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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or, the Koszider hoard that came via Pannonia and was mixed Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture did really impact Glasinac Culture formation during Late Bronze Age and brought this hypothetically Proto-Illyrian East-Alpine block language in Balkans!?

We need samples from Illyri proprii dictii as well. If R1b-L51 shows at small percentages then it would be clear case IMO. It doesn't really have to be a population replacement. The Etruscan model can work as well, most of Etruscans were R1b but were the R1b the carriers of the language? Linguistic comparison with great certainty classifies Etruscan as EEF surviving language so the ~20% G2a Etruscans were more likely to be the original language bearers.

Would that actually make Marija Gimbutas assumptions right about Proto-Illyrians? https://books.google.de/books?id=Bv...age&q=koszider hoard glasinac culture&f=false
 
Or, the Koszider hoard that came via Pannonia and was mixed Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture did really impact Glasinac Culture formation during Late Bronze Age and brought this hypothetically Proto-Illyrian East-Alpine block language in Balkans!?

We need samples from Illyri proprii dictii as well. If R1b-L51 shows at small percentages then it would be clear case IMO. It doesn't really have to be a population replacement. The Etruscan model can work as well, most of Etruscans were R1b but were the R1b the carriers of the language? Linguistic comparison with great certainty classifies Etruscan as EEF surviving language so the ~20% G2a Etruscans were more likely to be the original language bearers.

Would that actually make Marija Gimbutas assumptions right about Proto-Illyrians? https://books.google.de/books?id=Bv...age&q=koszider hoard glasinac culture&f=false

She thought, and that's my opinion too, that the Illyrians being the result of these migrations. But like Aspurg said, and he is right, J2b was there before. For me its simply a passenger scenario. They were in the borderzone (Slovenia-Croatia?) and managed to ally up with the incoming R1b dominated Tumulus Culture groups. From then on they constantly spread with the expansion of first TC, then the Middle Danubian Urnfielders - in Pannonia as one element out of others, same in the borderzone of Southern Austria-Slovenia, but with founder effects along the Adriatic southward.
An objection to that scenario?
 

Posusje is actually related to Castellieri Culture from Histria,

The hillfort settlement of Monkodonja, located in the vicinity of the town Rovinj, is representative of the Bronze Age Castellieri culture in Istria. Twelve years of excavations that lasted one month each year revealed a proto-urban settlement with extensive fortification system, and a tripartite division of its interior that could well reflect the hierarchical social structure of its inhabitants. Remarkably, a change in the fortification concept during the time of the settlement’s existence could also be observed. With regard to bronze objects and ceramic finds the settlement is dated generally between the developed Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, or in Br A2 and Br B1 periods according to the chronology of Paul Reinecke. Moreover, about 40 radiocarbon dates from the Monkodonja settlement have also been analysed. The foundation of the settlement is dated to around 1800 cal BC. The second extensive building phase, including the rebuilding of the fortification system according to new defensive concepts, is dated approximately to 1600 cal BC, while the destruction of the settlement occurred around 1500 cal BC or in the middle of the 15th century BC at the latest.



http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/year/2020/docId/53990

Something more: https://www.academia.edu/1997747/The_Middle_and_Late_Bronze_Age_in_northern_Croatia

Which Middle Danube Tumulus influence is mentioned.
 
She thought, and that's my opinion too, that the Illyrians being the result of these migrations. But like Aspurg said, and he is right, J2b was there before. For me its simply a passenger scenario. They were in the borderzone (Slovenia-Croatia?) and managed to ally up with the incoming R1b dominated Tumulus Culture groups. From then on they constantly spread with the expansion of first TC, then the Middle Danubian Urnfielders - in Pannonia as one element out of others, same in the borderzone of Southern Austria-Slovenia, but with founder effects along the Adriatic southward.
An objection to that scenario?

I am actually seeing this as realistic scenario. Looks like Tumulus Culture bearers lost their ground on Pannonia/Carpathian Basin/Lower Danube during LBA to EIA transition from Carpathian Urnfielders who imposed the cremation on urns burial rite on them, and the Koszider hoard who enriched Glasinac in LBA was the inhumating Tumulus successor. They might not have changed the previous EBA/MBA population structure, might have been some few elite warriors.
 
We have a new E-L618 from Germany, Baden-Württemberg. :)
 
Last edited:
An overview of Middle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin cultures.

Sast9gW.png
 
If we go through this, we don't just have a table of how they differed, which had features which can be seen in G?va, but we also know which survived better than others. The main survivors of this whole spectrum being Encrusted Pottery and F?zesabony (into Piliny -> Kyjatice). All the others largely vanished before the LBA. For Channelled Ware mainly F?zesabony played a role, the others less so, but additional groups from the North and East played in, as well as smaller regional variants.
As for E-V13, that's another story, because it might have been present in a couple of these groups in theory, though the Pannonian paper doesn't suggest so, its still possible because of the cremation rite of many. But of these only Hatvan and F?zesabony are good candidates imho, and even those no perfect ones.
You see the area at which the Tisza makes a bend, East of Otomani? That's an area which deserves special attention, really the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania.

To expand on that, the local culture of Suciu de Sus, as an example, might be of great interest, as the later Lăpuş, with later Lăpuş II being part of the G?va spectrum.

Examples from an excavation:
The pottery from Csengersima was decorated by ornaments in relief, made by incision, with fluting and rice grain impressions, and slightly grooved. The relief decorations were characteristic of the coarse fabric, and they helped restoring simple belts32 and rarely double- belts33 laid under the rim; small, conical34 and oval35 knobs, or oval, socketed36 knobs; animal motifs in relief on the inside part of the handles37 38 or anthropomorphic motifs (?) in the same association

Interlaced spirals, simple circles around conical knobs, or garlands were made by fluting51. The coarse pottery which was decorated by grooves was occasional in the settlement at Csengersima52

The Suciu de Sus sites were found in the south-eastern Slovakia, along the river valleys Lotarica, Laborec, Topl'a, Ondava and Bodrog55, in the south-western Ukraine (Transcarpathian Ukraine). They were situated between the river Ung (Uj), in the north and Tisza River in the south. In the east, they spread until the Carpathians56, in the north-east of Hungary they spread east of the Tisa river17. In the north-western Romania they spread on the river courses: Vişeu, Iza, Mara, Cosău, Tisa, Tur, Someş, Crasna, Sălaj, Lăpus and Ţibleş58.

Almost 250 sites of that culture6? have been attested so far. Most of them have been known from fieldwlkings, as only few of them have been intensely researched. The latter category includes the settlements at Boineşti ?Coasta Boineştilor?bi, Culciu Mare ?Sub grădini"M, Culciu Mic ?La gropi de siloz?0', Lazuri ?Lubi-Tag"00, Mcdieşu Aurit ?Şuculeu?67 (jud. Satu Marc), Lăpuşel ?Ciurgău?bi, Mesteacăn ?Valea caselor?69, Oarţa de Jos ? V?lceaua Rusului?10, Oarţa de Sus ?Om/ Făgetului?1', Vad ?Poduri?72 (Romania); Medvedivce ?Babinka?73, Diakovo ?Kişerda?, ?Modicitag / Mondicitag?, "Ferma?, ?Vir?gv?r?1*, Kvasove75, Solotvino ?Cetate? (Ukraine)76, Skrabsk? ?Z?humienky? (Slovakia)77, as well as the funerary finds from Medieşu Aurit ?Togul lui Schweizer?1'1, Ny?rkar?sz-Gyulah?za (Ungaria)79, Stanovo80, Lochovo ?Şkorobabki? (Ukraine)81, Vel'ke Raskovce82; Zemplinske Kopcany ?Kutka? (Slovakia)83.

https://library.hungaricana.hu/en/v...vanyai_SK_Dan_Pop_Csengersima/?pg=20&layout=s


At least as a substrate group, Suciu de Sus might have an importance for G?va, but even the other main candidates, like the sites of Berkesz-Demecser, are very much to the North East of Hungary.

Auf Grund der Forschungen in Oarţa de Jos konnte festgestellt werden, dass die Suciu de Sus-Kultur, wenigsten in ihrem sildlichen Verbreitungsgebiet, in einer synnkronen Etappe mit den Wietenberg lll-und Otomani III-Phasen beginnt. In der spaten Bronzezeit entsteht im Norden Transilvaniens die Lăpuş-Gruppe, so wie es die Funde in dem Hugelgrăbern von Lăpuş, Suciu de Sus und Bicaz beweisen, welche einige der typischen Suciu-Charakteristiken beibehalten, aber auch eine Anzahl neuer Elemente erbringen, welche sie von der Suciu de Sus-Kultur trennen. Die Lăpuş-Gruppe zeitlich in die entsprechenden Stufen Reinecke Brz D-Hall-statt Ai datiert, hat zwei Entwicklungsphasen. Die I. Phase ist gleichzeitig der Berkesz-Demecser-Gruppe und mit den spătesten Spuren der Suciu de Sus-Kultur der Somesch-Ebene und der transkarpatischen Ukraine, wăhrend die 11. Phase es mit den friihen Funden der G?va-Kultur ist. Auf Grund der aktuellen Forschungen konnen die im Norden Transsilvaniens, nach der Stufe Hallstatt Au stattgefundenen Entwicklungen nicht mit Genauigkeit festgestellt werden. Es ist aber sicher dass diese Gegend viel weniger bevolkert war, hochstwarscheinlich durch den Verlust ihrer unrtschaftlichen Wichtigkeit, durch Erschopfung der abbaubaren Erzvorkommnissen bedingt durch die damais zur Verfugung stehenden technischen Mitteln. Aus der mittleren und spăteren Hallstattzeit sind bis jetzt nur zwei Siedlun-gen bekannt : in Tisa und in Sarasău, beide aus dem Maramuresch. Auch die Entdeckungen aus der Latenezeit sind vorlaufig nur sehr geringfugig : die M?nz-funde von Mireşu Mare, Sighetu Marmaţiei und Rozavlea, die Siedlungen von Oarţa de Sus und Onceşti, letztere, aus dem I-ten Jahrhundert v.u.Z., gehoren der dakischen Bevolkerung an.

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=562333

What's very important: This core area of G?va was much less populated later, already in the transitional period. Like I said before, it looks similar to archaeological cultures associated with Germanics, which evolved on, can be traced back in time in a region, then suddenly the population density is going down, the finds got sparser, the culture less complex, if there is no complete hiatus to begin with. What did happen? Whole folks, tribes and clans moved out!
I think the same happened here and one of the reasons is, that the importance of the region did drastically drop with the transition to iron tools and weapons.

Especially the "disappearance" of the elite culture of Lăpuş II is absolutely striking. They were highly important princes, warriors and traders for Bronze Age Europe, with a political importance most likely reaching far beyond their core area. And then there is close to nothing left, at a time they were still on top technologically and not defeated yet. This cries for a migration of large parts of the population imho.

Berkesz-Demeter and Suciu de Sus are key groups to take samples from if possible:
Among the materials from Wierzchosławice the most conspicuous are characteristic vessels decorated with knobs, such as vases and jugs/cups, usually on a small, hollow foot (Figure 4:a?b, g?h, k?l). These vessels are often additionally decorated with vertical groups of incised strokes or narrow grooves, and with horizontal lines or bands of hollows. Vessels of this kind, and analogically decorated cups in particular, are already known from post-classic assemblages of the Otomani-F?zesabony culture on the Streda nad Bodrogom site (Polla 1960: plate VII:5, XII:1, XIX:1). However, in the light of the remaining materials connected with the TranscarpathianTrzciniec settlement phase, the cups in question should rather be linked with slightly younger cultural phenomena. These forms often occur on the Piliny culture cemeteries in Slovakia, such as Barca II (J?lkov? 1961: fig. 8:5, 9:3?4, 10:1, 3?5, 11:6, 12:5) and ?af?rikovo (Furm?nek 1977: fig. 7:1, plate III:14, IV:13; XIV:1; 1981: fig. 5:4), and in the Hungarian variant of this culture known as the Zagyvap?lfalva group (Kemenczei 1967: fig. 2:8, 15:3, 17:7). Younger variants of these vessels are dated to BrC (Furm?nek 1977: 308). Apart from the Piliny culture in Slovakia and Zagyvap?lfalva group, the knobs from Wierzchosławice ? pointing downward and encircled with grooves ? find their best analogies in the ceramic material of the Slovakian variant of the Suciu de Sus culture, in such cemeteries as Zempl?nske Kopčany, Viničky and Budkovce (Demeterov? 1984: plate III:2, XIII:4, XIX:4,7, XXIX:5, XXXI:20). To a lesser degree, they also refer to the Carpathian Tumulus culture in Slovakia, e.g. Salka, Mal? nad Hronom (Točik 1964: fig. 4:5, 7, plate XVII:2, XXIX:6, XXXV:4). In Poland, analogical knobs are known from the cemetery at Chełmiec associated with the Piliny culture (Szymaszkiewicz 1985: fig. 3:1, 3?4, 6). In the period in question, combinations of horizontal and vertical incised strokes and grooves, as well as rows of hollows (Figure 4:a?b, f, h, j?n), were ornaments which were popular in virtually every culture from the southern slopes of the Carpathians.3 This decoration was relatively rare in the Carpathian Tumulus culture (Točik 1964: plate XVIII:6, XXI:6), and is unknown in the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture (Du?ek 1980). In the territory of Poland, such ornamentation was quite popular in the Carpathian zone, where Transcarpathian influences were recorded, e.g. on such sites as Chełmiec (Szymaszkiewicz 1985: fig. 3:1, 3?4, 6) and Wielka Wieś (Okoński/Szpunar 2002: fig. 22:d).

Among Transcarpathian pottery one should also mention characteristic fragments of amphorae or vases, with conical necks and thickened, everted rims (Figure 4:c), which were decorated in the upper part with vertical grooves and rows of hollows (Figure 4:f). Most of them were found in feature 520 from cluster A, and find their best analogies in the pottery of the Berkesz-Demecser culture from the Hungary-Slovakia borderland. The forms known from feature 520 are numerous at Als?berecki in Hungary, which is one of the most important cemeteries of the culture in question (Kemenczei 1981: fig. 3:3, 8, 4:7, 10-11, 5:8, 6:12, 7:4, 9, 12). These forms also show a strong similarity to the Suciu de Sus culture in Slovakia (Demeterov? 1984: plate III:8, V:10, X:6). Both the Berkesz-Demecser culture and the younger phase of the Slovakian variant of the Suciu de Sus culture (the latter being regarded by some scholars as tantamount to the former) (Furm?nek et al. 1991: 144) are dated to BrC2-BrD (Kemenczei 1981: 92; Demeterov? 1984: 70). Characteristic pottery of a Transcarpathian character occurred in all the clusters of features presented above.

https://www.academia.edu/32255479/T...ron_Age_Settlement_at_Wierzchosławice_Site_15
 
Last edited:
Another table with the cultural formations in the crucial regions and which archaeological groups preceded the G?va/Channelled Ware horizon:

Chronologie-Gava-aus-Runge.jpg


https://ibb.co/PM2k6w9

On this page you can see the core and source region of early G?va, the more developed G?va territory in its narrower sense and a map with its neighbours in the earlier phase:

Gava-centre-expansion-neighbours-after-Runge.jpg


https://ibb.co/yNfcmNh

After Rung: https://www.academia.edu/2409522/E_Rung_Der_Gáva_Stil_

Note that Late Piliny evolved into Kyjatice, with both Kyjatice and G?va being core groups for Channelled Ware and having relations with the Lusatians. Belegis II-G?va with its centre in the Banat is a Southern expansion group of the same cultural formation and in the East appeared Holigrady as the Eastern expansion, with Fluted Ware and Knobbed Ware horizons also at the Lower Danube, in Bulgaria, Turkish Thrace, Northern Greece and Asia minor (especially Troy).

I mainly disagree with Rung on the ethnic interpretation of the phenomenon, because I'm convinced it was an ethnic expansion and surely much more than a style. If taking the associated elements into account, which he did not as much, like hoards, sword types, casted spearheads etc., its clearly a package moving, even if it has clearly defined provinces, most likely because of local assimilation processes, especially the taking of local females, similar to Bell Beakers in Western Europe. Its also noteworthy how much of the G?va territory was later taken by the Prescythian/Thraco-Cimmerian/Mezocsat culture, which I think had real Cimmerian/Iranian admixture, but was primarily G?va genetically in its later phase, because of the assimilation of local Daco-Thracians.
 
While Psenichevo-Basarabi being largely derived from Channelled Ware, they came up from Danubian centres rather and might have expanded Northward too. This being proven now even for North Western Romania, like in this very interesting paper about Şimleu:

The quite large number of Basarabi type materials proves, by our opinion, an effective
presence of the carriers of this cultural horizon. The destruction of fortification elements at
Şimleu Silvaniei Observator, their remake and their ulterior abandoning dovetails with the
quantitative increasing of Basarabi type materials, resulting that the reports with the
autochthones were not very peaceful even from the beginning. The expansion was made
probably from the direction of Bihor, if we take a look at the materials from Girişul de Criş
and points like Marca, Cehei or Şimleu Silvaniei proves the way o access into the Depression
of Şimleu.

https://www.academia.edu/1436528/EA...N_AND_SURROUNDING_AREAS_GÁVA_TYPE_DISCOVERIES
 
This map and the descriptions in the text also explain why finds from Moldova might be more like Bulgarian Iron Age, even with limited Greek admixture. Because Babadag and Psenichevo did colonise that area too:

Cultura hallstattiană timpurie Holihrady din regiunile
de la est de Carpaţi şi din Podolia de Vest
(cca 1200 ? cca 800(?) a. Chr.), ţine de cultura cu
ceramică canelată G?va, originară din bazinul carpatic,
form?nd toate ?mpreună aşa-numitul bloc
cultural G?va-Holihrady-Grăniceşti (Свєшнiков
1964, 40 ş.u.; Смирнова 1969, 7-33; idem 1976,
18 сл.; idem 1990; Крушельницька 1990; idem
1993, 56 ş.u.; Малеев 1981; Крушельницкая,
Малеев 1990, 123 ş.u.).
Cultura hallstattiană timpurie Chişinău-Corlăteni
(cca 1200 ? cca 900 a. Chr.) din regiunea de
silvostepă a interfl uviului Nistru-Siret este legată
de cultura cu ceramică canelată de tip Belegi? II
din bazinul Dunărei Mijlocii (L?szl? 1994; Leviţki
1994а; Sava, Leviţki 1995, 157 ş.u.).
Grupul cultural Tămăoani-Holercani cu ceramică
incizată şi lustruită (cca 1100 ? cca 1000 a. Chr.),
cunoscut ?n spaţiul dintre Siret şi Nistru, ?n zona
de confl uenţă a stepei cu silvostepa, reprezintă periferia
de nord şi nord-est a blocului cultural de
la Dunărea de Jos Babadag I-Tămăoani-Holercani
(şi grupul Balta din st?nga Nistrului) (H?nsel
1976, 122 ş.u.; L?szl? 1986, 65 ş.u.; Leviţki 1994b,
219 ş.u.; Ванчугов 1993, 28-39; Nicic 2008).
Cultura hallstattiană timpurie Cozia-Saharna cu
ceramică incizată şi ştampilată (cca 1000 ? cca
800 a. Chr.) din regiunea de silvostepă a interfl
uviului Nistru-Siret reprezintă limita de est a
blocului cultural est-balcanic de tip Insula Banului-
P?eničevo II-Babadag II (H?nsel 1976, 134
ş.u.; L?szl? 1989, 111 ş.u.; Кашуба 2000, 255 ş.u.;
Niculiţă, Zanoci, Arnăut 2008).
Cultura hallstattiană mijlocie Şoldăneşti (ссa. 800
? cca 700 a. Chr.)1, răsp?ndită ?n regiunea de sud
a bazinului Nistrului Mijlociu, este parte componentă
a complexului cultural Basarabi, care ?şi
are originea ?n zona Dunării Mijlocii (Мелюкова
1958, 64-76; Лапушнян 1979; Гольцева, Кашуба
1995, 32-37; Kaşuba 2008a, 37-50).

Google translate:
Early Holihrady Hallstatt culture in the regions
from the eastern Carpathians and from the Western Podolia
(cca 1200 - cca 800 (?) a. Chr.), related to the culture with
G?va grooved pottery, originating in the Carpathian basin,
forming all together the so-called block
cultural G?va-Holihrady-Grăniceşti (Свєшнiков
1964, 40 et seq .; Смирнова 1969, 7-33; idem 1976,
18 pcs .; idem 1990; Крушельницька 1990; idem
1993, 56 et seq .; Malev 1981; Крушельницкая,
Малеев 1990, 123 et seq.).

Early Hallstatt culture Chisinau-Corlateni
(c. 1200 - cca 900 BC) from the region of
The forest-steppe of the Dniester-Siret River is connected
of the culture with grooved pottery type Belegi? II
from the Middle Danube basin (L?szl? 1994; Leviţki
1994а; Sava, Levitsky 1995, 157 et seq.).

Tămăoani-Holercani cultural group with ceramics
engraved and polished (ca. 1100 - ca. 1000 BC),
known in the area between Siret and Dniester, in the area
of the confluence of the steppe with the forest-steppe, represents the periphery
north and northeast of the cultural block of
at the Lower Danube Babadag I-Tămăoani-Holercani
(and the Balta group on the left bank of the Dniester) (H?nsel
1976, 122 et seq .; L?szl? 1986, 65 et seq .; Levitski 1994b,
219 et seq .; Vanchovov 1993, 28-39; Nicic 2008).

Early Hallstattian culture Cozia-Saharna with
incised and stamped pottery (approx. 1000 - approx
800 BC) from the forest-steppe region of interfl
the Dniester-Siret River represents the eastern limit of
of the Eastern Balkan cultural bloc
P?eničevo II-Babadag II (H?nsel 1976, 134
et al .; L?szl? 1989, 111 et seq .; Kashuba 2000, 255 et seq .;
Niculiţă, Zanoci, Arnăut 2008).

Middle Hallstatt culture Soldanesti (c. 800
- cca 700 a. Chr.) 1, widespread in the southern region
of the Middle Dniester basin, is a component part
of the Basarabi cultural complex, which
originates in the Middle Danube area (Мелюкова
1958, 64-76; 1979апушнян 1979; Гольцева, Кашуба
1995, 32-37; Kaşuba 2008a, 37-50)

Raspandirea-culturilor-hallstattiene-timpurii-si-mijlocii-in-spatiul-est-carpatic.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...purii-si-mijlocii-in-spatiul-est-carpatic.png

Map showing the various expansions from G?va (core), Belegis II-G?va, Babadag and Psenichevo II-Babadag II into the area of Moldova - all could have carried, in varying amounts, E-V13, all being interconnected through the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, but proven is the presence of E-V13 so far mainly for Basarabi (Viminacium) and Psenichevo (Kapitan Andreevo). It could have spread from there in many directions, including to the Geto-Scythian and Thraco-Scythian (Vekerzug), as well as La Tene samples from the British study.

This also means its very hard to distinguish which wave brought E-V13, yet alone which main or subclades of the haplogroup. It also explains, why the main and subclades being so mixed: There were after the initial expansion, multiple, successive, expansions throughout most of the territories, which brought subclades from one end of the main distribution zone, most likely established already by Channelled Ware/G?va initially, to the other. The multiple expansions from the Lower Danube also explain why the North Eastern groups might be more "Southern" - even with limited Greek admixture - than the groups in the Tisza-Danube area and even down to Belegis II-G?va. Because this was a later colonisation from the area of the Lower Danube/Bulgaria which probably replaced earlier G?va groups.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...comparative_In_Tyragetia_sn_IV1_2010_p_49-102

In any case this shows how these groups of the Channelled Ware horizon being interconnected and that even the house forms changed with the next culture numerous times is quite impressive and imho a clear sign for actual colonisation, the appearance of newcomers, if no replacement.
 
That the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, especially the so called Prescythians/Mezocsat group might indeed represent Northern Pannonian G?va being indicated also by this comment from ?gnes Kir?ly:
The single inhumation burial (Grave 1) of the Tiszabura cemetery raises several questions.
First of all, if we examine all data available, it turns out that no further biritual cemeteries are known
in the territory of the G?va culture. Two isolated inhumations of stretched, S-N aligned skeletons accompanied by G?va style pottery were published from both Szentes?Szentl?szl? (V. Szab? 1996, 23) and
Mediaş (Pankau 2004, 24). From this latter site cremation burials are also known, but for lack of proper
investigation, we cannot state that all graves belonged to the same cemetery (Pankau 2004, 24-25). Attila
L?szl? also mentioned seven inhumations from Simeria without any further description (cited by Vulpe
2008, 270), but the cultural classification of these graves is absolutely uncertain. The main problem about
these inhumations is that the stretched position and S-N alignment is a typical attribute for the funerary
practices of the following, so-called pre-Scythian period in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. In
fact, the definition of this group is based on this strictly implemented burial rite, even if the deceased are
found frequently accompanied by ?archaic?, G?va-style vessels.
As the problem is much broader then the
situation analyzed here, we can only establish that Grave 1 with the crouched, SW-NE aligned skeleton
of the Tiszabura cemetery is absolutely unique at the moment.

The burial goods being so similar that they might be confused with earlier "G?va proper". The problem however is, that especially the coarser ceramic is primarily the work of women, created for their daily activities. The question is how much of the paternal heritage of the G?va people survived. So far, the only male sample being haplogroup N, therefore pointing to a rather Eastern origin (Cimmerian?).
However, the recent group of Mezocsat individuals plot pretty Pannonian, just slightly shifted in an Epi-Corded/Iranian direction possibly - but not much more so than even some F?zesabony-Otomani. That makes the missing males from the sample, which contains only females, particularly painful. A large sample from Mezocsat males (30+, different sites) could help to fill the gap G?va left due to its funerary practise of cremation. Because chances are good they will be well-represented overall. It should be possible, in a larger sample, to sort out which are more Eastern Iranians-Cimmerians and which are local G?va, Kyjatice and Middle Danubian representatives.

They could be compared with the "special burials" or non funerary remains found in the settlements of G?va, which might or might not represent the standard local population, considering how they being "buried":

As a result of large-scale excavations carried out in the last two decades, more and more human
remains (articulated skeletons, fragmented/decomposed parts of skeletons, single bones and ashes) are
known from non-funerary, mainly settlement context (storage pits, waste-pits, wells or even ditches).14 In
the territory of the G?va culture, it was possible to collect 37 features containing human remains from 18
different sites from the Reinecke BD-HB period up to now15. As publishing a detailed study is planned,
in the followings I try to present a basic catalogue of the finds

I hope some of the studies done in the meantime considers sending samples to the genetic laboratories. Unfortunately, like the remains from a similar context from G?va analysed so far, the great majority are not just "special burial contexts", but also females and children. Males being in this context underrepresented.

Similar patterns are also known from Babadag and Psenichevo:

Exactly the same situation has been drawn up for the Balkanian EIA by Sorin-Cristian Ailincăi
and others (summed up in Ailincăi et al. 2005-2006, Ailincăi 2008). Considering their results, we can
agree that just like in the territory of the Babadag culture, people of the G?va culture disposed their dead
in a way that they got into settlement complexes at some stage. Actually we do not have enough data to
determine whether this was a multi-stage funerary cycle or a determined resting place for some special
members of the communities (e.g. under-age children, women died at childbirth, criminals, ?slaves?, etc.),
but the phenomenon should not be disregarded when investigating the corpse-treating methods of the
LBA of the Eastern Carpathian Basin.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ial_customs_of_the_LBA-EIA_in_Eastern_Hungary

Even the Kapitan Andreevo site, from which we expect the first Bulgarian Thracian Iron Age samples, shows a similar pattern with a special burial in pits. Fortunately one which includes males.
 
This article is absolutely recommended:
https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/f...en-Theorie_zum_Beginn_der_Urnenfelderzeit.pdf

Once again there are two issues:
a) G?va/Channelled Ware/South Eastern Urnfield radically expands southward and replaces older groupings in the Central Balkans.
b) In Bulgaria there is a possible movement in the opposite direction too, here the author sees strong influences coming from Bulgaria to the Danube.

At the same time we know now, some years later, even though the article is not that old, that Bulgaria was surely more affected by the Fluted Ware horizon/Knobbed Ware too. This remains unresolved.

The author is refreshingly clear about the replacement event in the Central Balkans due to the expansion of Channelled Ware people, when stating:
Nach dem Niedergang der sp?tbronzezeitlichen Phase Kastanas IV in der Siedlungsschicht 14b und 14a wandelte sich in der Schicht 13 die Siedlungsgestalt der Toumba, d.h. der Haustypen, der Bauweise und der Fl?chennutzung so radikal, da? B. H?nsel von einem echten Neuanfang ohne R?cksicht auf die vorhergegangenen Bauphasen spricht34? So wurde etwa die Lehmziegelbauweise durch die kontinentaleurop?isch anmutende Flechtwerktechnik ersetzt. Die Architekturelemente und Kleinfunde, Tierknochen- und Pflanzenfunde lassen auf einschneidende ?nderungen in der Lebens- und Wirtschaftsweise der Bewohner schlie?en35 ? Einzigartig in der gesamten Besiedlungsabfolge des H?gels ist der sprunghafte Anstieg der verzehrten Wildtiere gegen?ber den Haustieren auf einen Anteil von ?ber 50 %36? Auch bietet die handgemachte Tonware der Schicht 13 ein v?llig neues Bild gegen?ber der der fr?heren Horizonte. Trotz der Kontinuit?t gewisser Merkmale sind die Unterschiede zum ?lteren so stark, da? vom Standpunkt der handgemachten Keramik von einer Epochengrenze gesprochen werden kann. Zudem erscheint in dieser Schicht, wenn auch noch in sehr geringem Anteil, erstmals die Gattung der Kannelur-Keramik. Hinsichtlich ihrer wenig qualit?tvollen Machart hebt sich diese variantenreiche Tonware klar von der lokalen T?pfertradition ab. Dessen ungeachtet entwickelt sich die Kannelurtechnik aber bereits in der n?chstj?ngeren Schicht 12 zum regelm??igen Bestandteil des keramischen Repertoires37? Als Ursache f?r den vielf?ltigen Kontinuit?tsbruch in Kastanas und das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik in Makedonien vermuten H?nsel u.a. eine Einwanderung fremder Bev?lkerungsgruppen aus dem Norden38

Google translate:
After the decline of the Late Bronze Age phase of Kastanas IV in the settlement layers 14b and 14a, the Toumba settlement, i.e. the house types, the construction and the land use, changed so radically that B. Hansel thought of a real new beginning regardless of the previous ones Construction phases speak34 ? For example, the mud brick construction method was replaced by wickerwork technology that looks like a continental European one. The architectural elements and small finds, animal bones and plant finds suggest radical changes in the way of life and economy of the residents35 ? Unique in the entire settlement sequence of the hill is the sudden increase in the number of wild animals consumed compared to domestic animals to a share of over 50% 36 ? Also the handmade ceramics of layer 13 offers a completely new picture compared to that of the earlier horizons. Despite the continuity of certain features, the differences from the older ones are so great that from the point of view of handmade ceramics one can speak of a boundary between epochs. In addition, the genus of fluted ceramic appears for the first time in this layer, albeit in a very small proportion. With regard to its low-quality design, this varied pottery clearly stands out from the local pottery tradition. Regardless of this, the fluting technique developed into a regular component of the ceramic repertoire in the next younger layer12. The reason for the diverse break in continuity in Kastanas and the appearance of fluted ceramics in Macedonia was, among other things, an immigration of foreign population groups from the north38

https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/f...en-Theorie_zum_Beginn_der_Urnenfelderzeit.pdf

This had effects down to Greece and beyond, as he states as well.

Also worth to note that he states that Italy was less affected by the Urnfield phenomenon, the most by Canegrate in the Southern Alpine zone. The regions which show an increase of metal deposits from Bz D to Ha A1:

Increase-of-Metal-Deposits-Ha-A1-after-Falkenstein.jpg


https://ibb.co/xHKhZCY

This seems to cover the core of the Urnfield phenomenon itself and at the same time the maximum early, more Northern spread of E-V13, at least as a minority element, before the Greek colonisation (possible Southern route?) and Roman era and later population movements from the Balkans.
 
That's not possible though, the Proto-Villanovans whoever they were either Proto-Etruscan or some Italic tribe were clearly Urnfield derived and they did influence Italy.
 
I was just checking the origin of Roman gladius, this is a masterpiece of a sword, minimalistic in design yet so overly effective. The Romans adopted this from some Celtic tribe from Iberia, very likely Vettones. It looks like Naue II was it's prototype but this was further extended and made more effective in shape.

Uncrossed_gladius.jpg


Another one of Urnfield-derived swords, more of sickle-shaped and of a more Daco-Thracian trademark is the machaira swords.

LC-2001_346.jpg



This machaira-like swords were used in Ancient Greece called kopis, in Ancient South Iberia labelled as falcata probably introduced there by Hallstatt Celts, and variants by Daco-Thracians as well.

Dardanian blacksmiths used to forge machaira swords, and it looks like Glasinac-Illyrians preferred them. I don't know how they got it, either through Celtic contact, or as one paper gives parallel, it could be Glasinac were getting from Bassarabi Culture who used to forge this sickle-shaped swords. Greek general Xenophon suggested using machaira-like/kopis in mounted warfare, the shape of it would make it more deadlier when you attack the enemy.
 
That's not possible though, the Proto-Villanovans whoever they were either Proto-Etruscan or some Italic tribe were clearly Urnfield derived and they did influence Italy.

He doesn't say there was no cultural influence, but no large scale migration, replacement, but in the North. But yes, Proto-Villanovan looks pretty demic in many areas, that's indeed debatable. That's what Britannica has to say about this, they seem to agree:

The fact that the Proto-Villanovan archaeological horizon developed gradually rather than suddenly as the result of invasion or large migration might seem to support the theory of autochthony for the Etruscans. But once again the picture is clouded, because the Proto-Villanovan occurs in scattered areas all around Italy, including zones that definitely did not emerge as Etruscan in historical times.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-Italic-people#ref63544

If true, this would also explain why Etruscans are so far the only non-Indoeuropean people which could be associated with Urnfield and why some aspects of the culture might have been present already, in earlier times, in the Carpathian zone. But then again, we need more data to be sure, like always.
 
It is indeed everything clear, especially if you compare the new Mezocsat samples with the earlier sample which came out more Eastern admixed and with haplogroup N, so definitely with ancestors freshly from the steppe (IR2 = HUN_Prescythian_IA). Only I18211, which we debated about before, deviates somewhat in this direction, all the other new Thraco-Cimmerian/Mezocsat samples plot with HUN_LBA samples and close to a couple of E-V13 too! Basically between the La Tene and the Vekerzug sample, so absolutely in the known range for Pannonian E-V13 carriers in the Iron Age.

That's how a PCA with all the E-V13 samples and the J-L283 from the British study looks like:

Prescythian-Mezocsat-Thraco-Cimmerian2.png


https://ibb.co/B2J6wTc

The E-V13 being largely split between Pannonians (HUN_LBA) and a Southern group which goes more in a BGR_EBA direction, with little in between. But most of these samples are just too young to make it sure. We need older ones. Its also worth to note that already a Vatya sample RISE484 is very close to the HUN_LBA cluster. So is I18245 from the Mezocsat group, which also has such an excellent distance to those, including the later "Scythian" with the same kind of ancestry.

Another one being BGR_EBA I2165, which is very close to the E-V13 average too! This is quite interesting and he is rather an outlier from the rest of BRG_EBA with increased steppe ancestry.

Even the mysterious WHG shifted element from Mako survived into the time of Mezocsat, look at the outliers position, directly beside the Vatya outlier! This is no coincidence and shows:
- The wide range of the Pannonian variation
- That it survived from the EBA into the Early Iron Age (at least), visible in the Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerian sample.

The clear connection of the Middle Danubians to the Illyrians being also proven, because the only HUN_LBA sample which plots close to the J2b cluster is:

He is rather Middle Danubian Urnfield related, I25504, from Western Hungary, about 900 BC:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S18462*/

Unlike the Kyjatice and G?va sample, he is, quite typically, from Vas county, very Western Hungary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vas_County

He plots right below the HUN_MBA_Vatya and quite differently from the rest of the HUN_LBA cluster, like one possible G?va and Kyjatice. Another one of the possible female G?va samples plots quite differently, closer to "Halva", which comes from the core zone of LBA G?va in North Eastern Hungary too. About this sample - even an image of a female skull with headgear from Hajd?dorog-Sz?ll?sfold:
The objects ? according to the preliminary evaluation of their context ? are present in the archaeological material from the BC (tumulus/Early Piliny cultures) to the HaB period (Kyjatice and G?va cultures), although, most of the figurines were accompanied by typical find material of the BD period (Late Piliny Culture and the so-called pre-G?va Period).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hic_clay_Figurines_from_north-eastern_Hungary

That means we have now a couple of G?va related autosomal results and they all plot in a range, known from the already published HUN_LBA samples.

There is a clear cline going from Middle Danubian -> Kyjatice -> G?va. And this cline being already present in the earlier period, as the Vatya samples prove.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 220198 times.

Back
Top