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

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Milos Jevtic Psenicevo, Bassarabi, Insula Banului, Saharna Solonceni and all related cultures (who should be rich on E-V13) origin should be sought in lower Danube valley, from Iron Ages to Danube Delta.

It's either this, or the newly introduced black-burnished ware, channeled-ware Gava/Belegis-Gava II.


Danube_Delta_evolution.gif

That's to some degree no contradiction, because Psenichevo-Babadag being a direct descendant of Channelled Ware, just with local influences and new innovations. So one possible argument could be, that Channelled Ware already had E-V13, but there were multiple founder effects especially in the East, in the area of the Babadag into Psenichevo Eastern groupings, and that the mixed South Eastern ancestry with increased E-V13 spread from there.
It could have been picked up in the East, but that is much harder to harmonise with the timings we got from the modern testing and phylogeny.

It's like I2a-Din: The question is not whether it spread with Slavs, it did spread primarily with Slavs, that's a fact, but when exactly it joined the Slavic group. The main difference being that E-V13 for the Thracians/Daco-Thracians played a much bigger role, presumably in all branches, including the Northern ones, and was presumably there from the start...

Babadag-Psenichevo is unthinkable without Channelled Ware, because they are Channelled Ware provinces by and large.
 
We just lack Iron Age samples from too many regions and detecting a minority element is even harder than getting any samples, even more so, if their great majority did cremate, like most of the people associated with E-V13 just did. Fr?g is the primary example.

It's particularly interesting to stress that many authors claimed that the local, more conservative population, remained with cremation, while newcomers and the extravagant elite from the Celtic West preferred inhumation during the Iron Age. So its specifcally the local, Urnfield and Thraco-Cimmerian/Basarabi associated people, which did prefer to cremate, contrary to Western newcomers and the transregional elites.

The Late Bronze Age Urnfield Period in Central Europe (BA D, Ha A/B, c.1300 to 800 BC) is characterized by the dominance of cremation as a burial rite. The simple appearance of urn burials give an impression of simplicity, but they are the endpoint of a chain of actions and practices that constitute the funerary ritual, many of which may not be simple at all, but include a large number of people and resources. The washing, dressing, and furnishing of the body as it is laid out prior to cremation leave no traces. The funerary pyre, as spectacular as it may have looked, smelled, and felt during the cremation, preserves only under exceptional circumstances. The rituals and feasts associated with selecting the cremated remains from the funerary pyre and placing them in a suitable organic container or a ceramic urn prior to their deposition do not leave much evidence. The large-scale spread of cremation during the Late Bronze Age has traditionally been explained by the movements of peoples (e.g. Kraft 1926; Childe 1950), or a change in religious beliefs (e.g. Alexander 1979). More recently, a change in how the human body is ontologically understood and how it has to be transformed after death is seen as the more likely underlying cause (Harris et al. 2013; Robb and Harris 2013; S?rensen and Rebay-Salisbury in prep.), although a simple and single reason is rarely the driver of such pan-European developments. This chapter will be concerned with another transition, the change from cremation back to inhumation, several hundred years later during the Early Iron Age, and investigates its background and causes. In Central Europe, cremation is given up as the solitary funerary rite, and a range of different options, including inhumations in burial mounds, bi-ritual cemeteries, and new forms of cremation graves emerge. This change happens at a different pace in the various areas of the Hallstatt Culture and adjacent areas, which will be surveyed here.

https://academic.oup.com/book/40283/chapter-abstract/346768615?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Also about Eastern Hallstatt, which had stronger Thraco-Cimmerian influences and was decisive in the formation of Hallstatt as whole in the earliest period. Remember that most of the major E-V13 subclades split between the macro-regions between 1.300-900 BC? Here is why:

Next
to the Middle Danubian Urnield Culture with various local pottery traditions as
well as variations in burial ritual (Lochner 2013) other cultural groups or units can
be identiied who are direct neighbors of the Middledanubian Urnield culture:
irst those using incised and stamped pottery ? i.e. the Kalakača phase of the Bosut
Culture (H?nsel/Medović 1991), located in the Balkans and the Lower Danube
region, and secondly the so-called Mezőcs?t group (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998; 2000)
of mobile pastoralists in the eastern Carpathian Basin. The vicinity of the Middle
Danubian Urnield Culture ? which evolves into the eastern Hallstatt culture in the
late 8th century BC ? to culturally distinct groups is crucial in order to understand
the formation process of the Hallstatt culture as a whole.

Therefore it is likewise important to look at those neighboring regions east of
the bend of the Danube and the transformations process which came to pass here
around the time of 1000 BC.

Mezocsat = Thraco-Cimmerian, many G?va elements in it, evolving with additional Scythian influences into Vekerzug.
Gornea-Kalakaca into Bosut with Eastern influences into Basarabi.
These are the two main Iron Age Western cultural formations, and both did, just like G?va before, heavily influence the Middle Danubian Urnfield group's sphere, from which Hallstatt evolved. There is no way that E-V13 was absent in Hallstatt, especially in the most strongest influenced groups like Fr?g.
Western Hallstatt - should have get "some" too, due to contacts, but Eastern Hallstatt was surely full of E-V13 - still a minority, but probably the biggest after the dominant R-L51, especially R-U152/R-L2 lineages.

How came the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon about? By Cimmerians invading G?va:

As I have argued previously (Metzner-Nebelsick 2002; 2010), due to various
factors of supposedly overexploitation of the natural resources in the eastern
Carpathian Basin and the impact of an incoming group of eastern mobile
pastoralists who also intermarried with women of local residents, parts of the
Hungarian Plain (hung. Alf?ld) underwent substantial social and economic as
well as ideological changes during the 9th century BC. Profound anthropogenic
changes of the environment led to situations of crisis and a subsequent immigration
of newcomers from eastern Europe led to a change of subsistence strategy with
a pastoral economy, since for the time between 900/950 and 700/650 BC no
indications of lowland settlements structures can be named. Secondly the burial
custom of cremation or the custom of not burying larger parts of the population
in an archaeologically detectable way as it is attested for the G?va culture was
abandoned. Instead members of this so-called Mezőcs?t or F?zesabony-Mezőcs?t
group practiced inhumation as the exclusive rite, thus creating a distinctive
cultural boundary to the traditional Middle Danubian Urnfield culture groups.

Remember the growth of Suciu de Sus into G?va? Overexploitation of resources! That's probably part of the explanation for the sudden decrease and their migration South, even for the Bronze Age collapse. They grew to big too fast, and when things got worse, latest when iron came on the scene, they decided to leave for good and that's when Channelled Ware exploded and moved South on both sides of the Carpathians.

Its a tragedy we got Mezocsat samples which are clearly local, clearly no Cimmerians, but these being all females! I'm pretty sure, if we would have had 10 males, chances are high some E-V13 would be among these Thraco-Cimmerians from Mezocsat and they might still carry lineages which are now very frequent in Western Europe!
Chances are we might get some samples, eventually, because under Cimmerian influence, some East Carpathian G?va groups transitioned to inhumation!

The Thraco-Cimmerians were at the foundation of Hallstatt and introduced heavy cavalry with new, typically Carpathian (essentially G?va people!) innovations:

As I have argued it was either members of those Carpathian Basin Urnfield
groups or the Mezőcs?t people themselves who developed great creative potential
in translating the prototypes of a new way of bridling technique ? very appropriate
for military purposes ? into something genuinely ?Carpathian? (Fig. 4; MetznerNebelsick 1998; 2002). It is still unclear where the new horse-gear types were
produced, since so far no workshops could be located, neither within the activity
zone of the Mezőcs?t people nor indeed in the hillforts and settlements of the
sedentary Urnfield communities. Nonetheless, these Carpathian Basin hybrids
of types of horse-gear and various forms of richly ornamented reign trappings,
originating in the northern Caucasus and the north Pontic steppe belt, were those
which lay the foundation of the emergence of the typically Ha C Mindelheim
type horse-gear. G. Kossack was the first who observed those eastern connections
of Ha C and the Hallstatt culture as a whole (Kossack 1954).

These cultures being connected to the earliest stage of Hallstatt, not without reason the Carpatho-Balkan groups of Thracian origin being called "Thracian Hallstatt" in the past:
Metzner-Nebelsick-353.jpg

Mezner-Nebelsick, p. 353

Note that all the important groups which descend from Channelled Ware being present - including the area from which we got the latest E-V13 from, Psenichevo group in Bulgaria, which was just part of it. Just like Northern (Late) G?va, from which the later Northern Dacians evolved, which sticked to cremation even when coming under Gothic rule.

This is when E-V13 began to move West the latest, the first splinters might have been with Urnfield already, but the bigger impact will be with the Hallstatt connection to the Thracian sphere (Mezocsat and Basarabi in particular). Therefore I expect a strong overlap of the current Western subclades with finds from Mezocsat and Basarabi, primarily, Northern G?va secondarily, South Eastern groups only third for the North West.

We have this debate only, because, unfortunately, from Mezocsat only females being tested!

How far reached Mezocsat Thraco-Cimmerians (which evolved from the G?va base!):
I am dwelling on this aspect once again, because the process of a multi-stage
adaptation and subsequent appropriation of eastern contacts became indicative
for the eastern Hallstatt culture and beyond in the Ha C period. The fundamental
changes happening after ca. 1000 BC were however geographically limited and
had the strongest impact in regions immediately adjacent to the Mezőcs?t group?s
living space ? that is in southeast Pannonia (including areas of both southwest
Hungary and northeast Croatia
) and in eastern Austria (Lower Austria and
Burgenland).
Here the contact with the Mezőcs?t people was direct and probably
often antagonistic, triggering a quick adaptation of novelties in warfare.

Note that some of the founders of Hallstatt dynasties copied Eastern gear of the Daco-Thracians:

In absolute dates this process must have happened sometimes during the 8th
century BC. In some cases like in P?cs-Jakabhegy, tumulus T?r?k 1 (Fig. 5A;
Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 129 pl. 121A) which is one of the founder?s graves in
the Hallstatt necropolis on the Jacabhegy in southeast Transdanubia (Southeastern
Pannonia according to my terminology), the deceased is portrayed as a north
Caucasian mounted warrior, in a rare case of a combination with a Caucasian
weapon set of an iron axe, a bimetallic dagger of Gam?w-Pjatigorsk type and
an iron spearhead, but clearly in combination with local elements such as the
cremation rite and local type pottery. The burial is one of the oldest within a larger
cemetery (Bertok/G?ti 2014, fig. IV,3; Mar?z 1978) of still vastly unpublished
burials (Mar?z 1996).

Whether he was local or not we can't tell, ever. Because he was cremated.

Same for these local Urnfielders, no samples, all cremated:

A contemporaneous example of the incorporation of eastern type horse-gear is
Stillfried at the March River in northeast Austria (Kaus 1988/89; Lochner 2013).
Here we observe quite a different context. Although also in this elite late Urnfield
period grave the eastern style horse-gear is present, but in contrast to P?cs the
ideological package of a steppe bound highly mobile warrior is missing. Instead
we find the eastern hybrids and possibly Alf?ld imports of horse-gear within a
cremation cemetery with an already then longer occupation period.

So the Western expansion is hard to test, but we can test the Mezocsat core. We have samples, we know how the locals looked autosomally, but no males!

Basarabi too influenced Hallstatt:
Second to a steppe impact another form of eastern culture contact is crucial for
understanding the formation of the Hallstatt culture and the Ha C period in the
Hallstatt east: that is the impact of the Basarabi Culture Complex (Gumă 1993;
1996), sometimes referred to as Basarabi Culture (Vulpe 1986). The specific
pottery style of the Basarabi complex (Fig. 7) has its core distribution in the Banat
as well as in Muntenia and Oltenia south of the Danube. In the Banat and around
the Iron Gate the specific pottery style can be connected to a cultural group, the
Basarabi cultural group within the Basarabi cultural complex
(Metzner-Nebelsick
2004, 283-286), since the distinctive incised and stamped pottery has a longer
tradition here (Fig. 3). Next to settlements (H?nsel/Medović 1991) the pottery is
regularly found in inhumation burials, sometimes in tumuli with several burials,
with a distinctive set of gender specific grave goods and dress accessories in the
Ha C period5
. During the early Ha C period (i.e. Ha C1a) or horizon IIIa of my
periodization of the Southeast Pannonian Late Bronze and Iron Age (Fig. 2) as
well as in Ha C1b Basarabi pottery was widely distributed (Eibner 2001; MetznerNebelsick 1992). In particular at the eastern fringe of the eastern Alps Basarabi
style pottery or local transformations of typical motives like the stamped S-spirals,
the Maltese cross or more complex designs of ?running? spirals were obviously
highly attractive to Hallstatt potters. They copied those motives thus also creating
new patterns (also Nebelsick 1997, 73-74 fig. 25-26; Brosseder 2004, 295 fig.
188; 309-316). The stamped and then incised pottery represents a very different
stylistic approach to ornament pottery than the painted typical eastern Hallstatt
pottery (Brosseder 2004; Schappelwein 1999), secondly the most iconic Basarabi
motifs, the large Spiral bands or the hatched (filled in with light coloured lime
paste to create a black and white effect) triangle groups were sometimes attached
to specific Balkan vessel forms like the cantharos (Fig. 8). Cantharoi form also
a distinctive part of the funeral vessel set in the southeast Pannonian or Dalj
group in the eastern part of southwest Transdanubia (= ?Southeast Pannonia?)
(Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, esp. 122-128) and the area immediately across the
Danube opposite Batina in northern Serbia (Trajković 2008). Other distribution
areas of cantharoi are the Adriatic coastal areas (Liburnian group of the Iron Age)
or the southeast alpine region with Carinthia, here in the necropolis of Fr?g
(Metzner-Nebelsick 1992; Tomedi 2002, pl. 52,1)6
, Slovenia, with cemeteries like
in Molnik near Ljubjana (Pu? 1985; 1991) or Ormo? near Maribor (TomaničJevremov 1988/89, pl. 18; pl. 19,1-4; 2001) as well as in Dolenjska Toplice
(Ter?an 1976, pl. 46,1) or Podzemlj, Skrile (Barth 1969, pl. 42,4) in Dolenjska.
Ha C examples from Transdanubia are rare (Patek 1968, pl. 76,9).7
In southeast
Transdanubia cantharoi only occur in the Late Hallstatt period and are then
continuously used until the La T?ne period. In the areas mentioned the presence
and integration of cantharoi into the ceramic pottery set in graves attests the
cultural contact with the Balkan areas such as Bosnia (i.e. Gavranović 2011), in
particular the Sava River valley with the Hallstatt cemeteries of Sanski Most and
Donja Dolina (Cović 1987; Truhelka 1904), but also with the mentioned Basarabi
Cultural Complex in Romania and northern Bulgaria. One can only assume that
Dionysiac believes which are intrinsically connected with the vessel form of the
cantharos were adopted as well.

Can be tested as well! I don't get it if the Serbian project hasn't test any of these, since they are absolutely crucial for the Serbian Iron Age prehistory.

The Southern Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi sphere of influence, which evolved from Southern Channelled Ware, being also characterised by the typical kantharoi - an older Balkan tradition, to which channels as decoration being added. Here is the map, note how close it mirrors the potential early E-V13 high concentration zones:

Metzner-Nebelsick-359.jpg


Mezocsat-Vekerzug and Northern G?va-descendants being not part of it, but I'm assuming they were high in E-V13 as well. At least Mezocsat can be tested, like explained above.

Within Hallstatt, the Eastern influenced groups all practised primarily cremation - notable exception being the Unterkrainische group:

In contrast to the west or Dolenjska inhumations are the absolute exception in
Transdanubia and the whole eastern Hallstatt culture during Ha C; so besides
western or southeast alpine artifact types a burial rite practiced either in the west or
in Dolenjska is present.

They had Illyrian contacts, we have an J-L283 carrier with a Balkan profile from those! They used collective tumuli with inhumation, just like the Illyrians. That's why we got so many J-L283 and so little E-V13, because the Thracian influenced Northern, Austrian and Hungarian groups, all used preferably cremation, which is even a problem for the archaeological interpretation:

In Ha C the almost exclusive burial rite in the mentioned barrow cemeteries
is cremation.
Sometimes several individuals are buried within one burial like in
S?tt? (Vad?sz 1983) or Vaskeresztes (Fekete 1985). Weapons and horse-gear for
a symbolic wagon with two horses is a regular feature, although it seems that due
to the burial rite of cremation and the burning of personal belongings on the
pyre together with the deceased a lot of information is being lost by deliberate
destruction.

https://www.academia.edu/35174707/At_the_crossroads_of_the_Hallstatt_East

Once more: A large fraction of the G?va/Thraco-Cimmerian/Basarabi influenced Iron Age people did either cremate or being not tested as of yet - at least not males.
 
Its somewhat confusingly written and its a pity that the text of the PDF is very badly organised, so that I can't really work that easily with translate. The main text has more interesting content than the somewhat superficial and confusing abstract.

Scroll down to the bottom, it's already translated into English, and as far as the writing goes, it's quite good. It gives a very good picture. Aspar is right into that there is no clear evidence that Psenicevo is directly descended from Gava, that's not the case (except for old Bulgarian archaeologists who explicitly stated Gava is the ancestor of Psenicevo). But, archaeologists believe that Psenicevo-Babadag was the southern cousin of Gava people. Archaeologists like Gabor Vekony. In addition, stamped cultures are always quoted "stamped and grooved" and grooved actually means channeled. But, we can argue it was a cultural complex, which might have different Y-DNA's. Or perhaps E-V13 was present among all of the Balkan-Carpathian complex, just that in some of them moreso, like Stamped Hallstatt Culture.
 
Scroll down to the bottom, it's already translated into English, and as far as the writing goes, it's quite good. It gives a very good picture. Aspar is right into that there is no clear evidence that Psenicevo is directly descended from Gava, that's not the case (except for old Bulgarian archaeologists who explicitly stated Gava is the ancestor of Psenicevo). But, archaeologists believe that Psenicevo-Babadag was the southern cousin of Gava people. Archaeologists like Gabor Vekony. In addition, stamped cultures are always quoted "stamped and grooved" and grooved actually means channeled. But, we can argue it was a cultural complex, which might have different Y-DNA's. Or perhaps E-V13 was present among all of the Balkan-Carpathian complex, just that in some of them moreso, like Stamped Hallstatt Culture.

I know the text below, but he writes more and interesting stuff in the Romanian text corpus, which however is difficult to translate, unfortunately.

The issue is that of course G?va was the source of this Channelled Ware movement, but it happened in stages so there was influence directly from the Northern centre, but a lot happened indirectly and we're dealing with expansions which happened in generations, with a lot of local admixture and influence. That way what came to Bulgaria was no longer the same, neither culturally nor ancestrally, as G?va, but it was caused by G?va nevertheless.

Like I said before, there is the option of clans in between taking the movement up, and spreading it on their own, with their own successful expansion. But this is much less likely because of the phylogeny and spread of E-V13, which is much harder to explain by a more Southern starting point.

As for Psenichevo, I see it is a really fused culture, like Channelled Ware being fused with local elements of significance and then this new fusion starts to spread the other way around. In all fusions, you can always argue that this or that side was the dominant part in the process. That's really something we don't know, because the culturally dominant side might have been genetically subdominant and vice versa. I think there will be a genetic and a cultural G?va signal in Bulgaria, and the only thing we saw up to this point as a new element being E-V13. Because R-Z93 likely came with Noua and the Cimmerian-Scythian groups of the MBA. Therefore I would wonder "what else" it should be and can't think of a local lineage toppling all of Channelled Ware, after its magnificient expansion, from the South Eastern pocket.

But that's really something ancient DNA needs to clarify, we can't do it with the material, archaeological remains imho.
 
As for saying "completely different Channelled Ware in Bulgaria", compare the Knobbed Ware from Bulgaria and Troy:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIl30RMXsAQlLEn?format=jpg&name=large

Note especially the figures on the vessel from Nova Zagora, that was an evolution within the Thracian sphere which spread to Hallstatt and Central Europe:
Metzner-Nebelsick-p-79.jpg

Metzner-Nebelsick page 79.

With those from Lăpuș II-G?va:
Metzner-Nebelsick-p-77.jpg

Metzner-Nebelsick page 77.

Last two images from:
https://www.academia.edu/3195938/Ch...a_and_beyond_ritual_and_chronological_aspects

And these pieces are not even the most similar (note neck height and handle in particular) you can find! There are much more similar pieces between Lăpuș and Bulgaria-Troy. Note that in Bulgaria, this type of ware truly dominated the Transitional Period and was completely unknown before. There were at least roughly similar pieces in e.g. the Central Balkans, which showed some remote similarities, but in Bulgaria this was a completely unknown ceramic tradition, as were the typical Naue II swords (type Reutlingen).
Some similarities between Lăpuș and Bulgaria are even greater than between e.g. Lăpuș and Belegis II-G?va, just proving a potential second, Eastern route down the Prut, into Babadag, Psenichevo and Troy territory.

Archaeologists are at times quite strict these days, in differentiating provinces, but if anybody compares the pottery and other cultural aspects of Bulgaria before and with or after Channelled Ware, to say these are minor cultural impulses without significant cultural domination - and what should have caused this other than migration, which we see in the record anyway - is abstruse.
So the only question which remains is at which ratio the newcomers came in, how many stayed and what their impact was. That there were was none is completely out of question. That they dominated with E-V13 is likely but not proven without having the right pre- and post references from Bulgaria and elsewhere of course. There could have been a limited migration and some of the Channelled Ware groups might have been different from G?va from the beginning, we don't know. That's what needs to be investigated. But local traditions these were not.

Here is another plate which shows the evolution within Bulgaria, note how first the small knobs of the Central Balkan style (Brnjica, Belegis inspired) appeared (not here on this plate), then came Fluted Ware which evolved into Psenichevo I, with the typical vessels like we got them from Lăpuș II-G?va which large knobs:
Elena-Bozhinova-p-70.jpg

Elena Bozhinova, page 70.

From: https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thrace_between_East_and_West_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cultures_in_Thrace

There is zero tradition for that kind of pottery in Bulgaria, nothing. The Central Balkans had earlier connections and some remote similarities, but in Bulgaria was really isolated by comparison. A complete turnover in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age period with the Fluted Ware horizon and well into Psenichevo.

But there is more to that, if looking at the scheme for Bulgaria:

Elena-Bozhinova-p-71.jpg


The ideal timing for E-V13 is with Fluted/Channelled Ware, because about 1.300-900 BC most of the expansion and branching happened. That's the E-V13 timing, not earlier, not later.

Flutes being not abandoned, not even in the developed phase of later Psenichevo:
The upper Early Iron Age layers at Malkoto kale and Ada Tepe II, and the lower layers at Cala and Psenicevo itself belong to the second stage, which marks the apogee of geometric ornamentation.53 Most used are the stamped motifs, among which the S-ornaments are generally preferred. Combinations of stamped decoration and flutes are often seen.
What really changes is the spread of Grey Ware - obviously Greek related, first imports and other ways, later local production:
The rich geometric decoration of the Psenicevo style is a phenomenon common to
all of southeast Thrace, where the centre coincides with the region of the dolmens ?
Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. It also features in the central part of the
Maritza and Tundja valleys to the north and Eastern Thrace to the south.55 The
ornate decoration is less seen in the west, and its limit should be placed in the region
of Plovdiv (Philippopolis). In contrast to its gradual beginning, the second phase ends
abruptly. Burnished handmade table ware is replaced for quite a short time with a
grey wheel-made pottery that is foreign to Thrace and has its traditions in the northwestern Anatolian region.56 A short period when the two classes of pottery are found
together is regarded as the third and last stage of the second Early Iron Age phase, but
it could also be considered a transition into the Late Iron Age. In the upper layer of
the Cala settlement site, the amount of burnished handmade pottery decreases and it
is found together with a limited quantity of grey ware with a probable date of the
sixth century BC. In this period the first production centres of grey ware appeared;
they are expected in colonies established next to the Aegean and Black seas at the end
of the seventh to sixth centuries BC. Grey ware appeared later in the inland regions,
as in the case of the Western Rhodopes region, which is distinguished from the other
parts of Thrace in many aspects.

Note how in Psenichevo III the author writes down: "grey Ware - imports?"

That's highly important, because we got these samples from a time frame in which grey were already spread quite massively. And like I said: The earlier samples are still more Northern than the later ones, even though some of the later come from further North geographically, where Channelled Ware had an even bigger impact!

The Grey Ware influence came indeed from the Aegean-Anatolia, but it didn't change anything systematically, it was more kind of a cultural and migratory "low level influence", which however spread steadily, throughout the Eastern Balkans. I think this was primarily female mediated admixture on top of the mixture processes which took place earlier.

In any case, nothing of that has any continuity from the earlier MBA, let alone the EBA. Close to zero.

The Channelled Ware influences didn't disappear with Psenichevo and Stamped Ware, they became truly less common with the Greek and Grey Ware influences, which were external and didn't change the ethnic character and apparently not that much in the patrilineages early on. It was a similar process as in later Greeks and Romans. So I expect multiple layers of admixture in Bulgaria, not just one, in different time frames and a constant change until the the typical BGR_IA profile being reached.
 
There is no way to circumvent Channelled Ware in Bulgaria, just none. And the style with stamps and incisions did spread indeed, but not to all areas and groups known as Thracian and in a secondary, kind of "backflow manner" wthin the Stamped Pottery-Kantharoi sphere. I posted that myself, so I don't deny more Southern influences reaching e.g. Southern Pannonia, Southern-Central Transylvania or Moldova. I posted the maps myself which show these influences, migrations and settlements from Psenichevo and primarily Basarabi.
But the origin of Basarabi itself is not as clear, and its not necessarily an expansion from Psenichevo, but this is really rather an interplay with both sides connecting. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing of the sort like the Fluted Ware horizon in Bulgaria to explain how Basarabi emerged and spread. Even if it would, and this needs to be proven, we still have the other provinces and groups, which likely carried E-V13 earlier and independently as well.

Don't forget we will get some of the earliest Bronze and Iron Age finds from Central Europe. And the authors of the last Southern Arc paper correctly note: Unknown, unsampled region. This is not Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was better sampled. If you look at which region being undersampled, which is the elephant in the room, it's clear:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...CI&ll=46.23876592793375,21.42081154509996&z=6

Romania, Transcarpathia and Eastern Slovakia (Hornad valley in particular).

In ?atalca, Turkish Thrace, we find a direct associated with cannelure/Channelled Ware with stamped motifs:
anders als im Fundort ?atalka,
der bei H?nsel die fr?he Phase der fr?heisen-
zeitlichen Keramik definierte, und in dem,
neben den einfachen Kreisaugen mit Ritztan-
genten, gerade das h?ufige Auftreten der Kan-
nelur zum Anhaltspunkt f?r eine Fr?hdatie-
rung wurde.

According to Haensel this represents the earliest phase. The channelling decreased over time, but it was present in a lot of stamped pottery early phase sites.

Kastanas and Troy are crucial, because of their more reliable C14 dates:
Coppenh?fer
sieht darin ein Datum f?r das Ende der Troi-
VII-Entwicklung generell und legt danach das
Ende der von ihm neu eingef?hrten Schicht
Troia VIIb 3 in die Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts.
So verweisen die C14-Daten das Ende der
Schicht VIIb 2 wohl auf das 10. Jahrhundert,
was mit der Entwicklung in Rum?nien zu
korrelieren ist.
Ob man damit generell von einem Ausklingen
der Buckelware, insbesondere der Kantharoi
in Rum?nien und Bulgarien ausgehen kann,
ist nat?rlich solange nicht mit Sicherheit zu
entscheiden, wie man die Tr?ger dieser Kera-
mik in Troia, ihr 'Ein-' und mutma?liches
'Auswandern' nicht bestimmen kann.

Bezieht man sich nun auf die Extremposition
Podzuweits in der Datierungsdiskussion um
Troia, so w?re die Konsequenz letztlich die
Verschiebung der Datierung der stempelver-
zierten Gruppen Thrakiens um 100 Jahre zum
J?ngeren, da Troia VIIb 2 statt um 1100 nun ab
ca. 1000 anzusetzen w?re. Die Catalka-
Gruppe k?nnte also erst zu Beginn des 10.
Jahrhunderts bestanden haben.

Aufgrund der Vergleiche mit den Schichten
10 und 9 von Kastanas wurde der ?bergang
von der Alada-Phase zur fr?hen Eisenzeit f?r
das 11.vielleicht das 10. Jahrhundert vorge-
schlagen.
Auf die Fundorte der Alada-Phase und die
"?bergangsfundorte" folgen die Fundorte
Kovil und Dundara. In Kovil in den Rhodo-
pen tritt nun auch Kannelur auf, meist in
Form breiter Riefen (Taf. 21,5). Eine Scherbe
tr?gt einen L?ngsbuckel; einziges Zierelement

This is important if talking about some of the earliest sites with stamped decoration:
?ltere Eisenzeit in t?rkisch Thrakien
116
sind Kreisaugen und Abrollungsb?nder, die
das Gef?? ?berziehen oder in Form der klassi-
schen Kreisaugen-Tangentenreihe das Gef??
horizontal gliedern. Im Fundort Dundara tritt
neben diese Elemente auch gro?fl?chigere
Ornamentierung in Form von Dreiecken und
Rauten 394 . Neben die Ornamente, die aus
Kovil und Pcelarovo bekannt sind, n?mlich
Kreisaugen innerhalb von Rautengittern 395
und das Gef?? ?berziehenden Kreisaugen-
und Abrollungsb?ndern 396 - in diesem Fall
kombiniert mit einem L?ngsbuckel - treten in
Dundara auch an S-Hakenb?ndern h?ngende
Ritz- und S-B?nder auf397 (Abb. 62).
Ebenfalls in eine fr?he Phase der Stempelke-
ramik zu stellen ist meines Erachtens der
Fundort Staro Sele?. Neben einem kleinen,
von Einstichen umgebenen Buckel, der auch
in Starcevo zu beobachten war, erscheinen
Kreisaugen innerhalb von Rautengittern, und
auf vielf?ltige Weise mit Abrollungsmustern
kombiniert. Besonders charakteristisch sind
die Abrollungsmuster in geschwungenen Linien. Unter den Dolmen sind es vor allem die
Funde aus Ost?r Kam?k398 und Mladinovo 399 ,
die mit ihren Kreisaugen-Abrollungsb?ndern
vielleicht schon in diese fr?he Phase zu stellen
sind (Abb. 61).

Different sites along the Danube, in Serbia, North Eastern Bulgaria, but also Southern Bulgaria. Quite a wider range.

Knobs and channels still appear in the developed Psenichevo phase, by the way. With human figures, we see the Basarabi-Hallstatt evolution:

Ein Indiz f?r eine Sp?tdatierung der Siedlung
Bogdanovo mag man auch in der Scherbe mit
der fig?rlichen Darstellung sehen, wie man
?berhaupt in der Mehrzahl der in diesem
Raum auftretenden fig?rlichen und "subfig?r-
lichen" Darstellungen ein Indiz f?r eine zeitli-
che N?he mindestens zum entwickelten Basa-
rabi-Horizont, wenn nicht zur entwickelten
Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas sehen m?chte (s.o.
45 [6])406 . Die Darstellung von Adorantinnen
unter Verwendung des Kreisaugenstempels
auf Keramik oder von Punzen wie auf dem
Bleikessel aus Drama im Bereich der P?e-
ni ̃evo-Gruppe kann nach den j?ngsten Fun-
den als typisch gelten.

The Nova Zagora piece (see above) is actually one of the later to latest knob decorated pieces in a Lăpuș-G?va manner, which already shows Basarabi-Hallstatt human figures:

Auch die oben
dargestellten ?hnlichkeiten der V?gel von
Marica, Dikella (Roussa) und Rizia mit sp?t-
geometrischen V?geln einerseits und mit Dar-
stellungen des Basarabi-Kreises andererseits
r?cken diese Funde in die zweite H?lfte des 8.
Jahrhunderts. Ob dies f?r alle fig?rlichen Dar-
stellungen zu gelten hat, ist im Augenblick
allerdings noch schwer zu beurteilen. Vor
allem f?r die Adorantinnen auf dem Gef?? mit
gro?en H?rnerbuckeln aus Nova Zagora
m?chte man auf Grund eben dieser Buckel
eine etwas fr?here Zeitstellung annehmen.
Andererseits sind diese reich inkrustierten
Buckel einzigartig und in ihrer fl?chende-
ckenden Ornamentierung doch am besten mit
den konischen und flachdreieckigen Buckeln
aus Bogdanovo zu vergleichen, so dass sich
vielleicht eine chronologische Reihe von natu-
ralistischen zu abstrakteren Darstellungen
aufstellen lie?e, wie dies auch f?r den Basara-
bi-Raum wahrscheinlich gemacht werden
kann 408

This means forms which look like carbon copies from Lăpuș survived particularly long in the Psenichevo-Basarabi sphere as well.

In Bulgaria the stamped pottery forms being largely replaced by the Grey Ware fairly early, earlier than the Thracian samples we got (!), whereas in the Basarabi sphere the stamped and channelled forms survived and evolved on, independently:

Die Datierung
dieser Gr?berfelder ging jedoch weitgehend
von der Annahme aus, das Auftreten der grau-
en Drehscheibenware sei mit den Gr?ndungs-
daten der griechischen Schwarzmeerkolonien
zu verkn?pfen, eine Annahme, die neuere
Forschungen, vor allem die Ausgrabungen in
Kastanas, widerlegt haben. In Kastanas treten
die ersten grauen Scherben in der Schicht 14b
auf, ab Schicht 12 kann von h?ufigem Auftre-
ten gesprochen werden 411 . F?r eine genauere
Datierung der grauen Drehscheibenware w?re
ein Formen- und vor allem Warenvergleich
?ber einen gr??eren Raum von N?ten, den
Rahmen der vorliegenden Arbeit sprengen
w?rde; die graue Ware allein kann aber kein
Kriterium f?r eine Sp?tdatierung mehr sein.

Knobbed Ware (variant of Channelled Ware, compare with Lapus II-G?va) can in practise not be separated from the stamped pottery in Bulgaria:

The earliest examples of stamped ornaments
are simple bands of concentric circles with
tangents, concentric circles with incised tan-
gents, large S-stamps, little bosses with lines
of *****s, circles without any tangents, b?nder
of circles, and pseudocord cover the jar fre-
quently combined with vertical bosses, al-
mond-shaped bosses
, mostly on pots of
Sch?ssel 2 type, circles combined with angles,
flutes and channels on the body of the vessel,
pseudocord in curvolinear lines
, mainly the
large spirals, varios triangles and angles
forming ornaments, horizontal rhombi, in-
cised lines accompanied by *****s.
Big stamps on pithos ware and the flat kan-
tharoi are probably as early as these. It is
still quite difficult to date the big horned
bosses is still quite difficult. Those bowls are
frequent in Catalka, but also in Psenicevo and
Asenovec. The site of Djadovo shows an ex-
ample with facets. One is inclined to date
them to the classical phase.

The increasing variation of stamps, especially
of S-stamps, characterizes the classical phase
of stamped pottery. So do the large scale of
compositions of rolled designs an circles
formed by s-stamps (P?eni ̃evo), hanging
triangles and circular compositions
(Ov ̃arovo), pyramids of triangles, swan-
shaped stamps, and bands of so called 'Brot-
laibstempel' (loaf-shaped stamps). The Black
Sea coast and the Sakar-Planina are included
in the distribution during this phase (Karte
140, Abb. 71).

https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitst...logieUndGliederung.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y

Horn-like knobs like in Lapus-G?va II being typical for the early phase of the stamped pottery!

What we see is a fusion of the Fluted Ware horizon with local elements and Mycenaean-Greek and later (Grey Ware!) Anatolian elements. That much is fixed! The Greeks and Anatolians were not the carriers of E-V13, that much is fixed also. This leaves the different pre-Channelled Ware and Channelled Ware groups as carriers. But we know that there was little continuity in MBA Bulgaria and the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon was first the most dominant and secondly affected also other regions in the right time frame.
The MBA-LBA not even controlled much of Bulgaria, which was split between different groups. Much too small for the E-V13 phylogeny and we know it was to the North, at the Upper Tisza in the EIA already.
 
Something about the burial rites in Bulgaria and warriors from G?va-related groups:

While settlements do not provide us with a clear enough
picture to define regional traits, there are specific regional burial practices. In northwest Bulgaria the tradition of cremation burials in flat cemeteries, close to river banks, a ritual typical for
Incrusted Culture of the Lower part of the Central "Urnenfelderkultur".
The number of graves in a cemetery now decreases. This tradition remains dominant throughout the hole of the EIA here, although single cases of inhumation under tumuli can be dated to the period of the 9-8th century BC and mark a novelty in the burial practise, characterizing the beginning of the second phase the EIA.

In all * other regions of Bulgaria, covering the burials with tumuli became a common practice, known from the LBA
*in the Western Rhodopes. In north*eastern Bulgaria, as well as in the Maritza and Tundja valleys of southern
Bulgaria and in Aegean Thrace in Turkey, inhumation continues to be the normal burial practice, as it was in the LBA. Now the crouched position of the body is to left and and only the arms remain in a bent position * a trend followed in the Noua culture of the Moldavian LBA and in
Western Rhodopes in the South. The tumulus now became the place of a family cemetery. In the Maritza and
Tundja valleys, tumuli of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) had been re*used as family cemeteries since the LBA.
in the Maritza and Tundja valleys, most other elements characteristic for EIA burial practices can be observed already during the LBA * double burials, the practise of cremation alongside inhumation, the type of
grave goods and their location in the grave. A concentratoin of warrior graves under small tumuli from the first phase of the EIA can be observed in the north-central and north-eastern parts of Bulgaria, mostly equipped with swords of Naue I1 type - made either of bronze or of iron - and knobbed ware.
Three urn graves from the Maritza valley, found close to the river banks with pottery assemblages of an early date point towards influences from the North-west, probably to be interpreted
as migration, obviously quite limited in range.

So we have Encrusted Pottery influences from the West, Noua from the North East and G?va-related from the North to North West (Carpathian Basin). The evidence for the migration of elite warriors with Naue II (especially type Reutlingen) swords with urn burials and knobbed ware is there. Its concrete, nothing to debate about. The only question is how big their impact was. But we know there was little to know continuity from the EBA and early MBA to the LBA-EiA, and we also know that E-V13 wasn't there and couldn't possibly have experienced the founder series in the MBA-EIA needed to explain its later appearance. The position is "wrong" also, because not central enough.

And while we see that this cremating warrior groups did not dominate everything and their first impact might have been limited, we see another thing: The local culture completely transformed in their direction with the Fluted Ware and later Psenichevo phase. This means, in my opinion, that we deal with a fusion of newly arriving people from the North, best exemplified by these elite burials in urns with slashing type Naue II/Reutlingen swords and knobbed ceramic, but not restricted to this early phase of separation. They quickly seem to have adopted local customs also and mixed with the locals. That's what we see, as well as further Noua/Cimmerian steppe influences.

The Cimmerian steppe influences brought inhumation to many regions, but some reverted back to cremation later:
With the early adoption of a cremation ritual in the
LBA, which then is replaced abruptly by inhumation burials with the beginning of the EIA, the Western
Rhodopes show a unique evolution in burial practices.
After the century 9th century BC cremation returns in use
alongside inhumation.

Due to the Channelled Ware impact, the contacts to the Aegean-Anatolian being pretty much cut for some generations:

Imported pottery dated to the LBA and other artefacts found as
grave goods in complexes from the second phase of the
EIA demonstrate this region to have been in close
contact with Macedonia". Their lack in graves from the
early phase of the EIA could be due to a restriction of
contacts and/or the scarcity of precious objects during
that period.

Fact is everything was oriented North in that period, like many authors correctly stated and that's basically due to the Channelled Ware people (or at least warrior elites) coming in. In the dolmen groups, like they dominate in the South also, cremation appears as well later, so some clans obviously sticked to their old tradition they brought at first:

The bones from the previous burial s are set aside
or - in some cases - placed in a second chamber/dolmen,
to make place for the last burial. Grave goods are usually
placed in front of the facade. Inhumation here is the
prevailing ritual; cremation is also observed but remains
an exception.

The Northern orientation ended before we got samples, all the samples come from a period when the orientation was to the South and South East again, especially true for the area of South Eastern Thrace, which shows a stronger orientation towards Anatolia (Grey Ware!):

The second half of the 9th century BC marks the
widespread reappearance of bronze artefacts, mainly
adornments, showing a pronounced regional diversity.
Now the Western Rhodopes show contacts with western
Macedonia, while south*eastern Thrace seems to have
closer links to Anatolia and the northern Aegean, and
north*eastern Thrace shows connections with Moldavia.

Northwest Bulgaria shares similar fashions with the
Western Balkans and the Carpathian region. At the same
time contacts with Greece are renewed, and some of the
artefacts even suggest Caucasian intluence'.

North Eastern Thrace shows connections to the steppe and Caucasus, like expected because of the Cimmerian expansion.

In the Early Iron Age, the Carpathian dominance is clearly visible and stays, it remains conservative for centuries:

In general, the EIA repertoire continues the
pottery categories known from the LBA. The shapes of
the most popular fine vessel types * amphora*like vessels
and kantharoi * change under the intluence of the pottery
spectrum from the Carpathian region. The new style in
shapes develops at the very beginning of the IA and then
remains conservative for the entire EIA.


The decoration
system also is new. As an interregional phenomenon, the
spread of channelled ware marks the final stage of the
Late Bronze Age in most of Thrace, first appearing in the
final stages of the Incrusted Pottery Culture on the Lower
Danube during Ha A 1. During the following Ha A2
period, there it became the only decoration, and for a
short period it probably was the only decoration in all
regions situated north of the Central Balkan. At nearly
the same time the channelled ware gains popularity in
southern Thrace, where it is well documented in the first
layers with PG pottery at sites as far south as Kastanas41
and Assiros"6. Similarly, in Thassos channelled pottery
first appears in the lIB I period and has no connection
with Mycenaean pottery. While channelling only makes
up a small percentage of the decoration there, towards the
North , in the Eastern Rhodopes. Sakar Mountains and th e
Maritza and Tundja valleys, it is the prevailing decoration
at the beginning of the IA.

All the areas from which we got E-V13 samples were totally dominated by Channelled Ware. Here the author is wrong:

As a rule, this kind of
decoration is used only for the fine pottery with burnished
surface and is quasi obligatory for certain vessel types -
[urban dishes, cups, kantharoi and amphora-like vessels.
The last two types are often equipped with exaggerated
buckles (knobs). These buckles could be indicative as a
characteristic of the Eastern Balkan complex. where they
continued to be used during the entire EIA. Nowhere,
except in north-western Bulgaria, is the channelled
pottery found in definitive LBA contexts, and the
appearance of channelled pottery is traditionally regarded
as the beginning of the Iron Age.

The style is a carbon copy from Lăpuș!

Some Bulgarian authors don't even mention Romania in their whole papers, but this is obviously a grave mistake, because we see the traditions evolving, having their roots in Lăpuș.

About the origin of Stamped Pottery, which evolved gradually from the Fluted Ware horizon - its a fusion with Channelled Ware conservative elements:

Channelled pottery is followed by the gradual adoption of
a stamped geometric decoration style. In the regions of
southern Thrace, the appearance of the two styles could
have occurred simultaneously, with channelled pottery
prevailing in the early stages. Fluting is still an important
part of the decoration system and maintains its
predominance with the turban dishes, kantharoi and
amphora-like vessels, but is now often combined with
incised and stamped decoration.

Basically, it was an addition, possibly from local Balkan traditions, to the Carpathian repertoire of Channelled Ware:

The origins of these two ornamental styles are
speculatively sought in the Eastern Balkan complex and
the lower Danube area respec tively. In th e Eastern
Balkans, the concentric circles were popular in the early
phase of the Babadag style . In the lower Danube area, the
running spiral is well known from the Incrusted Pottery
Culture of the LBA, and after the 10th century BC
becomes prevalent in the geometric ornamentation of the
EIA in the western Balkans"" . Stratigraphical observations
3t si te s in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains would place
appearance of the concentric circles chronologically
earlier than that of the running spiral'o Spiral motives,
although still limited in number, are known from the ri ch
=eometric decoration fashioned in a specific incised
technique ("Furchenstich") in the pottery of the Rhodope
\1ountains since the LBA. No matter where the
inspiration for these two ornaments comes from, together
they form - along with incised motives - rich geometric
compositions in styles known as Pschenichevo, Ostrov,
Bassarabi and Babadag.

Obviously the author tries to disconnect the spread of Channelled Ware and iron working, as well as those two from migration, but the evidence is very clear. Critical for the spread of iron working is also the dating of G?va sites like Teleac and their iron production.

If you have elite warrior burials which truly stick out, with their urn burials, Naue II swords and knobbed ware, you know that this is the sort of "communication" we are dealing with in the first place. Because even if locals did fuse and assimilate, as they did, quite obviously, the initial impact came from Northern migrants to the region, from the wider G?va sphere. The similarities to Lăpuș in particular are just striking.


https://www.academia.edu/41178766/T...ological_Evidence_and_Questions_of_Chronology
 
While the bulk of the Cimmerians didn't move into Central Europe, some Cimmerian splinters definitely did, we see them in the record and they destroyed the G?va fortress belt in the central region - they couldn't destroy the Northern one, which allowed Late G?va to survive especially in Transcarpathia, from which later some Dacian groups might have emerged.

But we see the actual destruction caused by the incoming Cimmerians and the individual in question proves their biological presence, as small or big as it might have been. Both G?va and Lusatians did suffer under the Cimmerian raids, this is absolutely evident in the archaeological record.

At a turning-point of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age mass items of eastern
origin appeared in the area of central Europe. There were jewellery, elements of horse
harness and military items. Presence of these objects was observed in the area of Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Italy as well as eastern France.
To the earliest forms, characteristic for the classical phase of the Cimmerian culture,
belong arrowheads. Relatively small number of these arrowheads found in central Europe is
difficult to interpret. They are connected with the Chernogorovka and the Novocherkassk
complex1
dated from 1007 to 815 BC and from 997 to 805 BC2
. Their presence in the
Carpathian Basin can be a result of the infiltration of Cimmerian groups in Period Hallstatt B2,
dislodged by the Scythian societies from the origin steppes3
. Herodotus in his ethnographic
treatise wrote: It is that the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the
Massaget?, but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes (Volga),
and entered the land of Cimmeria. For the land which is now inhabited by the Scyths was
formerly the country of the Cimmerians4
.
The distribution of the early types of so-called Cimmerian objects can be related to the
first stage of the nomadic influences. In the Middle Danube Urnfield culture these influences
are visible in the new east European grave form, underlining social status through so-called
princes? graves. In the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain the impact of the nomadic
people can be seen in a new type of inhumation grave, containing arms and elements of horsegear. Probably these contacts took form of commercial and symbolic trade, partially
accompanied by limited military raids penetrating to the north, as far as the centre of the
Lusatian Urnfield culture.

Second stage of the Cimmerians influences was in Period Hallstatt B3. In the
archaeological record this event is represented by the collapse of the G?va-Holihrady complex5
and the development of the Mez?cs?t culture which was a result of integration of the local
population with small groups of newcomers6
. Through the Mez?cs?t culture, the Cimmerian
systems began to influence other regions of central Europe, mainly through commercial trade
mixed with elements of the prestige-goods exchange, probably by rare military raids, too.

Result of these penetrations may be the presence Cimmerian type objects in the northern part
of central Europe but also occurrence of the idea to build fortified settlements.

The Scythian influence came only later, we have a pretty precise data for it:
In the Period Hallstatt C, the contact of the Cimmerian groups with other regions had
been cultural character. Their influences can be found in the East-Hallstatt cultural groups,
which were located between the rapidly developing Etruscan culture and the Greek colonies in
the south
, and the rich resources of the barbarian Europe to the north. At this time, societies of
the East-Hallstatt zone began to play a major role in the exchange and interregional contact in
central Europe. The nomadic influences on Early Iron Age cultures can be seen in the
increasing role of horse, horse riding and wagons7.

The appearance of the Scythian type arrowheads in this time is explained mainly as an
invasion of the Scythian groups on the central European territory8
. Herodotus wrote that9
?The enemy no sooner heard, than they quickly joined all their troops in one, and both
portions of the Scythian army ? alike that which consisted of a single division, and that made
up of two accompanied by all their allies, the Sauromatae, the Budini, and the Geloni, set off
in pursuit, and made straight for the Ister... Based on this unclear fragment, some scholars10
interpreted these arrowheads like a proofs of the Scythian groups? raids in Carpathian Basin.
This situation could be a place exactly about 513-512 BC, after unsuccessful Darius? expedition
on Saka people
11
.

So the Scythians pressed on to the West, where still Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerian people lived, shortly before the finds from Himera. This opens up all kind of possibilities were the mercenaries might have coming from, including remains or even fleeing Thraco-Cimmerians.

It doesn't change the principle whether they were Cimmerians or Scythians, because both had a base of Thracians among them, as the regional substrate:

The position of the middlemen in contacts between the Scythians and communities
from central Europe was held by local populations of the so-called Thracian Hallstatt, from the
area between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers. The two cultural groups from Transylvania and
Alf?ld related strongly to the Scythian traditions. In the area of these groups graves of the
Scythian tradition were identified. All pottery from the sites belonging to this cultural group
was made in the local tradition deriving from the late phase of the G?va culture13, bronze and
iron products, from the basin of the Mureş River, provide clear evidence of intensive contacts
between local populations and the Scythian culture
14.

The scale and character of these contacts
were different from those between the Scythian culture and the forest-steppe area of Moldavia.
The local populations of Moldavia had more regular and longer-lasting contacts with the nomadic world, but the effects of these contacts were never as significant as they were in the
area of the Carpathian Basin. Many central and east European scholars15 interpreted this
phenomenon in the terms of changes in population and tried to correlate the cultural changes in
Transylvania with the ethnic expansion of the Scythians tribe called the Agathyrsae16. There is,
however, not enough evidence to support this interpretation, but interpretations of the ancient
written sources correctly located the Agathyrsae in Transylvania. Harmatta17 joined cultural
groups in the Great Hungarian Plain from the VIth-Vth centuries BC, with historical tribes called
the Sigynnae18
.
In the two centuries preceding the period of the Scythian influences, the area of the
Carpathian Basin experienced a period of significant cultural change. The old Urnfield
traditions and intensive contacts with the Cimmerian tribes helped to develop the East
Hallstatt culture, which formed an important economic and cultural component in central
Europe. The Mez?cs?t culture, which appeared in the Carpathian Basin as a result of the early
nomadic influences in the VIIIth-VIIth century BC, established close contacts with the East
Hallstatt culture. These horizons are represented by rich groups of findings that represent the
mixture of the Cimmerian, Scythian, and Hallstatt traditions. Early Scythian influences led not
only to the development of the Vekerzug culture, but also to the occurrence in north-eastern
Slovakia and western Ukraine of the Ku?tanovice group19
.

Ku?tanovice = being considered Proto-Dacians by many scholars.

If the barrows discovered in the area of the Vekerzug culture suggest close contacts
between the local population and the nomadic tribes from eastern Europe, then the dominance
of cremation in cemeteries in the north-eastern region of the Vekerzug culture20 and in the
Ku?tanovice group21 indicates the possibility of strong cultural and economic relations
between these groups and local versions of the Scythian culture in the forest-steppe zone22
.
Direct contacts through the Carpathian Mountains have probably developed as a northern axis
of the long distance system of exchange which linked central Europe with the east European
steppes (Map 1).
At the same time, in the Little Hungarian Plain and in south-western Slovakia were
incorporated into the systems of exchange and intercultural contact. In the archaeological
record, this process is expressed through the emergence of cemeteries characteristic for the
southern region of the Vekerzug culture. The largest and the most important of them are those
discovered in Chot?n (I-A and I-B)23. The Scythian type material found in the graves, in both
of the cemeteries at Chot?n, include bronze arrowheads, horse bits and another items of
Vekerzug type
.

From Chotin we have an E-V13 with a more Carpatho-Balkan-like profile too!

https://www.academia.edu/6176834/Th...ties_from_central_Europe_in_Ist_millennium_BC

On the Agathyrsi from the historical perspective:
After being expelled westwards from the steppe, the Agathyrsi settled in the territories of present-day Moldavia, Transylvania, and possibly Oltenia, where they mingled with the indigenous population who were largely Thracians.[2][7] In the 5th century BC, Herodotus mentioned the presence of the Agathyrsi in the area of present-day Moldavia, to the north of the Danube and the east of the Carpathian Mountains, by which time they had become acculturated to the local Getic populations[7] and they practised the same customs as the Thracians, although the names of their kings, such as Agathyrsus and Spargapeithes, were Iranian.[2][3]

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

I have no doubt that even the Northern Dacian groups, which being largely derived from G?va directly, will have, even after all the mixture with the Iranians and Celts, a solid portion of E-V13 carriers if being ever sampled correctly, in sufficient numbers.
 
just a ignorant question: any data or ideas how E V13 (or ancesters) moved from epicardial into cental european cultures?
somehow it looks like they adapted into everything, from coastal in Neolithic, into better farming in central Europe and than into metalworking. so many changes...
 
just a ignorant question: any data or ideas how E V13 (or ancesters) moved from epicardial into cental european cultures?
somehow it looks like they adapted into everything, from coastal in Neolithic, into better farming in central Europe and than into metalworking. so many changes...

We have E-L618 form three more Central European cultures: Michelsberg (close to the Rhine, in a zone close to contacts to Lengyel), Lengyel (Middle Danube) and Tripolye-Cucuteni (around Moldova). This is the waterway connections we see later used in Basarabi-Hallstatt, Danube, Tisza, Pruth-Dniester. So it seems they were settlers along the big rivers and spread with one of these three (likely Lengyel or Tripolye-Cucuteni) or a closely related cultural formation of the Carpatho-Balkan macro-region.
It is also worth to note, that later both Suciu de Sus and G?va spread along waterways as well, which is however not that extraordinarily, because many people did so.

These are most of the candidate cultures with the exception of Late/Epi-Lengyel, which was to the West:
1920px-SEE-Eneolithic-cultures-Cucuteni.jpg
 
We have E-L618 form three more Central European cultures: Michelsberg (close to the Rhine, in a zone close to contacts to Lengyel), Lengyel (Middle Danube) and Tripolye-Cucuteni (around Moldova). This is the waterway connections we see later used in Basarabi-Hallstatt, Danube, Tisza, Pruth-Dniester. So it seems they were settlers along the big rivers and spread with one of these three (likely Lengyel or Tripolye-Cucuteni) or a closely related cultural formation of the Carpatho-Balkan macro-region.
It is also worth to note, that later both Suciu de Sus and G�va spread along waterways as well, which is however not that extraordinarily, because many people did so.

These are most of the candidate cultures with the exception of Late/Epi-Lengyel, which was to the West:
1920px-SEE-Eneolithic-cultures-Cucuteni.jpg

if I remeber correctly, the E L618's that you are mentioning do come later chronologocally from croatia and spain in epicaridial. that passage i dont understand.
 
if I remeber correctly, the E L618's that you are mentioning do come later chronologocally from croatia and spain in epicaridial. that passage i dont understand.

Yes, they come later than Epi-Cardial, from what we might term successor cultures to some degree (Sopot, Lengyel, Michelsberg).
 
in my amatourish ignorance, I thought those cultures you mentioned are LBK derived, which is the parallel inland branch to the coastal Cardium.
 
I have used one model made by Riverman, the Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA can be also reinterpreted as Pannonian LBA_EIA.

Code:
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213,0.127482,0.149283,0.0445,0.01615,0.040931,0.004183,0.002585,-0.002538,0.01084,0.018041,-0.000974,0.008243,-0.004014,0.002202,-0.007193,-0.00769,-0.013951,0.005701,0.007165,-0.006753,-0.003868,0.000618,-0.008997,-0.014701,0.005748
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239,0.12862,0.14319,0.049026,-0.001938,0.047701,0,0.004465,0.000462,0.01309,0.018953,0.006171,0.007493,-0.007582,-0.00234,-0.007057,0.001989,0.007693,0.00114,-0.004274,-5e-04,0.001622,0.004328,-0.005793,-0.010001,0.003952
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245,0.133173,0.149283,0.05506,0.026486,0.044931,0.006972,0.011986,0.009,0.01268,0.006743,0.001949,-0.000749,-0.003865,0.003165,-0.004207,0.006099,0.005607,0.002534,0.002137,-0.001126,0.002246,-0.004451,0.000986,-0.005181,-0.010897
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246,0.119514,0.149283,0.056945,0.013243,0.047393,0.005578,0.001175,0.003231,0.01309,0.014397,0.002761,0.002398,-0.004906,0.006744,-0.005836,-0.004243,-0.001304,-0.007095,0.005656,-0.000375,-0.009234,0.009521,0.003574,-0.013616,0.003233
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20749,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096,0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I1504,0.125205,0.15436,0.060716,0.033592,0.061242,0.008646,0.00423,0.007615,0.014317,0.007836,-0.004547,-0.006594,0.001041,0.007432,-0.002579,-0.001591,0.010952,-0.002027,0.008547,0.004752,0.004617,0.005317,0.003081,-0.013134,0.000239
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20751,0.126344,0.142174,0.059962,0.032946,0.051394,0.009482,0.00517,0.003461,0.016157,0.020046,-0.007307,-0.000599,-0.001784,-0.003303,-0.006786,0.018297,0.014603,0.006968,0.004274,0.002626,-0.001497,0.001484,-0.004437,-0.00012,-0.002515
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20771,0.133173,0.135065,0.061094,0.046512,0.050779,0.016455,0.002585,0.003461,0.010226,0.007472,-0.00065,-0.01109,-0.002676,0.001651,-0.007736,0.017237,0.024773,-0.009755,-0.005154,0.013256,0.00549,0.001237,0.000246,-0.014098,-0.005149
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20773,0.132035,0.146236,0.064488,0.035207,0.056318,0.01004,0.013631,0.001154,0.018203,0.018953,0.00406,-0.002997,0.003122,-0.003991,0.00285,0.024264,0.004694,0.010515,-0.002765,-0.000875,-0.01984,0.007419,-0.014543,-0.012291,-0.002994
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I25505,0.130897,0.147252,0.064488,0.033592,0.045855,-0.000279,0.003995,0.004154,0.015544,0.01057,-0.007145,0.01169,-0.00223,0.005367,0.001764,-0.012066,-0.008996,0.005828,0.010307,-0.005253,0.004617,0.008285,0.002465,-0.015062,-0.004071
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134,0.1161,0.054839,0.037335,0.057817,-0.033852,0.031236,0.00846,0.000231,-0.037223,-0.043554,0.001786,-0.005245,0.000149,-0.026974,0.02348,0.004508,-0.014473,-0.002154,-0.004777,-0.001126,-0.008859,0.01422,0.003697,0.008314,0.005029
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA136,0.113823,0.039606,0.039221,0.061047,-0.028005,0.020638,-0.007755,0.002077,-0.023111,-0.033349,-0.005521,0.006145,-0.004906,-0.03358,0.021308,0.030496,-0.002738,0.003927,-0.007793,0.009379,-0.010232,0.019166,-0.008011,0.003133,0.003592
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA139,0.104717,0.051792,0.02753,0.047481,-0.021235,0.015897,0.00094,-0.009461,-0.032724,-0.03262,-0.002111,-0.003597,-0.009217,-0.017478,0.015879,0.009149,0.01343,-0.012669,-0.003897,0.007754,-0.012728,-0.004699,-0.005546,0.009519,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA141,0.112685,0.039606,0.033564,0.073967,-0.031083,0.031236,0.00658,0.005538,-0.032928,-0.030616,-0.003085,-0.005245,-0.010406,-0.026974,0.018322,0.020021,0.000652,0.000507,-0.001383,-0.005878,-0.003369,0.000866,0.009367,0.014098,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA143,0.112685,0.054839,0.039598,0.07429,-0.033852,0.030678,0.00094,0.007384,-0.021066,-0.039545,-0.002761,-0.000899,-0.006838,-0.021056,0.019815,0.008221,-0.011735,-0.004814,-0.011187,5e-04,-0.005116,0.000866,0.002711,-0.005302,-0.000239
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA144,0.10927,0.043668,0.032432,0.076874,-0.022158,0.030678,-0.00893,0.000231,-0.032724,-0.03991,-0.011367,-0.009591,0.010704,-0.02491,0.019679,0.004641,-0.001434,0.001014,0.00088,-0.000375,-0.023583,-0.001113,-0.001356,0.010122,0.011376
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16099,0.126344,0.145221,0.064111,0.021641,0.044931,0.010319,0.001175,0.003692,0.015544,0.015855,-0.00341,0.009292,-0.017393,-0.007982,0.00095,0.023999,0.002347,0.005954,-0.001508,0,0.005615,0.004946,-0.008874,-0.01699,-0.005389
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16100,0.129758,0.133034,0.061094,0.050065,0.046778,0.016733,0,0.005077,0.008385,-0.002187,-0.005359,0.001798,-0.007284,-0.005505,0.004343,-0.002784,0.002738,-0.003674,-0.001508,-0.005503,0.008735,0.005935,-0.002342,-0.007953,0.002036
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16111,0.126344,0.145221,0.053551,0.033269,0.045547,0.01004,0.007755,0.006,0.001227,0.018953,0.005846,0.004196,-0.008176,-0.004266,0.006107,-0.013657,-0.02725,-0.001394,-0.001885,-0.001,0.000125,-0.001607,-0.012078,-0.002048,-0.005987
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16112,0.130897,0.142174,0.054305,0.022287,0.047393,0.009203,-0.00047,0.007154,0.002045,0.019499,-0.006008,0.001948,-0.018731,-0.014863,-0.005157,0.001591,-0.005737,-0.000887,-0.000126,-0.001126,-0.003619,-0.005688,-0.005423,-0.007591,-0.002994
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0.0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561,0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Dai,0.0156507,-0.438709,-0.046763,-0.0609662,0.1201762,0.0622622,0.00047,-0.0073845,-0.0189698,-0.013121,0.0109208,0.0020232,-0.000446,-0.006193,0.0012895,0.0045742,0.0061282,-0.0009502,-0.0043368,-0.011662,0.0121972,0.0090268,0.0149438,0.002892,0.007095
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-0.0024966,-0.003735,0.001109,-0.0091576,-0.0038398,0.0161643,-0.0008352,-0.0133511,0.0032684,0.0041354,0.0040271,0.0060019,0.0037342,-0.0007273,0.011146,-0.0004429
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_North_IA:VK418,0.125205,0.132019,0.070144,0.064277,0.040315,0.019522,0.00423,0.013846,0.007567,-0.007107,-0.001786,-0.002847,-0.011001,-0.001514,0.031487,-0.005967,-0.029858,-0.0019,0.00352,0.003001,0.010606,0.000371,0,0.003012,-0.000838
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK391,0.12862,0.141159,0.080327,0.062662,0.047701,0.022311,0.012691,0.011076,-0.003068,-0.015672,-0.012666,-0.004496,-0.002081,-0.007707,0.019679,0.0118,0.004303,0.003547,-0.006159,0.001,0.006988,-0.002597,-0.010723,0.014098,0.011017
CZE_Early_Slav,0.12862,0.129988,0.068259,0.046835,0.02739,0.013387,0.007285,0.014076,-0.001841,-0.018406,-0.000812,-0.004346,0.003717,0.007156,-0.010993,-0.003182,0.011604,-0.002027,-0.002388,-0.004752,0.005615,0.000618,0.001725,-0.000964,-0.006706
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany,0.12862,0.1376045,0.0705215,0.034238,0.0481625,0.004044,0.0019975,0.001385,0.018509,0.019955,-0.012017,-0.0052455,-0.00944,0.0006195,0.0095685,-0.0013255,-0.005998,0.001774,0.0048395,0.0080665,0.001061,0.0019785,-0.0006165,-0.005422,-0.0034725
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I24342,0.127482,0.138112,0.041483,0.009367,0.038776,-0.006414,-0.002115,0.001385,0.015544,0.023144,0.004384,0.012289,-0.018285,-0.011285,0.0095,0.001724,-0.001043,0.002154,0.001383,0,0.006738,0.005193,-0.00493,-0.001807,-0.001557
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26726,0.121791,0.144205,0.032432,-0.012274,0.026466,-0.000279,-0.006815,-0.001154,0.005931,0.030069,0.008444,0.006145,-0.029137,0.001789,-0.000814,-0.017634,-0.01369,-0.000633,0.014078,-0.010505,-0.004617,0.004575,0.002342,0.004458,-0.001317
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26773,0.122929,0.144205,0.045254,0.004199,0.023697,-0.006414,-0.006815,-0.005538,0.006136,0.026242,0.002273,0.01169,-0.021853,-0.015414,0.005836,-0.001458,0.007041,0.009375,0.004274,-0.006128,-0.012228,0.003091,-0.00419,0.005543,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26774,0.12862,0.149283,0.039221,0.002907,0.033852,0.000279,-0.00282,0.008538,0.008385,0.026242,-0.000812,0.01094,-0.016353,-0.000826,0.001764,-0.006364,-0.002086,0.00076,0.007668,-0.004502,0.000374,0.011994,-0.003821,0.004097,-0.003952
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26893,0.129758,0.149283,0.041106,0.013889,0.02739,0.002789,0.00188,0.002077,0.004909,0.023144,-0.007957,0.010491,-0.024975,-0.014588,0.001764,0.005569,0.021383,0.001394,0.006536,0.001876,-0.002995,0.004946,0.002465,0.005302,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4331,0.12862,0.151314,0.028284,-0.007429,0.038776,-0.006972,-0.00705,-0.006,0.003681,0.028064,0.006171,0.010341,-0.017542,-0.003578,-0.0076,0.006497,0.008084,-0.003041,0.006159,-0.011631,-0.005865,-0.001113,-0.00037,0.003856,-0.001197
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4332,0.120652,0.147252,0.034318,-0.012274,0.038469,0.002231,-0.00423,0.001154,0.009613,0.032074,-0.006008,0.01094,-0.012487,-0.014726,-0.005972,0.01074,0.02047,-0.00114,0.000754,-0.011005,-0.001248,0.008656,-0.00419,0.002048,-0.002395
South_Thrace_local:BGR_IA:I5769,0.126344,0.157407,0.007165,-0.051034,0.029852,-0.02259,0.00423,-0.001385,0.007772,0.032074,-0.001461,0.005695,-0.013974,-0.003028,-0.015065,-0.001458,0.01369,0.006968,0.006285,-0.014757,-0.006239,0.004699,-0.007888,0.003494,-0.008861
GRC_Mycenaean:I9006,0.119514,0.160454,-0.006788,-0.068476,0.014464,-0.03514,-0.003055,-0.006923,-0.002863,0.050115,0.004384,0.015137,-0.009366,0.00289,-0.019815,-0.005304,0.024643,0.007601,0.020992,-0.000375,-0.007487,-0.012365,-0.010969,-0.000602,-0.001796
GRC_Mycenaean:I9010,0.110408,0.160454,-0.015462,-0.071383,0.029544,-0.038487,-0.003525,0.004154,0.013499,0.056129,0.018025,0.017235,-0.00223,-0.00234,-0.023208,-0.005038,0.031553,0.003421,0.005908,-0.004002,-0.006613,0.003215,-0.016145,-0.007109,-0.003113
GRC_Mycenaean:I9033,0.091058,0.150298,-0.004148,-0.050388,0.022773,-0.013387,0.007285,-0.006692,0.003068,0.041003,-0.003573,0.019333,-0.020218,0.005505,-0.006515,-0.026518,0.00678,-0.003167,0.012193,-0.008629,-0.002995,-0.006306,-0.000616,0.005904,0.006945
GRC_Mycenaean:I9041,0.110408,0.15436,-0.006034,-0.068476,0.020004,-0.021475,-0.00282,0.000923,0.007976,0.042097,0.003248,0.016036,-0.019326,-0.008533,-0.016015,-0.002387,0.021122,0.006588,0.010182,-0.002876,-0.006364,0.016199,0.001356,0.006386,-0.00491
Levant_LBN_Roman,0.0887823,0.1447132,-0.0554368,-0.085595,-0.0116175,-0.0282378,-0.0074612,-0.0076152,0.0076698,0.0121642,0.0031262,-0.01139,0.0130822,-0.0017893,-0.0105862,0.0093475,0.002673,-0.0006652,0.0025138,0.0022512,0.000655,0.0059042,-0.0035742,0.0001205,-0.005299
Berber_Tunisia_Chen,-0.0279499,0.1390711,-0.0080871,-0.0764792,0.0277316,-0.0352023,-0.0313867,0.0052818,0.0684246,0.0297957,0.0040057,-0.0043877,0.0196314,-0.0161248,0.0140923,-0.0169052,0.0001521,-0.0232896,-0.0467247,0.0078579,-0.0168314,-0.0404275,0.0281347,-0.0044517,0.0063666
TUR_Ottoman,0.079107,-0.0741335,0.01829,-0.0075905,-0.043085,-0.0133865,0.0029375,0.000808,-0.010124,-0.012119,-0.00885,-0.0063695,-0.0057235,-0.0088075,0.0052255,0,0.007758,0.000887,-0.0018855,-0.000375,-0.0089845,-0.0004325,-0.0096135,-0.001747,0.0003595
ITA_Rome_Imperial,0.1039821,0.1495156,-0.0235307,-0.0574065,0.0045265,-0.0204055,-0.0011946,-0.0051488,0.0006604,0.0196549,0.0034575,0.0025539,-0.0040602,-0.0014737,-0.0081715,-0.0014474,0.0035992,0.000454,0.0012178,-0.0032854,-0.0025579,0.0020454,-0.0006985,-0.0004845,0.0004141
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA,0.0970122,0.1472908,-0.0604988,-0.090117,-0.0156477,-0.0341748,0.0015728,-0.0050412,-0.00306,0.0125111,0.006408,-0.0047555,0.0086109,0.004912,-0.0113588,0.0070272,-0.0005767,0.0018711,0.0047668,-0.002535,0.0021548,0.0038048,-0.0040007,-0.0040968,0.0005988


Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10950
Distance: 1.9362% / 0.01936230
43.0ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
32.8GRC_Mycenaean
20.0Proto_Illyrian
3.0South_Thrace_local
1.2Dai


Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10946
Distance: 2.4119% / 0.02411918
50.4Proto_Illyrian
38.4ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
11.2GRC_Mycenaean

In comparison with Alb Cinamak


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16256
Distance: 2.9190% / 0.02919031
64.0Proto_Illyrian
18.4ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
8.6TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
4.4GRC_Mycenaean
2.2South_Thrace_local
2.0Levant_LBN_Roman
0.4Yoruba


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16254
Distance: 3.7480% / 0.03748032
45.2Proto_Illyrian
24.2South_Thrace_local
16.0Germanic
13.8GRC_Mycenaean
0.4ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
0.4Yoruba


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16253
Distance: 2.2664% / 0.02266419
69.0Proto_Illyrian
11.4ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
10.0GRC_Mycenaean
9.6South_Thrace_local


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16251
Distance: 1.8572% / 0.01857245
32.4CZE_MBA_Tumulus
31.2South_Thrace_local
20.6GRC_Mycenaean
8.6Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
4.6Proto_Illyrian
2.6TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I14692
Distance: 2.1350% / 0.02135015
69.0Proto_Illyrian
21.0GRC_Mycenaean
7.2CZE_Early_Slav
2.8Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I14690
Distance: 1.4668% / 0.01466779
39.0Proto_Illyrian
28.2CZE_MBA_Tumulus
10.8ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
10.2TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
5.2GRC_Mycenaean
4.6South_Thrace_local
2.0CZE_Early_Slav
 
Then i tried also with:


Target: MKD_Anc
Distance: 1.0236% / 0.01023553
49.6Proto_Illyrian
21.6South_Thrace_local
18.0GRC_Mycenaean
7.4ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
1.6Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
1.0CZE_Early_Slav
0.8CZE_MBA_Tumulus


Target: MNE_LBA
Distance: 1.0002% / 0.01000249
66.0Proto_Illyrian
14.8GRC_Mycenaean
5.2South_Thrace_local
4.6ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
3.6Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
3.0CZE_Early_Slav
2.8CZE_MBA_Tumulus


Target: HRV_IA
Distance: 0.3834% / 0.00383375
31.8ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
24.6Proto_Illyrian
11.2ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
10.2GRC_Mycenaean
6.8CZE_MBA_Tumulus
5.2South_Thrace_local
4.2CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
3.8Germanic
2.2Berber_Tunisia_Chen


Target: HRV_EIA
Distance: 0.6802% / 0.00680221
42.2Proto_Illyrian
19.6ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA
10.6GRC_Mycenaean
8.4South_Thrace_local
8.2ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
6.6CZE_MBA_Tumulus
4.2Germanic
0.2Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe


From what i can deduce, is that those two samples are not Dacian or Thracian, but neither fully Proto-Illyrian. I10950 seems to be half-way Pannonian/Southern-Balkans-Greek mixed, while I10946 moreso like Illyrians but not quite identical to them.
 
We'll see how they turn out, I just hope the Hungarian, Serbian and Romanian samples get published soon, they are absolutely crticial for the Transitional Period and the E-V13 debate. Even if they won't solve everything, they can give us new hints, like e.g. how Pre-G?va and Wietenberg profiles looked like, whether there was some population continuity from Cotofeni onwards in the Inner Carpathians etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 225563 times.

Back
Top