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

[Riverman]

Since even for Bulgaria the situation with incoming elite warriors and near complete shift of the culture and connections towards the G?va core zone in the Transitional Period being present, let's look at the better excavated and researched areas of Serbia for the same period - from which a significant portion of the MBA-LBA population of Bulgaria came from in the first place. Here a comment from a more outspoken and clear thinking author:

The climatic optimum ater depopulation of eastern Serbia that lasted for several centuries,
led to the mutual intertwining of three contemporaneous cultural complexes ? the Vatina, Paraćin and
Verbicioara cultures ? whose territories overlapped around the Crni Timok River (Капуран 2009b, map
1). he decisive role in settlement, as in previous epochs, was played by the proximity of copper oar deposits on the territory north of Borsko jezero and Trnjani (Fig. 2), although the acceptance of new technologies for land cultivation, the metal plough and the use of wagons, with the increasing use of the horse as a
domestic harnessing animal (Greenfield 2006, Tab. 2), resulted in accelerated settlement and occupation
of every square meter of economically viable land suitable for this (Manning 1997, 152?153). By building
large necropolises that dominated the surrounding landscape these communities wanted to emphasize
their cultural identity and territorial dominance. hat is why we can conclude that clusters of settlements,
together with the large necropolises, played an important role in transforming and shaping the prehistoric
landscape of the Middle and Late Bronze Age.
Judging by the remains of the burnt stratum containing houses on Banjska stena and Trnjani,
as the largest excavated settlements, the Gamzigrad culture ceased to exist quite abruptly. Its end can be
linked to the sudden increase in the settlements of the G?va?Belegi? cannelured ceramics culture in the
Danube basin and the discovery of four bronze hoards on the territory of the Serbian side of the Djerdap
gorge (Тacић 1997). It is quite indicative that not a single settlement of the representatives of cannelured
ceramics culture has been observed south of Djerdap. Such a situation could suggest the swift advance of
the G?va?Belegi? cultural group, which very quickly conquered all cultures that stood in their way, both
on the banks of the Danube and on the banks of the middle and southern course of the Morava river valley
(Бyлaтовић 2001; Kapuran 2009a, 152?153).

Also worth to mention, there might be Suciu de Sus remains testable, but they are always from irregular burials, since they regularly always cremated, which makes their assignment less safe:

During the preventive excavation of a Suciu
de Sus settlement at Petea?Csengersima?Vamă, on the
border between Hungary and Romania, in the pit nr.
189, a human skull and a mandible, as well as a dog
skull and a mandible were discovered by K. Alm?ssy
(Fig. 3). he pit occurred with an irregular oval outline.

Letting in the beginning the impression of a building, with the progress of the work it looked more like two crosscutting pits. he walls were
more than 100 cm deep, with arching body. Both the skulls and the mandibles were on the same level of the ill. The human remains, analyzed by L.
Szathm?ry, belong to a mature male. On the basis of the ceramic, the feature
was dated to the Suciu de Sus culture (Marta 2009, 162?163, pl. 53

Continuity from Suciu de Sus -> G?va -> Babadag -> Psenichevo ritual pits for (presumably) human sacrifices of some sort:

In the area of the Suciu de Sus culture, the two pits presented above, (catalogue nr. 3?4) are the
only inds know until this moment. In both cases the presence of the skull of a domestic animal in the
vicinity of the human skull is noticeable. Both human skulls belong to mature, male individuals. The filling
of the pit 189 from Petea?Csengersima contains small fragments of pottery in its composition. he fact
that the human and the dog skull are in the same level of the ill, can suggest that they were buried simultaneously, not too late ater the moment of their possible decapitation. Inside the pit nr. 54 from Ny?rmada,
the presence of an almost complete beaker and the fragments of the big pot with N?S orientation lead us
to their interpretation as an intentional deposition. The injuries visible on the human and goat skull could
be the result of a heavy blow. The brutal act, which resulted the splitting in two pieces of the goat?s horn,
could be related with the fragmentation of the human skull. This kind of manifestation are often brought
in connection with the ecstatically stage, used as explanation for the object fragmentation of the Bronze
Age hoards. (Nebelsick 1998, 35?41). It is well known, that the human skulls play an important role in
the cultic life of the European Bronze Age (Stapel 1999, 230), and its deposition in settlement features is
a frequent phenomenon of the period (Stapel 1999, note nr. 1447).
In the same time, these types of discoveries are well known in the area of the G?va culture,
(Kalmar 1987, 166?174; Vasiliev Et Al. 1991, 42?43; Kir?ly 2009, 37?38) as our example can also
prove it. From the six inds dated to the G?va period, ive pits were unearthed within the same settlement
(catalogue nr. 5?9). Three of the six pits held inside the skeletal remains of human individuals (catalogue
nr. 2; 7; 8), the other three contained human skulls and mandibles (catalogue nr. 5; 6; 9). he pits of different sizes, mainly with circular outline, similar to what archaeologist usually consider household waste
pits, contained material speciic for the residual settlement feature. As exception can be mentioned the
pit nr. 3116/01 (catalogue nr. 9); here an entire pot was placed on the ground, near the skull. Similar situation can be observed at Teleac (Vasiliev Et Al. 1991, 42). As common characteristic in the case of the
G?va inds and new observation within the subject we can mention their placement with regularity on
the margin of the settlement. his aspect was observed at Beretty??jfalu?Nagy B?cs dűlő and Reci as well
(Kir?ly 2009, 43).

Incised and geometrical decorations were widely used by Suciu de Sus and Lapus as well:

In H?gel 22, mit einem Urnengrab, kamen auch Gef??e vor, die j?nger als die Lăpuş II-Keramik
sind. Das bedeutet, dass die Nekropole auch eine dritte Entwicklungsetappe hatte. Ebenfalls hier wurde
ein Sch?ssel entdeckt, der mit in Ritz- und Kerbschnitttehnik ausgef?hrten spiral-geometrischen Motiven
verziert ist. Das weist darauf hin, dass diese Ziertechnik, die Suciu de Sus-Wurzeln hat, im Laufe der ganzen Existenz der Nekropole benutzt wurde, in den j?ngeren Etappen neben der Technik der Kanneluren.

https://www.academia.edu/1037965/Be...um_from_Târgu_Mureş_BMM_IV_Tg_Mureș_Mega_2011

 

[Riverman]

The North Thracian or Proto-Dacian Ku?tanovice culture was dominated by local Late G?va derived elements in Eastern Slovakia, Transcarpathia-West Ukraine and Northern Romania. Completely so, but with stronger Scythian and minor Thracian influences from more Southern regions, like the Tisza-K?r?s region. They regularly cremated their dead, and still used a similar ceramic as in G?va.

In this core region of the Northern Thracians/later Dacians there was a continuous tradition of cremation for 3.000 years (!).

Es sei erw?hnt, dass in dem Gebiet des rechten Dnjepr-Ufers die Brandbestattung ?blich war und vermutlich herrschte auch im Verbreitungsgebiete der Kustanovice-Kultur derselbe Bestattungsritus. Die Brandbestattung kennen wir schon aus der Bronzezeit (Stanowo). In der G?va-Kultur der fr?hen Hallstattzeit finden wir fast immer Brandgr?ber, z.B. in der Ungarischen Tiefebene die von Bodrogkeresztur, Baj, Csorva u.a.m. Auch in Siebenb?rgen kennen wir die in diese Kultur einzureihenden Gef?sse aus Brandgr?bern. Bei der Bearbeitung der Gef?sse aus der Periode HB sagt Bernjakowitsch, dass in diesem Gebiet die Siette der Brandbestattung bis zur La T?ne Zeit und auch noch in der fr?hslawischen Zeit weiterlebt. Mithin herrschte diese Siette w?hrend dreier Jahrtausende.

From:
https://www.academia.edu/15675832/I...E_ORIGIN_OF_THE_QUESTION_KUSTANOVICE_CULTURE_

Basically in this core region of G?va and the Northern Thracians/Dacians, cremation was the rule from the EBA to Christianisation among the local inhabitants. The few inhumation burials are from actual Scythians from the steppe, for the most part, with which they mixed.

A significant part of the Dacian traditions seem to have been derived pretty directly from G?va, which explains the differences between Southern Thracians (Aegean-Anatolian admixed and culturally influenced) and Northern Thracians/Dacians (more steppe and Celtic admixed, influenced), with different evolutions and influences for about 1.000 years since the branching event in the LBA-EIA transitional period.

e specic pottery of the age as
well as the metal artefacts (temple spiral rings, glass beads with peacock eyes, white paste kaolin beads)
are closely related to those known in the Tisza Plain and altogether different from the Scythian artefacts
discovered in Transylvania, which are older chronologically as they are placed in the 7th?6th centuries
BC (Vasiliev 2005, 75?76). There are several cemeteries as well as isolated graves currently known from
north-western Romania: Curtuiușeni?D?mbul Ars, Ghenci?Movila Sp?nzurătorii, Sanislău?Nisipărie,
Carei?Atelier vechi FIUT, Livada de Bihor, Oradea?Salca, Valea lui Mihai?Viile comunale, Porţi-Zalău.
These are cremation graves and there is only one situation in Sanislău?Nisipărie when an inhumation
grave has been found. These findings have been classified in the Ny?rs?g?Sanislău group of the Alf?ldtype Scythian culture. We consider that the carriers of the Ny?rs?g?Sanislău group with traditional G?va
elements form the basis of the local population in that period. The earlier discoveries in HaD2 are represented by the colonization of the first Celtic groups from north-western Romania (N?meti 1982, 115?144;
N?meti 1999, 109, fig. 48). Barrows with cremation graves are common in the Sub-Carpathian region of
the Ukraine (Zakarpattia) in the Late Hallstatt period of the Kustanovice/Kust?nfalva culture (Popovich
1997, 77?79). Handmade pottery prevails in the second half of the 5th century and the first half of the
4th century. Celtic elements like the Dux-type bronze fibulae (Popovich 1997, pl. 1/14?16, kurgan XI,
Kustanovice) appeared both in cemeteries and in settlements together with Alf?ld-type grey pottery at the
end of the 4th century BC and the first half of the 3rd century.

In the G?va core zone, cremation burials dominated in the Scythian (influence-migration) period:

The Alf?ld cemeteries of the Scythian era in the Tisza Plain have heterogeneous funeral rites: extended
or crouched burial or cremation whether in a pit or urn. Cremation urns are present mainly in north-eastern
and northern Hungary at Hortob?gy?Arkus, Muhi?Kocsmadomb or Ny?regyh?za?K?zv?g?h?d.

In the region emerged a mixture of local North Thracians, Celts and Scythians:

Thus, we can conclude that at the time of the Celtic colonization of the Carpathian Basin, the rites
and rituals were very complex representing a relative heterogeneous ethnic population which, no doubt,
would have influenced the newcomers. They integrated well into the local population as is proven by the
presence of Celtic settlements alongside the indigenous establishments; the latter survived the peaceful
colonization by the Celts.

e main question raised by local Iron Age tradition pottery from the Celtic graves is who?s behind
the production and the use of such vessels. e easiest scenario is to assume that behind these vessels
are the Dacians or the Daco-Getians, local population found by the Celts at their arrival in the Eastern
Carpathian Basin, population that later will cohabit with the newcomers. erefore, the Celtic graves local
pottery could be the direct result of this cohabitation (Crișan 1966).

Practically ALL Northern Thracians cremated their dead, regularly, up to the Christian period:

The same moderate assumptions should be made for other local inuences over the Celts, such as
the funerary rite customs. Almost 60% of all Celtic graves discovered so far in the Eastern Carpathian
Basins are of pit cremation (Dietrich?Dietrich 2006; Berecki 2006, 54?56). e Celtic cremation was
attributed to local inuences, especially of the Vekerzug culture Sanislău?Nir group. Viewed in detail, this
scenario has also many inconveniences. The local Thracian population funerary rite at the end of the Early
Iron Age was indeed cremation, but almost exclusively it was urn cremation; so was the case of Sanislău?
Nir group, the late Scythian Transylvania or of the outside Carpathian Arch cultural groups. Furthermore,
the Thracians will continue to use this rite during the Late Iron Age, outside (Canlia, Enisala, Isaccea,
Zimnicea) or inside (Olteni, Săv?rșin) the Carpathian Arch. In fact, over 90% of all 5th?2nd centuries?
Thracian graves north of the Danube were of urn cremation (S?rbu 1993, 41?42).

Celts used cremation as well, but at a much lower rate in the Carpathian region:

In the Celtic cemeteries of the region urn cremation represented around 5?10% of all graves discovered so far (Berecki 2006, 54?56): 7% at Pișcolt, 20% at Ciumești, 3% at F?nt?nele?La G?ţa and 6%
at Sanislău. At Pișcolt the urn cremation graves were constant from one phase to another, so is diffcult
to identify a moment when a local influence took place; also in just 6 of all 12 urn cremation graves pottery of local tradition was found. However, the difference between the urn cremation proportion in the
Thracian and in the Celtic world was huge. The incineration rite in the central and western Celtic Europe
is documented since the 5th?4th centuries BC, when the most numerous graves were of inhumation. But,
in some areas like Bohemia or Moravia the incineration prevailed in this period, presumably under the
autochthonous influence. Thus, the Celts knew the incineration before they arrived in the Carpathian
Basin. Moreover, from the 3rd century BC the incineration becomes the predominant rite in the whole
Celtic world (Kruta 2000, 679). Although some influences may not be excluded, the Celtic cremation and
the local Thracian cremation were essentially different.

So again, chances of having a more Celtic or Scythian derived lineage in an inhumation burial of the North Thacian sphere are much bigger, even in mixed zones. Because North Thracians regularly and with few if any exceptions did cremate their dead.


https://www.academia.edu/1971542/Be...reş_7_9_October_2011_BMM_V_Tg_Mureș_Mega_2012

The Vekerzug culture, including the site of Chotin, from which we got an E-V13 carrier, shows strong Thraco-Scythian influences, as being shown in this paper:
https://www.academia.edu/20572094/M...urial_sites_of_the_Hallstatt_period_in_Chotin

 

[Riverman]

Some comments on the classical view on the Transitional Period and its migrations:

One of the most intriguing puzzles concerning the end of the Bronze Age
in northwestern Anatolia is connected with the presumed immigration of
Thracian ?barbarians? in the period following the destruction in Troia, tra-
ditionally connected with the Trojan War. This migration was mentioned
by Herodotos: ?By what the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called
Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the
Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia they changed
their name also and were called Phrygians.? (Herodotos VII, 73; Loeb Clas-
sical Library edition, translated by A.D. Godley; cf. also commentary in
Asheri 1990: 153?154); according to the ancient author, the phenomenon
was associated with a culture change and assimilation of the migrants to
the new conditions, reflected by changing their ethnic name. The picture of
the migrating northerners regained sharp contours when the excavations
in Troia revealed two new types of pottery, namely the Knobbed and ?Bar-
barian? wares in the levels of the seventh settlement.

[...]

t was also Blegen who made a first attempt to identify the origin of these
wares and pointed out their immense archaeological importance based on
three facts:
1. The appearance of ?Barbarian? and, subsequently, Knobbed wares in
Troia follow the destruction, most probably of a warlike character, which
the town suffered at the end of the VIIa period (Blegen et al. 1958: 143).
2. The wares represent a complete class of hand-made pottery, which ap-
peared suddenly in a town with a 1000-year-old tradition of the use of
the potter?s wheel. In fact, Blegen stressed the inferior quality of those
vessels compared to the earlier assemblages in Troia (Blegen et al. 1958:
143).
3. The claimed inferiority in quality of the pottery corresponded, accord-
ing to Blegen, with the inferior quality of the architecture and spatial or-
ganization of the Troian citadel in the period following the destruction.
Within the city walls, still standing after the catastrophe, the inner space
of the citadel had been organized in a completely different way: in place
of free-standing single-unit buildings, multi-chambered houses ap-
peared, crammed in irregular blocks, and wide streets were replaced
with crooked lanes (Blegen et al. 1958: 141).
Blegen commented on the appearance of the ?Barbarian? and Knobbed
wares: ?... we are dealing not with commodities which found their way
to Troia in course of ordinary trade, but rather with products that con-
tinued to be made by a migrating people after they had established
themselves in their new home.? (Blegen et al. 1958: 144). This strongly
confirmed the opinion formulated already at the beginning of the cen-
tury by Schmidt (1902a: 303).

Blegen noted that ?Barbarian?-type vessels first appeared in the levels im-
mediately following the destruction of Troia VIIa, and continued through
the entire VIIb period. The vessels decorated with knobs did not date
earlier than the second phase of the VIIb settlement (Blegen et al. 1958:
142?144). There is, however, no overall destruction horizon dividing the
VIIb settlement into two phases and very often the division into VIIb 1 and
VIIb2 has been based on pottery. For Blegen, the very appearance of the
knobbed sherds in a deposit automatically classified it as VIIb 2 (Blegen et
al. 1958: 142?144). However, some houses were destroyed by fire during and
at the end of Troia VIIb 1 (Mountjoy 1999b: 321?324, 332?334).

According to this system, the beginning of
Troia VIIb 1 ? and the appearance of the ?Barbarian? ware ? can be placed
after the time of the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces ca. 1200 B.C.,
whereas the beginning of VIIb2 and the appearance of the Knobbed ware
can be ? very approximately ? dated to the beginning of LH III C middle.
The terminus ante quem is much more austere. In Troia Knobbed ware
extends into the Dark Ages, for which no Mycenaean material is available
for dating. Most recent excavations have shown that the Knobbed ware also
occurs together with protogeometric pottery (Korfmann 2000: 30?32; cf.
also unpublished report for the year 2000 by Marta Guzowska) which, ac-
cording to Catling?s typology, should be dated between 1025 and 950 B.C.

After this brief introduction let us return to the key question: can the ap-
pearance of ?Barbarian? and Knobbed ware in Troia be indicative of the ap-
pearance of new population groups? The methodological approach which
led to this deduction in previous research has been the following:
1. Both Knobbed and ?Barbarian? ware are technologically inferior to the
contemporary Troian pottery;
2. Both appear in large quantities in the two subsequent phases following
the VIIa destruction;
3. They could not be attractive commodities for the Troian market (too
ugly), nor could they be acquired through trade (quantities too large).
This prompted the conclusion that the wares were brought to Troia and
later produced locally by the migrating hoards of ?Barbarians? who set-
tled peacefully (sic!) among the Troians, but preserved the pottery tra-
ditions of their homeland. In other words: the appearance of Knobbed
ware is an indicator of the ethnic change in Troia in the VIIb2 period.
This conclusion presented in the publication by Blegen has never been
questioned. Instead, the following research concentrated on identification
of the source of this migration. This was undertaken in the traditional way,
using stylistic analogy as a main tool (cf. e. g., Dimitrov 1971, esp. pp. 75?78;
Koppenh?fer 1997, esp. p. 337).
Parallels which have been searched both for the decoration and the
shape of the vessels, indicated clearly a connection with the eastern
Balkans. The origins of the ?Barbarian? ware can be most convincingly
traced to the Pontic area, comprising the Noua-Sabatinovka culture in the
north transformed into the Coslogeni group in the south (H?nsel 1976:
73?76, pl. 8. 3?9, also p. 231; Koppenh?fer 1997: 334?337). The most exact
parallels for the Knobbed ware could be found in the Babadag group,
developed from the Coslogeni culture in southeast Romania (Morintz
1964; H?nsel 1976: 120?134, pl. 14?17, also pp. 230?236). Other sources of ty-
pological parallels can be found in the Chatalka culture, the Maritza-Tund-
sha area, the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria, e. g., the Pshenichevo Group
(Dimitrov 1968, 1971; Chichikova 1968; Stefanovich 1974; H?nsel 1976:
191?227, pl. 21, 23, 24?7, 28, also pp. 232?233; Koppenh?fer 1997: 337?341), the
area of Macedonia (represented mainly by the site of Kastanas, Hochstet-
ter 1984: 373?375) and the island of Thasos (Koukoulh-Crusanqakh 1970:
19; 1982, 135).

And these groups can clearly be connected with G?va-Holigrady over Moldova into Dobruja and from Belegis II-G?va down the Danube. Even the non-G?va elements come from Coslogeni which was influenced by Noua/steppe and the Carpathian basin too.

In fact, these are the only important, critical questions for the Channelled Ware as a whole:

This methodology, though perfect to serve the purposes of creating a ty-
pology and relative chronology, proves very unsatisfactory when we want
to answer the following questions:
? is the presence of pots of Knobbed and ?Barbarian? styles in Troia really
an indicator of migration?
? if migration existed, what was its size?
? what kind of relations existed between the local population and the new-
comers?

I completley agree with this quote:

In fact, such questions can hardly ever be satisfactorily answered based on
one type of archaeological evidence only, namely pottery. The full analysis
of the problem requires a combination of research on the architecture,
dietary customs, anthropological remains and the like (cf. the most recent
models on the archaeological identification of migration, Burmeister
2000; Anthony 1990, 1997, 2000)

That's why we need more ancient DNA!

Many of the "new archaeologists" did nothing else but trying to explain the migration away, like searching for alternatives were they could and playing the lasting effect down as much as possible. This is particularly noticeable among the Bulgarian archaeologists, which even invented new names for a widely known pottery style (like "lustrous ware" for the burnished knobbed-channelled potteries).

Before you say those quotes are just about Troy, and not the South East of Bulgaria: Knobbed Ware was as new and intrusive in South Eastern Thrace as it was in Troy. The explanation for the well-researched case of Troy should be applicable to other areas of Channelled Ware in a similar way:

According to the present state of knowledge, the infiltration of foreign
groups in Troia in the VIIb phase cannot be excluded. Therefore, we pro-
pose the following scenario: Troia, pauperized after two subsequent de-
structions at the end of the VI and VIIa settlements (Guzowska 2000), may
have been subjected to slow infiltration from the north.At the beginning of
the process, the number of the newcomers were probably rather small. As
such they were hardly detectable in the archaeological context due to the
o-called Versailles effect, when the material culture of the destination
place is eagerly adopted by the immigrants coming from less developed
areas (Wiener 1984: 17). Possibly, the only trace left is the introduction of
pots of ?Barbarian? ware, used for limited household purposes, while as
tableware local Grey and Tan ware was used. With time, when the number
of newcomers grew, the desire to mark ethnicity or origin in order to dis-
tinguish themselves from the local population may also have grown. An
additional factor may have been the gender structure of the immigrant
groups, as often shown in ethnological studies. Such causes can only in
exceptional cases be recognized in an archaeological context.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285784740_On_the_Origin_of_Coarse_Wares_of_Troia_VII

In some areas the break is even more drastic and as clearly linked with newly arriving groups from the relative North as in Troy.

The predictions I make based on my interpretation and I only want my hypothesis to be judged by this:
- There won't be a significant frequency of E-V13 in much of the Balkans, especially South of Central Serbia or at the Lower Danube, before the Transitional Period (no earlier than 1.300 BC).
- There will be earlier cases of E-V13 in the Carpathian basin
- There will be a sudden increase of E-V13 in all testable groups related to Channelled Ware and its successors, which includes e.g. Psenichevo, Babadag, Bosut-Basarabi, Mezocsat, Eastern Vekerzug, Late G?va and generally all Thracian and Dacian people.

Therefore E-V13 will be largely established by the developed Iron Age, in most regions, no earlier and more frequently associated with cremation burials (with known notable exceptions, mainly under foreign influence, like Cimmerian and/or Aegean-Anatolian influence).

That the trend was going from North to South being also supported by geochemical analysis. The pottery in South Thrace was often coming from Northern Bulgaria, in Troy it was coming from South Bulgaria. So you have a step-by-step North-South trend if looking at the ceramic production. I'm pretty sure if analysing the North Bulgarian pottery the same way, it would go up to Dobruja and from there to Moldova and so on, if looking at the earliest pieces of channelled-knobbed wares:

On the basis of petrographical (modal) measurements the sherds have been grouped into eight groups und several subgroups. The sherds contain mostly following minerals: quartz, primary calcite, feldspar, mica, epidote, amphibole, garnet and opaque clasts as well as rock fragments: polychrystalline quartz, magmatite, volcanite, volcanic glass, ARF, phyllite and sandstone. However, the geographical proximity and similar geology of the sites in Bulgaria where Knobbed Ware was found did not allow for differentiating clearly the petrographical groups. Further X-ray fluorescence analysis has been carried out in order to clear the grouping. Based on these data most potteries have good overlap with chemical patterns of the local sediments, so they seem to be locally produced. This observation is in accordance with archaeological theories concerning distribution of this type of pottery. It was also possible to establish that several sherds from vessels found in South-Bulgarian sites were in fact produced in North Bulgaria.

The origin of the Knobbed ware in Troia has been widely discussed over many years. A new class of
pottery appearing in Troia in the VIIb settlement is connected with a totally new approach to ceramic
production and use. In comparison to the pottery produced in Troia continuously since the Middle
Bronze Age, the Knobbed ware is handmade and relatively low-fired, which implies entirely different
technology and tradition of production. The shapes are also a break with the tradition present in Troia
20
for hundreds of years, implying possibly different food traditions. Many scholars, starting with Carl
Blegen (Blegen et al., 1958) postulated, that such drastic change in pottery traditions must be related
to the change in population. The fact that the new pottery appeared in Troia after a series of
destruction has been often quoted as an argument for the theory that weakened Troia was settled by
the newcomers from the North (cf. also. Bloedow, 1985; Dimitrov, 1968; 1971; Koppenh?fer, 1997;
Stefanovich, 1974).

A desideratum being:

completing the archaeological database with the complex geoarchaeological analysis of
further Knobbed ware sherds, especially from archaeological places from the Balkans,
southeast Romania (Babadag), as well as Greece

http://www.ace.hu/ametry/am2004-pfe.html
https://d-nb.info/976420309/34

Also compare with the distribution of Knobbed Ware:

From:
https://d-nb.info/976420309/34

Directly to the North, we come to G?va-Holigrady (Eastern G?va) and those come from the central G?va regions and Lăpuş II-G?va. So we have a connection over multiple steps. It is possible that there was a stronger founder effect and dominance for E-V13 in Knobbed Ware than in other G?va-related Channelled Ware groups. That's possible.

The population movement will have happened in the same way: Expansion -> Stabilisation with local admixture -> New Expansion. The ultimate starting point will be G?va -> Belegis II-G?va in the West and Lăpuş II-G?va - G?va-Holigrady -> Fluted Ware horizon -> Babadag-Psenichevo in the East.

Looking at the place names map, there is only one strong border in the Daco-Thracian sphere and that's the Danube:

Whereas the Southern Danubian sphere is rather diverse in place names, those North of the Danube are more homogeneous. That's the only thing we can deduce from that. And we have, so far, nothing from North of the Danube which can be safely associated with Geto-Dacians in their core zone, without any doubt.

 

[mount123]

Not really LBA/EIA but has any of you looked into this preprint about 5/6th CE cemeteries from Hungary? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.26.509582v1

 

[Riverman]

Not really LBA/EIA but has any of you looked into this preprint about 5/6th CE cemeteries from Hungary? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.26.509582v1

Seem to be the same samples like here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...5-6th-century-cemeteries-in-Pannonia?p=659314

Two E-V13 among them, both from Hacs.

Hacs_21 being E1b1b1a1b1a10a2h = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7065/
Hacs_22 might be E-L17: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L17/

There is a third low coverage from Fonyad which might be E-V13 as well.

Also compare with: https://www.balto-slavica.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20077&page=67 or https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6496-Map-of-ancient-E-samples&p=878236&viewfull=1#post878236

 

[mount123]

Seem to be the same samples like here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...5-6th-century-cemeteries-in-Pannonia?p=659314

Two E-V13 among them, both from Hacs.

Hacs_21 being E1b1b1a1b1a10a2h = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7065/
Hacs_22 might be E-L17: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L17/

There is a third low coverage from Fonyad which might be E-V13 as well.

Also compare with: https://www.balto-slavica.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20077&page=67 or https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6496-Map-of-ancient-E-samples&p=878236&viewfull=1#post878236

Thanks for the links! Yes, that is why I thought it might be of interest to this thread.

 

[Hawk]

The 2 Himera samples and several samples showing up in Western Hungary during Iron Age from time to time after the cremation wasn't so extensive makes me favor much more the Carpathian basin theory rather than Eastern Balkans/Lower Danube/Dobrudja Chalcolithic survivors theory. It must have gone two ways during Bronze to Iron Age, and the Bronze-Iron Age sampling is hidden under extensive cremation, that's what archaeologists universally agree, these people were cremating like crazy during Bronze Age, even Celts got their tradition from them, and other Urnfielders(assuming that a heavy E-V13 culture was a sub-culture within greater Urnfield complex).

The Stamped Pottery Cultures which is usually classified in two words stamped and grooved (English word/synonym for the French kanellure/channeling) was a part of it, Eastern Hallstattian who was transitioning to inhumation gradually.

 

[Riverman]

If they come from the Balkans and Stamped Pottery, just if, they won't be from much South of the Danube and Basarabi - just if they are not from a more Eastern Black Sea group, like from around Moldova. Since we got a Caucasian E-V13 side by side with R-Z93, presumably from the Cimmerian-Scythian sphere of interactions.

 

[Hawk]

If they come from the Balkans and Stamped Pottery, just if, they won't be from much South of the Danube and Basarabi - just if they are not from a more Eastern Black Sea group, like from around Moldova. Since we got a Caucasian E-V13 side by side with R-Z93, presumably from the Cimmerian-Scythian sphere of interactions.

We have a general idea, but we don't know specifically where from, personally i have made my opinion clear, it was a Vatin, Vatya, Hatvan vector, and finally toward Gava both west and east which mixed with Encrusted Pottery and Lower Danube Cultures created the Stamped Pottery Cultures, and toward north mixing with Ottomany created the Gava.

 

[mount123]

The PCA just shows the shift in Cetina, in the directon of Bell Beakers, and this further increased up to the MBA. Culturally, the thing is clear cut, just remember the quotations from me and others, Cetina is an Adriatic Bell Beaker imitation and that's not just indirect influence, but direct one in the Italian-Alpine-Adriatic networks. Its just that the J-L283 became the leading clans and chiefs in Cetina.

It clearly doesn’t and there is not even one to begin with. Taking two Slavonian (North Eastern Croatia) one being a Copper Age sample and one EBA, both absolutely alien and unrelated to EBA Cetina in regards to patrilineage, auDNA, mtDNA and archeology is no proof of such a non sensical „shift“ because they are not ancestral to EBA Cetina.

What about those Daunian J2b-L283 samples being shifted towards Illyrians?!! If carriers of a lineage primarily associated with one culture also differ autosomally by a certain component than that is proof of witnessing rather an interaction of unrelated ethnocultural groups which are rather antagonistic, in a archeogenetic sense, to one another.

You do realize that Bruzmi uses the same logic to proof that the E1b Glinoe sample is Illyrian when we can clearly see that it absolutely isn’t. Seems like people don’t really seem to get the idea behind modeling populations with certain given quantities: it is absolutely not intended to show actual ancestry, albeit it can in a certain context. auDNA is multifaceted.

So much of an immitation that it entirely differs in archaeogentic and ethnolinguistic records. That is a paradoxon and strongly refutes such a baseless claim.

 

[mount123]

It clearly doesn’t and there is not even one to begin with. Taking two Slavonian (North Eastern Croatia) one being a Copper Age sample and one EBA, both absolutely alien and unrelated to EBA Cetina in regards to patrilineage, auDNA, mtDNA and archeology is no proof of such a non sensical „shift“ because they are not ancestral to EBA Cetina.

What about those Daunian J2b-L283 samples being shifted towards Illyrians?!! If carriers of a lineage primarily associated with one culture also differ autosomally by a certain component than that is proof of witnessing rather an interaction of unrelated ethnocultural groups which are rather antagonistic, in a archeogenetic sense, to one another.

You do realize that Bruzmi uses the same logic to proof that the E1b Glinoe sample is Illyrian when we can clearly see that it absolutely isn’t. Seems like people don’t really seem to get the idea behind modeling populations with certain given quantities: it is absolutely not intended to show actual ancestry, albeit it can in a certain context. auDNA is multifaceted.

So much of an immitation that it entirely differs in archaeogentic and ethnolinguistic records. That is a paradoxon and strongly refutes such a baseless claim.

Also to stick to the scientific papers and not such baseless far from reality claims quoted from the other forum: EBA Cetina has a clear homogenous uniparental and auDNA cluster. It clearly isn't heterogenous! It is absolutely horrendous seeing such baseless claims and misinformation spreads via amateur gibberish mish mash "models". There are papers one should read and actual scientific population modelling methods.

 

[Riverman]

Cetina is in G25 runs I made not as homogeneous as e.g. HRV_MBA samples are. But probably I was using the wrong references and approach. I'm just writing what's my personal impression. As for the cultural and autosomal position, we see how it turns out with more samples. I agree with J-L283 and a clear cut autosomal profile being a sure path for the Illyrians and their spread. That's beside the point. The question is still how it came up. The cultural Bell Beaker influence of huge magnitude is clear, the genetic can be discussed.

 

[Excine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9
Reconstructing genetic histories and social organisation in Neolithic and Bronze Age Croatia[/URL]
Suzanne Freilich, Harald Ringbauer, Dženi Los, Mario Novak, Dinko Tresić Pavičić, Stephan Schiffels & Ron Pinhasi
Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 16729 (2021)

We grouped the new Copper Age individual, POP39, with a previously published cladal individual, I3499 (Supplementary Table S2, Supplementary Table S6), who originates from the same site and time period (Croatia_Pop_CA). (..)

Testing with qpWave confirmed that Croatia_Pop_CA provides a feasible single source of ancestry for the Dalmatian Bronze Age (Supplementary Table S4).

In the Bronze Age we again observe two genetically distinct yet concurrent ancestries in different ecoregions. Two Dalmatian individuals associated with the Cetina culture are broadly contemporaneous with the latest contextual date for Jagodnjak, yet carry ancestry similar to Copper Age Popova zemlja. This profile persists in a third Dalmatian individual who postdates the genetically distinct Jagodnjak individuals by almost a thousand years. The shared genetic affinities between individuals of Jagodnjak and the contemporaneous Vatya culture further north, distinguished by high WHG-related ancestry, supports archaeological evidence for close interaction and exchange networks between various groups in the Carpathian Basin and the southern Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery communities in present-day eastern Croatia, whose ceramic wares have been found in neighbouring Vatya communities and other contemporaneous groups along the Danube in the Carpathian Basin

The samples are fine and they don't show a "shift" of Cetina towards any BB population. It's just the minor variation within any population. I don't see where Riverman sees the "shift" towards another population. It's obvious that Vucedol and Cetina are related and part of the same Balkan post-Yamnaya population.

All in all, Cetina is very homogeneous and this homogeneity shows up even more when just the J-L283 men and not the women are taken into account:

 

[Riverman]

What is really critical: Before Cetina into MBA, the West Balkan groups seem to have been less Bell Beaker-like, and even more important, in the Iron Age the Carpathian Bain component (Encrusted Pottery, rather G?va-like) did increase and we find E-V13 only after the Iron Age. So it likely spread from the Carpathian Basin, with Urnfield-Channelled Ware-Thraco-Cimmerian horizon movements, to Illyrians, but didn't come from them.

 

[mount123]

What is really critical: Before Cetina into MBA, the West Balkan groups seem to have been less Bell Beaker-like, and even more important, in the Iron Age the Carpathian Bain component (Encrusted Pottery, rather G�va-like) did increase and we find E-V13 only after the Iron Age. So it likely spread from the Carpathian Basin, with Urnfield-Channelled Ware-Thraco-Cimmerian horizon movements, to Illyrians, but didn't come from them.

Cetina is a EBA to MBA culture and there is nothing that suggests what you are repeatedly claiming. The two Slavonian Vucedol affiliated CA and EBA samples are still unrelated to EBA Cetina and not ancestral hence the starting premise you are basing your whole "large scale autosomal shift" argumentation on is easily refutable.

Cultures should be differentiated from one another and so their time frames.

 

[Hawk]

Looking into it, and it's remarkable how E-V13 is missing from Bulgarian Neolithic/Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...500000,0&orderby=mtDNA_haplogroup&ascdesc=ASC

and then suddenly appearing all over Early Iron Age/Middle Iron Age from Western Hungary to Northern Greece and north-east bordering Scythians.

 

[mount123]

Cetina is a EBA to MBA culture and there is nothing that suggests what you are repeatedly claiming. The two Slavonian Vucedol affiliated CA and EBA samples are still unrelated to EBA Cetina and not ancestral hence the starting premise you are basing your whole "large scale autosomal shift" argumentation on is easily refutable.

Cultures should be differentiated from one another and so their time frames.

Something which Anthrogenica's clown Bruzmi aka Wikipedia "Maleschreiber" should read about. Also the simple fact of archeogenetic continuity EBA-MBA Cetina/Dinaric to IA Illyrians. Main associated patrilineage is clearly J2b-L283, we have more than enough samples now. In no way do these show ratios of Cetina derived patrilineage meets non-Illyrian (non existent in Proto-Illyrians) Ulanci MBA offshoots from very Eastern Albania (excluding Cetina/Dinaric J2b-L283 sample from Shkrel, Shkodra North Western Albania). Neither CA Vucedol, nor insignificant miniscule Central Balkan EBA Belotic Bela Crkva, Maros have anything to do with Cetina - Dinaric - Classical Illyrians whatsoever.

Considering you have been obsessed with this lineage, "Maleschreiber" , that you don't belong to, and you've let me know this via private messages and continue to spread misinformation, and I know you are lurking around here, at least stay away from Phylogeographer's comment sections and spread your propaganda elsewhere. This lineage is not Proto-Albanian, it is Illyrian.

 

[Riverman]

Looking into it, and it's remarkable how E-V13 is missing from Bulgarian Neolithic/Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...500000,0&orderby=mtDNA_haplogroup&ascdesc=ASC

and then suddenly appearing all over Early Iron Age/Middle Iron Age from Western Hungary to Northern Greece and north-east bordering Scythians.

Yes, Bulgaria, unlike Western Romania, is no undertested territory! Granted, the MBA is not tested, but in the MBA was a hiatus anyway and whatever came in must have come from somewhere else. It is really down to G?va and Coslogeni, with Coslogeni being basically from Noua-Sabatinovka steppe groups (Srubna related) which took up local Carpatho-Balkan elements, like from Wietenberg, Monteoru etc.

 

[Riverman]

... J2b-L283 ... This lineage is not Proto-Albanian, it is Illyrian.

Yeah, it would be like saying I-M253 is "Proto-Swiss" I mean its not completely off, because there would be no German Swiss without Germanic I-M253, but its just a stretch nevertheless.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

I am surprised by this sample:

Target: E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832
Distance: 2.5471% / 0.02547086
70.0 Aegean_Neolithic
19.6 Yamnaya
8.6 Baltic
1.8 Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic

Most certainly a Greek merchant, or a Southern Thracian, he is not close to the J2b2-L283 sample as he was hinting in anthrogenica. He was most probably over-generalizing the Neolithic influence and hitting on that ground.

This fellow has strong Skopje I13079 component. They are essentially the same.

They cluster the same, they show affinity to MKD BA, the profile is unique from proper Thracians, you can see one individual from SE MKD even has a profile of what one would expect of a western Dardanii. The way it clusters and models, this profile represents a 3rd group in the Balkans

In my opinion it represents Dardani and Paeoni profile. In this particular person, it has to be a eastern Dardani, there is a strong south Thracian component and his haplogroup is E-V13.