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

[Riverman]

Also, interesting to note that Marija Gimbutas said that the way Homer described Patroclus burial (no matter if this character never existed) with cremation on a pyre resembles the Urnfield Culture from Caka and surroundings.

I am of the opinion that the Urnfield way of life, or Urnfield Cultural complex was formed when the Tumulus warriors invaded Pannonia and Carpathia, especially Eastern Carpathia where they mingled with native people and then re-expanded giving influence to the Urnfield way, it doesn't have to be a complete invasion, just partial/minimal, and partial more like religious/idea spread. Just notice how cremation was mixed with mound burial, something which historical Dacians, Enchelei, Dardanii used.

The Bronze to Iron Age transition was a massive event, you see turmoils everywhere in Europe, causing domino-effects of migrations.

That's exactly the transition from F?zesabony-Otomani to Piliny to Kyjatice on the one hand and from Suciu de Sus to Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser. Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser picked up such influences from Carpathian TC/Egyek, but this was primarily a cultural influence, because there was no major successful taking of the areas East of the Tisza. Piliny on the other hand had more direct contacts with TC, especially in the Western areas.

The major Carpathian TC group being often associated with the site of Egyek:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyek

The pick up of Suciu de Sus locals resulted in Berkesz-Demecser and Lapus I.

You can look up were Berkesz, Demecser and Lapus I - as well as Suciu de Sus are. Berkesz and Demecser are in the very, very North East of Hungary, Suciu de Sus and Lapus are deep in North West Romania.

So you have Carpathian Tumulus culture -> Piliny -> Berkesz-Demecser -> Lapus I -> Suciu de Sus.

That's the decreasing TC influence. Suciu de Sus is the "pure local" element which transitioned to Lapus I (Lapus II = G?va province) and Berkesz-Demecser (from which main - Western - G?va developed).

 

[mount123]

That is a reasonable scenario.

I am of the opinion that the Urnfield way of life, or Urnfield Cultural complex was formed when the Tumulus warriors invaded Pannonia and Carpathia, especially Eastern Carpathia where they mingled with native people and then re-expanded giving influence to the Urnfield way, it doesn't have to be a complete invasion, just partial/minimal, and partial more like religious/idea spread. Just notice how cremation was mixed with mound burial, something which historical Dacians, Enchelei, Dardanii used.

There is Iron Age sites in Dardha (Kamenica) and also in the Prishtina Valley, not to forget all of the other archeological sites such as Ulpiana, where there are both pre-Roman and Roman era remains, Klina, Fushe Kosovë and Vushtrri. Those archeologists better sent those remains to US labs or something. Having been in Prishtina museu shtetnor and seen how they store historical artifacts is insane.

 

[Riverman]

That is a reasonable scenario.



There is Iron Age sites in Dardha (Kamenica) and also in the Prishtina Valley, not to forget all of the other archeological sites such as Ulpiana, where there are both pre-Roman and Roman era remains, Klina, Fushe Kosovë and Vushtrri. Those archeologists better sent those remains to US labs or something. Having been in Prishtina museu shtetnor and seen how they store historical artifacts is insane.

A lot of the skeletons just rot everywhere. Never being properly analysed. The most we can get out of them is indeed DNA and isotopic analysis.

 

[mount123]

Like I wrote before, both Cetina and Posusje (with Castellieri influences) are clearly West Adriatic-Alpine influenced cultures, heavily influenced by Bell Beakers (Cetina) and Tumulus culture and Apennine Italian culture (Posusje). They are very clearly groups of the Western contact zone, and you see it in their autosomal DNA too, how close they plot with the Southern Beakers. There arose a J-L283 dominated subgroup and ethnicity, which I think being the Proto-Illyrians.

The older Central Balkan groups seem to have influenced both the Cetina-Posusje and G�va-Channelled Ware groups, but being in the end just overrun when those two expanded. Like you can see that they really partitioned the Balkan down to the Greeks, by and large.

There could have been single finds of E-V13, probably dead ends, virtually everywhere, but I don't see them being of any significance in these old Balkan groups, because if they would, these should be totally dominated by E-V13 and even then it wouldn't be enough, probably, becaue they were truly overrun and largely replaced. Therefore it should have popped up, long ago, in these areas tested already, if it was there and so significant.

The new samples from Hungary just added up on this, because the clades present in both ancient and modern Hungarian samples being far more important and central to the E-V13 phylogeny and modern distribution than all the samples found further down, away from the Danube - up to this point at least.

I don't really share your point of view on the former matter. The pathway of J2b-L283 and the fact that it is too diverse in said time frames cannot really be the result of some minor J2b-L283 being "Bell Beakernized" and then exploding. The Proto-Illyrians and Illyrians form their own cluster and besides not being alien to neighbouring cultures I don't see a huge impact on them by another group such as TC. I think more upcoming Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia, Montenegro and Albania will strengthen the obvious picture even more. After all it is a strong East Adriatic migration pattern that is observable in other areas such as the West Adriatic, mainland Italy or even the Western Mediterranean and not the opposite.

 

[Riverman]

I don't really share your point of view on the former matter. The pathway of J2b-L283 and the fact that it is too diverse in said time frames cannot really be the result of some minor J2b-L283 being "Bell Beakernized" and then exploding. The Proto-Illyrians and Illyrians form their own cluster and besides not being alien to neighbouring cultures I don't see a huge impact on them by another group such as TC. I think more upcoming Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia, Montenegro and Albania will strengthen the obvious picture even more. After all it is a strong East Adriatic migration pattern that is observable in other areas such as the West Adriatic, mainland Italy or even the Western Mediterranean and not the opposite.

I think its unresolved yet, but I can go with your interpretation just as well and won't argue big time about it.

But, and that's worth to be considered, culturally, the Western influence from Bell Beakers in Cetina and from Apennine culture and Tumulus culture on Posusje-Dinaric, prossilby with the hub of Castellieri zone, is clear. So its possible we're dealing primarily with cultural uptakes, rather than genetic and linguistic ones. But the close ties and influences, on the cultural level, are worth to be pointed out nevertheless.

The situation might be even similar to G?va, which also had Carpathian TC influences, but was never kind of "overtaken" or assimilated by TC, just some local uptake of specific elements. Not even directly, but by mixed Carpathian TC groups and Piliny.

The situation is really similar to the Adriatic, where there too we don't need to have a full scale invasion or assimilation and any point, but rather local uptake. Otherwise these two groups wouldn't have been dominated by non-R1b BB lineages...

 

[mount123]

A lot of the skeletons just rot everywhere. Never being properly analysed. The most we can get out of them is indeed DNA and isotopic analysis.

It really is a bummer. I hope there is a mental shift in said state institutions, hopefully initiated by academics in archeology and/or especially human genetics. The close to non existent interest in genetic testing of aDNA and the fact that archaeogenetics in itself is not even a pioneer discipline in certain areas of Europe is the main problem.

 

[mount123]

I think its unresolved yet, but I can go with your interpretation just as well and won't argue big time about it.

But, and that's worth to be considered, culturally, the Western influence from Bell Beakers in Cetina and from Apennine culture and Tumulus culture on Posusje-Dinaric, prossilby with the hub of Castellieri zone, is clear. So its possible we're dealing primarily with cultural uptakes, rather than genetic and linguistic ones. But the close ties and influences, on the cultural level, are worth to be pointed out nevertheless.

The situation might be even similar to G�va, which also had Carpathian TC influences, but was never kind of "overtaken" or assimilated by TC, just some local uptake of specific elements. Not even directly, but by mixed Carpathian TC groups and Piliny.

I mean, I definitely don't oppose attested facts such as cultural exchange as in material culture etc. that have been prevalent throughout human history, especially in areas such as the mediterranean and surroundings, but like mostly those were not one-directional.

 

[Riverman]

I mean, I definitely don't oppose attested facts such as cultural exchange as in material culture etc. that have been prevalent throughout human history, especially in areas such as the mediterranean and surroundings, but like mostly those were not one-directional.

In the mentioned cases it was largely one-directional though, because e.g Cetina received massive influence from Bell Beakers as a peripheral group.

 

[Hawk]

Well, as expected.

And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.

A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Ychromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-IronAge expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans17. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living atViminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial andlater periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE). Excavations of Iron Age Balkans prior to the Roman rule showed the dead where predominantly cremated.

Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and theGenomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peopleshttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full.pdf

Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.

 

[torzio]

The Neolithic group and their Ydna markers are found not just in the Balkans , but also in Central-Europe, Germany and France

The one Ydna missing is H2 from the neolithic group ( might be in "other" )

 

[Riverman]

Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.

Well, it really migrated with Lengyel-related groups North I'd say. In fact, we have the trace: Impresso-Cardial -> Sopot -> Lengyel
From there either staying in Epi-Lengyel and successors, or going into Tiszapolgar or Tripolye-Cucuteni (had E1b1b as well!). But this is basically in place for the later period, that's the Carpathian zone already. It kind of wintered there, in the protection of the mountains, when the steppe invasion came.

 

[Hawk]

One thing to note, during Bronze Age i do expect E-V13 to be present, just that they were part of Southern Pannonian/East Slavonia cultural complex, like Vatin, Vatin successor was Belegis, so when they mixed with incoming Gava people (their cultural cousins) they created the Belegis-Gava II. It's just that during those times they were strictly sticking with cremation unfortunately.

Vatin related groups also influenced on the creation of Belotic Bela Crkva group which was predecessor of Glasinac Culture, but their influence was probably minimal and not the core group. So, to say it clearly, i do expect E-V13 in Glasinac to some degree, but they were not part of the greater Urnfield/E-V13 massive migration and rise in percentage.

 

[Riverman]

One thing to note, during Bronze Age i do expect E-V13 to be present, just that they were part of Southern Pannonian/East Slavonia cultural complex, like Vatin, Vatin successor was Belegis, so when they mixed with incoming Gava people (their cultural cousins) they created the Belegis-Gava II. It's just that during those times they were strictly sticking with cremation unfortunately.

Vatin related groups also influenced on the creation of Belotic Bela Crkva group which was predecessor of Glasinac Culture, but their influence was probably minimal and not the core group. So, to say it clearly, i do expect E-V13 in Glasinac to some degree, but they were not part of the greater Urnfield/E-V13 massive migration and rise in percentage.

Glasinac-Mati and Illyrian areas in general received to some degree Channelled Ware influences, therefore I think a low level minority element could pop up here and there. But it will be interesting to see, at some point, whether the cremating block around the Venetic-Histrian-Liburnian had indeed more E-V13 than the Illyrians which were geographically closer to the Thracian/Channelled Ware people.
I'm not sure about Vatin, it is a surprise package.

From yet another paper, which most likely used some of the same samples, we know that the "Mesolithic" samples of E-V13 likely were Neolithics which turned forager:

According to stable isotope values, this child has been fed with large
amounts of aquatic resources, consistent with nutritional socialization (de Becdeli?vre, 2020).
Similarly, the second-generation admixed female with ? Neo Aegean-like ancestry (LEPE46, LV
93; 6226-6026 cal BC) was also buried into a building (building 72) with various cultural
elements pointing to the Early Neolithic cultural sphere (including numerous limestone beads,
as well as a fragmented stone ring and adze). In contrast, the second-generation admixed male
individual with ? Meso European-like ancestry (LEPE18, LV 27d; 6226-6026 cal BC) was
discovered in a primary disturbed burial that contained grave goods associated with both
Mesolithic (deer antler) and Neolithic (pottery fragments) communities. The other individuals,
buried in extended or slightly flexed positions in continuity with local Mesolithic traditions,
included the Meso European-like LEPE53 (LV 27a) and LEPE17 (LV 27b) with a mtDNA
haplogroup frequently observed in early Neolithic farmers in Europe (N1a; Supplementary Data
Table 1). All had a typically local diet, rich in aquatic proteins (Supp Info). The funerary practices
associated with these individuals thus reflect the mosaic pattern of the Mesolithic and Neolithic
cultural assimilation at Lepenski Vir.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.24.497512v1.full.pdf

This means an E-V13 male joined the "Mesolithic" or better forager communities. Not a Mesolithic period sample. Its also questionable all that samples will be published and commented on in the paper, because some might have just been used from other papers for the statistics. And some of these papers and lab samples might be unpublished as of yet.

What the paper also proves: How important exact burial rites can be.

I wouldn't wonder if the E-V13 being from Lepenski Vir, even though there are of course other options out there.

 

[enter_tain]

Mesolithic E-V13 is wild. Could it be an esoteric WHG marker??? If so, Yamnaya have clear Mesolithic markers.

R1b was shared between the Balkans/Steppe.

 

[Riverman]

Mesolithic E-V13 is wild. Could it be an esoteric WHG marker??? If so, Yamnaya have clear Mesolithic markers.

R1b was shared between the Balkans/Steppe.

That's the problem with ambiguous labelling, because they were living in the same time period, one group being European foragers, the other early European farmers. Some farmers found the hunter-gatherer lifestyle more appealing or being forced into a Mesolithic community, we don't know, and that's how they ended up among foragers.
I'm pretty sure the E-V13 and the other Neolithic haplogroups will all take some Aegean Neolithic ancestry.

 

[Hawk]

I am actually quite interested if that sample is positive downstream E-V13 or just E-L618 and for the sake of simplicity they just added the orange color which is associated with E-V13.

It has been so many years and we got no reliable confirmation if the Spanish Early Neolithic was E-V13 downstream positive, considering the Early Bronze Age El Agrar E-L618 was negative to E-V13, i suspect that Spanish sample might have been just E-L618 positive.

 

[Riverman]

I am actually quite interested if that sample is positive downstream E-V13 or just E-L618 and for the sake of simplicity they just added the orange color which is associated with E-V13.

It has been so many years and we got no reliable confirmation if the Spanish Early Neolithic was E-V13 downstream positive, considering the Early Bronze Age El Agrar E-L618 was negative to E-V13, i suspect that Spanish sample might have been just E-L618 positive.

From coming to life to the Bronze Age founding father, there are thousands of years. There have to have been some side branches of E-V13, not just E-L618, but E-V13, regardless how small or insignificant. It's even possible they still exist, but being in such a low frequency and cornered in a specific region, it just never got sampled.
Whether the Spanish is E-V13 or not, he is closely related, but he didn't really matter to what happened later, I'd say.

 

[mount123]

Well, as expected.

And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.



Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.

What presentation is the screenshot taken from? The nomenclatures seem very odd to me at times. They choose the correct nomenclature for J2b-L283 but for other haplogroups they choose macro nomenclatures that can be very misleading e.g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120 for I2a-Slav in the middle ages graph. But also 0-500 ce "G2a" but G2a what? Also that being that big in that time frame is not really what the aDNA data suggests.

 

[Riverman]

What presentation is the screenshot taken from? The nomenclatures seem very odd to me at times. They choose the correct nomenclature for J2b-L283 but for other haplogroups they choose macro nomenclatures that can be very misleading e.g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120 for I2a-Slav in the middle ages graph. But also 0-500 ce "G2a" but G2a what? Also that being that big in that time frame is not really what the aDNA data suggests.

They made a reasonable choice, because it makes no sense for the Neolithics to split up too much, and in the later period its more difficult too. Basically, they gave a concrete subclade to those which appeared later and had a signficant number of samples from this subclade. The
older layers, especially G2a, just got a generic label, it represents farmers for the most part anyway.

About the study:
https://www.sanu.ac.rs/en/lecture-on-slavic-migrations-and-the-origin-of-people-in-the-balkans/

Here a newspaper article Aspar posted on Anthrogenica:
https://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/2520/nauka/4865784/poreklo-srba-geneticar.html

 

[mount123]

They made a reasonable choice, because it makes no sense for the Neolithics to split up too much, and in the later period its more difficult too. Basically, they gave a concrete subclade to those which appeared later and had a signficant number of samples from this subclade. The
older layers, especially G2a, just got a generic label, it represents farmers for the most part anyway.

About the study:
https://www.sanu.ac.rs/en/lecture-on-slavic-migrations-and-the-origin-of-people-in-the-balkans/

Here a newspaper article Aspar posted on Anthrogenica:
https://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/2520/nauka/4865784/poreklo-srba-geneticar.html

Thanks for the links!

I beg to differ e. g. one could also just wright E1b but that does not entail any further information since we have it in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. The correct nomenclature is important especially when we are talking about Balkan samples e. g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120, which was introduced by the Slavic incursions into South East Europe in the Early Middle Ages.