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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a woman Delus daughter of Mucat from Albanopolis.. She was married to a man from Scupi where also some non-Illyrian and non-Thracian names were common. Delus is a name with Phrygian parallels and Mucat is very likely Thracian as compound names with Muca/Muco were extremely common or quintessential Thracian names. Recently I found some Mucanius, which points towards Mucat being Thracian. If not for the "t" at the end it would have been counted instantly as 100 % Thracian.

So the oldest known inhabitant of Albanopolis born in mid 1st century AD was not an Illyrian, neither was his daughter, judging by their names.. Un-Illyrian in a sea of Illyrians as we do have names from various other places in Albanian Illyria from that period (Durrachium etc.).

So Albanians have been avoiding Bessoi like a plague only to find an Albanoi Bessian.:LOL::LOL:

Bessoi were a partially Hellenized tribe that lived South of the Jirecek line. Bessoi could of never of possibly been proto-Albanian based on this, which is considered to of developed north of the Jirecek. Albanian also received their Christian teachings in Latin, this is evident by Christian Albanian teachings which are largely Latin loan words too. Bessoi were also mentioned in Bulgaria supposedly in 900 AD (if I am not mistaken) while Albanian dialect split had already occurred in 400 AD or so.

I certainly would not judge the ethnic origin of people based on a few personal names. These people lived in each others lands and picked up names from
each other. Eastern Kosovo and Macedonia was also inhabited by Thracians for example.

The Albanoi were mentioned as an Illyrian tribe by all ancient sources I know of. Dardani were mentioned as Illyrian by Strabo. The Roman-Illyrian wars
could of triggered the Albanoi expansion east wards. Anyway, Alb- names in Illyrian lands are common so I wouldn't be too sure that Albanians came from this tribe anyway.
 
These slavs are so pathetic. They have been going at it for almost half of a decade to try to disprove any sort of connection to Albanians and Illyrians. They don't even have enough gut to admit that J-L283 is related to Illyrians, instead hypothesizing some stupid Sardinian theory. Albanians are anything but Illyrians, even with good enough evidence so far. It's funny how obsessed they are about both modern Albanians and the ancient Illyrians, I'd expect these slavs to pay more time, energy and effort into studying their own ancient peoples, namely the ancient slavs. Maybe since they realize the ancient slavs were a bunch of buffalo-pee drinking barbarians, they have no interest in such inquiries.
 
I opened the thread on good faith, so i don't have any intention to derail it. In fact most of what we supposed in this thread was indirectly confirmed by the new paper.

I insist that perhaps Illyri proprii dicti can be loaded with E-V13, like Ardiaei-Pirusti-Enchelei-Taulanti. With Enchelei being far more purer E-V13, while the other tribes more mixed.

I know that Taulanti are related to Enchelei, and they used cremation urns in Epidamnus noted by archeologists that those were not brought by Greek colonizers but were native.

Pirusti and Dardanii are noted to use cremation urns.

As for Enchelei, the Early Iron Age Enchelei as noted by Pasko Kuzman cremated their deaths on a pyre. Latter Trebeniste Culture used also rectangular pits and eventually necropolises to bury their death.

There were Illyrian groups which had more Urnfield component. As one goes farther to the North they get stronger. For example Breuci were largely Urnfield derived.

The problem here is that E-V13 is associated with the very Eastern Urnfield, extreme eastern end of Urnfield. And this upcoming Gava E-L539 guy was quite different from the whole Urnfield C.European - up until W.Hungary range. These were Urnfielders that were the bulk of Urnfield influence in Illyrian areas and they surely carried also various R-L51 clades.

I'll look into that Trebeniste culture and whether they might show some Urnfield connection.

The only Urnfield people who reached territory of Albania were actually some Gava groups, not sure about their strength though. And they actually reached precisely that area where the Enchelei, Dassareti were located.

Albania has very low R-L51 while Pannonian Illyria has high R-L51 diversity (some of these are Celtic also but some look Pannonian)..

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS9981/

Sample from Montenegro is of Moračani Bogićevci tribe who have even tradition of coming from the Hoti area, not sure how reliable that is considering this clade wasn't found there. You see the upstream clades in N.Croatia and Slovenia, this clade is very likely local in the area and not Celtic, Roman.. Though Z70 is quite Italian..

Also
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y4353/

Herzegovina Vlach clan with an Albanian name, Vlachs Zotović (and Ugarci) belong to this clade. There are many R-Y4353 clades around Balkans. For example this Bulgarian but he is very distant to Zotovići. Also in SW Romania one R-Y4353 was found again very distant from the others. And also there is a Greek R-Y4353 clade also unalerted to the others. Interestingly this clade is the cause of the very elevated R1b on Crete. Some were saying this clade cold be Celtic but then again there are so many different Y4353 on the Balkans..

I know in NE Hungary there is R-L51 Gava as well. I wonder whether this clade might be related to that as there are several Russian clades also..
 
The only attempt of yours was to "prove" that Albanians have no Slavic auDNA admxiture or that it is very low. Literally nobody who knows about auDNA agrees with that so you cannot trash anything. And look how they model the Albanians in this new Viminacium study, as having 35 % of Slavic-like, which is way too high..



Everybody has them. You have them , that's why you want so much to be IE. In Bronze Age IE's were "masters", others were "slaves". At least in the areas where they were active..



I've never done anything cringe like on this or other fora. I will openly clash with anyone. Here and there some of my statements are abit coded as otherwise I'd be banned. I got banned once on anthrogenica for going hard on that Bruzmi guy. But things I said (that were deleted) I stand by. And it was 100 % Nietzschean. Meaning was you are not going to make dominator hg a servile hg..

I see many Albanians were banned from there, Derite, Hawk, Gjenetika and Rrenjet (Gjergj) admins..

You are cool mate :cool-v:. Its the small nuances in your writing, that give some things away, which I don't want to get into.

I did enjoy Nietzsche when I was a teenager, and I do admit he did contribute some valuable insight into relative morality, but if you do not find some/most of his later stuff cringe, than you would not understand my pov.

About IE, not sure I care much, albeit it is cool. Still autosomaly, me as well as you are more farmer like than IE.

Not sure about the bans was not that active on anthro at the time to see the show. Must have been a spectacle. I am surprised I have not been banned there yet. But then again Eupedia has accustomed me to dodging bait so...
 
These slavs are so pathetic. They have been going at it for almost half of a decade to try to disprove any sort of connection to Albanians and Illyrians. They don't even have enough gut to admit that J-L283 is related to Illyrians, instead hypothesizing some stupid Sardinian theory. Albanians are anything but Illyrians, even with good enough evidence so far. It's funny how obsessed they are about both modern Albanians and the ancient Illyrians, I'd expect these slavs to pay more time, energy and effort into studying their own ancient peoples, namely the ancient slavs. Maybe since they realize the ancient slavs were a bunch of buffalo-pee drinking barbarians, they have no interest in such inquiries.

Slavs in the Balkans are basically like the Muslim immigrants that migrate to West Europe. Soon they too will take over West Europe and start wars against
the indigenous people and claim themselves as the original inhabitants. That's basically what has happened in the Balkans when you look at all the historical
evidence.

Native Balkan people today like Aromanians don't even have their own home country and are at the brink of extinction.
 
Native Balkan people today like Aromanians don't even have their own home country and are at the brink of extinction.

Tbh they kind of deserve it, you must be a super weak ethnicity if you get absolutely ultra assimilated in every single country you have colonies/immigrants in. At least the Arbresh, Arvanites etc. spoke Albanian for a long ass time, up until modernity (where most minority languages are dying).
 
Bessoi were a partially Hellenized tribe that lived South of the Jirecek line. Bessoi could of never of possibly been proto-Albanian based on this, which is considered to of developed north of the Jirecek. Albanian also received their Christian teachings in Latin, this is evident by Christian Albanian teachings which are largely Latin loan words too. Bessoi were also mentioned in Bulgaria supposedly in 900 AD (if I am not mistaken) while Albanian dialect split had already occurred in 400 AD or so.

I certainly would not judge the ethnic origin of people based on a few personal names. These people lived in each others lands and picked up names from
each other. Eastern Kosovo and Macedonia was also inhabited by Thracians for example.

The Albanoi were mentioned as an Illyrian tribe by all ancient sources I know of. Dardani were mentioned as Illyrian by Strabo. The Roman-Illyrian wars
could of triggered the Albanoi expansion east wards. Anyway, Alb- names in Illyrian lands are common so I wouldn't be too sure that Albanians came from this tribe anyway.

There are archeological records of Bessoi from 2n, 3rd, 4th century AD. They were located in the Shop area, modern Serbian-Bulgarian border zone as well as NE Macedonia. Take a look at this map. Black dots are Bessi archeological finds from late Antiquity. White are historical and epigraphic evidence concerning the Bessi. They match each other..

They lived on higher altitudes of 500 m above sea level and above and their culture was radically different from the mainstream Romanized culture. They cremated dead and placed remains in Kernoses. These were surely the non-Latin speaking Bessoi. What you refer to are some earlier mentions of the Bessoi from the time of Herodotus.. But these are Roman-era non-Latin speakers. Bessian language is attested as alive still in 570 AD, after the death of Justnian.. Just based on geography, Albanians should have some people descended of these..

Linguistics wise Albanian doesn't quite fit with Thracian, it fits better with Illyrian but there is something off about Albanian. There are reconstructed Illyrian words, I know one of them that actually has relatives in Dacian and Thracian and all evidence points towards this word being totally mainstream Illyrian word in usage, ditto for Thracian yet Albanian uses something totally different not only that but there are words denoting similar things, all of them non-Latin and Albanian still doesn't use the Illyrian-Thracian word.. Things like these make things hard for Illyrian-Thracian connection.

If Bessoi were some mainstream Thracian people, I doubt Albanian could descend of these.. I think there were some other language groups around that are poorly known, Paeonian, original Dardanian. Dardanians in Late Iron Age were Illyrians but their Illyrianisation is a Mid Iron Age phenomenon via Glasinac related people arriving from the West. Prior to that they have Thracian influence, and prior to Thracian they have something else that is likely related to proto-Paeonians..

We have evidence that in Early Iron Age proto-Thracians descended upon Balkans and they were very heavy with E-V13. Prior to that there were some other groups living in Central/Eastern Balkans. It's possible R-Z2705 is related to one of these and this is the most Albanian hg of them all..

I am not really denying or affirming in some concrete way Albanians are this or that. But I research here primarily the E-V13. And it seems E-V13 were the original Thracians, and not proto-Albanians, because proto-Albanian is not a Thracian proper language.. You have people believing V13 and proto-Albanian are very related or J-L283 and proto-Albanian are closely related, I don't believe that at all. I think proto-Albanian is clearly R-Z2705 related and most people agree on this..
Lokaliteti_i_Besi.jpg
 
Basarabi Culture chariot pulled by water birds.

DYWHUIpUMAAAvwD


Similar to Dubovac Zuto Brdo/Garla Mara Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age chariot pulled by water birds.

769567d63c04c8375234f3d18ed7e7cd.jpg


I think considering the approximate territory they have been living, it's likely E-V13 was a survivor after the downfall of Vinca-Turdas Culture, some metalworkers retreating to safer Alpine/Carpathian buffer zone.

The same motive was encountered at Battle of Delta, Mycenean ships modified by the water-bird motive, exactly the same time archeological evidence points movement from people around Danube heading South.

8b3b773bd4c375d48764792348ecd775.jpg
 
Strictly speaking this thread is more about Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

So don't bring up Albanians or Slavs. There is enough threads about that topic.

In several instances we brought up E-V13, but the connection between the topic and E-V13 has become more and more cemented like the quote from Viminacium paper:

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 Balkans \. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living at Viminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial andlater periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE)
 
Strictly speaking this thread is more about Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

So don't bring up Albanians or Slavs. There is enough threads about that topic.

In several instances we brought up E-V13, but the connection between the topic and E-V13 has become more and more cemented like the quote from Viminacium paper:

I don't know if you read it already, but there was exchange between Lengyel-Sopot and the Michelsberger, especially via the M?nchsh?fen culture in Bavaria. Its Jordanow/Jordansm?hl culture in Bohemia is a late Lengyel-descendent. Its pretty bad some groups of late Lengyel did cremate and we have no samples from those which did not. In the Bohemian paper, there were no male samples from Jordanow included afaik, but even if, we would need a wider range geogrpaphically and larger quantity, because I don't expect E1b1b being dominant.
But that link kind of connects Lengyel-Sopot with Michelsberger, the two groups with more than a single E1b1b sample within close proximity to the other find(s). My guess is that Lengyel-Sopot or better Northern Sopot/Lengyel was the main Middle Neolithic source and that the carriers transitioned directly from Jordanow or other Lengyel/Epi-Lengyel derived groups, or possibly Baden, into the Epi-Corded horizon, into Unetice and then around 1.700-1.400 BC becoming one of the dominant lineages in Pre-Gava.

This graphic illustrates some possible pathways:
Megawal97.PNG

https://de-academic.com/pictures/dewiki/77/Megawal97.PNG

Its noteworthy that they were among the metal working pioneers in Northern Central Europe and had burial customs which were, in part, similar to GAC and Corded Ware respectively. Like:

In Schlesien meist von Steinpackungen umgebene OW-gerichtete Hockergr?ber. Frauen liegen auf der rechten Seite, M?nner auf der linken. Relativ h?ufig ist Grabschmuck aus Kupferblech (Perlen aus eingerolltem Blech), au?erdem kupferne Spiralarmringe und brillenf?rmige Doppelspiralen; daneben Abschl?ge aus Feuerstein und zwei bis vier Gef??e am Kopfende. In B?hmen dominiert dir Brandbestattung.

https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/711006

From Jordan?w/Michelsberg contexts
exist first evidence of burials under barrows (Březno u Loun (100)), assumed also for the Funnel Beaker
period and later on a mass scale for the CW and BB (50), alternatively for the EBA (101).

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941

In Bohemia many of the Jordansm?hler cremated and those they picked up possibly, in the Bohemian paper, seem to have been mostly women. Its in any case interesting that the Michelsberger and the Lengyel-Sopot cultural formations were connected. I interpret it rather as an influence from Lengyel bringing E1b1b to the Michelsberger, which dominated by other haplogroups overall. Already then they used and settled along the Danube. The M?nchh?fener settlers might have carried E1b1b too, actually I'm pretty sure they did, because they are the obvious link between these two major players in the Middle Neolithic.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchshöfener_Kultur

The Michelsberger finds are younger than those from Lengyel and they are from Southern Germany, close to the Lengyel-colonisation groups. We could argue the other way around also, but I think a primary Michelsberger origin is much less likely and considering time and space, they were a dead end anyway, largely.

But at this point I think its possible that the Middle Neolithic E1b1b finds being connected. They don't have to be, they could be old E1b1b carriers from Impresso-Cardial, but rather I think they being more clearly connected to Lengyel. We hopefully see this resolved as well in the near future. The Bohemian study was a miss in this respect.
 
There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.

Slightly biconical shaped bowls, the upper cone (rim and shoulder) of which is decorated with horizontal and slanted facets or slanted channels, as well as semi-globular bowls of inverted rim decorated with horizontal facets or slanted channels are characteristic of the end of Bronze Age and mark the beginning of Iron Age in many cultural groups within the Balkan Peninsula. Problem of their origin, chronology and distribution is present in archaeological literature for a long time. Many authors perceived the significance of this ceramic shape for the chronological, ethnic and cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze, that is, of the Early Iron Ages within the territory of the Balkans. Pottery from the burned layers in Vardina and Vardaroftsa sites in the north of Greece, among which there were bowls with inverted, slanted channeled rim, was designated way back by W. Heurtley as Danubian pottery or Lausitz ware, connecting its origin with the Danube Basin. Anumber of conclusions have been reached upon the study of finds of slightly biconical bowls and bowls of inverted rim, decorated with channels or facets, from several indicative sites from Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages within the Balkan Peninsula and south part of the Middle Europe. It has been stated that the bowls appear first within the southwest Slovakia and northwest Hungary in the Br D period, to spread very fast, already in the Br D/Ha A1 period, from its home territory to the east, to the northeast Hungary and northwest Romania. Namely, this first spreading wave into these territories brought along only variety Ia bowls, which were further distributed to the south, during the Ha A1 period, to the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula and consequently it can be concluded that these bowls are somewhat older than other varieties. In the period Br D - Ha A1, in north Hungary, under the influence of Gava Culture, on one hand, and Čaka Culture, on the other, appear also variety IIa bowls (turban dish), distributed to the east with a new migration wave, in the same manner as was the case with the first migration wave, but also to the south, along the Bakonjska Range, to the present day Croatia and Slovenia, where, in the Ha A1/A2 periods, were stated exclusively variety IIa bowls. Representatives of the variety Ia bowls remained in the Pomoravlje region and Južna Morava Basin, as confirmed by a large number of these bowls and also by other ceramic shapes of that stylistic and typological pattern, prevailing within this region in the Ha A1/A2 periods. First variety IIa bowls (Mediana, Kržince) appear only during the second migration wave coming from the north of the Balkans to the central part of the Balkan Peninsula (Ha A2 period). These bowls, however, are particularly characteristic of Macedonia and lower Povardarje, where variety Ia bowls were not stated at all. The second migration wave representatives, with turban dish bowls (variety IIa), were much more aggressive as witnessed by many burned settlements from that period in the Vranjska-Bujanovačka Valleys and Povardarje. During Ha B-C periods, bowls of both types (particularly variety IIa) became inevitable part of ceramic inventory of nearly all cultural groups in the Balkan Peninsula, which could be explained by the spread of cultural influence of the new stylistic trend, though, however, it could be possible that migrations, which at the time were numerous and of greater or lesser intensity, were one of the spreading causes of this ceramic shape into the east, south and west parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the Ha B period. Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations. The assumed direction of these migrations coincides mainly with the distribution direction of bowl types I and II. Migrations spreading the bowl types I and II started in the south part of the Middle Europe, but were initiated by the representatives of the Urnenfelder cultural complex from the Middle Europe, as observed in certain ceramic shapes, stated together with type I bowls and originating from cultures of the Urnenfelder complex, and in numerous metal finds, which were produced in Middle European workshops. It is of interest to point out that bowl movements could be followed up to the northwest shores of the Aegean Sea, but they are not stated in the south Trace and in Troy, thus imposing conclusion that their representatives did not reach Troy. Consequently, their possible participation in destruction of VIIb2 layer settlements is utterly uncertain. The migrations, however, started chain reaction of ethnic movements in the Balkans, causing many ethnic and cultural changes within this territory which will lead to creation of new cultural groups to mark the developed Iron Age. To what extent bowls of this type, particularly variety IIa, left deep trace in the Iron Age Cultures in the central Balkans, is shown in the fact that survivals of this variety remained within these regions even several centuries later, in late phases of the Ha C period (VI/V century BC).



https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/03500241/2009/00002009/00000059/art00005
 
There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.

They did reach the Aegean and Troy though, ultimately, because we have the regional Knobbed Ware, which was just part of the same movement and people. And in the end, the Thiny, Bithyny and probably even Phrygians, as Thracian-related people, might be explained in part by it.

I came across another interesting fact, namely that there was a very big shift in the early Gava military tactics and equipment, from the Carpathians, down to the Balkans where they moved. During the Late Bronze Age transition, the frequency of spearheads among metal goods and weaponry drastically increased, as did swords, which is less suprising. Both the spearheads and swords took new shapes, like the Naue II examples, but even more advanced swordtypes than those. The swords changed in the Carpathian area from thrusting to cutting weapons. This in combination with the spearheads suggests to me that a new military tactic was introduced as well, coming closer to fighting in close quarters, in formation, even approaching a phalanx style military order.
Interestingly, some old experts on the matter recognised spearheads of the new type from Transcarpathia, over the Balkan, to Greece. In Greece it seems to be new and intrusive, and appears in the transitional and Dorian period.
In the earlier phase, axes were much more common the cultures which preceded Gava. The rise in typical spearheads is very steep and points to a drastic shift.

The later Gava success seems therefore also due to the adoption of a completely new tactic and military equipment than they had before and this shift being recognisable in the archaeological record from Poland-Ukraine to Greece and beyond (Sea Peoples) with related artefacts of spearheads and swords. This change would have most certainly also affected the whole society and we see even in Eastern Hallstatt still some kind of units of a leading sword-bearer with a squad of spear and axe bearers.

By the way, if you use Google translate for this interesting paper, you can find something about the burial customs of Lăpuș II, which was at the core of Gava.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debec.pdf

Going by the settlement of Rotbav, the Gava people also build more pit houses instead of on the ground, like the earlier Noua and Wietenberg people:

Die Siedlung der G?va-Kultur zeigt Unterschiede zu den Hausstrukturen der Siedlungsphasen
der Wietenberg- und der Noua-Kultur, die durch Oberfl?chenbauten charakterisiert sind.

The authors assume it was also because of a colder climate, with pit houses giving more protection. But in any case its a completely different architecture and settlement structure.

They also bred more ovicaprids, also for the secondary products, especially wool and milk:

Schon in den Noua-Phasen, vor allem aber in der Siedlungsphase
der G?va-Kultur werden vor allem Schweine fr?her geschlachtet, sie k?nnen offenbar nicht mehr
?ber den Winter gehalten und gef?ttert werden, w?hrend Ovicaprinen in gr??erer Zahl vorkommen als
fr?her und vermutlich auch f?r ihre sekund?ren Produkte, wie Wolle, gehalten wurden
.

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

About the end of Gava in the North:
The beginning of the Early Iron Age in the northeastern
part of the Carpathian basin is characterized
by strong historical-cultural changes connected with
the appearance of new ethnic groups of eastern Iranian
origin - the representatives of the Mezőcs?t Culture
(PATEK 1967.101-105,PATEK 1974.339, PATEK 1980.
162, KEMENCZEI 1984.228, CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.
527-534, CHOCHOROWSKI 1993.231-218). The questions
of the genesis of this culture are still discussed.
Certain researchers connect the appearance of
Mezőcs?t finds at the Great Hungarian Plain with
Caucasian-Pontic milieu
(GAZDAPUSZTAI 1966.307,
MOZSOLICS 1984.48.), others with the steppe zone of
the North Pontic region
(BONA 1984.170-171,
KEMENCZEI 1986/B. 15, HARMATT? 1946/48.131).
G?va Culture which occupied significant territories
of the Middle and Upper Tisza region and that of the
neighbouring Kyjatice Culture ceased to exist already
in the middle of the 9th century B.C.
Territories lying closer to the Carpathian range were
influenced by the mentioned processes only indirectly.
In East Slovakia, Carpathian Ukraine and partly in
Transylvania, G?va Culture continued to exist almost
until the appearance of the Thraco-Scythian sites

(DUSEK 1978., P?RDUCZ 1973., VASILIEV 1980.,
CHOCHOROWSKI 1985., POPOVICH 1993.).
In recent works the following terms have been used
for the finds mentioned above: G?va III, Szomotor/
Somotor type, pre-Kushtanovica/Kust?nfalva horizon
(PASTOR 1958.314, PLEINEROV?-OLMEROV? 1958.109,
BUDINSKY-KRICKA 1976., MIROSSAJOV? 1987.,
SMIRNOVA 1966., BALAHURI 1972., POPOVICH 1989.,
CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.540).

In the Southern zone there was a fluent transition into Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, while in the North Gava persisted as long or longer, but was more drastically transformed by Cimmerians and Scythians. How the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions affected their paternal genetics is of course largely unknown. So far the E-V13 connection being only proven for Psenichevo and Basarabi, and made likley for some Thraco-Scythians/Geto-Scythians with the single find in the North Carpathians.

It seems they formed a huge defensive line against the steppe incursions:

A specific moving factor of this process
was the situation formed as a result of the appearance
of the militant "Cimmerians" at the territory of Alf?ld.
At the turn of HB2-HB3 probably a part of the
G?va and Kyjatice population under the pressure of
the Mezőcs?t population appeared here, moved into
the regions of the Eastern Carpathians together with
relative tribes. Here they formed a defensive line in
the mountainous regions of East Slovakia, Transylvania
and Transcarpathia.
One of these sites was
the Irshava fortified settlement.
So, in the regions situated closer to the Carpathian
range we can observe the process of accumulation of
the G?va Culture. The absence of finds of the so-called
"Thraco-Cimmerian type" make us think that the
population of the Transcarpathian region had not
changed
.

https://www.academia.edu/15002240/Study_of_the_Early_Iron_Age_sites_in_the_Transcarpathian_region

It is absolutely evident that this was one united network, most likely one cultural sphere, one language (Proto-Daco-Thracian) and religion. The climate change and new innovations in technology, military tactics and economy, all added up to a mass movement led by powerful elites, close to the princes of the Unetice provinces, probably even related to their tradition.

Gava was to the south intrusive and replaced on a big scale:
In terms of relative chronology, the early G?va
phase in Central and Southern Transylvania is later
than the Lăpuş II-G?va I horizon in North-West Romania
(K a c s ? 1990, 49; M a r t a 2009, 102) and
it is partially contemporary to the Susani group from
Banat (S t r a t a n, Vu l p e 1977, 56?58; G umă
1993, 169?170; Vu l p e 1995, 83?86). The finds
from Hunedoara (L u c a 1999, pl. 4:5?6,16, 5:6,9?10;
S ? r b u et al. 2005, fig. 4:5) and Simeria (B a s a 1970,
fig. 4?6; A n d r i ţ o i u 1996) point to an expansion of
the Susani group towards South-West Transylvania (the
Haţeg-Deva area), where no early G?va sites are known
so far, a situation similar to the one of the Banat region
(G umă 1993, 190?194).

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

I also read up on why many archaeologists don't interpret it that way and one comment is particularly noteworthy: The majority of archaeologists refused the idea of a migration being the main factor, because the sheer size of the change and the settlements of Gava/Channelled Ware would imply a true tribal mass movement of people! They only backed off from the demic model, for the most part, because it would suggest such a massive, grande scale intrusion of people. Its so massive that people refused to accept it, while many earlier authors and some more courageous observers said it right away, that this was a people on the move. And that's what it is. The spread of E-V13 will prove it.
And the explanation for the chaotic distribution of the main clades is that they decided to split up not along the main clan-tribal formations, but sending with every colonist group members of all tribes. That's something we know from history and ethnology, that people do if they want to keep cohesion intact, even with far away colonists, which conquer and settle new lands. Every clan had to choose some warriors for the war party or colonist group. That's the only reasonable explanation, because as soon as the Channelled Ware loses its cohesion, the regional subclades become apparent.
The second spread is already more specific, related to Iron Age subgroups, like Thraco-Cimmerian, but especially Basarabi/Thraco-Scythian/Eastern Hallstatt as one of the main connections.
 
What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?
 
What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?

That's possible, but I'd say its primarily possible for those groups which were heavily mixed, showed large scale substrate or later adstrate effects, like the Dardanians. And in the regions which have continuity (Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Serbia) the only pre-Celtic people we see in the later historical records are Daco-Thracians or primarily Daco-Thracians (like Thracians, Moesians, Dacians, Getae, Thraco-Scythians, Triballi, Costoboci etc.).
For the E-V13 hotspots its even more clear than for the rest of their territory, because Psenichevo-Basarabi are without doubt Daco-Thracian. The question is just whether the extremely high rates of these Southern groups were a regional thing, since Psenichevo and Basarabi were very close and influenced each other, or whether it was common throughout all of Gava/Channelled Ware. That's not answered yet. Like it could have been the case that in the North E-V13 was just a minority, but became dominant in the Southern groups. But then we would have to ask which other groups dominated in the Northern groups. I guess it started already in the North, with E-V13 being absolutely dominant, but we might see more regional founder effects which increased or decreased its frequency, that's unknown.
In any case the later Cimmerian-Scythian incursions should have spread even more R1b and R1a among the Thraco-Scythians in particular, but among all Daco-Thracians. So the highest frequency for E-V13 in any people will be reached, presumably, directly in the LBA-EIA transition, and decrease soon after, while dispersing throughout Europe with Thraco-Scythians, Pannonians and Celts, especially via Hallstatt in the North, and Greeks and Thracians in the South, Geto-Scythians in the East, with sporadic travellers to Armenia, Central Asia, probably even India and China through the Iranian speaking networks. But in the core zone of Carpathians-Eastern Pannnonia-Balkans, the frequency would already rather decrease in the Iron Age again, with some regional-tribal exceptions possibly.
 
About the huge fortified settlement of Corneşti-Iarcuri, which was a more Southern fortification of the Channelled Ware people similar to Teleac. Interestingly there is no local continuity proven yet, it seems to have been build completely new, by newly incoming settlers. Before that were probably minor local settlements, but nothing comparable. This was therefore a true colonisation event on a grande scale:

A complete bowl recovered at the exterior foot of the phase B rampart can be dated to
the Cruceni-Belegis? IIA phase (equivalent to Hallstatt A1) (Figure 8). The Cruceni-Belegis?
culture is part of the south-east European Urnfield culture, with a distribution similar to
the preceding Vatina group in Oltenia, Banat and eastern Hungary. In terms of relative
chronology, it is situated between the Middle Bronze Age Vatina culture and the Early
Iron Age Gornea-Kalakaˇca culture. The absolute chronology places the group between the
fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393?1314 (at
68.2% probability), and 1411?1270 (at 95.4%) (Figure 10).

The timing is exactly like Teleac and fits the main dispersion of the main E-V13 clades. If they will ever find human remains from that settlement which can be tested, its quite likely the males will be packed with E-V13.

About the buildings inside of the settlement:
The magnetogram shows concentrations of pits, and large rectangular houses (about 20 or
25?30m) possibly forming an urban scheme with lanes orientated along rampart II. It is
difficult to identify clear outlines of houses in the magnetogram. However, it is possible
that closer to the burnt rampart II some burnt houses exist, which may give a more precise
?city plan? once further survey is undertaken. There is also a remarkable number of circular
structures with diameters of 8?12m, looking like flattened barrows (ring-ditches) or huts.

The increase in production and population with the formation of the town and colonisation through Channelled Ware people:

Analysis of the Bronze Age sherds shows that Early Bronze Age (Mak?o) finds are
uncommon. The sherds become more frequent towards the Middle Bronze Age (Vatina).
It is only in the Late Bronze Age (Cruceni-Belegis?) that sherds are found in all areas in
relatively high numbers
.

...the evidence strongly suggests that the main settlement phase belongs to the
Late Bronze Age.

What is still not well understood is how such an enormous construction project
could have been undertaken, either on this particular site or on others of the same date ?
bearing in mind that so far the size of Cornes?ti-Iarcuri is unparalleled at this period either
locally (the Romanian Banat), within the wider area (theHungarian Plain and Transylvania),
or internationally.

The new elites of Channelled Ware people concentrated populations, specialists and warriors, in huge fortified settlements, with well-organised structures to support them economically and armies to defend their interests. The sudden appearance can just mean that whole subsets of these people, like also suggested by the even spread of the main clades in that time, colonised, as a whole tribe or even proto-state, large regions collectively. It might be compared with Greek colonies, though their impact on the local populations seems to have been far bigger.
The ultimate origin is the Gava centre in the Northern Carpathians:

At the moment little is known about the development of fortified sites in the Banat, though further south in the
Vojvodina some analyses have been conducted on the Titel plateau (Falkenstein 1998). A site
with many similarities to Cornes?ti-Iarcuri in terms of topographic situation and structure
is S?antana near Arad (known in the older Hungarian literature as Szentanna), about 45km
away, and recently under excavation by a team from Cluj under the direction of Dr Florin
Gog?altan. Earlier excavations on the site found a rampart sequence not dissimilar to that
at Iarcuri with pottery from Eneolithic to Hallstatt B; the largest part fell in the periods
Bronze D to Hallstatt A1, the pottery being mainly of Gava style (Rusu et al. 1999). This
is close in time to what is present at Iarcuri, and Rusu et al. considered Iarcuri the closest
analogy to S?antana even though S?antana, at ?only? 1km in diameter, is considerably smaller.
As excavations progress at both sites, it will become possible to specify these links more
closely.

The cultural ties are obvious, now we need genetic evidence - E-V13 will be the main marker - to prove it to be a demic-ethnic diffusion. Going back in time, in search of this Gava colonisation, we come to:

In northern Hungary and Slovakia
too, sites of both the Middle Bronze Age Piliny and the succeeding Kyjatice cultures saw
a number of fortifications erected and used
(Furm?anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982). A
marked increase in defended settlements can be noticed during the Urnfield culture in many
parts of Europe (Harding 2000: 296). This ?stronghold horizon? probably begins inHallstatt
A2 (Rind 1999: 13) and stops in Hallstatt B3 (Jockenh?ovel 1990: 219). A similar situation
may be discerned in Slovakia (Furm?anek et al. 1982) and Transylvania (Soroceanu 1982). (Furm?anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982).

These were not simple warbands on the move:
A purely agrarian socio-economic
framework for the society that built Iarcuri seems unlikely; the social and economic structures
present must have included a range of craft specialisms and personal identities, probably
including leadership and warriorhood.
On the other hand, the site cannot have been purely
urban in character across its full extent; the population would have been enormous.

The colonisation happened exactly in the time frame of the main E-V13 spread:
We are
therefore talking about large numbers of people, from a sizeable area around Cornes?ti, who
would have taken part in the site?s construction. This brings with it the need to consider
motivation, not to speak of logistics.
The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze
Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around
3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means
that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even
wider.

Suciu de Sus and Lapus represent elite burials, of kings or at least princes form the Gava/Channelled Ware people in the wider region, probably of transregional importance:
It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates
at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of
the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus? in the Maramures? fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;
C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and many other phenomena across Europe have been
radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the
start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across
the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been
refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways
. Although it would be too simplistic
to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major
fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...uri_-_A_Bronze_Age_town_in_the_Romanian_Banat
 
Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia where Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.

Probably more in South is where the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.
 
Last edited:
Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia were Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.

Probably more in South is were the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.

I think the breakthrough against Incrusted Ware happened earlier, before iron swords became more common, still in the regular bronze swords of Naue II and more advanced types, the flame spears and typical axes they used. The really complicated issue is indeed that of different groups of regional Tumulus culture, and Otomani. Otomani surely was a hot candidate for E-V13, but it seems rather to have been overtaken and the question is whether they could be sampled. Looks like local clans which lived there since Unetice and being incorporated into the Tumulus horizon were "it".
The Tumulus culture was not that uniform, but the point is during its spread all the later Urnfield-related groups seem to have been formed already. You have the Middle Danubian and the Carpathian, which just proceed becoming Middle Danubian Urnfield and Gava/Channelled Ware, respectively. Quite at the beginning of the rise of Channelled Ware/Gava are these elite burials:
Cremation is the only burial practice in Transylvania dur-
ing the Late Bronze Age. The small number of burials in
relation to settlements is remarkable. The burial mounds of

Lăpuş, Suciu de Sus-Troian and Bicaz are burial places of
elites, which emerged thanks to the rich ore deposits of the
region

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debec.pdf

Unfortunately everything burned, but they should be E-V13, at least a portion of these elites. Because that would be the first big leverage for its spread. One could speculate the core was Lăpuş, if indeed from them the custom came and was brought to Suciu de Sus.

Das H?gelgrab von Medieşu Aurit geh?rt der Anfangsphase der
Suciu de Sus-Kultur an, die in die mittlere Bronzezeit datiert wird. Vergleichbare fr?he H?gelbestattungen sind im
ganzen Verbreitungsgebiet der Kultur nicht bekannt.
Erst in einem entwickelten Abschnitt der Sp?tbronze-
zeit, d. h. Sp?tbronzezeit 2, wurden im Norden Siebenb?r-
gens, als Denkm?ler der Lăpuş-Gruppe, die eigentlichen
H?gelgr?berfelder angelegt.

Some of the oldest iron founds of Europe:

In den H?geln von Lăpuş wurden auch verschiedene
Ton- und Steinartefakte, Gussformen sowie ein eisernes
T?llenbeil, das zu den ?ltesten Eisenfunden Europas z?hlt, entdeckt.2

The second phase Lăpuş II = classical Gava. There is a difference between phase I and II which could also be interpreted as a new population element appearing, but the transition here is much smoother than in most other regions. There might be also some of the oldest finds for the typical Channelled Ware in the region:

Die aus dem H?gel 26 gewonnenen 14C-Daten37 deuten
darauf hin, dass die kannelierte Keramik vor dem 12. Jh.
v. Chr. bereits im sp?ten 14. und 13. Jh. v. Chr. vorkam.3

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debec.pdf

Looks to me that similar to the Western Celtic groups, the Tumulus culture was also a phase of consolidation, whereas with the new innovations and a stabilised ethnic culture, with the new religious impetus, Urnfield was the big expansion phase where they "went out" on a grande scale.
 
Anyone who can provide chronology for Ottomany Culture? Mostly from which culture it descends from.
 
Marcin S. Przybyła

Early Bronze Age Stone Architecture Discovered in the Polish Carpathians

Something about Otomani-Füzesabony culture.

There are two regions however, from where constructions similar to those discovered on Zyndram’s Hill areknown (fig.12). A few hillforts from the territory of present-day Switzerland and the adjacent part of Italy,especially Crestaulta nearby Lugnez (Kt. Graubünden/CH), Flums-Gräpplang (Kt. St. Gallen/CH), andVinschgau-Ganglegg (South Tyrol/I) (Burkart 1946; Steiner 2007; Lanzrein 2009), share the same combination of construction terrace and retaining stone wall, and date to a similar period (18th-16th century BC) asthe site in Maszkowice. However, better parallels for the stone fortifcations themselves can be found indefensive settlements from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Caput Adriae region. Most of them had not beenestablished before the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, but some existed already in the Early Bronze Age(e.g. Čović 1989, 108-109). The best example is a huge site in Monkodonja near Rovinj (Istarska županija/HR),sometimes regarded as a settlement centre of proto-urban character (Hänsel/Mihovilić /Teržan 2015). Thewall discovered there, which survived extraordinarily well, consists of the outer face built of large, roughlyhexagonal blocks, and the inner part made of smaller stones. Three elaborated gates have narrow passages,which also reminds the construction revealed on Zyndram’s Hill. Finally, the set of the three oldest radiocarbon dates (3415±33 BP, 3385±29 BP, 3430±27 BP – Hänsel et al. 2015) is identical with those obtainedfor phases Maszkowice I and II, pointing at the second half of the 18th century BC.

This does not mean, however, that the site was abandoned. Probably shortly afterwards two new houseswere built within the area encompassed by our excavations (phase Maszkowice III). The southern one isespecially well preserved. Its massive, palisade-like eastern wall was established closely to the former gatepassage, which by this time had already been completely sealed with clay and large stones. Within thenorth-eastern corner of the dwelling a stone structure (hearth?) was documented, built of pebbles.Layers connected with the younger houses and with the ceiling part of the pit’s fll yielded large amounts ofpottery and animal bones. The former displays the shapes and ornamentation typical of both the post-classic (16th-15th century BC) and terminal (15th-13th century BC) Otomani-Füzesabony style (fig.10, 13-16). Anisolated and unusual fnd originating from the southern house is a small part of an anthropomorphic fgurine (fig.10,18). The artefact, described in detail elsewhere (Przybyła/Skoneczna 2011, 35-37), representsthe so-called violin-shaped idols, particularly characteristic of the Mycenaean culture and northern Balkansin the 15th-14th centuries BC. It is worth noticing that, despite its exotic form, the statuette was apparentlymade locally.

1b64XPd.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 225388 times.

Back
Top