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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hawk

Regular Member
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
1,071
Points
113
Y-DNA haplogroup
E-V13
Let's start with a visualization of burial rites of cremation vs inhumation in Balkan Bronze Age.

As we know, burial rites are the most consistent way of archaeologically defining a population instead of other components of material culture.

In inner Balkans including Greece there was a spread of cremation burial accompanied by Naue II swords, usually the cremation spread in Balkans archeologically is defined by various South-Eastern Urnfield/Danubian Urnfield groups heading south and bringing with them new ideology, metal-working techniques.

In the following posts i will try to collect and post information about where cremations were introduced in Balkans and exactly when, also their archeological affinities.

Meantime, it's good to guess. So, who were these people, what was their Y-DNA?

CBAB_Karte.jpg


https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/forschu...re-networks/cremation-bronze-age-burials-cbab
 
The reason why i put the title is because i just got inspired by Mario Gavranovic paper: https://www.researchgate.net/public...hern_Carpathian_Basin_and_the_Western_Balkans

To Burn or not to Burn: Inhumation Versus Cremation at the End of the Bronze Age in the Region between the Southern Carpathian Basin and the Western Balkans



Burial-places-of-the-9-th-and-8-th-centuries-in-the-area-of-study-see-list-2.png



My question is were the people who practiced cremation different from the ones who practiced inhumation in this specific Late Bronze Age context?
 
Although considered as part of Illyrian ethnos the Enchelei according to lead Macedonian archeologist Pasko Kuzman practiced cremation on a pyre:

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/

There is discussion in archeological circles that Enchelei were part of Trebeniste Culture. Trebeniste Culture members had also this golden funeral masks.

Not neccessarily correct, but just quoting for the sake of information.

The Engelanes (Encheleis) and the Golden Mask From the Trebenishte Culture – Nade Proeva

Published on May 27, 2015

It has been proven that the characteristics of the funerary ritual in these necropolises are neither Greek nor Illyrian or Thracian. So far, funerary masks have been found only in Macedonia, and not on the territory of Ancient Greece. Gold masks were not used in the funerary cult of ancient Greeks: to connect them with the masks from the Cretan-Mycenaean culture is methodologically wrong, because the ethnic, the cultural, and the chronological differences between them are huge. Another characteristic of the Macedonian funerary ritual is the tripod for the funeral feast, which is not found with the Ancient Greeks, where the cult bed, the so-called “kline” was used for the funeral feast. Metal vessels were found in the necropolis in Gorenci/Trebenište that were not used at that time in Ancient Greece. All this proves that we are faced with two different funerary customs. It is obvious that the Engelanes belonged to the group of Macedonian tribes. See Less





https://issuu.com/sonjcemarceva/docs/the_engelanes__encheleis__and_the_g

Where the Enchelei different from Glasinac-Mat Illyrians? Where they closer to Macedonians and/or Paeonians instead?
 
IMO, the most viable candidate for E-V13 is:

Mór Wosinsky – after summarizing the fi nds from Tolna County – studied the entire Encrusted Pottery culture material in a separate monograph.11 Although Wosinsky’s work included encrusted wares not merely from the Middle Bronze Age, but from other periods as well, most of his conclusions on Transdanubian material are still valid. He observed the typological differences between vessel types and on this basis defi ned distinct groups of pottery such as: Upper Transdanubian, Lower Transdanubian, and Lower Danubian types which remain more or less correct even today. Wosinsky regarded these ceramic groups as different stages of chronological development, and noted that there was evidently a “close relation and transition between each stage”. Wosinsky believed that the establishment of the culture was a result of a lengthy evolution which began with the “Neolithic” deep-grooved pottery (Vučedol culture by present nomenclature), which is distributed from the Balkans to the eastern Alpine area (Slovenia). The population, he argued, drifted towards Unner Austria (where it is termed as the Mondsee culture), then, in the beginning of the Bronze Age, they returned to the Carpathian Basin as components of the “Bell Beaker wanderings”, from whom they adopted the practice of cremating the dead, and then spread and settled in north Transdanubia, where they are associated with delicately encrusted vessels. From this northern Transdanubian decoration style formed the southern Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery which dispersed to the Lower Danube area where the “advanced” Encrusted Pottery complex took form. Wosinsky dated all these three development stage “types” to the Bronze Age.

https://www.academia.edu/40913016/MIDDLE_BRONZE_AGE_ENCRUSTED_POTTERY_IN_WESTERN_HUNGARY
 
The leaks shown by Stamov, Early Iron Age Svilengrad closely related to Ada-Tepe were totally dominated by E-V13.

Something from Ada Tepe:

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/forschu...ekonomien/bronze-age-gold-road-of-the-balkans

The samples taken by the burial pits are classified from Bulgarian archeologists as clearly Thracian. In addition to this, the leaks from Moesia also hint on E-V13 strong presence in Thracian world.

In the first period of Iron Age204, Hallstatt205, the identity of Norther-Pontictribes is crystallized; now, the separation of Proto-Thracians takes place, theydivide themselves into North-Danubian Geto-Dacians (what is specific to them isceramic cultures decorated with flutes) and South-Danubian Thracians (who areknown for imprinted ceramics, in the meridional Thracian group). New aspects ofBronze spirituality are added to the old ones: the perpetuation of the solar cult, thediminishing of the number of necropoleis, the simultaneous practicing ofinhumation and cremation, but during Late Hallstatt, cremation will graduallyexpand itself (later, in Latène, this ritual became fundamental)206. We also haveto mention here that there is a transition period from the bronze Age to Hallstatt,called Ha A (the 12th century – the 11th century B.C.). A cultural and territorialreorganization (due to the stabilization of the situation from the south of theDanube River) marks this transition period, characterized by instability in therelationships between communities and groups of communities (cultural zones),but also characterized by a relatively unitary economy.

rom the catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from r ather re cent f inds i n the i ntr a-Carpathi an reg ion, up t o Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (see Ailincăiet alii 2014) (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Nov i Sad wer e included in the are al of K ala kač a cu ltur e, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery (Graphic 1).

https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetypes/documents/archive/rae20/10.2478-rae-2020-00022.pdf

In the horizon with fluted ceramics from the south-west and the southof Romania, a series of cultural groups evolved: the cultural group Susani (inthe centre and the north of Banat, having as a basis the group Balta Sărată), thegroup Bobda (in the west and the north-west of Banat, the north-east ofVojvodina – appeared from Cruceni-Belegiš), on the same cultural basis wasformed the group Ticvaniu Mare-Karaburma III (in the contact area betweenthe western piedmont of Banat, the south-west of Banat, the south of Vojvodina);and we also add here, taking into account the contribution of Cruceni-Belegišculture, the groups from the south of Banat and Oltenia: MoldovaNouăandHinova; their evolution will be interrupted in Banat by the shortappearance of the culture Gáva-Holihrady, also interrupted by the appearancefrom the west of the group Gornea-Kalakaca (the south of Banat).The culture Corlăteni-Chișinău (having an origin which is not very welldefined) is also part of the first cultural complex of fluted ceramics; it was namedafter the discoveries from Corlăteni and the ones from Chișinău and its spreadingarea is the hilly region and the forest steppe from the Eastern Carpathiansand thebasin of the Dnestr, except for the northern part occupied by the culture GávaHolihrady. From the second complex (of incised and imprinted ceramics), thefollowing are part of: the culture Babadag (spread in the north-east of Muntenia,the south of Moldavia and the north of Dobrogea, the north of Bulgaria), insidewhich the group (phase?) Târnăoani (the south of Moldavia, the north-east ofMuntenia and the north of Dobrogea) was created; step-by-step, the culture fromBabadag expanded in the entire Dobrogea and Muntenia, when there is the periodof relative cultural unity with the group Insula Banului (Porțile de Fier) and withthe group Cozia (the south and centre of Moldavia). What is special (or maybe aprotraction of phase III of Babadag Culture – according to some researchers) isthe group Stoicani (the south of Moldavia), named after the necropolis from theeponymous place.

https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetypes/documents/archive/rae20/10.2478-rae-2020-00022.pdf


Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png


Abstract:Burials in settlements are a particular funerary phenomenon, documented worldwide, in different ages and contexts. Archaeologically speaking, burials consist of skeletons or parts of human skeletons, in or not in anatomical position, deposited in disused habitat structures (pits, dwellings). In this article we have catalogued the finds in the area between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza Rivers from 53 EIA sites (broadly 12th-8th c. BC) with 226 contexts for human bones from at least 512 individuals. All this data reveals the existence of common funerary conduct(s) whose final result was deposition of the dead in settlements. Such conduct exhibits some similarities and even somewhat the intersects with the standard ritual of burials in actual cemeteries. According to the same data, the selection of these individuals does not seem to have relied on malformations, diseases, age or sex.

In the northern Balkans, at the end of the 2nd millennium and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, classic cultural manifestations of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Monteoru, Noua, Coslogeni, Suciu de Sus, Žuto-Brdo–Gârla Mare, Cruceni-Belegiš, Zimnicea-Plovdiv etc.) come to an end and new ones take shape. Despite the emergence of the first iron artefacts, this is the peak of bronze metallurgy and of the deposition of bronze artefacts in ritual contexts. The area we’ve selected for the study of this category of findings corresponds to the dissemina-tion of several early Hallstattian archaeological cultures with grooved pottery (Bistreţ-Işalniţa, Gáva-Hol idrad y, C hiş inău-Corl ăteni etc .), but a lso wit h st amp ed and incised pottery (Pšeničevo, Babadag, Insula Banului, Gornea-Kalakača, Belozerka, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni), which are a variation of the funerary ritual (Vulpe 2008). Nevertheles, in the entire area, in various proportions, probably due to the extent of the investigations in the settlements, intramuros graves were also found.



https://www.researchgate.net/public...tlements_between_the_Balkans_Tisza_and_Dnestr
 
Nice job, such thread was needed. I know we kind of got confrontational on another thread but bygones are bygones, nothing personal, and no offense taken on my part.

So it seems Bulgaria IA? was a hub for V13? Where samples were dominated by the subclade?

I recall asking year/s ago regarding the study an insider, regarding L283, and if it was found in any of these 50+ sites. He let me know at the time that not all the samples were analyzed yet, but no L283 that he knew of. I wonder now, when this paper will finally come out and put some wild speculations to rest.
 
The problem with the Urnfield phenomenon is that it was a religious movement, so people could change either by being replaced, assimilated, dominated or just converted. In the Balkans however, its fairly clear that cremation was introduced or became more widespread by Northerners which spread during the "transitional period" between the Bronze and the Iron Age from the North.
The next problem concerning the Encrusted pottery groups is, that they have influences from the Channelled Ware and other groups. To me the Channelled Ware horizon comes first, and being primarily associated with E-V13, with Encrusted pottery being one of the main secondary spreaders.

The whole issue is also closely related to the question whether or not Greeks had an appreciable frequency of E-V13 early on, latest with the Dorian migrations. My current position is yes, because of this - like I wrote on Anthrogenica before:
The different Greek groups matter, because we have to expect more impact of the Channelled Ware E-V13 people on North West Greeks, Dorics and those Ionians living close to Thracians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion#/media/File:AncientGreekDialects_(Woodard)_en.svg

Other Ionian and Pontic colonies might have just gotten much less of it. But not nothing, because its present in Anatolian derived Greeks too:
We also included nine E-V13 haplotypes from Anatolian Greeks?Phokaia and Smyrna [20] for a Greek comparison population.

On Cyprus its a newcomer, but mostly from Greeks supposedly:
Although, when using the entire set of Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies, the composition of Cyprus can be explained by contributions from Anatolia, Balkans, and Levant, the actual Greek contribution stood out for the Cypriot E-V13 (87 %), J2a-M67 (74 %), R1b-M269 (48 %), and G-P15 (17 %) components. Lastly, Levant contributed up to 30 % of the Cypriot R1b-M269 and to a lesser extent regarding the Cypriot J lineages (3?8 %).

The pattern of structural variation in Cyprus points towards a model comprising two stages of expansion: an earlier expansion of G2a-P15, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 (range, 11,600?13,800 y BP with a slow YSTR mutation rate ω; 3800?4500 BP with a fast ω), subsequently followed later by the expansion of E-V13, I2-M423, and J2b-M12 (slow ω, 4400?6600 y BP; fast ω 1500?4500 y BP) (Table 3). However, times of divergence of these lineages from current Anatolian, Danubian, Greek, and Levantine Y-STRs appeared more recent. Pre-historical divergence was observed for Cypriot G-P15 with Greece (3600 y BP), I2-M423 with Anatolia (4200 y BP) and Levant (9400 y BP) and J2b-M12 with Danube Balkans (3,500 y BP) and Levant (5100 y BP). Divergence of E-V13, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 would have taken place in modern times (range, 300?2.200 y BP).

E-V13 is common in the Balkans and may mark some of the Greek demographic input to Cyprus from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age [79]. Network analysis of 46 E-V13 haplotypes (Additional file 10: Figure S5) shows a discrete clustering of 15 samples suggestive of a sub-haplogroup (encircled with an oval). This cluster is characterized by DYS437 = 15 repeats not seen in the Anatolian Greek population, or in the Provence samples [20]. The remaining 31 samples overlap with the Anatolian Greek E-V13 lineages.

https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8

So do you really claim that all the Anatolian and Cypriotic lineages too came just with Medieval newcomers from outside the Greek speaking world? Rather not.

I spoke about the introduction of Channelled Ware and iron, but we can also look at the changes in burial practise in the Iron Age to grasp the impact from the North, which I would associate with E-V13 heavy newcomers:
The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary crema-
tion. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the rest
of Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th?11th centuries BCE, especially in
the north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos ?Verpen?39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall
those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attribut-
ed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th?11th century BCE) identified further in the north
at cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjica
culture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovo
and which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.4

The "transitional period" = the main timing for the first and biggest E-V13 expansion down into the Balkans.

In
Greece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces have
long been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northern
Italy.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, show-
ing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue


https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document

This relates directly to the corridor of Channelled Ware related, Early Iron Age expansions down from the Vojvodina and the Morava valley, note the map on p. 175:
http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576 0x002debf3.pdf

The map again with other comments:
https://imgur.com/fogur6E

Especially changes in burial customs, which spread from the North and were clearly associated with Channelled Ware E-V13 people, should never be taken easily! This means the people from the North had a real impact on the Greek tribes, especially the Northern ones. Those coming down were already mixed from Belegis II-Gava, so not even the newcomers were just E-V13 for sure, but still its to me nearly unthinkable that this had no genetic impact on Greeks and brought no E-V13 in the LBA-EIA transition already.

Only ancient DNA can solve this, but the archaeological record gives us clear hints as to where to look at.

And the impact of the burial practises, new ceramic forms and iron weapons is a clear cut thing, and you just have to compare it with the date for the Dorians expanding:
The scholars were now faced with the conundrum of an invasion at 1200 but a resettlement at 950.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion

If Dorians would have really absolutely no E-V13, that would be such a big surprise to me, because they obviously were influenced and pushed by the Channelled Ware related people.

Its also noteworthy that these influences broke through with more effect to the Aegean than to the Dalmatian coast at first. Because some groups to the West, in the Western Balkans, never fully changed to cremation and stopped the Channelled Ware cultural movement at its borders!

The traditional assignment in the region being like:
Illyrian Autariatae = Glasinac-Mati complex (inhumation in tumuli) = more J-L283
Dardani = Brnjica (Channelled Ware related cremating group) = more E-V13
Triballi = Early Iron Age culture of the Velika Morava valley = more E-V13

The Channelled Ware groups didn't penetrate down to the coast on the Western Balkans, but rather a corridor from Vojvodina over Kosovo down to Northern Greece. So I wouldn't wonder at all if the Illyrians which were largely unaffected by the Channelled Ware, the early iron technology, cremation rite, Urnfield influences in general, later Eastern Hallstatt, have very little to no E-V13.

But those penetrated by the migration of the Channelled/Fluted Ware people and their successor cultures should have been.
 
Riverman, for all this horizon, if Illyrian and Thracian and Greek are Yamnaya derived languages and none of them is Bell-Beaker/CWC derived then i honestly think R1b-Z2103 is the lineage to look upon very early on, but i agree that some particular groups like J2b2-L283 and E-V13 might have risen up in percentage some times afterwards in the respective horizonts where they lived, since neither J2b2-L283 neither E-V13 is attested among Yamnaya males. They were overhelmly R1b-Z2103 with some WHG male input I2a2.

In case of E-V13, yes, i have to agree it looks like primary Thracian then secondary all of the mentioned groups that were affected by these cultures. There was a discussion long time ago between Dienekes and Maju and it's amazing how both of them in a way were correct: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html

Dienekes in that he predicted Late Bronze Age expansion/rise of E-V13 and Maju in that E-V13 is Danubian Neolithic descended lineage.

Here is another Dienekes post (not necessarily correct though, maybe he updated/changed his opinion) regarding cremation: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-rise-and-wane-of-cremation-ritual.html

As have been pointed out early, the movement of Danube people during Late Bronze Age might have pushed other people to find a new home as well. If or if not E-V13 is linked with the movement of these people that's a question.
 
Riverman, for all this horizon, if Illyrian and Thracian and Greek are Yamnaya derived languages and none of them is Bell-Beaker/CWC derived

That's not what I think. Actually I know not a single major, well-known IE branch which can be derived directly from Yamnaya. All of them came from the Corded Ware culture and related groups in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. Yamnaya was more like a contributor to some of them, primarily in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, so becoming, that way, just like E-V13 and J-L283, an important element in SOME of the IE ethnolinguistic groups.

Thracian and E-V13 in particular most likely comes from the Epi-Corded horizon in CEE.

then i honestly think R1b-Z2103 is the lineage to look upon very early on

I think R-Z2103 was largely picked up from the Yamnaya pastoralists which were wandering around between the Western steppe, Pannonia and Bulgaria. So those regions which provided a suitable habitat and in which Yamnaya could actually expand into. But they seem to have been assimilated or incorporated into more agro-pastoralist groups I'd say.

but i agree that some particular groups like J2b2-L283 and E-V13 might have risen up in percentage some times afterwards in the respective horizonts where they lived, since neither J2b2-L283 neither E-V13 is attested among Yamnaya males.

True, but like I said, I think R-Z2103 was in largely the same position, with the pastoralist Yamnaya remains being picked up, just like E-V13 was picked up from what remained of Lengyel-Sopot and Tripolye-Cucuteni probably. J-L283 is more complicated, it could have been on the steppe early or picked up fairly late, both seems plausible.

They were overhelmly R1b-Z2103 with some WHG male input I2a2.

Yes, and that kind of people didn't survive, most likely, as independent ethnic units into historical times.
In case of E-V13, yes, i have to agree it looks like primary Thracian then secondary all of the mentioned groups that were affected by these cultures. There was a discussion long time ago between Dienekes and Maju and it's amazing how both of them in a way were correct: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html

Dienekes in that he predicted Late Bronze Age expansion/rise of E-V13 and Maju in that E-V13 is Danubian Neolithic descended lineage.

Synthesis is often right (not always)

As have been pointed out early, the movement of Danube people during Late Bronze Age might have pushed other people to find a new home as well. If or if not E-V13 is linked with the movement of these people that's a question.

Actually, and that's what making the situation so complicated, some of the main groups of Channelled Ware and its possible descendents being influenced from different directions and local people they encountered. Obviously we can't tell for sure at which point E-V13 jumped in. Like was it present in the G?va centre already? Or just somewhere in the wider G?va-Holigrady sphere? Or being picked up from Belegi? to become dominant in Belegi? II-G?va? What I'm pretty sure right now is that Belegi? II-G?va, the whole Bulgarian Fluted Ware horizon and Encrusted Ware being influenced by E-V13. That's a given for me at this point. I don't see any good explanation of the later and modern pattern without those groups carrying a high E-V13 frequency.
Where they picked it up, further in the North with G?va - where they would have been at least strong, not necessarily dominant - is open to debate and completely unresolved.

The spread with cremation, channelled/fluted pottery styles and iron weapons is also without a doubt. Such a strong expansive phase for E-V13 can only be connected with the transitional period (narrower 1.200-1.100 BC, wider 1.300-800 BC, the beginning of Hallstatt) and the spread of iron technology. That was the leverage which brought them into the higher frequency ranks of CEE and SEE at that time, with minor spread beyond. I have absolutely no doubt about that, because like I said, if there wouldn't be E-V13, I would be searching for another candidate which profited form this cultural network and expansion associated with cremation, channelled ware and iron technology in the Carpathians and Balkans.
 
[h=3]THE PROTOURBAN ILLYRIANS IN THE LATE IRON AGEAND THEIR CONTACTS TO THE GREEK WORLD[/h]
Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture.
Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.


https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publ...ia/20181108-symposium-greek-and-roman-albania
 
Archaeology from the Balkans indicates a crisis prior to the Bronze Age Collapse

I wonder how thing will work out in the end.

[h=4]The Argument[/h]Pressure on the Balkans by Central European people disrupted life there in the 13th century.This disruption was caused by a break between the older Tumulus culture and the newer Urnfield culture. The Urnfield culture spread across central Europe and into the Balkans. The fallout from its formation may have caused waves of migrants who headed south.One such migration into the north of Italy, around 1200 BCE, is already well-known.[1] The Bronze Age Collapse may have occurred in a similar way to the collapse of Rome, with waves of northern migrants pushing people down into the Mediterranean on masse, causing chaos.There is evidence of material culture from the Balkans (ancient Illyria) moving south in this period into Greece, and Greek finds moving north into the Balkans, suggesting a considerable movement of people. So-called "barbarian ware" appears throughout Greece at the end of the Mycenaean palatial period.[2]Depictions of Urnfield ships mirror those in the Egyptian Hieroglyphics depicting the Sea People. The ships have prominent bird heads on the stern and prow, an unusual feature which is unlikely to be a coincidence.[3]The classical Greeks believed their own history started with "the Doric Invasions" a group of invaders who came from the North.

Archaeology suggests that disturbance in Central Europe which affected the Balkans and may have caused a movement of people downwards into the Mediterranean. These people from Illyria and Central Europe may have comprised the Sea People or may have pushed others into piracy.

https://www.parlia.com/a/archaeology-from-balkans-indicates-crisis-prior#position

Entangled Sea(faring): Reconsidering the Connection between the Ships of the Sea Peoples, the Aegean, and 'Urnfield' Europe

[h=3]Abstract:[/h]The naval battle representation on the walls of Ramesses III’s ‘mansion of a million years’ at Medinet Habu (ca. 1175 BCE) stands as one of the earliest, and certainly most detailed, depictions of ship–to–ship combat. It also depicts the only known vessels of Helladic galley type to be depicted with stem–and–stern avian decoration. As such, they have been called upon as evidence for the inclusion of Central Europeans (‘Urnfielders’) in the Sea Peoples coalition(s), and – more recursively – to bolster the view that the highly schematic designs on the stemposts of Helladic galleys were avian in nature. This paper addresses these conclusions and evaluates the evidence that has been presented for an ‘Urnfield’ connection to the Sea Peoples’ ships, along with some notes on the ostensibly avian nature of Helladic galleys’ finial decorations.


Last updated on 09/24/2019

https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel...g-connection-between-ships-sea-peoples-aegean

It will look like various different people from Adriatic and Aegean formed the bulk of Sea People affair.
 
Perspectives on Balkan Archaeology

However, in the Late Bronze Age, occasional cremation burials started to appear in communitieswith long inhumation tradition. Prominent examples are cremation graves from the Glasinac regionin eastern Bosnia6 or the region of Lika in Croatia.7 The sporadic and unusual incinerations indicateinfluences from the bordering Urnfield culture complex. Within the study region, grave finds from thefinal stages of the Late Bronze Age (the 9th century BCE) point to increased interaction of groups thatpractice different mortuary body treatments.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Carpathian-Basin-and-the-Western-Balkans.pdf
 
Something related.....

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

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/03500241/2009/00002009/00000059/art00005
 
Something related.....

That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production.
 
From what I always read from many years ago is that the ................

Dalmatians, Liburnians, Histrians had inhumanation burials like the celts did ie same as halstatt 1st phase ( circa 1000BC )
and the
Pannonians cremated ...............some say similar to thracians from Dacia
 
That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production.

Mister Riverman, i don't think all of these independent archeological data are made up, they look consistent all over the place. As for that Albanian Bruzmi, he is a charlatan who hates E-V13, it's like trying to convince a blind man here is the sunset but he refuses to say it exists. So whatever facts you bring he will automatically refuse it of course.
 
From what I always read from many years ago is that the ................

Dalmatians, Liburnians, Histrians had inhumanation burials like the celts did ie same as halstatt 1st phase ( circa 1000BC )
and the
Pannonians cremated ...............some say similar to thracians from Dacia

Pannonians became much more heavily influenced by Urnfield/Channelled Ware than the coastal groups. But at the time of Hallstatt, it got more confusing already, because even some Eastern groups under the influence of the Cimmerians and Scythians, like already in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, reverted back to inhumation. That means its decisive who did cremate in the transitional period (1.200-1.100 BC) in particular, in combination with channelled/fluted ware. Much of Pannonia was actually more heavily influenced by this, but we also don't know which branches did have a high E-V13 frequency. The Eastern Fluted Ware horizon and Encrusted Ware did, and Belegis II-Gava with its descendents too, because if those central groups wouldn't, the whole E-V13 case would be even more unbelievable to impossible to solve.

Mister Riverman, i don't think all of these independent archeological data are made up, they look consistent all over the place. As for that Albanian Bruzmi, he is a charlatan who hates E-V13, it's like trying to convince a blind man here is the sunset but he refuses to say it exists. So whatever facts you bring he will automatically refuse it of course.

Everyone is free to put forward his arguments. As long as the debate remains civil.
 
According to Tasic there were three cultures fighting for dominance in South Carpathians: https://www.researchgate.net/public...velopment_of_Bronze_Age_cultures_in_Vojvodina

HugelgraberKultur, Encrusted Pottery Culture and Gava-Belegis.

I consider one of these three cultures as the ultimate origin of E-V13.

As for Encrusted Pottery Culture chances are huge they were not, the ancestral Kisapostag Culture, carefully selected samples from different timelines were dominantly Y-DNA I2.

5.abra.png


https://agi.abtk.hu/en/news/news


So that leaves us with:

1. Gava-Belegis
2. HugelgraberkKultur.

Did i miss any other? What is native Vatin considered as?

There was a confrontation in and around Danube.

As a "contact zone" subject to the influences of the Pannonian Plain to the north, the Balkans to the south, the Carpatho-Danubian region to the east and the sub-Alpine region to the west, Vojvodina is exceptionally important for the study of the Bronze Age of these regions. It witnessed the processes of integration of certain cultures only to see them disintegrate again. At times almost the entire territory was dominated by a single culture, while at others completely divergent cultures developed simultaneously in each of its three constituent regions: the Banat, Srem and Bačka. In the latter half of the Early Bronze Age an attempt to establish control over an extensive territory was made by the Vatin culture which, in its westward and southward expansion, covered the central and southern Banat, and most of Srem reaching as far as Šumadija and the Lower Morava Valley. The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. They remained there through several developmental phases extending into north-western Bulgaria and part of the Romanian Banat. At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze Age, in Srem the Banat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1-A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...velopment_of_Bronze_Age_cultures_in_Vojvodina
 
Last edited:
According to Tasic there were three cultures fighting for dominance in South Carpathians: https://www.researchgate.net/public...velopment_of_Bronze_Age_cultures_in_Vojvodina

HugelgraberKultur, Encrusted Pottery Culture and Gava-Belegis.

The problem with Channelled Ware is that it is a widespread phenomenon and the main, big thrusts don't come directly from Gava, but from Belegis II-Gava and Eastern Fluted Ware. What we therefore don't know at this point is whether E-V13 was directly spread from the Gava centre, which is possible to likely, even if being only present in a branch of it, or picked up on the way, before moving out big time with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which included Belegis II-Gava.

So that leaves us with:

1. Gava-Belegis
2. HugelgraberkKultur.

Did i miss any other? What is native Vatin considered as?

There was a confrontation in and around Danube.

From which group could tribes heavy in E-V13 spread, which began to dominate the Channelled Ware horizon on both sides of the Carpathians? That's the question we have to ask. If its not Gava itself, it must be a group influenced very early by them, directly to their South, still fairly up in the North, so they could start that fairly massive expansion.

This post of mine has some quotes which are important to understand the impact of the phenomenon and its influence on later cultures:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-culture/page4?p=626679&viewfull=1#post626679

Gava itself would be the easiest solution, but some claim the Gava core group might be too Northern and being dominated by other haplogroups. We have to wait and see, like always. But somewhere between the Gava core and the general Channelled Ware/Fluted horizon of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, "it must have happened", and an E-V13 tribe with many clans, already diversified, did jump in and profited big time from the expansion of this cultural phenomenon on both sides of the Carpathians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 220153 times.

Back
Top