The genetic origin of Daunians

4nL6aDE.png


Considering that they resisted outside influences also makes me wonder if the Imperial era C6 cohort was more representative of the neighboring people. Once the Romans came in, these Daunians were probably mixed out of existence by other native people and Greek colonists, who were representative of C6.


As i said before they absorbed the local Italic populace and kept the Greeks at bay until they began to make their own pots in 440BC instead of importing them from the islands of Vis and Hvar
.....................................

from 2018
Maria Cecilia D’Ercole’s contribution in mapping the pathways and movement of goods in the southern Adriatic during Archaic times has significantly helped fleshout the situation.

Recent work by Croatian archaeologists who have documented sanctuaries on the‘island bridge’ spanning from the Dalmatian coast to the Gargano peninsula in Daunia, in use from at least the Neolithic period, also adds considerable weight to the argument.The traffic was, however, no doubt two-way. The prevailing winds in the upper Adriatic and a clock-wise current, in concert with the ‘island bridge’, gave rise to strong maritime trade route that took in the Daunians (further signposted by sea-faring craft incised on their stelae

and Picinians on the west coast, and the Japodians, Histrians, Liburnians and Dalmatians (all ‘Illyrian tribes’) on the north and east.

It was likely mediated by the Liburnians, whose thalassocracy it is alleged by Appian was propped up by piracy (App. Ill . 1.3). Was the cultural affinity between Daunia and Illyria that appears to exist in the Iron Age, nicely illustrated by the spread of Daunian matt-painted pottery into the Balkans and of amber out, truly dueto a shared ancestry or simply the result of continued trading relations and contact? The Daunian stelae suggest the former: that the ethnogenesis of the northern-most Iapygians really did include DNA from the indigenous populations of the north eastern shores of the Adriatic
 
How it can be Greek if expanded in Iron Age from Danubian Basin.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Late Bronze Age Greece was affected by Danube migrations heavily. Who were they, we don't know but i guess they carried E-V13. Classical Greeks could have carried in Southern Italy then.
 
I am a little confused at this paper, it claims this is a look into a pre-Imperial era Southern Italy. But the Daunians were not the only people who lived there, so I don't know how they could draw the conclusions they made for the making of modern Apulians. As I said up thread, R437 plots close to some of the Daunian samples (ORD01, ORD014, SGR003), which are close with the C6 samples form the Imperial era.
 
I am a little confused at this paper, it claims this is a look into a pre-Imperial era Southern Italy. But the Daunians were not the only people who lived there, so I don't know how they could draw the conclusions they made for the making of modern Apulians. As I said up thread, R437 plots close to some of the Daunian samples (ORD01, ORD014, SGR003), which are close with the C6 samples form the Imperial era.

zud7Wl1.png


It seems some people think that because the Daunians weren't eastern-shifted, it discards the idea that CHG didn't have a big presence before the imperial era. Perhaps they should recall that there are in fact relatively high levels of it among some of the samples in the IA.
 
Earliest Messapic inscriptions in italy begin in 7th century BC.
Sorry, correction: the earliest Messapic inscriptions date from the mid-6th century BC,
So ~550 BC.
Linguist Leonard Palmer attributed the Messapic language (which he called plainly Illyrian) to a third migration wave into Italy of people who brought horse-riding as opposed to horse-driving, and were horse breeders.
The first wave he says were Italic cremators who came into italy by land via the north, the second wave he calls osco-umbrian inhumers who also crossed the adriatic.
This third "easternizing" wave he attributes messapic to he says culminated around ~750 BC.
rHs7lYR_d.webp
 
Since the dna was taken from north
Apulia and from daunian
Personally i cant rule out the option that if the samples would be from south apulia in messapi area e-v13 would appear..:unsure:
 
Since the dna was taken from north
Apulia and from daunian
Personally i cant rule out the option that if the samples would be from south apulia in messapi area e-v13 would appear..:unsure:

I meant to say Kalabria. I have had a tiring week. It is interesting to note that as we move up north Apulia, not only do inscriptions become more sparse, but also are of later dates.

7-iapygia-map.jpg


3wf025.png
 
I have read it yesterday and waited for a few comments before chipping in, here what my thoughts are:

First I feel two caveats are important to make: I've noticed a bit of terminological embarassment because "west" or "east" can be ambigous here, so I add that:
1) As for the PCA, if we place the origin of a cartesian graph in the left down corner we can call an encrease in the Y axis "MENA shift" as it goes towards the MENA groups, and if we want to distinguish a north-east shift from a south-east shift we can distinguish between a "Caucasus-shift" and a "Levant-shift", on the other hand we can talk of a "Europe shift" for a decrease of the Y axis, and about a "Iberian shift" for a south-west shift and about a "baltic shift" for a north east shift. As for variation on th X axis, the ancient eastern Europeans (henceforth AEE) are shifted towards higher planes in the PCA (since they are between halfway modern eastern europeans and caucasian and iranian peoples I believe they are Scythians and other Iranic samples), while ancient west Europeans (AWE henceforth), more similar to today's, are shifted towards lower planes, so we can speak of a "AEE shift" and a "AWE shift".
2) This is an importat aspect to consider, before trying to draw conclusions about modern Apulians: these ancient samples are all from northern Apulia, which is quite a long streatched region, and these northern Apulians were already MENA shifted compared to Latins and the other northern Italian samples from the Bronze/Iron age, and they are under centra Italians and south-north Apulians (given the Italian cline it is safe to conclude that the most north Italian shifted Apulians are from the northern borders), that is they are AWE shifted compared to the modern ones, and the modern ones are AEE shifted compared to them, and there were also those three "outliers" that are both AEE shifted compared to the average Daunian (yet still AWE shifted compared to modern Italians) and MENA shifted.

After these two caveats, I think there are a few certainties we can draw from the study:
1) The "odd components" of the socalled "latin outliers" were already present in the gene pool of Italy, and the Rome paper also had R437 (a guy from a mainland town, so it would be odd that he could have had recent "Phoenician" ancestry as Davidsky suggested) modelled in the one-way run with IA Croatia and it formed a clade with it, and even for R850 that was modelled as a two way of copper age farmer and Anatolian_IA it is clear that Anatolia_IA proxies steppe and caucasian-related (Iran_N or CHG or both, since it isn't clear what were the percentages) ancestries to add to the copper age Latium farmers to get R850, and both components were already present in Italy.
2) the classical three way admixture of caucasian-related ancestry, steppe and EEF to model south Italians is once again confirmed and there is strong support that it worked for ancient south Italians as well, though they need higher WHG to work; the main take away is that one needn't new components to the ones already present since the Iron age (maybe since the bronze age if we take into account the EBA Sicily samples?).
3) there was heterogeneity in Italian peoples BEFORE the imperial age.
4) the Amhara_NAF works as a proxy for Greece_N given what the paper said about it and its position on the PCA (a north anatolian neolithic-like component with higher CHG than EEF but quite lower than successive Minoans and Aegeans)
5) The gene pool of modern Italians seem to form around the imperial age/antiquity.

Now to some tentative suggestions I have:
1) From the bulk of ancient north and central IA Italian samples to the bulk of Daunians one can draw a straight line, which suggests to me that there was already an Italian cline due to a EEF substrate that ranged from more Greece_N to Sardinian-like, though maybe a more "western" type of EEF ancestry was brought later with the Steppe component.
2) I agree with the study that the more MENA shifted and especially AEE shifted samples are the best representative for "ethnically" Daunians from the shores of the Balkans while the more AWE and European shifted are representative of local Italics integrated into the Daunian society, though since the samples were taken from just north Apulia it may well be that southern Daunians were more similar to those three "outliers" or just more MENA shifted Italics, following the line between ancient north Italy samples and the Amhara_NAF.
3) Since there are also two north east Italian "outliers" that are quite AEE shifted compared to the rest of the samples maybe this AEE-shifted lineage in Italy has little to do with a massive migration from the Balkans after the italic one and it can be that the Italic ethnogenesis incorporated an already present one to an extent, but I acknowledge it is pure speculation
4)It seems that the modern Italans' gene pool formed during the imperial period, but instead of implausible and frankly ridicolous scenarios in which all the Levant poured into Italy and/or all the slaves of oriental origins ended up in south Italy where all European ones in north Italy I hold that a homogenization of what was already present in Italy (and both the previous archeogenetics models of Italians and the ones in this paper back it up) was what got the Italians' gene pool into its present shape overall. Also, the biggest shift compared to the iron age sampes is a AEE shift that also interests north Italians, and to a lesser extent a MENA one that is more precisely "caucasus-shift", not a "Levant-shift", which is in line with the admixture models (relatively high Iran_N/CHG for European standards).
 
Since I've already read some astoundingly dumb comments from the usual sites about the paper, especially that "it confirms that Italy was Italic-like before Greek settlers almost completely replaced the locals in south Italy" (since they either wilfully or by sheer negligence forget to tell apart a AEE shift from a MENA shift and so when they claim that "Italians were west-med" they imply they were more Europe shifted while the bulk of those north Apulians were already as MENA shifted as modern central and north-south Italians, and three samples as MENA shifted as modern south Italians, and the AEE shift can't evidently be explained by their theory of a massive Greek colonization in all Italy given that north Italians too appear AEE shifted), despite the fact that it shows that a region that was never touched by Greeks and BEFORE the Greek colonization (the oldest sample is from around the end of the 2th millenium) had those very same Greek-like components that they hold "only a complete replacement of locals by Greek colonists" can explain.

Also, as for what they imply for what happened next ( they themselves aren't clear about it: either they say that the Levantine ancestry was brought by hellenistic Greeks or by Imperial Romans or both), they forget to mention that the last paragraph of the "the making of modern Italians" section says:
We also investigated whether the PCA scattering was due to varying African or Levantine
contributions with f4(Rome Republican, IAA, Levant_N/YRI, Mbuti) and tried the same on
Medieval ancient Apulians (ORD010 and SGR001). However, none of the tested ancient Apulians
shows a significant excess of YRI ancestry when compared to the contemporary Roman
Republicans, even though ORD014, SAL007 and SAL011 show negative f4 values with a Z-score
between 2 and 3

I do not forget to mention that they used Lebanon_hellenistic with good results but given the overall results of the paper it is due to the Iran_N that is also present in Levantines, since the test that adressed the signal unambigously linked to the Levant and/or norh Africa was negative for the vast majority of the samples,included the medieval ones, or it gave weak results.
 
Since the dna was taken from north
Apulia and from daunian
Personally i cant rule out the option that if the samples would be from south apulia in messapi area e-v13 would appear..:unsure:

I am not totally excluding it, let's see. But i put more bets on Trebeniste Culture and people belonging to it as Enchelei/Dassareti. Who knows. (y)

Perhaps torzio is right as well, that influence came via Dalmatian coast. Matt-Painted Pottery influences are unclear so far. Comparing potteries is not so reliable.
 
Something else I find odd is that they didn't compare samples from medieval Foggia from the Viking paper. Which look different from the medieval Apulia samples they have here.
These viking paper samples from Foggia looked like they could have come from all over Italy, I recall. The two presented here look like a holdover from the dwindling C5 cohort that existed in a minority of samples in late Antiquity, in the Rome paper. At any rate, medieval Foggia had people from all over the peninsula. However, I think it is clear C6 was the majority. As it is today, and as I speculate was since in the Iron Age, and possibly before.
 
A cursory response as I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond here.

Given the archaeological dating for Daunians and Messapians, and the fact there’s so much heterogeneity in just Daunians, I would hesitate to make predictions about what we’ll find in the latter.

This IS a paper about Apulia or Puglia; it’s just not a paper about central or southern Puglia. What poster would like to see is results from around the Salento, as would we all. This is the area around Foggia. We don’t need to be as careless about these things as the authors of the paper, who, for example, keep talking about the genetics of Italians, when there is no such thing. We’re here too, the Italians from north of Rome.
The trade ties etc. were with the Dalmatia area, not, to my knowledge, Albania.

The fact that the samples are close to Republican Era Romans tells me, even without the analysis in the paper, that there was a similar mix of WHG, Anatolia Neolithic “like” and Steppe people all over Southern Europe, i.e. Spain, Italy, and the Balkans. My own genetics also tells me that. My closest match to an ancient sample is from Hungary. That’s not to say there wasn’t some immigration from the Balkans to Italy later on, because there was. The Coop paper using IBD segments told us that years ago.

We still don’t have samples from areas of Greek domination. In fact, the paper makes a point of saying that these people actively resisted contact with the Greeks, showing no evidence even of Greek cultural influence. This is a huge gap in understanding Southern Italian genetics, and I don’t understand how conclusions can be drawn without having that data.

It looks to me as if on the PCA, at least, these IA samples from northern Puglia are south of modern Northern Italians, and on the same north/south “line” as central Italians, just “east” of them, which is partly because of less WHG. The paper speaks off of the higher than modern WHG levels of these people. Some Apulians are just “slightly” south of these IA samples, although the majority are indeed south of them as well as east of them. The eastern shift is partly steppe related, and partly northern Near East perhaps via Greece related, and as the paper is at pains to point out it’s difficult to say how much of each.

Most of the Imperial Age samples are far south of even the southernmost Italians, as we’ve pointed out numerous times when discussing the Antonio et al paper.

The paper is dead wrong when it says that the Imperial samples are the first ancient samples to “localize” with modern Italians on a PCA. First of all, most of the Imperial samples emphatically do NOT co-localize with modern Italian samples, and second of all, the Republic Romans co-localize with northern Italians on a PCA; indeed, on their own PCA. Once again, “we”, those of us from north of Rome, also exist and we are Italians too. You’d think these authors would know that.

Since when were the Italic tribes C6? The Latins were not C6. Italic tribes entered the south relatively late, and would have pulled the people “north”. This is a supposed “Italian” blathering, btw.

The IA Apulians “moved” on the PCA at least partly as they absorbed new people entering the area from the east and the southeast. The paper discusses at some length how this happened, showing the difference between a mother and her daughter because the father was “foreign”.

As for the “medieval” samples from the Foggia area, I’m shocked that the authors didn’t mention the resettlement of Muslims from Sicily into the area, and the effect it might have had. There’s a paper which discusses the yDna in the area from that point of view. Of course, over the centuries, that minority signal was watered down and diluted, and now northern Apulians are “north” of some other Southern Italians. Perhaps it didn’t have anything to do with that, but if they had given us the burial context we’d have a better idea.

Jovialis is precisely correct in that the “admixed” IA Apulians mirror 437 from the Antonio et al paper. He’s also helpful in pointing out that the “Sea People” argument they’re making is based on ONE sample from the Levant area Philistine sample, and it’s a sample which clusters with Mycenaens.
Does no one on other sites have any awareness of the timeline of the arrival of various groups into Southern Italy, i.e. “Italics” vs Greeks vs perhaps “Messapian”?

As to the “Levantine” nonsense they’re posting, perhaps they haven’t yet read the parts of the paper using more advanced statistical methods where they did indeed try “Levantine Neolithic” for example, and it didn’t work. The one “Levant” sample for which it worked was actually a Philistine, or a colonist, and one still almost identical to Greeks, i.e. Mycenaens.

I’m so sick of this constant stream of uninformed stupidity from these sites. In this particular case it seems they haven't even read the paper.
 
I think it is important to note, there were people living in Puglia before Italics, Greeks, and Iapygians. Where is their representation in all of this? Maybe that's why the Daunians are south of IA_Latins/Etruscans and west of Central and South Italians. Because they mixed with the people who lived there before them. Perhaps they were C6, and overtime mixed further with C6 people as Rome united the regions.
 
I think it is important to note, there were people living in Puglia before Italics, Greeks, and Iapygians. Where is their representation in all of this? Maybe that's why the Daunians are south of IA_Latins/Etruscans and west of Central and South Italians. Because they mixed with the people who lived there before them. Perhaps they were C6, and overtime mixed further with C6 people as Rome united the regions.

If those unprofiled R1b-M269 are either R1b-Z2103 or R1b-PF7562 then along with J2b2-L283 it represents the Daunian/Iapygian influence. Daunians could also be one of the Sea Peoples attested as Danuna/Denyen in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions.
 
I'd bet the pre-Italic, pre-Iapygian people, if sampled, would be higher in CHG, and be responsible for the Daunians' eastern shift. I speculate this group's influence came to the forefront during the Imperial era, since they probably made up the majority. I think it is foolish to assume that C7 was the native stock in the south, considering Puglia was a historical port of entry from the Neolithic, and it is a no brainer why CHG would be high there considering Greece_N.
 
I think it is important to note, there were people living in Puglia before Italics, Greeks, and Iapygians. Where is their representation in all of this? Maybe that's why the Daunians are south of IA_Latins/Etruscans and west of Central and South Italians. Because they mixed with the people who lived there before them. Perhaps they were C6, and overtime mixed further with C6 people as Rome united the regions.

It can be a possibility but I do not like ad hoc postulates and as for now we're still in the dark as to what caused the "east shift" (what I've called "AEE shift" to indicate the upwards translation in the PCA), and untill nothing better comes I think the better representative for local central-southern inhabitants of Italy are those samples from this study that have been suggested as "locals" incorporated into the Daunian culture. Upcoming papers about osco-umbrian Italics would settle the question I reckon

The paper is dead wrong when it says that the Imperial samples are the first ancient samples to “localize” with modern Italians on a PCA. First of all, most of the Imperial samples emphatically do NOT co-localize with modern Italian samples, and second of all, the Republic Romans co-localize with northern Italians on a PCA; indeed, on their own PCA. Once again, “we”, those of us from north of Rome, also exist and we are Italians too. You’d think these authors would know that.

To be honest the bulk of the iron age samples from Latium are "west shifted" compared to north Italians, in a place in between north Italian, south French and Iberians, and today's north Italians, judging from the 22 samples from north east Italy, seem too "east shifted", as north Apulians (though they are also a bit "south shifted") are compared to the bulk of the Daunians.
I believe that by "Imperial samples" they meant those few that, at least on a PCA, cluster with modern south Italians and middle age Romans.

As to the “Levantine” nonsense they’re posting, perhaps they haven’t yet read the parts of the paper using more advanced statistical methods where they did indeed try “Levantine Neolithic” for example, and it didn’t work. The one “Levant” sample for which it worked was actually a Philistine, or a colonist, and one still almost identical to Greeks, i.e. Mycenaens.
To be precise they used "amhara_NAF" as a proxy for "sea people", though it makes no sense to me, and it just vaguely indicates a Greece_N like signal as far as I can tell.
 
I am not totally excluding it, let's see. But i put more bets on Trebeniste Culture and people belonging to it as Enchelei/Dassareti. Who knows. (y)

Perhaps torzio is right as well, that influence came via Dalmatian coast. Matt-Painted Pottery influences are unclear so far. Comparing potteries is not so reliable.

maybe e-v13 was more in inland albania in that time
and not in coastal albania from where it could spread easily to south italy
just a thought:unsure:
 
I'd bet the pre-Italic, pre-Iapygian people, if sampled, would be higher in CHG, and be responsible for the Daunians' eastern shift.

I would accept that bet, even 1.000 and more ? if being real, because will never, ever, be the explanation. There was a series of immigrations after that time, starting with the Greek colonisation, the slave trade, free and slave workers in the Latifundia, general migration from the Greek speaking Hellenistic world. This will explain it.
And in the end you will see that modern Southern Italians being somewhat shifted North again from Late Antiquity to High Medieval times, because of Northern and Balkan migrants, as few as they might have been, but still significant. The MENA shift will peak in very Late Imperial times, not any time before or afterwards.

And yes, the situation will be different for different parts of Italia, because not all regions had the same agricultural and economic system, not all had the same source of flow of slaves, the same ratio of free vs. unfree, of locals vs. migrants. Every region, even in the South, might be looked at on its own, with later balancing and homogenisation effects erasing some of the regional differences.

Yeah, very interesting, so it looks the original Daunians/Messapians/Iapyges were J2b2-L283 and R1b-M269.

As for E-V13 not being found, it's more and more clear it's related with the cremation burials introduction in Balkans, so partial Illyrians who practiced cremation on a pyre, Thracians, and probably many of those E-V13 Z5018 in Apuglia is of Greek origin with some being recent Albanian migration.

Good to see you agree now :)
Yes, it will be South Eastern Urnfield groups from the Channelled Ware horizon, especially Belegis II-Gava (I would link Incrusted Ware to it also, which is even more clearly correlated with E-V13) which spread E-V13 primarily, with the core group being Daco-Thracian, but various Pannonian-Illyrian groups being heavily influenced too. However, if you look at how they migrated Southward, its noticeable, even from the purely archaeological standpoint, that the Channelled Ware groups did not reach and have the same impact further South, which is especially true in the Western Balkans. So areas like the Vojvodina were an early hub and centre on the Balkans, but South from there, they had not the impact initially and even more, they didn't reach the coastal regions of the Adriatic, but stayed rather inland, along the river systems and especially the Danube.
The expansion of E-V13 South was happening, imho, actually earlier to the East, where they quickly rushed to the Aegean, whereas in the West, we deal with slow and secondary expansions, from the direct North, from areas like Vojvodina. Even if it was not Belegis-Gava, but an even later migration, which I don't think, but which is possible, they usually followed the same path. The Dalmatian coast was not the first to be reached by expansions following the more Northern river systems usually.

What's even more, being in search for a reason for the settlement in Italia, a good reason is usually being unable to colonise territories closer on land and being blocked or even under pressure by the neighbours. The usual shifts in the region went, usually, from North -> South. There are exceptions to those rule, but usually, that was the direction it was going.

Check this article and the map on p. 175, which shows how the related groups expanded very roughly, with their centres:
http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debf3.pdf

I think these new results won't close the case, but they make any alternative to the Northern Urnfield spread even more likely than they already were.
 
I would accept that bet, even 1.000 and more � if being real, because will never, ever, be the explanation. There was a series of immigrations after that time, starting with the Greek colonisation, the slave trade, free and slave workers in the Latifundia, general migration from the Greek speaking Hellenistic world. This will explain it.
And in the end you will see that modern Southern Italians being somewhat shifted North again from Late Antiquity to High Medieval times, because of Northern and Balkan migrants, as few as they might have been, but still significant. The MENA shift will peak in very Late Imperial times, not any time before or afterwards.

And yes, the situation will be different for different parts of Italia, because not all regions had the same agricultural and economic system, not all had the same source of flow of slaves, the same ratio of free vs. unfree, of locals vs. migrants. Every region, even in the South, might be looked at on its own, with later balancing and homogenisation effects erasing some of the regional differences.



Good to see you agree now :)
Yes, it will be South Eastern Urnfield groups from the Channelled Ware horizon, especially Belegis II-Gava (I would link Incrusted Ware to it also, which is even more clearly correlated with E-V13) which spread E-V13 primarily, with the core group being Daco-Thracian, but various Pannonian-Illyrian groups being heavily influenced too. However, if you look at how they migrated Southward, its noticeable, even from the purely archaeological standpoint, that the Channelled Ware groups did not reach and have the same impact further South, which is especially true in the Western Balkans. So areas like the Vojvodina were an early hub and centre on the Balkans, but South from there, they had not the impact initially and even more, they didn't reach the coastal regions of the Adriatic, but stayed rather inland, along the river systems and especially the Danube.
The expansion of E-V13 South was happening, imho, actually earlier to the East, where they quickly rushed to the Aegean, whereas in the West, we deal with slow and secondary expansions, from the direct North, from areas like Vojvodina. Even if it was not Belegis-Gava, but an even later migration, which I don't think, but which is possible, they usually followed the same path. The Dalmatian coast was not the first to be reached by expansions following the more Northern river systems usually.

What's even more, being in search for a reason for the settlement in Italia, a good reason is usually being unable to colonise territories closer on land and being blocked or even under pressure by the neighbours. The usual shifts in the region went, usually, from North -> South. There are exceptions to those rule, but usually, that was the direction it was going.

Check this article and the map on p. 175, which shows how the related groups expanded very roughly, with their centres:
http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debf3.pdf

I think these new results won't close the case, but they make any alternative to the Northern Urnfield spread even more likely than they already were.

I cited before the burial rites of the oldest attested "Illyrian" tribe Enchelei and surprisingly they differ from Glasinac-Mat tumuli building inhumaters. Enchelei might have been different from the Glasinac-Mat Culture, and the legends surrounding their Early Iron Age power and their conflict with more Northerly Illyrians might reflect the Glasinac-Mat expansion and them attacking Encheleis and getting the power away from them. Who knows.

On this occasion, special attention is given to the Tomb of the Warriors (Tomb 1) in which 6 warriors were buried together with their complete military armor. The tomb (dimensions: 5.50 x 4.50 m) was built with a row of larger limestone blocks, and after the cremation burial it was filled with amorphous stones and earth, shaping a low mound-like structure. The pyre was set in the central part of the tomb, and around it, embedded and arranged in a specially brought lake sand, were the military attributes: 6 bronze helmets, 11 greaves, and 15 iron spears, with features suggesting some military subordination or simply warriors who have died in a battle being “the Leader and his comrades.”

https://pebasite.wordpress.com/peba-2020/representations-of-power-an-ancient-macedonian-elite/

If i am correct Enchelei/Sesarethi are supposed to be the related to the latter Dassareti and they are lumped under the Trebeniste Culture who are also known to practice rectangular burial pits as well.

Despite that, their golden burial masks look like Thracian Odrysian masks.

Trebeniste golden mask

golden_mask.jpg


Founder of Odrysian Kingdom King Teres mask. The golden masks in burials was never attested on the more Northerly Illyrians.

maskata_teres.jpg


But then again, Enchelei/Trebeniste Culture people had typical Illyrian helmets, but the ultimate origin of this helmets are South Greece, so they might have mediated this type of helmet further north.

One more time the archeologists before thought the Trebeniste and Daunians/Iapyges share Matt-Painted Pottery Culture influences, but that is not true according to burial rites, it might be some shared innovations/practices/influences in ceramics, that's all.
 

This thread has been viewed 151106 times.

Back
Top