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

[Hawk]

Riverman, perhaps this can be of your interest.

Archaeological research is currently redefining how large-scale changes occurred in prehistoric times. In addition to the long-standing theoretical dichotomy between ‘cultural transmission’ and ‘demic diffusion’, many alternative models borrowed from sociology can be used to explain the spread of innovations. The emergence of urnfields in Middle and Late Bronze Age Europe is certainly one of these large-scale phenomena; its wide distribution has been traditionally emphasized by the use of the general term Urnenfelderkultur/zeit (starting around 1300 BC). Thanks to new evidence, we are now able to draw a more comprehensive picture, which shows a variety of regional responses to the introduction of the new funerary custom. The earliest ‘urnfields’ can be identified in central Hungary, among the tell communities of the late Nagyrév/Vatya Culture, around 2000 BC. From the nineteenth century BC onwards, the urnfield model is documented among communities in northeastern Serbia, south of the Iron Gates. During the subsequent collapse of the tell system, around 1500 BC, the urnfield model spread into some of the neighbouring regions. The adoption, however, appears more radical in the southern Po plain, as well as in the Sava/Drava/Lower Tisza plains, while in Lower Austria, Transdanubia and in the northern Po plain it seems more gradual and appears to have been subject to processes of syncretism/hybridization with traditional rites. Other areas seem to reject the novelty, at least until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. We argue that a possible explanation for these varied responses relates to the degree of interconnectedness and homophily among communities in the previous phases.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0

The earliest examples of urnfields in the area under consideration can be found in the Carpathian Basin, where this new and complex way of treating and disposing of the dead tends to be juxtaposed with and/or replace the traditional flat inhumations, primary cremations (‘in situ cremations’), or scattered cremations from at least the twenty-fifth century BC. However, it is during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC—and more intensively around the sixteenth–fifteenth centuries BC—that the urnfield custom crosses its original boundaries and starts to be intensively practised in other regions, or isolated sites still surrounded by communities practising other kinds of funerary ritual. To what extent the spread of the urnfield model is the result of cultural transmission rather than (at least partially) a demic diffusion can be debated, but unfortunately not easily verified, since cremation destroys DNA and therefore the identification of any population movement via aDNA analysis. Beside the ideological aspects, the new biomolecular evidence of virulent pathogens, most notably Yersinia pestis, found in individuals dated to the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, from Central Asia to Central/Northern Europe (Andrades Valtueña et al., 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2015; Spyrou, 2018; Rascovan et al., 2019), suggests that the diffusion of certain epidemics, especially in densely populated and well-interconnected regions, might have triggered practical responses by societies attempting to limit transmission. The burning of corpses may be one of these.

What appears clear from the current archaeological evidence is that the neighbouring regions maintained a range of attitudes towards the exogenous innovation, spanning from radical acceptance to gradual introduction, or from hybridization to complete rejection (see also Falkenstein, 2012, p. 329; Rebay-Salisbury, 2012, p. 21).

 

[Riverman]

For the E-V13 story I would especially follow from Ny?rs?g -> Suciu de Sus/Berkesz-Demecser ->Lăpuș/Csorva -> G?va -> Belegis II-G?va.
Especially the scattering of the ashes and burial in urns, two types of burial common throughout most of the unchanged Thracian groups, being already proven for Ny?rs?g.

I think a concentration of the irregular group/mass burials of Bosut-Basarabi and Babadag would be very interesting, as well as later inhumation burials of Basarabi. If its possilbe to connect Basarabi <-> Babadag <-> Psenichevo, it proves the huge Thracian network, the Thracian koine. And I expect E-V13 in all three. The Northern Dacians which remained more in the old tradition are harder to grasp, but the Maslomecz yDNA might help somewhat. Hopefully they get more E-V13 and don't drop the sample they had low coverage.

 

[Hawk]

I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.

In general, it can be concluded that the first groups meeting all essential criteria of the urnfield package started in the central Balkans between the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries BC (northeastern Serbia). In the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, several local groups along the Danube (DGŽ, Belegiš 1) and in the Morava valley (Paraćin, Brnjica) also fully accepted and implemented cremation in urn graves, but with different regional traditions regarding the grave constructions. Except for scattered cremation graves in some of the local groups of the time around 2000 BC (Glasinac, Belotić-Bela Crkva and Cetina), the concept of cremation was completely rejected by Bronze Age groups in the Dinaric Alps or in the western Balkans. The start and spread of the urnfield phenomenon at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (fourteenth/thirteenth centuries BC) primarily influenced the regions between the Rivers Sava, Drava and Danube. Cremation graves with urns became the standardized burial custom, yet again with considerable regional peculiarities (Virovitica/Barice-Gređani group). At the same time, cremation was radically rejected during the Middle and Late Bronze Age of the Dinaric Alps, regardless of specific cultural or regional groups.

This is where J2b2-L283 is popping out.


Anyway, a lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.

The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.

 

[Hawk]

This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.

 

[Riverman]

I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.

A lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.

The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.

It's really the Tisza-Danube area which expands down, with its rituals and customs. The Illyrian core fully rejected the cremation indeed, and stuck with its custom of burying the dead in collective clan tumuli. That's a major cause for having so many J-L283 vs. so few E-V13 in the Bronze to Early Iron Age. Because the whole zone from Lusatians to Brnjica - so all candidate groups for more E-V13, was one big cremation horizon community.

This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.

The area in North Eastern Italy should be relevant, as it could have used the Alpine route to spread and its a potential hotspot for E-V13 (Liguaria, Western Switzerland, Eastern Switzerland-St. Gallen). At least going by the now available modern results.

 

[Hawk]

Something more...

Nonetheless, flows of people and cultural/ideological change do not necessarily occur under peaceful conditions, especially if we consider the strong propensity of Middle Bronze Age societies for warfare (Frieman et al., 2017), which implies a high degree of conflict and competition for resources. The fact that the diffusion of the urnfield package occurs simultaneously with the collapse of the Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary raises a crucial question: is there any connection between these two phenomena? After several centuries of demographic growth and economic prosperity (c. 2000–1500 BC), concurrently with the appearance of the Tumulus culture in present-day Hungary, the tell system experienced a phase of crises, which brought, in some cases, substantial depopulation and/or reorganization of the settlement pattern (Sánta 2010; Fischl et al., 2013). Most of the tell sites were gradually abandoned, leaving space for a more dispersed and less structured settlement system.

It is not impossible that the supposed penetration of ‘Tumulus people’ into Hungary, perhaps when the tell settlement systems were already suffering a general crisis, provoked diasporas of refugees, especially along the corridors previously established towards more ‘friendly’ (or homphilous) communities, and consequently, a certain degree of admixture and cultural syncretism. Reflecting on the complex geopolitical scenario of the mid second millennium BC, Risch and Meller have openly suggested considering ‘how much these societies (Terramare) profited from the economic and political crises and/or collapse of other societies (Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary)’ (Risch & Meller, 2015, p. 253). A parallel can be seen in the spread of the urnfield tradition across peninsular Italy during the final phases of the Bronze Age (after 1150 BC), which coincides with the collapse and diaspora of the terramare people and the wide diffusion of the urn cremation rite throughout the peninsula (Cardarelli et al., 2009).

 

[Riverman]

Something more...

I think the Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures being interconnected and largely cooperating. There came a rebellion from the Southern German EBA groups which were maximally in the Unetician sphere of influence (like Straubing, Adlerberg etc.). From these groups that the Tumulus culture emerged and threatened the combined Unetician core and Carpathian sphere, which were in fact in some ways as close or closer. Basically the Unetician-Carpathian Tell culture sphere got threatened from two sides: Kind of Rebelling Bell Beaker derived groups which created the Tumulus culture - supposed to have included Italo-Celtic - and Eastern chariot complex groups from the steppe, related to the Noua?Sabatinovka?Coslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. These two took the middle group into a firm grip, until they both broke (Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures) and this created the MBA scene.
In the LBA it reverted back to a dominance of a middle group in many respects (Lusatians-Kyjatice-G?va, Urnfield culture), just to end similarly.
The same repeated itself once more when both La Tene and Scythians took the Hallstatt core into their grip, until it broke and both Celts and Scythians expanded once more on top of the middle groups.

In this context its in any case remarkable that I-M253 did grow with the Unetician networks, and suffered from its collapse.

So the first part of the weakening of the Unetician-Pannonian Tell sphere came from the East, being related to the Noua?Sabatinovka?Coslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. They hit the networks first, then the rebellions from the West brought it almost completely down. Its just in the North Carpathians that they survived, not without being influenced by TC, but still, largely independent. And its from there, at the Tisza-K?r?s area of Eastern Hungary-Western Romania, that G?va/Channelled Ware emerged as the expansive factor for the Balkans.

 

[Hawk]

This archaeological paper is very important, we have a systematic explanation of Urnfield phenomena. It didn't dwell on particular sub-cultures but totally understandable.

 

[torzio]

This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.

Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings

 

[Riverman]

Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings

I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours.

About Romania and the Dacians:

Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data:

It is known to have been practised by the peoples who inhabited the
Romanian Lands during the Bronze Age (Schuster, Comşa and Popa
2001). Indeed, it is known to have been practised even earlier than that:
cremain deposits dating from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods have
been found. Although these deposits are not numerous, and are
geographically concentrated in north western Romania, they are very
similar to examples from the Starcervo Cris and Zau regions (Lazăr and
Băcueţ 2011).

= homeland area of Ny?rs?g, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, G?va.

The oldest documented archaeological
evidence of cremation is the group at Gura Baciului (Shepherd?s Mouth),
which has been dated to the early Neolithic period (c.6600?5500 BC) and
consists of seven deposits of cremated remains. Overall, the gradual
replacement of burial by cremation du ring that period indicates that a
profound change of spiritual belief was taking place. Furthermore, the
Eneolithic period witnessed an interesting synthesis of different types of
disposal practices, for example in the Eastern Carpathians, where the
raised grave (tumulus) was combined with cremation (Lazăr and B ăcueţ
2011).
Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Romanian archaeologists there
have been few discoveries to confirm that either burial or cremation was
the normal method of disposal during the Roman period. Although there
has been a considerable amount of assertion and speculation, very little in
the way of conclusive proof has been forthcoming. Even for the early
Classical period, both burials and deposits of cremains are relatively few
in number. Various hypotheses have been proposed, for example that the
Dacians scattered their ashes in rivers or that excarnation was practised.
Although both of these are plausible suggestions, the lack of archaeological
evidence makes it difficult to state with any degree of certainty how
extensive any such practices might have been.

What can be said is that from the Bronze Age onwards, cremation
became the norm in Romania. It arrived due in part to central European
influences, but also as a consequence of internal developments within the
indigenous communities. Indo-Europeanisation played a significant role
here. The solar cult was highly influential on prehistoric funerary ritual,
cremation being a clear and straightforward means of separating the soul
from the body and raising it to heaven. According to contemporary belief,
this led to an increased sense of direct contact with the divine. Fire thus
acquired divine attributes; it was viewed as a means of making direct
contact with the divine, and it was a convenient means of conveying the
soul to the afterlife, helping to separate it from the body and also fulfilling
a purifying role.

The link between the solar cult
and cremation is clear: academic studies have established that the Dacian
religion was centred on this cult, which emerged in the Eneolithic period
and replaced the older fertility cult from then onward. These studies have
proposed that this new religion included a sun god, whose name could not
be read. Archaeological excavations in the sacred area of the enclosure at
Sarmizegetuza Regia, the Dacian state capital, have uncovered a complex
of rectangles and round sanctuaries of the andesite solar disc, which
represents the sun, indicating the Ur anus-solar character of the Dacian
religion. Thus it has been shown that the Dacians, who were important
ancestors of the modern Romanian people, practised cremation on a large
scale (Cri şan 1986). The Dacians were a branch of the Thracian people,
who inhabited the lands to the north of the Danube.

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-4222-8-sample.pdf

Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible.

Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).

 

[Hawk]

Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings

The map is from the paper.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0

And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.

 

[Riverman]

The text is more specific:

In contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0

Compare with this paper:

The Veneti were still able to maintain their independence both when the Celts invaded the Po plain in the 4th century BC and when the Romans began their expansion in northern Italy at the end of the 3rd. Roman politics in Veneto became more aggressive in the 2nd century BC and the region was definitively annexed to the Roman State in the 1st century BC. Cremation was the most common funerary ritual during the Iron Age. (Bondini 2005; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006; Ruta Serafini 1990). Inhumation was also practised, possibly for low-ranking people only. The structure of cremation graves could vary from stone and wooden rectangular containers (cassette) to pit graves and depositions within large ceramic pots (dolia) (fig. 3). Cremated human bones were usually placed in an urn. Grave goods and offerings such as ornaments, tools, vessels, food and weapons were placed in the tomb container with the urn. Multiple graves were common. This may imply the deposition of more than one urn in a tomb and/or the placing of more than one individual in an urn. The wealth of the grave assemblage, the location of the tomb in the cemetery and the structure of the tomb container probably depended on the rank, age, gender and social affiliation of the deceased. Inhumation graves were usually very simple, with scanty or no grave goods at all. Cremation tombs were generally covered with a small earth mound and a layer of pyre debris.

The present work is based on the analysis of a database of around 1,000 graves dating between c.900 and 50 BC (a full dataset and bibliography in my PhD thesis, in preparation; a preliminary analysis of magic in Iron Age Veneto in my MA dissertation: Perego 2007). This material has been excavated over a period of around 135 years (1876 - present) in several Venetic localities, such as Este, Montagnana and Padua in central Veneto, Altino near Venice, Lovara and Gazzo Veronese in the Verona countryside, and Montebelluna in the Piave Valley. Due to the brevity of this paper, my main focus is on well-studied grave assemblages from the Benvenuti, Ricovero, Muletti Prosdocimi, Alfonsi and Via Versori cemeteries at Este (Bondini 2005; Bianchin Citton et. al. 1998; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006) and the Via Tiepolo cemetery at Padua (Ruta Serafini 1990). This restricted dataset includes a total of c. 345 graves, mainly cremations (c. 320). A table which summarises findings from Este Benvenuti is at the end of the present article.

https://student-journals.ucl.ac.uk/pia/article/id/278/

 

[torzio]

The map is from the paper.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0
And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.

Ok
My paper is 2014 ..............it states as I stated....with the exception that about 10% of men had inhumation burials as they died in battle away from home. I state only early iron age period

 

[torzio]

I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours.
About Romania and the Dacians:
Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data:
= homeland area of Ny�rs�g, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, G�va.
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-4222-8-sample.pdf
Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible.
Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).

It seems that bronze-age Venetics practiced inhumanation in the bronze age and early iron age male death ( about 90% ) had cremations, other who died at war away from home where inhumaned

 

[torzio]

The text is more specific:
n contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0
Compare with this paper:

Interesting areas...as per strabo, Roman Historian , these non cremation areas are all Illyrian tribal areas

 

[Hawk]

Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KULTUREN_DER_FRÜHBRONZEZEIT_DES_KARPATENBECKENS_UND_NORDBALKANS

A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.

 

[Riverman]

Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KULTUREN_DER_FRÜHBRONZEZEIT_DES_KARPATENBECKENS_UND_NORDBALKANS

A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.

Its nice to have such summaries for the cultural formations. Especially the so called "West and Central" zone being of interest, with Ny?rs?g and Mak?.

Das Verh?ltnis der Mak6-Kultur zu der
von N yirseg wurde .in den siebziger Jahren
gekl?rt. Neuere Forschungen erga'ben, da? sich
die Mak6-Kultur auf dem Territorium von
Nyirseg ausbreitete, ohne Mischung ihrer
Fundk?mplexe und Ber?hrungspunkte aufzuweisen
(KALICZ, 1981, 67-74). So z.B. hat P.
Patay in letzteren Jahren in der Gemarkung
von Tiszaluc (Nordungarn) einige Siedlungsobjekte
der Mak6-Kultur freigelegt. Ann?hernd
1,5 km davon entfernt hat der Verfasser 1960
auf Dankadomb Teile einer reicheren Siedlung
der Nyirseg-Kultur freigelegt. In diesem Falle
ist die zeitliche Entsprechung der beiden Kulturen
auszuschlie?en. So betont der kleine
Mako-Komplex aus Tiszavasvari weder die zeitliche
Pa:rallele und Verbindung mit Nyirseg,
sondern er weist ganz im Gegenteil seine Eigenst?ndigkeit
aus.

Two separate entities, but related in an evolutionary sense. Most of the inhumation burials of Mak? being non-typical ones, the rule was cremation in most times and provinces, especially for the typical areas. Like the Tumulus culture/Koszider horizon, the invasion of the Bell Beakers caused a shift and transformation:

Die gemeinsame
Wifokung mehrerer Falktoren hat auf zur
Zeit noch unbekannte Weise und mit noch unbestimmter
Geschwindigkeit die Mako-Kultur
im Gebiet von Ungarn in die Kultur von Nagyrev
und Nyirseg umgeformt.

Nagyrev und Nyirseg as potential transformed descendants.

A basic connection between them all being the Zok-network/horizon:

Wegen der auffallenden ?hnlichkeit
der Keram'ik hat der Verfasser die
Funde vom Typ Nyirseg zusammen mit Mako
und Vucedol als Teil der Zok-Kultur, als
Nyirseg-Gruppe !bezeichnet, die auf ihrem Ausbreitungsgebiet
den Beginn der Bronzezeit andeutet

Its area is practically the same as the later G?va core:

Auch die slowakische Forschung hat auf
einem kleinen Gebiete der Ostslowakei Funde
vom Nyirseg-Typ gemacht, und sie verwendet
f?r die Nyirseg-Kultur die Bezeichnung Nyirseg-
Zatin (VLADAR, 1970, 224-229, 282-283).
In Rum?nien, 1n den Teilen der Tiefebene, die
an Siebenb?rgens nord?stlichen Teil ans tassen,
wurden ebenfalls Siedlungs- und Gr?berfunde
vom Nyirseg,Typ gemacht. (KACSO, 1972, 31-
44; BADER, 1978, 20-30, 134). Die Ostgrenze
ihrer Ausbreitung wurde festgestellt und T.
Bader verwendet, da er ihren selbst?ndigen
Chara'kter erkannt hat, den Namen Nir-Kultur.

= very Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, NW Romania.

The Nyirseg people seem to have been fairly mobile and largely pastoralists, but there was a great density of small scale and also a lot of large scale settlements. The author speculates about "winter quarters" when the clans moved together again. In winter and times of danger. All burials being crematon burials:

Trotzdem kann die Bestattungsweise
der Kultur mit ziemlicher Entschiedenheit
beurteilt werden. Alle Gr?berfunde
enthielten Reste von Brandbestattung
(KALICZ, 1968, 73-74). Am al1gemeinsten
sind die Einzel-Urnengr?ber.

Most of the time the ashes were in single urns or scattered, without a vessel.

Gewisse Anzeichen
lassen darauf schliessen, dass in der NyirsegKultur
auch Brandsch?ttungsbestattung ?blich
war. Auf einigen Fundorten ohne Siedlungserscheinungen
sind mehrere ganze Gef?sse zusammen
zum Vorschein gekommen (Tiszapalkonya,
Tiszanagyfalu usw.). Aus Mangel an
pr?zisen Beobachtungen nehmen wir nur an,
dass diese Gel?sse aus Brandsch?ttungsgr?bern
stammen, wo man die Asche (kalzinierte
Knochen) nicht sammelte. In den Siedlungen
ist das Vorkommen unversehrter Gef?sse n?mlich
ausserordentlich seHen.

The only known inhumation burials on their territory are untypical - non-representative:

Wir verf?gen ?ber zwei unsichere Angaben,
die K?rpergrab-Bestattung erw?hnen. Die hierzu
geh?renden Gef?ssebeiga1)en sind - trotz
ihres fr?h bronzezeitlichen Cha.rakters - f?r
d'ie Nyirseg-Kulturd nicht bezeichnend.

Nyirseg being largely a culture on its own, with only limited relations to other groups in the wider region. Closest parallels can be seen with the older Vucedol culture:

Wegen des speziellen Charakters des Fundmaterials
der Nyirseg-Kultur finden wir zur
Zeit im Karpatenbecken keine verwandte kulturelle
Einheit. Die auffallendsten Merkmale
der materiellen Kultur, fast ausnahmslos die
Verzierungen der Keramik, scheinen an die in
Raum und Zeit entfernte (?ltere) Vucedol-Kultur
Ibzw. an deren Keramik-Verzierungen anzuklingen.

Chronologically its a descendant of Mak?. Hatvan and Otomani are the descendants. The evolution of Mak? and Nyirseg had strong inputs from the South, the relationships to Vucedol are distant, but possible:

Heute beurteilen wir den Ursprung der
Nyirseg-Kultur bereits anders als am Anfang
der sechziger Jahre. Die Bereinigung der Chronologie
hat auch geholfen das Abstammungsbild
zu berichtigen. Grundlage der materiellen
Kultur der Nyirseg-Kultur war die Mako-Kultur,
die mit der Somogyvar-Vinkovci und mit
der Schneckenberg-Glina III-Kultur einen verwandtschaftlichen
Block bildet. Es ist also am
Beginn der Bronzezeit ein von der S?dostslowakei
bis zur unteren Donau ziehender kultureller
Block zustandegekommen, in welchem
eine S?d-Nord-Bewegung der kulturellen
Diffusion beobachtet werden kann.

https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KULTUREN_DER_FRÜHBRONZEZEIT_DES_KARPATENBECKENS_UND_NORDBALKANS

 

[Riverman]

The chain for E-V13 likely goes, in bracket the dominant funerary rite:

Eastern Mak? (cremation) -> Ny?rs?g (cremation) -> Hatvan-Early Otomani (cremation) -> Suciu de Sus/Berkes-Demecser (cremation) -> Lăpuș/Csorva/Susani into G?va generalised horizon (cremation) -> Belegis II-G?va (cremation)

The next phases are already going post-Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and into Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi, Northern G?va remnants into Scythianised groups (Eastern Vekerzug: cremation).

Map for Nyirseg:

From: https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KULTUREN_DER_FRÜHBRONZEZEIT_DES_KARPATENBECKENS_UND_NORDBALKANS

Note that the Nyirseg core region is nearly identical with that of later G?va, its kind of a revival after some intrusions from Unetice-Nitra-Kostany (F?zesabony) and the Tumulus culture people. Typically, both (F?zesabony and Tumulus culture) used inhumation, whereas the local "resurgence" from the Nyirseg-Otomani substrate used cremation again.

 

[mount123]

Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KULTUREN_DER_FRÜHBRONZEZEIT_DES_KARPATENBECKENS_UND_NORDBALKANS

A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.

I was thinking of what you were suspecting about the delay of the Kapitan Andreevo samples Hawk.

Quote from the other thread:

You are right, something is off with the organisation here. I collected 30 samples from Plovdiv from iron age to roman and talked with archeologists around BG how to preserved newly find and to prepare them for sending (I have a papers how from few laboratories). But the problem was how and to whom to send the samples. I found out that we (Bulgaria) had an agreement with Harvard laboratory so I wrote them an email. They liked all the samples but the samples needed a document for travelling. Then I called the director of the institution and told him about the samples and the emails with Harvard, after all we had an agreement for 500 samples from all the ages. And he told me that he will just decide what to send and will prosecute everyone who sends a sample abroad. So we have samples, but noone asks for them, or they don't know who to ask or somehow the link is broken We are waiting almost 2 years for the paper from Harvard...

I do not really know what to think of this but it does not surprise me at all. There are many things that come up to my mind e. g. the "misdating" of the Slavic sample from Bezdanjaca cave, mod. d. Croatia or individuals from institutions like Stanford who are supposedly of great renown being clueless and not schooled on the events of late antiquity/early medieval in South East Europe by making the bizarre claim of genetic continuity in the regions in question.

I am also not taking a stand here since this person is an amateur, at least that is the impression she makes, considering some of her statements about Slavs being autochthonous in the Balkans in earlier posts of hers I have read (I regret this :embarassed.

 

[blevins13]

The myth origin of Berisha (the Sopis were very likely just a very early split-offs of Berisha who lost track of their origin since very early split and sometimes considered themselves as either Thaq or close to Bytyqi both of whom are wrong, they either come from Shopel or Fierz villages expanding on Kukes/Topojan and then Kosovo and primarily Nish).



translation:

Cudia me Berishet eshte se jane te për hapur vetem ne Kosove dhe Veri, por jo ne Jug. Nje nga linjat qe kane lulezuar gjate perandorise turke si pak kush.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum