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

[Riverman]

Excellent posts, @Paleo!



Indirectly hinted as in by people or just due to archeological affiliations? If I am not mistaken the Gomolava samples are all from the Early Iron Age. We had some interesting samples during the early Roman Era north west of Gomolava though that were of Illyrian and TC Celtic patrilineage. Riverman has posted about Gomolava in the past, would this mean that this particular mass grave is the Hrtkovci-Gomolava II one which is considered to be part of the Kalakaca horizon of the Bosut culture in Syrmia?

The problem is that we have no exact date and context, because its a mass grave, probably from a massacre or the dead of a plague, or a mass sacrifice. Since we detect more such mass burials in the LBA-EIA/very early EIA, we might deal with some sort of warlike conditions, even conquest. Basically we deal with a context for which the people could be derived from Belegis II-G?va, Gornea-Kalakača or Bosut-Basarabi. Since all three are highly interesting and important, especially for the G?va -> Basarabi transition, everything from this context might be highly valuable. Even if Gornea-Kalakača would be some sort of foreign intrusive element and Basarabi would have replaced them or something along these lines, it would be great to know. My personal opinion is that there was large scale continuity from one to the other, but this needs to be confirmed and I wouldn't bet too much on it.

 

[Johane Derite]

Bosut is related cultural complex of Basarabi. It's called Bosut-Basarabi Cultural Complex. Bosut is usually seen as having continuum with Belegis- Gava II.

The Gomolava sacrificial burials which is indirectly hinted E-V13 to be found is key to connect the dots.

Triballi should be the Bosut descendands pushing Illyrians more South/West while they themselves being pushed by Scythians in Early Iron Age. Probably somewhere during Middle/Late Iron Age Autariate Illyrians pushed Triballi more east.

These are the territories of the Triballi according to Papazoglu

 

[Riverman]

These are the territories of the Triballi according to Papazoglu

I read the main archaeological formation which might have been associated with the Triballi was Ferigile. Ferigile was the result of Basarabi elements being influenced from the East, from Scythians, in a similar way as Vekerzug was.

Compare, there is a pretty straightforward pattern observable for Late Basarabi (of course some recent scholars argued with "climate change" etc., but that's largely BS):

Looking at the distribution map of the finds belonging to the middle period of the First Iron Age north of the Lower Danube, a stage that corresponds to the Basarabi culture evolution, can be clearly seen that the Sub-Carpathian area is a large blank spot (fig. 1a). The high-density of discoveries marked by the Basarabi specific pottery focuses on the Danube valley and also on the lower courses of its main tributaries. Then, during the late stage of the first Iron Age, starting from the mid-7th century major changes occur in the indwelling in this area. It seems that the Danube Plain suddenly depopulates, while the discoveries concentrate on the high hills area at the foot of the Carpathians, within the former blank spot (fig. 1b). Some scholars have explained this shift of the habitation's poles during the 7th century BC through the withdrawal of the lowland population exposed to more and more frequent raids of Eastern horsemen (namely Scythians) in sheltered territory from the north, in a higher and hard to reach area. A safe living in the Danube Plain has become increasingly difficult as the Scythians riders were more & more present in the area (Vulpe 1970, 176-178; S?rbu 1987, 427-428).

Ferigile were basically Northern Thracians which fell back to safer positions during the time of the extensive and highly destructive Scythian raids - at the same time they adopted new elements from these Scythians, both due to peaceful contacts and presumably because they began "to fight fire with fire":

As a result of the increasing of the archaeological discoveries and chance finds, today we are able to draw the map showing the spread of Ferigile group: about 40 cemeteries or small groups of graves, all of cremation, which does not deviate significantly from the pattern of small barrows with mantle in boulders. The group's evolving structure is based on the chronological outline highlighted following the research of the eponymous cemetery: three chronological stages (Ferigile South, Ferigile North and Ferigile III) approximately two hundred years, between mid-7th century and mid 5th century BC (Vulpe 1977). Almost all of the information we have about Ferigile group comes from funerary feature discoveries - cemeteries and groups of graves archaeologically excavated and chance finds (here we include the isolated single pieces). The absence of the settlements of this group's monuments ensemble could be solely the result of the research stage. The Settlements of this group, hard to be spotted in the ground, have not caught the attention of archaeologists yet. Although rare, some evidence slightly began to appear (Palincaș 2003-2005, 291-301). A settlement area spotted only by field walking at Tigveni-"Momaia", located one kilometer and a half away from the group of Ferigile barrows at Tigveni-"Babe", shows us the basic features of such kind of habitat1 : a not very large area, apparently without a fortification system, located on a small promontory bordered by two natural ravines in a former wooded area, near a stream abundantly fed by torrents flowing down on the slopes (fig. 2) Going back now to the phenomenon of sudden occurrence of this cultural group in the areas of high hills from the southern side of the Carpathians due to the advancement of the population from the Danube Plain to the north in search for safe shelters, it would seem that we are dealing with an isolated group that was looking for survival hiding away from a real danger which threatened their old dwellings. For them, the Danube Valley then was no longer the path of communication and intercultural contact, but the corridor that brought great dangers and threats. With all these assumptions, justified however only in theory, a number of features of Ferigile group demonstrated the opposite, namely sensitivity, receptivity and openness of these people to the stream of all cultural trends of the time, fashionable in a certain period. Some peculiarities of weaponry, adornments and even pottery of Ferigile group bear hints of that great openness and availability to dialogue and a quick receiving of the new.

https://www.academia.edu/9120609/Ea...ynthesis_in_the_Ferigile_archaeological_group

onsidering the abundance of pottery and metal inds, which belong or are close to the Basarabi and Ferigile group we think that both cultural horizons should be included in the periodization of the Early Iron Age in eastern Serbia. Beginnings of the Early Iron Age in those regions should be related to the appearance of the earliest iron objects, which by all appearances date from the beginning of Basarabi culture. Kalakača horizon is at many settlements in the Serbian Danube valley is closely connected with the horizon of channeled pottery of the G?va type, i.e. it dates from the inal phase of the Late Bronze Age. Despite the fact that eastern Serbia is not suiciently investigated we think that new archaeological inds, in particular from the Miroč Mountain indicated that in those areas Ferigile group succeeded Basarabi group during Early Iron Age. We do not have enough data to conclude how long the Ferigile group lasted in the eastern Serbia and what were cultural circumstances and trend in the period preceding the arrival of the Celts in this region. If we would like to get into tangled relations between PaleoBalkan tribes in the Iron Age, we could ascribe Basarabi and Ferigile horizons in northeastern Serbia to the Thracian tribe of Triballi.

Despite relatively numerous inds of iron objects, which have been discovered at the Early Iron Age sites in the northeastern Serbia in recent years, particularly in the Miroč Mt., it is essential to emphasize that we do not have for the time being reliable stratigraphic data, which would make possible better comprehension of relative chronological picture of that very period in the zone between the Carpathian Basin and the central Balkans. It is without doubt that Kalakača horizon (or Kalakača?Gornea phase) could hardly be identiied as Early Iron Age in the north Serbia region but as culturally related to the end of Late Bronze Age or characterized as transitional period, chronologically close to the so-called horizon of black burnished channeled pottery (G?va horizon, Mala Vrbica-Hinova) (see Gumă 1993; 1995; Jevtić 1996; 2004) and partially with Insula Banului horizon with stamped pottery (Morintz?Roman 1969). In favor of this conclusion also speaks our ascribing of tanged iron axe (?rmchenbeile type) from the settlement Gradina na Bosutu to the horizon with finds of the Basarabi group. the axe is broadly dated to the 8th century BC and comes most probably from the same cultural horizon as the fragment of pseudo-twisted bronze torc with T-shaped terminals that is characteristic of the Basarabi culture (Medović?Medović 2011, 65). New sites with the Ferigile type pottery and diverse metal finds from the late Hallstatt horizon in the northeastern Serbia indicate strong cultural influence of the Early Iron Age communities from the Oltenia region. Considering the present-day level of investigations we think it more appropriate to attribute Basarabi and Ferigile horizons the Early Iron Age in eastern Serbia, instead of rather small regional groups of Vajuga and Zlot-Sofronievo type as Vasić proposed in a number of texts (Vasić 1983; 1997; 2004).

https://www.academia.edu/30554381/B...Contribution_to_the_Early_Iron_Age_Chronology

 

[Southpaw]

So. two new E-L618 from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumelnița–Kodžadermen-Karanovo_VI_complex

Still no confirmed E-V13 prior EIA.

I believe the core zone of E-V13 was Vinca-Karanovo border zone.

 

[Riverman]

So. two new E-L618 from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumelnița–Kodžadermen-Karanovo_VI_complex

Still no confirmed E-V13 prior EIA.

I believe the core zone of E-V13 was Vinca-Karanovo border zone.

They belong to this branch:

VAR009; ~4700-4300 BC; Varna, Bulgaria, KGK_VI_CA; E-L618>CTS10912>pre-Y182141

Y182141 level: BY218115+ C>A (2A); BY135052+ T>G (1G); BY117854+ G>A (1A); BY118495- A>G (2A); FT149055- T>C (1T)


VAR018; ~4700-4300 BC; Varna, Bulgaria, KGK_VI_CA; E-L618>CTS10912>(pre-)Y182141

Y182141 level: BY216991+ T>A (1A)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...eastern-Europe&p=935209&viewfull=1#post935209

Which makes a back migration of the modern samples from North Africa quite likely.

Also, I read that late Karanovo received strong influences from Romania, Tripolye-Cucuteni.

I really would like to get a good number of samples from Petresti and more samples from Decea Muresului and nearby sites. We know that at Decea Muresului ilncoming steppe groups and locals mixed, locals also from the paternal side (haplogroup H confirmed), therefore it is a likely contact point and also a potential factor for later Cotofeni, which is the central group for the development of the cremating Carpatho-Balkan cultures.

A Late Neolithic and Eneolithic culture of Transylvania, northwestern Romania, and dated to the early 4th millennium BC. Petresti settlement pattern is tell-based, with most occupations preceded by Early Vinca levels. The defining characteristic is a wide range of painted wares, bichrome and trichrome in style, and decorated with brown parallel lines in elaborate patterns. The culture is contemporaneous with the early stages of Cucuteni-Tripolye to the east and Gumelnita to the southeast.

https://www.archaeologs.com/w/petresti-culture/en

The Petrești culture diffused across almost all of Transylvania, is regarded as local in origin by some specialists, and as a migration originating from the southern areas of the Balkans, by others. It is primarily known for its painted decoration ? patterns painted in red, brown-red, later brown, on a brick-red background, which testifies to the high standard of civilization of the bearers of this culture. The ornamental motifs consist in bands, rhombuses, squares, spirals, and windings. The typical forms are bowls, tureens, high stands. Plastic art is fairly scarce and so are brass items.

The end of this culture^{[clarification needed]} has been associated with the entry into central Transylvania by the bearers of the Decea Mureşului culture/horizon and the Gorneşti culture. The graves at Decea Mureşului, according to some, are a continuation of the rituals of Iclod, whereas according to others, they are hard proof of the penetration of central Transylvania by a north-Pontic population. The presence of red ochre scattered over the skeletons, or laid at their feet in the form of little balls, as well as other ritual elements find better analogies, however, in the necropolis at Mariopol in south Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Transylvania#Petre%C8%99ti_culture


In any case, the important transition is from one of these Late Neolithic-Copper Age groups, which were all related anyway, to the Cotofeni complex, in which steppe elements were already incorporated was becoming more common. This is basically the area of Romania primarily, but also parts of Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria.

 

[Riverman]

Closest distances for the two samples:

Distance to: VAR018.trim2
0.02459022 PIE037.trim2
0.02594979 ROU_C_I4088__BC_4241__Cov_60.71%
0.02732403 PIE037.Ymerged
0.02868372 VAR010.trim2
0.03244126 TUR_Boncuklu_N_ZKO_BON001__BC_7950__Cov_50.63%

Distance to: VAR009.trim2
0.02724977 VAR032.trim2
0.02795848 PIE077.trim2
0.02813622 PIE023.Ymerged
0.02871943 BGR_Middle_C_I2431__BC_4674__Cov_62.87%
0.02924151 ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C_I7130__BC_4128__Cov_77.92%

From: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...eastern-Europe&p=935256&viewfull=1#post935256

This shows nicely how closely related the groups of Romania and Bulgaria were, nearly indistinguishable on the autosomal level.

 

[Southpaw]

I was just reading some sample collections from Chalcolithic sites, it's weird to me how 7 samples are some E-M2 and related exotic E lineages, yet E-L618 appears 2 times, and E-V13 zero times.

Also, interesting to read that Late Bronze Age Bulgaria from former Stamped-Pottery Culture sites cannot be tested due to wider spread of cremation, this just reinforces the connection with Insula Banului as a Stamped-Pottery Culture with hard-to-find archaeologically burials, yet so few of them are cremations, looks like the pits from Iron Age and small tumuli burials are a phenomena from after-LBA. Let's see.

 

[kingdavid]

I was just reading some sample collections from Chalcolithic sites, it's weird to me how 7 samples are some E-M2 and related exotic E lineages, yet E-L618 appears 2 times, and E-V13 zero times.

Also, interesting to read that Late Bronze Age Bulgaria from former Stamped-Pottery Culture sites cannot be tested due to wider spread of cremation, this just reinforces the connection with Insula Banului as a Stamped-Pottery Culture with hard-to-find archaeologically burials, yet so few of them are cremations, looks like the pits from Iron Age and small tumuli burials are a phenomena from after-LBA. Let's see.

it is based on very few number of snp's
i suggest
we should wait for pribislav analysis
of those my bet: they wouldn't even be E
the 2 e-L618 cases from chl varna bulgaria 4700-4300 bc are indeed real pribislav confirmed it in anthrogenica

 

[Southpaw]

it is based on very few number of snp's
i suggest
we should wait for pribislav analysis
of those my bet: they wouldn't even be E
the 2 e-L618 cases from chl varna bulgaria 4700-4300 bc are indeed real pribislav confirmed it in anthrogenica

Ok, i see. Could even be E-L618, like what does E-M2 has anything to do in Chalcolithic Bulgaria? Would be surprised.

 

[Riverman]

Ok, i see. Could even be E-L618, like what does E-M2 has anything to do in Chalcolithic Bulgaria? Would be surprised.

Don't look like it, because they weren't confirmed in the other run. Rather they might be females and the few reads which can be targeted in females produced aberrant results. They seem to be not real. We got the two E-L618 and interestingly they are from the same branch. So not arbitrary E1b1b, but one specific branch which apparently lurked around in the Eastern Balkans. Would be great to get more samples from Lengyel-Sopot in the Middle Danubian zone and Eastwards, from Petresti in particular, also Vinca etc.

But for the E-V13 story its about a single survivor or surviving small clan in the steppe-invasion period, about the time frame when Cotofeni was formed.

 

[Southpaw]

As for Pre-Proto-Thracians, the Early Bronze Age R1b-Z2103 is not part of Proto-Thracians, Proto-Thracian cultures are considered the so called Thracian Hallstatt/East-Hallstatt/Earlier-Hallstattian which includes Channeled-Ware and Stamped-Ware.

If anything, i think some sort of R1a distantly related to Iranic people were Pre-Proto-Thracians, which came in contact with a rich E-V13 EEF group along the Danube.

 

[mount123]

As for Pre-Proto-Thracians, the Early Bronze Age R1b-Z2103 is not part of Proto-Thracians, Proto-Thracian cultures are considered the so called Thracian Hallstatt/East-Hallstatt/Earlier-Hallstattian which includes Channeled-Ware and Stamped-Ware.

If anything, i think some sort of R1a distantly related to Iranic people were Pre-Proto-Thracians, which came in contact with a rich E-V13 EEF group along the Danube.

I personally find such nomenclatures (that entail Thracians before Thracians were a thing) to be rather misleading. If anything we can talk about Late PIE folks. If you want to talk about the proper Proto-Thracians then uniparental data should be emphasized and that strongly suggests E-V13 to be the defining marker, from the beginning of the formation of their ethnogenesis.

Everything before that would seemingly have contributed to such a formation, no question, but then again those are LPIE formations at best. What makes up proper Thracians is the former I have mentioned and in auDNA and uniparentals that is absolutely defining.

The prehistoric Carpatho-Balkans do really just have different dynamics.

 

[Southpaw]

I personally find such nomenclatures (that entail Thracians before Thracians were a thing) to be rather misleading. If anything we can talk about Late PIE folks. If you want to talk about the proper Proto-Thracians then uniparental data should be emphasized and that strongly suggests E-V13 to be the defining marker, from the beginning of the formation of their ethnogenesis.

Everything before that would seemingly have contributed to such a formation, no question, but then again those are LPIE formations at best. What makes up proper Thracians is the former I have mentioned and in auDNA and uniparentals that is absolutely defining.

The prehistoric Carpatho-Balkans do really just have different dynamics.

Yeah, i totally agree. Like, how can we talk about hypothetical Pre-Proto-Thracian when the actual historical people have different Y-DNA, it's better to base on the actual evidence and see where they stem from.

 

[Riverman]

Yeah, i totally agree. Like, how can we talk about hypothetical Pre-Proto-Thracian when the actual historical people have different Y-DNA, it's better to base on the actual evidence and see where they stem from.

We really need samples from Cotofeni in particular, also more from Baden, Vucedol and other Carpatho-Balkan groups.
But at that stage we might already deal with something more specific, but still not Proto-Thracian, even if Thracians would have, which is unknown, grown out of it.
And E-V13 in the early stages might have been just one small clan among many others.
However, that already in Decea Muresului a Neolithic haplogroup popped up in the post-steppe horizon might be an indication.

Clearly the spread of E-V13 within the Carpatho-Balkan sphere must have happened in stages, yet more likely from a group which had a higher Neolithic paternal impact, which seems to have been the case in Cotofeni. But we need more data like always.

 

[Southpaw]

We really need samples from Cotofeni in particular, also more from Baden, Vucedol and other Carpatho-Balkan groups.
But at that stage we might already deal with something more specific, but still not Proto-Thracian, even if Thracians would have, which is unknown, grown out of it.
And E-V13 in the early stages might have been just one small clan among many others.
However, that already in Decea Muresului a Neolithic haplogroup popped up in the post-steppe horizon might be an indication.
Clearly the spread of E-V13 within the Carpatho-Balkan sphere must have happened in stages, yet more likely from a group which had a higher Neolithic paternal impact, which seems to have been the case in Cotofeni. But we need more data like always.

Personally i view it more realistic and i prefer the Vinca-Karanovo border, but i might be totally wrong about this, but from what i see, it's the safest bet for now.

 

[Riverman]

Personally i view it more realistic and i prefer the Vinca-Karanovo border, but i might be totally wrong about this, but from what i see, it's the safest bet for now.

It is of course entirely possible even if we would assume a Carpathian origin in the LBA, because there were theories about the Vinca origin, influences, including human migraitons, in Petresti and Gumelnita.

 

[Southpaw]

I stumbled upon this and i wonder how did the guy found at that the E-L618 in Marvinci Macedonia is actually E-V13 => S7461: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Ancient Macedonian Kingdom Idomenae Marvinci-Valandovo[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]1. North_Italian (7.840)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]2. Spanish_Andalucia (8.675)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]3. Spanish_Valencia (10.54)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]4. Spanish_Murcia (11.01)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]5. Spanish_Extremadura (11.37)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]6. Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha (11.42)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]7. Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon (11.98)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]8. Tuscan (12.11)

[/COLOR]https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=14N85Yf-1FS6DFcwvMxX5Pll-q-jvrYw&ll=41.17192184486504%2C22.209994956395725&z=8

 

[Riverman]

I stumbled upon this and i wonder how did the guy found at that the E-L618 in Marvinci Macedonia is actually E-V13 => S7461: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Ancient Macedonian Kingdom Idomenae Marvinci-Valandovo[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]1. North_Italian (7.840)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]2. Spanish_Andalucia (8.675)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]3. Spanish_Valencia (10.54)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]4. Spanish_Murcia (11.01)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]5. Spanish_Extremadura (11.37)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]6. Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha (11.42)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]7. Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon (11.98)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]8. Tuscan (12.11)

[/COLOR]https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=14N85Yf-1FS6DFcwvMxX5Pll-q-jvrYw&ll=41.17192184486504%2C22.209994956395725&z=8

Probably he is just assuming it is E-V13? Coverage was supposedly low. Anyway, he was likely E-V13 anyway and surely in Antiquity there was some E-V13 in Macedonia with all the Channelled Ware, Basarabi and historical Daco-Thracian influence it would be strange if not.

 

[Riverman]

My latest post on the Bronze-Iron Age debate:

But the IA ones did live next to Anatolia and don't have an Anatolian shifted profile. If that Anatolian impact was limited in the IA, why would it be big in the BA? For Greece there are clear signs of heavy interaction, even population flows, from Anatolia during the Aegean Bronze age. I have not seem the same suggestion for Southern Bulgaria. And again, with any other location the question would be: why is the profile not more like the ones nearby?

They had a Greco-Anatolian shifted profile. The problem is that different mixtures in different ratios can produce similar results in G25 and on the PCA. The shift which took place in the LBA-EIA can be easily visualised by the weaponry which was used, from the dominance of Mycenaean rapiers to the Naue II/Reutlingen type swords from the Carpathian basin:

Protovillanovans, Middle Danubian Urnfielders and G?va (not as clearly visible on this map, but its the case) are contenders for the earliest producers. You can see the concentration along the Tisza, in the Lapus to G?va zone for Naue II-slashing swords. In the Balkans the movement of the new weapons and military tactics was from the Tisza zone to Belegis II-G?va and from there to everywhere else, with a second route directly from the Protovillanovans over sea reaching Greece as well.
Point is, the overlap with the main E-V13 expansion event is 1:1. There can be no doubt about the E-V13 warriors expanding with Naue II swords and other items (casted spearheads, round heavy shields etc.) in the Balkans.

Both Bulgaria and Greece were reached secondarily by groups of Protovillanovans and in masse Eastern Urnfielders with the Channelled Ware horizon.
Especially Northern Greece and Bulgaria were significantly lagging behind, both in pottery and weaponry, because they received the innovations from the mixed groups which moved into their territory, not from the primary groups.

Another visualisation:

That's the exact timing for the main E-V13 expansion event (1.300-900 BC).

This phase is also crucial for the formation of actual Thracian people. The archaeological situation in Bulgaria is complicated, really sufficient research and complete finds rare. Compare with this article:

A fascinating 3200-year-old settlement has been discovered in Northwest Bulgaria. The settlement shows evidence of being inhabited periodically, with building material and artefacts from the Late Bronze Age, Ancient Thrace, the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.

The site was unearthed during rescue excavations along the proposed route of a pipeline to transport gas from Russia to Central Europe. It is the third archaeological site to be discovered along the route, but so far it is the only ?multi-layered? settlement.

?Here in this spot we can see how life started back ca. 1,200 BC, then it was inhabited again in the 5th - 4th century BC (Ancient Thrace), then there was a hiatus, and then it was inhabited again in the 3rd century AD at the time when the region was a Roman province,? said lead archaeologist Dr Andrey Aladzhov from the National Institute and Museum of Archaeology in Sofia.

A dwelling from the 10th century AD has also been discovered at the site. The artefacts found suggest that it was inhabited from the time of the First Bulgarian Empire, up to the Ottoman period in the early 15th century.

The most numerous of the artefacts found across the site are preserved pottery vessels from the Bronze Age. The decorated pots, which date back to the time of the Trojan War, are from the Orsoya - Baley Culture, a prehistoric population that inhabited the region between the Danube River and the Balkan Mountains.

?The vessels and their decoration are typical of the classic Mediterranean culture and show that back then were close cultural ties between these settlements near the Danube and the population of the Mediterranean coast,? Aladzov elaborates.

A burial urn containing bone particles was discovered close to the prehistoric structure, which will be carbon dated to more accurately determine the age of the dwelling.

Artefacts found in another notable structure clearly display the different layers of history, one on top of the other. These include a male ring from the Late Bronze Age, shards of luxury pottery, most likely imported from Hellenistic Greece, a coin from the Roman Republic, which first conquered the region for Ancient Rome, two Roman era fibulas and an earring from the Middle Ages.

Coins from the Early Byzantine period and the traces of a dugout from the 15th century have also been discovered.

?The most valuable finds for us are the ceramic vessels because they are stratified in the best way, situated in time in the best way, so here based upon the pottery, we know which layer is from the Bronze Age culture, the so called Proto-Thracians, which layer is from the Hellenistic period, and which is from the Roman period,? Aladzov explained.

The site was originally detected through geological surveying and is presently situated in a sunflower field. The area has been subjected to agricultural cultivation to a substantial depth for several years so finding a Bronze Age structure is very surprising, as most of the structures from that period have been destroyed. However, significant damage has also been caused by treasure hunters using heavy machinery to access the sites, which is a common plague to Bulgaria?s archaeological heritage, according to Aladzov.

Despite the wealth of archaeological finds already unearthed, there is still the potential for more to be uncovered.

?The site has an area of 10 decares but we are excavating about 1 decare of that. Based on the results, the Ministry of Culture is going to decide what steps would be taken next,? said Aladzov.

https://www.theculturalexperience.c...-settlement-discovered-in-northwest-bulgaria/

Culturally the people were a Danubian-Mediterranean mix, and presumably, at least on the long run, they became such genetically too. Look at the site of Bailey more in detail:

This paper considers four cremation graves at the necropolis of Baley in Northwest Bulgaria. The AMS radiocarbon dates of
the graves cover the time span between the 14th and 11th century calBC, a period that is conventionally accepted to represent the
Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in the region. The relations between the Encrusted Pottery Culture,
Bistreţ-Işalniţa and V?rtop groups/cultures are discussed as well. The beginning of the Bistreţ pottery style is placed within the
Encrusted Pottery Culture milieu in the 14th century BC. It is accepted that the style gradually develops in what is generally
known as V?rtop pottery style. The end of this process is dated to the mid-11th century BC when the large cremation necropolises
(Urnenfelder) in the region seized to exist.

Two main foreign influences shaped Bulgaria in that region: Encrusted Pottery (I2-G2 dominated, WHG-rich, Danubian block) and Channelled Ware related early groups (Carpatho-Balkan cremation block). The problem for this region in the earlier periods is, concerning ancient DNA, the same as for the Tisza zone:

Only cremation burial was practiced over the en-
tire excavated area; cremation was performed somewhere
else and some of the burnt bones were collected from the
pyre, cleaned and placed in one or more ceramic vessels
used as urns. In terms of chronology, 16 features were
dated to the Middle Bronze Age and could be related to
the Verbicioara III Culture.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ng_of_the_Iron_Age_in_the_Lower_Danube_region

Despite considerable investigations in the Lower Dan-
ube and Banat regions, the number of available radiocarbon
dates is limited. Radiocarbon dates comparable to Baley
have been yielded by the recently excavated bi-ritual necrop-
olis of C?mpina (Prahova district) in the sub-Carpathian
area. The materials from the 60 published graves have been
assigned to the Tei, Monteoru, and Noua cultures. Of the
total of 16 published radiocarbon dates, 14 fall within the
15th?12th century BC, and the other two within the 11th?10th
century BC. Graves 2, 7, 30, and 31 yielded radiocarbon
dates similar to the first Baley group, and nos. 10 and 23,
to the second one. Grave 2 contained a richly decorated
two-handled pot, referred by the excavator to the Fundeni
phase of Tei Culture, with good parallels in the Fundenii
Doamnei/Fundeni-Govora, and Zimnicea-Plovdiv cultural
groups47. It is therefore reasonable to accept a synchroni-
zation of those cultural phenomena with the earlier grave
group at Baley and with levels III?II at the settlement site.

Fundeni-Govora is mostly a Verbicoara-Tei mix, with the former becoming more dominant. So we see Verbicoara to take over most of Tei or fuse with it. So that's a potential early spread of E-V13, but the main one, again in complete synchrony with the spread of the new weaponry and tactics (Naue II-slashing swords, casted spearheads, heavy round shields etc.) and the E-V13 phylogeny with a mean expansion event is with G?va-related Channelled Ware:

The second group of Baley radiocarbon dates corre-
sponds to the ones from the earlier phase of G?va culture,
which is connected to the beginning of the ?channeled
pottery style? in Transylvania. At the Lăpuş barrow, ?the
dating range for contexts with channeled black-and-red-
pottery in the G?va style lies between 1380?1120 cal B.C.?48
However, a correction for the earliest dates at Lăpuş has
been proposed, ?eliminating at least the 14th century? for
the first appearance of channeled ware49. In terms of rel-
ative chronology, the Pre-G?va/G?va I culture has been
synchronized with Belegi??Cruceni II, while the post-1050
ВС period has been associated with Ha B1 and the G?va
II phase50. For the territory of Banat and the Iron Gates,
several ?cultural groups? have been identified within the
mid-Ha A1 ? mid/end of Ha A2 period: Susani, Bobda,
Ticvanul Mare, Moldova Noua-Liborajdea, Hinova-Mala
Vrbiţa, etc.51 We are inclined to think that the radiocarbon
dates for the second group at Baley confirm, although with
small modifications, such a synchronization.

In this region of Bulgaria, the transition is from Encrusted Pottery, to Channelled Ware:

About 10 % of the Antimovo ceramic assem-
blage are typical for the Encrusted Pottery Culture, and
some 50 % are diagnostic for the ?channeled ware? that can
be assigned to both Bistreţ and V?rtop groups64.
In summary, we argue that two groups within the dis-
cussed region ? Bistreţ and V?rtop ? date to the end of
the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, re-
spectively.

Encrusted Pottery influences weren't completely annihilated, they even survived into the Stamped Pottery later, but the point is, the dominant group, newcomers, were from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere and spread Channelled Ware. As the author wrote, the question can only be answered by ancient DNA and we know from nearly all regions that the Channelled Ware newcomers oftentimes left not much traces behind in their burial rites - and of course cremated anyway:

We believe that only further analyses of,
among other things, the gender/age groups, aDNA, and
stable isotopes, can answer the question: Is Bistreţ-Işalniţa a
separate group or is it only the result of a gradual transition
from rounded to squared midsection of the vessels and
from encrusted to channeled pottery style? However, we
cannot dispute the fact that there is not a single necropolis
connected ?to Bistreţ-Işalniţa group only?58

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ng_of_the_Iron_Age_in_the_Lower_Danube_region

But seriously, if modern archaeologists in that context are not sure and say ancient DNA testing is necessary, it basically means we have to expect a replacement event, we just need the confirmation.

And again, we have all the indications for partial local continuity during and after the conquest, just like in Troy, which basically means that the newcomers mixed with the locals, especially the local females. The later Thracian culture provides us with ideal customs for that pattern as well (treatment of widows, polygyny etc.).

The local population in the South East of Thrace was mostly Greco-Anatolian, so we have to expect more Central Balkan type ancestry (like in Belegis II-G?va, presumably similar to the Himerans) mix with locals which were essentially "Mediterranean" with their genetic profile and closest to the Greeks of that time.

In the South East, the succession was Channelled Ware on Mycenaean dominated layers, like here, in later Thracian areas of Northern Greece ("lustrous" = Channelled Ware):

At Thasos, the layers with lustrous ceramics are separated from
those containing Mycenaean-style pottery. At the cemetery near Kastri, there are
burials with inhumation and lustrous pottery on top of inhumations with Mycenaean as
well as incised ware. She describes this as a clear terminus post quem for the appearance
of lustrous pottery on the site (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 1978: 255).

So we see a direct succession, and presumably mixture, of people from more Northern regions which brought Channelled Ware with locals, which were Greco-Anatolian oriented, just like in Troy. That's an opinion expressed long ago:

Demetrios Grammenos compared the incised ware from Exohi and Potamoi with the
finds from Aggista and stressed that there are no imports to use for more precise dating,
while the similarities in the handmade pottery must give a date within the LHIIIC period
(Grammenos 1979: 58). He also compared this pottery with the lower Danube cultures
of Girla Mare, Verbicoara and Tei, whose latest horizons have been dated within 1300-
1200 BC. Based on the difference in dates, Grammenos assumes that this type of pottery
must have originated somewhere in central Europe and that it could have brought the
?Geometric? style to Attica from the Danube area (Grammenos 1979: 60).

And there is evidence for the military turmoil in the Transitional Period as well, exactly when Channelled Ware and Naue II swords appear:

The settlement was the first with preserved defensive stone architecture
discovered in Upper Thrace. The site was provisionally dated 1400-1100 BC (Stefanovich
and Bankoff 1988: 268). Archaeomagnetic evidence, however, gave a much shorter date
range for the destruction of the site between 1230 and 1160 BC (Jordanova and
Kovacheva 2007), where the thickness of the archaeological layer does not suggest an
extended occupation prior to that.

With the destruction appears new pottery with knobs in many areas:

The ceramic material from this site mostly consists
of plain ware, with a dark-brown, grey or blackish surface, amphoras type A4, kylikes
type KY2, bowls type B1 and kantharoi K1 and K1.1. Bi-conical silhouettes and sharp
body transitions dominate (Figure 8.6). A comparable assemblage was discovered at the
burial site at Sandanski. If the date from Kamenska Chuka is acceptable also for
Sandanski, that means that towards the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th
centuries an S-shaped amphora with knobs and open kantharos type K4.1 appear, which
are comparable to the Eastern Rhodopean examples from the Transitional Period. This
material is also comparable with the necropolis at Ulanci in today?s F.Y.R.O.M., dated
between the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 12th century BC (Mitrevski 1997:
26-70; 2007: 443).
The appearance of little knobs and horn-like projections on some kantharoi from
Sandanski and Kamenska Chuka are considered later elements, originating in the Bronze
Age, but well developed in the EIA (Alexandrov et al. 2007: 379).

That's the beginning of groups from the Northern-Central Balkans moving in, as the pressure mounts from the North, from G?va itself, and one after another moves East and South, under this pressure, and with the abilty to do so, with the new weaponry and tactics. The first which start the onslaught are the fleeing Brnjica people:

Similar vessels and general similarities within the entire pottery repertoire can be seen
in the necropoleis at Ulanci, Klucka-Hippodrome, and other sites from the Brnjica group.

But that was not the end, shortly afterwards the Belegis II-G?va/Channelled Ware groups themselves arrived, from which Brnjica and Encrusted Pottery had fled before:

When addressing the end of the LBA, Dragi Mitrevski considers the necropolis at Klujcka-
Hippodrome in Skopje (Mitrevski 1994; Savopoulou 1987; 1988), as a site associated
with new arrivals from the north, who brought cremation in urns covered by tumuli.
According to Mitrevski that arrival happens during the 12th or the very beginning of the
11th century BC. A similar situation can be observed in Kastanas, layers 12 and 11.

That was a clear break and massive invasion:

The burnt layers in the Lower Vardar settlements of Kastanas and Vardaroftsa Vardino have
witnessed destructions coinciding with that period and a significant change in the
material culture. The settlement of the Ulanci Necropolis was also burned and never
rebuilt. The population of the LBA settlement at Vardarski Rid in Gevgelija seems to have
relocated to a position at the nearby hill of ?Kofilak?. It seems like the processes related
to these destruction events seem to have ended the LBA in the Struma Valley area as
well as on various sites in F.Y.R.O.M. and Central Macedonia.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10042028/1/Nenova_10042028_thesis_volume1_redacted.pdf

Again = the arrival of Channelled Ware, new weaponry and tactics - ideal synchrony with the main E-V13 expansion event.

And its not just one arrival from the Central-Northern Balkans, ultimately with influences from the Carpathians, but a whole series of invasions! On the other hand, in the preceding periods, we see a dominance of Mycenaean influences in the South, close connections to Greece and Anatolia. Therefore the logical assumption is that we would find a population between the Mycenaeans and Central-Northern Balkan groups. BGR_IA is not that far from this. The Himerans are clearly closer to the Northern-Central Balkan group, and where G?va will land in this context, we will hopefully find out eventually, so far the Mezocsat samples are the best we got, but not ideal - and no males.

 

[Southpaw]

God man, you and your long responses. :bigsmile:

I think that NW Anatolia to South-East Europe would be cool, but quite surprising if you ask me. Nothing supports that, neither archaeology, neither modern phylogenetic tree.

Nevertheless, if it's NW Anatolia, it would be one of the biggest surprises coming from aDNA.