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

[Hawk]

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/public...in_Slovakia_A_spatio-temporal_modelling_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/public...in_Slovakia_A_spatio-temporal_modelling_study

 

[Riverman]

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 Mak? and Ny?rs?g. 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 Nagyr?v complex evolved locally on the Danube west of the Tisza-K?r?s
confluence at the same time that the Perj?mos group evolved on the Maros (B?na 1994a).
Since Mak? sites were found in the same area of the Pitvaros, an EBA culture around
Szeged with little resemblance to them, B?na (1965) argued that the Pitvaros represented
an intrusive group that pushed the Mak? out. His account invoked the migrations of
people in the Balkans and Anatolia as the driving factor that brought the Pitvaros and
Ny?rs?g 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 Mak? led way to the
emergence of the Hatvan culture? B?na (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 Nagyr?v area, displacing among them the occupants of
T?szeg. As this occurred, the residents of the Beretty? and Ier valleys, the once members
of the ?Ny?rs?g? culture, began to incorporate new decorative techniques ? fine incising
and zigzag patterns ? to became the early ?Ottom?ny? (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
F?zesabony group is supposed to have crystallized out of eastern Corded Ware group in
the Hern?d valley. The different burial customs of the Hatvan and the F?zesabony
(cremations in the former, inhumations in the latter) suggested to B?na (1994a) they were
mortal enemies. It was not surprising, then, that the F?zesabony 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 K?r?s basin, the emergence of the Gyulavars?nd
style out of the Ottom?ny.

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 (B?na 1958). Those that did, such as the Piliny in northeastern
Hungary and Slovakia, evolving out of the F?zesabony, 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 Gyulavars?nd 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 Gyulavars?nd/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, seprűz?tt or ?broom-stroked? in the Hungarian literature) are typically
considered ?household? wares33. Brushed surface treatment is phased out between the late
Ottom?ny and early Gyulavars?nd. B?na?s (1974:149) excavations indicate that 48% of
the brushed ceramics from excavation came from the lowest Ottom?ny level (Layer 4; he
was calling it ?Hatvan? at the time). The next layer above it (Layer 3), contained 28%,
and the two upper Gyulavars?nd layers (Layer 2 and 1) had 18% and 6%, respectively.

During the Gyulavars?nd, 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 Ottom?ny with
geometric patterns.
The third feature that distinguishes Ottom?ny from Gyulavars?nd ceramics is the
addition of ?flare? to vessel body parts. In the Gyulavars?nd, 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 (B?na 1975; O?Shea 1996; Michelaki 1999).

Absolute chronology, Gyulavars?nd is directly followed by Piliny/Gava:

The radiocarbon chronology, in contrast to
the traditional chronology, the Hungarian Ottom?ny and Gyulavars?nd phases show a
100 year overlap, from 2150-1650 BC, and from 1750-1400 BC, respectively.

The contemporaneity
between the late Hatvan and Ottom?ny in the northern part of the Plain also support the
claim for a strong northern influence contributing to the genesis of the Ottom?ny

During the subsequent Gyulavars?nd, major new fortified settlements ?
Vărşand and Socodor ? appear on the Fekete K?r?s where there were none before. New
fortified sites also appear on the Berretty?, such as Eszt?r-Fenyvesdomb and Szilhalom,
and on the Sebes K?r?s (S?ntion), and in the Ier valley (Pir). It is a geographical
expansion of the style southeast and northeast further up river.
B?na (1974, 1994a) argued that the crystallization of the Gyulavars?nd culture
was the result of immigration into the Ottom?ny 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 Gyulavars?nd, such as highly polished shallow bowls with spiral engraving
and lugs, were found all over the F?zesabony 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 F?zesabony clearly precedes the
Gyulavars?nd, occurring between 2000-1800 BC, two hundred years before it is found in
the K?r?s basin. If B?na 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 Ottom?ny and a northern origin
from the F?zesabony for the Gyulavars?nd.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sequence%3D1&usg=AOvVaw3U0AMwnYDmmWSpfxLO-Z4E

Ny?rs?g 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.

Gyulavars?nd-F?zesabony is much closer to later Gava than Otomani proper, and its exactly F?zesabony 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.

 

[Riverman]

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 Bronzewerkst?tten der Pilinyer und der Kyjatice-Kultur31 beschafften ihre regionalen Rohstoffen aus der Erzlagerst?tten der
slowakischen Erzgebirge (Ni?n? My?ľa), der westlichen Karpaten (Umgebung von Kremnitz/ Kremnica/ K?rm?cb?nya), sowie der Kleinen und Wei?en Karpaten (?pania Dolina). Die Nutzung dieser
Bergwerke begann ab der sp?ten Lengyel-Kultur, doch ist auch ihre bronzezeitliche Nutzung (z.B. durch
die Lausitzer-Kultur) bzw. die Erzverh?ttung gut bekannt32

https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Ch...rös_Region._Hydrology_Reliefs_and_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.

 

[Hawk]

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
- Gáva culture
- Piliny culture
- Kyjatice culture
- Makó 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/publ...ia/20181108-symposium-greek-and-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.

 

[Riverman]

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
- Gáva culture
- Piliny culture
- Kyjatice culture
- Makó 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 G?va-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 F?zesabony-Gyulavars?nd is more Epi-Corded and Pannonian-Carpathian derived, whereas the Western Tumulus culture groups, which destroyed Gyulavars?nd and pushed F?zesabony 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 G?va 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 G?va cultures with the
Transdanubian and eastern Alpine Urnfield cultures at the B?k?smegyer 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 B?k?smegyer 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 G?va culture; the
two forms of decoration appear together on a bowl from
H?dmezőv?s?rhegy-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 Belegi? II culture31 may have
affected their developement. As the form appears in greater
numbers in assemblages of the G?va culture32 the vessels
found in the B?k?smegyer cemetery seem to primarily show
the connections maintained with the G?va 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.

 

[Hawk]

You are all over the place and mixing stuff.

 

[Hawk]

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.



[h=5]The geographical focus[/h]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.



[h=5]The method[/h]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.



[h=5]The aim[/h]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/rese...and-burial-between-the-aegean-and-the-balkans

 

[Riverman]

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.

 

[Hawk]

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

 

[Riverman]

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 mitteldonaul?ndische Urnenfelderkultur umfasst
die Regionen Nieder?sterreich, S?dm?hren, die S?dwest-
slowakei, Teile Westungarns, des Burgenlands sowie der
Steiermark. Sie ist eine kulturelle Einheit, die um 1300 v.
Chr. auf der Basis regionaler H?gelgr?berkulturen und im
Zuge eines gegenseitigen Assimilationsprozesses mit den
Nachbarregionen entstand und 800/750 v. Chr. von der
Hallstattkultur abgel?st wurde.
Die von J?ř? Ř?hovsk? 1958 vorgenommene grund-
s?tzliche Zweiteilung in eine ?ltere (Velatitzer-)Phase und
eine j?ngere (Podoler-)Phase wurde seither immer wieder
verfeinert und ausgebaut. Grunds?tzlich entsprechen die
in Mitteleuropa g?ngigen Stufen Bz D und Ha A1?A2 der
?lteren Phase, mit einer ?bergangsphase Ha A2/B1 um ca.
1050 v. Chr., und die Stufen Ha B2?B3 der j?ngeren Phase,
wobei Ha B3/C1 den flie?enden ?bergang zur Hallstatt-
kultur repr?sentiert.1

https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debe9.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-G?va, 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/threads/38399-E-Z5018-and-Vatin-culture?p=574878&viewfull=1#post574878

As you can see, and what confuses people, both the Middle Danubians (Illyrian) and Gava (Daco-Thracian) met.

 

[Riverman]

Google translation of a German text:

South of this area was the culture (cultural group
pe) Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stra?ava since a later phase
se of the urn field culture (Ha

widespread (Fig. 1/18 - D.
Brnjica; Fig. 1/19 - G. Stra?ava). This group included
the southern Morawa areas, Kosovo and Sand?ak. 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 Stra?ava
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

 

[Hawk]

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.

 

[Hawk]

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/uploads/sites/128/2017/09/Abstrakt-Buch_PeBA_2017.pdf

 

[Riverman]

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 F?zesabony. 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).

 

[Hawk]

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.

 

[Riverman]

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.

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me: By my understanding, I have no idea what Brnjica was, but they were later overrolled and largely replaced or fused with Belegis II-Paracin. And from my understanding, Belegis II-Gava and Paracin, as well as the expansion into Brnjica, being a safe starting point, there should have been E-V13 there. What the preceding group of Brnjica was, whether they were of the same stock or rather a different, unknown people, I have no idea. What's your take on this?

Illyrians did practise inhumation originally, but they being influenced by the both the Middle Danubian group (Pannonian) and Gava-Channelled Ware, started to use cremation burials as well, either because of imitation or intrusive elements from these two.

Again from the paper:

In dem gesamten ?brigen, kontinentalen und adriati-
schen Balkangebiet (Bosnien, Herzegowina, Dalmatien,
Montenegro) werden K?rperbestattungen, meist unter H?-
geln, aber auch in Flachgr?bern, verwendet. Sie sind f?r das
Bestattungsritual in diesem als fr?hillyrisch bezeichneten
Raum kennzeichnend. Brandbestattungen sind hier nach
der Fr?hbronzezeit nicht mehr nachzuweisen. Das f?hrt
zum Schluss, dass fr?hillyrische Gemeinschaften in diesem
Bereich eine andere, sich von den benachbarten, n?rdlichen
Gebieten unterscheidende, kulturelle Entwicklung genom-
men haben.

Google translate:

In all of the rest of the continental and Adriatic in the Balkans (Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Montenegro) are body burials, mostly under tumuli, but also in flat graves. You are for that Burial ritual in this one referred to as early Illyrian Characterizing space. Cremations are here after the Early Bronze Age can no longer be proven. Leading in conclusion that early Illyrian communities in this Area another, different from the neighboring, northern Cultural development that distinguishes areas have taken.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

There was a wide transitional, mixed and influenced zone, and an Illyrian core. In the Illyrian core, inhumation clearly prevailed. Brnjica was in any case not part of the Illyrian core. My main point was that the Belegis II-Gava and Paracin being safe starting points for both Channelled Ware and E-V13 and they did replace the original population or of Brnjica or fused with it.

More on the expansion:

From the archaeological perspective, these patterns of the transitional period, with burned down settlements and new fortified structures are key:

The descriptions of the hillforts named above indicate
that settlement patterns changed significantly during
the Late Bronze Age, especially on the southern side
of the Morava valley, where hilltops comprise 50 % of
all known settlements (Maps 1?2). Many of the hilltops,
both of the residential or defensive type, were burned
down, and the material culture of the successor population
that settled here in the following period displayed
completely different features (Fig. 5). Unlike the
native Late Bronze Age cultural groups, Brnjica and
Paraćin, the predominant pottery of the Transitional
period consists of pear-shaped amphoras with widely
everted rims, bowls with inverted rims, and flutes and
facets as the most frequent ornaments. A symbiosis
of old and new pottery shapes occurs only very rarely.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the significant
changes in material culture were rapid.

The clash of the Northern with the Souther, Aegean related groups:

During the Late Bronze Age (Br C?D), weapons that
originate in the Aegean Bronze Age area appear in the
Morava valley (Fig. 6).19 Several Mycenaean-style rapiers
turned up in the wider region of the Morava valley,
with another one in the South Morava valley (Aleksinac).
20 Mycenaean-style daggers and knives with one
or more rivet holes were found together with these
swords, along with bronze sheet-metal arrowheads of
different types. Further evidence of influence from the
south includes a Mycenaean boar?s-tusk helmet from a
Brnjica culture necropolis north of Skopje.21 Conversely,
there are also examples of weapons that originate in
Central Europe and the Middle Danube regions. A dagger
from the Sedlare site in the Velika (Great) Morava
valley corresponds to Central European products, as do
bronze socketed arrows. In general, it seems that some
weapon types of Aegean origin were commonly used
by the Brnjica culture of the southern part of the Morava
valley, while the cultures that occupied the Great
Morava and Danube valleys used objects from Central
European regions.

The appearance of numerous types of Central European
weapons has been documented for the Transitional
period (Ha A?B) in the Velika (Great) Morava valley,
and their number and diversity exceed that of the previous
period (Fig. 7).25 Considering the Great Morava
valley as a somewhat wider territory, it is extraordinary
that five types of swords have been identified.26
21 examples are short-tanged swords of the Reutlingen
type, and three of them belong to the Konju?a variant
There are nine swords of the St?tzling type, three of
the Novigrad type, four of the Riegsee type, one of the
Marina and one of the Mo?kjanci type.27 Of all these
swords, the most instructive is the Reutlingen type,
which is the most common in the Serbian Danube region
but also appears in the Great and South Morava
valleys, with two more examples found in south-western
Albania.
The Reutlingen type is linked to a population
that used the Fluted Ware of Type Gava-Belegi?
II from the Central Balkan area. In a broader context,
examples of this type of sword are found throughout
Europe, with a significant number being found in the
Pannonian Basin. Southwards, their abundance decreases
south of the Sava and Danube rivers, although
some pieces have turned up in Mycenae, Crete, and
even on Kos Island.

Like already Gimbutas noted, the flame shaped spears are a classic signal of Channelled Ware people:

Thus, the socketed arrowheads occur in the territory of
the Belegi? II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures, while the
bronze sheet metal arrowheads circulate exclusively
in the territory of the late Brnjica culture (i.e., outside
of the Morava valley).29 A casting mould for these distinct
bronze sheet metal arrowheads was found on the
Kokino site in Macedonia, close to the South Morava
valley.30 Spearheads found in this Transitional period
between the Belegi? II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures,
and which do not appear any earlier, have characteristic
narrow and elongated blades. Of particular interest
are pieces with so-called flamed blades,31 which
are undoubtedly of Central European origin, and can
probably be attributed to the Gava complex. A casting
mould for this type of spearhead was identified at the
Kokino site,32 together with indigenous pottery of the
Brnjica culture. Flame-bladed spearheads and swords
of the Reutlingen type seem to penetrate the Morava
river valley from north to south during the Transitional
period. In a broader context, flame-bladed spearheads
are found in Poland,33 Moravia,34 Bosnia and Herzegovina,
35 Bulgaria36 and even ? albeit rarely ? in Greece.37

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._-_changes_in_topography_and_material_culture

 

[Hawk]

I am not so much in the mood to quote and highlight everything here.

I just put a quick eye and it looks interesting:

[h=1]Short single-edge curved swords with a bent hilt in the Early Iron Age. A discussion on the stage of the research[/h]

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

 

[Hawk]

Illyrians did practise inhumation originally, but they being influenced by the both the Middle Danubian group (Pannonian) and Gava-Channelled Ware, started to use cremation burials as well, either because of imitation or intrusive elements from these two.

On the upper link i shared about the sword types of Early Iron Age i checked and Bassarabi burials consist mostly of inhumation on a tumuli. So i guess they were not Gava-Channeled Ware then? Material culture need to be studied in detail, not just whether they cremated or not, that's just the starting point, cremating on a pyre, and doing the rituals was a very expensive ritual, so not all times could be afforded.

 

[Riverman]

On the upper link i shared about the sword types of Early Iron Age i checked and Bassarabi burials consist mostly of inhumation on a tumuli. So i guess they were not Gava-Channeled Ware then? Material culture need to be studied in detail, not just whether they cremated or not, that's just the starting point, cremating on a pyre, and doing the rituals was a very expensive ritual, so not all times could be afforded.

Its the same in a lot of the former Channelled Ware groups: They transition to inhumation, presumably based on external influences. The main influence might have been the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Scythians, in my opinion. I'm not absolutely sure, but those groups in the Transcarpatian region, which fought them off and were not as influenced from the steppe, practised cremation longer, as did Lusatian remaining groups and Proto-Slavs.
The good aspect of this is that we can test both Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo where they did transition to inhumation under Cimmerian and Scythian influence. But many were sticking to cremation anyway.

Obviously Vekerzug and the other Thraco-Cimmerian/Scythian groups were not fully Channelled Ware derived, but to a large degree. Since its patchy, some cremating, others not, its hard to get the full picture, but some glimpses are there and more is possible and hopefully will trickle in over time.

At the same time, Basarabi is, most likely, for the most part Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava derived, but there were of course layers in between:

The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.6

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

The Kalakaca horizon is already more fused and influenced, by other local and new elements.

From the paper you linked:

Contacts between the Basarabi and the Glasinac communities are also proved by Glasinac-type swords
at the cemeteries from Basarabi and Desa, but also by other materials, especially double loop bow 􀂿􀁅ulae. On
the other hand, Basarabi-style pottery, while formed in the Lower Danube area, has a wider distribution both
in the east and the west. While the eastern part may be considered a periphery of the Basarabi phenomenon120,
Basarabi-style pottery can also be found in the southeastern Alpine area at Fr?g121, Po􀃣tela122, Bor􀃣te􀁎123
etc., and even further in the westward124 as early as the Hallstatt B3/C phase. Whether or not this represents
an actual movement of population or just contacts across multiple regions is still a matter of debate.

They meant at least movement of people, mostly from Basarabi, to the Eastern Hallstatt area - and many were elite members, elite warriors, specialists, elite brides. This is absolutely evident and proven for Fr?g in particular. Basarabi was in the early Hallstatt phase a very influential and culturally dominant power in the whole of Eastern Central Europe.

Basarabi is the Daco-Thracians of the central sphere with new influences, with some Cimmerian elites and local impulses, sometimes, maybe, even mediated by the females they took, like in the pottery styles, in which there is some resurgence of older elements. But the main impulse was coming from the steppe.

One context for the finds points to it:

Associated finds: two iron lances (fig. 11/2-3); fragmentary iron curved knife (fig. 11/5); a pair of bronze
􀂳Thraco-Cimmerian􀂴 horse bridles

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

The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon reached and influenced the Pannonians, Illyrians, Ligurians, Veneti, Celts etc. It had a major impact especially on Basarabi and the Eastern Hallstatt sphere. Ideologically this was a real change.

 

[Hawk]

We will get sooner or later aDNA results and i do believe things will get resolved once and for all, they already started to get clearer. I am of the opinion that E-V13 was scattered in Middle Danube Urnfield and some older clades were already present in Balkans via the so called Vatin Cultural complex and Brnjica/Paracin/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo. But, let's see and wait.

I opened a new thread, if you might be interested to give it an eye: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41957-Who-were-the-people-of-Trebeniste-Culture?p=633769