SubgroupE-FT186965

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.
 
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, Fr?g 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?

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.
 
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/public..._-_changes_in_topography_and_material_culture
 
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:
The sites of the earliest group of the Tumulus Grave culture, the so-called
Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn type, located south of the Danube, however, do show an overlap with the
Litzenkeramik distribution, indicating a chronological difference. Benkovsky-Pivovarov? dated the
Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn type material to the Koszider Period. In the same Period, north of the Danube
(in Moravia and Lower Austria) we find the Vete?ov culture (Benkovsky-Pivovarov? 1976a, 348?349,
Abb. 5; 1976b, Abb. 3). Thanks to J.-W. Neugebauer?s work, it has become clear that the sites of the
Vete?ov culture can be found south of the Danube as well (Neugebauer 1977a; 1979b). In connection with
this, Z. Benkovsky-Pivovarov? suggested that on the border between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages,
the area of the Wieselburg culture was probably occupied by the ?Ma?arovce-Vete?ov-B?heimkirchen?
complex during its southward expansion (Benkovsky-Pivovarov? 1981a, 34?35). T. Kov?cs, in
knowledge of the above-mentioned data from eastern Austria, established that the exact definition of the
population of the region in the Koszider Period is made difficult by the fact that the distribution of
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
phase of the Ma?arovce culture. The features alien to the Slovakian area are the result of western
influences (by the Vete?ov culture, north of the Danube and west of the river Morava), while local
differences were caused by the differing base populations (Kov?cs 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, Gy?r-Moson-Sopron and Veszpr?m Counties ? to the last phase of the Middle Bronze Age, the
Koszider Period (B?na 1992a, 40; Horv?th 1994, 219; Honti 1994a, 11; Kiss 1997, 47; Ilon 1998?99,
258; H. Simon?Horv?th 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
Transdanubia from the west-northwest, from Lower Austria. This early Tumulus Grave population
triggered the migration of the culture of Incrusted Ware (demonstrated by the burial of the Tolnan?medi
type hoards); the remaining late Incrusted Ware groups, however, that stayed in place, became the
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. Kov?cs and
G. V?kony assigned great importance to the above-mentioned Litzenkeramik assemblages. According to
Kov?cs, the population using Litzenkeramik can be located in two closed distribution blocks (comp.
Benkovsky-Pivovarov? 1981a, Taf. 1): in the northwestern (in Burgenland and around Neusiedler See/Lake
Fert?) and southern (in the Voivodina: Belegi? culture) part of the Carpathian Basin.

rave assemblages in the cemeteries of the Wieselburg culture with
Koszider Period bronze objects but no pottery (Oggau, Mannersdorf: Pittioni 1954, 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 Vete?ov culture.
Thus, in the Koszider Period this culture has become an immediate neighbour of the population of the late
Incrusted Ware culture (cf. Mosonszentmikl?s), occupying the eastern shores of the swamps of the R?ba
(Fig. 4).

Based on the inner chronology of the Transdanubian Incrusted Ware
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. V?kony ? based on the stratigraphical observations at S?tt?
where Litzen-decorated pottery was found in the uppermost settlement layer of the Incrusted Ware
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-
Herzegovina ? see below) as well (Majnari?-Pandi? 1976a; 1976b; Teran 1983, Abb. 4; Gabrovec
1983, 24?26; V?kony 2000b, 177; Martinec 2002; Kiss 2002, note 73.). In Croatia, Litzenkeramik often
appears together with Transdanubian Incrusted Ware. Such assemblages were found south of Zala
County, slightly to the southeast of the confluence of the rivers Drava and Mura, around Koprivnica,
mixed with north Transdanubian Incrusted Ware (Koprovni?ki Ivanec?Pi?kornica), furthermore in the
southern part of the Drava?Sava interfluve, mixed with south Transdanubian Incrusted Ware (see
Catalogue: Gradac?Pleterni?ki, Grabrovac, Podgora?, Vu?jak Feri?ana?ki). At the settlement of Koprov-
ni?ki Ivanec many pits contained the mixed material of both cultures (Markovi? 1981b, 196?198, 213, Pl.
4, T. 6?7; 1982b, 245?248, 263, Pl. 5?6, T. 4?5). At Podgora?, two pits contained sherds of late south
Transdanubian Incrusted Ware (a Cs?r type cup: Majnari?-Pandi? 1976b, Taf. V.5) and Litzenkeramik
(Majnari?-Pandi? 1973, 25?26; 1976b, 98?100, Taf. I, Taf. III?V).

Recently, however, many scholars
have delineated a separate Litzenkeramik cultural area in Croatia, between the Drava and the Sava,
around Zagreb and Osijek, perhaps even reaching in to southern Transdanubia (Markovi? 1988?89,
415?417, Abb. 4; 1990, 48; Majnari?-Pandi? 1998, 177, Map II; Markovi? 2003). The emergence of the
Belegi? culture can be explained by the blending of the Croatian Litzenkeramik and the westwards
moving Slavonian-Syrmian group of the Vatin culture (for more detail see: Majnari?-Pandi? 1984;
Bekovsky-Pivovarov? 1992, 344, Abb. 3; Tasi? 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
these vessels rather as imitations, and assigned the site to the Transdanubian Incrusted Ware culture
(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 G?va 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 G?va 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 G?va 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 Hajd?b?sz?rm?ny 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.
 

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?
 
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, ?arbanovac)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-Vla?tice group
in the south.
51 The predominance of graves with skeletons
is generally visible, but in the group mentioned last
(Lapotince-Vla?tice), 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
?iroko 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?).
 
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
?iroko 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 Vla?tice 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-Vla?tice group mentioned, but sounds interesting. Does anyone have more information?
 
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 Kalakača (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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.


I'm E-V13, not J-L283; nor am I Bruzmi
 
A question, becouse my subgroup is from the southern balkans, could it be possible that my vlach ancestors could have been Aromanian? Even if I dont have a Aromanian surname
 
A question, becouse my subgroup is from the southern balkans, could it be possible that my vlach ancestors could have been Aromanian? Even if I dont have a Aromanian surname


Its certainly possible, but there are many possibilities for the route of your paternal ancesotrs at this point.
 
Its certainly possible, but there are many possibilities for the route of your paternal ancesotrs at this point.
It Cant be that many? We consider us selfs as vlach so the possibility that we were that befor is of course higly lightly, but of course i dont rule out that we may have been somthing else befor that, on vahaduo k13 my closest country is bulgaria, so it is higly likely that it would be that my ancestors would come some were at the range of the Jirecek line,Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania
 
It Cant be that many? We consider us selfs as vlach so the possibility that we were that befor is of course higly lightly, but of course i dont rule out that we may have been somthing else befor that, on vahaduo k13 my closest country is bulgaria, so it is higly likely that it would be that my ancestors would come some were at the range of the Jirecek line,Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania

I know that gene flow in many directions happened, especially in Eastern Central Europe, because sometimes people of an ethnicity, man and women, assimilated into the majority population of their environment or chose to follow a specific group, marry into one. That way even Czechs, Germans and Hungarians could have ended up there, beside various Vlach/Romanian and Slavic/Serb groups. Of course, your Vlach origin is surely the most likely scenario, no doubt about it, but you can't know for sure unless you have ancient DNA combined with a lot of modern matches, a good reconstructed phylogeny.
That Bulgaria is closest in moderns is also something else, because similar autosomal compositions can be spread differently in prehistorial and modern contexts, plus the yDNA has no influence on it. Again I think you are on the right track, but you can't be 100 % sure about it.
Also, I don't think that local Vlachs which were not from further South would have been that different anyway.
 

This thread has been viewed 23312 times.

Back
Top