Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81

Thread: SubgroupE-FT186965

  1. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Viminacium was an imperial colony. Nobody there was a local in the sense that someone whose ancestors were in that area. Certain individuals were locals in the sense that they were Balkan locals. Others have shown you several times on the other forum where the inhabitants of Viminacium came from.

    The Carpathians and central Europe do not have high E-L618 diversity. The diversity of E-V13 is not Carpatho-Balkan. It is situated in the western Balkans. You cannot argue with something that is self-evident.

    The diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated to historical Dacian or Thracian regions. You reiterate that E-V13 is Daco-Thracian, but it lacks the diversity found in Illyria in either Dacia or Thracia. Likewise, beyond the Danube, E-V13 diversity is very low. Your theories are in contradiction with data.
    The only E1b1b couples and more samples in close proximity come from Danubian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger in the whole Neolithic of Europe. Nowhere else so far and especially no relevant clades.

    It is Daco-Thracian, because the whole region of Viminacium and the largest portion of the Balkan IA inhabitants came from regions of the Channelled Ware-Basarabi environment. People with a strong Daco-Thracian base in the region like Moesian, Triballi, Dardanians etc.

    Read up on the papers about the regional population in and around Viminacium. Add to that the clearly Thracian Psenichevo finds. But if you don't like it, just wait for more samples, they will prove it anyway.

  2. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The only E1b1b couples and more samples in close proximity come from Danubian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger in the whole Neolithic of Europe. Nowhere else so far and especially no relevant clades.

    It is Daco-Thracian, because the whole region of Viminacium and the largest portion of the Balkan IA inhabitants came from regions of the Channelled Ware-Basarabi environment. People with a strong Daco-Thracian base in the region like Moesian, Triballi, Dardanians etc.

    Read up on the papers about the regional population in and around Viminacium. Add to that the clearly Thracian Psenichevo finds. But if you don't like it, just wait for more samples, they will prove it anyway.
    Viminacium's imperial citizens came from all throughout the Balkans. Their diversity is reflected in the inscription. Dacians were a historical people who lived in the historical region of Dacia, whereas Thracians were another historical people who lived in the historical region of Thrace. If E-V13 does not exhibit a high level of diversity in either Dacia or Thrace, it is self-evident that regardless of the ancestral area assigned to Thracians and Dacians, E-V13 is unrelated to either. If E-V13 diversity in the Balkans is localized mostly south of the Danube and west of the Balkan mountains, it can't be that E-V13 was a frequent or characteristic haplogroup among Dacians or Thracians.

  3. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-10
    Posts
    346


    Country: Serbia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.

    Since you write about what is clear.
    To me it is clear what you wrote is not true, and, I can only conclude that you are clearly blindly biased.

  4. #54
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

    I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

    E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.


    https : //i.imgur. com/ PxszWVa .png

    https :// i.imgur. com /uxS3AeP . png

    https :// i.imgur. com/ J6zoHMD . png
    Nope, E-V13 spread point was not Western Balkan at all, just check the tree and it's quite clear that it's Southern Central Europe instead, the buffer zone between the Alps and Carpathian Mountains.

    Where i predict it entered the Western Balkans if at all, is during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

    The likes of Ardiaei, Taulantii, Pirustii, Encheleii, Dardanii are the likely candidates to carry some E-V13 with Enchelei/Sesarethi probably being dominant E-V13 judging by material culture.

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Viminacium's imperial citizens came from all throughout the Balkans. Their diversity is reflected in the inscription. Dacians were a historical people who lived in the historical region of Dacia, whereas Thracians were another historical people who lived in the historical region of Thrace. If E-V13 does not exhibit a high level of diversity in either Dacia or Thrace, it is self-evident that regardless of the ancestral area assigned to Thracians and Dacians, E-V13 is unrelated to either. If E-V13 diversity in the Balkans is localized mostly south of the Danube and west of the Balkan mountains, it can't be that E-V13 was a frequent or characteristic haplogroup among Dacians or Thracians.
    You just talk semantics, not content. You don't have the individual inscriptions for the samples and the archaeological studies prove that they were overwhelmingly from the area and related regions which all had a strong Daco-Thracian base. Daco-Thracian is a linguistic formation, but also based on the archaeological commonalities, especially in succession Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Iron Age cultures which descend from those, especially Psenichevo+Bosut-Basarabi.
    You can now argue that not all linguists agree on such a language group, but who cares, many do, and they are definitely closer related to each other than to other languages and language groups, being also proven by all of them having the same archaeolical culture, the same background story in the LBA-EIA transition!

    Here is a list of people from this language group:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...les_and_tribes

    The Dardanians, while being rather Illyrian, still had a very strong Daco-Thracian substrate, with the Illyrian element coming in later, after the transitional period.

    Also of special interest for the Albanian story might be the Triballi:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi

    Note how far their influence was going:


    If you say all the E-V13 carriers are non-locals, which is such a ridiculous claim, than prove it or write the authors. You can try to annoy them with their theories and tell us what they wrote you back.
    The archaeological excavation group of Viminacium is absolutely clear:

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

    In order to perceive the development of the Early Iron Age cultures in the area of
    Viminacium
    , the results of the rescue excavations at the site of Drmno-Lugovi should be
    highlighted. The excavations covered an area of about 1100 m2, on the former bank of the
    Mlava River, near the confluence with the Danube River. On that occasion, most likely, the
    peripheral part of an Early Iron Age settlement was excavated.7 M. Jevtić and D. Šljivar,
    the authors, attributed the Early Iron Age finds to the Kalakača-Gornea horizon and the
    early Basarabi phase of the Bosut culture
    since those horizons could not be distinguished
    one from the other in terms of stratigraphy.8
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._NAD_KLEPECKOM

    This is an underestimating map for Basarabi, because its maximal extent and sphere of influence was way larger:


    You just live in denial. There can be no doubt that the local finds of E-Z5017 being from Bosut-Basarabi inhabitants from the Iron Age, for the most part. What do you want to tell me, that they came all up from where exactly? From places probably outside of the stronger Daco-Thracian sphere of influence, like Durrës? Try to prove that and please write it to the authors of the paper, what they have to say about that, that the up to three quarter local E-V13 population were coming from a wide range of people outside of the Daco-Thracian sphere, while staying in the midst of it, being surrounded by it.
    And the paper still underestimates the numbers for E-V13, because a large portion of the locals did cremate, only a certain portion did transition to inhumation. This in all likelihood means that among the locals, E-V13 was even more dominant than the numbers by removing outliers would suggest. The authors of the paper worked together with the Viminacium resarch centre and group. They should know!

    From the paper itself:
    Individuals from the first cluster fall on an area of the PCA delimited by the “Balkan Iron Age cline” (Figure 1A). Consistent with this, we model the ancestry of this Balkans Iron Age Cluster as predominantly deriving from Iron Age (IA) groups from nearby areas in the Balkans, with 67% Aegean Bronze Age-related ancestry and the remainder Slovenia Iron Age-related ancestry (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.1). A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Y- chromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-Iron Age expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans 17. 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 and later periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE). Excavations of Iron Age Balkans prior to the Roman rule showed the dead where predominantly cremated 18, but this changed in Viminacium where inhumation became common suggesting a high degree of Romanization of the local society. Viminacium necropoli followed a bi-ritual mortuary rite where some dead were buried, and some were cremated.
    During the 1st century until the first half of the 3rd century cremations where more common, however this changed from the 3rd onwards when inhumations prevailed 19. We caution that if there was a systematic ancestry difference between the population that buried and the one that burnt its dead, we would of course be obtaining a biased representation of ancestry through ancient DNA analysis.
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...211v1.full.pdf

    There is absolutely no indication that the vast majority of individuals tested, falling within the Balkan IA cluster and having E-V13, being non-locals to the sites. Surely, there were people from other Balkan groups present than those which were local, but to deny that this paper proves the local IA population was E-V13 heavy is beyond absurd.

  6. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    You just talk semantics, not content. You don't have the individual inscriptions for the samples and the archaeological studies prove that they were overwhelmingly from the area and related regions which all had a strong Daco-Thracian base. Daco-Thracian is a linguistic formation, but also based on the archaeological commonalities, especially in succession Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Iron Age cultures which descend from those, especially Psenichevo+Bosut-Basarabi.
    You can now argue that not all linguists agree on such a language group, but who cares, many do, and they are definitely closer related to each other than to other languages and language groups, being also proven by all of them having the same archaeolical culture, the same background story in the LBA-EIA transition!

    Here is a list of people from this language group:


    The Dardanians, while being rather Illyrian, still had a very strong Daco-Thracian substrate, with the Illyrian element coming in later, after the transitional period.

    Also of special interest for the Albanian story might be the Triballi:


    Note how far their influence was going:


    If you say all the E-V13 carriers are non-locals, which is such a ridiculous claim, than prove it or write the authors. You can try to annoy them with their theories and tell us what they wrote you back.
    The archaeological excavation group of Viminacium is absolutely clear:

    Note what the researchers write about the nearby finds from relevant archaeological layers for the region:



    This is an underestimating map for Basarabi, because its maximal extent and sphere of influence was way larger:


    You just live in denial. There can be no doubt that the local finds of E-Z5017 being from Bosut-Basarabi inhabitants from the Iron Age, for the most part. What do you want to tell me, that they came all up from where exactly? From places probably outside of the stronger Daco-Thracian sphere of influence, like Durr�s? Try to prove that and please write it to the authors of the paper, what they have to say about that, that the up to three quarter local E-V13 population were coming from a wide range of people outside of the Daco-Thracian sphere, while staying in the midst of it, being surrounded by it.
    And the paper still underestimates the numbers for E-V13, because a large portion of the locals did cremate, only a certain portion did transition to inhumation. This in all likelihood means that among the locals, E-V13 was even more dominant than the numbers by removing outliers would suggest. The authors of the paper worked together with the Viminacium resarch centre and group. They should know!

    From the paper itself:




    There is absolutely no indication that the vast majority of individuals tested, falling within the Balkan IA cluster and having E-V13, being non-locals to the sites. Surely, there were people from other Balkan groups present than those which were local, but to deny that this paper proves the local IA population was E-V13 heavy is beyond absurd.

    Per the inscription, they came from the colony of Ratiaria, as well as Scupi, Salona, Nicopolis, and a number of other cities. Some of the people who lived in Ratiaria were colonists from other parts of the Balkans, while others were locals of the area. It's a matter of historical reality. If you consider that at least half of the people of Viminacium were not even from Balkan populations, but rather from Aegean and Anatolian groups, how can you possibly claim that "all E-V13 in Viminacium was local"? Half of Viminacium is close to Albanians and the other half close to Aegeans and Cretans. Daco-Thracians are a moot topic of discussion at the moment since no one in the modern Balkans clusters with what may be Daco-Thracian like the Bulgarian IA sample. Albanians aren't close to BGR_IA, but neither are Bulgarians and Serbs who are left of the Kuline samples, which are in between Albanians and Serbs.

    If the diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated in the eastern Balkans, and the frequency is likewise not concentrated in the eastern Balkans, then it is not Dacian or Thracian. Simply said, it is the basic fact that is being complicated with illogical ideas that do not take into consideration diversity, frequency, or subclade migration.

    Dardanians didn't have a Daco-Thracian substrate rather the opposite happened. Some areas had some " thracianization" which was reversed later in the Roman Empire. '' The meaning of this state of affairs has been variously interpreted, ranging from notions of Thracianization' (in part) of an existing Illyrian population to the precise opposite. In favour of the latter may be the close correspondence of Illyrian names in Dardania with those of the southern 'real' lllyrians to their west, including the names of Dardanian rulers, Longarus, Bato, Monunius and Etuta, and those on later epitaphs, Epicadus, Scerviaedus, Tuta, Times and Cinna.'' in Wilkes, The Illyrians.







  7. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Nope, E-V13 spread point was not Western Balkan at all, just check the tree and it's quite clear that it's Southern Central Europe instead, the buffer zone between the Alps and Carpathian Mountains.

    Where i predict it entered the Western Balkans if at all, is during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

    The likes of Ardiaei, Taulantii, Pirustii, Encheleii, Dardanii are the likely candidates to carry some E-V13 with Enchelei/Sesarethi probably being dominant E-V13 judging by material culture.
    IMO, whether E-V13 "entered" the Balkans from Pannonia or the Middle Danube is not very relevant because it won't change where its diversity is. E-Z1057 is not an eastern Balkan group, but a western one. This is where its primary spread and diversification was and from where its later outwards expansion began.

    https: //i.i mgur.com/ NfXHmpk .png

  8. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    136


    Country: Albania



    “The first legion attested at Viminacium was the VII Claudia that came from Dalmatia in 52 AD.”

    “…when
    Legio IV Scythica was transferred from Moesia to Syria between AD 55 and 62, Legio VII Claudia was moved to Moesia to replace it.”

    “In Viminacium, Roman legion VII Claudia was stationed, and a nearby civilian settlement emerged from the military camp. In 117 during the reign of Hadrian it received city status. In the camp, 6,000 soldiers were stationed, and 30-40,000 people lived nearby.”

    With this information we can’t be sure that E-Z5017 was specifically Daco-Thracian or Dalmatian for that matter.

    Besides, I’m not in favour of the Daco-Thracian nomenclature because the clade could have been Daco-Pannonian for all we know.



  9. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    “The first legion attested at Viminacium was the VII Claudia that came from Dalmatia in 52 AD.”

    “…when
    Legio IV Scythica was transferred from Moesia to Syria between AD 55 and 62, Legio VII Claudia was moved to Moesia to replace it.”

    “In Viminacium, Roman legion VII Claudia was stationed, and a nearby civilian settlement emerged from the military camp. In 117 during the reign of Hadrian it received city status. In the camp, 6,000 soldiers were stationed, and 30-40,000 people lived nearby.”

    With this information we can’t be sure that E-Z5017 was specifically Daco-Thracian or Dalmatian for that matter.

    Besides, I’m not in favour of the Daco-Thracian nomenclature because the clade could have been Daco-Pannonian for all we know.


    Yes, it spread to Pannonians, but from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi. That means at the time of the Roman Empire, there surely was E-V13 in Pannonians, Illyrians, Greeks, Celts etc. But the point is, its original association is with the Channelled Ware which was Proto-Thracian/-Dacian. E-Z5017 was therefore, like all the other major clades, Daco-Thracian around 1.300 BC, but much more diverse and widespread 300 AD. At 300 AD, the main clades of E-V13 were present at least in half of Europe already, including E-Z5017, no doubt about that looking at its subclades. But chances are high that CTS9320 was a Bosut-Basarabi, Daco-Thracian clade, with many subclades in the region.
    The Illyrian pressure and movement into areas like Macedonia, which were inhabited by Channelled Ware descendents before, is a proven fact: "Tribes from Glasinac entered North and Central Albania..."
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...48602958859130

    These pushes forced other groups from the Albanian territory East, which caused the disruptions and them entering Daco-Thracian areas, which created various adstrate and substrate effects, mixture of the two main groups of Illyrians and Daco-Thracians in the region.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasinac-Mati_culture

    The Illyrian core comes from the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture, with influenced from the later incoming Middle Danubian Urnfield group, which might be associated with Pannonians. The Daco-Thracians are Gava/Channelled Ware, the South Eastern Urnfield group. That is clear as day, that we deal with two different cultural provinces. And its simply not true that Daco-Thracians and Channelled Ware being confined to the Eastern Balkans. They had a major centre in the Central Balkan, from Vojvodina to the Aegean Belegis II-Gava elements spread and later Psenichevo and Basarabi were connected.

    The list and position of the various Daco-Thracian known tribes speaks for itself.

  10. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    136


    Country: Albania



    @Riverman I did not intend to say that E-V13 was Daco-Pannonian, I just used it as an example that it could have been Dacian while not Thracian and Pannonian while not Central and South Illyrian.

    Regarding the language of E-V13, I don’t have an opinion at all since I’m not well versed in the topic and I’ll simply sit and wait for more data to confirm.

    As for the association of E-V13 with Gava and Channelled Ware culture, your analysis and conclusion is very interesting and it seems some knowledgeable members agree with your train of thought, resulting in me looking at it as very possible and adopting the hypothesis myself until further evidence.

    All I can say is that with the little information we have, Dacian and Illyrian seem as close as Dacian and Thracian.

    Take the Dacian etymology of Axiopus for example, with axi meaning black and opa meaning water (blackwater), where axi is very similar to Albanian zi (black) and opa is very similar to Illyrian apa (water), as well as the hundreds of words shared between Romanian and Albanian (since Albanian is more closely related to Illyrian according to the evidence at hand as of now).

    Thus, my skepticism on considering E-V13 solely Daco-Thracian especially since I don’t even believe Dacian and Thracian were the same thing. If they were indeed dialects of the same language, then I lean towards the idea that Illyrian might have been a dialect of this big group as well.

  11. #61
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The Illyrian core comes from the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture, with influenced from the later incoming Middle Danubian Urnfield group, which might be associated with Pannonians. The Daco-Thracians are Gava/Channelled Ware, the South Eastern Urnfield group. That is clear as day, that we deal with two different cultural provinces. And its simply not true that Daco-Thracians and Channelled Ware being confined to the Eastern Balkans. They had a major centre in the Central Balkan, from Vojvodina to the Aegean Belegis II-Gava elements spread and later Psenichevo and Basarabi were connected.

    The list and position of the various Daco-Thracian known tribes speaks for itself.
    You see, you are mixing stuff a lot,Illyrian tumuli was a continuation from Early Bronze Age tumulis and are not strictly related to the Tumulus Culture/Hugelgraberkultur which appeared initially in Middle Bronze Age when they crossed the Alps toward Carpathians causing great havouc.

    Tumulis were built by various different people including Daco-Thracians, but they had their own specific way of building it.

    A mix of this HugelgraberKultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture + Gava/Channeled Ware = Koszidor hoard => Middle Danube Urnfield groups.

  12. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Tumulis were built by various different people including Daco-Thracians, but they had their own specific way of building it.
    I know, I wrote about the elite tumuli in Northern Romania from Gava-related groups, which seem to represent the elite and hierarchical culture they practised. Something which appears throughout their territory, also in religious offerings of rich hoards, another feature largely missed in the Illyrian territory by the way. The Illyrians were more clanish and egalitarian in the earlier phase, even at the time of Hallstatt, than the Daco-Thracians and most of Eastern Hallstatt which followed their tradition. That's a major distinction, the Daco-Thracians were socially clearly stratified, with a group of elite warriors on top with their retinue. Similar to some Celtic and later Germanics. Its in their burial rite, with the Unterkrainer group being closer to Illyrians, Frög to Daco-Thracians in the Hallstatt era.

    A mix of this HugelgraberKultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture + Gava/Channeled Ware = Koszidor hoard => Middle Danube Urnfield groups.
    True, but at the starting point they didn't intermix a lot. At the end we have signs of the borderline being permeable, but where do you see a significant Gava/Channelled Ware influence on the Middle Danubian Urnfield group early on? I'm really ask out of genuine interest, because it would be very interesting for me. We have Gava-influences up to Saxony-Anhalt, Central Germany, but that's rather about luxury goods, probably single specialists, nothing like the movement to Kosovo-Macedonia or even Northern Greece. So far I rather got the impression the borderline between the Middle Danubian Urnfield group and Gava-Channelled Ware was rather fixed ethnolinguistically. Surely they interacted, but I haven't read about Gava being an integral, formative part of the Middle Danubian group, which would, if true, change a lot for the distribution, because it would mean the Western spread could have started way earlier than the EIA and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon.
    Where do you got that from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    Thus, my skepticism on considering E-V13 solely Daco-Thracian especially since I don’t even believe Dacian and Thracian were the same thing. If they were indeed dialects of the same language, then I lean towards the idea that Illyrian might have been a dialect of this big group as well.
    That was my initial assumption as well, and I also spoke about Thraco-Illyrian in this context, but in the meantime I think even though they might have been one group "upstream", the split happened before E-V13 became to dominate Channelled Ware and J-L283 became dominant in the Illyrians. Daco-Thracian is just so clearly connected to Channelled Ware distribution, that I have absolutely no doubt about it being one phenomenon. Its like La Tene with Celts, or Jastorf with Germanics, its basically one and the same.
    What was before, whether Thracians and Illyrians formed a clade in Unetice or the era of Tumulus Culture, that's a different issue. But J-L283 seems to have rather transitioned from Early Bronze Age groups in the Danubian-Balkan area, while E-V13 was probably also around the Danube with some splinter cells, but rather to the North of it.
    Another debate is whether Illyrian can be, ultimately, traced back to Yamnaya groups in the Pannonian-Balkan sphere. That too being much less likely for Daco-Thracian. But there are of course a lot of open questions and the linguistic evidence, as far as being present at all, is rather meagre and the opinions differ, there are just lumpers and splitters, none of the linguists can really solve this.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    You should read more about the Koszider hoards, because that's the context of influence on formation of Illyrians. Also:

    The appearance of numerous types of Central Europe-an weapons has been documented for the Transitional period (Ha A–B) in the Velika (Great) Morava valley, and their number and diversity exceed that of the pre-vious period (Fig. 7).25 Considering the Great Morava valley as a somewhat wider territory, it is extraordi-nary that ve types of swords have been identied.26 21 examples are short-tanged swords of the Reutlingen type, and three of them belong to the Konjuša variant. There are nine swords of the Stätzling type, three of the Novigrad type, four of the Riegsee type, one of the Marina and one of the Moškjanci type.27 Of all these swords, the most instructive is the Reutlingen type, which is the most common in the Serbian Danube re-gion but also appears in the Great and South Morava valleys, with two more examples found in south-west-ern Alba nia. The Reutlingen type is linked to a popu-lation that used the Fluted Ware of Type Gava-Belegiš II from the Central Balkan area. In a broader context, examples of this type of sword are found throughout Europe, with a significant number being found in the Pannonian Basin. Southwards, their abundance de-creases south of the Sava and Danube rivers, although some pieces have turned up in Mycenae, Crete, and even on Kos Island.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...terial_culture

  14. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    You should read more about the Koszider hoards, because that's the context of influence on formation of Illyrians. Also:
    But that's about the Danubian zone occupied by Belegis II-Gava rather. Eastern Pannonia and the Morava valley were both heavily influenced by Channelled Ware, rather colonised by these people, but that's not the Middle Danubian group, rather, at least as I understood it.

    The question is rather whether Illyrian languages were primarily spread by earlier Bronze Age groups, or by Tumulus culture expansions, I tend to the latter:
    ThesitesoftheearliestgroupoftheTumulusGraveculture,theso-called
    Mistelbach-Regelsbrunntype,locatedsouthoftheDanube,however,doshowanoverlapwiththe
    Litzenkeramikdistribution,indicatingachronologicaldifference.Benkovsky-Pivovarovádatedthe
    Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn type material to the Koszider Period. In the same Period, north of the Danube
    (in Moravia and Lower Austria) we find the Veteřov culture (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1976a, 348–349,
    Abb. 5; 1976b, Abb. 3). Thanks to J.-W. Neugebauer’s work, it has become clear that the sites of the
    Veteřov culture can be found south of the Danube as well (Neugebauer 1977a; 1979b). In connection with
    this, Z. Benkovsky-Pivovarová suggested that on the border between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages,
    the area of the Wieselburg culture was probably occupied by the ‘Maďarovce-Veteřov-Böheimkirchen’
    complexduringitssouthwardexpansion(Benkovsky-Pivovarová1981a,34–35).T.Kovács,in
    knowledge of the above-mentioned data from eastern Austria, established that the exact definition of the
    populationoftheregionintheKosziderPeriodismadedifficultbythefactthatthedistributionof
    Litzenkeramik and the Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn type cover each other. Thus – although the material was
    still scarce – three cultural groups were possible candidates for the cultural definition of the region in the
    Koszider Period. In his opinion, after considering the results of Hungarian research (Patay 1938, 68–69;
    Mithay 1942, 12–14), in the Koszider Period certain parts of southwest Slovakia, northeast Austria and
    north Transdanubia were occupied by a population, whose material culture can be identified with the late
    phaseoftheMaďarovceculture.ThefeaturesalientotheSlovakianareaaretheresultofwestern
    influences(bytheVeteřovculture,northoftheDanubeandwestoftheriverMorava),whilelocal
    differences were caused by the differing base populations (Kovács 1984, 382).
    This hiatus in the cultural sequence was ‘filled’ by a few
    researchers by dating the earliest Tumulus Grave assemblages of the county – and a few similar finds
    from Vas, Győr-Moson-Sopron and Veszprém Counties – to the last phase of the Middle Bronze Age, the
    Koszider Period (Bóna 1992a, 40; Horváth 1994, 219; Honti 1994a, 11; Kiss 1997, 47; Ilon 1998–99,
    258; H. Simon–Horváth 1998–99, 202; Kiss 2000, 27; 2002, 491–492). Thus it seemed an acceptable
    theory that in the Koszider Period, a new Tumulus Grave population infiltrated the westernmost areas of
    Transdanubiafromthewest-northwest,fromLowerAustria.ThisearlyTumulusGravepopulation
    triggered the migration of the culture of Incrusted Ware (demonstrated by the burial of the Tolnanémedi
    typehoards);theremaininglateIncrustedWaregroups,however,thatstayedinplace,becamethe
    neighbours of the new population – thus their distribution areas complement each other.
    Note that the Incrusted Ware seems to have been largely replaced and regionally assimilated by both Tumulus culture and later Middle Danubian Urnfield groups and Channelled Ware respectively. I guess they had a significant influence on Channelled Ware in some regions, like being shown in the later ceramic, even that of Basarabi. But the Pre-Gava and Daco-Thracian element came newly to the zone, especially the Balkans.

    When defining the material of the earliest Tumulus Grave groups in Trasdanubia, both T. Kovács and
    G. Vékony assigned great importance to the above-mentioned Litzenkeramik assemblages. According to
    Kovács,thepopulationusingLitzenkeramikcanbelocatedintwocloseddistributionblocks(comp.
    Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1981a, Taf. 1): in the northwestern (in Burgenland and around Neusiedler See/Lake
    Fertő) and southern (in the Voivodina: Belegiš culture) part of the Carpathian Basin.
    raveassemblagesinthecemeteriesoftheWieselburgculturewith
    KosziderPeriodbronzeobjectsbutnopottery(Oggau,Mannersdorf:Pittioni1954,Abb.213–214;
    Melzer 1984, 241, Abb. 311; Hicke 1987, 63, Abb. 44, Taf. XI, Taf. XV, Taf. XVI, Taf. XXI; Neugebauer
    1994a, 61), assigned to the latest phase of the culture are perhaps also the remains of the Veteřov culture.
    Thus, in the Koszider Period this culture has become an immediate neighbour of the population of the late
    Incrusted Ware culture (cf. Mosonszentmiklós), occupying the eastern shores of the swamps of the Rába
    (Fig. 4).
    BasedontheinnerchronologyoftheTransdanubianIncrustedWare
    culture, Sz. Honti established that the Litzenkeramik from closed assemblages containing Incrusted Ware
    as well are not the remains of a short Koszider or Early Tumulus Grave Period, but were in use during a
    longer time-span contemporary with the younger phase of Incrusted Ware (Honti 1994a, 8; Honti 1994b,
    174, 177). It is important to note that G. Vékony – based on the stratigraphical observations at Süttő
    whereLitzen-decoratedpotterywasfoundintheuppermostsettlementlayeroftheIncrustedWare
    culture – dates the same assemblages exclusively to the latest, Koszider Period phase of the Incrusted
    Ware culture.
    There are finds that can be connected to Litzenkeramik from Croatia and Slovenia (even Bosnia-
    Herzegovinaseebelow)aswell(Majnarić-Pandić1976a;1976b;Teran1983,Abb.4;Gabrovec
    1983, 24–26; Vékony 2000b, 177; Martinec 2002; Kiss 2002, note 73.). In Croatia, Litzenkeramik often
    appearstogetherwithTransdanubianIncrustedWare.SuchassemblageswerefoundsouthofZala
    County, slightly to the southeast of the confluence of the rivers Drava and Mura, around Koprivnica,
    mixed with north Transdanubian Incrusted Ware (Koprovnički Ivanec–Piškornica), furthermore in the
    southernpartoftheDrava–Savainterfluve,mixedwithsouthTransdanubianIncrustedWare(see
    Catalogue: Gradac–Pleternički, Grabrovac, Podgorač, Vučjak Feričanački). At the settlement of Koprov-
    nički Ivanec many pits contained the mixed material of both cultures (Marković 1981b, 196–198, 213, Pl.
    4, T. 6–7; 1982b, 245–248, 263, Pl. 5–6, T. 4–5). At Podgorač, two pits contained sherds of late south
    Transdanubian Incrusted Ware (a Csór type cup: Majnarić-Pandić 1976b, Taf. V.5) and Litzenkeramik
    (Majnarić-Pandić 1973, 25–26; 1976b, 98–100, Taf. I, Taf. III–V).
    Recently, however, many scholars
    havedelineatedaseparateLitzenkeramikculturalareainCroatia,betweentheDravaandtheSava,
    aroundZagrebandOsijek,perhapsevenreachingintosouthernTransdanubia(Marković1988–89,
    415–417, Abb. 4; 1990, 48; Majnarić-Pandić 1998, 177, Map II; Marković 2003). The emergence of the
    BelegišculturecanbeexplainedbytheblendingoftheCroatianLitzenkeramikandthewestwards
    movingSlavonian-SyrmiangroupoftheVatinculture(formoredetailsee:Majnarić-Pandić1984;
    Bekovsky-Pivovarová 1992, 344, Abb. 3; Tasić 2001, 314; P. Fischl–Kiss 2002, 136).20 Based on the
    fairly rich material from Grabrovac, Martinec established that the shape and quality of the vessels differs
    significantly from the usual Litzenkeramik, and the Litzen-decoration is not typical either. He considered
    thesevesselsratherasimitations,andassignedthesitetotheTransdanubianIncrustedWareculture
    (Martinec 2002, 287–293, 300).
    The Carpathian zone once again was on its own:
    The issue is
    connected to the emergence of the Carpathian Tumulus Grave culture and its – still unclear – relationship
    with the Tumulus Grave culture of the Middle Danube region
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18544789.pdf

    I woulnd't wonder if a lot of the autosomal ancestry and maternal lineages came from Incrusted pottery for both Western Balkan Illyrian and Central-Eastern Balkan Daco-Thracian groups. Because both seem to have replaced and assimilated them en masse.

    Gava/Channelled Ware was very influential in the Tisza region:

    The pot from Grave 325, decorated with a bundle of vertical
    wavy lines on the (Tab. 6/11) belly, occurs most often
    in the assemblages of the Gáva culture in the Tisza Region.38
    In most cases this kind of decoration was used on smaller
    pots and bowls with wavy rims and cylindrical necks. These
    artifacts found on the sites of the Lausathian culture are
    identified as evidence of the relations maintained with the
    Kyjatice and Gáva cultures.39
    Using the evidence
    of the artefacts showing the connections of the population
    of the Urnfield culture living in Transdanubia during the
    Ha A1 and Ha A2 periods, cultural impacts from the Eastern
    Alpine and western Slovakian region can be observed.43
    That means the dominance of the general northwesternsoutheastern
    polarity in the communication network.44 At
    the same time the high number of characteristics in shape
    and motifs typical of the Kyjatice and Gáva cultures indicates
    that the population living in the Danube River Bend
    Gorge region during the Ha B period maintained intensive
    relations principally with communities inhabiting the Hungarian
    Northern Mountain Hills and the Great Hungarian
    Plain.
    45
    The material evidence of cultural interactions shows that
    the intensity of communicaton increaeses during the Ha B1
    period at such a rate that it becomes visible in the deposition
    of goods in burials.46 The warrior elite evolving on the Great
    Hungarian Plain had an intense impact on the material culture
    of the neighbouring areas, which can be observed not
    only in funerals but also in the composition of the hoards of
    the Hajdúböszörmény horizon and its customs of deposition.
    47 The influence of the warrior elite living in the Great
    Hungarian Plain increases in the regions along the Danube
    in Transdanubia during the Ha B3 and Ha C periods.
    48
    https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33895

    So basically they mix up in the Danubian region, but the main source of the Middle Danubian group lies to the West and North West, relatively speaking, which makes them different from the more Eastern Gava/Channelled Ware people. The split and borderline was kept up since they divided the former cultures, like Incrusted pottery, along the Danube-Tisza border.

    The Tumulus culture groups expanded down even to Bosnia, as can be seen in the first paper I linked. I think its pretty clear, that despite all the uncertainties and a more permeable structure along the Danube, both in Urnfield and later Hallstatt, the borderlines are still quite clear and can probably related to the different haplogroup frequencies, since E-V13 is just clearly related so far only to Channelled Ware descendents, especially Psenichevo, Basarabi and possibly Northern Geto-Scythians.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Snip.
    Riverman. What could L283 have done in Moldova 6kbp? What culture would it have been part of, and how would it ultimately connect to the Glasinac-Mat cultures later on?
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    ― Franz Kafka

  16. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Riverman. What could L283 have done in Moldova 6kbp? What culture would it have been part of, and how would it ultimately connect to the Glasinac-Mat cultures later on?
    Many options and I don't really know, but here are my opinions: Could be Tripolye-Cucuteni, could be steppe-related. In any case we have R1b and J2b together in Mokrin EBA, preceding the Iron Age expansion of Channelled Ware. So one path could be that it was picked up by steppe or directly Yamnaya related groups already at the border of the steppe in the Caucasus or Carpathians, or later from Lengyel-Sopot or Baden related groups, unified in the EBA of Pannonia-Balkans, was later expanding South and did survive there among Illyrian in particular, even spread along the Pannonian-Eastern Hallstatt route, sometimes together with E-V13, even West, into Western Mediterranean and Celtic territories. In any case, I guess its currently still the first find in Mokrin where R1b-Z2103 and J2b being found together in the Central to Western Balkans. The question is rather did they come together (Caucasus/Carpathians -> Balkan) or separately (picked up by steppe groups). That's not really known at this point if I'm not mistaken.
    They (J-L283) did in any case play and important role in the Balkan Tumulus Culture groups, even those I wrote about with clear North Western influences. How they managed to achieve that, from which source group, is also open to debate. I guess simply from the Southern Pannonian sphere, but we need to find out. Glasinac-Mati is in any case the Illyrian core group, contrary to the South Eastern Urnfield/Gava derived groups to their North and East, which were mostly Daco-Thracian, and those people to their North and North West, which were Pannonians, Veneti and Celts respectively. You have to imagine that from the EBA to the IA everything was pushed South, rather. So the people which lived at the Middle Danube and Northern Serbia might very well have ended up at the Adriatic coast in the LBA and that's what we see.
    Others might know better in detail of course, especially about the finds and subclades of J-L283.
    Mokrin is in any case very interesting because its being dominated by R1b, I2 and J2b just about 500 years before Channelled Ware, with zero E1b1b at all, yet alone E-V13. While with Gava/Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, we can be pretty sure they had 50-100 percent E-V13 and some of the earlier lineages seem to have just melted away. If being found later, they are more likely to have come back, from the areas the Illyrians could hold or kind of "reconquered" later, even if it were different tribes under completely different circumstances. The forth and back of the tide, one time for an Illyrian, the other time a Daco-Thracian or Greek tribe, is what made the region more complex and mixed later and did create the modern people of the region, with new migrants, especially Germanics and Slavs added. But originally, it seems to have been much more clear cut, with some transitional regions early on, like along the Middle Danube-Tisza. That's the image I described for the later periods too, with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt connecting via the mixed Pannonian zone the Alpine with the Carpathian-Balkan region. But the origin of the groups, while distantly related, was different.

    By the way, from the 2nd paper quoted before:
    What comes next is the Early Iron Age with the Kalakača
    horizon: its characteristic pottery is not only connected with
    the Bosut group in Vojvodina44, but also with groups further
    south, and with the appearance of skeletal graves in great
    number
    on this territory. The striking examples are two
    communal graves at Gomolava with several dozens of skeletons45,
    but there are other occasional finds in Vojvodina.46
    Further south skeletal graves appear in Kalakača cemeteries
    in West Serbia (Mojsinje)47 as well as in East Serbia (Čitluk by
    Sokobanja, Šarbanovac)48. The Kalakača horizon dates to the
    9/8th century BC, i.e. to Ha B2/B3, but new investigations
    show that slight changes of absolute dates are possible.
    The beginning of the advanced Iron Age, which embraces
    the 8th and 7th centuries BC is characterized by the
    appearance of clearly formed cultural groups – the Basarabi
    horizon of the Bosut group in the north49, the Glasinac cultural
    complex in the west50, the Lapotince-Vlaštice group
    in the south.
    51 The predominance of graves with skeletons
    is generally visible, but in the group mentioned last
    (Lapotince-Vlaštice), cremation was often used. The urn
    of Lapotince (Fig. 8) most probably contained the ashes
    of a cremated deceased,52 while in the mound necropolis in
    Široko near Suva Reka in Kosovo, there was a stone circle
    around the mound, the pyre was placed in the center and
    all the graves were cremations
    https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33895

    Things get mixed up at this point, but those still or newly cremating, could deviate. In any case some of the major groups should yield at least enough samples to make it clear, especially Kalakača (E-V13 dominated, mixed?), Basarabi (mainly E-V13 + minor R1a+R1b?) and Glasinac (J-L283+R-Z2103?).

  17. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Also from the paper:
    The urn
    of Lapotince (Fig. 8) most probably contained the ashes
    of a cremated deceased,52 while in the mound necropolis in
    Široko near Suva Reka in Kosovo
    , there was a stone circle
    around the mound, the pyre was placed in the center and
    all the graves were cremations. Some ashes were put in an
    urn, some without any construction, and some with stone
    construction. Similar constructions were uncovered in the
    necropolis Vlaštice near Gnjilane. There are opinions that
    this group represents newcomers from the east, who had
    nothing in common with the previous inhabitants of this
    area
    ,53 but it seems more probable that this group was a
    combination of various ethnic elements, among others the
    descendents of the Brnjica group who, to a certain extent,
    retained ancient burial tradition.
    https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33895

    I found little about the Lapotince-Vlaštice group mentioned, but sounds interesting. Does anyone have more information?

  18. #68
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Many options and I don't really know, but here are my opinions: Could be Tripolye-Cucuteni, could be steppe-related. In any case we have R1b and J2b together in Mokrin EBA, preceding the Iron Age expansion of Channelled Ware. So one path could be that it was picked up by steppe or directly Yamnaya related groups already at the border of the steppe in the Caucasus or Carpathians, or later from Lengyel-Sopot or Baden related groups, unified in the EBA of Pannonia-Balkans, was later expanding South and did survive there among Illyrian in particular, even spread along the Pannonian-Eastern Hallstatt route, sometimes together with E-V13, even West, into Western Mediterranean and Celtic territories. In any case, I guess its currently still the first find in Mokrin where R1b-Z2103 and J2b being found together in the Central to Western Balkans. The question is rather did they come together (Caucasus/Carpathians -> Balkan) or separately (picked up by steppe groups). That's not really known at this point if I'm not mistaken.
    They (J-L283) did in any case play and important role in the Balkan Tumulus Culture groups, even those I wrote about with clear North Western influences. How they managed to achieve that, from which source group, is also open to debate. I guess simply from the Southern Pannonian sphere, but we need to find out. Glasinac-Mati is in any case the Illyrian core group, contrary to the South Eastern Urnfield/Gava derived groups to their North and East, which were mostly Daco-Thracian, and those people to their North and North West, which were Pannonians, Veneti and Celts respectively. You have to imagine that from the EBA to the IA everything was pushed South, rather. So the people which lived at the Middle Danube and Northern Serbia might very well have ended up at the Adriatic coast in the LBA and that's what we see.
    Others might know better in detail of course, especially about the finds and subclades of J-L283.
    Mokrin is in any case very interesting because its being dominated by R1b, I2 and J2b just about 500 years before Channelled Ware, with zero E1b1b at all, yet alone E-V13. While with Gava/Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, we can be pretty sure they had 50-100 percent E-V13 and some of the earlier lineages seem to have just melted away. If being found later, they are more likely to have come back, from the areas the Illyrians could hold or kind of "reconquered" later, even if it were different tribes under completely different circumstances. The forth and back of the tide, one time for an Illyrian, the other time a Daco-Thracian or Greek tribe, is what made the region more complex and mixed later and did create the modern people of the region, with new migrants, especially Germanics and Slavs added. But originally, it seems to have been much more clear cut, with some transitional regions early on, like along the Middle Danube-Tisza. That's the image I described for the later periods too, with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt connecting via the mixed Pannonian zone the Alpine with the Carpathian-Balkan region. But the origin of the groups, while distantly related, was different.

    By the way, from the 2nd paper quoted before:


    https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33895

    Things get mixed up at this point, but those still or newly cremating, could deviate. In any case some of the major groups should yield at least enough samples to make it clear, especially KalakaÄŤa (E-V13 dominated, mixed?), Basarabi (mainly E-V13 + minor R1a+R1b?) and Glasinac (J-L283+R-Z2103?).
    In fact in the Daunian samples, I think L283 and z2103 were also found together. Further conjecture I know, but likely Illyrian link.

  19. #69
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Riverman, according to Harry Mountain Dacian-Getae were influenced by HugelgraberKultur/Tumulus-Urnfield Culture during 15-12 century B.C. You still didn't solve the whole puzzle. In fact, you are quite confused in your posts. More aDNA will resolve. Tumulus-Urnfield paper is on the way.

  20. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Riverman, according to Harry Mountain Dacian-Getae were influenced by HugelgraberKultur/Tumulus-Urnfield Culture during 15-12 century B.C. You still didn't solve the whole puzzle. In fact, you are quite confused in your posts. More aDNA will resolve. Tumulus-Urnfield paper is on the way.
    Of course, I didn't solve the whole puzzle, I don't know enough about every single culture in question and I don't have access to additional samples which being needed. However, the Gava/Channelled Ware horizon and Basarabi-Psenichevo-Eastern Hallstatt connection for E-V13 is now beyond doubt, in my opinion.
    Considering the Tumulus Culture, there wasn't just one, but just like in the Urnfield horizon, we see a more Western Balkan-Danubian and a Carpathian one. So the distinction we have, in Urnfield, with Middle Danubian Urnfield vs. Gava/Channelled Ware or in the historical period Illyrian vs. Daco-Thracian, with Pannonian, Triballi, Dardanians etc. being in between, was already present, to some degree, in the Tumulus cultural horizon! This might even point to some sort of ethnic continuity, but in any case to a spacial separation. They were connected, they might have been related (Thraco-Illyrian at some point even? It's debatable.), but the spheres being rather separated before Gava and clearly different with Pre-Gava -> Gava/Channelled Ware.

    Urnfield and Tumulus culture were not one homogeneous block. I only consider them "ethnic" where they can be clearly defined and appear to be intrusive. That's definitely the case for the possibly Proto-Illyrian Tumulus culture groups which fused with Incrusted Ware, and its even more obvious for Channelled Ware people, which really did expand and replace on a massive scale from the Carpathians-Eastern Pannonia-Western steppe, all the way down to the Aegean, possibly even reaching Asia minor.

    What paper are you talking about? The Pannonian paper, Bulgarian/Psenichevo or another? Have you any information as to when it might come out?

  21. #71
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    What paper are you talking about? The Pannonian paper, Bulgarian/Psenichevo or another? Have you any information as to when it might come out?
    MIDDLE BRONZE AGE EQUALS TUMULUS CULTURE? - NEW MIDDLE BRONZE AGE BURIALS FROM SOUTHERN BAVARIA
    Abstract author(s): Massy, Ken (LMU Munich)
    Southern Bavaria was one of the main areas to define the Middle Bronze Age material culture and burial customs in Central Europe. This also led to the term “Tumulus Culture”, which is still in use today by some researchers to describe the entire Middle Bronze Age. The major issue is that most excavations were carried out in the beginning of the 20th century or before, which also explains the focus on tumuli clearly visible in the landscape. Therefore, reliable archaeological contexts are rare, especially considering the small number of Middle Bronze Age burials being unearthed in the second half of the 20th or the beginning of the 21st century. Recent discoveries in southern Bavaria, especially in the Augsburg region, challenge the notion of a fully evolved “Tumulus Culture” invading the Early Bronze Age landscape and displace former local inhabitants or entirely replace their burial customs by introducing new beliefs. Many of the burials from the first half of the Middle Bronze Age seem to have been flat graves and not tumuli, but breaking with the habit of crouched burials in sex-differentiated orientation. One of the largest sets of radiocarbon dates in Europe from the Middle Bronze Age shed new light on the absolute chronology of Middle Bronze Age material culture. These results are complemented by ancient DNA and isotopic analyses.

  22. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    724


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    MIDDLE BRONZE AGE EQUALS TUMULUS CULTURE? - NEW MIDDLE BRONZE AGE BURIALS FROM SOUTHERN BAVARIA
    Abstract author(s): Massy, Ken (LMU Munich)
    Southern Bavaria was one of the main areas to define the Middle Bronze Age material culture and burial customs in Central Europe. This also led to the term “Tumulus Culture”, which is still in use today by some researchers to describe the entire Middle Bronze Age. The major issue is that most excavations were carried out in the beginning of the 20th century or before, which also explains the focus on tumuli clearly visible in the landscape. Therefore, reliable archaeological contexts are rare, especially considering the small number of Middle Bronze Age burials being unearthed in the second half of the 20th or the beginning of the 21st century. Recent discoveries in southern Bavaria, especially in the Augsburg region, challenge the notion of a fully evolved “Tumulus Culture” invading the Early Bronze Age landscape and displace former local inhabitants or entirely replace their burial customs by introducing new beliefs. Many of the burials from the first half of the Middle Bronze Age seem to have been flat graves and not tumuli, but breaking with the habit of crouched burials in sex-differentiated orientation. One of the largest sets of radiocarbon dates in Europe from the Middle Bronze Age shed new light on the absolute chronology of Middle Bronze Age material culture. These results are complemented by ancient DNA and isotopic analyses.
    That's a very different region, which was up to Unetice times largely Bell Beaker in every respect, but it might give us a hint as to whether the introduction of TC was associated with some sort of replacement event. I hope they did a larger sample and also some of the real Tumulus burials too, because that many of the locals in flat graves will be largely local Bell Beakers won't be a big surprise. The opposite would be more suprising in that region. But can be quite different elsewhere.

  23. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-11-19
    Posts
    55

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y138701*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1b1

    Ethnic group
    North African/North East Slavic
    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Gedzo View Post
    Hi all
    I did bigY a while back and got my subgrups that changed quite rapid, but for a while now it hase stayed on E-FT186965 for a while know, but I dont know anything about it, how old, is it Greek, Albanian, Serbian,Bulgarian, whuld appriciet any input
    On Yfull,E-FT186965 is under E-Y97307,E-Y97307 is 1700 years old, E-FT186965 should be slightly younger. https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y97307/

  24. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-11-19
    Posts
    55

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y138701*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1b1

    Ethnic group
    North African/North East Slavic
    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Gedzo View Post
    Hi all
    I did bigY a while back and got my subgrups that changed quite rapid, but for a while now it hase stayed on E-FT186965 for a while know, but I dont know anything about it, how old, is it Greek, Albanian, Serbian,Bulgarian, whuld appriciet any input
    The Table of your Pedigree :
    https://www.genetichomeland.com/welc...e=Y&snp2=&DB=0

  25. #75
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    IMO, whether E-V13 "entered" the Balkans from Pannonia or the Middle Danube is not very relevant because it won't change where its diversity is. E-Z1057 is not an eastern Balkan group, but a western one. This is where its primary spread and diversification was and from where its later outwards expansion began.

    https: //i.i mgur.com/ NfXHmpk .png
    You are obviously that J2b2-L283 Albanian troll Bruzmi obsessed with making E-V13 elsewhere not present, or if present trying to explain by Middle Age expansion.

    So, you are not even worth of paying attention too. I don't even know how Riverman has nerves with you, or how he doesn't see the scam on you guys.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •