the corresponding bronzes frorrcentral and western Slavonia, as well as from those from Srijem and Banat. This testifies 01

interaction, at least regarding the metallurgical activities, with both Central European UmfieldCulture and the Belegi§ II areas farther towards the east.Eastern Slavonia is the west~ost frontier ofthe Belegi§ II group, its border zone towardsthe contemporary groups of the Central European Umfield Culture. A few finds of characteristicpottery belonging to the latter have been reported from the area immediately to the west27, or e"'.enwithin what is seemingly still Belegi§ II area (Fig. 2). The nature ofthis zone and ofthe relationsacross it might bea rewarding topic of some future research project tobe undertaken in this region.Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to Professor Nives Majnaric-Pandhc for scholarlyguidance as well as for her finds from Privlaka. Most of the studied material was curated by themuseums in Vinkovci, Vµkovar and Osijek, and I am i.JJ.debted to I vana lskra-Jano§ic, RllZa Marieand J asna ~imic for making it easily accessible to me, as well as sharing with me various additionalinformation. During 1991. and 1992 this part ofCroatia has suffered some ofthe heaviest borilbingin which the museums were not spared. The museum in Vukovar .was levelled·during the threemonth siege of that town during which attackers used the site of Vucedol as an artillery

**Hawk** · 27-11-22, 14:03

Now an article regarding the high occurrence of E-V13 during Early Iron Age in South-East Bulgaria, an article by Alexey Gotzev, translated by Darina Valceva.

DECORATION OF THE EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTH-EAST BULGARIA.

The profound interest in the problems of the Early lron Age in the Bulgarian lam;is, inthe last 20 years resultş in elucidating some im.portant ăspects of the cUlt,iral development ofthe Thracian tribes during the ,time of their consolidation. Two trends can be distinguished inthe writings concerning this significant period. In the first case the attention is concentratedupon a certain kind of archaeological monuments, their origin "and their development in alarge area or in the Thracian diaspora in general are studiai. The problcms of the Early lronAge adornments and armament, for instance, are treated in suc4 a way1• Thl! othcr trend isconnected with the attempts to clear thc features and the rhythm of the cultural p'rocesses ina narrower region and to compare them with those in the neighboring territories. An examplcillustrating this tendency is the monograph on tbe Early Iron Age in present NE Bulgaria2.

This paper is to be an ex1ended attempt to combine the two trends. Thc subject ofanalysis bere is just one kind of archaeological material - .the pottery (1ts decoration specially)from SE Bulgaria, dating from the Early Iron Age. The studied region is limited to the Nm1hby the Balkan Mountains. To the West it reaches the gorge Mpmina K.lisura and to the East -the Black Sea coast. Because of their radically different character the Rodopes are net included (except for some of their Eastem parts). In south-eastem dircction the restriction isrelative and coincides with the state boundary of Bulgaria (fig. I").

Most of ihe archaeologists divide the Early Iron Age into two periods dating its beginning in the 11-th century B.C. and its end - in the 6-th century B.C. The transition betwecnthe two periods is determined in the g-th centuiy or alittle earlier1.

The archaeological situation in SE Bulgaria known up to now does riot pn:scnt anydata reliable enough to allow a. definition of the above mentioned chronological sohemc moreaccurately._ That is why the offered dates must be accepted and the running processes in thecourse of the two periods of the Early Iron Age may betraced.

The pottery is the most abundant Early lron Age archaeological material discoveredin the discussed region. A small number of metal objects have been fc;iund in complcxes andthis turns the ceramics into a first-class archaeologic:al source for the chronological and regional division, and partly for cultural characteristics of the period too. There exist severa!reasons why this paper is dealing with the decoration of the. clay vessels only, avoiding themodern approach of a complex treatment of the problems of the ceramics industry. A great?-ffiOUDt of decorated pottery sherds comes from the SE-Bulgaria, while the whele vessels areless in number. This fact hinders the attempt to compare the analysis of tbe sherds and thevessels, and to reach some general conclusions for the ceramics productions. Too ·scanty isthe data for thţ technology of making clay poţs although some observations on this aspectare available in the !atest publications4• The w~ll documented "closed complexes" i.e. complexes of different things that were being used probably at one and the same tirne, includingdecorated pottery in SE Bulgaria are just a few. That minirnizes the opportunities to draw theline between the tirne of use for different patterns and fonns.

The presen:t state of the investigations of the Early Iron Age in Bulgaria shows thatthe multi-layered sites are more or less exceptional. That is why it is extremely difficult to clearthe relative chronology in. the development of the ceramic complexes. Another obstacle isthe lack of full publications of the results from the excavations in the region. ~I thess reflect· in the attempts to trace the evolution of thţ: pottery in its entity, i.e. - the function of thepots, the technology of their production, their forms and their decoration. At present, it seemsbest to analyse the chronologically sensible decorative pattems, as well as some combina- 'tions of different decorations and forms. The parallels with similar elements in the potterycomplexes in the neighboring regions will help to solve the significant problems of their appearance in SE Bulgaria, at the tirne of their use.

The hitherto existing studies on the Early Iron Age in the discussed region do notpresent any special investigations of the pottery and its decoration in particular. Some remarks on the technology of the pottery production and on the decoration are made inV.Mikov's papers on the megalithic monuments5.

There are two circumstances that change the situation and set the beginning of theprofound attention to the Early Iron Age pottery from SE Bulgaria. On the one hand theseare severa! studies from the end of the 60-ies - the beginning of the 70-ies, searching for theconnections and the place of some characteristic features of the SE Bulgarian pottery compfox amidst the similar materials from the neighboring countries6. A tendency to use the results of the analysis of ceramics for driving more general conclusions about the dynamics ofthe ethnic groups, or precessing the chronology of the Early Iron Age is to be traced out. · Atthe _same time the excavations of the settlement near P§eni~evo (Stara Zagora distr.) began(fig. I, 2)). They enriched the source base and raised the investigations of the Early Iron Ageto a higher leveF.

In the following years a lot of scholars directed their efforts to tţie studying of theEarly Iron Age. The Institute of Thracology organized complex expeditions airned at the examination of the megalithic monuments in the discussed region. Archaeological excavationswere 9arried oul at severa! significant sites like Asenovec (Nova Zagora distr.)8, Malk~to kaleat Ravadinovo (Sozopol distr.)9, C'.:atalkş. (C'.:irpan distr)10 etc. (Fig. I, 24, 56, I 3).

A resuit of summarizing the information from excavations and from accident finds available in the museums .appeared a monograph by B. Hănsel 11 . Undeniable assets of thjs work,are: setting _the potţery groups ·rrom the Lower Danube into certain connections, classification of the known forms and pattems of decoration, absolute dating of some links of thoseschemes etc. A model of development of the ceramic complex South from the Balkan mountains was proposed. The following" gi-ciups are examined: C'.:erkovna, which is connected withthe Late Bronze Age, C'.:atalka - characterized by its incised decoration and dated to the beginning of the Early Iron Age, Păeni~evo - representing the so called "cllissical stamped pottery'' and a group including the sherds decorated with big and cqmplicated stamped pattems12. Severa! finds of fluted earthen ware are considered also13.

In a general work of this scope some lapses are inevitable, of course. They stood oul,after the analysis of the archaeological material from the SE Bulgaria discovered in the lastfew yeai; had been made. An essential criterion of dividing the ceramics into chronologicalhorizons is the technique of decoration. Some of the these foimulated in that way raise objections. For exemple, the development of the stamped decoration from the inciscd patterns isnot convincingly proved14. Organizing the material in such a way Hansei does not show howthe ceramic complex in SE Bulgaria develops during.the second phase of the Early Iron Age.The·proposed substitution of the classical stamped pottery for the group decorated with bigcomplicated stamps is not considerable even as a hypothesis15. The latest studies do not confirm the supposed close connectioris between the ceramic production in Dobrogea (the socalled Babadag group) andin the discussed.region. Therefore, the idea of a similar evolutionofthe decoration in both zones is inacceptable16. Anyway, the appearance ofB.Hănsel's bookis positive as far as it marks the beginning of a new stage in the study of the Early Iron Agepottery.

There exists an attempt to characterize the basic Early Iron Age decorative pattemsand technique in details 17. Materials from the whole of the Bulgarian territory are used in thcl'aper but the specifics of the omaments in the separate geographical regions are not clear.Some of the decorative types are treated in common as is the ~-shaped spiral, for instance,which is known for having a very long duration of use. The definition of the ·concentric cir-'cles connected by tangents as having its origin from the S-shaped spirals is hazard18. Thechronology of the Early lron Age pottery decoration given in the paper contributes almostnothing to the already known schemes19.

Some problems of the pot-decoration were considered in the latest studies of thedolmens in the Strandza and Sakar mountains20. They dispelled the uncertaiuties concerningthe link between the megalithic monuments mentioned above and the Early Iron Age stampedpottery21 • The discovered materials give the opportunity to date some megalithic monuments,to be processed and 10 compare the ceramics found in the settlements with that from thedolmens. The conclusion, that the technique of decoration is not a certain chronolcigical feature is still valid22.

An important role in studyng of the Early Iron Age pottery from SE Bulgaria have theexcavations of the settlement near Ravadinovo, at the place named Malkoto kale. Some observations upon the ·quantitive proportion of the different kinds of decoration in the separatelayers were presented in the report of the first year investigations23• Examples for synchronic·use of decorative elements were cited in the text. Coupled with the stratigraphic si~ation atthe site they allow more general conclusions tobe drawn24• The widening of the investigatedarea in the following years al1owed to trace out better the character of the settlemcnt life andthe evolution of the ceramic complex in particular25. The suggestion to re-consider the chrono-' logical scheme of the Early lron Age pottery and to attribute some of the pots to the secondphase of th!! epoch is very well grnunded26• In the latest work concerning the Early Iron Agesettlement thes«; ideas are widely developed27 . The pottery is divided into groups based onthe structure of the clay and the treatment of the surf ace.· Separate types are defined withinthe limits of every single group. The decoration - its type, place upon the pots, typical combinations, chronological positions - is a subject of speciat interest. An attempt to examine someelements of the decorative. scheme in details is made. First of in these are wide spread duringthe Early Iron Age stamped patterns. The profound study gives a good opportunity to corn- ·pare earthenware coming from different sites28. Future researclr win ·make the cited suggestions more precise. They may answer the question, m what extend the specifics in the development of the pottery from Malkoto kale are valid for a larger geographical area.

The investigations of the Early Iron Age site at Dv~arovo (Harmanlii distr.) are ofspecial interest (fig. I, 35). Twentysix seals for layl.ng different patterns on the pots are discovered there as well as some traces interpreted by the investigator as remains of ceramicproductions29. The comparative analysis ofthe stamped ware from the site, from its neighbotjngareas and of the clay seals will elucidate the problems of the existence of specialized production centres for making vessels for the market. The results from the )atest excavations ( onlarger area) have not been fully published yet. The investigation of the site has to be continued in order to contribute to the solving of the problems of the only center for ceramic production from the Early lron Age known up to now30.

According to the way in which the decoration is executed the Early lron Age potteryfrom the discussed region can be divided into five groups. Pots with incjsed decoration - thelines and figures are put on by the means of a nib (Fig. 5, 4; 7, 6. 7). The stamped decorationpottery - plotted on the wet surface by a special seal with a certain form (Fig. 3, 1-8; 4, I. 3. 9-11; 6, 1 ). The vessels with "Plastic decoration which is varied - ~aised bands with or withoutstraight, curved, horizontal or vertical notches (Fig. 6, 1; 7, 2), projections different in formandin their situation upon the pot (Fig. 4, 12; 6, 4-5; 7, 8; 9, 10), as well as combination ofbands and projections. The pinned decoration - put on the surface of the pots by the nib,small in dimensions and not always ha'4ing a certain form (Fig. 3, 2; 4, 2). The pinned adornment is often combined with plastic or other kind of decoration. The fluted decoratjon of theEarly Iron Age pottery is widely spread too. The flutes are various in width, in height .and inways of the "transition" between them (Fig. 4, 12; 6, 4-5; 8, 6. 12; 9, 9-1 O; 11, 2. 5). They are.either organ.ized in groups or cover the whole perimeter of the vessels. Their situations uponthe pot and their directions are varied. Only the patterns specific for certain periods of timethat allow to follow the development of the ceramic complex in the course of the Early IronAge are traced out in this paper. Not all the kinds and groups of decoration are considered. . IThe accent is on the · stamped and incised pottery - as it is the most sensitive to the chronological changes. Attention is paid to some peculiar combinations with another kind of decoration that helps the study of the ceramic's evolution. The incised and stamped patterns arearranged in four tables. In this way their verbal description in the text is avoided and theconnection between the patterns and their place on the pot is more evident. The tables .mclude materials from the sites Malkoto kale (ilear Ravadinovo), P§eni~evo, Ov~arovo,Simeonovgrad etc. (Fig. 1, 20)31 . They represent the patterns used in the Early Iron Age pot:tery decoration in general. To add materials :from other sites will hamper using of the tabJesand will not contribute much to the examination of the pottery decoration development. Thereare not only separate elemnets or ornaments in the tables but the characteristic motives too.The rnmplete analysis of the pottery decoration as a decorative style is impossible now. Themain reason is the present situation of the source basis from SE Bulgaria. There are no completely excavated and published sites from this region. îhe pots witli decoration from theEarly lron Age are only.few and it is difficult to trace the compositions chara.cteristic for thisperiod. The ornaments are given in a way closest to the original. When the place of ihe decoration on the pot _is not certain, arrows show its prohab le situation. The _roman fllimbers at theleft side of the tables show the zone where the patterns are (Fig. 2). There is no informationabout the category of the c:irnamented vessel in this case ..

Table I represents different patterns executed by incised (the even numbers) and bypseudo-cord (the odd numbers) lines. The priority is given to the pattem itself - zigzag, trîangle etc. (over the technique of decoration). To facilitate the comparition of the patterns theyare set at neighbouring positions. What impresses is that the incised 'decoration is concentrated on the body of the vessels, while the stamped ,patterns (pseudo-cord lines) cover the whole swface of the pots - from the mouth to the bottom. The omarnents upon the lip arepseudo-corded and there are no cases where it is incised. The majo'rity of these pattems arefrom straight lines but there are also curved lines or even circles (Table I, 19-20; Fig. I O, 2).

Table II includes the pattems constituted of stamped circles (mainly concentric). Theycan be organized in three groups - circles that are independent elements of the decoration(Table II, 1-2; Fig. 4, 3. 11), circles connected by tangents (Table II, 3-6; Fig. 3, 3. Ş; 8, 6. 9; 9,3. 6. 8. 10; 10, 5. 9; 11, 4. 5), circles that flank or are parts of different figures - either incised orpsi;:udo-cord lines (Table II, 7-8; Fig. 3, 7; 6, 5; 8, 3. 7; 9, 2; I O, 1. 11 ). The comparison between the techniques of decoration is possible. lt is evident that some of the stamped tangents have no analogies (Table II, 3, 4; Fig. 9, 6. 8) - a fact that can bea resuit of the fragmentary publications of the Early Iron Age c1trarnics complexes up to now. Except for the mostsimple variant of de~oration of concentric circles connected by tangents that can be seenover all parts of the pots, the incised lines are to be found on the body primarily. The morecomplex pseudo-corded figures are on the body too, but the other decorative elements in theswiie technique are situated upon the upper parts of the vessels.

Table III considers tlie different variants of S-shaped ornament laid. on by a seal - fromthe wavy lines which is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the incised examples, to thebig complex S-shaped spirals, arranged in horizontal, slightly raised bands, that decorate thickvessels-pythoi(TableIII, l-5;Fig. 3, I. 5-7;4, 5-7. 9. 12; 5, I. 3. 5;6,4. 5; 7, 1-5; 8, 2. 7-8; 9, 9;10, 11; 11, 1-3). The stamped stripes flanked by Iines can be seen on both - pseudc:i-cordedlines as well as incised ones (Table III, 6-7; Fig. 7, 8; 8, I. 5; 10, 3-4. 7). Ina single case thepattem is a circle around the base of a knob (Table III, 6. The S-shaped spirals are used singlyas ends of some figures - zigzag and triangles mainly (Table III, 8-9; Fig. 4, 2. 7). In this caseincised pattems are missing. Th~ belt of three horizontal rows of stamped, single S-shapedspirals which are interrupted at severa! places forrn separate ornamental groups of special interest (Table III, I).

In Table IV some peculiar forrns of stamped omaments are given as well as the modesin which they are combined. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the stamped decoration.from the pinned one. The oval pseudo-cord pattems in different variants are popular duringthe Early Iron Age (Table IV, 1-3; Fig. 4, 5; 6, I; 7 „ 3. 8; 9, 9; 11, 2). Most probably they areIaid on by the means of a special seal, different from those for starnping pseudo-cord lines32.The rest of the omaments used as · Ione figures (or groups of figures) and as compoi:ients forthe belts (Table IV, 4-1 O; Fig. 3, 5; 4, 1. 3. 8-9; I O, 6. 8) are all placed on the upper parts of thevessels.

The static way of presenting the patterns in the tables does not allow to see the Iinksbetween the different modes used to decorate one pot, and also their connection with thevessel's forrn. Besides, the quantity characteristics of the separate pattems are not fixed in the. tables. In this respect, the questioi:t about the prevailing kind of decoration at the differentsite"s and in certain periods of the Early Iron Age is left open33. Inferences about the frequency of use of an element as a pattem by itself, or· in combinations, · on the basis of thetables are impossible.

It is necessary, in order to get over the inevitable rcstrictions and static character ofthe used method of organizing the material, to examine the pottery decoration from an already excavated site. It will help to determine some connections betw1;;:;a the different pattems and to explain the observations from the Tables I-IV. The most explicit are the settlements near Ravadinovo and P§enicevo.

Any material that can be dated earlier than the Early Iron Age has not been discovered up to now at Malkoto kale near Ravadinovo. Dwelling levels are well distinguished byclay floors of the houses in which pottery sherds have been found. Therefore, only separate. constructions can be considered as closed complexes, and it is not to be excluded, that in anylayer materials can be from different periods34. The data on hand allows to outline some general tendens:ies in the development of the ceramics from the settlement. The situation in quarter I is the most explicit~ . The layers of clay here lie right apove one another and the uppermost ofthem is well dated by Greek irnports tothe 6. century B.C. There is no evidence for abreak in life at this place, so the materials from the upper part of the I-st cultural layer may beattributed to the second phase of the Early Iron Age36. This tenninus ante quem gives theopportunity to settle the chronology of some characteristic elements while thţ possibility fora part of these omaments to have a longer life is not excluded.

The survey of the potteiy not only from the discussed quarter, ·but frorn the site as awhole, shows the absence ofthe fcillowing decorative patterns: Table I, 12. 14; from the modesincluding stamped circles - Table II, 4-6, i.e. the majority of the varied models consisting ofconcentric circles connected by tangents. It is not certain that this ornament is completelyrnissing at the site37• Arnong the stamped S-shaped spirals only the big complex seal that is tobe seen on the vessels with thick walls is not represented - Table III, 5. Some ofthe examplesofthe stamps peculiar in forrn are rnissing too - Table IV, 7. 1-0. Having in mind the analysedfeatures, the pottery from the uppermost part of the I-st cultural layer in the same quarter(depth to 1,45 m) is set up in a separate group38. To the characteristics alieady made I wouldadd the information that sherds of bowls with their upper parts cylindric in fomî and the lower- conic, with horizontally turned inwards mouth and wide, tonque-shaped juts applied at theplace of the maximum diarneter of the vessel are found here. The upper part of the mouth andthe upper part of the body of those examples are richly decorated with patterns presented in· Tables· I, 3. 11; III, 3. 6; IV, 1; Fig. 7, 1. 8. Besides fragrnents from the pots with high neckadomed with ho:r:_izontal flutes in conjunction with stamped S-shaped spirals ·are discoveredtoo (Table III, 2; Fig. 4, 12; 6, 4-5). Staunch connections are observed amidst the omameritsin Tables I, 3; II, 2-3. 8. They are situated upon the rirn, the mouth and the upper part of thebody. There is just one case of incised pattems in this group of decorated pottery sherds.The concentric circles connected by tangents or independent are absent arnong the elementsof the decoration (Table V).

The ceramics cliscovered at a depth between 1,45 and 1,75 mare characterized like aseparate group. The criteria· for its isolation are quality as well as quantity (the increase of thenurnber of the ţluted fragments for instance). It is certam, that some of the ornamental elements are similar to the above described - the combination of horizontal flutes and starnps(Tabl~s I, 5; III, 2; IV, 1). The new pattem bere is the incised decoration rerninding to someextent that of pseudo-cord lines - Table I, 5-6 .. Sometirnes it is an independent an comparatively complex model or even picture (Fig. 9, 7)39. The pottery sherds discovered here can notbe attributed to a dwelling levei, although at the depth of 1,55-1,65 m a piece of the floor isfi~ed. In the clay itself, some decorated sherds were. found, that clin be dated to a short period of tirne. Arnong these omarnents almost all above mentioned elements, specific combinations, techniques etc. are present. Some of them are even to be seen on one and the samepot. In this complex some decorations are found that are characteristic for the clay layer andfor the upper layer too ( e.g. the pattem in Table I, I O - in both cases situated on a verticalhandle). This fact can hardly be chance. One must imagine that some of the decorative elements were in use dUring quite a long period. The general feeling is that the discussed horizon is heterogeneous. That is why it is diffictllt to define a middle period in the developmentof the ceramic complex from the Early Iron Age at the site. However it is not impossible thatfurther investigations will prove its existence.

In the preliminary publicl!tion of the results from the excavations at fyfalkoto kale, acharacteristic of the pottery from the lowest layers, which is attributed to the first dwelling, ismade40• As far as the decoration is concemed, the more common use of the incised pattemsthan in the upper layers is remarked. At the same depth, some pottery fragments decoratedwith similar patterns, but executed in pseudo-cord lines, are discovered. There ar~ some casesin which both techniques are used at the same time on one pot (Fig. 8, 3). At this depth newmodels appear - for example Table II, 3. 7. Sherds decorated with stamped S-shaped spirals(Table III, 2. 3) are still to be found, but they are not cm~bined with horizontal flutes anymore (Table V).

As for the chronology of the materials from the lowest layers, they can be attributedto the early phase of the Early Iron Age, and more precisely, towards its end. Data abouthabitation of the site ·since the very beginning of the epoch is at present missing. Some of the .analogies. cited in the first publication contradict the comparatively clear stratigraphic situation given by the later excavations41 •

The investigation of the settlement near the village of P§enicevo, that lasted more thanten years, enriches the knowledge of the style, techniques and pattems of decoration characteristic for the Early Iron Age. Lastly this site gave the name to a richly decorated potteryfrom this epoch42 . Of great significance for the research are the fixed constructions of the site- houses, pits etc. Some of them may be considered as closed complexes and are of first rateimpm:tance for the synchronization of the decorative pattţ:rns and techniques. Because ofagricultbral cultivation, it is impossible to trace the vertical stratigraphy of the site, as it wasdone for the settlement near Ravadinovo. The lack of the complete publicaion of the resultsfrom the excavations does not allow the use of the ho~ntal stratigraphy for the examinationof the decoration in the course of time. These are the main reasons why the ceramic materiali.s not presented in a.table in order to trace its chronological development. The analysis of theincised and the stamped decoration shows that almost all the Early lron Age pattems exist.The omaments in Tables I, 9. 16; IV, 6 are exceptions. The lack of at least a part of them isprobably due to the authors incomplete acquaintance with the finds from the excavations.The presence of all these pattems clearly shows that the settlement was inhabited not only~uring the first half of the Early lron Age, but for the course of almost the whole epoch.

What draws our attention when the characteristic pottery decorations from the discussed site are juxtaposed with those from Ravadinovo is: a group of omaments is presentedin P§enicevo that is either missing completely at Malkoto kale or is restricted in number andvariants. In the first place these are the pattems of "concentric circles connected by tangents(Fig. 3, 3. 8; 8, 6 .. 9; 9, 3. 6. 8.10; 10, 5. 9; 11, 4. 5). Exceptfor some specific combinations (e.g.Table II, 8) all the others are present in P§enicevo. lt is not clear wether the diffeence in therepertoire of adornments is due to chronological distinction, regional peculiarities or to bothof them. lt seems possible, that the settlement at P§enicevo originated earlier than that nearRavadinovo. In any cas, both of them begin during the early phase of the Early lron Age. If ·we accept that these two sites developed synchronically· (which is reflected in the decorationmainly) we have to presume that the life at P§enieevo did not continue untill the very end ofthe Early Iron Age. The base of such a statement is the. lack or rarity of some peculiar combinations of ornaments - horizontal flutes on the pot's neck together with.stamped patterns (inthe first place - Table Ill, 2, 8) date4 to the end ofthe epoch.

Some sherds or vessels with similar decoration were found in the last year during theexpedition devoted to the problems of the dolmens. If the separate decorative models fromthe dolmens ne.ar Kirovo (Grudovo distr.), Sakartzi and two near Hlyabovo (Topolovgrad di"str.)(fig. 1, 57 40. 39)~ , either incised or stamped, are. compared, the following picture is to beoutlined. Examples adorned with omaments lilce those in the Tables I, 7-8. 15; II, 5-6, 8; III; 8;IV, 2. 5-1 O are not found here. The absence of a part of them can be explained with the smallnumber of illustration in the publications. At the sarne time sherds discovered in the dolmensare known, that are decorated with pattems not very popular in the settlements44. This model- "concentric circles connected by tangents" is presented herc in more· simple combinations(Table II, 3-4 ). It is difficult to explain these differences now but the possible rcason for themcan be the specific functions of the pottery in the settlements and in the dolmens. If we compare the ceramic complexes .from Malkoto kale and from the dolmen near Kirovo we find that,although the sites are neighbouring, the pottery decora:ion from the settlement is richer andmore complicated than that from the megalithic monument. This fact seems to confirm theabove suggcstion.

Some peculiarities can be observed when the materials from the dolmens are correlated among one· another. The pottcry from the monument at Kirovo is published. A verysmall percentage of the fragments is decorated. Except for the cantharos-like vessel with therichly omamented body, .mouth and handles, the test of the decoration is more than modest45. The dolmeus in the Sakar mountains contain pots (primely bowls) with rich and variousdecoration and the share ofthe adomed sherds is proportionally higher zthan at Kirovo. Wetherthe difference is dlţC only to the geographical isolation of the monuments or it is pos;;ible topropose a chronological distinction within the Earl) lron Age is still difficult to decide.

An organization of the materials of this kind combined with thc data for the characteristic pottcry sherd~ (those that give information about the vessel form)· allows a precision ofthe chronological positio~.or to trace the evolutionary stages of some types of pots. For example, the fragments frorri big vessels with biconic - assymetric body (thc upper part lowerand usually slightly rounded) are known from SE Bulgaria. They are richly decorated immediately above the widest part ·of the pot. So the place of the decorative patterns is similar tothat on the vessel found in a pit near the village of Staroseietz (Radnevo distr.) (Fig. 1, 33)46.Comparatively exactly thc scheme is repeated on an example from the site near Sime6novgrad47 .The upper p_art of the body is limited by two horizontal belts of stamped ornaments; a complex figure of concentric circles and pseudo-cord lines above the tunnel-like handle and abird with long legs on the field next to it. There is another exarnple - a pattern on the fragmentof a similar pot which some of the scholars consider tobe a schematic picture of a bird (Fig. 9,7)48. The specific massive curving hom-like protuberap.ces - the kobs on the sherds of suchvessels are what brings them close to the so called buckel amphorae49. The similarity can beseen most clearly by an example from P~enicevo (Fig. 9, 9; l ·I, 2)50. Ifthe discussed fragmentsare from a pot simila.r to the buckcl amphorae from Gabarevo and Asenovec it seems quiteprobable, that tbey are a further development of this format the end of the.first and duringthe late phase of the Early Iron Age51 . Ther:e are a lot of sherds with similar decoratiori foundin SE Bulgaria, probably from tbe same type·ofvessel (Fig. 9; 10, 3-5. IO). The hypothesis isconfirmed by .the stratigraphic observations at some sites from the discussed region1J2.

There is anothcr group of fragments from pots with high, conic neck and outward jutting rim, similar to the above mentioned type, that are decorated with horizontal Rutes ,and a part of these sherds are ornamented with stamped S-shaped. spirals (or different seals)and flutes 53. The combination between these different adomment techniques is considered tohlWe appeared at the time of the Basarabi culture or a little earlier54.

A further group of pots is represented by sherds with smooth or polished surface anddecorated with complex, comparatively big patterns (Fig. 3, 8-9; 11, l. 3-4). Almost nothingcan he said about ihe form of the vessels, but if the thickness of the walls is considered, theymust have been of great dimensions. Some of them had well formed necks, richly decorateciwith horizontal belts of relief omaments imitating rope, combined with stamped or pinneddecoration. An example of this kind is known from P§enitevo, house "A"55. The other sherdsshow that the adornment of oblique flijtes or various stamped models is situated on the ·widest part of the body. The flutes are usually on a low and wide horizontal belt and constitutevarious figures - trianglcs, spirals, pattcms like the number "2" etc. (Fig. 3, 9; 6, 2-3; 8, 8. 11;11, 1. 3 )56• The stamped ornaments are concentric circles (or smaller, non-centred circles) connected by tangents, or "6"-like stamps (Fig. 3, 8; 4, 8; 1 O, 8)57. Of special interest is a fragmentdecorated witli a picture of a bird outlined by a shallow incised line and small pinned spots. Ifit is the mouth of a big pot the depiction was upside down (Fig. 8, 9; 11, 4 )58. The Early lronAge date of this kind of decoration is undoubted, not only because of the S-shaped spiralpattem, but also because of the archaeological context of the majority of the sherds59. Someof the decorative elements are also connected with the same period. There are no reasons forlater dating of this decoratio and less for the statement that this is a chronological horizonthat followed the so called "classic stamped pottery''. The hypothesis, that it is a regionalgroup is more prohab le, but the question of lts characteristics will remain OP.en until the ceramic complexes from more sites in SE Bulgaria are published(J().

On account of different reasons the full and detlliled reconstruction of the formation
of the Early lron Age pottery complexes in SE Bulgaria is impossible. The analysis of the
ceramics gives opportllP:ity to outline some dominating tendencies and specifics in the evolution of separate forms and characteristic decoration, as well as the combination between them.
!he precision of their chronological position is based <m the comparison to some well examined sites nearby. Little can be said, at present, about th~ inner division into micro-regions of
thc pottery complexes, because of the varying state of the source base in different areas of
SE Bulgaria (Fig. 1 ).

Clay pots of two groups are attributed to the earliest phase of the Early Iron Age. Thefirst includes examples with prototypes in the Late Bronze Age of the same region. The connection is easy to he observed as far as te foims are concemed, but not in the decoration,which is almost absent in the previous period61 . The second group consists of pots originating frc;>m NW Thrace or more precisely from the Tissa valley. The problem concerns soniecharacteristic elements of the pottery complex, whose penetration to the South and to theEast (in one way or another) is undoubtful and is noted as "hallstattisation"62 . The mainelements that mark this penetraii.on are big vesse~s with. biconic body, decorated with knobs,bowls with incurving r~ with flutes and cups with a high handle to some extent63. Except forthe above mentioed shapes, some other elements illustrate the same tendency - the high knobs,the projections, different in form, situated in pairs one above another at the widest part of thebody, the relief belts decorated with slanting flutes that underline the transition between t,heupper and the lower part of the vessel etc. The knobs are considered to have undergone acertain dev~lopent - the hollow ones are earlier, while the adjoining ones are later64 . The role of the two tendencies in the ·forming of the pottery complex and connections between themin the early stage of th~ Early Iron Age are difficult to clear in detail for the discussed region,like it has been done for neighbouring areas65. The development of the culture in the Late-Bronze Age in SE Bulgaria is not studied well enough, and to define the changes in the ceramic complex at the time of the transition to the Early Iron Age is difficult66. The propositionthat some types of vessels, like cups with modest profile, jugs and vases, which are well-knownfrom the region in the previous period, are still in use at the very beginning of the Early IronAge, seems acceptable. At the same time the innovation which comes from the north-westemthracian lands to SE Bulgaria in the ceramic prodtiction takes place.

A separate and very important problem is how the rich decoration of the pottery groupPsenieevo arose. It is radically different in quantity, in variability and in technique of execution from the scanty adornment of the Late Bronze Age pots in SE Bulgaria. That is why theirjuxtaposition does not answer the fundamental question about the connections between theincised and starnped ornanientation for example. The proposed division of the decorative patterns intci two groups, following one after another within the limits of the first stage of theEarly Iron Age, is not confirmed by the later investigations67. The incised decoration is notstrictly enough defined. Ornaments with long periods of use are included68. An opinion isexpressed, that the incised patterns during the Early Iron Age spread after the use of thedifferent kinds of stam~ed decoration had stopped69. Some other authors are inclined to ac- ·cept that the pottery decoration during the second half of the epoch almost completely disappea~s 70. The last two assumptions may either be a consequence of a specific situatic;m in aseparate region, or a reflection of the special character of the pottery from the dolmens. Thedifference in the opinions is due to ~ insufficient source base which haillpers the attempt forglobal treâtment of the problem. The analysis of some typical ornamentat models with comparatively precise chronological position seems to be the more hru:idy variant at present. In 'such a way, separate moments of the development of the pottery· are reflected in the decoration, can be marked and defined exactly and supplemented.

Not . all of the stamped pattems have a very limited range of use. The concentric circles for example have been known since the Late Bronze Age71. With a view to the abovementioned purpose it is useful to consider the ~ombination between stamped concentric circles connected by tangents (Taole II, 4). This is one of the earliest models characteristic for·the Early Iron Age decorated pottery. lts appearance in some regions is proposed even forthe time before the so called "hallstattisation" expressed by the emergence of the vessels ofknobbed amphora type72 . Among the pottery from the settlements Babadag I and Troy Vllb2 .

this stamped pattern is the most popular73. In both cases the knobbed ware and clay potsdecorated with the discussed model are used at one and the same time_ Having in mind thatSE Bulgaria has an intermediate position, it can be accepted, that bqth tendencies in the evolution of pottery appear simultaneously. An indirect proof for this supposition âre the fragments from a big vessel from P§enicevo on which we find the combination of concentric circles con,nected by tangents (or rather the ornament in Table II, 6) and a garland of flutessituate symmetrically around a vertical long projection (Fig.9, Jc1; 11, 5)74. Its p_arallels are thepots from the ver}.r beginning of the epoch75.

Another characteristic element of the Stamped Early lron Age decoration is the S-shapedspiral. As it is not familiar for the,Late Bro~e Age pottery from SE Bulgaria, one can presumethat the model has been "iinported" from anoţher region. The discused pattern (table III, 2)is ·used in the decoration of the pots of the so .câlled Balley-Orsoya culture or-the "incrustedpottery cui ture", spread in the course of the last centuries of the Bronze Age in what ts nowadays North-West Bulgaria and the neighboring areas of Romania and Yugoslavia76. The EarlyIron Age Insula Banului (or Ostrov) culture is localized in this region. To the most of thescholars, this culture has an intermediate position between the Late Bronz Age "incrustedpottery culture" aild the _Basarabi culture and is connected to the first (or to both)7.7. The Sshaped spiral ornament is widespread l\IDÎdst the ceramics from the Insula BaI).uh~i. One cansuggest that this element infiltrated in SE Bulgaria niimely from the territories of this culture.The time of its appearance follow~ the penetration of some ft'.atures _of the pottery complexfrom_ the Danube valley, such as knobbed amphoras or the concentric circles connected by tangents, for insta.nce. The S-shaped ·spiral decoration is not available in some sites datingfrom the begi.nning of the evolution of the classical stamp~ adornmţnt, as it is in Tr-0y Vll'b/8. Another reason for the relatively late datmg ~f the S-shaped stamped spirals is the position of Insula Banului group immediately before the Basarabi culture, according to :;;ome autliors, and what is more - the base for the parallels between them is the discussed stamp itself79. If the hypothesis is correct we shall have to accept the lorig duration of the contactsbetween the population of the North-West Thrace and present day SE Bulgaria. They are upto now documented by the infiltration of some eleme11ts of Gava pottery and by the appearance of the S-shaped spiral pattern in the region south of the Balkan Mountains. Those processes refer to the beginning ·and to the- end of the frrst phase of the Early Jron Age .

· In SE Bulgaria a middle phase of the Early Iron Age can not be clearly defined whilein the Northern regions it corresponds to the ceramic'. complex of the Basarabi culture80. The last is not represented in the discussed region-except.for few examples8i. Anyway, it is possi-·ble to attribute some elements to _this phase of the Early lron Age. Primarily, these are thebowls with biconic rounded body, funnel-like mouth (once quite large) sometimes with deco· ·rated interior surface (Fig. 4, I. 3-4. 6 9; 5, 1.5). These vessels can be considered as a peculiarsouthern .variant of the pottery of Basarabi type. Different kinds of stamped patterns come .into use at the same time. They. are tobe seen on the same type of bowls (fig. IV, 1, 3, 9).Therefore, a shaŢp ·division between th~ early and the ţniddle pha~e of the Eai-ly Iron Age cannot be made on the basis of the pottery decoration only, because of the earlier emergence ofsome of the ornamental models. These are the staniped rhorilbs (Table IV, 5) and double Sshaped spirals (Table III, 3)82.

Another peculiarity of the pottery that. appeared in the transition between the twophases of the Early Iron Age is the practice to situate the decoration ,upon the rim of some pots- bowls primely (fig. 3, 1-7; 4, 3-4. 6-7; 5, I. 3; 7, 1-2. 8). Similllf examples are discovered inthe layers n:umbers from 8 to 2 at the teii Kastanas (Greece) - i.e. within the limits, between the9t1t century B.C. and the 5t1t century B.C. 83. Pots with such a position of the decoration areknown from other sites in Yugoslavia and Romania dated later than the 9t1t ce!ltury B.C.84 It isinteresting that ·among the omaments that decorated the rim of the vessels is the above men-. tioned - concentric circles connected by incised tangents (fig. 3, 3)85. A longer use and achange of the disposition upon the pots body of this element can be adduced in this case (oreven its utilization for decoratirig different types of vessels in different time ).

Since the end of the early phase of the Early Iron Age in SE Bulgaria a tendency formaking the pottery decoration more complex and richer can be traced out. The survey ofsome types of pots shows that there exist undecorated as well as magnificently adomed examples (fig. 4, 2. 5. 10; 7, 5-7; 8, 1-7. 10. 12; 10, 9-11). The analogies ofthe first group from theneighboring countries are attributed to the beginning of the period. The tendency is mostclear for the bowls with inward curved mouth decorated by diagonal flutes and a horizontalbelt of stamped pattems below them (fig. 7, 4 ). Similar is the evolution of the knobbed amphora-like pots that have come to our time in fragments only (fig. 9, 9; 11, 2). lt is necessaryto note that the greater part of the used stamps appear (or become popular) in the secondhalf of the Early Iron Age. The stratigraphic situation of the ceramic complex îrom Malkotokale also confirms these suppositions86. The excavations of this site show some other peculiarity of the pottery evolution, characteristi~ for the final centuries of the epoch. A good example is the original combination of horizontal flutes on the neck, low relief projections uponthe body and stamped decoration organized in belts that underline the links between theseparate parts of the pot (fig. 4, 7. 12; 6, 4-5). The adomment of the same types is used foromamentation of bowls, cups and cantharos-like vessels87. The combinations between flutesand stamped pattems upon the necks or the conic projections of the knobbed amP.hora-like· pots is characteristic for tlie period too. The situation at Malkoto kal~ gives the opportunityto isolate some. special stamps that can be dated in the second half of the Early Iron Age(Tables IJI, 3. 4; IV, 1. 2. 4. 8).

The analysis and the proposed considerations can be scrutinized as a peculiar (althoughnot differentiated enough) model of the origin and the spread of the main components of theEarly Iron Age pottery decoration in SE Bulgaria. In accordance with that model the presence of some elements in the region is explained with influence coming from.different areas(and evidenced for differentperiods of time) where their evolution is more or less clear. Thecontinuos contacts with the northem and north-westem areas of ancient Thrace lead to thefinal formation of the ceramic complex in SE Bulgaria - a process which reaches its end aboutthe time of the transition from the first to the second phase of the Early Iron Age. The difficulty of the reconstruction is deterrnined by the difference of time of the penetration of elements (forms and specific decorations) from ·separate geographical regions and their interaction with the pottery, made according to the local tradition. In some cases the penetration offoreign features can be explaincd with the movement of ethnic groups, while others are perhaps due to fashionable tendencies in the pottery production, common for a large area88. Forţhe discussed region it cân be accepted, that the elements coming from other lands dominatethe formation of the pottery complex.

There is no sharp division between the two phases of the Early Iron Age in the development of the ceramics in SE Bulgaria. The analysis of the archaeological materials show thatthe processes that flourished in the second half of the epoch emerged under the influence ofthe different factors in the first phase of the same period. One can also suppose that while themain repertoire of the forms formed in the first centuries of·the epoch, ·the following evolution of the pottery concemed mostly the decoration, especially the incised and the stampedpattems as well as their combination with flutes or with embossed projections. Some of thestamps in the region are in use in the course of the whole Early lron _Age and others arecharacteristic for its second half only. The reason that deterrnined the pottery evolution towards complex and rich omamentation of pots that existed earlier and were undecorated ( cups,bowls, knobbed amphoras etc.) is still uncertain. There are indirect indications, that the be ginning of the flourishing decoration was around the transition period between the two phasesof the Early Iron Age. Future investigations will alfow us to feature the pottery complex inmore detail, to clear the main factors that influenced the ceramic evolution in the period immediately before the invention of the potter's wheel and the pottery production in mass.

marked paragraph

Another characteristic element of the Stamped Early lron Age decoration is the S-shapedspiral. As it is not familiar for the,Late Bro~e Age pottery from SE Bulgaria, one can presumethat the model has been "iinported" from anoţher region. The discused pattern (table III, 2)is ·used in the decoration of the pots of the so .câlled Balley-Orsoya culture or-the "incrustedpottery cui ture", spread in the course of the last centuries of the Bronze Age in what ts nowadays North-West Bulgaria and the neighboring areas of Romania and Yugoslavia76. The EarlyIron Age Insula Banului (or Ostrov) culture is localized in this region. To the most of thescholars, this culture has an intermediate position between the Late Bronz Age "incrustedpottery culture" aild the _Basarabi culture and is connected to the first (or to both)7.7. The Sshaped spiral ornament is widespread l\IDÎdst the ceramics from the Insula BaI).uh~i. One cansuggest that this element infiltrated in SE Bulgaria niimely from the territories of this culture.The time of its appearance follow~ the penetration of some ft'.atures _of the pottery complexfrom_ the Danube valley, such as knobbed amphoras or the concentric circles connected by tangents, for insta.nce. The S-shaped ·spiral decoration is not available in some sites datingfrom the begi.nning of the evolution of the classical stamp~ adornmţnt, as it is in Tr-0y Vll'b/8. Another reason for the relatively late datmg ~f the S-shaped stamped spirals is the position of Insula Banului group immediately before the Basarabi culture, according to :;;ome autliors, and what is more - the base for the parallels between them is the discussed stamp itself79. If the hypothesis is correct we shall have to accept the lorig duration of the contactsbetween the population of the North-West Thrace and present day SE Bulgaria. They are upto now documented by the infiltration of some eleme11ts of Gava pottery and by the appearance of the S-shaped spiral pattern in the region south of the Balkan Mountains. Those processes refer to the beginning ·and to the- end of the frrst phase of the Early Jron Age .

IMO, Incrusted is not the source but neither Gava, it's rather the Vatin, Hatvan, Nagyrev, it might be there was a cultural complex in Southern Pannonia, South-Western Carpathian, to be more clear E-V13 was probably present among Gava but Gava was not the source of E-V13 further down, E-V13 in Gava was probably foreign and intrusive from more Southern elements, Vatin colonizers likely. It's still a mystery from where did the Balkan-Carpathian complex come from, but they have similarity with Bubanj-Hum from further South, they might have been a particular Balkan Neolithic people from long time ago. Just moving around.

**Riverman** · 27-11-22, 23:06

This Southern influence you speak about was present as early as earliest Otomani layers, before the bigger spread of the Kostany/F�zesabony-Otomani clans. Therefore what followed, Eastern Otomani/Gyualvarsand and Suciu de Sus, or to their East Wietenberg, already got those Southern influences anyway.
And its from this base from which G�va developed!

Therefore you can rather ask which Carpatho-Balkan group had E-V13 in the EBA. I think the brother groups Hatvan-Nyirseg, coming from Mak� and possibly, ultimately, from Cotofeni. If they come from a more Southern group, which I deem less likely, we deal with a first North (EBA) and later back (LBA-EIA) migration with G�va-related Channelled Ware. Because those Southern groups had much less growth and impact later.

About the huge Encrusted Pottery-related block, from Western Hungary to Southern Romania/Bulgaria, they have no better cultural or autosomal fit and fairly larger samples from two important sites brought up I2 and G2 groups. But, different clans/dominance in different areas. So there could have been other areas which were E-V13 dominated, theoretically. But I don't think so, because the E-V13 growth started earlier and it can't be a small regional group which harboured the bulk of it at the time of the late Encrusted Pottery groups - which got tested.

**mount123** · 28-11-22, 13:32

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

This fellow has strong Skopje I13079 component. They are essentially the same.

They cluster the same, they show affinity to MKD BA, the profile is unique from proper Thracians, you can see one individual from SE MKD even has a profile of what one would expect of a western Dardanii. The way it clusters and models, this profile represents a 3rd group in the Balkans

In my opinion it represents Dardani and Paeoni profile. In this particular person, it has to be a eastern Dardani, there is a strong south Thracian component and his haplogroup is E-V13.

Bërnica e Poshtme actually harbours a Bërnica culture necropolis. There hasn't been much effort for genetic testing by local academics. The main problem is the archeologists since most of them as usual lack affinity towards natural sciences e. g. genetics. Regarding Thracians and V13 there has been one low coverage E1b-L618 sample from Marvinci, N. Macedonia I think (perhaps that is what what you meant). The general archeological link between "Dardania" and Paeonia is Bërnica Culture. Paeonians themselves are turning out to be a pre-Slavic Balkan population which solidly can be considered one of the more patrilineal successors of Yamnaya (next to Hurro-Urartians/Proto-Armenians). They are mainly R1b-Z2103 (especially >CTS1450) with a R1b-PF7562 minority.

I think that Dardania will have more signals of Thracian patrilineage, in comparison, but also Illyrians that pushed from the West as early as EBA Cetina/Dinaric and as lately as IA Glasinac-Mati, Autariatae come to my mind.

**PaleoRevenge** · 28-11-22, 16:18

Originally Posted by mount123

Bërnica e Poshtme actually harbours a Bërnica culture necropolis. There hasn't been much effort for genetic testing by local academics. The main problem is the archeologists since most of them as usual lack affinity towards natural sciences e. g. genetics. Regarding Thracians and V13 there has been one low coverage E1b-L618 sample from Marvinci, N. Macedonia I think (perhaps that is what what you meant). The general archeological link between "Dardania" and Paeonia is Bërnica Culture. Paeonians themselves are turning out to be a pre-Slavic Balkan population which solidly can be considered one of the more patrilineal successors of Yamnaya (next to Hurro-Urartians/Proto-Armenians). They are mainly R1b-Z2103 (especially >CTS1450) with a R1b-PF7562 minority.

I think that Dardania will have more signals of Thracian patrilineage, in comparison, but also Illyrians that pushed from the West as early as EBA Cetina/Dinaric and as lately as IA Glasinac-Mati, Autariatae come to my mind.

I meant the link between the original Dardanii (non-Thracian, non-Illyrian) and the Paeoni, the spill over of Brnjica south of into MKD and Bulgaria matches Paeoni tribal distribution. And yes you are right about the Yamnaya, what I am calling Dardani cluster in G25, is Yamnaya derived IE group. Even the individuals that I labeled as west Dardanii (Illyrian mixed), show partial Yamnaya ancestry. And among Albanians, the regions where R1b is the leading haplogroup, Yamnaya ancestry wins. Thracians and Illyrians are Corded derived, so are the Slavs, so for this to occur with Albanian averages points to the Yamnaya derived group playing a big role in the formation of modern Albanians.

And this will be validated once the Serbian study (Roman Frontier) is published (it does seem to be held back because of the valuable data it contains). There is a lot of Thracian(green) and Dardanii(blue) profiles in their PCA plot, and in betweens.

The Bosnian poster that has gone MIA wrote in Anthrogenica that the R-CTS1450 (in the Balkan IA cluster) in this study is the one that protrudes toward among Balkan Slavs (outlier east of the Albanian cluster) and is almost central European in profile, he thinks there might be a Scythian mixture causing it. I think there is a good chance he is a pure distilled Dardanii profile, sure there might some foreign admixture, but he is clearly on the Dardani/Yamnaya cline.

The other samples are all E-V13, I am guessing the 3 J2bs are the ones near the Croatian Illyrian cluster. And it is clear, a lot of E-V13 in eastern Serbia had a partial Dardanii profile, as we see with the Hun I18832(E-V13) individual who is a almost half south Thracian, half Dardanii (Yamnaya derived).

**Riverman** · 28-11-22, 16:59

Brnjica did assimilate some Belegis II-G�va elements possibly, unless the Paeonian clans annihilated those Channelled Ware groups when regaining predomiance in their sphere. That's the same like it is with Greeks, that we don't know how much of the Channelled Ware groups were assimilated vs. pushed back/annihilated after initial pushes into regions they couldn't fully hold on the longer term.

**mount123** · 28-11-22, 18:48

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

I meant the link between the original Dardanii (non-Thracian, non-Illyrian) and the Paeoni, the spill over of Brnjica south of into MKD and Bulgaria matches Paeoni tribal distribution. And yes you are right about the Yamnaya, what I am calling Dardani cluster in G25, is Yamnaya derived IE group. Even the individuals that I labeled as west Dardanii (Illyrian mixed), show partial Yamnaya ancestry. And among Albanians, the regions where R1b is the leading haplogroup, Yamnaya ancestry wins. Thracians and Illyrians are Corded derived, so are the Slavs, so for this to occur with Albanian averages points to the Yamnaya derived group playing a big role in the formation of modern Albanians.

And this will be validated once the Serbian study (Roman Frontier) is published (it does seem to be held back because of the valuable data it contains). There is a lot of Thracian(green) and Dardanii(blue) profiles in their PCA plot, and in betweens.

I see. Well, not exactly sure with Kannellure in Dardania or just generally early Thracian presence in comparison to Bërnica culture in order to conclude wether the former or latter form the original Dardanian substratum. Dardania just generally seems to have gotten more from the Thracian sphere in comparison to Paeonia and that is what I meant to say. Mainly in regards to what can be expected from hopefully future studies from Kosovo and beyond.

The Bosnian poster that has gone MIA wrote in Anthrogenica that the R-CTS1450 (in the Balkan IA cluster) in this study is the one that protrudes toward among Balkan Slavs (outlier east of the Albanian cluster) and is almost central European in profile, he thinks there might be a Scythian mixture causing it. I think there is a good chance he is a pure distilled Dardanii profile, sure there might some foreign admixture, but he is clearly on the Dardani/Yamnaya cline.

We also had an E1b-V13 in Naissus with a Central European profile (think it was Naissus in the STP structure paper, gosh that name just got to be a poor attempt at sarcasm), so just because it is a pre-Slavic Paleo-Balkan lineage doesn't mean it automatically needs to be the same for the auDNA. That of course does not change the ultimate origin of the parental lineage of the ancient individual tested.

The other samples are all E-V13, I am guessing the 3 J2b-L283s are the ones near the Croatian Illyrian cluster. And it is clear, a lot of E-V13 in eastern Serbia had a partial Dardanii profile, as we see with the Hun I18832(E-V13) individual who is a almost half south Thracian, half Dardanii (Yamnaya derived).

Exactly. They are the result of either eastern EBA Cetina/Dinaric or lately IA Eastern Glasinac Mati expansion, or just generally Illyrian soldiers displaced from their original Illyrian habitat during the imperial Roman era.

One of them is Z1043+, just a comparison with other Z1043+ during CE SE Europe:

ID I15548 ~395 CE Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, Serbia J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>Z1043+

ID R3481 211-320.5 CE Doclea, Montenegro J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>Z1043+
ID R3544 ~575 CE Gardun (Tilurium), Croatia J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>Z1043>FGC55778>FT212328

There is also one in a preprint about CE cemeteries in Pannonia who is Z8421+, so could potentially be >Z631>Z1043+ too.

**PaleoRevenge** · 28-11-22, 19:15

Visually based on the pre-print of the paper and the information provided by the Bosnian poster who seems to have contacted the research team, the R-CTS1450 would plot somewhere here:

Either he is a pure Paeoni profile with no Thracian admixture, or partially Scythian. The Nassius sample does not plot central European, it is between Cinamak and South Thracian, however it is on the same cline as Himera I10950, and their components are quite similar. Himera I10950 is a good candidate for a south Dacian or Geto-Scythian(Getae) profile, they pull parallel to the Dardanian cline because they have BA Baltic like admixture, while the Dardanii cluster behaves that way because it is Yamnaya derived. Both Nassius and Himera E-V13 also have a Dardanii mixture in them, so there is also a component overlap with the Dardanii cluster as well, which in turn have a South Thracian admixture. A lot of two way overlap, but they are not the same.

And this is the Paeoni tribal distribution, can't help but notice the distribution is similar to the Brnjica culture spillage.

**mount123** · 28-11-22, 19:23

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

Visually based on the pre-print of the paper and the information provided by the Bosnian poster who seems to have contacted the research team, the R-CTS1450 would plot somewhere here:

Either he is a pure Paeoni profile with no Thracian admixture, or partially Scythian. The Nassius sample does not plot central European, it is between Cinamak and South Thracian, however it is on the same cline as Himera I10950, and their components are quite similar. Himera I10950 is a good candidate for a south Dacian or Geto-Scythian(Getae) profile, they pull parallel to the Dardanian cline because they have BA Baltic like admixture, while the Dardanii cluster behaves that way because it is Yamnaya derived. Both Nassius and Himera E-V13 also have a Dardanii mixture in them, so there is also a component overlap with the Dardanii cluster as well, which in turn have a South Thracian admixture. A lot of two way overlap, but they are not the same.

My bad. For some reason I had that in mind perhaps it was a different site or none at all lol? Yes, interesting auDNA he plots South of the Paeonian Ulanci/Illyrian mish mash of Cinamak, so between that and the SE Thracian samples.

And this is the Paeoni tribal distribution, can't help but notice the distribution is similar to the Brnjica culture spillage.

Agreed. This all makes future aDNA from "Dardania" very predictable.

**PaleoRevenge** · 28-11-22, 19:47

A lot will be answered by the Roman Frontier paper, the plots on the pre-print PCA graph look like a gold mine, what I have identified as Dardanii cluster is for now based on indirect evidence, most direct link is the Skopje I10379 profile.

**PaleoRevenge** · 06-12-22, 07:05

Riverman, today I had the idea of creating Neolithic averages by countries, I checked the individuals for IE mixture, and only kept neolithic profiles that lacked IE mixture. I ignored WHG because that is irrelevant, that is the characteristic that sets them apart regionally.

Very interesting patterns, but also I'd like to hear your opinion on what I call the Dardani cluster, because if this reads are correct, they once lived in north-western Hungary.

Two versions:

With ROU_N_outlier1:I7126

Personally I don't like excluding ROU_N_outlier1:I7126, because the Romanian Neolithic sample is small, and Romania is a big country, the outlier has about 20% WHG, which is not atypical in neighboring regions like Serbia.

Anyhow, here is some interesting patterns:

1) Himera's E-V13s are clearly not Illyrians. Their neolithic component is based in Romania or/and Hungary. I10946 association with Hungary makes sense, you would recall that was my original appraisal on it's location. In this chart I10950 looks Dacian, just as it did using IA proxies.

2) The Dardanian cluster (MJ12, I18832, I10379 and the partial Dardanis) is a surprise. This calc supports a northern origin to R1b-Z2103 (neolithic component preferred is Czech). I am clueless on the archeological knowledge and context here. Is there anything that supports such a scenario? A Yamnaya branch in western Hungary getting progressively pushed down by Corded derived groups until it ends up in the southern Balkans (Brnica and Babadag culture)? I kind of brushed aside the fact that Paeonia resembles the name Pannonia. There might a chronological connection behind the name.

3) Thracian has a strong Romanian neolithic.

4) Illyrians pick up Italian neolithic, supporting you and Torzio claims (they were getting genetic feedback from Italian Beakers and later Italics and Celts).

I probably should have spent an additional 30 minutes and added Alpine and German Neolithic averages, so eastern Celtic groups could be tested out too, but I am Balkan centric in my approaches.

Code:

BGR_N:Avg,0.1211077,0.1806626,0.0114268,-0.0889219,0.0541641,-0.045515,-0.000188,-0.0028151,0.0397187,0.0845575,0.0116594,0.0139526,-0.022864,-0.0011148,-0.0366987,-0.0141739,0.0211353,0.0055363,0.0081705,-0.0132563,-0.0116794,0.0063558,-0.0049793,-0.0041089,-0.0098674
BGR_Krepost_N:I0679_d,0.1161,0.152329,-0.024513,-0.071383,0.020311,-0.042112,-0.003525,-0.012461,0.005113,0.047746,-0.006333,0.009292,-0.014866,-0.013625,-0.029451,-0.014187,0.019297,0.002027,0.006536,-0.00963,-0.012977,-0.001113,-0.006162,0.000964,-0.001676
CZE_EE:Avg,0.127237964285714,0.17097175,0.0509921071428571,-0.0404442142857143,0.0819822142857143,-0.0237257142857143,-0.000654642857142857,0.00443392857142857,0.0550607857142857,0.0779645357142857,0.000144928571428572,0.0109027857142857,-0.022315,-0.00614885714285714,-0.0161603214285714,0.000895,0.0154737142857143,0.004122,0.00753732142857143,-0.00224225,0.00953217857142857,0.006483,-0.01290575,-0.0280934285714286,0.000440464285714286
CZE_EN_LBK:I15818,0.124067,0.18178,0.005657,-0.091086,0.056934,-0.044901,-0.009165,-0.004154,0.038655,0.08146,0.005196,0.018284,-0.030178,-0.007156,-0.039902,-0.001458,0.034161,-0.002534,0.01345,-0.004752,-0.014599,0.011376,-0.008011,0.006266,0.000958
CZE_ME:Avg,0.124392285714286,0.169956214285714,0.0544939285714286,-0.0342841428571429,0.0824109285714286,-0.0206178571428571,0.000419714285714286,0.00456571428571428,0.0517447142857143,0.0746646428571428,0.00145,0.00639064285714286,-0.0203134285714286,-0.00460057142857143,-0.0150649285714286,-0.0001135,0.0111852142857143,0.00594535714285714,0.00472271428571429,-0.00364464285714286,0.00912671428571428,0.00552028571428571,-0.0128618571428571,-0.0287389285714286,0.000350714285714286
CZE_N:Avg,0.125611857142857,0.1793135,0.0332404285714286,-0.0636540714285714,0.0725628571428572,-0.0344431428571429,-0.00334035714285714,0.000164857142857143,0.049933,0.0792597142857143,0.00394357142857143,0.0102338571428571,-0.0220018571428571,0.000186785714285714,-0.0274639285714286,-0.0030685,0.0150593571428571,0.00213557142857143,0.010442,-0.00544014285714286,-0.000641785714285715,0.00774578571428571,-0.0089355,-0.0144768571428571,-0.00251485714285714
GRC_N:Avg,0.119134833333333,0.177548333333333,-0.00691383333333333,-0.0980306666666667,0.043649,-0.043228,-0.00207583333333333,-0.00492283333333333,0.0276108333333333,0.0755976666666667,0.00617066666666667,0.0126888333333333,-0.0233148333333333,-0.00190383333333333,-0.0372553333333333,-0.00791116666666667,0.0221435,0.00109783333333333,0.0093435,-0.0137983333333333,-0.0171988333333333,0.002947,-0.0035125,-0.000361666666666667,-0.00469016666666667
HRV_N:Avg,0.120146555555556,0.181140333333333,0.0140232962962963,-0.0905238518518519,0.0603644814814815,-0.0414411111111111,-0.003203,-0.00304266666666667,0.0446619259259259,0.0861436666666667,0.00674807407407407,0.0135491111111111,-0.0230973703703704,-0.0010142962962963,-0.0379764814814815,-0.0122081111111111,0.0167615185185185,0.000957222222222222,0.0104841481481481,-0.00956937037037037,-0.0106200740740741,0.00504222222222222,-0.00389837037037037,-0.005516,-0.00431981481481481
HUN_N:Avg,0.124784739130435,0.178203304347826,0.0188970434782609,-0.0799004347826087,0.0640452826086957,-0.0407058913043478,-0.00309084782608696,-0.00157517391304348,0.0441993913043478,0.0816893260869565,0.00725458695652174,0.0111063913043478,-0.0200174782608696,0.00247717391304348,-0.0374912391304348,-0.011832152173913,0.0149771739130435,0.00276236956521739,0.0115942173913044,-0.0110135,-0.00967047826086956,0.00731163043478261,-0.00604180434782609,-0.00889589130434782,-0.0042849347826087
ITA_N:Avg,0.1237256,0.1804595,0.0142173,-0.0789412,0.0601651,-0.0393792,-0.0045356,-0.0041076,0.0448929,0.0854687,0.0034102,0.014537,-0.0250643,-0.0053535,-0.0301435,-0.0051974,0.0187754,0.0022805,0.0079819,-0.0086792,-0.0063386,0.0032891,-0.0049669,-0.0119414,-0.0007425
ITA_Sardinia_N:Avg,0.126217166666667,0.178564,0.0427822777777778,-0.0560763888888889,0.0788693888888889,-0.0303680555555556,-0.00400816666666667,-0.000282,0.0600732222222222,0.0990455,0.00119977777777778,0.0165268888888889,-0.0346132222222222,-0.0150925555555556,-0.0187669444444444,-0.00144377777777778,0.0134731111111111,0.00211144444444444,0.00486027777777778,-0.0112137222222222,0.00167055555555556,0.00280272222222222,-0.0120851111111111,-0.0285113333333333,0.00118427777777778
ITA_Sicily_MN:Avg,0.1186605,0.17555975,0.0204115,-0.07275575,0.065704375,-0.0393935,-0.0073145,-0.00432675,0.04542975,0.0848535,0.00379575,0.00962875,-0.020459375,-0.004042625,-0.031538,-0.0044085,0.01962275,0.003484,0.008484625,-0.0115525,-0.00430475,0.006677375,-0.00756425,-0.01322475,-0.003802
MKD_N:I0676,0.122929,0.182795,-0.000754,-0.103037,0.063704,-0.046296,-0.00376,-0.001385,0.046222,0.090571,0.01153,0.014837,-0.031516,0.003303,-0.042073,-0.011535,0.024251,0.005448,0.013701,-0.012006,-0.016346,0.011623,0.001109,0.00494,-0.007664
ROU_N:Avg,0.1246365,0.18406475,0.0118795,-0.0973845,0.061396,-0.04894525,-0.00475875,-0.0047305,0.04637575,0.092075,0.006861,0.01442475,-0.0239715,0.0036815,-0.0477395,-0.01431975,0.019199,0.008203,0.01461225,-0.00912925,-0.01553525,0.006059,-0.00714825,0.0038255,-0.00874175
SRB_N:Avg,0.129378666666667,0.183134,0.011188,-0.097869,0.0588826666666667,-0.0449943333333333,-0.00156666666666667,-0.00707666666666667,0.0407686666666667,0.0896603333333333,0.00319366666666667,0.015586,-0.0223486666666667,4.60000000000003E-05,-0.0417566666666667,-0.015513,0.0200356666666667,0.000253666666666667,0.0111033333333333,-0.0124643333333333,-0.00540733333333333,0.004328,-0.00772366666666667,0.00453866666666667,0.000279333333333333
POL_BKG_N:Avg,0.121600833333333,0.171793666666667,0.0336266666666667,-0.0614238333333333,0.0693461666666667,-0.0323976666666667,0.000391666666666667,-0.000230833333333333,0.0459496666666667,0.0785738333333333,0.0023545,0.009391,-0.0177153333333333,0.00309666666666667,-0.0301073333333333,-0.00556883333333333,0.0116476666666667,0.00287166666666667,0.0128631666666667,-0.0093795,-0.0042425,0.00748116666666667,-0.00796983333333333,-0.0190388333333333,-0.00347283333333333
POL_Globular_Amphora:Avg,0.128294857142857,0.170101357142857,0.0588578571428571,-0.0259092142857143,0.0830045,-0.0214147857142857,0.00129257142857143,0.00702164285714286,0.0525772142857143,0.0728814285714286,0.000464,0.0100946428571429,-0.0171702142857143,-0.0066255,-0.0132132142857143,0.000606142857142857,0.00724564285714286,0.00614428571428571,0.00683264285714286,-5.35714285714284E-05,0.00962578571428572,0.00711878571428571,-0.0137949285714286,-0.0258728571428571,0.000213928571428572
WHG:SRB_Iron_Gates_Avg,0.13046975,0.11805525,0.1794505,0.174532,0.1301396875,0.05351209375,0.01399796875,0.0320540625,0.06475096875,-0.00843409375,-0.00892628125,-0.0168138125,0.02473340625,-4.21874999999999E-06,0.032080875,0.04726409375,0.00466528125,0.0055781875,-0.006768,0.04741340625,0.07336275,0.01101284375,-0.03336925,-0.12037075,0.01111040625
WHG:ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_TepeHissar_C:Avg,0.0780204545454546,0.0983218181818182,-0.120918545454545,-0.0128612727272727,-0.0963815454545454,0.0127782727272727,0.0129470909090909,-0.00505581818181818,-0.0701888181818182,-0.0367123636363636,-0.00394154545454545,-0.00129436363636364,-0.00114881818181818,-0.00295263636363636,0.0196547272727273,0.0289646363636364,-0.00679172727272727,0.00532090909090909,0.00764481818181818,-0.0237274545454545,0.00626190909090909,-0.0142986363636364,-0.00521,-0.0225331818181818,0.0140867272727273
Yamnaya_Avg:,0.120715777777778,0.0878996666666667,0.0439556111111111,0.113661111111111,-0.0293728888888889,0.0448704444444444,0.00420394444444444,-0.00333322222222222,-0.0553464444444444,-0.0740585555555556,0.000496055555555556,0.000366388888888889,-0.00175922222222222,-0.0232582222222222,0.0337866666666667,0.0136272222222222,-0.000992444444444444,-0.00304055555555556,-0.00233938888888889,0.0107411666666667,-0.00358394444444444,0.000583888888888889,0.0101952777777778,0.0198688333333333,-0.0037055
Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER),0.1253507,0.10915866,0.056808809,0.089148191,0.0044132128,0.033087128,0.0037300426,0.00056465957,-0.028402702,-0.041441191,-0.0014857447,0.00009887234,-0.0056111064,-0.014620191,0.026595404,0.0083559362,-0.0093626809,0.0014421702,-0.0005696383,0.0058938085,0.0016965106,0.0034095532,0.0045051064,0.015449404,-0.0021528511
TUR_SE_Mardin_PPN:I8432,0.071709,0.131003,-0.084098,-0.097223,-0.052625,-0.032909,-0.009165,-0.011307,-0.020861,-0.009841,0.026469,-0.007044,0.009812,0.014175,-0.005836,0.000663,-0.002217,0.006081,-0.000377,0.002876,-0.000749,0.012984,-0.001849,-0.023618,0.008861
Levant_PPNB,0.0725625,0.1650235,-0.0309238,-0.1380835,0.0323138,-0.062541,-0.012103,-0.0141338,0.0735775,0.0367207,0.0194055,-0.0170098,0.036459,-0.000241,-0.021342,0.0067288,0.0089638,-0.0013935,-0.0054052,0.0192277,-0.0037435,0.007852,-0.0014175,-0.0062658,-0.0047002
Uralic(RUS_HG),0.10471733,-0.068040567,0.095076233,0.1915759,-0.082477,0.043630767,-0.0425109,-0.048331333,-0.032042,-0.088526,0.022084667,-0.0095581,0.026246767,-0.071105233,0.024595433,0.017958433,-0.012908,-0.0047716667,-0.00019543333,0.0012226667,-0.031680433,0.013217333,0.023992333,0.0063325667,-0.0095001

**mount123** · 06-12-22, 14:45

From the other forum:

Originally Posted by Bruzmi

As R-PF7563 is found among southern Illyrians and it will be confirmed among Iapygians in Italy, who themselves are descendants of Cetina migrations, I believe that it is quite likely that the R-PF7563 in southern Peloponnese in the 11th century BCE reached the region with Cetina movements, several hundred years prior to this era.

I find it funny how Maleschreiber lumps different eras and archeological complexes together. He blatantly blends out the Balkan Yamnayan R1b that is negative for L23 and very likely R1b-PF7562 and tries to connect the Pylos samples with EBA Cetina movements into Greece when this lineage is completely absent in Cetina.

The steppe movements into ancient Greece are overwhelmingly Yamnaya related and that is the reason for the occurrence of this rather rare haplogroup there.

**PaleoRevenge** · 06-12-22, 16:11

Originally Posted by mount123

From the other forum:

I find it funny how Maleschreiber lumps different eras and archeological complexes together. He blatantly blends out the Balkan Yamnayan R1b that is negative for L23 and very likely R1b-PF7562 and tries to connect the Pylos samples with EBA Cetina movements into Greece when this lineage is completely absent in Cetina.

The steppe movements into ancient Greece are overwhelmingly Yamnaya related and that is the reason for the occurrence of this rather rare haplogroup there.

R1b-PF7562 has shown itself to be normal in IA Albania, the Cinamak fellow and the miss-dated mdv fellow from Korca are both R1b-PF7562-3 . However, giving it a Illyrian association is a long stretch, they likely represent a pre-Illyrian layer. Speculating it came with Illyrian ships to Greece is comedy, they always want to own everything. The more reasonable explanation is either some Greek groups had it, or it joined them when they migrated south from the vicinity of Albania/Macedonia.

He thinks it will be found among Messapi, that will likely be true, but I think with the actual Messapi, not the Dauni and Peuceti north of them. Until evidence proves otherwise, I'm of the opinion Messapi is not Illyrian derived, while the other two tribes north of it are.

**PaleoRevenge** · 06-12-22, 16:58

I updated yesterday's model, removed single individuals, Czech LBK, MKD N, Rou N outlier, are single individuals and it is a unknown if they truly represented the norm. I also broke up the Hungarian Neolithic by cultures (Hungary neolithic is a huge collection).

Thracian Neolithic is entirely northern derived. The Dardanians have a portion of neolithic ancestry from southern Hungary, to me this is a possible association for the Vatin group being R1b-Z2103. The Himera's E-V13 are also form the Hungarian-Romanian zone. Even the Uralic signal (which was prevalent in Ukranian neolithic) hints at this association.

**Hawk** · 07-12-22, 18:24

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

I updated yesterday's model, removed single individuals, Czech LBK, MKD N, Rou N outlier, are single individuals and it is a unknown if they truly represented the norm. I also broke up the Hungarian Neolithic by cultures (Hungary neolithic is a huge collection).

Thracian Neolithic is entirely northern derived. The Dardanians have a portion of neolithic ancestry from southern Hungary, to me this is a possible association for the Vatin group being R1b-Z2103. The Himera's E-V13 are also form the Hungarian-Romanian zone. Even the Uralic signal (which was prevalent in Ukranian neolithic) hints at this association.

Perhaps you are right and Vatin might end up R1b-Z2103, even J2b2-L283 on the western hemisphere which was sort of separate entity from core Vatin. But i also have the feeling E-V13 played a role in Vatin. Vatin is part of greater Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere which also includes Gava in North-East. Unfortunately they were extensive cremation users during Bronze Age and it's hard to get samples from them. Though there is still dispute regarding their exact definition, but some archaeologists consider as a quite important Central Balkan cultural group, progenitor of many Paleo-Balkan Iron Age tribes.

**PaleoRevenge** · 07-12-22, 21:09

Originally Posted by Hawk

Perhaps you are right and Vatin might end up R1b-Z2103, even J2b2-L283 on the western hemisphere which was sort of separate entity from core Vatin. But i also have the feeling E-V13 played a role in Vatin. Vatin is part of greater Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere which also includes Gava in North-East. Unfortunately they were extensive cremation users during Bronze Age and it's hard to get samples from them. Though there is still dispute regarding their exact definition, but some archaeologists consider as a quite important Central Balkan cultural group, progenitor of many Paleo-Balkan Iron Age tribes.

Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA.
I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.

The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To me, it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region.

And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.

**Hawk** · 07-12-22, 21:44

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA.
I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.

The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region.

And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.

I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.

**PaleoRevenge** · 07-12-22, 22:52

Originally Posted by Hawk

I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.

Bulgarian Yamnaya average on G25 tests comes of as Corded not Yamnaya, and it's position near the steppe, gives it exposure to invasions. Time will tell, to me it's looking like Yamnaya aDNA was holding out in the central Balkans, near the Danube, until it lost it's core region and was forced southward.

Greek groups do not seem to be homogenous, and it was likely different competing IE groups entered Greece and because of geography had to standardize/blend into one. Later Dorians are described as the sons of "can't recall" taking revenge on the sons of "another name I can't recall", so basically two different IE groups that had rivalry going back to a habitat that was not Greece.

**mount123** · 08-12-22, 12:24

Originally Posted by Hawk

I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.

Whilst it is true for so far missing Z2103, on the other side R1b-PF7562 which itself is a rare haplogroup has been shown to have spread with Yamnaya into Greece. The L23- sample from Cinamak is proof of that, although low coverage one can assume that it is highly likely PF7562, not to forget the EBA Russian sample (not sure what the archeological affiliation was for that one).

Doesn't of course change the fact that Yamnaya were overwhelmingly by a large margin Z2103 (bite some minority hg. e.g. I-M223+ or the aforementioned rare hg. etc.). Point is we will very certainly see it in Bronze Age Greece. If I'm not mistaken some people were alluding the Armenochori group to supposedly yield Z2103. So we will see.

**mount123** · 08-12-22, 12:39

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA.
I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.

Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.

Why would anyone associate Jagodnjak with the "original Illyrian profile"? They literally have nothing to do with Cetina in terms of auDNA and uniparentals. Cetina is a EBA culture that expanded through out the whole Mediterranean and that is a whole different scale. Medieval Venetians weren't even a thing back then.

The auDNA is Cetina-like not the other way around. This type of autosomal ancestry is something that Italian Beakers did not even have. There is no proof of a shift of Cetina towards Beakers in archaeogenetic records. The EBA-MBA Cetina/Dinaric cluster shows the normal variance within a population group. The whole argument of that non existent shift is to take Yamnaya meets Baden Culture cough HRV_Popova Zemlja cough as an ancestral population. But guess what those aren't ancestral and have nothing to do with EBA Cetina, at all.

As for it being an independent entity prior to its IE migrations into the Balkans too, I agree.

**torzio** · 08-12-22, 17:10

Originally Posted by PaleoRevenge

Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA.
I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.

The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region.

And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.

cetina was on land on both sides of the adriatic

**mount123** · 08-12-22, 17:20

Originally Posted by torzio

cetina was on land on both sides of the adriatic

That map was made by Quiles, an internet blogger. I always advice to read scientific sources when it comes to EBA Cetina and their migrations.

Some good insights on Early Bronze Age Cetina culture:

https://www.academia.edu/36936788/Th...h_perspectives

https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/fakultae...etina-project/

https://www.academia.edu/42625481/Sp...tic_prehistory (Cetina from page 124)

http://aegeobalkanprehistory.net/ind...icle&id_art=13

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.771683/full (Cetina pottery in the Aegean, Italy, Malta)

**torzio** · 08-12-22, 17:24

maybe this 2022 paper will help

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...88754322001501

**Riverman** · 08-12-22, 19:17

Originally Posted by mount123

That map was made by Quiles, an internet blogger.

No, the map is from a paper, he just posted it too and its easier to access, find on Google than the original. Actually, Carlos posted the link to the source:
https://www.academia.edu/1249546/_20...A8ge_p._91-107

**mount123** · 08-12-22, 19:20

Thanks for the link to the paper I absolutely did not like as it lacks good quality research in comparison to other sources I have posted. Wasn't sure if the map was self made by Quiles or from that paper but given the general bad quality either would have been possible.

Post scriptum: good to see how archeology has evolved since then in regards to exploring and deciphering SE European centered cultures.

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

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

LBA Steppes and big phenotypical mess

Posting Permissions