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

Status
Not open for further replies.
They may have been recruited by Urnfield elites and not given the advanced swords or the swords were not mass produced by this point. The ships themselves that Sea People's used seem to be related to Urnfield

They also speculated that some Egyptian artist simply preferred to use the old sword types in their depictions, even though they weren't used as often any more. We don't know for sure, but what we know is that Naue II swords were used and made it to Egypt, both with the invaders and mercenaries, traders later.

In any case, Gáva in particular had a true mass production of Naue II swords. Their core areas are filled with finds from an early point onwards.
 
One new sample under E-V13 FGC33621 (Berisha-Sopi cluster): https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC33614/

from Trieste/Venice area, would be cool if there is a continuity from Veneti/Histri or he is a recent immigrant. Further up there is again 1 Italian (unknown which region) and 1 German but still not yet listed in yfull.

Another Z5018 - S2979 branch.

Looks again like Basarabi -> Eastern Hallstatt-Vekerzug -> La Tene and Dacian

Many of the Italian branches have a La Tene timing currently, oftentimes shared with British and German. For a Roman dispersal it might be too early, but we need more data to be sure.

The Albanian upstream branch has the same timing (400 BC), but the actual Albanian is High Medieval. Actually its pretty young even for Albanian founder lineages. FTDNA has a similar date:
 
Look at these links, bird boats on top left corner of Medinet Habu relief. Urnfield shield also looks similar to Sea People depictions -
 

Attachments

  • RDT_20231122_141758277121377002260759.png
    RDT_20231122_141758277121377002260759.png
    400.2 KB · Views: 56
  • RDT_20231122_1418275001426498501319365.png
    RDT_20231122_1418275001426498501319365.png
    95.3 KB · Views: 42
  • RDT_20231122_1420426300800991664300156.png
    RDT_20231122_1420426300800991664300156.png
    131.2 KB · Views: 42
  • RDT_20231122_1422208674328857708741780.png
    RDT_20231122_1422208674328857708741780.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 41
Another Z5018 - S2979 branch.

Looks again like Basarabi -> Eastern Hallstatt-Vekerzug -> La Tene and Dacian

Many of the Italian branches have a La Tene timing currently, oftentimes shared with British and German. For a Roman dispersal it might be too early, but we need more data to be sure.

The Albanian upstream branch has the same timing (400 BC), but the actual Albanian is High Medieval. Actually its pretty young even for Albanian founder lineages. FTDNA has a similar date:

That's a possibility for sure, as much as Veneti/Histri, so maybe it's good to acknowledge.
 
I think that E-Z5018 in general and its main branches under S2979, were North Thracian-Dacian for the most part. While its not as widespread as the main branches, its presence in the Hungarian samples from the Danube-Tisza zone supports that view in my opinion.

There was another Slavic-Germanic sample found in Lubin (Wolin island) by the way:

LUB_6: E1b1b1a1b1


It is not the first from the wider area in the ancient DNA record, which might point to the Elbslavs/Wends having had significant E-V13.
 
Ok, so Slavs could have E-V13, but in no way any other Balkan people. No way.

In Trieste if he was not a recent Lombard immigrant, then good chances he could be a Veneti/Histri descendand.
 
Ok, so Slavs could have E-V13, but in no way any other Balkan people. No way.

In Trieste if he was not a recent Lombard immigrant, then good chances he could be a Veneti/Histri descendand.

Obviously the Balkan people had E-V13 latest since the EIA. I just stress the E-V13 presence in Slavs since some people had doubted it in the past and attributed it to later contacts with Vlachs and Albanians ONLY, which is just ridiculous.
Later the same people argued it came in with Germans ONLY, and was not originally, early Slavic. This can be now put to rest in peace, because E-V13 is one of the most consistently haplogroups popping up after the "holy trinity" of the Slavs (R-Z280, R-M458, I2a-din). With a baseline of about 2-4 (average 3 %) in modern Slavs, it adds up to the mounting evidence of early, likely North Carpathian contacts which brought E-V13 to the Pre-/Proto-Slavs.

That has nothing to do with the Balkans, other than that the E-V13 spread by Slavs primarily can be estimated to these 2-4 %, plus more added on the way, when they moved through the Carpathian basin and East Carpathian zone, before arriving further South of Danube. This means there likely is in the Balkans, associated with the Slavs, a primary (North Carpathian), secondary (on the way, central) and tertiary (in situ, in the Balkans assimilated and spread locally) layer of E-V13 in the Slavic populations. This might be differentiated with high resolution testing and more data subclade by subclade.
 
The Albanian upstream branch has the same timing (400 BC), but the actual Albanian is High Medieval. Actually its pretty young even for Albanian founder lineages. FTDNA has a similar date:
What makes the younger branches "actual Albanian" and the upstream sample "only" Albanian without the actual?
 
What makes the younger branches "actual Albanian" and the upstream sample "only" Albanian without the actual?
YFull usually creates such upstream branches because of samples - if those samples delete or don't pay, the upstream branch stays, but the sample does not. I don't know the region or ethnicity of the sample which created this branch. If this individual would be Albanian as well, the whole upstream branch would be "actually Albanian", but as things are on FTDNA and YFull, only the downstream Medieval branch is confirmed Albanian. In many similar cases, especially in the branches of E-Z5018 -> S2979 the upstream testers were e.g. Czech, German, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian etc.
Probably those at rrenjet know whether there are upstream Albanian testers.
 
Obviously the Balkan people had E-V13 latest since the EIA. I just stress the E-V13 presence in Slavs since some people had doubted it in the past and attributed it to later contacts with Vlachs and Albanians ONLY, which is just ridiculous.
Later the same people argued it came in with Germans ONLY, and was not originally, early Slavic. This can be now put to rest in peace, because E-V13 is one of the most consistently haplogroups popping up after the "holy trinity" of the Slavs (R-Z280, R-M458, I2a-din). With a baseline of about 2-4 (average 3 %) in modern Slavs, it adds up to the mounting evidence of early, likely North Carpathian contacts which brought E-V13 to the Pre-/Proto-Slavs.

That has nothing to do with the Balkans, other than that the E-V13 spread by Slavs primarily can be estimated to these 2-4 %, plus more added on the way, when they moved through the Carpathian basin and East Carpathian zone, before arriving further South of Danube. This means there likely is in the Balkans, associated with the Slavs, a primary (North Carpathian), secondary (on the way, central) and tertiary (in situ, in the Balkans assimilated and spread locally) layer of E-V13 in the Slavic populations. This might be differentiated with high resolution testing and more data subclade by subclade.

We didn't finish that chapter yet, there is a possibility E-V13 to have been a lineage of highlander population of Haemus-Rhodope which swept during LBA adopting Urnfield way and had the upper hand. Equal possibility as the Carpathian Basin. No one knows who was the actual winner culture. There is glimpses, but the actual influence is unknown so far. Sorin the Romanian archaeologist considers Stamped-Ware to be a different phenomena than Channeled-Ware. I don't think he has an agenda in that. So, we should keep the books open. This part here gets very confusing and i believe only aDNA can solve it. Archaeology has given enough but it has its own limitations.

Also, all i am remarking is, i think you are biased on your judgement, even if an E-V13 gets found in Iron Age Polynesia/Australia (figure of speech) you will jump in to say either a Dacian or a Slav from North Carpathians.
 
Last edited:
We didn't finish that chapter yet, there is a possibility E-V13 to have been a lineage of highlander population of Haemus-Rhodope which swept during LBA adopting Urnfield way and had the upper hand. Equal possibility as the Carpathian Basin. No one knows who was the actual winner culture. There is glimpses, but the actual influence is unknown so far. Sorin the Romanian archaeologist considers Stamped-Ware to be a different phenomena than Channeled-Ware. I don't think he has an agenda in that. So, we should keep the books open. This part here gets very confusing and i believe only aDNA can solve it. Archaeology has given enough but it has its own limitations.

Also, all i am remarking is, i think you are biased on your judgement, even if an E-V13 gets found in Iron Age Polynesia/Australia (figure of speech) you will jump in to say either a Dacian or a Slav from North Carpathians.

Its all about the phylogeny of E-V13, both your first and your second paragraph. If there would be an E-S2979 in Polynesia, surely he must have come from North Thracians. That's the point, they have such close TMRCA's, there is no other option. In all those cases you can just try to search for how they get to a place, not where they were coming from. That's fixed by now.

Concerning the old E-V13 origins, the same applies here insofar, as we know that the E-V13 population was huge for its time. It did compete with I-M253 in size, was larger than J-L283, and second only to the big Indoeuropean branches of R-L51, R-Z282 etc. in its time in continental Europe.
Now if you consider this, you need a natural habitat and demographic base which could carry such a male population! It can't be a small group which got pushed around and conquered multiple times, in an area which had an actual hiatus in the archaeological record and settlement history, at a time when E-V13 reached almost the level of R-L2!

Obviously I can't completely rule it out, but the Tisza zone is just the most likely source region because they moved to all those places where we find Channelled Ware, Daco-Thracians and E-V13 later.

The main question for me is not whether the Transtisza zone was dominated by E-V13, but only when other regions got their share from it. Because its not just Gáva, Gáva was the peak and its apparently also the time when the E-V13 growth peaked. At that time, the local groups in Bulgaria were either shrinking, overrun or not growing at all.

However, we had not just one incursion from the Tisza-Danube zone, the Eastern Carpathian basin, but multiple ones. Therefore Gáva kind of pushed relatives forward, which in turn pushed other groups with which they overlapped. The basic groups were Verbicoara (cremating group, related), Tei (unsure), Coslogeni (Sabatinovka with Monteoru and possible Wietenberg influences), Encrusted Pottery groups and Brnjica.
Therefore the real issue is not whether Gáva-Holigrady and Belegis II-Gáva were involved, because I have little doubts about that, but whether other related groups, which split off earlier, and moved into Bulgaria earlier as cremating tribes from the Carpatho-Balkan block, were as influential or at least in the South even more influential. That's the real question.

An isolated group in South Western Bulgaria is a much worse candidate, by comparison.
 
Like usual, too bad no ancient DNA was recovered...
Often will be the case with these cremating maniacs. Only hope is that they lost some wars and were unable to retrieve the bodies, but then can we always be sure that the bodies were actually Urnfielders
 
Often will be the case with these cremating maniacs. Only hope is that they lost some wars and were unable to retrieve the bodies, but then can we always be sure that the bodies were actually Urnfielders

The best chances are sacrificed and irregular individuals, as well as those which came under foreign influence (like the Vekerzug E-V13 from Chotin - all the Eastern Sanislau group members cremating and 50 % in Chotin, but he probably married into another community or whatever).
The main case of foreign influence being Babadag, Mezocsat and Basarabi. Because these three are all relevant and all three switched to inhumation under steppe (Cimmerian) influence. Even among the Dacians we have irregular burials, so among other people as well.
 
Ok, so Slavs could have E-V13, but in no way any other Balkan people. No way.

In Trieste if he was not a recent Lombard immigrant, then good chances he could be a Veneti/Histri descendand.
So what's your theory? That these E-V13 blacks from the Bronze Age site near Tisa river ended up in Slavic gene pool and then Albanians got it from Slavs centuries later?
 
Whoever these V13s where in the Iron Age, in my mind there is little doubt they were pastoralists. That is the only explanation that can satisfy the various constraints when it comes to the geographical spread and speed at which areas totally lacking V13 became hotspots of it.
 
Whoever these V13s where in the Iron Age, in my mind there is little doubt they were pastoralists. That is the only explanation that can satisfy the various constraints when it comes to the geographical spread and speed at which areas totally lacking V13 became hotspots of it.
They were agro-pastoralists, but with a focus on husbandry. It is evident from Nyírség to Gáva that they were settled down, but with increased mobility.
In the central Balkans the Channelled Ware people appear with big, well constructed fortifications, with similarities to other Urnfield people, especially Proto-Villanovans.
 
It came to my attention the E-L618 which was found in Ancient Macedonian site, Isar Marvinci: https://www.theytree.com/sample/f76457589d31a397ba608ca4655b8aeb.html who most likely is E-V13 anyway.
I don't know how theytree got his autosomal, or how accurate it is, but he has some Indian-Central Asian admixture, so he looks like some kind of Seleucid soldier, who has been living there in Central Asia and came back.

AncientNearEast13
新石器时代安纳托利亚 Anatolia Neolithic: 77.36%
原始印度人 Ancestral-Indian: 13.74%
卡利吉亚纳 Karitiana: 5.77%
欧洲狩猎采集者 EHG: 2.73%

K47
东地中海 East-Med: 38.80%
古巴尔干 Paleo-Balkan: 38.55%
伏尔加 Volgan: 9.87%
帕米尔 Pamirian: 8.76%
伊朗 Iranian: 3.68%

MichalK25
地中海 Mediterranean: 28.98%
高加索 Caucasian: 28.48%
德鲁兹人 Druzian: 18.54%
东北欧 Northeast European: 13.61%
北美印第安人 North Amerindian: 5.83%
乌拉尔 Uralic: 3.17%
巴布亚 Papuan: 1.39%

K12b
大西洋地中海 Atlantic Med: 66.10%
北欧 North European: 13.62%
东亚 East Asian: 13.19%
东非 East African: 7.09%

E11
欧洲 European: 69.52%
印度 India: 22.41%
美洲 American: 6.19%
彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 1.03%

EastSeaK12
欧洲 European: 75.55%
印度 Indian: 22.47%
藏族 Tibetan: 1.42%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 221193 times.

Back
Top