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

Status
Not open for further replies.
MandM said:
Most interesting, do we know from what time period they are from?
Click to expand...

Chalcolithic through Late Bronze Age, maybe even up to the early Iron Age. There have been leaks shown only to fellow academics, in a presentation that was shown in Germany(2022) it was titled "Local genetic continuity in Transylvania from the Copper Age until the Late Bronze Age". The title itself is intriguing.
 
MandM said:
Most interesting, do we know from what time period they are from?
Click to expand...
Even more interesting is are cultures and context of the finds. Unfortunately, no Gáva proper, but Pre-Gáva from the Transtisza zone and Wietenberg samples. For Wietenberg the big issue is again that most of the inhumation burials were either irregular, with the great majority being non-locals from Monteoru and the steppe (Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni).
But especially the earliest samples are highly interesting, because they cover the most important groups from Cotofeni onwards, with the biggest gaps being due to cremation rites.
The ratio of males to females is also highly important, because the Mezocsat locals could have solved a lot, but they were only females sampled so far - and actual steppe invader from the Cimmerian horizon being the only males, which is a pity.
 
kuer u ba Kotuzi ndan vjeç//Aj ndan vetë në mejdan i ka pritë //Aj ndan drume ka zaptue //Aj ndan shehre tuj urdhnue// .... “drum” rrugë përmes lumit, që kalohet me një mjet lundërues ose me një urë me tela. Dikur një vig që lidhte dy brigjet e lumit... )
Click to expand...

In Old Albanian folk songs they sing about a certain chieftain Kotuz, could it be they remembered Geto-Dacian King Cotiso? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotiso

He crossed the Danube in south and attacked Roman Moesia, Cotiso was certainly a very important figure, Roman Emperor Augustus was planning to marry his daughter to him, which tells you how much power he held.
 
Hawk said:
In Old Albanian folk songs they sing about a certain chieftain Kotuz, could it be they remembered Geto-Dacian King Cotiso? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotiso

He crossed the Danube in south and attacked Roman Moesia, Cotiso was certainly a very important figure, Roman Emperor Augustus was planning to marry his daughter to him, which tells you how much power he held.
Click to expand...
Yes, but still Dacian is not very good. Too close to Illyrians for some folks.
Albanians "need to be" Thracians.
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
We do know about Urnfield because many urns have been found and human ashes. Read this -
link.springer.com

The First ‘Urnfields’ in the Plains of the Danube and the Po - Journal of World Prehistory

Archaeological research is currently redefining how large-scale changes occurred in prehistoric times. In addition to the long-standing theoretical dichotomy between ‘cultural transmission’ and ‘demic diffusion’, many alternative models borrowed from sociology can be used to explain the spread...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

Cremations among American Indians were rare and they didn't use urns -
www.google.com

American Indian cremation pit found

Exposed by erosion at the edge of a crumbling bluff, the pit discovered beneath 2 feet of sandy dirt at first appeared to be a grave just long and deep enough to bury a human body.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
It is important to know what we are talking about, you have lost totally the sense of this disscussion. You are not knowing what I am saying.

Urnfield are prehistoric, they have no name, they are not mentioned in history documents or books.

When we talk about panonians and other illyrians, we know for sure they were mentioned by classical authors. So, we can take into consideration the these illyrians had two ways to bury their dead, namely: inhumation and cremation, but anyway they were illyrians, cause they are considered as such by classical authors, and they hed commons anthroponimy!
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
We do know about Urnfield because many urns have been found and human ashes. Read this -
link.springer.com

The First ‘Urnfields’ in the Plains of the Danube and the Po - Journal of World Prehistory

Archaeological research is currently redefining how large-scale changes occurred in prehistoric times. In addition to the long-standing theoretical dichotomy between ‘cultural transmission’ and ‘demic diffusion’, many alternative models borrowed from sociology can be used to explain the spread...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

Cremations among American Indians were rare and they didn't use urns -
www.google.com

American Indian cremation pit found

Exposed by erosion at the edge of a crumbling bluff, the pit discovered beneath 2 feet of sandy dirt at first appeared to be a grave just long and deep enough to bury a human body.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
it is what i stated 8 years ago ....the Oxford University study by Perego ( I have already linked her articles twice before ) ................the Japodes, Venetic, Nori, Histrians and Liburnians ,,,,...................cremated the men and buried the women and children with amber stones from the baltic trade route
 
Cimmerian MJ12, which is from 800 BC and is part of Babadag culture represents a good insight on to how the ancestor of Penschievo culture would have looked like before mixing with the locals in southern Bulgaria. I believe this lone sample is a good proxy for the channel ware profiles a few-three century earlier.

Though the sample is a female, it is without a doubt part of E-V13 population and by default the earliest E-V13 profile to date. It can be modeled as Yamnaya with Romanian neolithic.
E7e3LT9.png



South Thracian can be modeled as MJ12 and Bulgarian neolithic.
Omc9lTH.png


This implies that in Bulgaria, by LBA there had been a neolithic insurgency of a sort, the autosomal profile had shifted to be mostly neolithic, and steppe ancestry had been beaten back. I split Bulgaria C in to camps, one with less yamnaya admixture(C_1) and the standard chalcolithic which have around 10% yamnaya. I want to stress that qpdam is very strict, models that work in G25 will not necessarily work in qpdam. Minoan or Mycenaean do not work. Though there is a minor Anatolian-Levant shift, the main pull is coming from a neolithic component.

z4sQFJZ.png



Some Greek neolithic samples also work but not as good as the Bulgarian ones.
XwsJWJd.png

The Vekerzug E-V13 can also be modeled as MJ12 but not with the rest of Vekerzug.
4cCNhy1.png


I would argue that the E-V13 cline is exactly as it appears and samples like Vekerzug and I18528 represent the end of the Daco-Thracian spectrum.
buoEmWc.png



Hungary I18528 E-V13 vs Vekerzug E-V13, vs MJ12, vs the rest of Hungary La Tene

3nHW5UL.png

Hungary I18528 shows much stronger relation to MJ12(and even passes, though barely) than to the rest of Hungary La Tene samples.
 
Its always difficult with kind of singletons which might represent something more or less typical for a time and people.

Her mtDNA haplogroup is interesting too:

H35 MTree

www.yfull.com www.yfull.com

At FTDNA the descendants are most common in Finland, but there are also testers from South Eastern Poland, Eastern Slovakia and North Western Bulgaria. Might mean nothing, but its an interesting pattern nevertheless.

I have little doubt that profiles like that of the Chotin Vekerzug E-V13 were far more common among the cremating people from the Sanislau, Eastern Vekerzug group at the Upper Tisza.

Already in G25 its clear we deal with a Carpatho-Balkan local sample and not a steppe Cimmerian:
Distance to:Ukraine_Cimmerians.SG:MJ-12_noUDG.SG
0.03699356Hungary_MidAvar:SZM-38.SG
0.03841411Albania_MBA:I8471
0.03842382Austria_Klosterneuburg_Roman_oLevant.SG:R10654.SG
0.03944911Italy_Medieval_EarlyModern_oCentralEuropean.SG:R55.SG
0.03971975Croatia_Popova_CA.SG:POP39_noUDG.SG
0.04000010Hungary_LateAvar:JHT-30.SG
0.04025341Macedonia_IA:I10383
0.04047248Hungary_LateAvar:JHT-130.SG
0.04059904Montenegro_MLBA:I13171
0.04065626Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I11843
0.04094752Hungary_Langobard_o1.SG:SZ43.SG
0.04111410Hungary_LateAvar:ALT-412.SG
0.04115877Montenegro_MLBA:I13775
0.04127970Moldova_Glinoe_Scythian.SG:scy192_noUDG.SG
0.04139518Croatia_BeliManastir_Roman.SG:R3542.SG
0.04149206Macedonia_IA:I10379
0.04162281Croatia_BA:I18748
0.04190313Albania_BA_IA:I14692
0.04190815Macedonia_IA:I10389
0.04197765Croatia_MBA:I5073
0.04283072Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug:I11721
0.04295178Albania_Modern:I15707
0.04336110Croatia_Sipar_Roman.SG:R3664.SG
0.04348365Hungary_EarlyAvar:SZF-26.SG
0.04388146Serbia_Viminacium_Roman_elite_3.SG:R9669.SG
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MJ12 is a singleton for now. If someone can model South Thracian in qpdam with something else, let them show the way. My model/tail is also very strict. I don't know what tail that Serbian paper used, but I can tell you, I tried some of their variables for Albanians and it was laughable, Albanian BA_IA failed miserably, but in their paper, with their tail, the variables almost worked. Basically in qpdam, you can lower the threshold/standards, kind of like how college teachers nowadays, curve the exam score by 20-30 points so not too many people fail the class. You can get A(90 to 100) by scoring 70 in a exam, because your score was subsidized by an additional 20-30 points. The researchers pumping out these papers in "scientific journals" are doing the same thing with their models, their tails are ideologically inspired to make Albanians show Albania IA ancestry.

A proper tail should be consistent. My tail correctly modeled early mdv Montenegrin Slavs as Slavic and Illyrian. Same thing with modern Bulgarians, consistent results.
w9CfOU9.png


Samples ending in .HO do not seem to be the same quality as .SG. The reich database needs a overhaul when it comes to modern populations and sequence them using the same method. The Albanian .HO samples seem quite bad and are not in my opinion the standard to base models from.
 
alxfb said:
The "MJ12" individual has some minor Srubnaya_o-related admix in my model - this outlier sample from Srubnaya is WSHG-rich and some steppe individuals from the Iron Age seem to have strong drift for this sample, according to Davidski himself -, as does the "scy300" sample. The "scy192" sample seems to have even more of WSHG, but with strong Koban-related ancestry.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about other than you're trying to cite Davidski as a credibility reference. Davidski is generally clueless when it comes to the Balkans, his Albanian paper shows that (with their failed inferior models), in the paper he claimed the Himera's E-V13 are central Balkans. Now we have lots of E-V13 samples from Serbia, none were remotely close to the Himera's, Davidiski and his crew are out of their element, or they are trying to appease your camp(Brumziu) and doing so leads to very bad calls and a stain on their credibility.
I have correctly pointed that the Himeras are without a doubt Dacian, the E-V13 cline does not lie. Based on current samples we can safely rule out all the Illyrian zone, south Thracian and Greek. One has to be very dumb to not grasp there are not many options left, or dillyrious like team rrenjet.

MJ12 is extremely low on WHG, and has a very clean profile.

MHizlmA.png

R6PHS12.png
 
Last edited:
brumziu, aka hasan-gejovic, brought up some nonsense about srubnya, this is interesting because excine/gejovic in the other forum is always lobbying this idiotic theory that Thracian came from the steppe, aka Srubnya, thus it has no relevance to channel-ware phenomena. And this is where he was trying to eventually stir the conversation.

Well gejovic from martinaj, qpdam is way different than G25, G25 can work the same as qpdam but you have to construct a viable model/source, your kiddie style 2-3 way model is makebelieve child play.
The great thing about qpdam, it will outright reject nonsense model as infeasible, unless one really lowers the threshold where pretty much anything goes.

In qpdam, MJ12 has nothing to do with Srubnya, it is a super fail. I already produced a passing model for MJ12 call your boy Davidicus and dapadopulos R-BY611 guy, get in a conference discord room and counter model.

What is really interesting about the Moldova scythians, they are all MJ12 plus nomad. Basically, they are all Geto-Scythians that the ancient Greeks wrote about. Some are almost entirely local and some with heavier nomad mixture. Moldova scythians, cannot even be modeled with Ukraine Scythians, such a model fails.


ccxEcFz.png


Moldova Scythians were modeled as one group with the exception of 192 and 197 which were excluded because they are almost entirely local in profile. Scy197 is E-V13 and can be modeled as MJ12, coincidence? MJ12 in turn can be modeled as Hungary I18832_E-V13. South Thracian can be modeled as MJ12 plus EEF, Vekerzug E-V13 can be modeled as one way MJ12. The E-V13 connection refuses to go away, it is as if all E-V13 share a common ancestral population.
 
Last edited:
Decided to compare the single Iron Age E-V13 from Croatia, since Hawk pointed out it's burial rite is of Daco-Thracian origin. The sample is from a location right next to the Slovenian border. All models are single, one on one comparisons. Only three passed.

7WD7OMk.png


The best fit is the Vekerzug E-V13. But I find it extremely interesting that MJ12 which is located on the Black sea coast on the Ukrainian-Romanian border can pass in qpdam against a sample right next to Slovenia. MJ12 has to be the closest profile we have to date for the channelled-ware population.
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
Looks like in 3600 b.c Southern France/Herault site we got two E-M78 (let's see if E-L618 or E-V13) and 2 I2a


If those two samples are E-V13 positive would be a surprise.
Click to expand...

Looks like France does care about genetics after all, why ban genetic testing yet be interested in ancient genetics. Weird country
 
Hawk said:
Looks like in 3600 b.c Southern France/Herault site we got two E-M78 (let's see if E-L618 or E-V13) and 2 I2a


If those two samples are E-V13 positive would be a surprise.
Click to expand...
Fits into a spread from the East Mediterranean with Impresso-Cardial, like all the other early samples found. Just one LBK if I'm not mistaken so far, and that's at the Danube, where they met early on.

I doubt they were E-V13 and even if so, rather not from the branch which led to the founder event in the EBA.
 
Last edited:
Riverman said:
Fits into a spread from the East Mediterranean with Impresso-Cardial, like all the other early samples found. Just one LBK if I'm not mistaken so far, and that's at the Danube, where they met early on.

I doubt they were E-V13 and even if so, rather not from the branch which led to the founder event in the EBA.
Click to expand...

Let's see, i am curious to know whether they are E-V13 positive, not that i believe they should be ancestral to modern E-V13, but it could potentially mean E-V13 was not too east either.

But from Neolithic to Bronze Age, i would expect all kind of movement. One should not underestimate human migrations.
 
Hawk said:
Looks like in 3600 b.c Southern France/Herault site we got two E-M78 (let's see if E-L618 or E-V13) and 2 I2a


If those two samples are E-V13 positive would be a surprise.
Click to expand...

nice
i think we will see e-L618
either way it still cool for the e-v13's people out there ;)
if i understand the location of those 2 samples is south france ( if i am not wrong here)
maybe related to cardium pottery

1706463103465.png
 
Hawk said:
Let's see, i am curious to know whether they are E-V13 positive, not that i believe they should be ancestral to modern E-V13, but it could potentially mean E-V13 was not too east either.

But from Neolithic to Bronze Age, i would expect all kind of movement. One should not underestimate human migrations.
Click to expand...

We already have a centre for the distribution in the Middle Neolithic, which is basically Lengyel. If they would sample Lengyel and inner Carpathian groups related to Lengyel, there should be way more E-L618 around. The Varna-related E-L618 found looks also like coming from the Carpathian zone. We really need the inner Carpathian sphere sampled thoroughly and first shot being the Transylvanian paper which hopefully appears soon.
Concerning the Western branches, we know that GAC pushed forward in the later Neolithic period and they look quite different. So I guess most of the Western and Northern groups being largely eliminated by GAC and relatives, whereas in the Danubian-Inner Carpathian sphere the descendents of Lengyel and related groups first survived the GAC push, then fused with the earliest Western steppe groups and survived Yamnaya within Cotofeni.

Lengyel is so far one of the few groups with more than one E1b1b site within a fairly small zone close to the Danube bent. The only major other one being Michelsberg, but only in a zone which could have been influenced by Lengyel colonists at the Rhine-Danube source.

I would especially like to get samples from the so called Foeni group or the developed Petresti culture too:

Alsa, in the case of both burials the skeletons belong to women - a 20-
21 year old (at Parţa) and respectively a 35-year old one, at Foeni. From an
anthropological point of view, they both have similar anthropometric data
and belong to the gracile-Mediterranean type, proving the fact that the
bearers of the Foeni group were a Mediterranoid population with an average
height of about 1.5 m.
Click to expand...

Despite these differences, severa! common features are revealed by
comparing the information related to the funerary rite and ritual of the
bearers of the Foeni group and those of the Petreşti cultu.re, although there
is still little information - especially in what regards anthropological data.
Up to the present, six graves have been found in the Transylvanian area
(Paul I., 1992, 115 and notes 41-44), displaying a series of characteristics
common to those found in Banat. The first of these is that both in Banat and
in the intra-Carpathic area, the burials were discovered within settlements
rather than in cemeteries (Idem 1992, 115). At the same time, the grave pits
could not be defined (Idem, 116), which presupposes either that the body
was laid in a shallow grave, or that it was laid on the surface and covered
with a layer of soil which belonged to the culture stratum. These are the
only two cases in which the pit of the grave cannot be identified.
Despite the fact that at the moment only one anthropological analysis
exists in the Petreşti area - the case of the Ocna Sibiului skeleton (Idem, 116)
- alongside the conclusion that the Daia Română one belongs to the
Mediterranoid anthropological type, the available specialist analyses reveal
the fact that the bearers of the Petreşti culture were a Mediterannoid
population (Idem, 117). Moreover, the anthropometric data is similar to that
of skeletons discovered in Banat, indicating that they belong to the same
gracile-Mediterranean population.
Click to expand...

To conclude, all the anthropological information and part of the
information regarding funerary ritual that has been presented and analysed
above demonstrates that the bearers of the Foeni group and those of the
Petreşti culture are the same population of the gracile-Mediterranean type.
This information, corroborated with stratigraphic data from a number of
Transylvanian sites (Lazarovici G., 2000, 42 and fig. 3; Lumea Nouă,
information courtesy of Mihai Gligor), with comparative, typological and
stylistic analyses of the early Foeni and Petreşti pottery (Draşovean F., 2004)
and archaeozoological data (El Susi G., 2004, 40, 43), be it previously
published or as yet unpublished, demonstrates more and more clearly the
idea that the Petreşti culture was bom as a result of an influx of population
due mainly to a process of migration of some Foeni communities from
Banat, communities which are in their turn linked to, and originate in the
ethnocultural phenomena of the Thessalo-Macedonian area (Draşovean F.,
2005)
Click to expand...


 
Last edited:
Another text on Foeni group colonisation and Petresti:

The Foeni cultural group, chronologically covering the period 4920/4675–4580/4460 cal BC [1], corresponding to the later period of the Vinča culture, from the end of phase C to the end of phase D [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]], is present in Banat and Transilvania, the Foeni advancement latter being dated through 14C analysis to 4632–4499 BC [1], with dozens of sites belonging to this group identified in both regions. It is differentiated from other Neolithic cultures through its pottery technology [4,7,8].
Click to expand...


More comprehensive on the Petresti culture:

The Petreşti settlements are found exclusively in Transylvania, on the Mureş,
Târnava, Someşul Mic Valleys and their tributaries, reaching south, to the Olt river.
Click to expand...

Chronology:

Cultural synchronisms
Based on imports from other cultural areas inside the Petreşti culture, based on Petreşti
imports into other cultures but also on C14 data38, I propose the following synchronisms:
Foeni – Early/ classic Herpaly – classic Tisa (III) – Precucuteni I/II – Vinča C2-C3.
Petreşti A – Final Herpaly – Cucuteni A1 – GumelniŃa A1- SălcuŃa I - Vinča D1.
Petreşti AB (final)-B (beginning) - Tiszapolgár A - Cucuteni A2 - GumelniŃa A2 -
SălcuŃa IIa-b – Vinča D1(final)-D2 (beginning).
Petreşti B - Tiszapolgár B - Cucuteni A3 – GumelniŃa A2-B1 (început) - SălcuŃa IIc-III
(beginning) – Vinča D2.
Petreşti B (final)(?) - Decea Mureşului – Early Bodrogkersztur - Cucuteni A4-AB1
(beginning)? – GumelniŃa B1 – SălcuŃa III.
Click to expand...

Decea Muresului is already a mixed steppe culture, in which local elements from Petresti and Cucuteni mixed with Western steppe people. I think that's a crucial moment. It looks like local Copper Age lineages survived in this mixed context.
Gumelnita nearby seems to have had a little bit of E-L618, outliers kind of. They therefore don't look like the primary source, but more like neighbours. Petresti was nearby and there were contacts from Petresti to both Gumelnita and Cucuteni, in both we find outlier E-L618.


The first ancient DNA sample from Decea Muresului was a farmer-Balkan type local with haplogroup H2 (sample rom47, burial M10:

Two samples from cemetery B
were analyzed here. From the Early Eneolithic period, here of interest is the Decea Mureşului
group. This was defined based on only one site – a small cemetery from the village of Decea
Mureşului - with characteristics that differ from any other contemporaneous Early Eneolithic
16
sites in Transylvania to a degree that makes any attribution of other sites to this group highly
uncertain. Its appearance was explained through the westward movement of the Suvorovo
culture (for this culture see98) from the Pontic steppe86,99-100
Click to expand...

www.nature.com

Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe - Communications Biology

Genome-wide sequencing of 56 ancient hunter-gatherer and early farmer individuals from Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe reveals striking population continuity in the east in contrast to central Europe that displays extensive admixture.
www.nature.com www.nature.com

Reminds me of the Kyjatice group from the Late Bronze Age, the brother group of Gáva, which has two J2 so far.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top