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

[Johane Derite]

I am far more skeptical about Brnjica being the Dardanian culture given that the Dardanian Kingdom (~400s BC) of the balkans are first attested far later than when the Brnjica culture was around.

When I first argued for Brnjica - Dardanian connection I wasn't appreciating well enough this big time difference.

Lazic ("Who were the dardani") argues for example that the earliest signs of Brnjica begin in middle bronze age, and Brnjica culture ends with the introduction of Chanelled ware.

So in his model Chanelled ware is disruptive and the continuity of Brnjica ends with the entry of chanelled ware into Brnjica regions around ~1100BC.

Lazic argues that in Kosovo around the 700s-600s BC a new culture of low mounds with cremations, and new pottery made with dented tool. This culture is argued to be from lower danube and eastern balkans.

So in the Balkan regions, according to his model we have at least three different contendants:

1. Brnjica Culture (middle bronze age to late bronze age)
2. Channeled Ware (late bronze age to Iron age)
3. Low mounds/dented ware (starting 700s BC)

And this is not taking into account the well documented:

4. Glasinac-Mati-Drini complex (which was present at least in western Kosovo regions.)


Also, this is just one persons model, Rastko Vasic for example argues that Brnjica has continuity and did not die out.

So we possibly have at least four different cultures that might be source of the Dardani, but it is even possible that none of them is, we have to be skeptical to know for sure.

We know for sure however that the Dardani existed, and that they were connected to the anatolian Dardanoi from the Trojan sagas.

These are the estimated borders of the Dardanian kingdom in the balkans, and also the later roman province of Dardania. The Romans claimed Romus and Remulus had partial ancestry from the Dardanoi via Aeneas, so that they would allow a province to be named Dardania is not meaningless.

 

[Riverman]

I am far more skeptical about Brnjica being the Dardanian culture given that the Dardanian Kingdom (~400s BC) of the balkans are first attested far later than when the Brnjica culture was around.

When I first argued for Brnjica - Dardanian connection I wasn't appreciating well enough this big time difference.

Lazic ("Who were the dardani") argues for example that the earliest signs of Brnjica begin in middle bronze age, and Brnjica culture ends with the introduction of Chanelled ware.

So in his model Chanelled ware is disruptive and the continuity of Brnjica ends with the entry of chanelled ware into Brnjica regions around ~1100BC.

Lazic argues that in Kosovo around the 700s-600s BC a new culture of low mounds with cremations, and new pottery made with dented tool. This culture is argued to be from lower danube and eastern balkans.

So in the Balkan regions, according to his model we have at least three different contendants:

1. Brnjica Culture (middle bronze age to late bronze age)
2. Channeled Ware (late bronze age to Iron age)
3. Low mounds/dented ware (starting 700s BC)

And this is not taking into account the well documented:

4. Glasinac-Mati-Drini complex (which was present at least in western Kosovo regions.)


Also, this is just one persons model, Rastko Vasic for example argues that Brnjica has continuity and did not die out.

So we possibly have at least four different cultures that might be source of the Dardani, but it is even possible that none of them is, we have to be skeptical to know for sure.

We know for sure however that the Dardani existed, and that they were connected to the anatolian Dardanoi from the Trojan sagas.

These are the estimated borders of the Dardanian kingdom in the balkans, and also the later roman province of Dardania. The Romans claimed Romus and Remulus had partial ancestry from the Dardanoi via Aeneas, so that they would allow a province to be named Dardania is not meaningless.

I think its similar to Belegis vs. Belegis II, the Channelled Ware incoming people, especially elite, took obviously over, and the question is whether you count that as continuity or not. It seems the transition had a more fluent character, but was ethnic nevertheless. What remains is a regional specific archaeological province and the most important connection is again Channelled Ware. Its still meaningful to keep Brnjica in mind because of this development and because from it the local population evolved. In an ideal world we would be able to get samples for every layer, but what matters the most is the intrusion of Belegis II-Gava related Channelled Ware people in the region which, in all likelihood, spread E-V13 and this was the Dardani : E-V13 connections base.

Unfortunately VEN008 seems to be too low coverage for G25 and his K36 results might point to that as well... Too bad.

 

[Riverman]

The VEN samples are pretty homogeneous Imperial Romans it seems to me, with results along these lines being fairly representative:

Distance to: VEN015:VEN015
0.02786228 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.02820657 IND_Roopkund_B
0.03000435 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.03818712 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.03863058 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.03940920 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04165699 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
0.04274826 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.04323734 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04748169 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04832236 ITA_Rome_MA
0.05304385 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.05346567 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.05405668 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
0.05415140 DEU_MA_o
0.05482449 TUR_Barcin_C
0.05569709 BGR_IA
0.05571753 IND_Roopkund_B_o
0.05705017 GRC_Mycenaean
0.05804356 Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD
0.05974919 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA_low_res
0.06059782 Levant_LBN_MA_o3
0.06170486 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.06285850 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
0.06317935 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA

The VEN samples look like being pulled in a Greek/Balkan/Anatolian direction. We can assume the same being true for VEN008, so most likely we deal with a Balkan/Greek derived V13. Though it could be any E1b1b, even from further East.

 

[Hawk]

If Thracians result to be heavy E-V13, which i suspect so, it's surprising. They were known as quite good horseman and obsessed with horses like the cult of Thracian horseman, someone based on that description would assume they were descended from Steppe people paternally but riding on a horseback is just a habit which you can learn at the end of the day.

 

[Riverman]

If Thracians result to be heavy E-V13, which i suspect so, it's surprising. They were known as quite good horseman and obsessed with horses like the cult of Thracian horseman, someone based on that description would assume they were descended from Steppe people paternally but riding on a horseback is just a habit which you can learn at the end of the day.

Almost the whole Channelled Ware horizon got conquered or became dominated by Cimmerians and Scythians, this is was produced, as a byproduct, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. So its largely the same people, largely the same pots in some areas, but they being heavily, heavily steppe shifted culturally and of course I expect also paternal (R1a primarily) influence especially in the Dacians and Getae, but also the Thracians. Their elite was, at the end of this process, quite often of Cimmerian-Scythian descent. So in a way, the absolute rule of the E-V13 clans lasted not for that long and at the end they fused or were subjugated by incoming steppe clans. In the process these steppe clans brought new metallurgical innovations from regions as far as the Caucasus, to which they connected the Carpathian sphere. At the same time the Channelled Ware metallurgists helped them out and both traditions fused, again creating the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. The Cimmerians and Scythians also introduced new horsemanship, which was probably the main reason they were able to meet them at the same level or even subjugate them in some areas. This included new, larger horsebreeds.

For a time some Pannonian and Carpathian populations were in decline and pastoralism became more dominant, with less settlements, a more mobile lifestyle. In some areas we deal with "Yurtification", so that was a really big change. This too did hurt the Channelled Ware people demography, but at the same time motived some clans to secondary pushes and flights, to the West, to the South.

At the end of the day, when everything had calmed down, this new fused culture created the nucleus for Hallstatt, in which we see all the innovations came to a new cultural formula when people settled down again and reverted to a more organised and agro-pastoralist lifestyle. This new formula was the Hallstatt culture, which too spread, just like Urnfield, over different ethnicities from the Thraco-Cimmerian sphere. So basically, Thracians can be seen as "steppified Southern Urnfielders" with Balkan admixture and Greek-Anatolian influences. In Dacians and Getae the Balkan, Greek and Anatolians was probably weaker, but the recent steppe admixture stronger.

So they did indeed learn new horsemanship and adopted new breeds, but not just so, there was real Cimmerian-Scythian admixture and direct, personal cultural transmission on a big scale. That's why I don't expect Daco-Thracians to be exclusively E-V13 at all, even if, what is questionable too, the Channelled Ware original Thracians would have been.

 

[Hawk]

There was a major clash between three different cultures in South Carpathians/Danube Valley.

1. Szeremle Group (South-East extension of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture which includes Dubovac-Žuto Brdo and Gârla Mare culture).
2. Tumulus-Urnfield Culture.
3. Gava-Holigrady/Belegis-Cruceni, Channeled-Ware which probably overpowered Tumulus-Urnfield and Szeremle groups in Late Bronze Age.

One of them is E-V13 candidate. I am optimistic that by the end of 2021 we will get the answer. :wink:

So far, the Kisapostag and Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture were almost all I2 with some R1b, R1a, unless the South-East extension were E-V13 instead. I don't know. So far, the more realistic looks the 3rd option.

 

[Riverman]

There was a major clash between three different cultures in South Carpathians/Danube Valley.

1. Szeremle Group (South-East extension of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture which includes Dubovac-Žuto Brdo and Gârla Mare culture).
2. Tumulus-Urnfield Culture.
3. Gava-Holigrady/Belegis-Cruceni, Channeled-Ware which probably overpowered Tumulus-Urnfield and Szeremle groups in Late Bronze Age.

One of them is E-V13 candidate. I am optimistic that by the end of 2021 we will get the answer. :wink:

So far, the Kisapostag and Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture were almost all I2 with some R1b, R1a, unless the South-East extension were E-V13 instead. I don't know. So far, the more realistic looks the 3rd option.

Imho, 1 was heavily influenced and in part even formed on the population and cultural bases of 3 on Central-Eastern Balkans. If you mention Dubovac-Brdo in particular. I wouldn't even treat those two as strictly separated for the macro-region, but this is debatable.

As for 2, they simply split along the Central Balkans and so far we only have good diversity and ancient DNA results of significance on the Balkans from the Eastern Daco-Thracian sphere, which can be largely equated with Channelled Ware.
So these are two related blocks, which split at some time, the West being rather Illyrian and J2 dominated, the Eastern Daco-Thracian and E-V13. Eventually, after the break up, they fuse again, in the Central Balkans and Pannonia.

 

[Hawk]

Somewhere around the 14th century BC, in the Ju`naMorava basin, a large number of Brnjica cultural groupsettlements appeared, among which were numerouslarge and artificially fortified hill fort settlements. Re-search to-date suggests various possible reasons for theappearance of such a large number of hill fort settle-ments in such a short time. The principal reason was,undoubtedly, the protection of the densely populatedterritory, communication control (of the Morava basinand other river zones), preservation of natural resourcesand sacred places (large necropolises), organization ofeconomic and social life as well as the consequencesof internal social development (social differentiation),relations with neighbouring communities and, particu-larly, it seems, with the Mycenaean world. It is a well-known fact that the Mycenaean world, several centu-ries prior to its downfall, had a monopoly over thebronze trade in the Mediterranean and, consequently,the demand for bronze increased enormously, thus aro-using the interest of the Mycenaean world in commu-nities which possessed bronze (that is, the alloy ores)or in the communities across whose territory thesecontacts were made.44All the cultural groups (Belegi{, Para}in, Brnjica)on the one-time territory of the Vatin complex had ironobjects at their disposal.45 Namely, there are undoubtedproofs that the Belegi{ and Para}in cultural groups usediron objects, while it is known for the Brnjica com-munity that it produced iron in its earliest developmentphase (in the 14th century BC) and made objects fromthis metal.46 Iron – »the royal metal« or Homer’s »metaldearer than gold«, as with the Hittites, was producedwithin the Brnjica community under the auspices of

the largest and strongest fortification – on the Hisar hillin Leskovac, in the very core of the Brnjica territory.There is no proof that the Mycenaean world producediron, but it used it.47 It cannot be ruled out that the Myce-naean world procured this metal from the same placesit obtained bronze (that is, bronze ores) – a significantshare from their Balkan hinterland. Goods exchange aswell as other contacts with the Mycenaean civilizationundoubtedly influenced the Brnjica community develop-ment favourably and, at the same time, enhanced theappetites of its leading circles for possession of moreand more precious goods to confirm their social status.Relatively numerous sites in which ceramics ofBrnjica type were found in the Vardar basin as well asin the north of Greece up to Thessaly, point to popu-lation movements from the central Balkans towardsthe Mycenaean territory at the time when the Brnjicacommunity flourished, reached its peak and, like others,developed ferrous metallurgy, but neglected the pro-tection of the northern regions of its territory. Undersuch conditions, the cultural group from the Iron Age I bphase in the Morava basin found ways to leave theVelika Morava valley and reach the Ju`na Morava basinup to the Grdelica Gorge, undoubtedly causing move-ments further to the south in response. The powerfuladvance of cultural groups from the north (from theSerbian Danube valley and the Velika Morava basin) isproved not only by the cannelured ceramics of the IronAge I type, but also by bronze artefacts (decoration need-les, axes-kelts, razors, bracelets) from the Hisar site inLeskovac. From that moment on, the archaeologicalmaterial of the Ju`na Morava basin north of GrdelicaGorge is characterized by a mixture of the materialculture of the Iron Age I community in the Moravabasin with traditional forms of the Brnjica populationin proportionally 10: 1 during the Brnjica I b phase, upto 5:1 during the Brnjica II a phase, and 1: 4 in the lastphase of this cultural group.48 The quantity of thearchaeological material, however, shows a significantdecrease in the population of the Ju`na Morava basinnorth of Grdelica Gorge as compared to the 14th centu-ry BC. At the same time some regions of the Middle

Danube basin were completely deserted (during Ha B1,ca. 10th century BC), while the population in the VelikaMorava basin decreased in number as was the case inthe Ju`na Morava basin, with a sudden decrease inmaterial culture quality. After the process had reachedthe lowest degree, somewhere at the turn of the 10th tothe 9th century, a sudden revival of life occurred. Theprocess most probably started from the south and con-tinued northward, reflected in the erection of a greatnumber of settlements, characterized by necropoliseswith numerous offerings made of iron (torques, brace-lets, bangles, fibulae).49 Generally speaking, a key rolein the revival in the central Balkans and the SerbianDanube valley was played by the descendants of thosewho had moved several centuries before from the Mo-rava basin to the north of Greece, at the very least theyinfluenced subsequent events in these regions.From the above, the conclusion can be reached thatthe impressively numerous Brnjica community fromthe 13th century BC, populating an enormous territoryfrom the Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions in the west up toStruma in the east and from the Ju`na and ZapadnaMorava confluence zone in the north down to the TaorGorge in the south, took part in the events designatedas the Aegean Migration, which, inter alia, caused thedestruction of the Mycenaean civilization and the greatupheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th andthe beginning of the 12th centuries BC. This communityknew the ferrous metallurgy, it developed craftsman-ship based on iron, and had contacts with the Mycenaeancivilization. One must wonder whether this very popu-lation initiated events which fatally reflected them-selves on Mycenaean civilization, shifting communitiesfrom the north of Greece towards the south or did thispopulation only use the opportunity to expand into theterritory of the communities which had earlier movedtowards Attica and Peloponnesus. At the beginning ofthe 11th century BC the population from the VelikaMorava basin and the Serbian Danube valley (IronAge I b phase in the Morava basin) reached the centralpart of the Ju`na Morava basin and mingled with theautochthonous Brnjica population, leaving behinddeserted territory, particularly the Danube basin. Theend of the 11th and the beginning of the 10th centuriesBC in this part of the Morava basin witnessed a suddendecrease of population. Some large regions of the Brnji-ca cultural group, on the other hand, such as the Koso-vo, Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions were probably alreadydeserted by the end of the 13th or the beginning of the12th centuries BC and would remain unpopulated orstrikingly poorly inhabited right up to the 8th century BC

Life in the Morava region and in the Serbian Danubevalley was revived before the end of the 10th andduring the 9th century BC, and the population is cha-racterized by massive use of iron.50 At present, it is notpossible to answer precisely the question whether this»life revival« was the consequence of the new popula-tion influx or rather the result of the beneficial influenceon the remaining population in the Morava basin andin the Serbian Danube valley, which brought about therevival of life and raised the cultural level in a shorttime due to innovations in economy and better socialorganization. Regardless of the dilemma whether thishappened due to population influx or influence, themain protagonists of that crucial event at the beginningof the last millennium BC came from the north ofGreece, most probably from Greek Macedonia. Thereis no doubt that elements of the Brnjica ethnic and cul-tural traditions from the 13th century BC are incorpo-rated into their national being. This important event,with far reaching consequences, is confined to theJu`na Morava basin, on one hand, by an exceptionaltechnological discovery – the discovery of ferrous metal-lurgy in the 14th century BC and confirmed in theBrnjica settlement on the Hisar site in Leskovac, andby the life revival in that and other regions of the Mo-rava basin and the Serbian Danube valley at the end ofthe 10th and in the 9th centuries BC, on the other hand. The question arises whether one of the two boomsin ferrous metallurgy, the initial one in the 14th and 13thcenturies BC or the one at the beginning of the last mil-lennium BC, could perhaps be connected to the Dorianmigration and their iron weapons. It is generally accep-ted that the Dorians came from the north and northwestin the 11th century BC, conquered Peloponnesus anddestroyed the remains of the Mycenaean civilization.The »north« and the »northwest« could be identifiedwith the very territory in Greece for which evidenceexists of a connection with the Brnjica tradition. Gene-rally speaking, the same people known under the nameof the Dorians, who reached the Peloponnesus and hadat their disposal ferrous arms and superior militaryorganization, had influenced crucially the life revivalin the north at the end of the 10th or at the beginning ofthe 9th century BC in certain regions of the central

Balkans. Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians,which sound quite similar, designate one and the samepeople? Do the toponyms in Troada, the town at thefoot of Ida on the Hellespont (between Ilion and Abid),the former name of the island of Samotraki, and thename of the straits between the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean, reflect the recollection of a powerful peoplewhose roots most probably lay in the Morava basin?51The most recent results of archaeological researchconfirm the opinion given by M. Gara{anin on »Dako-–Moesian elements« in the ethnicity of the Brnjicacultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...characteristics_of_the_Brnjica_cultural_group

 

[Riverman]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...characteristics_of_the_Brnjica_cultural_group

Yes a great paper I found some weeks ago and quoted (don't know if I did it here as well).

I came across a great article about the Channelled Ware complex in the Central Balkans which is very outspoken and absolutely clear about its ethnocultural affiliation:

Aus der vorgelegten ?bersicht ergeben sich folgende Schl?sse: die Mediana-
Gruppe ist eine regionale Erscheinung des mittleren Balkans. Sie hat sich aus den
vorangegangenen bronzezeitlichen Gruppen dieses Gebietes entwickelt, allerdings mit
Einwirkungen aus S?dpannonien und von der unteren Donau. In ihrer Stufe II wird die
v?llig in den Komplex mit gerillter Keramik eingegliedert. Dabei ist vor allem auf
kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Einwirkungen aus dem Karpatenraum mit seiner ho
chentwickelten Metallurgie zu denken. Dagegen sind f?r Kastanas eher mehrere aufei
nanderfolgende Zustr?me innerbalkanischer Gemeinschaften anzunehmen, deren
unmittelbarer Ausgangspunkt nicht sicher zu erfassen ist, wie dies von H?nsel trefflich
dargestellt wurde. Der Beginn der Gruppe ist um den Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts
anzusetzen, sie endet dann in der beginnenden Fr?heisenzeit (Hallstatt B1). Zuletzt
mu? noch betont werden, da? der neulich vorgenommene Versuch, den Komplex mit
kannelierter Keramik den Illyrern zuzuschreiben restlos abzulehnen ist. Durch sys
tematische interdisziplin?re Forschungen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien konnte das Ent
stehungsgebiet der Illyrer auf dem westlichen Balkan, mit einer v?llig anderen
kulturellen Entwicklung n?her umrissen werden. Am mittleren Balkan und an der
unteren Donau kann nur an Vorl?ufer der Dako-Mysier, bzw. Der Nordthraker gedacht
werden.

The new DNA finds just confirm the differentiation - J2 for the West Balkan = Illyrian core; E-V13 in Eastern Pannonia, the Carpathian-Moldovan region, the Central and Eastern Balkan = Daco-Thracian core + expansion territory.

Google translate with minor corrections to make the important part readable:

The following conclusions can be drawn from the overview presented: the Mediana
Group is a regional phenomenon of the middle Balkans. She got out of the
earlier Bronze Age groups in this area developed, but with
Effects from southern Pannonia and the lower Danube. In their stage II they will die
fully integrated into the complex with grooved ceramics. It is mainly on
cultural and economic influences from the Carpathian region with its ho
to think about advanced metallurgy. On the other hand, for Kastanas there are more likely to be several
to accept successive influxes of inner-Balkan communities, their
The immediate starting point cannot be grasped with certainty, as Hansel did admirably
was shown. The group started around the beginning of the 12th century
it ends in the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt B1). Last
It must be emphasized that the recent attempt to use the complex
of Fluted [Channelled] pottery to be attributed to the Illyrians is to be completely rejected. Through systematic interdisciplinary research in the former Yugoslavia enabled us to define the
territory of the Illyrians in the western Balkans, with a completely different
cultural development being outlined in more detail. In the middle Balkans and on the
Lower Danube, the cultures [Channelled Ware] can only be thought of as a forerunner of the Daco-Mysians or the North Thracians.

https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3976

For me there remains little doubt that the LBA-EIA transition, the spread of Channelled Ware and iron weapons was the decisive event for the main spread of E-V13.

I recently came to the conclusion, based on subclades and TMRCAs I saw myself and then the statistics made by ph2ter on Anthrogenica, that some major expansions of E-V13 could have happened with the Slavs. Probably, while the Slavs as a whole reduced E-V13, some clades and subclades which joined early on and probably were even present among the Proto-Slavs did profit.

 

[Hawk]

I am not in a hurry to formulate some theories, like Slavic expansion of E-V13, Middle Age expansion of E-V13 from Dardania (sported by some non E-V13 Albanians, conflict of interest of course) etc etc etc.

Btw, Channeled Ware can explain only partial spread, like E-V13 Z5017 CTS9320, Brnjica, Mediana, Dubovac-Zuto Brda and some older layers should contain older E-V13 subclades.

 

[Riverman]

I am not in a hurry to formulate some theories, like Slavic expansion of E-V13, Middle Age expansion of E-V13 from Dardania (sported by some non E-V13 Albanians, conflict of interest of course) etc etc etc.

Btw, Channeled Ware can explain only partial spread, like E-V13 Z5017 CTS9320, Brnjica, Mediana, Dubovac-Zuto Brda and some older layers should contain older E-V13 subclades.

That's an open debate, but I doubt it for much of the Balkans. The only way to explain this would be if Vatin was a primary source for the G?va-Holigrady culture or at least the Belegi? II-Gava regional variant. This is something which is possible, but I doubt it and think that the origin should be sought in a more Northern direction, primarily because of the Pannonian study, which shouldn't have missed E-V13 completely if it would have been already more southward. Also, any kind of more South Western origin makes things not easier for the Carpathian and Eastern Balkan distribution, which seems to be, if anything, as high or higher than in the Central Balkans. The connecting element of all these groups is Channelled Ware with nothing of significance before. The TMRCA speaks also for itself, there is almost nothing with an older, clearly regional tradition. Practically nothing before 1.300 BC, before the development and expansive phase of Channelled Ware started.
Since we haven't found the older source yet, a lot of scenarios are thinkable. But even if via Vatin and Otomani there was an earlier group, the evidence at the current state of affairs is not in favour of it. I'm waiting for the Pannonian study to finally come out, but the results we have are not very supportive.


The territory and culture of Otomani is key:

The end of the Ottom?ny culture is connected with turbulent events at the end of Old Bronze Age in Central Europe, where there was a collapse of the whole "Old Bronze Age world" with its highly advanced culture of mighty hill-forts, rich burials, and trade over vast distances. The gradual decline in the number of fortified settlements, change of burial rites, and the decision of people to desert fortified settlements could have had several reasons, including the collapse of trade and exchange networks, the attacks of enemies, the internal collapse of society or environmental causes. The following Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age cultures are very different in their burial rites (cremation, erecting of barrows) as well as in their handling of bronze - there is an "explosion" in bronze working, and many bronze hoards found across all of Europe illustrate this change in quantity and quality of produced bronze objects. We see not only bronze ornaments and arms (including first examples of swords), but also bronze tools (sickles, axes, adzes), which changed the everyday life of prehistoric man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottomány_culture

Probably Otomani burials were included in the Pannonian study, I hope so.

This article is quite interesting in showing how massive the shifts were in the region and I think if earlier groups form the Pannonian region were already high in E-V13, it should have shown up in the Pannonian study. Individuals and small groups can't be excluded of course, because E-V13 must have been, at this time and in its homeland, whereever that was, already quite numerous not just a handful of people hiding behind a rock.

 

[Riverman]

Here the most important quotation from an article I recently found:

The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. [...] At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze AGe, in Srem, the BAnat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the H?gelgr?ber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1 - A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...velopment_of_Bronze_Age_cultures_in_Vojvodina

Shortly after I found the article, I got these news on Anthrogenica:

A new study about Neolithic and MBA Croatia is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9

Interesting is that they managed to sample remains that belonged to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture even though the people of this culture practiced cremation most of the time.

Again disappointing for all us E-V13rs, as it seems all of the samples from the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture belonged to various clades of G2a. What's even more interesting these guys were very North-West European like which might point to Central European origin of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.

Channelled Ware is the last man standing.

 

[Hawk]

I told you Encrusted Pottery Culture is not, the Kisapostag Culture was fully I2a. Kisapostag is the ancestral culture to Encrusted Pottery Culture. Unless Encrusted Pottery Culture was quite diverse of course.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...IA-Balkan-case?p=628655&viewfull=1#post628655

And yes, i have read that paper, hence why i was saying in my post three different cultures clashed in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube basin, and whoever won that clash, that was the ancestor of E-V13, logically speaking if E-V13 spread big: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...kan-case/page2?p=629068&viewfull=1#post629068

 

[Johane Derite]

Kisapostag Culture was fully I2a.

So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.

 

[kingjohn]

So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.

when the danubian limes ( serbian roman paper)
will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour
so people here should have what to expect .....
the bulgarian iron age also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly

 

[Hawk]

So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.

Yes, but that one was from Lake Balaton, Western Hungary samples: https://agi.abtk.hu/en/news/news

While this one is from Eastern Croatia.

when the

danubian limes ( serbian roman paper)
will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour
so people here should have what to expect .....
the bulgarian iron age also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly

Well, technically all Iron Age to Classical Age samples are E-V13, no other lineage.

 

[Hawk]

I cannot edit properly my posts, the website is not managing properly the browser cache.

 

[torzio]

when the danubian limes ( serbian roman paper)
will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour
so people here should have what to expect .....
the bulgarian iron age also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly

Daubian limes runs the length of the danube river ...............are you settling only for the serbian area ?

ie the ancient thracian triballi tribal lands ?

 

[kingjohn]

Daubian limes runs the length of the danube river ...............are you settling only for the serbian area ?

ie the ancient thracian triballi tribal lands ?

this how it was posted by pribislav in anthrogenica

~30% of ancient Roman samples (0-400 AD) from Viminacium , and ~25% of Roman/Early Medieval samples (300-700 AD) from Timacum Minus are E-V13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viminacium


Viminacium or Viminatium was a major city (provincial capital) and military camp of the Roman province of Moesia (today's Serbia), and the capital of Moesia Superior.

The site is located 12 km (7.5 mi) from the modern town of Kostolac in Eastern Serbia. The city dates back to the 1st century AD, and at its peak it is believed to have had 40,000 inhabitants, making it one of the biggest cities of that time. It lies on the Roman road Via Militaris. Viminacium was devastated by Huns in the 5th century, but was later rebuilt by Justinian. It was completely destroyed with the arrival of Slavs in the 6th century.

Viminacium holds a distinction of having the largest number of graves discovered in any Roman archaeological site. As of 2018, 15,000 graves have been discovered.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timacum_Minus

 

[Hawk]

To clarify something that Psenicevo-Babadag (EIA E-V13 leaks), Insula Banului, and other related cultures are indeed classified as either heavily or itself as part of South-Eastern Urnfield Culture (and this is actually the origin of the so called Urnfield Cultural Complex with the others being more culturally influenced), latter an offshot of it called Thracian Hallstatt.

It's less clear who was the predecessor of these cultures, Otomani and Noua admixture could have produced. So let's say Otomani => E-V13 and Noua => R1a (IE)?? produced the latter cultures with E-V13 prevailing in huge number since it was more common on the Southern hemisphere which survived and spread/pushed more in South during LBA/EIA transition.

Danubo-Carpathian complex is a bit confusing, but a very viable candidate of E-V13 origin considering modern diversity and the leaks from Psenicevo-Babadag being exclusively E-V13 which in essence was part of the Danubo-Carpathian complex.

It's less clear in the case of Illyrians, if they were really J2b2-L283 dominated even on Illyri proprie dictii territories as well, or if E-V13 was present there like at some tribes (Dardani, Enchelei, Pirusti => cremation on pyre/urns, i have yet to find direct evidence for Ardiai and Taulanti => indirectly mentioned that cremation urns on Epidamnus were native and not from Greek colonizers, the natives of Epidamnus were either Taulanti or Labeate). But there is no doubt inhumation was the norm among Illyrians. In fact, many of the aforementioned MBA/LBA groups used cremation in combination with inhumation, cremation on a pyre with beneath having a mound/tumuli was a very expensive ritual, it could not be affordable to do it all the time.