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

[Riverman]

There is one LBA Thracian sample in an old PCA and the sample is very genetically similar to BGR_IA. I am sure I can find it.

If I'm right the true Proto-Thracians being the more Eastern shifted HUN_LBA samples. However, some of them might be mixed with F?zesabony/Encrusted Pottery respectively and soon afterwards, in the available, non-ideal Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerians, we see a more Southern shift haven taken place - even in Hungary. Which might be, actually, even more representative of what G?va looked like. Irregular burials are always a problem, because you never know whether they are truly representative of the population which used a different rite.

 

[ihype02]

Balkanic IE is such a generic term, it's probably a wrap-up of similar EEF + Steppe ratios. If we check their regional EEF and Steppe we might have regional differences as well in a North/West/South/East within the range from Southern Central Europe down to Greece and from Slovenia in the West to Eastern Carpathians in the East.

In addition, there is no LBA Thracian autosomal available, even if it was, that's the timeline of inter-related movement, but there is no such sample yet available.

Similar people were spread from inner Balkan Vatin-Belegis to Gava up North in Carpathian.

Davidski:
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a Bronze Age Bulgarian clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/asUl7MkRUPGCiHyQUKUl0f_UWRcEQzxVOi8XiwnjiVo=w970-h631-no

Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-ancient-bulgarian-dna-with-semiconductor-based-sequencing.html

So Bronze Age Bulgarians weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VwWhxXrYo8Ent1scgWhVhhEsEfTFJbD589V0Wb8kM2U=w879-h631-no

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html?showComment=1440648670914#c2269855750491498027

 

[Hawk]

Davidski:
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a Bronze Age Bulgarian clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/asUl7MkRUPGCiHyQUKUl0f_UWRcEQzxVOi8XiwnjiVo=w970-h631-no

Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-ancient-bulgarian-dna-with-semiconductor-based-sequencing.html

So Bronze Age Bulgarians weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VwWhxXrYo8Ent1scgWhVhhEsEfTFJbD589V0Wb8kM2U=w879-h631-no

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html?showComment=1440648670914#c2269855750491498027

That can be the E-M215 (he was probably downstream E-V13) sample from 10 years ago, he was Early Iron Age -> Late Iron Age, Davidski might have confused, there is no sample yet from Late Bronze Age Bulgaria. In fact Stamov was explicit in that he saw an increased EEF during Late to Early Iron Age. That's surprising and yet to see how.

Indeed, here is what Alberto wrote:

@David

Thanks, that sample seems to be P192-1. I think that's a real Thracian sample, from the Iron Age (800-500 BC). It does seem to have a low amount of ANE (8-10%?), but the shift is clearly different from the Hungarian Bronze Age ones. The Hungarians seem to have Motala-like admixture, while this Thracian is shifted towards the Caucasus.

I hope they're resequencing the other Thracian samples too. They were too noisy to really know how they looked like.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html?showComment=1440648670914#c22698557504%2091498027

 

[Riverman]

From a longer answer - here specifically about the Eastern Carpathian groups relevant for E-V13:
F?zesabony is not identical with the whole Otomani horizon and came up by the intrusion from the North. What you have here is just the lineages which spread because of Epi-Corded groups, especially Ko?ťany, possibly also from Nitra, entering Pannonia on a large scale. That formed the F?zesabony core, which will be just R1a. They might have been very influential, but they didn't replace all local groups. Also note, they didn't cremate!

Out of the wider Otomani horizon, from a more local, less Epi-Corded influenced context, Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus and related groups (Cehalut, Igrita) grew out. That's where E-V13, those are the local people. They cremated and prevailed, which led to G?va.

The main group of F?zesabony will just yield the same haplogroups like Ko?ťany, the Epi-Corded neighbours from which the clans expanded from.
You see, you need to know the context of the finds. Some months ago I didn't know it as well, but I simply check the background of all relevant samples and groups from the region. And if you know something about the background, things make much more sense than just assuming something. You just have to know what F?zesabony was, and that it was the result of an Epi-Corded infiltration of former Ny?rs?g territory, but with traces from early Otomani onwards of locals persisting. And its these locals which matter.


I wouldn't completey dismiss F?zesabony as totally unimportant, because linguistically it might be important, who knows, since Ko?ťany in turn being largely a branch of the potentially Baltoslavic related Mierzanowice culture. This would explain the close affinity of Baltoslavic and Thracian, some propose. I don't think, at this point, that E-V13 got Indoeuropeanised that late, but, its nevertheless possible.
However, culturally and genetically, you see that from the wider Otomani context, Berkes-Demecser/Suciu de Sus developed from the Eastern region. That's key.

First the position of Ny?rs?g and to its North Ko?ťany - Ko?ťany expanded Southward, causing the creation of F?zesabony/Otomani:

Second out of the generalised Otomani sphere, with more Eastern influences, the relevant groups, Berkesz (-Demecser), Suciu de Sus, Cehalut and Igrita, the key cultures for E-V13, formed:

Piliny is a related group as well, but has stronger Tumulus culture influences than the Eastern ones (Berkesz-Demecser, Suciu de Sus etc.) which formed the G?va horizon later. The F?zesabony group clearly did not prevail on the long run, at least the Ko?ťany introduced R1a clans, but the local East Carpathian elements took over, when the Otomani ended - which created these cultures and in the end G?va. The most likely source seems to be Ny?rs?g, which practised cremation in a similar way as later Berkesz-Suciu de Sus related groups and G?va into the historical Thracians and Dacians.

The dynamic is absolutely key and the most important, most sticky signal is definitely cremation since the EBA, since Ny?rs?g - cremation burials, scattering of ashes:

Ny?rs?g and Sanislău are both characterised by cremation burials in urns which almost always occur singly or in small groups. Indications for burials where the ashes was scattered are as uncertain as the cultural attribution of two inhumation burials (due to the lack of decorated vessels. Kalicz 1984, 111; Dani 1997, 56f.).

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version

Urnfield culture as a whole did receive a lot of impulses from this Eastern Carpathian sphere, which was, throughout the ages, a centre for the rite and associated religious beliefs. F?zesabony was an exception, because they were foreign clans in the area, coming ultimately from Poland. Because to the West, Tumulus culture did not cremate. North, Epi-Corded related formations, especially Mierzanowice didn't, to the East, steppe groups like Noua-Sabatinovka didn't cremate. The Eastern Carpathian zone was a centre and source for this rite and religion.

We would need samples from Ny?rs?g, Berkesz-Demecser, Suciu de Sus-Lăpuș, Cehalut and Igrita. Ny?rs?g seems to be pretty clear by now, because its the central source group - but it might contain more haplogroups, with a founder effect in the period from Otomani into Suciu de Sus being very likely. Developed Otomani is different from Suciu de Sus, note:

Genauer wurden besonders die Siedlungen undGr?berfelder der Otomani-Kultur in den Ortschaften Otomani, S?lacea (Bez.Bihor), Medieșu Pir, Tiream (Bez. Satu M?re), sowie die Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Medieșu Aurit, Culciu M?re, Culciu Mic untersucht.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/prhz.1979.54.1.3/html

Look up where these places are. The centre of the culture was in Romania. Like between Satu Mare and Baia Mare. E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieșu_Aurit

But always at the Upper Tisza and with related groups down to the Transtisza-K?r?s zone.

G?va had close relations with the Lusatians, so the link between the North <-> South did persist, since the formation of F?zesabony, in culture and trade, but bi-directional migration also.

Both used a millet based diet, which spread from the Carpathian area to other zones of Europe. Probably it was rather pork, with the pigs being fed with millet on a large scale. In many G?va groups, millet seems to have been one of the primary grains:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...aeology-83-2021.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Just like in the Lusatians - and the warriors of Tollense. It was characteristic for the Eastern Urnfield groups (Lusatians, Kyjatice, G?va).

 

[Hawk]

As such Bronze Age tells were not the first settlementmounds that occurred during the prehistory of theCarpathian Basin, but there was an earlier horizon of tellsettlement in the area that started – south of the Danube andalong the Morava river – at the beginning of the MiddleNeolithic Vinča culture (Vinča A, c. 5400/5300 to 5200cal BC; Borić 2009: 234–236 fig. 47), and subsequentlyexpanded north along the Tisza river and its easterntributaries during the Late Neolithic Tisza culture, as wellas in the neighbouring Herpály and Csőszhalom groupsfrom broadly 5200/5000 to 4500 cal BC (Link 2006: 16

fig. 8; Parkinson 2006: 57 fig. 4.4).5 Both horizons of tellsettlement are separated by a more dispersed settlementpattern during the local ‘Eneolithic’ or ‘Copper Age’, i.e.the Tiszapolgár, Bodrogkeresztúr and Baden sequence, aswell as during subsequent groups like Vučedol and Makó/Kosihy-Čaka (from c. 2800/2600 cal BC) which in localterminology constitute the beginnings of the Bronze Age.6

https://www.archaeopress.com/Archae...40FCA3CBD6C3B6C1FE70/9781789697506-sample.pdf

To me it sounds reasonable, and i would accept such scenario for E-V13, one thing that bugs me is that why E-V13 tree starts to split in Germany/Central Europe and not Carpathian-Balkan cline.

In addition of LBA/EIA expansion we didn't answer rafc EBA initial expansion question, though not nearly successful as the LBA/EIA. Is it real, if yes with what should we associate, everything beyond MBA is very tricky i guess. Only aDNA can answer.

 

[Riverman]

To me it sounds reasonable, and i would accept such scenario for E-V13, one thing that bugs me is that why E-V13 tree starts to split in Germany/Central Europe and not Carpathian-Balkan cline.

I think there are primarily the following reasons:
- A lot of the North Carpathian diversity being largely erased by subsequent migrations, the Slavs in particular. I think some E-V13 lineages did even profit from the Slavic expansion, but a lot of the diversity was erased in the migration period and Slavic expansion phase.
- Testing bias might also play a major role, because the core zone of G?va/Channelled Ware with Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Hungary, North Western Romania and Transcarpathia, South-Eastern Poland is not exactly well tested.
There are quite a few samples from there, but not many of them have tested BigY, practically none of them YFull.

In addition of LBA/EIA expansion we didn't answer rafc EBA initial expansion question, though not nearly successful as the LBA/EIA. Is it real, if yes with what should we associate, everything beyond MBA is very tricky i guess. Only aDNA can answer.

The most likely candidate for the EBA expansion is Ny?rs?g into Otomani-Wietenberg into Suciu de Sus. Suciu de Sus seems to have emerged from the very Eastern regional periphery of Otomani, close to Wietenberg. Like in between these two groups.

 

[Hawk]

Some Thracian helmets.

Snake motives

Makhaira sword.

 

[Johane Derite]

Both Trojans and Dardanians cremated their dead on a pyre according to the Iliad.
"Now they were sitting in assembly, Trojans and Dardanians alike, all gathered in one body waiting..."
"so in silence they heaped the corpses upon the pyre, their hearts sore stricken..."

 

[Hawk]

A very explicit article, by renowned Hungarian historian/archaeologist Gabor Vekony.

The slow emergence of this culture is abruptly halted around 2000 B.C., when a new wave of migration once again transforms Transylvania's population: groups of shepherds from the Macedonian and Bulgarian highlands move into southeastern Carpathian region. Their settlements appear first in Oltenia (Coţofeni I culture), southwestern Transylvania (Karácsonfalva, Tărtăria-Alsó Tatárlaka); later, during the Early Bronze Age, they spread over the entire territory of Transylvania (Coţofeni II, Kolozskorpád I). Evidence of their settlement can be found virtually everywhere, from the highlands to alluvial grasslands, and often in mountain caves. They were the first in Transylvania to cremate the dead, although skeletons — often powdered in ochre — have been found in the lower levels of their early burial grounds; they may have borrowed the latter custom from their eastern neighbours (Folteşti II culture), although it is equally conceivable that they were preserving their own, essentially East European traditions. The environment and nature of their numerous, scattered dwellings, fit the lifestyle of a semi-nomadic shepherd population. Signs of rudimentary agriculture appear only at a later time, together with a change in the structure of their dwellings: there is evidence at Kolozskorpád that one of their later communities used wattle and daub over a log foundation or log floor.

In the period of the Coţofeni II-Kolozskorpád culture, shepherd tribes from beyond the Carpathians flooded into southeastern Transylvania. People of the Folteşti III-Zăbala culture spread from the Háromszék Basin (Zabola) and the Brassó area (Gesprengberg) to the middle reaches of the Maros (Vládháza, Nándor). Little is known of their settlements. Their dead were buried on their side, with their legs pulled up, sometimes in simple pits, at other times in stone chests covered by mounds of earth. Their spherical, two-handled vessels, tall, barrel-like amphorae, and ribbed coarse pots evoke not only the east, but also the west, where similar pieces have been found in the middle reaches of the Tisza River (Hatvan culture). Since these finds are sometimes mixed with those of the Coţofeni culture, it is possible that in some localities the two populations had merged.
At the end of the 14th century B.C., the Carpathian Basin was invaded from the north by Central European tribes of shepherds. The invasion set off a chain reaction of migrations, and these destabilized — directly or indirectly — the economy of the Transylvanian goldsmiths, merchants, and warriors. Familiar trading routes were now overrun with strangers. When groups of the latter seek refuge in Transylvania, local people bury their valuables (Igenpataka, Déva, Somogyom). Moving along the Maros on the heels of the fleeing locals, people of the Tumulus (Hügelgraber) culture occupied the entire area of southern Transylvania, as attested by finds near Nagyszeben (Hermány), in the Mezőség (Mezőbánd, Malomfalva), and even beyond the Hargita (Kézdiszentlélek). They, together with former inhabitants of the Great Hungarian Plain, settle also in southwestern Transylvania (Déva, Vajdahunyad). Some of the Wietenberg people withdrew to the mountains (their cave settlements date from this period), but most of them move northward. There, along the Szamos, in Máramaros and Ruthenia, they joined forces with people of the Gyulavarsánd culture resist the pressure of the Tumulus (Hügelgraber) people and {1-34.} others who had joined the latter. Elsewhere, communities were shattered into small remnants that survived in much-reduced material circumstances.Due to the turbulence and social disintegration, Transylvania at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age became easy prey for shepherds of the eastern steppes. There are no treasure finds to indicate the resulting movement of peoples, presumably because by then locals had little treasure left to conceal. The new occupiers, people of the Noua culture, reached Transylvania through the Carpathian mountain passes and spread as far as the middle reaches of the Szamos River in the north and the Érc Mountains in the west. Some followed the Szamos all the way to the eastern Great Plain, where they were absorbed into an already mixed population, the Berkesz-Demecser group.Little is known about the settlements of this cattle- and sheep- breeding people. Their dwellings were presumably similar to the light, wooden constructions they had erected in Moldavia. Burial grounds (Brassó, Keresztényfalva, Hermány, Tövis, etc.) reveal their dead lying on their side, legs drawn up, or the remains of cremation. Most of their simple, rib-decorated pots and two-handled jugs were produced by assimilated groups from Monteoru culture. Their three-edged bone arrowheads, triple-pierced bridle links made of bone, knobbed bronze pins, and sickles with hooked handles all evoke a distant eastern culture, that of Sabatinovka people, who lived between the Dnieper and Dniester rivers. These Protoeuropids (Alpine and Mediterranean anthropological types were also present in Transylvania) probably spoke Ancient Iranian, and thus settlement of the Noua people in Carpathian Basin represents the first appearance of Iranian groups in the region.It is noteworthy that most of the metal tools identified with the newcomers were found beyond their area of settlement, in the territory of the Felsőszőcs culture. The weapons and tools of the conquerors appear to have been produced by the Late Bronze Age {1-35.} descendants of the Wietenberg culture. The relationship between the two peoples was peculiarly symbiotic in some places: the tumuli of Oláhlápos contain objects from both the Felsőszőcs and the Noua cultures.Sometime around 1000 B.C., the inhabitants of Transylvania and the Szamos-Tisza region were driven to bury their accumulated treasures (Felőr, Domahida, Ópályi). It was, however, mainly the people of the Felsőszőcs culture who hid their valuables, as seen at Felőr and Domahida. To escape servitude, most of the Noua people fled eastward.The new conquerors, groups of people of the Gáva culture, occupied the Küküllő region (Medgyes), then the Olt valley (Réty), the Mezőség, and the Szamos region (Oláhlápos). Some of their dwellings were built of wood beams or on wooden foundations, others were oval or square, sunken huts with a central, plastered fireplace; some of their settlements were fortified. They bred mainly cattle but also kept many horses. Although many bronze sickles have been found, agriculture was not a major activity, and they obtained much of their meat by hunting.Their arrival sparked off a renaissance of bronze craft in the region of the Érc Mountains. Almost all of their implements, weapons, and jewellery was fashioned from bronze; huge stores of axes, sickles, swords, lances, belts, pins, and vessels have been unearthed at Ispánlaka, Felsőmarosújvár, Nagysink and Marosfelfalu (Cincu-Suseni 'horizon').By the end of the Late Bronze Age, the people of the Gáva culture, who buried cremated remains in urns, and related groups had expanded their domain. Their settlements and burial places are found not only in Transylvania, but also in the Banat, in areas east of the Tisza, and, east of the Carpathians, in Galicia and Bessarabia (Holihrad and Kisinyov cultures). Some of their groups travelled across the wooded steppes as far as the Dnieper River. Judging from the material evidence, peoples who lived at this time south of {1-36.} the Carpathians, in Wallachia and northern Bulgaria, spoke a language related to that of the Gáva culture (Babadag and Pšeničevo cultures). This region is roughly contiguous with the subsequent settlement areas of the Dacians, Gaetians, and Mysians.Between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the first mention of these peoples in ancient sources, there were no migrations significant enough to radically alter the composition of the population. It is therefore likely that the finds from the Gáva culture and related groups are the legacy of ancestors of Dacians, Gaetians and Mysians. Their origins are clear: the indigenous communities of Middle Bronze Age people and conquerors bearing the Tumulus culture had coalesced by the end of the Late Bronze Age into a group of peoples speaking identical or related languages. The stability of this pattern is reinforced by the organizing skills of an equestrian group that arrived from the east in the middle of the Late Bronze Age. To be sure, the latter's rule was short-lived; well before the end of the Late Bronze Age, they were driven to hide their characteristic harness pieces and Caucasian axes — not only in Transylvania, but also in Transdanubia and in the region between the Drava and Sava rivers (Felsőmarosújvár, Ispánlaka, Karánsebes, Kőfarka). The first evidence of iron tools seems to coincide with their appearance in the region (Oláhlápos, Bogda, Babadag). There followed an extended period of peace in Transylvania; storehouses dating from the end of the Late Bronze Age (Mojgrád, Pusztatóti, etc.) reveal that blacksmiths produced mainly axes and sickles. Although such tools could be used in battle, their primary purpose was cultivation.The peaceful life of miners and merchants was disrupted at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Once again, horsemen from Asia broke into the Danubian region and the Carpathian Basin. This culturally mixed group, given to much infighting, sowed chaos, devastating villages and depopulating entire regions. When the resulting waves of forced migration subside, small and, for the most part, {1-37.} culturally-mixed communities appear along the Danube (Balta Verde, Bosut, Dálya, Mezőcsát groups). On the territories of the Gáva culture and its related groups, new populations emerge. The majority of Transylvania's Late Bronze Age inhabitants thus left the region, most probably for destinations beyond the Carpathians. Their deserted villages were occupied by newcomers as well as by settlers from the Lower Danube and a smaller number of migrants southern Transdanubia.The people of the Basarab culture settled initially along the middle reaches of the Maros (Gyulafehérvár, Tărtăria- Alsó-Tatárlaka), and then throughout the Transylvanian Basin (Marosvásárhely, Maroscsapó, Kolozsmonostor). Their settlements in Transylvania, unlike those in Wallachia, were occupied for a considerable period of time, and many were fortified. They erected wattle and daub dwellings as well as some light, above-ground structures, and lived mainly off animal husbandry. A significant part of the population must have been involved in metalworking; significantly, finds in the border regions contain bronze objects that were seldom if ever used by Transylvanians, but which were commonly used in the surrounding areas (Marosportus, Alvinc, Vajdéj).The Basarabi culture was marked by advanced ironworking; iron objects include not only weapons and tools, but also a growing number of harness pieces and clothing accessories. The newcomers soon shed their former bronze objects; the earlier bronze bridle links and bits (Maroscsapó) soon give way to replicas made of iron (Maroscsapó, Maroskeresztúr). Their weapons — swords and "Scythian" daggers — often resemble the swords with open, ringed hilts of the Late Bronze Age (Aldoboly, Maroscsapó). Single-edged, curved daggers have also been unearthed, bearing T-shaped hilts similar to those found on the typical weapons of the neighbouring Balta Verde group (Miriszló, Borosbenedek).{1-38.} Although little has transpired about their ability to work gold, it is not unlikely that they produced many of the gold objects found in the Carpathians. A case in point is the ear




https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/9.html

I think that it's almost stamped that from Middle-Late Bronze Age E-V13 expanded with the Eastern/Carpathian Urnfield hemisphere or even general Urnfield but the core was in Eastern Urnfield. The problem we cannot solve still is what was it's ultimate Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age origin. Which group brought to Carpathians? Or did this mutation evolve there from the beginning of Neolithic times?

 

[Riverman]

A very explicit article, by renowned Hungarian historian/archaeologist Gabor Vekony.
I think that it's almost stamped that from Middle-Late Bronze Age E-V13 expanded with the Eastern/Carpathian Urnfield hemisphere or even general Urnfield but the core was in Eastern Urnfield. The problem we cannot solve still is what was it's ultimate Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age origin. Which group brought to Carpathians? Or did this mutation evolve there from the beginning of Neolithic times?

The Lengyel culture is a top candidate because we have E1b1b samples from it, and it persisted into the Copper Age in the region.
Another candidates are Tiszapolgar and even Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think its likely that from one of these groups E-V13 entered the Cotofeni horizon with its steppe and GAC influences (Foltesti). From there into Ny?rs?g is the most likely path.
This doesn't imply these cultures were dominated by E-V13 before. The founder series seems to have started between Cotofeni and Ny?rs?g imho.
By the way, both Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser had stronger Tumulus culture influences. But the local core was Suciu de Sus, with Berkesz being probably just Suciu de Sus with some more TC influences.

 

[Hawk]

The Lengyel culture is a top candidate because we have E1b1b samples from it, and it persisted into the Copper Age in the region.
Another candidates are Tiszapolgar and even Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think its likely that from one of these groups E-V13 entered the Cotofeni horizon with its steppe and GAC influences (Foltesti). From there into Ny�rs�g is the most likely path.
This doesn't imply these cultures were dominated by E-V13 before. The founder series seems to have started between Cotofeni and Ny�rs�g imho.
By the way, both Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser had stronger Tumulus culture influences. But the local core was Suciu de Sus, with Berkesz being probably just Suciu de Sus with some more TC influences.

Beyond Middle Bronze Age i wouldn't boldly make any statements because it's quite hard to guess.

It's funny because the Early Iron Age Psenicevo Culture is packed with E-V13 and it's up to come in Southern Arc paper (the leaks are clear, it's EIA- Early Iron Age not 500 B.C like someone wrongly stated, 500 B.C would fall somewhere in MIA- Middle Iron Age, and it has nothing to do with Western Adriatic hemisphere, this is completely different domain perse), and this culture is from various different authors (Serb archaeologists, Romanian and Hungarian) explicitely stated that it's a descended culture from Gava, and related to Babadag, Mediana, Paracin, Belegis-Gava II. Yet you see some obsessed people trying to find a needle in a haystack, ignoring the bigger picture intentionally for their own beneficial interpretation.

 

[mount123]

Beyond Middle Bronze Age i wouldn't boldly make any statements because it's quite hard to guess.

It's funny because the Early Iron Age Psenicevo Culture is packed with E-V13 and it's up to come in Southern Arc paper (the leaks are clear, it's EIA- Early Iron Age not 500 B.C like someone wrongly stated, 500 B.C would fall somewhere in MIA- Middle Iron Age, and it has nothing to do with Western Adriatic hemisphere, this is completely different domain perse), and this culture is from various different authors (Serb archaeologists, Romanian and Hungarian) explicitely stated that it's a descended culture from Gava, and related to Babadag, Mediana, Paracin, Belegis-Gava II. Yet you see some obsessed people trying to find a needle in a haystack, ignoring the bigger picture intentionally for their own beneficial interpretation.

Basically mixing up the time frames and archeological contexts, as I have pointed out to that particular someone multiple times. Doing that intentionally is one thing, but when that individual is faced with his own proposals it distances itself from them, which in entirety makes the whole "argumentation" dubious. Of course the bigger picture needs to be ignored, otherwise such biased imagination would not add up.

In another context, not that thread by the way, that particular someone is quite clear about his own beneficial interpretation and let me tell you something, ideas as such do not come from people with a healthy mind

 

[Hawk]

Basically mixing up the time frames and archeological contexts, as I have pointed out to that particular someone multiple times. Doing that intentionally is one thing, but when that individual is faced with his own proposals it distances itself from them, which in entirety makes the whole "argumentation" dubious. Of course the bigger picture needs to be ignored, otherwise such biased imagination would not add up.

In another context, not that thread by the way, that particular someone is quite clear about his own beneficial interpretation and let me tell you something, ideas as such do not come from people with a healthy mind

Sometimes i wonder myself whether i am totally wrong or something, but that's not the case. It's impossible for various of these academic people to come up with a complot to make these cultures as different as possible, it's simply that they interpret as they see it. Psenichevo is classified as one of the Eastern Urnfield-Hallstatt sites. I also don't think those leaks are made up. We already have a 10 year old sample from Svilengrad E-M215, again from irregular burial pit, and quite like downstream E-V13. I already expressed that starting from Vatin-Belegis, Grla-Mara, Dubovac-Zuto-Brdo up north to Gava similar brother cultures lived in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age, to which one E-V13 was the more dominant is up to interpretation. And in Early Bronze Age from where did it migrate is again up to interpretation,, nobody really knows. Perhaps they came from South Balkans during Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, who knows. Perhaps they were the Vinca-Turdas people retreating North/East of Tisza after the Yamnaya destructions. But, only aDNA can prove it since archaeologically those MBA sites don't show continuation.

 

[Riverman]

Sometimes i wonder myself whether i am totally wrong or something, but that's not the case. It's impossible for various of these academic people to come up with a complot to make these cultures as different as possible, it's simply that they interpret as they see it. Psenichevo is classified as one of the Eastern Urnfield-Hallstatt sites. I also don't think those leaks are made up. We already have a 10 year old sample from Svilengrad E-M215, again from irregular burial pit, and quite like downstream E-V13. I already expressed that starting from Vatin-Belegis, Grla-Mara, Dubovac-Zuto-Brdo up north to Gava similar brother cultures lived in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age, to which one E-V13 was the more dominant is up to interpretation. And in Early Bronze Age from where did it migrate is again up to interpretation,, nobody really knows. Perhaps they came from South Balkans during Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, who knows. Perhaps they were the Vinca-Turdas people retreating North/East of Tisza after the Yamnaya destructions. But, only aDNA can prove it since archaeologically those MBA sites don't show continuation.

Its somewhat superficial, but it sums it up for Psenichevo:

In this regard, the most concrete evidence is the presence of
the so-called knobbed ware in layer VIIB2 at Troy
(Koppenh?fer 2002), which is identical to the Early
Iron Age pottery from the east Balkans and is more
conveniently known as the Babadağ or Psenichevo group. Surface survey in Thrace has
revealed hundreds of sites, all of which are rather small and hamlet-like, containing this
type of pottery, with the easternmost site actually located within the city of İstanbul
(Fıratlı 1973). The pottery of this period (figure 29.4), besides occasionally having horn-
like projections, is characterized by cord-impressed, incised, and fluted decoration, with
most vessels being black burnished. Furthermore, the distribution of these sites, with
almost all occurring along river terraces or in low plains, is suggestive of a peaceful
environment.

Note that the Slavs settled the same way. This is after the conquest period and the knobbed-horn like, black burnished ceramic is typical for G?va! Channelled Ware covered most of Bulgaria, but very little of Anatolia:

It is also noteworthy that this type of pottery, so abundant all over Thrace
and Bulgaria, is virtually absent elsewhere in Anatolia. The only exceptions to this are
Troy and the small island of Avşa in the Sea of Marmara.
Accordingly, it seems that if any
group moved from the Balkans to Anatolia, it must have done so prior to the beginning of
the Early Iron Age.

The Middle Iron Age sees the formation of Thracian culture. The cord-decorated knobbed
ware gave way to coarse surfaced wares. Presently, no settlement sites are known, but
numerous tumuli and sanctuaries have been recorded. Of these, the only sanctuary to
have been excavated is at Aşağı Pınar (M. ?zdoğan 2008b), where numerous sacrificial
and votive pits have been discovered within a precinct encircled by a deep ditch. The
invasion of the region from Persia seems to have put an end to this phase and to the
prehistoric cultures.

https://www.docdroid.net/3VvoxrE/101093-at-oxfordhb-at-97801953761420130029-pdf#page=17

Therefore, we have a direct continuation in all Thracian areas from Channelled Ware into the historical Dacians and Thracians. Even the Thyni and Bithyni are likely regional founder effects from incoming Channelled Ware people - but likely with little genetic impact in Anatolia. Whereever Channelled Ware was dominant, later Thracian-related cultures emerge.

 

[Riverman]

I looked into the Sarmatian, Avar and early Hungarian period samples from a more statistical perspetives, just roughly, but still. The numbers are very small, but from the recent paper:

E-V13 frequencies
Transtisza Sarmatian era, 3rd-5th century: 25 % total, 50 % regional (2 Sarmatian, 1 TC/Celtic, 1 E-V13)
Transtisza Avar era, 6th-9th century: 16,66 % total, 100 % regional (4 Avar, 1 Avar/Sarmatian, 1 E-V13)

Source:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422002677#mmc1

We can also use the samples from this paper and list, which were not all Transtisza, but for convenience I lumped them all together, because the focus is on the East of Hungary:
173 samples in total from the Avar and Hungarian period, very roughly grouped:
C 4
D 1
E-V13 24
E-V22 2
E other 1
G 9
I1 12
I2 10
J1 2
J2a 9
J2b 3
N1a 25
Q1a 10
Q other 2
R1a 32
R1b 21
R-U106 4
T1a 1
172

E-V13 24
E-V22 2
E other 1
G 9
I1 12
I2 other 2
I-Y3120 8
J1 2
J2a 9
J2b 3
R1a 32
R1b other 3
R-U106 5
R-P312 12
R-Z2103 5
T1a 1
130

Source:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...and-conquering&p=828196&viewfull=1#post828196

For simplicity I simply removed
- the clearly East Asian samples first, which brings us to 130 samples: European ethnicities, E-V13 = 18,46 % (minimum!)
- if removing the mostly Germanic I1 + R-U106, Slavic-Sarmatian R1a and I2, we end up at 73 samles: Regional E-V13 = 32,88 % (minimum!)
One third! Even if one might question this or that sample as regional or not, well, give or take, the rough estimate won't change. More than one third being E-V13 in the regional composition. And that's the lowest estimate, because if looking at some of the haplogroups, they are more likely to have come from Roman provinces later, surely after the Middle Iron Age.

In the regional group, R1b and E-V13 being totally dominant, followed by G and J2a. Interestingly, J2a was also found in Kyjatice and one of the samples, with a largely Slavic autosomal profile, is in the branch of the Kyjatice BR2 sample. R1b is diverse, but clearly dominant are branches related to Tumulus culture into Middle Danubian Urnfielders and La Tene Celts, but there is also some R-Z2103 and upstream/undefined branches.

Therefore, the biggest regional lineage is E-V13 in Avar-Early Hungarian Eastern Hungary, with 1/3 in total of the regionals. 2nd come the Tumulus culture R1b, just as expected, but at a distance.

There is no way that these numbers can come from any sort of "Romans" or "Illyrians". The very idea is ridiculous. Actually, if truly removing all non-regional lineages, sorting out everything associated with more recent steppe arrivals, Germanics and Slavs, E-V13 would be far above 30 percent. The Roman influence is there, mainly in the form of lineages which are exotic to the region.

Also interesting: The ratio of E-V13 : J-L283: Again, impossible that such a skewed ratio could ever have come from Illyrians, which, even if some got E-V13 by the Iron Age, won't ever reach such frequencies to have worked as a source. Because the Tumulus culture R1b is not from them, the E-V22 and other exotic lineages aren't, which means a nearly 100 % E-V13 Illyrian or "Roman" colony in the midst of Sarmatian-Free Dacian territory would have been needed, which is an blatantly absurd idea to begin with.

Everybody is free to add more data, but please with sources which can be checked and labels. We should concentrate on the Transtisza region, because there any Roman other than very miniscule Daco-Roman contact can't be the main issue, not at all. Typically, the Roman settled Western Pannonian areas have a completely different make up.

We got a lot of E-V13, even a Kyjatice J2a sample, and Tumulus culture/Celtic R1b as major regional players for the pre-migration period Eastern Pannonian sphere, just like expected from the background of the region. J-L283 is practically non-existent in this samples, R-Z2103 is though, even if just on a very low level. I generally think that R-Z2103 will be closer in space and origin to E-V13 than J-L283 will. Kind of the middle man in the Balkans in particular.

 

[Hawk]

I have double checked inter-related cultures, like Babadag Culture, it's amazing how consistent the similar cultural spheres are, once upon a time the burial pits where Psenicevo E-V13 were found were thought to be the burial practice of these people, and the burials indicated that these people were quite poor cultures/people, but it was quite wrong, these were irregular burials, ritual burial pits, probably very new for these people, some kind of new religious ideas, these were Eastern Hallstatt/Urnfield sphere and their primary burial rite was cremation on a pyre which unfortunately we cannot get the results but considering modern diversity and percentage no doubt that the E-V13 in burial pits were religious sacrifices from their own kind.

Most of the time Psenicevo-Babadag are included inseparable because of their similarity. Babadag should be the ancestral or inter-related in turn with Bassarabi Culture.

There should have been Western Channeled-Ware formations as well, the Gava was recorded in Northern Croatia, Slavonia as well. We have hints they were present in Dardania and even deep in Albania. The Bardyllis dynasty name Peresadyes is interesting, since it indicates a link with Enchelei/Sessarethi and Taulanti and in turn deep connections with Odrysians where similar names were being used, especially among Spartokid dynasty where one king was named Peresadyes as well.

It's very hard to guess the ultimate source though, since yoy have the old Szeremle group coming down from North being pushed by Tumulus warriors, old Vatina-Belegis layer and the new incoming Gava. But considering the rise of E-V13 during this period it does mimick the rise of Gava and probably inter-related Channeled-Ware people, but Gava shouldn't be the only source. I expect Vatina and Cruceni-Belegis along Zuto Brdo/Dubovac/Grla Mara to contain E-V13 as well. These were in deeper times similar hemispheres. Also, to me, it's interesting how Gava, Cruceni-Belegis, Vatin show some similarity with Proto-Villanovans. It makes me wonder whether splinter groups of these Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere were in close contacts with Proto-Villanovans.

 

[Riverman]

I have double checked inter-related cultures, like Babadag Culture, it's amazing how consistent the similar cultural spheres are, once upon a time the burial pits where Psenicevo E-V13 were found were thought to be the burial practice of these people, and the burials indicated that these people were quite poor cultures/people, but it was quite wrong, these were irregular burials, ritual burial pits, probably very new for these people, some kind of new religious ideas, these were Eastern Hallstatt/Urnfield sphere and their primary burial rite was cremation on a pyre which unfortunately we cannot get the results but considering modern diversity and percentage no doubt that the E-V13 in burial pits were religious sacrifices from their own kind.

Most of the time Psenicevo-Babadag are included inseparable because of their similarity. Babadag should be the ancestral or inter-related in turn with Bassarabi Culture.

There should have been Western Channeled-Ware formations as well, the Gava was recorded in Northern Croatia, Slavonia as well. We have hints they were present in Dardania and even deep in Albania. The Bardyllis dynasty name Peresadyes is interesting, since it indicates a link with Enchelei/Sessarethi and Taulanti and in turn deep connections with Odrysians where similar names were being used, especially among Spartokid dynasty where one king was named Peresadyes as well.

It's very hard to guess the ultimate source though, since yoy have the old Szeremle group coming down from North being pushed by Tumulus warriors, old Vatina-Belegis layer and the new incoming Gava. But considering the rise of E-V13 during this period it does mimick the rise of Gava and probably inter-related Channeled-Ware people, but Gava shouldn't be the only source. I expect Vatina and Cruceni-Belegis along Zuto Brdo/Dubovac/Grla Mara to contain E-V13 as well. These were in deeper times similar hemispheres. Also, to me, it's interesting how Gava, Cruceni-Belegis, Vatin show some similarity with Proto-Villanovans. It makes me wonder whether splinter groups of these Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere were in close contacts with Proto-Villanovans.

I think the burial pits are sacrifices or even delinquents, or something else along these lines. Most of the non-cremation burials appear to be some sort of irregularity. Ritual pits are a common feature throughout Channelled Ware, already in beginning G?va. That bodies being thrown into them is more rare, but it had to have a special meaning, probably a rather negative one for the individuals concerned.
Like which people don't get a proper burial, in any culture? Think about it.

As for the South West of Channelled Ware in the Balkans, Belegis II-G?va into Gornea-Kalakaca into Bosut-Basarabi. The bad thing is, that there were foreign influences in these later groups of Kalakaca and Bosut-Basarabi, which could mean a change in patrilineages as well. But the good thing is, some of them largely buried their dead, used inhumation and abstained from cremation for some generations. This is good, because they can be tested on a larger scale.

I have read about some finds in a ditch and some proper burials from Romania and Serbia, and some might even have been send to the labs. I don't really know, but what the author wrote sounded like it. So there is a small chance for getting actual regulars, from a largely related culture. Even if Bosut-Basarabi had foreign influences, I would really wonder if the Channelled Ware element wasn't dominant among them. Therefore I would really wonder, if they have no E-V13 in a larger sample.

And interesting aspect is that Suciu de Sus, one of the absolutely central formations for the debate, had very diverging influences from all directions. Including from as far as the Aegean, Thrace and Serbian Danube areas. So already Belegis I and Vatin might have had some sort of relation with them as well.
But at the base of Suciu de Sus I still see rather local Nyirseg elements which survived in Eastern F?zesabony borderzones, which just kept stronger ties to their relatives South.

 

[Hawk]

The burial pits are most likely human sacrifices.

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

In fact, these burial pits are one of the material culture phenomenon which connects Dacians with Thracians.

 

[Riverman]

The burial pits are most likely human sacrifices.

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

In fact, these burial pits are one of the material culture phenomenon which connects Dacians with Thracians.

Yes, like there were other offerings in the ritual pits as well. But sometimes sacrifices and the other aspects overlapped, like prisoners of war or delinquents getting sacrificed. And ritual pits, not necessarily for human sacrifices, appear already in G?va.
There is something else in common, also between Thracians and Eastern Hallstatt, especially the heavily Basarabi influenced Fr?g group, which is that (usually one of the) wifes of elite leaders was being killed at his burial. This being also noted by historical accounts. Might have been an Iranian custom originally though, not sure about that.

Edit: Its in the text also:

Ancient authors undoubtedly attested Thracians performing human
sacrifices: the ritual death of the messenger to Zalmoxis, the story of King
iegylis sacrificing two Greeks; the custom according to which the favourite
wife accompanied her husband in death48. The examples, already numerous, of
human sacrifices in pit-sanctuaries seem to support the ancient written sources
and pose many new questions about the interpretation of that authentic
archaeological evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...OGICAL-EVIDENCE.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Its part of the reason why I think, that beside many other material which points to Thraco-Cimmerian connections and Basarabi contacts, Fr?g might be "different" especially in comparison to the more Illyrian neighbours to the South or more Celtic ones to the West. At least heavily influenced by Thracians, with proven migration from Basarabi.

 

[Hawk]

The burial pits with human sacrifices usually lasted until Early Iron Age mostly. It was a phenomenon of the Urnfield Culture, since this phenomenon happened in Bohemia as well, and for the Late Bronze Age timeline archaeologists usually scope it down as a specific Central European habit of the time.