Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 208

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

  1. #151
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Strictly speaking this thread is more about Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

    So don't bring up Albanians or Slavs. There is enough threads about that topic.

    In several instances we brought up E-V13, but the connection between the topic and E-V13 has become more and more cemented like the quote from Viminacium paper:
    I don't know if you read it already, but there was exchange between Lengyel-Sopot and the Michelsberger, especially via the Münchshöfen culture in Bavaria. Its Jordanow/Jordansmühl culture in Bohemia is a late Lengyel-descendent. Its pretty bad some groups of late Lengyel did cremate and we have no samples from those which did not. In the Bohemian paper, there were no male samples from Jordanow included afaik, but even if, we would need a wider range geogrpaphically and larger quantity, because I don't expect E1b1b being dominant.
    But that link kind of connects Lengyel-Sopot with Michelsberger, the two groups with more than a single E1b1b sample within close proximity to the other find(s). My guess is that Lengyel-Sopot or better Northern Sopot/Lengyel was the main Middle Neolithic source and that the carriers transitioned directly from Jordanow or other Lengyel/Epi-Lengyel derived groups, or possibly Baden, into the Epi-Corded horizon, into Unetice and then around 1.700-1.400 BC becoming one of the dominant lineages in Pre-Gava.

    This graphic illustrates some possible pathways:

    https://de-academic.com/pictures/dew.../Megawal97.PNG

    Its noteworthy that they were among the metal working pioneers in Northern Central Europe and had burial customs which were, in part, similar to GAC and Corded Ware respectively. Like:

    In Schlesien meist von Steinpackungen umgebene OW-gerichtete Hockergräber. Frauen liegen auf der rechten Seite, Männer auf der linken. Relativ häufig ist Grabschmuck aus Kupferblech (Perlen aus eingerolltem Blech), außerdem kupferne Spiralarmringe und brillenförmige Doppelspiralen; daneben Abschläge aus Feuerstein und zwei bis vier Gefäße am Kopfende. In Böhmen dominiert dir Brandbestattung.
    https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/711006

    From Jordanów/Michelsberg contexts
    exist first evidence of burials under barrows (Březno u Loun (100)), assumed also for the Funnel Beaker
    period and later on a mass scale for the CW and BB (50), alternatively for the EBA (101).
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941

    In Bohemia many of the Jordansmühler cremated and those they picked up possibly, in the Bohemian paper, seem to have been mostly women. Its in any case interesting that the Michelsberger and the Lengyel-Sopot cultural formations were connected. I interpret it rather as an influence from Lengyel bringing E1b1b to the Michelsberger, which dominated by other haplogroups overall. Already then they used and settled along the Danube. The Mönchhöfener settlers might have carried E1b1b too, actually I'm pretty sure they did, because they are the obvious link between these two major players in the Middle Neolithic.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B...B6fener_Kultur

    The Michelsberger finds are younger than those from Lengyel and they are from Southern Germany, close to the Lengyel-colonisation groups. We could argue the other way around also, but I think a primary Michelsberger origin is much less likely and considering time and space, they were a dead end anyway, largely.

    But at this point I think its possible that the Middle Neolithic E1b1b finds being connected. They don't have to be, they could be old E1b1b carriers from Impresso-Cardial, but rather I think they being more clearly connected to Lengyel. We hopefully see this resolved as well in the near future. The Bohemian study was a miss in this respect.

  2. #152
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.

    Slightly biconical shaped bowls, the upper cone (rim and shoulder) of which is decorated with horizontal and slanted facets or slanted channels, as well as semi-globular bowls of inverted rim decorated with horizontal facets or slanted channels are characteristic of the end of Bronze Age and mark the beginning of Iron Age in many cultural groups within the Balkan Peninsula. Problem of their origin, chronology and distribution is present in archaeological literature for a long time. Many authors perceived the significance of this ceramic shape for the chronological, ethnic and cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze, that is, of the Early Iron Ages within the territory of the Balkans. Pottery from the burned layers in Vardina and Vardaroftsa sites in the north of Greece, among which there were bowls with inverted, slanted channeled rim, was designated way back by W. Heurtley as Danubian pottery or Lausitz ware, connecting its origin with the Danube Basin. Anumber of conclusions have been reached upon the study of finds of slightly biconical bowls and bowls of inverted rim, decorated with channels or facets, from several indicative sites from Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages within the Balkan Peninsula and south part of the Middle Europe. It has been stated that the bowls appear first within the southwest Slovakia and northwest Hungary in the Br D period, to spread very fast, already in the Br D/Ha A1 period, from its home territory to the east, to the northeast Hungary and northwest Romania. Namely, this first spreading wave into these territories brought along only variety Ia bowls, which were further distributed to the south, during the Ha A1 period, to the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula and consequently it can be concluded that these bowls are somewhat older than other varieties. In the period Br D - Ha A1, in north Hungary, under the influence of Gava Culture, on one hand, and Čaka Culture, on the other, appear also variety IIa bowls (turban dish), distributed to the east with a new migration wave, in the same manner as was the case with the first migration wave, but also to the south, along the Bakonjska Range, to the present day Croatia and Slovenia, where, in the Ha A1/A2 periods, were stated exclusively variety IIa bowls. Representatives of the variety Ia bowls remained in the Pomoravlje region and Južna Morava Basin, as confirmed by a large number of these bowls and also by other ceramic shapes of that stylistic and typological pattern, prevailing within this region in the Ha A1/A2 periods. First variety IIa bowls (Mediana, Kržince) appear only during the second migration wave coming from the north of the Balkans to the central part of the Balkan Peninsula (Ha A2 period). These bowls, however, are particularly characteristic of Macedonia and lower Povardarje, where variety Ia bowls were not stated at all. The second migration wave representatives, with turban dish bowls (variety IIa), were much more aggressive as witnessed by many burned settlements from that period in the Vranjska-Bujanovačka Valleys and Povardarje. During Ha B-C periods, bowls of both types (particularly variety IIa) became inevitable part of ceramic inventory of nearly all cultural groups in the Balkan Peninsula, which could be explained by the spread of cultural influence of the new stylistic trend, though, however, it could be possible that migrations, which at the time were numerous and of greater or lesser intensity, were one of the spreading causes of this ceramic shape into the east, south and west parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the Ha B period. Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations. The assumed direction of these migrations coincides mainly with the distribution direction of bowl types I and II. Migrations spreading the bowl types I and II started in the south part of the Middle Europe, but were initiated by the representatives of the Urnenfelder cultural complex from the Middle Europe, as observed in certain ceramic shapes, stated together with type I bowls and originating from cultures of the Urnenfelder complex, and in numerous metal finds, which were produced in Middle European workshops. It is of interest to point out that bowl movements could be followed up to the northwest shores of the Aegean Sea, but they are not stated in the south Trace and in Troy, thus imposing conclusion that their representatives did not reach Troy. Consequently, their possible participation in destruction of VIIb2 layer settlements is utterly uncertain. The migrations, however, started chain reaction of ethnic movements in the Balkans, causing many ethnic and cultural changes within this territory which will lead to creation of new cultural groups to mark the developed Iron Age. To what extent bowls of this type, particularly variety IIa, left deep trace in the Iron Age Cultures in the central Balkans, is shown in the fact that survivals of this variety remained within these regions even several centuries later, in late phases of the Ha C period (VI/V century BC).



    https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00059/art00005

  3. #153
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.
    They did reach the Aegean and Troy though, ultimately, because we have the regional Knobbed Ware, which was just part of the same movement and people. And in the end, the Thiny, Bithyny and probably even Phrygians, as Thracian-related people, might be explained in part by it.

    I came across another interesting fact, namely that there was a very big shift in the early Gava military tactics and equipment, from the Carpathians, down to the Balkans where they moved. During the Late Bronze Age transition, the frequency of spearheads among metal goods and weaponry drastically increased, as did swords, which is less suprising. Both the spearheads and swords took new shapes, like the Naue II examples, but even more advanced swordtypes than those. The swords changed in the Carpathian area from thrusting to cutting weapons. This in combination with the spearheads suggests to me that a new military tactic was introduced as well, coming closer to fighting in close quarters, in formation, even approaching a phalanx style military order.
    Interestingly, some old experts on the matter recognised spearheads of the new type from Transcarpathia, over the Balkan, to Greece. In Greece it seems to be new and intrusive, and appears in the transitional and Dorian period.
    In the earlier phase, axes were much more common the cultures which preceded Gava. The rise in typical spearheads is very steep and points to a drastic shift.

    The later Gava success seems therefore also due to the adoption of a completely new tactic and military equipment than they had before and this shift being recognisable in the archaeological record from Poland-Ukraine to Greece and beyond (Sea Peoples) with related artefacts of spearheads and swords. This change would have most certainly also affected the whole society and we see even in Eastern Hallstatt still some kind of units of a leading sword-bearer with a squad of spear and axe bearers.

    By the way, if you use Google translate for this interesting paper, you can find something about the burial customs of Lăpuș II, which was at the core of Gava.

    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

    Going by the settlement of Rotbav, the Gava people also build more pit houses instead of on the ground, like the earlier Noua and Wietenberg people:

    Die Siedlung der Gáva-Kultur zeigt Unterschiede zu den Hausstrukturen der Siedlungsphasen
    der Wietenberg- und der Noua-Kultur, die durch Oberflächenbauten charakterisiert sind.
    The authors assume it was also because of a colder climate, with pit houses giving more protection. But in any case its a completely different architecture and settlement structure.

    They also bred more ovicaprids, also for the secondary products, especially wool and milk:

    Schon in den Noua-Phasen, vor allem aber in der Siedlungsphase
    der Gáva-Kultur werden vor allem Schweine früher geschlachtet, sie können offenbar nicht mehr
    über den Winter gehalten und gefüttert werden, während Ovicaprinen in größerer Zahl vorkommen als
    früher und vermutlich auch für ihre sekundären Produkte, wie Wolle, gehalten wurden
    .
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...zer_Vorbericht

    About the end of Gava in the North:
    The beginning of the Early Iron Age in the northeastern
    part of the Carpathian basin is characterized
    by strong historical-cultural changes connected with
    the appearance of new ethnic groups of eastern Iranian
    origin - the representatives of the Mezőcsát Culture
    (PATEK 1967.101-105,PATEK 1974.339, PATEK 1980.
    162, KEMENCZEI 1984.228, CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.
    527-534, CHOCHOROWSKI 1993.231-218). The questions
    of the genesis of this culture are still discussed.
    Certain researchers connect the appearance of
    Mezőcsát finds at the Great Hungarian Plain with
    Caucasian-Pontic milieu
    (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1966.307,
    MOZSOLICS 1984.48.), others with the steppe zone of
    the North Pontic region
    (BONA 1984.170-171,
    KEMENCZEI 1986/B. 15, HARMATTÁ 1946/48.131).
    Gáva Culture which occupied significant territories
    of the Middle and Upper Tisza region and that of the
    neighbouring Kyjatice Culture ceased to exist already
    in the middle of the 9th century B.C.
    Territories lying closer to the Carpathian range were
    influenced by the mentioned processes only indirectly.
    In East Slovakia, Carpathian Ukraine and partly in
    Transylvania, Gáva Culture continued to exist almost
    until the appearance of the Thraco-Scythian sites

    (DUSEK 1978., PÁRDUCZ 1973., VASILIEV 1980.,
    CHOCHOROWSKI 1985., POPOVICH 1993.).
    In recent works the following terms have been used
    for the finds mentioned above: Gáva III, Szomotor/
    Somotor type, pre-Kushtanovica/Kustánfalva horizon
    (PASTOR 1958.314, PLEINEROVÁ-OLMEROVÁ 1958.109,
    BUDINSKY-KRICKA 1976., MIROSSAJOVÁ 1987.,
    SMIRNOVA 1966., BALAHURI 1972., POPOVICH 1989.,
    CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.540).
    In the Southern zone there was a fluent transition into Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, while in the North Gava persisted as long or longer, but was more drastically transformed by Cimmerians and Scythians. How the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions affected their paternal genetics is of course largely unknown. So far the E-V13 connection being only proven for Psenichevo and Basarabi, and made likley for some Thraco-Scythians/Geto-Scythians with the single find in the North Carpathians.

    It seems they formed a huge defensive line against the steppe incursions:

    A specific moving factor of this process
    was the situation formed as a result of the appearance
    of the militant "Cimmerians" at the territory of Alföld.
    At the turn of HB2-HB3 probably a part of the
    Gáva and Kyjatice population under the pressure of
    the Mezőcsát population appeared here, moved into
    the regions of the Eastern Carpathians together with
    relative tribes. Here they formed a defensive line in
    the mountainous regions of East Slovakia, Transylvania
    and Transcarpathia.
    One of these sites was
    the Irshava fortified settlement.
    So, in the regions situated closer to the Carpathian
    range we can observe the process of accumulation of
    the Gáva Culture. The absence of finds of the so-called
    "Thraco-Cimmerian type" make us think that the
    population of the Transcarpathian region had not
    changed
    .
    https://www.academia.edu/15002240/St...pathian_region

    It is absolutely evident that this was one united network, most likely one cultural sphere, one language (Proto-Daco-Thracian) and religion. The climate change and new innovations in technology, military tactics and economy, all added up to a mass movement led by powerful elites, close to the princes of the Unetice provinces, probably even related to their tradition.

    Gava was to the south intrusive and replaced on a big scale:
    In terms of relative chronology, the early Gáva
    phase in Central and Southern Transylvania is later
    than the Lăpuş II-Gáva I horizon in North-West Romania
    (K a c s ó 1990, 49; M a r t a 2009, 102) and
    it is partially contemporary to the Susani group from
    Banat (S t r a t a n, Vu l p e 1977, 56–58; G umă
    1993, 169–170; Vu l p e 1995, 83–86). The finds
    from Hunedoara (L u c a 1999, pl. 4:5–6,16, 5:6,9–10;
    S â r b u et al. 2005, fig. 4:5) and Simeria (B a s a 1970,
    fig. 4–6; A n d r i ţ o i u 1996) point to an expansion of
    the Susani group towards South-West Transylvania (the
    Haţeg-Deva area), where no early Gáva sites are known
    so far, a situation similar to the one of the Banat region
    (G umă 1993, 190–194).
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Transylvania

    I also read up on why many archaeologists don't interpret it that way and one comment is particularly noteworthy: The majority of archaeologists refused the idea of a migration being the main factor, because the sheer size of the change and the settlements of Gava/Channelled Ware would imply a true tribal mass movement of people! They only backed off from the demic model, for the most part, because it would suggest such a massive, grande scale intrusion of people. Its so massive that people refused to accept it, while many earlier authors and some more courageous observers said it right away, that this was a people on the move. And that's what it is. The spread of E-V13 will prove it.
    And the explanation for the chaotic distribution of the main clades is that they decided to split up not along the main clan-tribal formations, but sending with every colonist group members of all tribes. That's something we know from history and ethnology, that people do if they want to keep cohesion intact, even with far away colonists, which conquer and settle new lands. Every clan had to choose some warriors for the war party or colonist group. That's the only reasonable explanation, because as soon as the Channelled Ware loses its cohesion, the regional subclades become apparent.
    The second spread is already more specific, related to Iron Age subgroups, like Thraco-Cimmerian, but especially Basarabi/Thraco-Scythian/Eastern Hallstatt as one of the main connections.

  4. #154
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?

  5. #155
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?
    That's possible, but I'd say its primarily possible for those groups which were heavily mixed, showed large scale substrate or later adstrate effects, like the Dardanians. And in the regions which have continuity (Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Serbia) the only pre-Celtic people we see in the later historical records are Daco-Thracians or primarily Daco-Thracians (like Thracians, Moesians, Dacians, Getae, Thraco-Scythians, Triballi, Costoboci etc.).
    For the E-V13 hotspots its even more clear than for the rest of their territory, because Psenichevo-Basarabi are without doubt Daco-Thracian. The question is just whether the extremely high rates of these Southern groups were a regional thing, since Psenichevo and Basarabi were very close and influenced each other, or whether it was common throughout all of Gava/Channelled Ware. That's not answered yet. Like it could have been the case that in the North E-V13 was just a minority, but became dominant in the Southern groups. But then we would have to ask which other groups dominated in the Northern groups. I guess it started already in the North, with E-V13 being absolutely dominant, but we might see more regional founder effects which increased or decreased its frequency, that's unknown.
    In any case the later Cimmerian-Scythian incursions should have spread even more R1b and R1a among the Thraco-Scythians in particular, but among all Daco-Thracians. So the highest frequency for E-V13 in any people will be reached, presumably, directly in the LBA-EIA transition, and decrease soon after, while dispersing throughout Europe with Thraco-Scythians, Pannonians and Celts, especially via Hallstatt in the North, and Greeks and Thracians in the South, Geto-Scythians in the East, with sporadic travellers to Armenia, Central Asia, probably even India and China through the Iranian speaking networks. But in the core zone of Carpathians-Eastern Pannnonia-Balkans, the frequency would already rather decrease in the Iron Age again, with some regional-tribal exceptions possibly.

  6. #156
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    About the huge fortified settlement of Corneşti-Iarcuri, which was a more Southern fortification of the Channelled Ware people similar to Teleac. Interestingly there is no local continuity proven yet, it seems to have been build completely new, by newly incoming settlers. Before that were probably minor local settlements, but nothing comparable. This was therefore a true colonisation event on a grande scale:

    A complete bowl recovered at the exterior foot of the phase B rampart can be dated to
    the Cruceni-Belegis¸ IIA phase (equivalent to Hallstatt A1) (Figure 8). The Cruceni-Belegis¸
    culture is part of the south-east European Urnfield culture, with a distribution similar to
    the preceding Vatina group in Oltenia, Banat and eastern Hungary. In terms of relative
    chronology, it is situated between the Middle Bronze Age Vatina culture and the Early
    Iron Age Gornea-Kalakaˇca culture. The absolute chronology places the group between the
    fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
    Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
    later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
    1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393–1314 (at
    68.2% probability), and 1411–1270 (at 95.4%) (Figure 10).
    The timing is exactly like Teleac and fits the main dispersion of the main E-V13 clades. If they will ever find human remains from that settlement which can be tested, its quite likely the males will be packed with E-V13.

    About the buildings inside of the settlement:
    The magnetogram shows concentrations of pits, and large rectangular houses (about 20 or
    25×30m) possibly forming an urban scheme with lanes orientated along rampart II. It is
    difficult to identify clear outlines of houses in the magnetogram. However, it is possible
    that closer to the burnt rampart II some burnt houses exist, which may give a more precise
    ‘city plan’ once further survey is undertaken. There is also a remarkable number of circular
    structures with diameters of 8–12m, looking like flattened barrows (ring-ditches) or huts.
    The increase in production and population with the formation of the town and colonisation through Channelled Ware people:

    Analysis of the Bronze Age sherds shows that Early Bronze Age (Mak´o) finds are
    uncommon. The sherds become more frequent towards the Middle Bronze Age (Vatina).
    It is only in the Late Bronze Age (Cruceni-Belegis¸) that sherds are found in all areas in
    relatively high numbers
    .
    ...the evidence strongly suggests that the main settlement phase belongs to the
    Late Bronze Age.
    What is still not well understood is how such an enormous construction project
    could have been undertaken, either on this particular site or on others of the same date —
    bearing in mind that so far the size of Cornes¸ti-Iarcuri is unparalleled at this period either
    locally (the Romanian Banat), within the wider area (theHungarian Plain and Transylvania),
    or internationally.
    The new elites of Channelled Ware people concentrated populations, specialists and warriors, in huge fortified settlements, with well-organised structures to support them economically and armies to defend their interests. The sudden appearance can just mean that whole subsets of these people, like also suggested by the even spread of the main clades in that time, colonised, as a whole tribe or even proto-state, large regions collectively. It might be compared with Greek colonies, though their impact on the local populations seems to have been far bigger.
    The ultimate origin is the Gava centre in the Northern Carpathians:

    At the moment little is known about the development of fortified sites in the Banat, though further south in the
    Vojvodina some analyses have been conducted on the Titel plateau (Falkenstein 1998). A site
    with many similarities to Cornes¸ti-Iarcuri in terms of topographic situation and structure
    is Sˆantana near Arad (known in the older Hungarian literature as Szentanna), about 45km
    away, and recently under excavation by a team from Cluj under the direction of Dr Florin
    Gogˆaltan. Earlier excavations on the site found a rampart sequence not dissimilar to that
    at Iarcuri with pottery from Eneolithic to Hallstatt B; the largest part fell in the periods
    Bronze D to Hallstatt A1, the pottery being mainly of Gava style (Rusu et al. 1999). This
    is close in time to what is present at Iarcuri, and Rusu et al. considered Iarcuri the closest
    analogy to Sˆantana even though Sˆantana, at ‘only’ 1km in diameter, is considerably smaller.
    As excavations progress at both sites, it will become possible to specify these links more
    closely.
    The cultural ties are obvious, now we need genetic evidence - E-V13 will be the main marker - to prove it to be a demic-ethnic diffusion. Going back in time, in search of this Gava colonisation, we come to:

    In northern Hungary and Slovakia
    too, sites of both the Middle Bronze Age Piliny and the succeeding Kyjatice cultures saw
    a number of fortifications erected and used
    (Furm´anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982). A
    marked increase in defended settlements can be noticed during the Urnfield culture in many
    parts of Europe (Harding 2000: 296). This ‘stronghold horizon’ probably begins inHallstatt
    A2 (Rind 1999: 13) and stops in Hallstatt B3 (Jockenh¨ovel 1990: 219). A similar situation
    may be discerned in Slovakia (Furm´anek et al. 1982) and Transylvania (Soroceanu 1982). (Furm´anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982).
    These were not simple warbands on the move:
    A purely agrarian socio-economic
    framework for the society that built Iarcuri seems unlikely; the social and economic structures
    present must have included a range of craft specialisms and personal identities, probably
    including leadership and warriorhood.
    On the other hand, the site cannot have been purely
    urban in character across its full extent; the population would have been enormous.
    The colonisation happened exactly in the time frame of the main E-V13 spread:
    We are
    therefore talking about large numbers of people, from a sizeable area around Cornes¸ti, who
    would have taken part in the site’s construction. This brings with it the need to consider
    motivation, not to speak of logistics.
    The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze
    Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around
    3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means
    that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even
    wider.
    Suciu de Sus and Lapus represent elite burials, of kings or at least princes form the Gava/Channelled Ware people in the wider region, probably of transregional importance:
    It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates
    at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of
    the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus¸ in the Maramures¸ fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;
    C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and many other phenomena across Europe have been
    radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the
    start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across
    the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been
    refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways
    . Although it would be too simplistic
    to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major
    fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Romanian_Banat

  7. #157
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia where Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.

    Probably more in South is where the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.
    Last edited by Hawk; 22-10-21 at 22:55.

  8. #158
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia were Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.

    Probably more in South is were the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.
    I think the breakthrough against Incrusted Ware happened earlier, before iron swords became more common, still in the regular bronze swords of Naue II and more advanced types, the flame spears and typical axes they used. The really complicated issue is indeed that of different groups of regional Tumulus culture, and Otomani. Otomani surely was a hot candidate for E-V13, but it seems rather to have been overtaken and the question is whether they could be sampled. Looks like local clans which lived there since Unetice and being incorporated into the Tumulus horizon were "it".
    The Tumulus culture was not that uniform, but the point is during its spread all the later Urnfield-related groups seem to have been formed already. You have the Middle Danubian and the Carpathian, which just proceed becoming Middle Danubian Urnfield and Gava/Channelled Ware, respectively. Quite at the beginning of the rise of Channelled Ware/Gava are these elite burials:
    Cremation is the only burial practice in Transylvania dur-
    ing the Late Bronze Age. The small number of burials in
    relation to settlements is remarkable. The burial mounds of

    Lăpuş, Suciu de Sus-Troian and Bicaz are burial places of
    elites, which emerged thanks to the rich ore deposits of the
    region
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

    Unfortunately everything burned, but they should be E-V13, at least a portion of these elites. Because that would be the first big leverage for its spread. One could speculate the core was Lăpuş, if indeed from them the custom came and was brought to Suciu de Sus.

    Das Hügelgrab von Medieşu Aurit gehört der Anfangsphase der
    Suciu de Sus-Kultur an, die in die mittlere Bronzezeit datiert wird. Vergleichbare frühe Hügelbestattungen sind im
    ganzen Verbreitungsgebiet der Kultur nicht bekannt.
    Erst in einem entwickelten Abschnitt der Spätbronze-
    zeit, d. h. Spätbronzezeit 2, wurden im Norden Siebenbür-
    gens, als Denkmäler der Lăpuş-Gruppe, die eigentlichen
    Hügelgräberfelder angelegt.
    Some of the oldest iron founds of Europe:

    In den Hügeln von Lăpuş wurden auch verschiedene
    Ton- und Steinartefakte, Gussformen sowie ein eisernes
    Tüllenbeil, das zu den ältesten Eisenfunden Europas zählt, entdeckt.2
    The second phase Lăpuş II = classical Gava. There is a difference between phase I and II which could also be interpreted as a new population element appearing, but the transition here is much smoother than in most other regions. There might be also some of the oldest finds for the typical Channelled Ware in the region:

    Die aus dem Hügel 26 gewonnenen 14C-Daten37 deuten
    darauf hin, dass die kannelierte Keramik vor dem 12. Jh.
    v. Chr. bereits im späten 14. und 13. Jh. v. Chr. vorkam.3
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

    Looks to me that similar to the Western Celtic groups, the Tumulus culture was also a phase of consolidation, whereas with the new innovations and a stabilised ethnic culture, with the new religious impetus, Urnfield was the big expansion phase where they "went out" on a grande scale.

  9. #159
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Anyone who can provide chronology for Ottomany Culture? Mostly from which culture it descends from.

  10. #160
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Marcin S. Przybyła

    Early Bronze Age Stone Architecture Discovered in the Polish Carpathians

    Something about Otomani-FĂźzesabony culture.

    There are two regions however, from where constructions similar to those discovered on Zyndram’s Hill areknown (fig.12). A few hillforts from the territory of present-day Switzerland and the adjacent part of Italy,especially Crestaulta nearby Lugnez (Kt. Graubünden/CH), Flums-Gräpplang (Kt. St. Gallen/CH), andVinschgau-Ganglegg (South Tyrol/I) (Burkart 1946; Steiner 2007; Lanzrein 2009), share the same combination of construction terrace and retaining stone wall, and date to a similar period (18th-16th century BC) asthe site in Maszkowice. However, better parallels for the stone fortifcations themselves can be found indefensive settlements from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Caput Adriae region. Most of them had not beenestablished before the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, but some existed already in the Early Bronze Age(e.g. Čović 1989, 108-109). The best example is a huge site in Monkodonja near Rovinj (Istarska županija/HR),sometimes regarded as a settlement centre of proto-urban character (Hänsel/Mihovilić /Teržan 2015). Thewall discovered there, which survived extraordinarily well, consists of the outer face built of large, roughlyhexagonal blocks, and the inner part made of smaller stones. Three elaborated gates have narrow passages,which also reminds the construction revealed on Zyndram’s Hill. Finally, the set of the three oldest radiocarbon dates (3415±33 BP, 3385±29 BP, 3430±27 BP – Hänsel et al. 2015) is identical with those obtainedfor phases Maszkowice I and II, pointing at the second half of the 18th century BC.
    This does not mean, however, that the site was abandoned. Probably shortly afterwards two new houseswere built within the area encompassed by our excavations (phase Maszkowice III). The southern one isespecially well preserved. Its massive, palisade-like eastern wall was established closely to the former gatepassage, which by this time had already been completely sealed with clay and large stones. Within thenorth-eastern corner of the dwelling a stone structure (hearth?) was documented, built of pebbles.Layers connected with the younger houses and with the ceiling part of the pit’s fll yielded large amounts ofpottery and animal bones. The former displays the shapes and ornamentation typical of both the post-classic (16th-15th century BC) and terminal (15th-13th century BC) Otomani-Füzesabony style (fig.10, 13-16). Anisolated and unusual fnd originating from the southern house is a small part of an anthropomorphic fgurine (fig.10,18). The artefact, described in detail elsewhere (Przybyła/Skoneczna 2011, 35-37), representsthe so-called violin-shaped idols, particularly characteristic of the Mycenaean culture and northern Balkansin the 15th-14th centuries BC. It is worth noticing that, despite its exotic form, the statuette was apparentlymade locally.

  11. #161
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Com-plex (OFCC) should be considered one of the most impressive archaeological phenomenon of the Bronze Age Central Europe (Kristian-sen/Larsson 2005: 125). The OFCC com-munities in the Carpathian Basin and beyond established the most technologically, politically and economically advanced culture of this time north of the Alps, mainly due to the control of major trade routes. Typical were large set-tlement complexes established in strategic locations, often surrounded by elaborate for-tifications with numerous even superimposed wattle-daub houses. These have been discov-ered on OFCC sites across today’s territory of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.1 In the OFCC settlement zones, large quanti-ties of gold and bronze objects were deposited not only in graves but also in hoards.

    Substan-tial growth in metallurgical communities and industrial output can be observed pan-region-ally. While large quantities of bronze items are found inside fortified areas, there is further evi-dence for bronze being accumulated and stock-piled en masse, removing it from circulation.2The OFCC settlement organisation is gradually gaining the desired research atten-tion in the studied territory. Early scientific works linking to environmental aspects of archaeology can be dated to the beginning of the 20th century (Lehóczky 1908). For a very long time, the research was focused on climatic reconstructions, faunal/floral investi-gations and pedological factors of soil forma-tion.3 In the 1990s the archaeological debate took a sharp turn to focus on socio-economic aspects of prehistoric lifestyles.4 Today, envi-ronmental, palaeoecological studies and hab-itat analyses, strongly reinforced by the nat-ural sciences, create a new interdisciplinary research frontier.5 The relationship between prehistoric humans and the surrounding environment can be studied in myriad ways, including through modern spatial analyses and visuali-sation tools, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS can explore spatially the relationships proposed by using location as the key index variable.6 Although, standalone GIS approaches are limited by their capacity to integrate a temporal aspect into the analy-sis, as well as the restrictions installed through the data input, model reductionism and user contribution. More recently, it has become increasingly possible to model test GIS-de-rived outputs to account for temporal uncer-tainty, chiefly through the incorporation of quantitative statistical methods.7In this pilot study, quantitative methods were employed to examine the development of the OFCC settlement networks in East-ern Slovakia. The present approach enables the study of socio-economic processes linked to long-lasting environmental changes. Our main aim was to analyse habitat strategies based on specific environmental parameters. Using specialised analytical techniques, the results have been evaluated in the continuum by combining spatio-temporal modelling and multivariate statistics.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...odelling_study
    The southern part of central Slovakia was linked to the Hatvan culture. Archaeological evidence suggests that the OFCC replaced the Hatvan culture during and after the BA2 (Bátora 2018: 94). However, some research suggests that transformation might have been linked to regional adaptations, and in fact, local Hatvan communities imitated the OFCC pot-tery style until the BB1 chronological phase (Guba 2009: 134; Fischl 2012: 42; Guba 2016: 84). The common denominator and con-sensus is that in the following chronological stage (phase BB1/BB2) the OFCC transforms gradually into Urnfield decorative style (in the Piliny and Suciu de Sus cultures; Šteiner 2009: 76–119; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12), and Tumulus – post Otomani style respectively (Przybyła 2009: 120–123). In this study, we focused on radiocarbon dates ranging from the Hatvan to the Piliny culture (fig.2). The ear-liest OFCC radiocarbon date is available from Gánovce (3500±90BP; Barta et al. 2013), the latest from Nižná Myšľa (features 89 and 120a, dated to 3290±100 BP and 3300±70 BP respectively; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12).
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...odelling_study

  12. #162
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Anyone who can provide chronology for Ottomany Culture? Mostly from which culture it descends from.
    If we go some steps back, its very important to check Makó and Nyírség. The whole pre-Gava succession of cultural groups is extremely complex and its just with Gava that it gets simpler, because they eat them all up. What's more, and that is something Michelsberg and Lengyel, Sopot teach us: We can have samples from hundreds of individuals, if they are from the wrong clan and province, they will miss it. Like Lengyel-Sopot along the Danube had a lot of E1b1b, Michelsberger in some areas too, but in others, nothing or close to nothing. Something similar could have been the case with any of the local cultures around the Carpathians. It might be one subgroup which rose to prominence from within, with a new cultural shift and conquest, profiting from it.

    I found this work interesting:

    The Nagyrév complex evolved locally on the Danube west of the Tisza-Körös
    confluence at the same time that the Perjámos group evolved on the Maros (Bóna 1994a).
    Since Makó sites were found in the same area of the Pitvaros, an EBA culture around
    Szeged with little resemblance to them, Bóna (1965) argued that the Pitvaros represented
    an intrusive group that pushed the Makó out. His account invoked the migrations of
    people in the Balkans and Anatolia as the driving factor that brought the Pitvaros and
    Nyírség groups to the Carpathian Basin. This in turn was premised on Mellaart’s (1958)
    description of mass migration of people displaced by Indo-European invasions at the end
    of the Early Bronze Age in Macedonia and Anatolia (ca. 1900 BC).
    On the Upper Tisza, along the foothills of the Northern Mid-Mountains all the
    way to the Danube Bend, however, the scattered remains of the Makó led way to the
    emergence of the Hatvan culture– Bóna (1994a) suggests the cremation burial rite in the
    latter derived from the tradition of the former. He also argued that these people
    annihilated the residents of the Nagyrév area, displacing among them the occupants of
    Tószeg. As this occurred, the residents of the Berettyó and Ier valleys, the once members
    of the ‘Nyírség’ culture, began to incorporate new decorative techniques – fine incising
    and zigzag patterns – to became the early ‘Ottomány’ (Kalicz 1970).
    Now this get really interesting, because like predicted, they expanded out of the Epi-Corded environment:

    To the north on the Upper Tisza the
    Füzesabony group is supposed to have crystallized out of eastern Corded Ware group in
    the Hernád valley
    . The different burial customs of the Hatvan and the Füzesabony
    (cremations in the former, inhumations in the latter) suggested to Bóna (1994a) they were
    mortal enemies. It was not surprising, then, that the Füzesabony expanded in the Middle
    Bronze Age and destroyed a whole series of Hatvan settlements. It is at this time that they
    profoundly affect other people of the Great Plain, including the stylistic development of
    the Vatya, remaining Hatvan, and in the Körös basin, the emergence of the Gyulavarsánd
    style out of the Ottomány
    .
    Since they buried, they can be tested, let's see.

    The Tumulus culture was described as an invasion across
    the Little Plain of the Danube, and few of the ‘classical’ Bronze Age settlements
    persisted into this period (Bóna 1958). Those that did, such as the Piliny in northeastern
    Hungary and Slovakia
    , evolving out of the Füzesabony, were in remote areas where the
    Tumulus culture did not penetrate. Some existing traditions merged with the Tumulus
    culture on the Danube
    (Kreiter 2005a, b), but most, such as the Gyulavarsánd tradition of
    Piliny and Kyjatice are key are of course to look for too.

    A typical element of Gava is the burnished ceramic, which is typical for Gyulavarsánd/Otomani III, not the earlier horizon:

    Perhaps most obvious to excavators is the replacement of wiped or brushed
    surface treatment with burnishing across multiple forms.
    Brushed ceramics (besentrecht
    in German, seprűzött or ‘broom-stroked’ in the Hungarian literature) are typically
    considered ‘household’ wares33. Brushed surface treatment is phased out between the late
    Ottomány and early Gyulavarsánd
    . Bóna’s (1974:149) excavations indicate that 48% of
    the brushed ceramics from excavation came from the lowest Ottomány level (Layer 4; he
    was calling it ‘Hatvan’ at the time). The next layer above it (Layer 3), contained 28%,
    and the two upper Gyulavarsánd layers (Layer 2 and 1) had 18% and 6%, respectively.
    During the Gyulavarsánd, spiral or otherwise curved
    decoration is added. The spiral feature (girland in German) is sometimes accompanied by
    a bas-relief technique or bossing (created through pushing out the interior of the vessel
    wall before firing). The effect, usually found on mugs or other liquid containers,
    heightens the visual effect of the spiral, and is not seen in the preceding Ottomány with
    geometric patterns.
    The third feature that distinguishes Ottomány from Gyulavarsánd ceramics is the
    addition of ‘flare’ to vessel body parts. In the Gyulavarsánd, rims flare out more, lips
    protrude, and handles extend high above the rim. These formal modifications, along with
    the visual effects of bossing and incised spirals on a polished vessel all add to what can
    be described as a more ‘baroque’ style similar to the trajectory described in other parts of
    the Plain (Bóna 1975; O’Shea 1996; Michelaki 1999).
    Absolute chronology, Gyulavarsánd is directly followed by Piliny/Gava:
    The radiocarbon chronology, in contrast to
    the traditional chronology, the Hungarian Ottomány and Gyulavarsánd phases show a
    100 year overlap, from 2150-1650 BC, and from 1750-1400 BC, respectively.
    The contemporaneity
    between the late Hatvan and Ottomány in the northern part of the Plain also support the
    claim for a strong northern influence contributing to the genesis of the Ottomány
    During the subsequent Gyulavarsánd, major new fortified settlements –
    Vărşand and Socodor – appear on the Fekete Körös where there were none before. New
    fortified sites also appear on the Berrettyó, such as Esztár-Fenyvesdomb and Szilhalom,
    and on the Sebes Körös (Sîntion), and in the Ier valley (Pir). It is a geographical
    expansion of the style southeast and northeast further up river.
    Bóna (1974, 1994a) argued that the crystallization of the Gyulavarsánd culture
    was the result of immigration into the Ottomány area. Like Roska before him, he noted
    that some new ceramic forms had precedents in the Vattina area to the south. Many
    forms in the Gyulavarsánd, such as highly polished shallow bowls with spiral engraving
    and lugs, were found all over the Füzesabony area to the north and west as well. He was
    unsure in which direction the new forms travelled because they did not have precedent in
    the north either. The radiocarbon data indicate that the Füzesabony clearly precedes the
    Gyulavarsánd, occurring between 2000-1800 BC, two hundred years before it is found in
    the Körös basin. If Bóna is correct about the population movement into the basin at about
    1750 BC, it is perhaps more likely that they came from the north and west. This would
    then mean a northern origin out of the Hatvan for the Ottomány and a northern origin
    from the Füzesabony for the Gyulavarsánd
    .

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DmmWSpfxLO-Z4E

    Nyírség is a group which should keep an eye on too, I heard. I wait for the Pannonian study to which group the E1b1b (V13?) belonged. He was close by, at the triangle between Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, which is absolutely key for everything.

    Gyulavarsánd-Füzesabony is much closer to later Gava than Otomani proper, and its exactly Füzesabony from which Piliny is supposed to have developed in North Eastern Hungary and Slovakia. Even if the that's not the direct line, its a direction we have to look.

  13. #163
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I was searching for a connection of the old "smith caste" surviving in the Epi-Corded context, as one theory of how E-V13 could survive the steppe conquest and being integrated in the new Corded Ware world from Lengyel. This might be a possible path, the origin of Gava can be traced to the Upper Tisza, the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, and cultural formations like Suciu de Sus, Lăpuş, Kyjatice, Piliny - about which possible origin I wrote my last post. Now I made this highly interesting find:

    Die Bronzewerkstätten der Pilinyer und der Kyjatice-Kultur31 beschafften ihre regionalen Rohstoffen aus der Erzlagerstätten der
    slowakischen Erzgebirge (Nižná Myšľa), der westlichen Karpaten (Umgebung von Kremnitz/ Kremnica/ Körmöcbánya), sowie der Kleinen und Weißen Karpaten (Špania Dolina). Die Nutzung dieser
    Bergwerke begann ab der späten Lengyel-Kultur, doch ist auch ihre bronzezeitliche Nutzung (z.B. durch
    die Lausitzer-Kultur) bzw. die Erzverhüttung gut bekannt32
    https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Cha...nd_settlements

    Piliny-Kyjatice used the same mines as the Lengyel, there is an ongoing tradition of mining and forging in the Carpathians - a direct continuation from late Lengyel usage in Slovakia! That's bulls eye and could be it.

  14. #164
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    So, actually in chronology Gava, Piliny, Caka, Mako all are just nomenclature and specific regional designations of the so called Middle-Danube Urnfield Culture.

    Middle-Danube Urnfield culture


    - Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
    - Čaka in western Slovakia
    - GĂĄva culture
    - Piliny culture
    - Kyjatice culture
    - MakĂł culture


    So, i wonder if Austrian archeologists are right:

    Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.

    https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publi...-roman-albania
    The Middle-Danube Urnfield influence on Glasinac-Mat would make sense then, mostly during Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age transition. Of course just as the article states, Glasinac did follow earlier Early/Middle Bronze Age Culture primarily but with strong Middle-Danube Urnfield influence.

    The most notable/recognizable piece from this culture is actually the water birds in chariot.



    The Glasinac chariot with water birds.

  15. #165
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    So, actually in chronology Gava, Piliny, Caka, Mako all are just nomenclature and specific regional designations of the so called Middle-Danube Urnfield Culture.

    Middle-Danube Urnfield culture


    - Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
    - Čaka in western Slovakia
    - GĂĄva culture
    - Piliny culture
    - Kyjatice culture
    - MakĂł culture


    So, i wonder if Austrian archeologists are right:



    The Middle-Danube Urnfield influence on Glasinac-Mat would make sense then, mostly during Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age transition. Of course just as the article states, Glasinac did follow earlier Early/Middle Bronze Age Culture primarily but with strong Middle-Danube Urnfield influence.

    The most notable/recognizable piece from this culture is actually the water birds in chariot.



    The Glasinac chariot with water birds.
    A common motif being the sun & birds in Gava-related formations, so this looks very familiar.

    Kyjatice, Piliny and Gáva-Holigrady culture are regional designations from a very closely related Channelled Ware context, some use it almost synonymous, especially Piliny and Gava. My understanding is that Füzesabony-Gyulavarsánd is more Epi-Corded and Pannonian-Carpathian derived, whereas the Western Tumulus culture groups, which destroyed Gyulavarsánd and pushed Füzesabony are more North Western in origin. They later fuse, to some degree, in the Urnfield age, but Gava might be considered closer to Lusatian than the more Western Pannnonian Tumulus-Urnfielder groups.
    And that's quite a fundamental difference for the theory, up to this point, because E-V13 came either with the Epi-Corded warriors or was present in the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere already - or both, since the Epi-Corded groups themselves weren't coming from far away but from the same sphere.

    The relation is like Gava - Piliny - Kyjatice - Lusatian. That's the chain to the North.

    You see the fusion element in the Middle Danubian zone, but its recognisable as Channelled Ware influence:

    Using the evidence of the artefacts showing the connections of the population
    of the Urnfield culture living in Transdanubia during the
    HaA1 and HaA2 periods, cultural impacts from the East-
    ern Alpine and western Slovakian region can be observed.43
    That means the dominance of the general northwestern-
    southeastern polarity in the communication network.44 At
    the same time the high number of characteristics in shape
    and motifs typical of the Kyjatice and Gáva cultures indi-
    cates that the population living in the Danube River Bend
    Gorge region during the HaB period maintained intensive
    relations principally with communities inhabiting the Hun-
    garian Northern Mountain Hills and the Great Hungarian Plain.4
    Naturally, it is impossible to conclusively determine
    whether the strong mixing of cultural motifs and design elements of the Kyjatice and Gáva cultures with the
    Transdanubian and eastern Alpine Urnfield cultures at the Békásmegyer cemetery resulted from broader intercultural
    interactions or reflects an integrated society comprised of individuals from the various cultures.
    Channelled, burnished, black ceramic war with knobs is characteristic for the high quality production of the horizon, here the authors name all the regional variant names which being related in the wider region:

    Among the urns with everted and faceted rims, cylin-
    drical necks, curved shoulders, and wide bellies found in
    the Békásmegyer cemetery, the vessel of Grave 404 is deco-
    rated with channelled, upright knobs (Tab. 8/3). The deco-
    ration of its shoulder has the characteristics of the ceramic
    production of the Upper Tisza Region during the HaB1
    period.27 The slanted fluting of its rim (Tab. 8/2–3) offers
    evidence that it could have been produced during the transi-
    tion of the HaB1 and HaB and HaC periods.28 The com-
    bination of these ornamentations can also be found in the
    pottery manufacturing tradition of the Gáva culture; the
    two forms of decoration appear together on a bowl from
    Hódmezővásárhegy-Gorzsa-Cukortanya.29
    Altough the low-based shape and the high, conical, deco-
    rated necks of the pots found in Graves 8 and 27 (Tab.1/3, 6)
    are indicators of eastern stylistic connections, the burnished
    impressed decoration on their shoulders shows local traditions. The pottery of the Piliny and the Kyjatice cultures,30
    or possibly the traditions of the Belegiš II culture31 may have
    affected their developement. As the form appears in greater
    numbers in assemblages of the Gáva culture32 the vessels
    found in the Békásmegyer cemetery seem to primarily show
    the connections maintained with the Gáva culture during the HaB1 period.
    Unfortunately the contribution about cremation burials in Albania is missing:

    Lorenc Bejko zum Thema „Cremation
    burials in Albania between 1300 and 750 BC“ konnten lei-
    der nicht in den Band aufgenommen werden.
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

    These are two blocks meeting around the Middle Danube. That way E-V13 could have entered more Western groups very early, but its origin is in the Tisza/Carpathian block. They fuse with and infiltrate the Western groups in Pannonia, but their origin and grouping is different imho.

    In some schemes there are chronological differences, like Piliny being old, probably the oldest of the group, Kyjatice and Gava younger layers, rather. Piliny and Lăpuş, are for me at the moment two very important phenomenons for the later developments. Because with Gava and Kyjatice, we already see the developed group which expanded outwards.
    Last edited by Riverman; 23-10-21 at 00:34.

  16. #166
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    You are all over the place and mixing stuff.

  17. #167
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Something to think about.

    The Late Bronze Age burial customsBefore focusing on the Early Iron Age, it seems relevant to have a quick look at the Late Bronze Age burialcustoms. They are documented by a limited number of sites located mostly in the southern part of theregion, along the middle course of the Haliakmon river, as well as in Pieria and east of the Strymon river(Fig.1). To briefly summarize, the cemeteries display up to eight main funerary features: collective tumulusor flat cemetery, stone enclosure, inhumation, secondary cremation, simple pit grave, slab cist, bouldercist, and ash urn (Fig. 2). As we shall see, this is much less than in cemeteries of the Early Iron Age. Most ofthe tombs of the Late Bronze Age have been found in organised cemeteries.17 As in the rest of Greece, theuse of secondary cremation has already been known since the Neolithic, and the custom spread widely

    during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, especially in the Chalcidice and Western Macedonia,18 followedby a decline in the Late Bronze Age along with the abandonment of cemeteries that were in use duringthe preceding periods. However, it becomes popular again at the end of the Late Bronze Age especiallyeast of the Strymon River, where tumuli and collective structures, mostly associated with ash-urns, arepredominant.19 In the rest of the region inhumations in individual graves prevail.20 The architecture of thegraves varies from a simple pit to a more elaborated cist graves lined with boulders or slabs,21 primarilylocated in southern Pieria,22 and along the middle course of the Haliakmon river.23 Tombs with inhumations are organized in flat cemeteries or are grouped under tumuli in a few cases.

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document
    The Early Iron Age burial customs: diversification and regionalismFrom the 11th–10th century BCE onwards, three major changes can be seen in the burials customs thatclearly show the crucial position of this region between the central Balkans and the Aegean Sea. The adoption of new funerary practices leads to a complex geographical distribution of these practices, displaying at a large-scale clear regionalism (Fig. 3 and 4).The first practice, which is connected to a broader central Balkan phenomenon, is the multiplication of cemeteries with collective tumuli.

    Even if this type of organisation is well known since the EarlyBronze Age in western, southern Greece and the present area of interest,30 the increase of such collective architecture in the Early Iron Age is particularly pronounced in northern Greece as well as in the adjacent northern and western regions. Indeed, dating to the Bronze Age, including the Early, Middle, andLate periods, we have recorded up to ten burial mound cemeteries, which are relatively well distributed between the Pindus and the southwestern Rhodopes,31 whereas for the period between the 11thto the 7th centuries BCE up to twenty sites have been recorded.

    32 Not only does the number of tumuliincrease, but so does the number of graves inside collective monuments.33 Moreover, it is worth notingthat in the Early Iron Age, just as during the Bronze Age, the tumuli are far from being similar in termsof their construction. They are made up of earth (at Vergina),34 or of stones (in southern Pieria and eastof River Strymon),35 or display unusual and original architecture (such as the stone enclosures containing several ash urns in Palio Gynaikokastro36 or the tholos-like collective tombs set in stone moundsin Almopia).

    37 Additionally, unlike northern Epirus and southern Albania, the collective tumulus is notthe only type of organisation by far. No Early Iron Age tumulus cemetery has been recorded so far inChalcidice and in the eastern part of the Thermaic Gulf. Even if a few tumuli have been observed orassumed to have existed at some sites, such as Nea Philadelpheia, it does not seem to be the structuring form for most of the graves, which are mainly organised in large flat cemeteries.38 It is still difficultto understand in detail the development of tumulus cemeteries at the beginning of the Early Iron Age,but we can say that there is not a single explanation for this complex phenomenon, especially when weconsider the diversity of the architecture of collective monuments and the diverse treatments of thedeceased inside them. Moreover, apart from southern Pieria and western Rhodopes where it is possible to follow the evolution of the practices from the Bronze Age and where it seems that the development of tumuli follows a pre-existing local practice, the lack of funerary data directly prior to the EarlyIron Age at sites elsewhere makes it difficult to assume any definitive conclusion.

    The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary cremation. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the restof Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th–11th centuries BCE, especially inthe north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos “Verpen”39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attributed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th–11th century BCE) identified further in the northat cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjicaculture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovoand which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.43 On the other hand, secondary cremation reappears in southern Chalcidice at the end of the 11th century BCE. The cemetery ofTorone displays a connection with Ionian traditions visible through the imported wheelmade ash containers or local pottery displaying influences from southern Greece (Attic, Euboea and then Cyclades,Thessaly, Locris and Crete), visible as well through the treatment of the deceased and the shape of thegraves, which are not unlike the first Submycenaean secondary cremations discovered in Athens.44 InGreece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces havelong been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northernItaly.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, showing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue.

    The third remarkable Early Iron Age phenomenon in northern Greece is the resurgence of the inhumation in vessels, namely the enchytrismos. It is especially used for both adults and children in theeastern followed by the central part of the region. It is clearly related to an Aegean tradition and seemsto follow the same chronological development as the rest of Greece. Indeed, this practice, attestedfrom the Late Neolithic period onward, is still used during the Early and especially the Middle BronzeAge.46 In northern Greece, western Macedonia47 and Chalcidice,48 this practice is well known since theEarly and Middle Bronze Ages respectively. In these regions, however, it seems to disappear duringthe Late Bronze Age.49 Our knowledge of Late Bronze Age burial customs is limited. Yet, the declineof the enchytrismos at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age has already been observed in the rest ofGreece. It reappears sporadically around the Late Helladic IIIC,50 and it is much more popular during theProtogeometric and Geometric periods.51 We can observe a similar situation in northern Greece. Thecustom develops from the beginning of the Early Iron Age onwards mainly in the eastern and centralparts of the region. On the mainland, the oldest example of enchytrismos has been recorded in easternChalcidice at the cemetery of Ierissos (site of the ancient colony of Akanthos), where it is used as amain practice for adults and children.52 In Thasos, a few pithoi found in the cemeteries of Kentria andTsiganadika are dated to the phases IIA and IIBI (from the 11th to the early phases of the 10th centuryBCE)53 and seem to have contained only child burials. The same pattern can be observed during the following centuries in the region east to Strymon River and in the Drama plain.54 The association of pithosburials with stone tumuli also finds parallels in Aegean Thracian burial practices (such as at Tumulus 2near the ancient Zone).55 During the 9th and the 8th centuries BCE, the enchytrismos spreads in the restof Chalcidice as well, such as at the cemetery of Nikiti-Aï Giannis,56 and represents the main form oftreatment for new-borns and young children deceased in the Late Geometric and Archaic cemetery ofthe ancient Mendè.57 In this cemetery the use of wheelmade amphorae as containers for the burialscan be compared with contemporary cemeteries of southern Greece (Euboea, Attica, and Corinthia),which foreshadows a popularity of this treatment in the Archaic period not only on the Chalcidian coast, but also in Aegean Thrace (at Abdera for example).58 In central Macedonia, the enchytrismos iswell recorded in the cemeteries discovered in the region of Thessaloniki59 and, as we shall see, also inthe plain of Emathia at the cemetery of Vergina. In contrast, it is less often used in the farther westernand northern hinterland.60 It is barely recorded in Epirus61 and is totally absent from the cemeteriesdiscovered in Albania.
    Towards the beginning of the early Iron Age several transformations in the material culture of Greece are striking. Particularly the appearance of cremation and individual inhumation burials was long held as the main argument for numerous historical reconstruction of early Greek history, however, this phase has only rarely been viewed from a cultural anthropological angle.

    Some changes in Greek culture dating to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE have been traditionally perceived as evidence for an invasion of people from the north to Greece. These transformations are particularly perceptible in the burial rites of southern Greece, e.g. the change from multiple burials in champer tombs to single inhumations in cist tombs and shortly afterwards the widespread practice of cremation. This change was often identified as the legendary ›Dorian invasion‹ mentioned by some historiographers of the classical period. These tales developed into historical facts and formed the departure point for many reconstructions of the past in Greece and the Balkans.



    The geographical focus

    The aim of this project is not to search for Dorians in the Greek and Balkan prehistory but instead to reanalyze the archaeological data that fully addresses the already mentioned changes in an up-to-date interpretation. The area of interest comprises Serbia, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia, and northern Greece (especially Macedonia and Chalkidike, and Thessaly). In the past scholarly debate and exchange of knowledge was difficult for political reasons but the time has come to overcome national and ideological barriers and begin an international scientific discussion.



    The method

    In this project new archaeological data from recent excavations will be analyzed and presented. Recently published finds and contexts from the northern Aegean and the geographical ›hinterland‹, mainly the central Balkan, allow for comparative studies. Modern scientific methods will be used in order to define the biological sex as well as family and other kin relationships of individuals from selected necropoleis. Strontium isotope analyses aid in acquiring information about mobility and exogamy or migration of people (groups). Radiocarbon analyses, statistical, and additional historical analyses of the burial rites, individual finds, and contexts permit the reconstruction of the social organization of the local communities. Lead isotope analyses of the burial gifts made of lead will provide information on the exchange networks and trade relations.



    The aim

    The research is focused on the socio-cultural aspects of every necropolis and its micro-regions that function as case studies. In this way it is the foundation for a new narrative of the interregional interaction in the area of ideology and ritual. Finally, new archaeological data and modern bioarcharchaeological analyses will lead to a modernized reconstruction of the regional social relationships in Greece and the Balkan.

    https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/resea...nd-the-balkans







  18. #168
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    By the way, the chain of Gava (narrower sense) - Kyjatice (out of Piliny) - Lusatian seems to be very real, with flow of technological innovations in both directions, like specific sword types and smiths, probably whole workshops.

    Another interesting observation is the architecture: Gava people used quite often pit houses in a more irregular layout, "egg shaped" from above.

    Also interesting that in some areas of Greece there were intrusions from the Balkan Urnfielders which might have been fought back and driven out by the local population. Like their settlements burnt and more typically local artefacts on top.
    Last edited by Riverman; 23-10-21 at 15:32.

  19. #169
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    But that doesn't even matter, all of these cultures Gava, Piliny, Kyjatice, Caka, Mako are lumped as Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture.

    Do you really think these guys are making stuff out of thin air?

    Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.

    https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publi...-roman-albania

  20. #170
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    But that doesn't even matter, all of these cultures Gava, Piliny, Kyjatice, Caka, Mako are lumped as Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture.

    Do you really think these guys are making stuff out of thin air?
    By whom? Note they say Danubian Urnfield culture. The Middle Danubian is a different thing than Danubian, because just East of the Middle Danube, the territory of Gava-Channelled Ware started, occupying Eastern Hungary, Romania, Northern-Eastern Serbia etc. The Middle Danubian Urnfield group was closer related to the Austrian and Alpine networks, whereas the Channelled Ware was more North - South oriented with Lusatians as a primary contact to the North.

    About the Middle Danubian group:
    Die mitteldonauländische Urnenfelderkultur umfasst
    die Regionen Niederösterreich, Südmähren, die Südwest-
    slowakei, Teile Westungarns, des Burgenlands sowie der
    Steiermark. Sie ist eine kulturelle Einheit, die um 1300 v.
    Chr. auf der Basis regionaler Hügelgräberkulturen und im
    Zuge eines gegenseitigen Assimilationsprozesses mit den
    Nachbarregionen entstand und 800/750 v. Chr. von der
    Hallstattkultur abgelöst wurde.
    Die von Jíří Říhovský 1958 vorgenommene grund-
    sätzliche Zweiteilung in eine ältere (Velatitzer-)Phase und
    eine jüngere (Podoler-)Phase wurde seither immer wieder
    verfeinert und ausgebaut. Grundsätzlich entsprechen die
    in Mitteleuropa gängigen Stufen Bz D und Ha A1–A2 der
    älteren Phase, mit einer Übergangsphase Ha A2/B1 um ca.
    1050 v. Chr., und die Stufen Ha B2–B3 der jüngeren Phase,
    wobei Ha B3/C1 den fließenden Übergang zur Hallstatt-
    kultur repräsentiert.1
    https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debe9.pdf

    They stem directly from the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture groups, which explains the Pannonian-Illyrian affinity. In some regions they have replaced and pushed those groups, which contributed to e.g. Piliny, which could hold their position in the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania.

    These are really two different, even though related, blocks. The main block for the LBA-EIA is Kyjatice-Gáva, you could add Holigrady, Belegis II and Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon of Bulgaria as expansion groups. The lower Danubian Urnfield groups were all Channelled Ware, but there were in the Western fringe regions splinters of Middle Danubians which were either intrusive or fused.

    Additionally, I found this nice map here on the forum:



    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post574878

    As you can see, and what confuses people, both the Middle Danubians (Illyrian) and Gava (Daco-Thracian) met.
    Last edited by Riverman; 23-10-21 at 20:52.

  21. #171
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    Google translation of a German text:
    South of this area was the culture (cultural group
    pe) Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stražava since a later phase
    se of the urn field culture (Ha widespread (Fig. 1/18 - D.
    Brnjica; Fig. 1/19 - G. Stražava). This group included
    the southern Morawa areas, Kosovo and Sandžak. she
    is through cremation, mainly in urns,
    indicates - type III-A / 1, but also without urn - type III-
    B / 1.25 Although their method of burial is very similar
    with the urn field culture, it becomes
    furnishing ritual with the neighboring Middle Bronze Age
    Paraćin group compared. This fact leads to
    Conclusion that the group Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stražava
    represents the final phase of a long development based on
    the Central Balkans in the Bronze Age can be traced.
    This process is with the Balkan-Danube region complex
    and the elements designated as Daco-Mysian
    closely
    connected. But there was also a clear link
    determined with the urn field culture. So are the finds
    this group as the non-Illyrian component in the
    Understand the evolution of the Dardanians. After this up
    version are Illyrian elements in prehistoric culture
    ture of Kosovo only since the developed Iron Age
    available
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

  22. #172
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Well, you are clearly contradicting yourself by quoting this paper.

    Previously you said (in fact you just go with the stream what Huban says), that Brnjica, Paracin, Mediana have nothing to do with E-V13. Yet, i posted you archeological papers saying that Psenichevo is linked with Mediana so on and so forth.

    I posted how Middle-Danube Urnfield are actually split into various local cultures like Caka, Mako, Gava, Piliny, Kiyatice, yet you speak about Middle-Danube Urnfield and Gava as separate cultures.

  23. #173
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Something more related to topic.

    Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age CentralDalmatia in the Sphere of Interaction between theCarpathian Basin, the Apennine Peninsula andthe Aegean

    Sabine Pabst

    Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Philipps University Marburg

    The region of Central Dalmatia in the eastern Adriatic area and itshinterland represents the starting point of the paper. Even though inthe region between the rivers of Neretva in the south and Krka in thenorth the current state of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age sourcesand research is unfavourable, we can observe amazing supra-regionalconnections in the surviving metal finds. Mostly the metal objectscame to light as single or aquatic finds, sometimes they occurred inhoards or burials in caves.In the late Bronze Age strong Carpathian influences are noticed inCentral Dalmatian weaponry and costume elements. A great many ofthese original Carpathian metal shapes display a wider distributionarea comprising parts of Italy and Greece as well. New supra-regional comparative analyses into typology, chronology and chorology ofseveral late Bronze Age metal artefacts confirm the thesis of a wideranging spread via the costal region of Central Dalmatia and theAdriatic Sea up to Central Italy and the Aegean. Especially the contactswith the Aegean area have not been one-way from north to south. Reversely we can observe several Mycenaean influences in the late BronzeAge eastern Adriatic hinterland as well. These phenomena can be interpreted as part of extensive exchange and trade connections whichtook place between the Mycenaean society and the local communitiesof the western and eastern seaboards of the upper Adriatic (in combination with smaller population movements).The communication routes partly changed at the transition from thelate Bronze Age to the early Iron Age in the 11th/10th century BC. 10Early Iron Age artefacts from the north-western Balkans and CentralDalmatia are showing special connections with north-western Greeceand the southern Albanian-Macedonian area. At the same time thetransadriatic contacts with Central Italy became stronger and had adifferent character. Additional structural analyses of early Iron Agewarrior equipment and costume sets of several regions now suggest adifferent social background. It must be assumed that a larger numberof emigrants deriving from different Carpathian and north-westernBalkan regions moved abroad via the costal region of Central Dalmatia and the Adriatic Sea

    [email protected]

    https://ukar.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/u..._PeBA_2017.pdf

  24. #174
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    711


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Well, you are clearly contradicting yourself by quoting this paper.

    Previously you said (in fact you just go with the stream what Huban says), that Brnjica, Paracin, Mediana have nothing to do with E-V13. Yet, i posted you archeological papers saying that Psenichevo is linked with Mediana so on and so forth.
    There is no contradiction, because this is what I just wrote some minutes before on Anthrogenica on the issue:
    Because what we see is that very early Daco-Thracians from Belegis II-Gava/Paraćin became an adstrate and replaced the locals around Brnjica, especially in the elite. We see a steady increae of burial shifts to cremation in the Channelled Ware style. So "Brnjica culture" is most likely not E-V13 heavy, but it became infiltrated and overtaken from Belegis II-Paraćin, which were. This was a North -> South expansion from Belegis II-Gava. Like Belegis itself was also, most likely, not dominated by E-V13, its the later phase when Gava took over ("Belegis II") which is the sure thing.

    I posted how Middle-Danube Urnfield are actually split into various local cultures like Caka, Mako, Gava, Piliny, Kiyatice, yet you speak about Middle-Danube Urnfield and Gava as separate cultures.
    They are, they are separate branches and blocks of the Urnfield system. That's something most authors recognised and wrote about. Piliny and Kyjatice are largely just stages, you have a smooth transition from one (Piliny) into the other. And Piliny descends from local Carpathian groups and Füzesabony. Channelled Ware is deeply rooted in Pannonia-Carpathians and from the Epi-Corded context. Middle Danubian Tumulus and Urnfield group is more intrusive, coming from the Alpine region, rather, but picking local elements up and fusing with them. Its really Pannonian-Illyrian vs. Channelled Ware Daco-Thracian.

    You also don't see, unless in some elite graves and in the borderzone, like described before, the typical inventory of the Channelled Ware groups in the Middle Danubian context. They are definitely ethnically and culturally separate by definition. Even Gimbutas noted that clearly, as did most others since then. You mentioned Velatice before, this just a site for the Middle Danubian group, nobody would put it into the context of Gava. And for the E-V13 story, Gava is the main thing, probably even just their Southern expansion groups.

    Something more related to topic.
    What's very interesting, there were two spheres of influence, one going around the Adriatic, with Illyrians and Italics, the other along the Danube, over the Alps, into Northern Italy. The later being the chain from Greeks - Psenichevo (Thracian) - Basarabi (Daco-Moesian) - Eastern Hallstatt (Pannonian-Dacian-Celtic) - Northern Italy Hallstatt related groups (Ligurians, Alpine Celts, Veneti). And its typical that, because of that transmission, Pannonians and the Northern Italian Hallstatt related groups seem to have a much higher rate of E-V13. Compare with the recent results from Switzerland and Italy (high rates in St. Gallen, Liguria/Genua and Venice province).

  25. #175
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    732

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    You are contradictory, so according to you Brnjica is Proto-Illyrian-Pannonian related. According to actual data Brnjica practiced cremation from Middle Bronze Age, then again you go around claiming Illyrians as a whole practiced inhumation so they were different from cremating groups.

    You cannot make conclusions from impartial DNA results and impartial archeological records.

    A textbook example is Ancient Egyptians, the most common Y-DNA among Ancient Egyptians is R1b-M269 so far, then H2 and G2, but is it really true? Likes of Carlos Quiles say yes. Reality is different of course.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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