# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case

## Hawk

Let's start with a visualization of burial rites of cremation vs inhumation in Balkan Bronze Age.

As we know, burial rites are the most consistent way of archaeologically defining a population instead of other components of material culture.

In inner Balkans including Greece there was a spread of cremation burial accompanied by Naue II swords, usually the cremation spread in Balkans archeologically is defined by various South-Eastern Urnfield/Danubian Urnfield groups heading south and bringing with them new ideology, metal-working techniques.

In the following posts i will try to collect and post information about where cremations were introduced in Balkans and exactly when, also their archeological affinities.

Meantime, it's good to guess. So, who were these people, what was their Y-DNA?



https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/forschun...e-burials-cbab

----------


## Hawk

The reason why i put the title is because i just got inspired by Mario Gavranovic paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...estern_Balkans

*To Burn or not to Burn: Inhumation Versus Cremation at the End of the Bronze Age in the Region between the Southern Carpathian Basin and the Western Balkans*






My question is were the people who practiced cremation different from the ones who practiced inhumation in this specific Late Bronze Age context?

----------


## Hawk

Although considered as part of Illyrian ethnos the Enchelei according to lead Macedonian archeologist Pasko Kuzman practiced cremation on a pyre:




> On this occasion, special attention is given to the Tomb of the Warriors (Tomb 1) in which 6 warriors were buried together with their complete military armor. The tomb (dimensions: 5.50 x 4.50 m) was built with a row of larger limestone blocks, and after the cremation burial it was filled with amorphous stones and earth, shaping a low mound-like structure. The pyre was set in the central part of the tomb, and around it, embedded and arranged in a specially brought lake sand, were the military attributes: 6 bronze helmets, 11 greaves, and 15 iron spears, with features suggesting some military subordination or simply warriors who have died in a battle being “the Leader and his comrades.”
> 
> https://pebasite.wordpress.com/peba-...edonian-elite/


There is discussion in archeological circles that Enchelei were part of Trebeniste Culture. Trebeniste Culture members had also this golden funeral masks.

Not neccessarily correct, but just quoting for the sake of information.




> *The Engelanes (Encheleis) and the Golden Mask From the Trebenishte Culture – Nade Proeva*
> 
> Published on May 27, 2015 
> 
> It has been proven that the characteristics of the funerary ritual in these necropolises are neither Greek nor Illyrian or Thracian. So far, funerary masks have been found only in Macedonia, and not on the territory of Ancient Greece. Gold masks were not used in the funerary cult of ancient Greeks: to connect them with the masks from the Cretan-Mycenaean culture is methodologically wrong, because the ethnic, the cultural, and the chronological differences between them are huge. Another characteristic of the Macedonian funerary ritual is the tripod for the funeral feast, which is not found with the Ancient Greeks, where the cult bed, the so-called “kline” was used for the funeral feast. Metal vessels were found in the necropolis in Gorenci/Trebenište that were not used at that time in Ancient Greece. All this proves that we are faced with two different funerary customs. It is obvious that the Engelanes belonged to the group of Macedonian tribes. See Less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where the Enchelei different from Glasinac-Mat Illyrians? Where they closer to Macedonians and/or Paeonians instead?

----------


## Hawk

IMO, the most viable candidate for E-V13 is:




> Mór Wosinsky – after summarizing the fi nds from Tolna County – studied the entire Encrusted Pottery culture material in a separate monograph.11 Although Wosinsky’s work included encrusted wares not merely from the Middle Bronze Age, but from other periods as well, most of his conclusions on Transdanubian material are still valid. He observed the typological differences between vessel types and on this basis defi ned distinct groups of pottery such as: Upper Transdanubian, Lower Transdanubian, and Lower Danubian types which remain more or less correct even today. Wosinsky regarded these ceramic groups as different stages of chronological development, and noted that there was evidently a “close relation and transition between each stage”. *Wosinsky believed that the establishment of the culture was a result of a lengthy evolution which began with the “Neolithic” deep-grooved pottery (Vučedol culture by present nomenclature), which is distributed from the Balkans to the eastern Alpine area (Slovenia). The population, he argued, drifted towards Unner Austria (where it is termed as the Mondsee culture), then, in the beginning of the Bronze Age, they returned to the Carpathian Basin as components of the “Bell Beaker wanderings”, from whom they adopted the practice of cremating the dead, and then spread and settled in north Transdanubia, where they are associated with delicately encrusted vessels. From this northern Transdanubian decoration style formed the southern Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery which dispersed to the Lower Danube area where the “advanced” Encrusted Pottery complex took form.* Wosinsky dated all these three development stage “types” to the Bronze Age.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/40913016/MI...ESTERN_HUNGARY

----------


## Hawk

The leaks shown by Stamov, Early Iron Age Svilengrad closely related to Ada-Tepe were totally dominated by E-V13.

Something from Ada Tepe:

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/forschun...of-the-balkans

The samples taken by the burial pits are classified from Bulgarian archeologists as clearly Thracian. In addition to this, the leaks from Moesia also hint on E-V13 strong presence in Thracian world.




> In the first period of Iron Age204, Hallstatt205, the identity of Norther-Pontictribes is crystallized; now, the separation of Proto-Thracians takes place, theydivide themselves into North-Danubian Geto-Dacians (what is specific to them isceramic cultures decorated with flutes) and South-Danubian Thracians (who areknown for imprinted ceramics, in the meridional Thracian group). New aspects ofBronze spirituality are added to the old ones: the perpetuation of the solar cult, thediminishing of the number of necropoleis, the simultaneous practicing ofinhumation and cremation, but during Late Hallstatt, cremation will graduallyexpand itself (later, in Latène, this ritual became fundamental)206. We also haveto mention here that there is a transition period from the bronze Age to Hallstatt,called Ha A (the 12th century – the 11th century B.C.). A cultural and territorialreorganization (due to the stabilization of the situation from the south of theDanube River) marks this transition period, characterized by instability in therelationships between communities and groups of communities (cultural zones),but also characterized by a relatively unitary economy.





> rom the catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from r ather re cent f inds i n the i ntr a-Carpathi an reg ion, up t o Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (see Ailincăiet alii 2014) (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Nov i Sad wer e included in the are al of K ala kač a cu ltur e, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery (Graphic 1).
> 
> https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetyp...2020-00022.pdf





> In the horizon with fluted ceramics from the south-west and the southof Romania, a series of cultural groups evolved: the cultural group Susani (inthe centre and the north of Banat, having as a basis the group Balta Sărată), thegroup Bobda (in the west and the north-west of Banat, the north-east ofVojvodina – appeared from Cruceni-Belegiš), on the same cultural basis wasformed the group Ticvaniu Mare-Karaburma III (in the contact area betweenthe western piedmont of Banat, the south-west of Banat, the south of Vojvodina);and we also add here, taking into account the contribution of Cruceni-Belegišculture, the groups from the south of Banat and Oltenia: MoldovaNouăandHinova; their evolution will be interrupted in Banat by the shortappearance of the culture Gáva-Holihrady, also interrupted by the appearancefrom the west of the group Gornea-Kalakaca (the south of Banat).The culture Corlăteni-Chișinău (having an origin which is not very welldefined) is also part of the first cultural complex of fluted ceramics; it was namedafter the discoveries from Corlăteni and the ones from Chișinău and its spreadingarea is the hilly region and the forest steppe from the Eastern Carpathiansand thebasin of the Dnestr, except for the northern part occupied by the culture GávaHolihrady. From the second complex (of incised and imprinted ceramics), thefollowing are part of: the culture Babadag (spread in the north-east of Muntenia,the south of Moldavia and the north of Dobrogea, the north of Bulgaria), insidewhich the group (phase?) Târnăoani (the south of Moldavia, the north-east ofMuntenia and the north of Dobrogea) was created; step-by-step, the culture fromBabadag expanded in the entire Dobrogea and Muntenia, when there is the periodof relative cultural unity with the group Insula Banului (Porțile de Fier) and withthe group Cozia (the south and centre of Moldavia). What is special (or maybe aprotraction of phase III of Babadag Culture – according to some researchers) isthe group Stoicani (the south of Moldavia), named after the necropolis from theeponymous place. 
> 
> https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetyp...2020-00022.pdf








> Abstract:Burials in settlements are a particular funerary phenomenon, documented worldwide, in different ages and contexts. Archaeologically speaking, burials consist of skeletons or parts of human skeletons, in or not in anatomical position, deposited in disused habitat structures (pits, dwellings). In this article we have catalogued the finds in the area between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza Rivers from 53 EIA sites (broadly 12th-8th c. BC) with 226 contexts for human bones from at least 512 individuals. All this data reveals the existence of common funerary conduct(s) whose final result was deposition of the dead in settlements. Such conduct exhibits some similarities and even somewhat the intersects with the standard ritual of burials in actual cemeteries. According to the same data, the selection of these individuals does not seem to have relied on malformations, diseases, age or sex.





> In the northern Balkans, at the end of the 2nd millennium and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, classic cultural manifestations of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Monteoru, Noua, Coslogeni, Suciu de Sus, Žuto-Brdo–Gârla Mare, Cruceni-Belegiš, Zimnicea-Plovdiv etc.) come to an end and new ones take shape. Despite the emergence of the first iron artefacts, this is the peak of bronze metallurgy and of the deposition of bronze artefacts in ritual contexts. The area we’ve selected for the study of this category of findings corresponds to the dissemina-tion of several early Hallstattian archaeological cultures with grooved pottery (Bistreţ-Işalniţa, Gáva-Hol idrad y, C hiş inău-Corl ăteni etc .), but a lso wit h st amp ed and incised pottery (Pšeničevo, Babadag, Insula Banului, Gornea-Kalakača, Belozerka, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni), which are a variation of the funerary ritual (Vulpe 2008). Nevertheles, in the entire area, in various proportions, probably due to the extent of the investigations in the settlements, intramuros graves were also found.




https://www.researchgate.net/publica...sza_and_Dnestr

----------


## Archetype0ne

Nice job, such thread was needed. I know we kind of got confrontational on another thread but bygones are bygones, nothing personal, and no offense taken on my part.

So it seems Bulgaria IA? was a hub for V13? Where samples were dominated by the subclade?

I recall asking year/s ago regarding the study an insider, regarding L283, and if it was found in any of these 50+ sites. He let me know at the time that not all the samples were analyzed yet, but no L283 that he knew of. I wonder now, when this paper will finally come out and put some wild speculations to rest.

----------


## blevins13

Burn was selected here, and remains a mystery why? Unless an urnfielder was buried, or was made up latter on.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TymcSYKYASE


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Riverman

The problem with the Urnfield phenomenon is that it was a religious movement, so people could change either by being replaced, assimilated, dominated or just converted. In the Balkans however, its fairly clear that cremation was introduced or became more widespread by Northerners which spread during the "transitional period" between the Bronze and the Iron Age from the North. 
The next problem concerning the Encrusted pottery groups is, that they have influences from the Channelled Ware and other groups. To me the Channelled Ware horizon comes first, and being primarily associated with E-V13, with Encrusted pottery being one of the main secondary spreaders. 

The whole issue is also closely related to the question whether or not Greeks had an appreciable frequency of E-V13 early on, latest with the Dorian migrations. My current position is yes, because of this - like I wrote on Anthrogenica before: 
The different Greek groups matter, because we have to expect more impact of the Channelled Ware E-V13 people on North West Greeks, Dorics and those Ionians living close to Thracians: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian...oodard)_en.svg

Other Ionian and Pontic colonies might have just gotten much less of it. But not nothing, because its present in Anatolian derived Greeks too: 



> We also included nine E-V13 haplotypes from Anatolian GreeksPhokaia and Smyrna [20] for a Greek comparison population.


On Cyprus its a newcomer, but mostly from Greeks supposedly: 



> Although, when using the entire set of Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies, the composition of Cyprus can be explained by contributions from Anatolia, Balkans, and Levant, the actual Greek contribution stood out for the Cypriot E-V13 (87 %), J2a-M67 (74 %), R1b-M269 (48 %), and G-P15 (17 %) components. Lastly, Levant contributed up to 30 % of the Cypriot R1b-M269 and to a lesser extent regarding the Cypriot J lineages (38 %).





> The pattern of structural variation in Cyprus points towards a model comprising two stages of expansion: an earlier expansion of G2a-P15, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 (range, 11,60013,800 y BP with a slow YSTR mutation rate ω; 38004500 BP with a fast ω), subsequently followed later by the expansion of E-V13, I2-M423, and J2b-M12 (slow ω, 44006600 y BP; fast ω 15004500 y BP) (Table 3). However, times of divergence of these lineages from current Anatolian, Danubian, Greek, and Levantine Y-STRs appeared more recent. Pre-historical divergence was observed for Cypriot G-P15 with Greece (3600 y BP), I2-M423 with Anatolia (4200 y BP) and Levant (9400 y BP) and J2b-M12 with Danube Balkans (3,500 y BP) and Levant (5100 y BP). *Divergence of E-V13, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 would have taken place in modern times (range, 3002.200 y BP)*.





> *E-V13 is common in the Balkans and may mark some of the Greek demographic input to Cyprus from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age* [79]. Network analysis of 46 E-V13 haplotypes (Additional file 10: Figure S5) shows a discrete clustering of 15 samples suggestive of a sub-haplogroup (encircled with an oval). This cluster is characterized by DYS437 = 15 repeats not seen in the Anatolian Greek population, or in the Provence samples [20]. *The remaining 31 samples overlap with the Anatolian Greek E-V13 lineages*.


https://investigativegenetics.biomed...323-016-0032-8

So do you really claim that all the Anatolian and Cypriotic lineages too came just with Medieval newcomers from outside the Greek speaking world? Rather not. 

I spoke about the introduction of Channelled Ware and iron, but we can also look at the changes in burial practise in the Iron Age to grasp the impact from the North, which I would associate with E-V13 heavy newcomers: 



> The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary crema-
> tion. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the rest 
> of Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th11th centuries BCE, especially in 
> the north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos Verpen39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall
> those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attribut-
> ed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th11th century BCE) identified further in the north 
> at cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjica 
> culture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovo 
> and which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.4


The "transitional period" = the main timing for the first and biggest E-V13 expansion down into the Balkans. 




> In 
> Greece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces have 
> long been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northern 
> Italy.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, show-
> ing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue



https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document

This relates directly to the corridor of Channelled Ware related, Early Iron Age expansions down from the Vojvodina and the Morava valley, note the map on p. 175: 
http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debf3.pdf

The map again with other comments: 
https://imgur.com/fogur6E

Especially changes in burial customs, which spread from the North and were clearly associated with Channelled Ware E-V13 people, should never be taken easily! This means the people from the North had a real impact on the Greek tribes, especially the Northern ones. Those coming down were already mixed from Belegis II-Gava, so not even the newcomers were just E-V13 for sure, but still its to me nearly unthinkable that this had no genetic impact on Greeks and brought no E-V13 in the LBA-EIA transition already. 

Only ancient DNA can solve this, but the archaeological record gives us clear hints as to where to look at. 

And the impact of the burial practises, new ceramic forms and iron weapons is a clear cut thing, and you just have to compare it with the date for the Dorians expanding: 



> The scholars were now faced with the conundrum of an invasion at 1200 but a resettlement at 950.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion

If Dorians would have really absolutely no E-V13, that would be such a big surprise to me, because they obviously were influenced and pushed by the Channelled Ware related people.

Its also noteworthy that these influences broke through with more effect to the Aegean than to the Dalmatian coast at first. Because some groups to the West, in the Western Balkans, never fully changed to cremation and stopped the Channelled Ware cultural movement at its borders!

The traditional assignment in the region being like: 
Illyrian Autariatae = Glasinac-Mati complex (inhumation in tumuli) = more J-L283
Dardani = Brnjica (Channelled Ware related cremating group) = more E-V13
Triballi = Early Iron Age culture of the Velika Morava valley = more E-V13

The Channelled Ware groups didn't penetrate down to the coast on the Western Balkans, but rather a corridor from Vojvodina over Kosovo down to Northern Greece. So I wouldn't wonder at all if the Illyrians which were largely unaffected by the Channelled Ware, the early iron technology, cremation rite, Urnfield influences in general, later Eastern Hallstatt, have very little to no E-V13. 

But those penetrated by the migration of the Channelled/Fluted Ware people and their successor cultures should have been.

----------


## Hawk

Riverman, for all this horizon, if Illyrian and Thracian and Greek are Yamnaya derived languages and none of them is Bell-Beaker/CWC derived then i honestly think R1b-Z2103 is the lineage to look upon very early on, but i agree that some particular groups like J2b2-L283 and E-V13 might have risen up in percentage some times afterwards in the respective horizonts where they lived, since neither J2b2-L283 neither E-V13 is attested among Yamnaya males. They were overhelmly R1b-Z2103 with some WHG male input I2a2.

In case of E-V13, yes, i have to agree it looks like primary Thracian then secondary all of the mentioned groups that were affected by these cultures. There was a discussion long time ago between Dienekes and Maju and it's amazing how both of them in a way were correct: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07...explained.html

Dienekes in that he predicted Late Bronze Age expansion/rise of E-V13 and Maju in that E-V13 is Danubian Neolithic descended lineage.

Here is another Dienekes post (not necessarily correct though, maybe he updated/changed his opinion) regarding cremation: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09...on-ritual.html

As have been pointed out early, the movement of Danube people during Late Bronze Age might have pushed other people to find a new home as well. If or if not E-V13 is linked with the movement of these people that's a question.

----------


## Riverman

> Riverman, for all this horizon, if Illyrian and Thracian and Greek are Yamnaya derived languages and none of them is Bell-Beaker/CWC derived


That's not what I think. Actually I know not a single major, well-known IE branch which can be derived directly from Yamnaya. All of them came from the Corded Ware culture and related groups in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. Yamnaya was more like a contributor to some of them, primarily in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, so becoming, that way, just like E-V13 and J-L283, an important element in SOME of the IE ethnolinguistic groups. 

Thracian and E-V13 in particular most likely comes from the Epi-Corded horizon in CEE. 




> then i honestly think R1b-Z2103 is the lineage to look upon very early on


I think R-Z2103 was largely picked up from the Yamnaya pastoralists which were wandering around between the Western steppe, Pannonia and Bulgaria. So those regions which provided a suitable habitat and in which Yamnaya could actually expand into. But they seem to have been assimilated or incorporated into more agro-pastoralist groups I'd say. 




> but i agree that some particular groups like J2b2-L283 and E-V13 might have risen up in percentage some times afterwards in the respective horizonts where they lived, since neither J2b2-L283 neither E-V13 is attested among Yamnaya males.


True, but like I said, I think R-Z2103 was in largely the same position, with the pastoralist Yamnaya remains being picked up, just like E-V13 was picked up from what remained of Lengyel-Sopot and Tripolye-Cucuteni probably. J-L283 is more complicated, it could have been on the steppe early or picked up fairly late, both seems plausible. 




> They were overhelmly R1b-Z2103 with some WHG male input I2a2.


Yes, and that kind of people didn't survive, most likely, as independent ethnic units into historical times. 



> In case of E-V13, yes, i have to agree it looks like primary Thracian then secondary all of the mentioned groups that were affected by these cultures. There was a discussion long time ago between Dienekes and Maju and it's amazing how both of them in a way were correct: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07...explained.html
> 
> Dienekes in that he predicted Late Bronze Age expansion/rise of E-V13 and Maju in that E-V13 is Danubian Neolithic descended lineage.


Synthesis is often right (not always) 




> As have been pointed out early, the movement of Danube people during Late Bronze Age might have pushed other people to find a new home as well. If or if not E-V13 is linked with the movement of these people that's a question.


Actually, and that's what making the situation so complicated, some of the main groups of Channelled Ware and its possible descendents being influenced from different directions and local people they encountered. Obviously we can't tell for sure at which point E-V13 jumped in. Like was it present in the Gva centre already? Or just somewhere in the wider Gva-Holigrady sphere? Or being picked up from Belegi to become dominant in Belegi II-Gva? What I'm pretty sure right now is that Belegi II-Gva, the whole Bulgarian Fluted Ware horizon and Encrusted Ware being influenced by E-V13. That's a given for me at this point. I don't see any good explanation of the later and modern pattern without those groups carrying a high E-V13 frequency. 
Where they picked it up, further in the North with Gva - where they would have been at least strong, not necessarily dominant - is open to debate and completely unresolved. 

The spread with cremation, channelled/fluted pottery styles and iron weapons is also without a doubt. Such a strong expansive phase for E-V13 can only be connected with the transitional period (narrower 1.200-1.100 BC, wider 1.300-800 BC, the beginning of Hallstatt) and the spread of iron technology. That was the leverage which brought them into the higher frequency ranks of CEE and SEE at that time, with minor spread beyond. I have absolutely no doubt about that, because like I said, if there wouldn't be E-V13, I would be searching for another candidate which profited form this cultural network and expansion associated with cremation, channelled ware and iron technology in the Carpathians and Balkans.

----------


## Hawk

*THE PROTOURBAN ILLYRIANS IN THE LATE IRON AGEAND THEIR CONTACTS TO THE GREEK WORLD*_
Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture._ Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.


https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publi...-roman-albania

----------


## Hawk

*Archaeology from the Balkans indicates a crisis prior to the Bronze Age Collapse

*I wonder how thing will work out in the end.




> *The Argument*Pressure on the Balkans by Central European people disrupted life there in the 13th century.This disruption was caused by a break between the older Tumulus culture and the newer Urnfield culture. The Urnfield culture spread across central Europe and into the Balkans. The fallout from its formation may have caused waves of migrants who headed south.One such migration into the north of Italy, around 1200 BCE, is already well-known.[1] The Bronze Age Collapse may have occurred in a similar way to the collapse of Rome, with waves of northern migrants pushing people down into the Mediterranean on masse, causing chaos.There is evidence of material culture from the Balkans (ancient Illyria) moving south in this period into Greece, and Greek finds moving north into the Balkans, suggesting a considerable movement of people. So-called "barbarian ware" appears throughout Greece at the end of the Mycenaean palatial period.[2]Depictions of Urnfield ships mirror those in the Egyptian Hieroglyphics depicting the Sea People. The ships have prominent bird heads on the stern and prow, an unusual feature which is unlikely to be a coincidence.[3]The classical Greeks believed their own history started with "the Doric Invasions" a group of invaders who came from the North. 
> 
> Archaeology suggests that disturbance in Central Europe which affected the Balkans and may have caused a movement of people downwards into the Mediterranean. These people from Illyria and Central Europe may have comprised the Sea People or may have pushed others into piracy.
> 
> https://www.parlia.com/a/archaeology-from-balkans-indicates-crisis-prior#position


Entangled Sea(faring): Reconsidering the Connection between the Ships of the Sea Peoples, the Aegean, and 'Urnfield' Europe

*Abstract:*The naval battle representation on the walls of Ramesses III’s ‘mansion of a million years’ at Medinet Habu (ca. 1175 BCE) stands as one of the earliest, and certainly most detailed, depictions of ship–to–ship combat. It also depicts the only known vessels of Helladic galley type to be depicted with stem–and–stern avian decoration. As such, they have been called upon as evidence for the inclusion of Central Europeans (‘Urnfielders’) in the Sea Peoples coalition(s), and – more recursively – to bolster the view that the highly schematic designs on the stemposts of Helladic galleys were avian in nature. This paper addresses these conclusions and evaluates the evidence that has been presented for an ‘Urnfield’ connection to the Sea Peoples’ ships, along with some notes on the ostensibly avian nature of Helladic galleys’ finial decorations.


_Last updated on 09/24/2019

_https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/...peoples-aegean

It will look like various different people from Adriatic and Aegean formed the bulk of Sea People affair.

----------


## Hawk

*Perspectives on Balkan Archaeology
*



> However, in the Late Bronze Age, occasional cremation burials started to appear in communitieswith long inhumation tradition. Prominent examples are cremation graves from the Glasinac regionin eastern Bosnia6 or the region of Lika in Croatia.7 The sporadic and unusual incinerations indicateinfluences from the bordering Urnfield culture complex. Within the study region, grave finds from thefinal stages of the Late Bronze Age (the 9th century BCE) point to increased interaction of groups thatpractice different mortuary body treatments.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile...rn-Balkans.pdf

----------


## Hawk

Something related.....




> Slightly biconical shaped bowls, the upper cone (rim and shoulder) of which is decorated with horizontal and slanted facets or slanted channels, as well as semi-globular bowls of inverted rim decorated with horizontal facets or slanted channels are characteristic of the end of Bronze Age and mark the beginning of Iron Age in many cultural groups within the Balkan Peninsula. Problem of their origin, chronology and distribution is present in archaeological literature for a long time. Many authors perceived the significance of this ceramic shape for the chronological, ethnic and cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze, that is, of the Early Iron Ages within the territory of the Balkans. Pottery from the burned layers in Vardina and Vardaroftsa sites in the north of Greece, among which there were bowls with inverted, slanted channeled rim, was designated way back by W. Heurtley as Danubian pottery or Lausitz ware, connecting its origin with the Danube Basin. Anumber of conclusions have been reached upon the study of finds of slightly biconical bowls and bowls of inverted rim, decorated with channels or facets, from several indicative sites from Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages within the Balkan Peninsula and south part of the Middle Europe. It has been stated that the bowls appear first within the southwest Slovakia and northwest Hungary in the Br D period, to spread very fast, already in the Br D/Ha A1 period, from its home territory to the east, to the northeast Hungary and northwest Romania. Namely, this first spreading wave into these territories brought along only variety Ia bowls, which were further distributed to the south, during the Ha A1 period, to the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula and consequently it can be concluded that these bowls are somewhat older than other varieties. In the period Br D - Ha A1, in north Hungary, under the influence of Gava Culture, on one hand, and Čaka Culture, on the other, appear also variety IIa bowls (turban dish), distributed to the east with a new migration wave, in the same manner as was the case with the first migration wave, but also to the south, along the Bakonjska Range, to the present day Croatia and Slovenia, where, in the Ha A1/A2 periods, were stated exclusively variety IIa bowls. Representatives of the variety Ia bowls remained in the Pomoravlje region and Južna Morava Basin, as confirmed by a large number of these bowls and also by other ceramic shapes of that stylistic and typological pattern, prevailing within this region in the Ha A1/A2 periods. First variety IIa bowls (Mediana, Kržince) appear only during the second migration wave coming from the north of the Balkans to the central part of the Balkan Peninsula (Ha A2 period). These bowls, however, are particularly characteristic of Macedonia and lower Povardarje, where variety Ia bowls were not stated at all. The second migration wave representatives, with turban dish bowls (variety IIa), were much more aggressive as witnessed by many burned settlements from that period in the Vranjska-Bujanovačka Valleys and Povardarje. During Ha B-C periods, bowls of both types (particularly variety IIa) became inevitable part of ceramic inventory of nearly all cultural groups in the Balkan Peninsula, which could be explained by the spread of cultural influence of the new stylistic trend, though, however, it could be possible that migrations, which at the time were numerous and of greater or lesser intensity, were one of the spreading causes of this ceramic shape into the east, south and west parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the Ha B period. Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations. The assumed direction of these migrations coincides mainly with the distribution direction of bowl types I and II. Migrations spreading the bowl types I and II started in the south part of the Middle Europe, but were initiated by the representatives of the Urnenfelder cultural complex from the Middle Europe, as observed in certain ceramic shapes, stated together with type I bowls and originating from cultures of the Urnenfelder complex, and in numerous metal finds, which were produced in Middle European workshops. It is of interest to point out that bowl movements could be followed up to the northwest shores of the Aegean Sea, but they are not stated in the south Trace and in Troy, thus imposing conclusion that their representatives did not reach Troy. Consequently, their possible participation in destruction of VIIb2 layer settlements is utterly uncertain. The migrations, however, started chain reaction of ethnic movements in the Balkans, causing many ethnic and cultural changes within this territory which will lead to creation of new cultural groups to mark the developed Iron Age. To what extent bowls of this type, particularly variety IIa, left deep trace in the Iron Age Cultures in the central Balkans, is shown in the fact that survivals of this variety remained within these regions even several centuries later, in late phases of the Ha C period (VI/V century BC).
> 
> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00059/art00005

----------


## Riverman

> Something related.....


That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production.

----------


## torzio

From what I always read from many years ago is that the ................

Dalmatians, Liburnians, Histrians had inhumanation burials like the celts did ie same as halstatt 1st phase ( circa 1000BC )
and the
Pannonians cremated ...............some say similar to thracians from Dacia

----------


## Hawk

> That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production.


Mister Riverman, i don't think all of these independent archeological data are made up, they look consistent all over the place. As for that Albanian Bruzmi, he is a charlatan who hates E-V13, it's like trying to convince a blind man here is the sunset but he refuses to say it exists. So whatever facts you bring he will automatically refuse it of course.

----------


## Riverman

> From what I always read from many years ago is that the ................
> 
> Dalmatians, Liburnians, Histrians had inhumanation burials like the celts did ie same as halstatt 1st phase ( circa 1000BC )
> and the
> Pannonians cremated ...............some say similar to thracians from Dacia


Pannonians became much more heavily influenced by Urnfield/Channelled Ware than the coastal groups. But at the time of Hallstatt, it got more confusing already, because even some Eastern groups under the influence of the Cimmerians and Scythians, like already in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, reverted back to inhumation. That means its decisive who did cremate in the transitional period (1.200-1.100 BC) in particular, in combination with channelled/fluted ware. Much of Pannonia was actually more heavily influenced by this, but we also don't know which branches did have a high E-V13 frequency. The Eastern Fluted Ware horizon and Encrusted Ware did, and Belegis II-Gava with its descendents too, because if those central groups wouldn't, the whole E-V13 case would be even more unbelievable to impossible to solve.




> Mister Riverman, i don't think all of these independent archeological data are made up, they look consistent all over the place. As for that Albanian Bruzmi, he is a charlatan who hates E-V13, it's like trying to convince a blind man here is the sunset but he refuses to say it exists. So whatever facts you bring he will automatically refuse it of course.


Everyone is free to put forward his arguments. As long as the debate remains civil.

----------


## Hawk

According to Tasic there were three cultures fighting for dominance in South Carpathians: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina

HugelgraberKultur, Encrusted Pottery Culture and Gava-Belegis.

I consider one of these three cultures as the ultimate origin of E-V13.

As for Encrusted Pottery Culture chances are huge they were not, the ancestral Kisapostag Culture, carefully selected samples from different timelines were dominantly Y-DNA I2.



https://agi.abtk.hu/en/news/news


So that leaves us with:

1. Gava-Belegis
2. HugelgraberkKultur.

Did i miss any other? What is native Vatin considered as?

There was a confrontation in and around Danube.




> As a "contact zone" subject to the influences of the Pannonian Plain to the north, the Balkans to the south, the Carpatho-Danubian region to the east and the sub-Alpine region to the west, Vojvodina is exceptionally important for the study of the Bronze Age of these regions. It witnessed the processes of integration of certain cultures only to see them disintegrate again. At times almost the entire territory was dominated by a single culture, while at others completely divergent cultures developed simultaneously in each of its three constituent regions: the Banat, Srem and Bačka. In the latter half of the Early Bronze Age an attempt to establish control over an extensive territory was made by the Vatin culture which, in its westward and southward expansion, covered the central and southern Banat, and most of Srem reaching as far as Šumadija and the Lower Morava Valley. *The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. They remained there through several developmental phases extending into north-western Bulgaria and part of the Romanian Banat. At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze Age, in Srem the Banat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1-A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina

----------


## Riverman

> According to Tasic there were three cultures fighting for dominance in South Carpathians: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina
> 
> HugelgraberKultur, Encrusted Pottery Culture and Gava-Belegis.


The problem with Channelled Ware is that it is a widespread phenomenon and the main, big thrusts don't come directly from Gava, but from Belegis II-Gava and Eastern Fluted Ware. What we therefore don't know at this point is whether E-V13 was directly spread from the Gava centre, which is possible to likely, even if being only present in a branch of it, or picked up on the way, before moving out big time with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which included Belegis II-Gava.




> So that leaves us with:
> 
> 1. Gava-Belegis
> 2. HugelgraberkKultur.
> 
> Did i miss any other? What is native Vatin considered as?
> 
> There was a confrontation in and around Danube.


From which group could tribes heavy in E-V13 spread, which began to dominate the Channelled Ware horizon on both sides of the Carpathians? That's the question we have to ask. If its not Gava itself, it must be a group influenced very early by them, directly to their South, still fairly up in the North, so they could start that fairly massive expansion. 

This post of mine has some quotes which are important to understand the impact of the phenomenon and its influence on later cultures: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post626679

Gava itself would be the easiest solution, but some claim the Gava core group might be too Northern and being dominated by other haplogroups. We have to wait and see, like always. But somewhere between the Gava core and the general Channelled Ware/Fluted horizon of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, "it must have happened", and an E-V13 tribe with many clans, already diversified, did jump in and profited big time from the expansion of this cultural phenomenon *on both sides of the Carpathians*.

----------


## Hawk

From attested Illyrian tribes so far the ones who atleast partially used cremation were: Dardanians, Pirusti, Encheleians and Ardiaei? (not sure about this one, according to Aspurg, let him confirm himself and bring the sources).

----------


## blevins13

> From attested Illyrian tribes so far the ones who atleast partially used cremation were: Dardanians, Pirusti, Encheleians and Ardiaei? (not sure about this one, according to Aspurg, let him confirm he himself and bring the sources).


Here you have the Illyrian Proper


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Riverman

> From attested Illyrian tribes so far the ones who atleast partially used cremation were: Dardanians, Pirusti, Encheleians and Ardiaei? (not sure about this one, according to Aspurg, let him confirm himself and bring the sources).


Dardanians are supposed to have been part of the heavily Channelled Ware influenced corridor: 
Dardani = Brnjica (Channelled Ware related cremating group) = more E-V13
Triballi = Early Iron Age culture of the Velika Morava valley = more E-V13

So in theory they should have been closer to the Triballi and Daco-Thracians, with a higher V13 frequency than those using inhumation burials: 




> The *Dardani* (/ˈdɑːrdənaɪ/; Ancient Greek: Δαρδάνιοι, Δάρδανοι; Latin: _Dardani) were a Paleo-Balkan tribe, which lived in a region which was named Dardania after their settlement there.[1][2] The eastern parts of the region were at the Thraco-Illyrian contact zone. In archaeological research, Illyrian names are predominant in western Dardania (present-day Kosovo), and occasionally appear in eastern Dardania (present-day south-eastern Serbia), while Thracian names are found in the eastern parts, but are absent from the western parts. Thus, their identification as either an Illyrian or Thracian tribe has been a subject of debate; the ethnolinguistic relationship between the two groups being largely uncertain and debated itself as well.[3][4] The correspondence of Illyrian names, including those of the ruling elite, in Dardania with those of the southern Illyrians suggests a "thracianization" of parts of Dardania._


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardani

In my current best model, they would be *primary spreaders* of E-V13 in the region. 




> The cultural group formed out of this culture is the Thracian tribe of Moesi. *It is also the non-Illyrian component in the Dardanian ethnogenesis.*[1] 
> 
> The culture is characterized by several groups:[1] 
> 
> Kosovo with Raska and PesterSouth and West Morava confluence zoneLeskovac-NisSouth Morava-Pcinja-Upper Vardar
> Brnjica type pottery has been found in Blageovgrad, Plovdiv, and a number of sites in Pelagonia, Lower Vardar, the island of Thasos and Thessaly dating to 13th and 12th century BC.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brnjica_culture

----------


## Riverman

> In stratum III, the Sprofiled bowls are scarce,
> while the share of other ceramic forms, characteristic
> of the two oldest strata, is significantly diminished,
> with a sudden enhancement of the share of cannelured
> ceramics of Iron Age I b type of the Morava basin 
> The last, IV stratum, is thin and except for the 1999
> trial excavation, it is found only in certain parts of the
> site. A predominance of cannelured ceramics is charac-
> teristic for stratum IV, with sporadic finds of Brnjica
> ceramics typical for strata I and II at the Hisar site.


So Channelled Ware of the type known from the Morava basin, which was a primary centre of the Channelled Ware cultural diffusion and settlement. This could be interpreted as: 




> hat already in the second phase
> (strata IIBrnjica I b phase) contacts were made with
> the cultural complex Iron Age I a from the lower
> Morava basin, manifested in the cannelured ceramics
> characterizing to the greatest extent the cultural groups
> of the complex; *the predominance of the cannelured
> ceramics in the III stratum (Brnjica II cultural group
> phase) can be explained by the influx of the ethnic
> element from the North (Morava basin I b phase) and
> ...





> On the terrace, where the first excavations were
> carried out in 1999, *a ferrous metallurgy center was
> discovered with evidence of iron production as well as
> of ferrous objects manufacture from the first two pha-
> ses of the Brnjica cultural group.*1





> For instance, the novelties, such
> as *the cannelured vessels, emerging under the influen-
> ce of the Velika Morava basin within the Iron Age I
> period, do not appear in the graves. The appearance of
> such artefacts in the necropolises meant an essential
> change of the ethnic and cultural identity*, which was
> not the case with the Kosovo necropolises. Thus, doubt
> remains whether the Brnjica community in Kosovo
> lasted as long as the one in the Ju`na Morava basin or
> shorter, the latter being more plausible.


There is a clear North -> South transmission of cultural elements, with the influence and actual pressure from the North, from the Morava valley Channelled Ware groups, increasing over time, until they begin to even partly replace the older elements completely. 




> Within the Ju`na Morava and Zapadna Morava con-
> fluence zones there are eleven Brnjica ceramics sites.
> Three kinds of sites are characteristic: (1) sites with
> Brnjica ceramics exclusively, (2) sites characterized
> by mixed Brnjica ceramics and Para}in cultural group
> ceramics (Para}in I) and (3) sites in which the Brnjica
> ceramics are mixed with the cannelured ceramics of
> the Iron Age I type in the Morava basin.2


For Macedonia and the Vardar valley: 




> In strata 189 on Kastanas, in the lower Vardar
> basin, there are numerous and diverse ceramics rather
> similar to the Brnjica ceramics from the Ju`na Morava
> basin sites; in strata 1918 (ca. 16001400 BC)30; in
> strata 1715 (ca. 14001190 BC)31, in strata 1411
> (11901000 BC)32, strata 108 (ca. 1000900 BC)33.
> *Some ceramic forms such as cone vessels with faceted
> rim appear on Kastanas much later, as is the case with
> the cannelured ceramics*.


The possible role of iron processing: 




> All the cultural groups (Belegi{, Para}in, Brnjica)
> on the one-time territory of the Vatin complex had iron
> objects at their disposal.45 Namely, there are undoubted
> proofs that the Belegi{ and Para}in cultural groups used
> iron objects, while it is known for the Brnjica com-
> munity that it produced iron in its earliest development
> phase (in the 14th century BC) and made objects from
> this metal.46 Iron  the royal metal or Homers metal
> dearer than gold, as with the Hittites, was produced
> ...


Population movements into Greece, caused by a domino effect with the Channelled Ware groups being the main cause: 



> Relatively numerous sites in which ceramics of
> Brnjica type were found in the Vardar basin as well as
> in the north of Greece up to Thessaly, point to popu-
> lation movements from the central Balkans towards
> the Mycenaean territory at the time when the Brnjica
> community flourished, reached its peak and, like others,
> developed ferrous metallurgy, but neglected the pro-
> tection of the northern regions of its territory. Under
> such conditions, the cultural group from the Iron Age I b
> ...





> rom the above, the conclusion can be reached that
> the impressively numerous Brnjica community from
> the 13th century BC, populating an enormous territory
> from the Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions in the west up to
> Struma in the east and from the Ju`na and Zapadna
> Morava confluence zone in the north down to the Taor
> Gorge in the south, took part in the events designated
> as the Aegean Migration, which, inter alia, caused the
> destruction of the Mycenaean civilization and the great
> ...


At the end the author becomes somewhat speculative: 




> The question arises whether one of the two booms
> in ferrous metallurgy, the initial one in the 14th and 13th
> centuries BC or the one at the beginning of the last mil-
> lennium BC, could perhaps be connected to the Dorian
> migration and their iron weapons. It is generally accep-
> ted that the Dorians came from the north and northwest
> in the 11th century BC, conquered Peloponnesus and
> destroyed the remains of the Mycenaean civilization.
> 
> ...


This seems to be reasonable: 



> The most recent results of archaeological research
> confirm the opinion given by M. Gara{anin on Dako-
> Moesian elements in the ethnicity of the Brnjica
> cultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.


http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0...410656073S.pdf

Overall a very interesting article with many interesting archaeological details and observations.

----------


## Johane Derite

"We have already in the 7th century BCE an Etruscan vase with a depiction of Aeneas on it, so that's very early, and in the tales of Homer, Aeneas is only a minor figure, so I think that just a wish to belong to the Homer epics is not a good explanation of this situation." -Alwin Kloekhorst

Aeneas was not a descendant of King Priam or relative of Hector, he was the commander of the Dardanoi, a separate people in the Iliad. In the 7th century BC, for Aeneas depictions to be found among Etruscans means the myth of Aeneas' travels to italy was not an invention of Virgil.

Also, in 7th century BC this is only 500 years removed from the Trojan war, so this would be like in 20th century the distance in time from Battle of Kosovo, which was still being sung about by Albanians, Serbs, etc. Even slightly later in the classical period, it was not that far removed in time.

Remember, the myths state that Dardanoi moved to Italy and found Etruscans and Latins already there, this is not an argument that Etruscans come from Troy.

Multiple times in myths there appears the mention that Dardanus was knowledgeable in the "mysteries", that he brought them to Samothrace, or that he brought the temple of the "Mother of the Gods" to Asia minor. I wonder if the bell dress figurines of Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare complex can have any relation to this

----------


## Hawk

Hector was also called Dardanian by Homer.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Hector was also called Dardanian by Homer.


Hector is not referred to as a Dardanoi. But that Trojan and Dardanoi were two different things are more than clear enough in the Iliad given that they are listed separately and have different leaders.

Hector is commander of the Trojans, Antenor and Aeneas are commanders of the Dardanoi.

To demonstrate this clearly, at one point Hector calls out to the army "Trojans, Lycians, and Dardanians (Dardanoi)". Dardanoi are as separate from Trojan as Lycians are.

----------


## Hawk

> Hector is not referred to as a Dardanoi. But that Trojan and Dardanoi were two different things are more than clear enough in the Iliad given that they are listed separately and have different leaders.
> 
> Hector is commander of the Trojans, Antenor and Aeneas are commanders of the Dardanoi.
> 
> To demonstrate this clearly, at one point Hector calls out to the army "Trojans, Lycians, and Dardanians (Dardanoi)". Dardanoi are as separate from Trojan as Lycians are.


Then it's a bit confusing, since in Iliad i thought i have read Homer referencing to Hector and Priam as Dardan.




> Then he: "O prince! allied in blood and fame,Dearer than all that own a brother's name;
> Of all that Hecuba to Priam bore,
> Long tried, long loved: much loved, but honoured more!
> Since you, of all our numerous race alone
> Defend my life, regardless of your own."
> Again the goddess: "Much my father's prayer,
> And much my mother's, press'd me to forbear:
> My friends embraced my knees, adjured my stay,
> But stronger love impell'd, and I obey.
> ...





> "No, wretch accursed! relentless he replies;
> (Flames, as he spoke, shot flashing from his eyes;)
> Not those who gave me breath should bid me spare,
> Nor all the sacred prevalence of prayer.
> Could I myself the bloody banquet join!
> No—to the dogs that carcase I resign.
> Should Troy, to bribe me, bring forth all her store,
> And giving thousands, offer thousands more;
> *Should Dardan Priam, and his weeping dame,
> ...

----------


## Archetype0ne

> Then it's a bit confusing, since in Iliad i thought i have read Homer referencing to Hector and Priam as Dardan.


Yep and they were cousins IIRC. Furthermore IIRC Priam and Aeneas had some familiar connection?

----------


## Archetype0ne

Something related to this thread you guys might find interesting?






Here is the interesting part.

After seeing the above results, I asked ph2ter from Anthrogenica to do his magic. Since some of those Scythian samples do not look Scythian at all.

And my suspicions were confirmed.



This sample is z2103.
scy305*	Glinoe	Scythian	399 - 209 BCE	XY	U5a2b	R1b1a1a2

In the same study, one of the Scythians was E-V13, albeit the authors had wrongfully declared him R1b-z2103 and likely overestimated its age.

This one according to Trojet, was actually V13 after analyzing the BAM file
scy197*	Glinoe	Scythian	2885 - 2632 BCE	XY	U5a1a1	R1b1a1a2
And also he mentioned that the dating was contested, and there was suspicion it was in reality a sample from around 300bc.

The samples are from here: https://www.e-anthropology.com/Engli...y/default.aspx
This is the study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

I will provide the rest of the maps ph2ter did for that request:









Now if I recall the discussions regarding the Bulgarian samples. IIRC the authors or was it some people with inside knowledge were speculating that the Troyans might have had genetic contribution from Thrace. This was either in the youtube interview with one of the authors or in the following discussions among some insiders on Eurogenes.

----------


## Hawk

Szolad_SZ43 is my top match.

Distance to:
Hawk_scaled

0.03299762
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43

0.03438320
IND_Roopkund_B:I6936

0.03482785
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36

0.03608238
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02

0.03749184
DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b

0.03756047
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37

0.03832633
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55

0.03939553
IND_Roopkund_B:I3404

0.03943402
Scythian_MDA:scy192

0.03964654
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33

0.04018759
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR36

0.04031992
Scythian_MDA:scy197

0.04085139
DEU_MA_ACD:NW_54

0.04117742
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b

0.04135765
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970

0.04139234
Migration_POH:POH27

0.04174284
HRV_MBA:I4331

0.04180661
SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A

0.04206426
HUN_BA:I7043

0.04220230
DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3c

0.04226506
VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538

0.04232969
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28

0.04239937
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287

0.04250456
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04

0.04252108
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1

----------


## Archetype0ne

The point is that around 300 BC we see people with autosomal and ydna profiles that match modern Albanians around the area you keep mentioning all these cultures. They have autosomal match with "modern" Albanians, and their Y-DNA is V13, and Z2103.

Furthermore, in Mokrin, Z2103 is found together with L283...




> From user “Genos Historia” over at Eurogenes, fwiw:
> 
> 
> "Mokrin Serbia EBA is mix between Western Yamnaya and Tollense Valley-related pops.
> 
> @0.013
> Croat BA: 41%
> Vucedol: 16%
> Welzin_BA: 43%
> ...


Now you can also see the SZ samples, which are just North West of Mokrin, have autosomal profiles similar to Modern Italians, Albanians and Greeks. Mokrin futhermore pops in my shorter distance populations along with these SZ samples, as is the case for most Albanians.

Next time I will ask ph2ter to run the Mokrin and Croatia MBA L283s to see if there is any relation.

Edit: Chances are if these samples did not get buried in a Scythian context, we would most likely lack their DNA, as they might as well have been cremated.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Then it's a bit confusing, since in Iliad i thought i have read Homer referencing to Hector and Priam as Dardan.


It is really confusing. Priam is sometimes called Dardanides (son of dardanus) but never Dardanoi, or Dardanion, or Dardanos man, etc, which is the specific tribe/house that Antenor, Aeneas, Acamas, etc, belong to.

Here below are all references to Dardan- in the Greek, from book 22 there are only 3 references, once for Priam as Dardanides, and twice for the Dardanian gates as Dardanion. So that "Dardan hero" from your link I am assuming is a bad translation, of somebody that didn't see it as being significant and just considered it interchangable with Trojan, as majority do.

It is strange why Priam is sometimes referred to as a son of Dardanus (Dardanides), but never stated as part of the Dardanoi. Hector leads the trojans, and the Dardanoi at one point in the Iliad are placed in the back, and Aeneas remarks angrily that he is not a descendant of Laomedon like Priam.


This is Grace Macurdy's hypothesis about why Priam is sometimes called Dardanides (son of Dardanus):

----------


## Hawk

Target: Hawk_scaled
Distance: 2.8012% / 0.02801223

58.8
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



37.4
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



1.8
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva



1.0
Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG



1.0
Levant_Neolithic_Farmer_Levant_PPNB





Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
Distance: 3.0615% / 0.03061462

54.4
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



33.0
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



12.0
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva



0.6
Morocco_Early_Neolithic_Farmer_MAR_EN






Target: HRV_MBA:I4331
Distance: 2.6089% / 0.02608916

60.8
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



32.6
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



6.6
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva






Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 2.5000% / 0.02499952

72.4
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



24.0
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



3.0
Iran_Neolithic_Farmer_IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N



0.6
Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG






Target: GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 2.9767% / 0.02976694

63.2
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



32.6
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



1.8
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva



1.4
Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG



1.0
Morocco_Early_Neolithic_Farmer_MAR_EN






Target: HRV_IA:I3313
Distance: 3.8279% / 0.03827883

61.4
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



33.6
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



5.0
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva







Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A
Distance: 2.7899% / 0.02789892

59.4
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



24.0
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



10.0
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva



4.4
Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer_GEO_CHG



1.6
Indus__Valley_Civilization_IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2



0.6
South_Africa_Hunter-Gatherer_ZAF_2100BP






Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK19A
Distance: 2.8824% / 0.02882431

46.4
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



30.2
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva



23.2
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



0.2
Iran_Neolithic_Farmer_IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N







Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK20
Distance: 2.9840% / 0.02984018

55.2
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



31.8
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



13.0
Baltics_Narva_Hunter-Gatherer_Baltic_LTU_Narva








Target: HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
Distance: 1.8985% / 0.01898514

59.6
Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N



35.4
Pontic_Steppe_Yamnaya_Pastoralist_Yamnaya_RUS_Sama ra



2.0
West_Europe_Hunter-Gatherer_WHG



1.8
Levant_Natufian_Hunter-Gatherer_Levant_Natufian



1.0
Morocco_Early_Neolithic_Farmer_MAR_EN



0.2
Australian_Aborigine_AUS_Willandra_Lakes_4000BP

----------


## Hawk

Since we have discussed over and over again and a lot of people hinting that E-V13 spread point was in and around Northern Balkans/Danube Valley/Southern Carpathians i wonder if E-V13 actually descends from Vinca-Turdas Culture. From the northern shores of this culture.

It was the Vinca People that were pioneers in metal-working. Maybe the surviving E-V13 retreated in Carpathian Mountains after IE invasion?

I was actually hypothesizing like a single E-V13 forefather, survivor who mingled into IE groups and eventually growing in number but it looks it can be also associated with elevated Neolithic autosomal in case of Iron Age Thrace with the sudden reveal of E-V13. So, a surviving group makes more sense i guess.

----------


## Riverman

> Since we have discussed over and over again and a lot of people hinting that E-V13 spread point was in and around Northern Balkans/Danube Valley/Southern Carpathians i wonder if E-V13 actually descends from Vinca-Turdas Culture. From the northern shores of this culture.
> 
> It was the Vinca People that were pioneers in metal-working. Maybe the surviving E-V13 retreated in Carpathian Mountains after IE invasion?
> 
> I was actually hypothesizing like a single E-V13 forefather, survivor who mingled into IE groups and eventually growing in number but it looks it can be also associated with elevated Neolithic autosomal in case of Iron Age Thrace with the sudden reveal of E-V13. So, a surviving group makes more sense i guess.


My best guess is still the Carpathian zone and coming down with Channelled Ware, and what I recently read and wrote, you probably saw it on Anthrogenica about it, the culture was quite hierarchical and expansive, with a strong emphasis of metallurgy. Considering its character, some tribe rising to the top and controlling the routes could have, especially with the ideological-religious role they had in the Urnfield networks too, easily expand very rapidly from the most modest starting point. 
This makes the search for the predecessor culture for the haplogroup the more difficult, but from what I read it also looks like it was local, somewhere in Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania, though some say otherwise again. And there was also a debate about a possible Southern influence and connection during its formation. We need the Pannonian aDNA results first I'd say. Would be great to know if the 1-2 E1b1b were E-V13. If the Nitra-Western Slovakia sample was indeed E-V13, that would be very supportive for the Northern origin hypothesis. Because there was none in all the rest of Pannonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece etc. at this point. It would be a fairly old sample too. But we need to know what it actually was, because it could have been a different clade of E1b1b.

----------


## Hawk

> My best guess is still the Carpathian zone and coming down with Channelled Ware, and what I recently read and wrote, you probably saw it on Anthrogenica about it, the culture was quite hierarchical and expansive, with a strong emphasis of metallurgy. Considering its character, some tribe rising to the top and controlling the routes could have, especially with the ideological-religious role they had in the Urnfield networks too, easily expand very rapidly from the most modest starting point. 
> This makes the search for the predecessor culture for the haplogroup the more difficult, but from what I read it also looks like it was local, somewhere in Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania, though some say otherwise again. And there was also a debate about a possible Southern influence and connection during its formation. We need the Pannonian aDNA results first I'd say. Would be great to know if the 1-2 E1b1b were E-V13. If the Nitra-Western Slovakia sample was indeed E-V13, that would be very supportive for the Northern origin hypothesis. Because there was none in all the rest of Pannonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece etc. at this point. It would be a fairly old sample too. But we need to know what it actually was, because it could have been a different clade of E1b1b.


From Etruscan samples we have 1 E-L618 with probability ~85% and down-stream he is probably E-V13 and weird enough some exotic E clades like E-M2 but with low probability, and these clades are more numerous than E-V13. I wonder if it's due to low-quality samples.

----------


## Riverman

> From Etruscan samples we have 1 E-L618 with probability ~85% and down-stream he is probably E-V13 and weird enough some exotic E clades like E-M2 but with low probability, and these clades are more numerous than E-V13. I wonder if it's due to low-quality samples.


Remember the French Neolithic. They might be either slaves, migrants from North Africa, or survivors from some earlier Neolithic group. There were rather exotic E's in the French Neolithic and the Michelsberger too might have been from another branch. Like I said, I think various clades of E were very widespread in Europe, its just that most of it was E1b1b and E-V13 got the lucky strike doing the steppe assimilation and the big LBA-EIA expansion - most likely with Channelled Ware/South Eastern Urnfield. We see it from other results as well, that various E clades were and are still lurking around in Europe at a lower frequency. Just like G2 had some lucky lineages when most got lost. 
If anything, we need to know more about the context, because it would be a curious thing if Etruscans came indeed with a Baden-related group from Pannonia or the like, because these had more Neolithic survival. This could also have been a path for E-V13, Baden and Bolerz, but I think they rather missed the necessary entry point and should have been covered by the Pannonian study.

Edit: Seems to be just bad coverage. But need to keep an eye on sample VEN008 and its archaeological candidate, because it might be a V13 candidate indeed.

----------


## torzio

> It is really confusing. Priam is sometimes called Dardanides (son of dardanus) but never Dardanoi, or Dardanion, or Dardanos man, etc, which is the specific tribe/house that Antenor, Aeneas, Acamas, etc, belong to.
> 
> Here below are all references to Dardan- in the Greek, from book 22 there are only 3 references, once for Priam as Dardanides, and twice for the Dardanian gates as Dardanion. So that "Dardan hero" from your link I am assuming is a bad translation, of somebody that didn't see it as being significant and just considered it interchangable with Trojan, as majority do.
> 
> It is strange why Priam is sometimes referred to as a son of Dardanus (Dardanides), but never stated as part of the Dardanoi. Hector leads the trojans, and the Dardanoi at one point in the Iliad are placed in the back, and Aeneas remarks angrily that he is not a descendant of Laomedon like Priam.
> 
> 
> This is Grace Macurdy's hypothesis about why Priam is sometimes called Dardanides (son of Dardanus):



Paeonians nor Dardanians are illyrians

----------


## Hawk

I assume the name Dardanian was taken from the Brnjica/Mediana/Channeled-Ware and other related Danubian-Urnfield groups, since these groups had contact with Anatolia, the Glasinac-Mat had 0% contact with Anatolia during Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age.

But then again, we don't have sufficient knowledge on these cultures and influences. And i think they were separate ethnos from both Illyrians and Thracians who were influencing them on both West and East.

----------


## Johane Derite

I am far more skeptical about Brnjica being the Dardanian culture given that the Dardanian Kingdom (~400s BC) of the balkans are first attested far later than when the Brnjica culture was around. 

When I first argued for Brnjica - Dardanian connection I wasn't appreciating well enough this big time difference. 

Lazic ("Who were the dardani") argues for example that the earliest signs of Brnjica begin in middle bronze age, and Brnjica culture ends with the introduction of Chanelled ware. 

So in his model Chanelled ware is disruptive and the continuity of Brnjica ends with the entry of chanelled ware into Brnjica regions around ~1100BC.

Lazic argues that in Kosovo around the 700s-600s BC a new culture of low mounds with cremations, and new pottery made with dented tool. This culture is argued to be from lower danube and eastern balkans.

So in the Balkan regions, according to his model we have at least three different contendants: 

*1.* Brnjica Culture (middle bronze age to late bronze age)
*2.* Channeled Ware (late bronze age to Iron age)
*3.* Low mounds/dented ware (starting 700s BC)

And this is not taking into account the well documented:

*4.* Glasinac-Mati-Drini complex (which was present at least in western Kosovo regions.)


Also, this is just one persons model, Rastko Vasic for example argues that Brnjica has continuity and did not die out.

So we possibly have at least four different cultures that might be source of the Dardani, but it is even possible that none of them is, we have to be skeptical to know for sure.

We know for sure however that the Dardani existed, and that they were connected to the anatolian Dardanoi from the Trojan sagas. 

These are the estimated borders of the Dardanian kingdom in the balkans, and also the later roman province of Dardania. The Romans claimed Romus and Remulus had partial ancestry from the Dardanoi via Aeneas, so that they would allow a province to be named Dardania is not meaningless.

----------


## Riverman

> I am far more skeptical about Brnjica being the Dardanian culture given that the Dardanian Kingdom (~400s BC) of the balkans are first attested far later than when the Brnjica culture was around. 
> 
> When I first argued for Brnjica - Dardanian connection I wasn't appreciating well enough this big time difference. 
> 
> Lazic ("Who were the dardani") argues for example that the earliest signs of Brnjica begin in middle bronze age, and Brnjica culture ends with the introduction of Chanelled ware. 
> 
> So in his model Chanelled ware is disruptive and the continuity of Brnjica ends with the entry of chanelled ware into Brnjica regions around ~1100BC.
> 
> Lazic argues that in Kosovo around the 700s-600s BC a new culture of low mounds with cremations, and new pottery made with dented tool. This culture is argued to be from lower danube and eastern balkans.
> ...


I think its similar to Belegis vs. Belegis II, the Channelled Ware incoming people, especially elite, took obviously over, and the question is whether you count that as continuity or not. It seems the transition had a more fluent character, but was ethnic nevertheless. What remains is a regional specific archaeological province and the most important connection is again Channelled Ware. Its still meaningful to keep Brnjica in mind because of this development and because from it the local population evolved. In an ideal world we would be able to get samples for every layer, but what matters the most is the intrusion of Belegis II-Gava related Channelled Ware people in the region which, in all likelihood, spread E-V13 and this was the Dardani : E-V13 connections base.

Unfortunately VEN008 seems to be too low coverage for G25 and his K36 results might point to that as well... Too bad.

----------


## Riverman

The VEN samples are pretty homogeneous Imperial Romans it seems to me, with results along these lines being fairly representative: 



> Distance to: VEN015:VEN015
> 0.02786228 ITA_Rome_Imperial
> 0.02820657 IND_Roopkund_B
> 0.03000435 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
> 0.03818712 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
> 0.03863058 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
> 0.03940920 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
> 0.04165699 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
> 0.04274826 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
> ...


The VEN samples look like being pulled in a Greek/Balkan/Anatolian direction. We can assume the same being true for VEN008, so most likely we deal with a Balkan/Greek derived V13. Though it could be any E1b1b, even from further East.

----------


## Hawk

If Thracians result to be heavy E-V13, which i suspect so, it's surprising. They were known as quite good horseman and obsessed with horses like the cult of Thracian horseman, someone based on that description would assume they were descended from Steppe people paternally but riding on a horseback is just a habit which you can learn at the end of the day.

----------


## Riverman

> If Thracians result to be heavy E-V13, which i suspect so, it's surprising. They were known as quite good horseman and obsessed with horses like the cult of Thracian horseman, someone based on that description would assume they were descended from Steppe people paternally but riding on a horseback is just a habit which you can learn at the end of the day.


Almost the whole Channelled Ware horizon got conquered or became dominated by Cimmerians and Scythians, this is was produced, as a byproduct, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. So its largely the same people, largely the same pots in some areas, but they being heavily, heavily steppe shifted culturally and of course I expect also paternal (R1a primarily) influence especially in the Dacians and Getae, but also the Thracians. Their elite was, at the end of this process, quite often of Cimmerian-Scythian descent. So in a way, the absolute rule of the E-V13 clans lasted not for that long and at the end they fused or were subjugated by incoming steppe clans. In the process these steppe clans brought new metallurgical innovations from regions as far as the Caucasus, to which they connected the Carpathian sphere. At the same time the Channelled Ware metallurgists helped them out and both traditions fused, again creating the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. The Cimmerians and Scythians also introduced new horsemanship, which was probably the main reason they were able to meet them at the same level or even subjugate them in some areas. This included new, larger horsebreeds. 

For a time some Pannonian and Carpathian populations were in decline and pastoralism became more dominant, with less settlements, a more mobile lifestyle. In some areas we deal with "Yurtification", so that was a really big change. This too did hurt the Channelled Ware people demography, but at the same time motived some clans to secondary pushes and flights, to the West, to the South. 

At the end of the day, when everything had calmed down, this new fused culture created the nucleus for Hallstatt, in which we see all the innovations came to a new cultural formula when people settled down again and reverted to a more organised and agro-pastoralist lifestyle. This new formula was the Hallstatt culture, which too spread, just like Urnfield, over different ethnicities from the Thraco-Cimmerian sphere. So basically, Thracians can be seen as "steppified Southern Urnfielders" with Balkan admixture and Greek-Anatolian influences. In Dacians and Getae the Balkan, Greek and Anatolians was probably weaker, but the recent steppe admixture stronger. 

So they did indeed learn new horsemanship and adopted new breeds, but not just so, there was real Cimmerian-Scythian admixture and direct, personal cultural transmission on a big scale. That's why I don't expect Daco-Thracians to be exclusively E-V13 at all, even if, what is questionable too, the Channelled Ware original Thracians would have been.

----------


## Hawk

There was a major clash between three different cultures in South Carpathians/Danube Valley.

1. Szeremle Group (South-East extension of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture which includes Dubovac-Žuto Brdo and Gârla Mare culture).
2. Tumulus-Urnfield Culture.
3. Gava-Holigrady/Belegis-Cruceni, Channeled-Ware which probably overpowered Tumulus-Urnfield and Szeremle groups in Late Bronze Age.

One of them is E-V13 candidate. I am optimistic that by the end of 2021 we will get the answer.  :Wink: 

So far, the Kisapostag and Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture were almost all I2 with some R1b, R1a, unless the South-East extension were E-V13 instead. I don't know. So far, the more realistic looks the 3rd option.

----------


## Riverman

> There was a major clash between three different cultures in South Carpathians/Danube Valley.
> 
> 1. Szeremle Group (South-East extension of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture which includes Dubovac-Žuto Brdo and Gârla Mare culture).
> 2. Tumulus-Urnfield Culture.
> 3. Gava-Holigrady/Belegis-Cruceni, Channeled-Ware which probably overpowered Tumulus-Urnfield and Szeremle groups in Late Bronze Age.
> 
> One of them is E-V13 candidate. I am optimistic that by the end of 2021 we will get the answer. 
> 
> So far, the Kisapostag and Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture were almost all I2 with some R1b, R1a, unless the South-East extension were E-V13 instead. I don't know. So far, the more realistic looks the 3rd option.


Imho, 1 was heavily influenced and in part even formed on the population and cultural bases of 3 on Central-Eastern Balkans. If you mention Dubovac-Brdo in particular. I wouldn't even treat those two as strictly separated for the macro-region, but this is debatable. 

As for 2, they simply split along the Central Balkans and so far we only have good diversity and ancient DNA results of significance on the Balkans from the Eastern Daco-Thracian sphere, which can be largely equated with Channelled Ware. 
So these are two related blocks, which split at some time, the West being rather Illyrian and J2 dominated, the Eastern Daco-Thracian and E-V13. Eventually, after the break up, they fuse again, in the Central Balkans and Pannonia.

----------


## Hawk

> Somewhere around the 14th century BC, in the Ju`naMorava basin, a large number of Brnjica cultural groupsettlements appeared, among which were numerouslarge and artificially fortified hill fort settlements. Re-search to-date suggests various possible reasons for theappearance of such a large number of hill fort settle-ments in such a short time. The principal reason was,undoubtedly, the protection of the densely populatedterritory, communication control (of the Morava basinand other river zones), preservation of natural resourcesand sacred places (large necropolises), organization ofeconomic and social life as well as the consequencesof internal social development (social differentiation),relations with neighbouring communities and, particu-larly, it seems, with the Mycenaean world. It is a well-known fact that the Mycenaean world, several centu-ries prior to its downfall, had a monopoly over thebronze trade in the Mediterranean and, consequently,the demand for bronze increased enormously, thus aro-using the interest of the Mycenaean world in commu-nities which possessed bronze (that is, the alloy ores)or in the communities across whose territory thesecontacts were made.44All the cultural groups (Belegi{, Para}in, Brnjica)on the one-time territory of the Vatin complex had ironobjects at their disposal.45 Namely, there are undoubtedproofs that the Belegi{ and Para}in cultural groups usediron objects, while it is known for the Brnjica com-munity that it produced iron in its earliest developmentphase (in the 14th century BC) and made objects fromthis metal.46 Iron – »the royal metal« or Homer’s »metaldearer than gold«, as with the Hittites, was producedwithin the Brnjica community under the auspices of





> the largest and strongest fortification – on the Hisar hillin Leskovac, in the very core of the Brnjica territory.There is no proof that the Mycenaean world producediron, but it used it.47 It cannot be ruled out that the Myce-naean world procured this metal from the same placesit obtained bronze (that is, bronze ores) – a significantshare from their Balkan hinterland. Goods exchange aswell as other contacts with the Mycenaean civilizationundoubtedly influenced the Brnjica community develop-ment favourably and, at the same time, enhanced theappetites of its leading circles for possession of moreand more precious goods to confirm their social status.Relatively numerous sites in which ceramics ofBrnjica type were found in the Vardar basin as well asin the north of Greece up to Thessaly, point to popu-lation movements from the central Balkans towardsthe Mycenaean territory at the time when the Brnjicacommunity flourished, reached its peak and, like others,developed ferrous metallurgy, but neglected the pro-tection of the northern regions of its territory. Undersuch conditions, the cultural group from the Iron Age I bphase in the Morava basin found ways to leave theVelika Morava valley and reach the Ju`na Morava basinup to the Grdelica Gorge, undoubtedly causing move-ments further to the south in response. The powerfuladvance of cultural groups from the north (from theSerbian Danube valley and the Velika Morava basin) isproved not only by the cannelured ceramics of the IronAge I type, but also by bronze artefacts (decoration need-les, axes-kelts, razors, bracelets) from the Hisar site inLeskovac. From that moment on, the archaeologicalmaterial of the Ju`na Morava basin north of GrdelicaGorge is characterized by a mixture of the materialculture of the Iron Age I community in the Moravabasin with traditional forms of the Brnjica populationin proportionally 10: 1 during the Brnjica I b phase, upto 5:1 during the Brnjica II a phase, and 1: 4 in the lastphase of this cultural group.48 The quantity of thearchaeological material, however, shows a significantdecrease in the population of the Ju`na Morava basinnorth of Grdelica Gorge as compared to the 14th centu-ry BC. At the same time some regions of the Middle





> Danube basin were completely deserted (during Ha B1,ca. 10th century BC), while the population in the VelikaMorava basin decreased in number as was the case inthe Ju`na Morava basin, with a sudden decrease inmaterial culture quality. After the process had reachedthe lowest degree, somewhere at the turn of the 10th tothe 9th century, a sudden revival of life occurred. Theprocess most probably started from the south and con-tinued northward, reflected in the erection of a greatnumber of settlements, characterized by necropoliseswith numerous offerings made of iron (torques, brace-lets, bangles, fibulae).49 Generally speaking, a key rolein the revival in the central Balkans and the SerbianDanube valley was played by the descendants of thosewho had moved several centuries before from the Mo-rava basin to the north of Greece, at the very least theyinfluenced subsequent events in these regions.From the above, the conclusion can be reached thatthe impressively numerous Brnjica community fromthe 13th century BC, populating an enormous territoryfrom the Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions in the west up toStruma in the east and from the Ju`na and ZapadnaMorava confluence zone in the north down to the TaorGorge in the south, took part in the events designatedas the Aegean Migration, which, inter alia, caused thedestruction of the Mycenaean civilization and the greatupheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th andthe beginning of the 12th centuries BC. This communityknew the ferrous metallurgy, it developed craftsman-ship based on iron, and had contacts with the Mycenaeancivilization. One must wonder whether this very popu-lation initiated events which fatally reflected them-selves on Mycenaean civilization, shifting communitiesfrom the north of Greece towards the south or did thispopulation only use the opportunity to expand into theterritory of the communities which had earlier movedtowards Attica and Peloponnesus. At the beginning ofthe 11th century BC the population from the VelikaMorava basin and the Serbian Danube valley (IronAge I b phase in the Morava basin) reached the centralpart of the Ju`na Morava basin and mingled with theautochthonous Brnjica population, leaving behinddeserted territory, particularly the Danube basin. Theend of the 11th and the beginning of the 10th centuriesBC in this part of the Morava basin witnessed a suddendecrease of population. Some large regions of the Brnji-ca cultural group, on the other hand, such as the Koso-vo, Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions were probably alreadydeserted by the end of the 13th or the beginning of the12th centuries BC and would remain unpopulated orstrikingly poorly inhabited right up to the 8th century BC





> Life in the Morava region and in the Serbian Danubevalley was revived before the end of the 10th andduring the 9th century BC, and the population is cha-racterized by massive use of iron.50 At present, it is notpossible to answer precisely the question whether this»life revival« was the consequence of the new popula-tion influx or rather the result of the beneficial influenceon the remaining population in the Morava basin andin the Serbian Danube valley, which brought about therevival of life and raised the cultural level in a shorttime due to innovations in economy and better socialorganization. Regardless of the dilemma whether thishappened due to population influx or influence, themain protagonists of that crucial event at the beginningof the last millennium BC came from the north ofGreece, most probably from Greek Macedonia. Thereis no doubt that elements of the Brnjica ethnic and cul-tural traditions from the 13th century BC are incorpo-rated into their national being. This important event,with far reaching consequences, is confined to theJu`na Morava basin, on one hand, by an exceptionaltechnological discovery – the discovery of ferrous metal-lurgy in the 14th century BC and confirmed in theBrnjica settlement on the Hisar site in Leskovac, andby the life revival in that and other regions of the Mo-rava basin and the Serbian Danube valley at the end ofthe 10th and in the 9th centuries BC, on the other hand. The question arises whether one of the two boomsin ferrous metallurgy, the initial one in the 14th and 13thcenturies BC or the one at the beginning of the last mil-lennium BC, could perhaps be connected to the Dorianmigration and their iron weapons. It is generally accep-ted that the Dorians came from the north and northwestin the 11th century BC, conquered Peloponnesus anddestroyed the remains of the Mycenaean civilization.The »north« and the »northwest« could be identifiedwith the very territory in Greece for which evidenceexists of a connection with the Brnjica tradition. Gene-rally speaking, the same people known under the nameof the Dorians, who reached the Peloponnesus and hadat their disposal ferrous arms and superior militaryorganization, had influenced crucially the life revivalin the north at the end of the 10th or at the beginning ofthe 9th century BC in certain regions of the central





> Balkans. Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians,which sound quite similar, designate one and the samepeople? Do the toponyms in Troada, the town at thefoot of Ida on the Hellespont (between Ilion and Abid),the former name of the island of Samotraki, and thename of the straits between the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean, reflect the recollection of a powerful peoplewhose roots most probably lay in the Morava basin?51The most recent results of archaeological researchconfirm the opinion given by M. Gara{anin on »Dako-–Moesian elements« in the ethnicity of the Brnjicacultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...cultural_group

----------


## Riverman

> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...cultural_group


Yes a great paper I found some weeks ago and quoted (don't know if I did it here as well). 

I came across a great article about the Channelled Ware complex in the Central Balkans which is very outspoken and absolutely clear about its ethnocultural affiliation: 




> Aus der vorgelegten bersicht ergeben sich folgende Schlsse: die Mediana-
> Gruppe ist eine regionale Erscheinung des mittleren Balkans. Sie hat sich aus den
> vorangegangenen bronzezeitlichen Gruppen dieses Gebietes entwickelt, allerdings mit
> Einwirkungen aus Sdpannonien und von der unteren Donau. In ihrer Stufe II wird die
> vllig in den Komplex mit gerillter Keramik eingegliedert. Dabei ist vor allem auf
> kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Einwirkungen aus dem Karpatenraum mit seiner ho
> chentwickelten Metallurgie zu denken. Dagegen sind fr Kastanas eher mehrere aufei
> nanderfolgende Zustrme innerbalkanischer Gemeinschaften anzunehmen, deren
> unmittelbarer Ausgangspunkt nicht sicher zu erfassen ist, wie dies von Hnsel trefflich
> ...


The new DNA finds just confirm the differentiation - J2 for the West Balkan = Illyrian core; E-V13 in Eastern Pannonia, the Carpathian-Moldovan region, the Central and Eastern Balkan = Daco-Thracian core + expansion territory. 

Google translate with minor corrections to make the important part readable: 



> The following conclusions can be drawn from the overview presented: the Mediana
> Group is a regional phenomenon of the middle Balkans. She got out of the
> earlier Bronze Age groups in this area developed, but with
> Effects from southern Pannonia and the lower Danube. In their stage II they will die
> fully integrated into the complex with grooved ceramics. It is mainly on
> cultural and economic influences from the Carpathian region with its ho
> to think about advanced metallurgy. On the other hand, for Kastanas there are more likely to be several
> to accept successive influxes of inner-Balkan communities, their
> The immediate starting point cannot be grasped with certainty, as Hansel did admirably
> ...


https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3976 

For me there remains little doubt that the LBA-EIA transition, the spread of Channelled Ware and iron weapons was the decisive event for the main spread of E-V13. 

I recently came to the conclusion, based on subclades and TMRCAs I saw myself and then the statistics made by ph2ter on Anthrogenica, that some major expansions of E-V13 could have happened with the Slavs. Probably, while the Slavs as a whole reduced E-V13, some clades and subclades which joined early on and probably were even present among the Proto-Slavs did profit.

----------


## Hawk

I am not in a hurry to formulate some theories, like Slavic expansion of E-V13, Middle Age expansion of E-V13 from Dardania (sported by some non E-V13 Albanians, conflict of interest of course) etc etc etc.

Btw, Channeled Ware can explain only partial spread, like E-V13 Z5017 CTS9320, Brnjica, Mediana, Dubovac-Zuto Brda and some older layers should contain older E-V13 subclades.

----------


## Riverman

> I am not in a hurry to formulate some theories, like Slavic expansion of E-V13, Middle Age expansion of E-V13 from Dardania (sported by some non E-V13 Albanians, conflict of interest of course) etc etc etc.
> 
> Btw, Channeled Ware can explain only partial spread, like E-V13 Z5017 CTS9320, Brnjica, Mediana, Dubovac-Zuto Brda and some older layers should contain older E-V13 subclades.


That's an open debate, but I doubt it for much of the Balkans. The only way to explain this would be if Vatin was a primary source for the Gva-Holigrady culture or at least the Belegi II-Gava regional variant. This is something which is possible, but I doubt it and think that the origin should be sought in a more Northern direction, primarily because of the Pannonian study, which shouldn't have missed E-V13 completely if it would have been already more southward. Also, any kind of more South Western origin makes things not easier for the Carpathian and Eastern Balkan distribution, which seems to be, if anything, as high or higher than in the Central Balkans. The connecting element of all these groups is Channelled Ware with nothing of significance before. The TMRCA speaks also for itself, there is almost nothing with an older, clearly regional tradition. Practically nothing before 1.300 BC, before the development and expansive phase of Channelled Ware started. 
Since we haven't found the older source yet, a lot of scenarios are thinkable. But even if via Vatin and Otomani there was an earlier group, the evidence at the current state of affairs is not in favour of it. I'm waiting for the Pannonian study to finally come out, but the results we have are not very supportive. 


The territory and culture of Otomani is key: 




> The end of the Ottomny culture is connected with turbulent events at the end of Old Bronze Age in Central Europe, where there was a collapse of the whole "Old Bronze Age world" with its highly advanced culture of mighty hill-forts, rich burials, and trade over vast distances. The gradual decline in the number of fortified settlements, change of burial rites, and the decision of people to desert fortified settlements could have had several reasons, including the collapse of trade and exchange networks, the attacks of enemies, the internal collapse of society or environmental causes. *The following Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age cultures are very different in their burial rites (cremation, erecting of barrows) as well as in their handling of bronze - there is an "explosion" in bronze working, and many bronze hoards found across all of Europe illustrate this change in quantity and quality of produced bronze objects*. We see not only bronze ornaments and arms (including first examples of swords), but also bronze tools (sickles, axes, adzes), which changed the everyday life of prehistoric man.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottom%C3%A1ny_culture

Probably Otomani burials were included in the Pannonian study, I hope so.

This article is quite interesting in showing how massive the shifts were in the region and I think if earlier groups form the Pannonian region were already high in E-V13, it should have shown up in the Pannonian study. Individuals and small groups can't be excluded of course, because E-V13 must have been, at this time and in its homeland, whereever that was, already quite numerous not just a handful of people hiding behind a rock.

----------


## Riverman

Here the most important quotation from an article I recently found: 



> The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. [...] At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze AGe, in Srem, the BAnat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hgelgrber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. * In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex*.* In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1 - A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.*


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina

Shortly after I found the article, I got these news on Anthrogenica: 



> A new study about Neolithic and MBA Croatia is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9
> 
> Interesting is that they managed to sample remains that belonged to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture even though the people of this culture practiced cremation most of the time.
> 
> Again disappointing for all us E-V13rs, as it seems all of the samples from the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture belonged to various clades of G2a. What's even more interesting these guys were very North-West European like which might point to Central European origin of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.


Channelled Ware is the last man standing.

----------


## Hawk

I told you Encrusted Pottery Culture is not, the Kisapostag Culture was fully I2a. Kisapostag is the ancestral culture to Encrusted Pottery Culture. Unless Encrusted Pottery Culture was quite diverse of course.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628655

And yes, i have read that paper, hence why i was saying in my post three different cultures clashed in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube basin, and whoever won that clash, that was the ancestor of E-V13, logically speaking if E-V13 spread big: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post629068

----------


## Johane Derite

> Kisapostag Culture was fully I2a.


So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.

----------


## kingjohn

> So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.



when the *danubian limes* ( serbian roman paper)
will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour  :Smile: 
so people here should have what to expect .....
the *bulgarian iron age* also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly  :Smile:

----------


## Hawk

> So one paper it was fully I2a, while in this new one it is fully G2a? Sorry I have not kept up.


Yes, but that one was from Lake Balaton, Western Hungary samples: https://agi.abtk.hu/en/news/news

While this one is from Eastern Croatia.






> when the





> *danubian limes* ( serbian roman paper)
> will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour 
> so people here should have what to expect .....
> the *bulgarian iron age* also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly




Well, technically all Iron Age to Classical Age samples are E-V13, no other lineage.

----------


## Hawk

I cannot edit properly my posts, the website is not managing properly the browser cache.

----------


## torzio

> when the *danubian limes* ( serbian roman paper)
> will be published out this is going to be e-v13 greatest hour 
> so people here should have what to expect .....
> the *bulgarian iron age* also have e-v13 samples if i remember the leak correctly


Daubian limes runs the length of the danube river ...............are you settling only for the serbian area ?

ie the ancient thracian triballi tribal lands ?

----------


## kingjohn

> Daubian limes runs the length of the danube river ...............are you settling only for the serbian area ?
> 
> ie the ancient thracian triballi tribal lands ?



this how it was posted by pribislav in anthrogenica 

*~30% of ancient Roman samples (0-400 AD) from Viminacium , and ~25% of Roman/Early Medieval samples (300-700 AD) from Timacum Minus are E-V13.*  :Smile: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viminacium


*Viminacium* or Viminatium was a major city (provincial capital) and military camp of the Roman province of *Moesia* (today's Serbia), and the capital of Moesia Superior.

The site is located 12 km (7.5 mi) from the modern town of Kostolac in Eastern Serbia. The city dates back to the 1st century AD, and at its peak it is believed to have had *40,000 inhabitants*, making it one of the biggest cities of that time. It lies on the Roman road Via Militaris. Viminacium was devastated by Huns in the 5th century, but was later rebuilt by Justinian. It was completely destroyed with the arrival of Slavs in the 6th century.

Viminacium holds a distinction of having the largest number of graves discovered in any Roman archaeological site. As of 2018, *15,000 graves* have been discovered.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timacum_Minus

----------


## Hawk

To clarify something that Psenicevo-Babadag (EIA E-V13 leaks), Insula Banului, and other related cultures are indeed classified as either heavily or itself as part of South-Eastern Urnfield Culture (and this is actually the origin of the so called Urnfield Cultural Complex with the others being more culturally influenced), latter an offshot of it called Thracian Hallstatt.

It's less clear who was the predecessor of these cultures, Otomani and Noua admixture could have produced. So let's say Otomani => E-V13 and Noua => R1a (IE)?? produced the latter cultures with E-V13 prevailing in huge number since it was more common on the Southern hemisphere which survived and spread/pushed more in South during LBA/EIA transition.

Danubo-Carpathian complex is a bit confusing, but a very viable candidate of E-V13 origin considering modern diversity and the leaks from Psenicevo-Babadag being exclusively E-V13 which in essence was part of the Danubo-Carpathian complex.

It's less clear in the case of Illyrians, if they were really J2b2-L283 dominated even on Illyri proprie dictii territories as well, or if E-V13 was present there like at some tribes (Dardani, Enchelei, Pirusti => cremation on pyre/urns, i have yet to find direct evidence for Ardiai and Taulanti => indirectly mentioned that cremation urns on Epidamnus were native and not from Greek colonizers, the natives of Epidamnus were either Taulanti or Labeate). But there is no doubt inhumation was the norm among Illyrians. In fact, many of the aforementioned MBA/LBA groups used cremation in combination with inhumation, cremation on a pyre with beneath having a mound/tumuli was a very expensive ritual, it could not be affordable to do it all the time.

----------


## torzio

> To clarify something that Psenicevo-Babadag (EIA E-V13 leaks), Insula Banului, and other related cultures are indeed classified as either heavily or itself as part of South-Eastern Urnfield Culture (and this is actually the origin of the so called Urnfield Cultural Complex with the others being more culturally influenced), latter an offshot of it called Thracian Hallstatt.
> 
> It's less clear who was the predecessor of these cultures, Otomani and Noua admixture could have produced. So let's say Otomani => E-V13 and Noua => R1a (IE)?? produced the latter cultures with E-V13 prevailing in huge number since it was more common on the Southern hemisphere which survived and spread/pushed more in South during LBA/EIA transition.
> 
> Danubo-Carpathian complex is a bit confusing, but a very viable candidate of E-V13 origin considering modern diversity and the leaks from Psenicevo-Babadag being exclusively E-V13 which in essence was part of the Danubo-Carpathian complex.
> 
> It's less clear in the case of Illyrians, if they were really J2b2-L283 dominated even on Illyri proprie dictii territories as well, or if E-V13 was present there like at some tribes (Dardani, Enchelei, Pirusti => cremation on pyre/urns, i have yet to find direct evidence for Ardiai and Taulanti => indirectly mentioned that cremation urns on Epidamnus were native and not from Greek colonizers, the natives of Epidamnus were either Taulanti or Labeate). But there is no doubt inhumation was the norm among Illyrians. In fact, many of the aforementioned MBA/LBA groups used cremation in combination with inhumation, cremation on a pyre with beneath having a mound/tumuli was a very expensive ritual, it could not be affordable to do it all the time.



this croatian paper clearly shows the proto-illyrians as being G2a2 .............this marker is found in the study in dalmatia, and we also know it is also in tyrol austria and north-italy..........it should also be found in slovenia and Noricum ( east austria )

There is one sample of the 4 Daunian samples which came from Dalmatia/Liburnia who is J2-L283 ( sample ORD014 )

Otzi ancestor is from Dalmatia

----------


## Hawk

> this croatian paper clearly shows the proto-illyrians as being G2a2 .............this marker is found in the study in dalmatia, and we also know it is also in tyrol austria and north-italy..........it should also be found in slovenia and Noricum ( east austria )
> 
> There is one sample of the 4 Daunian samples which came from Dalmatia/Liburnia who is J2-L283 ( sample ORD014 )
> 
> Otzi ancestor is from Dalmatia


That's not possible and i have no idea why you jump so without chronology and context.

----------


## torzio

> That's not possible and i have no idea why you jump so without chronology and context.


2000 years of G2a2 in Dalmatia as per the paper is a very good probability

----------


## Hawk

> 2000 years of G2a2 in Dalmatia as per the paper is a very good probability


That's simply not enough, the G2a2 was within the context of Encrusted Pottery Culture, while it is true that the Koszidor hoard from Trans-Danubia which contributed to Glasinac-Mat Illyrians were pushed by HugelgraberKultur or they were mixed HugelgraberKultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture, this is something to further get resolved by aDNA.

----------


## Johane Derite

> That's simply not enough, the G2a2 was within the context of Encrusted Pottery Culture, while it is true that the Koszidor hoard from Trans-Danubia which contributed to Glasinac-Mat Illyrians were pushed by HugelgraberKultur or they were mixed HugelgraberKultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture, this is something to further get resolved by aDNA.


Does anybody have a link to the IA leak of E-V13 in psenicevo? Or a screenshot?

----------


## Hawk

> Does anybody have a link to the IA leak of E-V13 in psenicevo? Or a screenshot?


Just so you know, you made me search my local files, internet just to find it:

EIA Bulgaria




Early Bronze Age Bulgaria




Late Neolithic Bulgaria

----------


## Johane Derite

> Just so you know, you made me search my local files, internet just to find it:


Thanks. So 4 samples there. Is Kapitan Andrevo related to Psenicevo culture?

This is an interesting paper on some of the groups being discussed here:

"Troy was known under the name of Wilusa/Tru(w)isa/Taruisa in the Hittite sources, (W)Ilios/Troy in the Greek sources and Dardaniya in the Egyptian ones"



LINK: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...the-bronze-age

----------


## Johane Derite

A map of some of these late bronze age migrations from the Balkans/Danube to Troy:

----------


## Riverman

> To clarify something that Psenicevo-Babadag (EIA E-V13 leaks), Insula Banului, and other related cultures are indeed classified as either heavily or itself as part of South-Eastern Urnfield Culture (and this is actually the origin of the so called Urnfield Cultural Complex with the others being more culturally influenced), latter an offshot of it called Thracian Hallstatt.


Yes, all part of the Channelled Ware horizon with Gava as the cultural (not necessarily but probably) genetic centre. 




> It's less clear who was the predecessor of these cultures, Otomani and Noua admixture could have produced.


Otomani is a good candidate for a contributor, but just recently I read that Otomani was largely replaced by pre-Gava, presumably from the North. But the exact origin of the newcomers is unknown in detail and they probably fused. 




> So let's say Otomani => E-V13 and Noua => R1a (IE)?? produced the latter cultures with E-V13 prevailing in huge number since it was more common on the Southern hemisphere which survived and spread/pushed more in South during LBA/EIA transition.


Channelled Ware spread first, Noua were just steppe pastoralists, orginally rather simple but fairly aggressive ones. The Channelled Ware expansion happened first, then followed the penetration of a large portion of their territory by Eastern steppe nomads, which caused the transition to a more pastoralist, horse warrior lifestyle. But the ceramic and basic traditions were still clearly Gava/Channelled Ware. This fusion created the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and historically known Dacians, Getae and Thracians among others, directly transitioning and influencing Hallstatt, which is very important for the Western spread. 




> It's less clear in the case of Illyrians, if they were really J2b2-L283 dominated even on Illyri proprie dictii territories as well, or if E-V13 was present there like at some tribes (Dardani, Enchelei, Pirusti => cremation on pyre/urns, i have yet to find direct evidence for Ardiai and Taulanti => indirectly mentioned that cremation urns on Epidamnus were native and not from Greek colonizers, the natives of Epidamnus were either Taulanti or Labeate). But there is no doubt inhumation was the norm among Illyrians. In fact, many of the aforementioned MBA/LBA groups used cremation in combination with inhumation, cremation on a pyre with beneath having a mound/tumuli was a very expensive ritual, it could not be affordable to do it all the time.


E-V13 could have been present in other Southern Urnfield groups too, but only the South Eastern Channelled Ware horizon seems to have been dominated. And their expansion runs directly through the centre of Pannonia, with the Eastern part being theirs, while the Western belongs rather to other (independent? Illyrian related?) Pannonian groups. This means Illyrians proper could have had E-V13 too, later on, but from the Channelled Ware/South Eastern Urnfield expansion and rather secondarily, rather than being defined by it. Simlar to e.g. Celts. 

Concerning Troy and North Western Asia minor, the Thyni and Bithyni are supposed to have been of Thracian origin and all the groups of the map post by Johan are derived from Channelled Ware, essentially, and related to Daco-Thracians, like Babadag/Knobbed Ware is a direct descendent from the Channelled Ware groups. So they should consist almost exclusively of E-V13 and (Cimmerian-Scythian) R1a.

Also note the timing, it fits the spread of the V13 subclades 100 %.

----------


## Hawk

> Thanks. So 4 samples there. Is Kapitan Andrevo related to Psenicevo culture?
> 
> This is an interesting paper on some of the groups being discussed here:
> 
> "Troy was known under the name of Wilusa/Tru(w)isa/Taruisa in the Hittite sources, (W)Ilios/Troy in the Greek sources and Dardaniya in the Egyptian ones"
> 
> 
> 
> LINK: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...the-bronze-age


I posted it here:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628346




> f_rom the catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from r ather re cent f inds i n the i ntr a-Carpathi an reg ion, up t o Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (see Ailincăiet alii 2014) (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Nov i Sad wer e included in the are al of K ala kač a cu ltur e, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery (Graphic 1)._
> 
> https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetyp...2020-00022.pdf







> _In the horizon with fluted ceramics from the south-west and the southof Romania, a series of cultural groups evolved: the cultural group Susani (inthe centre and the north of Banat, having as a basis the group Balta Sărată), thegroup Bobda (in the west and the north-west of Banat, the north-east ofVojvodina – appeared from Cruceni-Belegiš), on the same cultural basis wasformed the group Ticvaniu Mare-Karaburma III (in the contact area betweenthe western piedmont of Banat, the south-west of Banat, the south of Vojvodina);and we also add here, taking into account the contribution of Cruceni-Belegišculture, the groups from the south of Banat and Oltenia: MoldovaNouăandHinova; their evolution will be interrupted in Banat by the shortappearance of the culture Gáva-Holihrady, also interrupted by the appearancefrom the west of the group Gornea-Kalakaca (the south of Banat).The culture Corlăteni-Chișinău (having an origin which is not very welldefined) is also part of the first cultural complex of fluted ceramics; it was namedafter the discoveries from Corlăteni and the ones from Chișinău and its spreadingarea is the hilly region and the forest steppe from the Eastern Carpathiansand thebasin of the Dnestr, except for the northern part occupied by the culture GávaHolihrady. From the second complex (of incised and imprinted ceramics), thefollowing are part of: the culture Babadag (spread in the north-east of Muntenia,the south of Moldavia and the north of Dobrogea, the north of Bulgaria), insidewhich the group (phase?) Târnăoani (the south of Moldavia, the north-east ofMuntenia and the north of Dobrogea) was created; step-by-step, the culture fromBabadag expanded in the entire Dobrogea and Muntenia, when there is the periodof relative cultural unity with the group Insula Banului (Porțile de Fier) and withthe group Cozia (the south and centre of Moldavia). What is special (or maybe aprotraction of phase III of Babadag Culture – according to some researchers) isthe group Stoicani (the south of Moldavia), named after the necropolis from theeponymous place._
> 
> https://rae.arts.ro/filecase/filetyp...2020-00022.pdf


Yes, it is quite interesting how the movement of this people affected Balkans and North-West Anatolia. I think Riverman is quite right when he says if not E-V13 then we need to find for another candidate, but so far and so less there is no other candidate.

----------


## torzio

> I posted it here:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628346
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Troy 6 is the war against the greeks and it happened 1185BC as per the current 30 year ongoing dig at Troy
*Walls of Troy VI. Troy or Ilion was an ancient city, known as the setting for the Greek myth of the Trojan War. It was located at Hisarlik in present-day Turkey, 30 kilometres (19 mi) south-west of Çanakkale.


*
*In the last phase of Troia VI, i.e. in Troia VIh, the lower town was defended by a palisade and a ditch. Also, either in Troia VIh or in Troia VIIa, a second ditch was dug further to the south (Easton 2002, 83-94, with refs. to Studia Troica and Korfmann et al. 2001; Jablonka 1994, 1995 and 1996, and cf. the summary descriptions in Latacz 2004, 25-35). There may also have been a defensive wall around the lower town (Easton 2002, 91-93 with refs.) although the evidence for this is not conclusive.
*
* It is now generally agreed that the large buildings of Troy VI within the citadel were destroyed by an earthquake at the end of Troia VIh, as Blegen had concluded (Blegen et al. 1953, 329-332, Mountjoy 1999a, 253-256, cf. Rapp 1982, 43-58). According to Mountjoy’s analysis of the pottery, this destruction took place at the end of the LH IIIA2 period, or c. 1300 B.C. (Mountjoy 1999a, 258, 288). Rebuilding began soon after the earthquake, and in the citadel the new and much smaller buildings of Troia VIIa were constructed on the ruins of the Troia VI houses. 

*
the paper has dates skewed

----------


## Riverman

> Troy 6 is the war against the greeks and it happened 1185BC as per the current 30 year ongoing dig at Troy
> *Walls of Troy VI. Troy or Ilion was an ancient city, known as the setting for the Greek myth of the Trojan War. It was located at Hisarlik in present-day Turkey, 30 kilometres (19 mi) south-west of Çanakkale.
> 
> 
> *
> *In the last phase of Troia VI, i.e. in Troia VIh, the lower town was defended by a palisade and a ditch. Also, either in Troia VIh or in Troia VIIa, a second ditch was dug further to the south (Easton 2002, 83-94, with refs. to Studia Troica and Korfmann et al. 2001; Jablonka 1994, 1995 and 1996, and cf. the summary descriptions in Latacz 2004, 25-35). There may also have been a defensive wall around the lower town (Easton 2002, 91-93 with refs.) although the evidence for this is not conclusive.
> *
> * It is now generally agreed that the large buildings of Troy VI within the citadel were destroyed by an earthquake at the end of Troia VIh, as Blegen had concluded (Blegen et al. 1953, 329-332, Mountjoy 1999a, 253-256, cf. Rapp 1982, 43-58). According to Mountjoy’s analysis of the pottery, this destruction took place at the end of the LH IIIA2 period, or c. 1300 B.C. (Mountjoy 1999a, 258, 288). Rebuilding began soon after the earthquake, and in the citadel the new and much smaller buildings of Troia VIIa were constructed on the ruins of the Troia VI houses. 
> 
> ...


Going by this interesting article, the Channelled Ware groups formed a network of distribution of Naue II swords and the earliest Naue II swords entered the Aegean with mercenaries - coming as far as Denmark to the Eastern Mediterranean. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tance_Mobility

This suggests both Northern Greeks like the Dorians and other tribal warriors lived within the Mycenaean world before it was collapsing. Something being also suggested by the Barbarian ware and other artefacts. Which also means, that they were already in place, before the collapse. They could take over either from within or guide their tribal brethren once they targeted the Mycenaean strongholds. 

About Barbarian Ware: 



> t is claimed that this type of pottery is a product of the foreign population which entered the mainland after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. However, later evidence proved that this ceramic type was in use already from the Late Helladic IIIA period and continued to exist during the Dark Ages. The fact that it occurs in exactly the same form also in other countries, Albania, Roumania and Italy, leads to the assumption that this pottery is related with movement of population which had started several centuries before the decline of the Mycenaean power.


http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/02/mainlan...ry/index4.html

----------


## Aspurg

> Thanks. So 4 samples there. Is Kapitan Andrevo related to Psenicevo culture?


 Kapitan Andreevo is a Psenicevo culture site (same goes for old the Svilengrad sample just nearby). Pottery demonstrates this totally as well as some other features.

----------


## Aspurg

> I told you Encrusted Pottery Culture is not, the Kisapostag Culture was fully I2a. Kisapostag is the ancestral culture to Encrusted Pottery Culture. Unless Encrusted Pottery Culture was quite diverse of course.
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628655
> 
> And yes, i have read that paper, hence why i was saying in my post three different cultures clashed in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube basin, and whoever won that clash, that was the ancestor of E-V13, logically speaking if E-V13 spread big: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post629068


 In unpublished Hungarian study there are various Hungarian Transdanubian Encrusted samples and they are very similar to these new Croatian samples. Surprisingly huge WHG influence and even more surprisingly in that study there are earlier EBA Croatian samples from the same region with even more WHG..

It seems they might have been too I2a.

Nevertheless regarding that Hungarian study. There are actually *two* E1b finds, and they are not just E1b they are E1b1b1a = E-L539.

One is Urnfielder from the very NE Hungary from 1100 BC. Has a strong autosomal Steppe component.

The other E-L539 is from 2000 BC, and still carries more Steppe admixture than Croatian MBA J-L283 sample.. Exact location is unknown but might be Nitra and few other sites. I will try through eliminating most sites narrow down his position. Or maybe author tells me.

These are ofc still basic SNP calls but surely these samples are going to be V13. It's good to have them confirmed as Z827-, as there are some Scythian samples there so someone could speculate things with just E-M35..

So E-V13 seems non-Balkan in origin to sum it up. Cetina story is pretty much dead. Interestingly that there were some Cardials in Ukraine too.

Also it should be noted that these cultures such as Brnjica, Mediana, Paraćin, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Vatina represent an older layer that was probably not E-V13.. And of course Girla-Mare as well going by these finds..

----------


## Aspurg

> Going by this interesting article, the Channelled Ware groups formed a network of distribution of Naue II swords and the earliest Naue II swords entered the Aegean with mercenaries - coming as far as Denmark to the Eastern Mediterranean.


 There are Naue II swords finds maybe from the very place where that LBA E-L539 is from. There are four sites overall there and they are all generally near Slovakian border. I'm trying to figure out his position. In any case I expect to have these exact sites soon, after which we can see exactly to which Urnfield cultures these belonged. Mind you that info is not contained in the leak info, but I have ways of finding that out by looking at some minute details.

----------


## Aspurg

Yea I forgot, there are also multiple Tumulus culture finds from Hungary in this study. it seems they are dominated by R-L51 as expected.

----------


## kingjohn

So bronze age slovakia and north hungary
Interesting 
 :Smile: 

P.s 
About them being e-z827 negetive
Not suprising most of e1b1b1 in europe are
E-v13 
It might be that some non e-v13 entered
Europe in chl early bronze age 
Likely e-m123> e-y31991 
But most of the e-m34 arrived much 
Later roman period mainly ( although y full suggest otherwise there is no dna remains to back it up at the moment) :Thinking:

----------


## Hawk

> In unpublished Hungarian study there are various Hungarian Transdanubian Encrusted samples and they are very similar to these new Croatian samples. Surprisingly huge WHG influence and even more surprisingly in that study there are earlier EBA Croatian samples from the same region with even more WHG..
> 
> It seems they might have been too I2a.
> 
> Nevertheless regarding that Hungarian study. There are actually *two* E1b finds, and they are not just E1b they are E1b1b1a = E-L539.
> 
> One is Urnfielder from the very NE Hungary from 1100 BC. Has a strong autosomal Steppe component.
> 
> The other E-L539 is from 2000 BC, and still carries more Steppe admixture than Croatian MBA J-L283 sample.. Exact location is unknown but might be Nitra and few other sites. I will try through eliminating most sites narrow down his position. Or maybe author tells me.
> ...


Don't take it as capital, but it's interesting how Beskidy Mountains(which more or less is in and around those places) the only reasonable translation has in Proto-Albanian bjeshke as attested by Cabej and Orel.

----------


## Riverman

> So bronze age slovakia and north hungary
> Interesting 
> 
> 
> P.s 
> About them being e-z827 negetive
> Not suprising most of e1b1b1 in europe are
> E-v13 
> It might be that some non e-v13 entered
> ...


There are hints a wider range of E1b entered Europe in the Neolithic, and many survived on a very low level, whereas E-V13 expanded big. But surely E-L618 didn't come alone, this is also what the French and German Neolithic finds suggest. They don't look all like being E-V13 related. 




> There are Naue II swords finds maybe from the very place where that LBA E-L539 is from. There are four sites overall there and they are all generally near Slovakian border. I'm trying to figure out his position. In any case I expect to have these exact sites soon, after which we can see exactly to which Urnfield cultures these belonged. Mind you that info is not contained in the leak info, but I have ways of finding that out by looking at some minute details.


This Pannonian study is really key, because it had already proven that E-V13 couldn't be from further South than Northern Hungary in the Bronze Age, especially not its demographical centre, and now it might even prove its survival and spread from within the Epi-Corded horizon. If the connection with Naue II swords and metallurgical innovations could be made as well, that would be jackpot. I just expect them to be higher in steppe and picking local ancestry up on the way, where they grabbed the local women as they moved to the Aegean and beyond (Troy, North Western Anatolia). 
The only thing which concerns me is that North Western Anatolia is so low in V13, since there were they local Thyni and Bithyni Thracians. But these could have been regional founder effects, assimilation processes and later replacements. Because this surely was no region with a great deal of continuity since the Late Bronze Age. Still I would like to get ancient DNA samples from those too some day. :)

----------


## kingjohn

> *There are hints a wider range of E1b entered Europe in the Neolithic, and many survived on a very low level*, whereas E-V13 expanded big. But surely E-L618 didn't come alone, this is also what the French and German Neolithic finds suggest. They don't look all like being E-V13 related. 
> 
> 
> 
> This Pannonian study is really key, because it had already proven that E-V13 couldn't be from further South than Northern Hungary in the Bronze Age, especially not its demographical centre, and now it might even prove its survival and spread from within the Epi-Corded horizon. If the connection with Naue II swords and metallurgical innovations could be made as well, that would be jackpot. I just expect them to be higher in steppe and picking local ancestry up on the way, where they grabbed the local women as they moved to the Aegean and beyond (Troy, North Western Anatolia). 
> The only thing which concerns me is that North Western Anatolia is so low in V13, since there were they local Thyni and Bithyni Thracians. But these could have been regional founder effects, assimilation processes and later replacements. Because this surely was no region with a great deal of continuity since the Late Bronze Age. Still I would like to get ancient DNA samples from those too some day. :)


will see about it  :Thinking: 
if you ment to this research :

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...34117.full.pdf


who found e1b1a in noyen 
and e1b1b in le cailar ( la tene)

E-M78 (x2) (6300-5900 ybp)
E-M215 (6300-5900 ybp)
E-M78 (6222-5956 ybp)
Saulager (BORS-Michelsberg)

E1b1b (predicted) (6250-5650 ybp)
Bruchsal-Aue (Michelsberg culture)

*Ferme de l'Île (Noyen)
**E1b1a1a1a1c2c (5640-5350 ybp)* - E-CTS3274 


*Le Cailar (La Tène)
**E-M215 (2400-2300 ybp)*


p.s
i take them with grain of salt 
most of the chances they are just bad coverage 
or low resulution and* they are likely also e-m78 like 
the berg alsace remains*  :Smile:

----------


## Riverman

> will see about it 
> if you ment to this research :
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...34117.full.pdf
> 
> 
> who found e1b1a in noyen 
> and e1b1b in le cailar ( la tene)
> 
> ...


Part of the reason I believe non-V13 E1b spread in Early and Middle Neolithic Europe is the fact, that even in some Northern regions with little to no contacts to the Greco-Roman world the ratio is fairly high. And in lot of Western and Central European regions, the ratio is higher than in the Balkans, which is counterintuitive to all of them coming from more migrations.

----------


## Hawk

The heroon burial, a burial believed to be in a way related to the LBA Cyprus burial: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nae_and_Cyprus






> *The Heröon Burials*Below the center room, two rectangular shafts extended deep into the bedrock. The northern-most shaft, cut 2.23 m (7.3 ft) below the rock surface, held the skeletal remains of three or four horses, apparently thrown or driven headfirst into the pit. The southern shaft was deeper, 2.63 m (8.6 ft) below the central room floor. The walls of this shaft were lined with mudbrick and faced with plaster. A small adobe and wooden structure were in one of the corners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern shaft held two burials, an extended burial of a woman between 25–30 years, with a gold and faience necklace, gilt hair coils and other gold and iron artifacts; and a bronze amphora holding the cremated remains of a male warrior, aged 30–45. These burials suggested to the excavators that the building above was a heröon, a temple built to honor a hero, warrior, or king. Under the floor, east of the burial shaft was found an area of rock scorched by a fierce fire and containing a circle of postholes, believed to represent the pyre on which the hero was cremated.
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/lefkandi-greece-village-cemeteries-171525

----------


## Hawk

Something related to Channeled Ware (Belegis II- Gava ) and Dubovac Zuto Brdo.




> 144Numerous Early Iron Age finds, which were obtained after a series of excavation in the near past, originate from the area of Viminacium. Those finds are primarily repre-sented by potsherds and metal artifacts, while remains of architecture such as economic or residential buildings and graves, were recorded to a lesser degree. *Finds belonging to the first phase of the Early Iron Age, i.e. the transition between the 2nd and the 1st millennium BC, are attributed to the bearers of the Channeled pottery culture (Belegiš II-Gava cul-ture). The finds originate from the enclosed contexts, the so-called ꞌꞌritual pitsꞌꞌ at the site of Pećine,1 in which those were recorded together with the pottery of the Dubovac-Žuto Brdo culture. The finds attributed to the Belegiš II-Gava culture have also been recorded at the site of Drmno-Lugovi (black-burnished and channeled pottery and one fibula of the ꞌꞌPeschiera typeꞌꞌ).*2 Out of numerous sites in the wider area of Mlava and Danube conflu-ence, on which the Early Iron Age pottery was recorded, we highlight the site of Selište on the right bank of the former course of Mlava River, and the site of Rudine, located in Viminacium itself.3 These sites should be complemented with the sites of Obala Dunavca, Čair, and Drmno-Lugovi.4 The younger phases of the Early Iron Age are registered at the sites of Stari Kostolac-Mali Grad, Pećine and Drmno Nad Lugom.5 The collection of finds which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture (Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._NAD_KLEPECKOM


A relation between Cruceni-Belegis and Zuto-Brdo Garla Mare: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...A_MARE_CULTURE

----------


## Hawk

A comment by Draga Garasanin.




> In the above survey, we have tried to offer, on the basis of the available archaeological material, a picture of the Bronze Age and its cultural and chronological development during the centuries that this important period in prehistory belongs to. The distinction between cultural areas, depends to a great deal on the geographic and topographic character of the land, and indicates the basis for finer distinctions of the written sources that pertain to the Paleobalkan peoples. It is very important, that during the whole Bronze Age a continuity can be followed that extends to the period of transition into the Iron Age.* This is characteristic of all the cultural groups of this area, including the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo, which in Oltenia is followed by the Insula Banului group and later the Bassarabi group in these parts and Transylvania (compare also some of the finds from Saraorci near Smederevo). In Thrace at this time we have the appearance of the new group, the so called Psenicevo which kept close contacts with the peoples of the Morava Lands area as can be seen from the finds in the Mediana group. It can also be noticed that the people, who during this period lived in the Morava Lands area took part if only partially in the movements attributed to the so called Aegean Migration.* In this manner, the Bronze Age evolves as a very important stage in the process of formation of the Paleobalkan peoples, their ethnogenesis, and the historical events that have left their imprint, in a sense on the historical evolution of the old Balkans. Until now, enough attention has not been paid to this very important period in the ancient history of southeastern Europe except among the small circle of interested specialists. It is the purpose of this exhibition, to try and fulfill this gap, and offer a more understanding picture of this, not too well known period. We shall be very pleased if this exhibition and this short accompanying survey helped in any way to achieve this aim.
> https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dg...the_bronze.htm

----------


## Riverman

> A comment by Draga Garasanin.


Good comment. But the issue of continuity is problematic, because in many instances the shift was not gradual and not abrupt, but definitely disruptive in its character, since comlpetely new elements appeared. Does this mean that a large fraction of the elite and males was replaced in the process? Nobody can tell for sure, but its likely. And that's just what the corridor from Belegis II-Gava down to the Aegean suggests. Interesting that the author saw a direct connection with *Psenicevo* to the Morava/Belegis Gava. I knew it from the distribution maps, but that this author claims rather direct influence is interesting.

----------


## kingjohn

> Part of the reason I believe non-V13 E1b spread in Early and Middle Neolithic Europe is the fact, that even in some Northern regions with little to no contacts to the Greco-Roman world the ratio is fairly high. And in lot of Western and Central European regions, the ratio is higher than in the Balkans, which is counterintuitive to all of them coming from more migrations.



i am open minded 
to earlier enterance to europe 
of 2 non- e-v13 clades 
*e-m123- y31991* ( maybe some cardial movement )
*e-L19- E-PF2431* ( maybe entering iberia )

----------


## Riverman

> i am open minded 
> to earlier enterance to europe 
> of 2 non- e-v13 clades 
> *e-m123- y31991* ( maybe some cardial movement )
> *e-L19- E-PF2431* ( maybe entering iberia )


I want to have more data especially from areas like France, Germany, Czech R., Slovakia and Poland. Unfortunately these countries are severely undertested, especially if its about high resolution samples. For the Czechs, one of the newest reports brought up these numbers: 



> *R1a* 37%, *R1b* 26%, *I2* 10%, *I1* 7%, *E1b1b* 6%, *G2a* 4%, *J2* 3%, *N* 1%, *J1* 1%.


A high portion of these E1b1b carriers is not E-V13. The ratio is much higher than in most Balkan countries. 

https://www.genebaze.cz/cgi-bin/gb.cgi

----------


## Hawk

Why do people keep bringing Central-Western Urnfield as their argument out of thin air?

Danubo-Carpathian Urnfield had nothing to do with Central-Western Urnfield ethnically-wise, culturally yes, hence why it is called a cultural complex which included various different people.

----------


## Hawk

During a thunderstorm, the Thracians used to go out in the open and fire arrows at the sky. With this behaviour, they believed they showed the god Zeus (among the Thracians also called Sbeldturdos or Gebeleizis) that they were not afraid of him and that they were the sole masters of their own lives and destinies.

----------


## Hawk

If Huban is right and the Late Bronze Age E-V13 sample belongs to: http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version

This cultural complex is also called Vekerzug culture which is an Eastern Hallstatt Culture: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Czech_Republic

Looks like approximately Riverman could be quite on track.

----------


## Riverman

> If Huban is right and the Late Bronze Age E-V13 sample belongs to: http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version
> 
> This cultural complex is also called Vekerzug culture which is an Eastern Hallstatt Culture: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Czech_Republic
> 
> Looks like approximately Riverman could be quite on track.


Vekerzug is essentially an Iranian/Scythian intrusion into Pannonia, it came later and hit the Urnfielders hard in some areas. They seem to have integrated, on the longer run, a lot of the Channelled Ware people, which created that kind of E-V13 rich, Daco-Thracian mostly "Scythians" and Getae-Scythians with Daco-Thracian (Gava-derived) pottery and sedentary elements, but also Iranian horse warrior and pastoralist ones. 
Nyrsg culture is hard to track, but its in the right place at the right time, they did cremate and even where they were later assimilated, like into Otomani in some regions, they seem to have been still an independent province, a distinct ethnosocial unit possibly. Probably Gava came up with their elite taking over in Otomani with influences from the North? Or something along these lines, we probably will never know, but we can trace them back, at least in the cultures without cremation, which limits the scope.

----------


## Johane Derite

Bruzmi made an interesting observation about quite a few Sardinian samples of E-V13 in Sardinia:

"What's interesting to me is that on yfull for some reason ~10/27 E-V13 samples from Italy are from Sardinia. That certainly constitutes an over-representation of E-V13 in Sardinia, doesn't it?:

E-PF6784
E-BY6527
E-Y150909
E-FT79653
E-PH1173
E-Z21340
E-FGC11450
E-L241*
E-S2972*
E-S2978*



They all seem to be from Cagliari.

----------


## Riverman

> Bruzmi made an interesting observation about quite a few Sardinian samples of E-V13 in Sardinia:
> 
> "What's interesting to me is that on yfull for some reason ~10/27 E-V13 samples from Italy are from Sardinia. That certainly constitutes an over-representation of E-V13 in Sardinia, doesn't it?:
> 
> E-PF6784
> E-BY6527
> E-Y150909
> E-FT79653
> E-PH1173
> ...



Yes, but the vast majority comes from Cagliari and its because there was a major study done on Sardinians. With the same sample size for all of Austria, a lot more E-V13 and its diversity, including upstream results, would appear. For Sardinian thousands were tested, in Austria just about males or something for a full genome sequencing project. From these couple of males from Austria came up a whole group of upstream E-V13 matches. 
So yes, Sardinia has its share of E-V13, even some interesting subclades, probably from Iron Age Italy, but if all of Italy or any other country in Central and CEE would be tested on the same level, the E-V13 tree would have gotten way more new branches. 

What this study actually shows is that E-V13 is quite widespread, has a significant presence on Sardinia, with a fairly diverse representation of clades, and what could be made with more extensive testing throughout Europe for E-V13 and other clades, mtDNA also. Cagliari region seems to have received more outside admixture than some other regions of Sardinia.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Yes, but the vast majority comes from Cagliari and its because there was a major study done on Sardinians. With the same sample size for all of Austria, a lot more E-V13 and its diversity, including upstream results, would appear. For Sardinian thousands were tested, in Austria just about males or something for a full genome sequencing project. From these couple of males from Austria came up a whole group of upstream E-V13 matches. 
> So yes, Sardinia has its share of E-V13, even some interesting subclades, probably from Iron Age Italy, but if all of Italy or any other country in Central and CEE would be tested on the same level, the E-V13 tree would have gotten way more new branches. 
> 
> What this study actually shows is that E-V13 is quite widespread, has a significant presence on Sardinia, with a fairly diverse representation of clades, and what could be made with more extensive testing throughout Europe for E-V13 and other clades, mtDNA also. Cagliari region seems to have received more outside admixture than some other regions of Sardinia.


Sure, but if we can say that E-V13 was in south sardinia in the iron age, maybe we can speculate which tribes it might possibly be associated with there. The siculesi were in the south for example.


Areddu for ages has a hypotheses that there is an Albanoid substrate either in loans or directly in the Sardinian languages. Some of his words
are mistaken and actually loan words, but some are actually interesting (the plant names for example):

https://www.academia.edu/45589147/Pa...n_correlations

----------


## Riverman

> Sure, but if we can say that E-V13 was in south sardinia in the iron age, maybe we can speculate which tribes it might possibly be associated with there. The siculesi were in the south for example.


Well, we don't really know, because they could have been from let's say Italy. If they were on Sardinia in the Iron Age, they might have been even wider spread. Probably different subclades came at different times. Without more ancient DNA from Sardinia and Italy we don't know. I would suspect the earliest E-V13 came Urnfield the earliest and Celts the latest to Italy, most likely in between, being associated with Hallstatt-related cultures in Northern Italy and Greek settlement in the South. But that's all in the dark. 




> Areddu for ages has a hypotheses that there is an Albanoid substrate either in loans or directly in the Sardinian languages. Some of his words
> are mistaken and actually loan words, but some are actually interesting (the plant names for example):
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/45589147/Pa...n_correlations


I can't judge that, but then again, the E-V13 was in that sample very much concentrated on Caligari, which had more contacts and admixture, as the study proved as well. So it could have been colonists, merchants, conquerors, slaves from all parts of the Western Mediterranean. I think late Romans and Germanics like Vandals and Goths in particular are among the top spreaders for Cagliari E-V13.

----------


## Johane Derite

> I can't judge that, but then again, the E-V13 was in that sample very much concentrated on Caligari, which had more contacts and admixture, as the study proved as well. So it could have been colonists, merchants, conquerors, slaves from all parts of the Western Mediterranean. 
> 
> I think late *Romans and Germanics like Vandals and Goths* in particular are among the top spreaders for Cagliari E-V13.


I don't understand the reasoning. Looking at the TMRCAs they are middle bronze age to iron age tmrca. 

If they were spread by germanics, vandals, goths and late romans, we would have some later branches, I think it is too unlikely that Goths, Vandals, Germanics, and Late Romans exclusively spread branches falling within these dates and none from their own times.

Here they are with dates:


E-S2972* TMRCA 3500 YBP
E-FGC11450 TMRCA 3400 YBP
E-PF6784* TMRCA 3100 YBP
E-PH1173 TMRCA 3100 YBP
E-Y150909* TMRCA 3000 YBP
E-FT79653* TMRCA 3000 YBP
E-BY6527 TMRCA 2900 YBP
E-S2978* TMRCA 2800 YBP
E-Z21340* TMRCA 2700 YBP
E-L241* TMRCA 2700 YBP

I added them up and divided by 10 to get a mean average: 3020 YBP

----------


## Riverman

> I don't understand the reasoning. Looking at the TMRCAs they are middle bronze age to iron age tmrca. 
> 
> If they were spread by germanics, vandals, goths and late romans, we would have some later branches, I think it is too unlikely that Goths, Vandals, Germanics, and Late Romans exclusively spread branches falling within these dates and none from their own times.
> 
> Here they are with dates:
> 
> 
> E-S2972* TMRCA 3500 YBP
> E-FGC11450 TMRCA 3400 YBP
> ...


I don't said that original Germanics or Latins spread, but that the kind of Germanics and Romans which came to Sardinia might have. As you know, both Romans and Germanics did pick up a lot from Northern Italy and assimilated into their ranks, at least into their subordinate ones. So I'd assume it might have been in Northern Italy much longer, let's say since Hallstatt for example, but it was probably brought to the island by Romans and Germanics among others. My reasoning is that if it would have been there much earlier and wider spread, I would expect it to have been wider spread on Sardinia, one of the best sampled regions in all of Europe, too. But apparently, it is concentrated in the areas with more recent migrants and admixture. 
This means I expect some of the clades you mentioned to have branch members in Northern Italy and the Alpine regions in particular.

Especially these are unlikely to have been brought there by the first expansion of E-V13 with Channelled Ware and Urnfield obviously: 
E-BY6527 TMRCA 2900 YBP
E-S2978* TMRCA 2800 YBP
E-Z21340* TMRCA 2700 YBP
E-L241* TMRCA 2700 YBP

These are Hallstatt dates. 

And the others might have an older TMRCA, but are unlikely to have been on Sardinia much earlier. Compare with this map again: 
https://live.staticflickr.com/331/19...fd3fb6fa_b.jpg

Golasecca might be interesting to look at, once more samples from it come in: 



> the timing of the Culture of Golasecca became clearer, *divided into three periods from 900 to 380 BC*. It ended with the Gallic invasion of the Po Valley in 388 BC.





> The study of the so-called _Lepontic_ inscriptions,[13] written in the alphabet of Lugano utilized by Golaseccans of the 6th and 5th centuries BC, led Michel Lejeune (1971) to establish definitively the membership of the language conveyed by this writing to the family of Celtic languages.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golasecca_culture

There are of course many other options, but this is one of them, even if others might find likelier ones.

----------


## Hawk

> Bruzmi made an interesting observation about quite a few Sardinian samples of E-V13 in Sardinia:
> 
> "What's interesting to me is that on yfull for some reason ~10/27 E-V13 samples from Italy are from Sardinia. That certainly constitutes an over-representation of E-V13 in Sardinia, doesn't it?:
> 
> E-PF6784
> E-BY6527
> E-Y150909
> E-FT79653
> E-PH1173
> ...


Did he really? Do you think we didn't saw those subclades before?

That guy is a charlatan and is a freak obsessed with E-V13. He has gone rampant trying to lump all E-V13 into a single place and explaining a Middle Age expansion from it which is stupid of course.

Like denying EIA Thracian leaks, Viminacium leaks, E-V13 presence in Greece.

It's obvious that his rampants are not of good-will, nor objectivity, and i am actually quite surprised you quote him.

----------


## Riverman

> Did he really? Do you think we didn't saw those subclades before?
> 
> That guy is a charlatan and is a freak obsessed with E-V13. He has gone rampant trying to lump all E-V13 into a single place and explaining a Middle Age expansion from it which is stupid of course.
> 
> Like denying EIA Thracian leaks, Viminacium leaks, E-V13 presence in Greece.
> 
> It's obvious that his rampants are not of good-will, nor objectivity, and i am actually quite surprised you quote him.


To be fair, when I first saw the Sardinian samples I was surprised as well, because the diversity was higher than let's say in Austria for E-V13 at first look. But then I realised that they all came from Cagliari and that a lot of other haplotypes absolutely not common in Sardinia being present as well. When knowing the background of the Sardinian samples, namely the big study done on the region, it makes more sense and just shows that large sample sizes matter. 

I mean there are clades in Sardinians which we haven't found in people of which we know they must have it in good numbers, like Hungarians, Austrians, Czech, Croats, Romanians and so on, yet they are in Sardinia. That is remarkable indeed and just shows that a quite diverse bunch of V13 guys entered the island, but all with a profile of the Iron Age largely. My best guess is still that an unknown Italian group carried them all, but we'll see. 

Its so annoying to not have that kind of data for all regions ;) 

A new E1b1b sample from Germany, a warrior/mercenary which was hacked to death with his comrades (I1 and R1b each) of supposed Western European (old German?) origin: 


https://i.ibb.co/1MK3BKr/Poster-sldner-1-CMM2-2.jpg

Posted by Waldemar on Anthrogenica: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post795989

Too bad they didn't type the yDNA, bur probably the data gets published and someone can take a look whether more can be said than just E1b1b...

----------


## Hawk

This is interesting, hence it makes harder to pinpoint E-V13 origin, but Gava should be the primary candidate.




> The last example of a close relationship between the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare and Gavafinds is demonstrated in the necropolis of Pećinein the vicinity of Kostolac (Figure 1, 1).19 The excavator D. Jacanović observed that in all undisturbed contexts (or stratigraphic units) the ŽutoBrdo – Girla Mare, Hügelgräber and Gava typicalceramic forms were found together.20 This particularly applies to the four cremated burials withincrusted and burnished pottery found togetherin same context. A similar mix was documentedin 13 pits, most probably dedicated to ritual atthis site. These instances caused some archaeologists to classify the last phase of the Žuto Brdo– Girla Mare culture in the territory of the IronGates as belonging to the period of Ha A1, whichaccording to chronology of M. Garašanin covers the transitional period between Late Bronze andEarly Iron Ages.
> 
> http://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god47...%20Kapuran.pdf


I wonder how will Iron Age Albania look like, i'll go on safer bet and suppose that Dardani-Enchelei-Pirusti-Taulanti should be the one carrying some E-V13.

----------


## Riverman

> I wonder how will Iron Age Albania look like, i'll go on safer bet and suppose that Dardani-Enchelei-Pirusti-Taulanti should be the one carrying some E-V13.


Dardanians are very likely to have had at least some E-V13, but beyond that, I think most of Albania was not as much covered as some other regions early on. We don't even know for sure whether Proto-Albanians lived in what is now Albania, so there is a lot to do. But clearly modern Albanians Palaeo-Balkan ancestry is split at least between Illyrian (J-L283, R1b) and Daco-Thracian (E-V13).

From the article: 



> in favour of its end in the late 12th century BC.6Contrary to the situation with the uto Brdo  Girla Mare culture,* the Gava culture complex,* *identified through the presence of the channelled* *and burnished pottery*, is in the Serbian archae-ology considered as *the trigger of the transition* *from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age*.


https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god4...%20Kapuran.pdf

Indeed, they were the ones with iron metallurgy and weapons, among the first in Europe and the whole world, especially if considering mass production. 

Also noteworthy: I think that some of the Pannonians and more Northern Illyrian groups were rather fused and therefore both cutlrually and genetically influenced by Channelled Ware people, just like the Girla-Mare finds suggest as well for some regions. Unfortunately Urnfielders don't make it easy to trace them back, with their dead being cremated... 
Basarabi, Peničevo  Babadag, Insula Banului groups and Kalakača horizon, all should yield some E-V13 with enough samples. For Peničevo we know it, the others need to be tested and some other groups as well, like the Triballi associated one: "Rača  Ljuljaci culture in Central Serbia is generally associated "

----------


## Hawk

> Dardanians are very likely to have had at least some E-V13, but beyond that, I think most of Albania was not as much covered as some other regions early on. We don't even know for sure whether Proto-Albanians lived in what is now Albania, so there is a lot to do. But clearly modern Albanians Palaeo-Balkan ancestry is split at least between Illyrian (J-L283, R1b) and Daco-Thracian (E-V13).
> 
> From the article: 
> 
> 
> https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god4...%20Kapuran.pdf
> 
> Indeed, they were the ones with iron metallurgy and weapons, among the first in Europe and the whole world, especially if considering mass production. 
> 
> ...


You are jumping too soon in conclusions Riv. Enchelei burial tradition and the culture it was associated with Trebenishte Culture is clearly not the same as Glasinac-Mat, cremation burials on a pyre, burial death masks resembling the Odrysian mask of King Teres and Macedonians. How can we exclude them without testing the remains from classical time because they also used burials in rectangular pits.

Maybe there was a Central-Balkans tree distantly related to Daco-Thracians let's say?

----------


## Riverman

> You are jumping too soon in conclusions Riv. Enchelei burial tradition and the culture it was associated with Trebenishte Culture is clearly not the same as Glasinac-Mat, cremation burials on a pyre, burial death masks resembling the Odrysian mask of King Teres and Macedonians. How can we exclude them without testing the remains from classical time because they also used burials in rectangular pits.
> 
> Maybe there was a Central-Balkans tree distantly related to Daco-Thracians let's say?


I think the Central Balkan groups are clearly not distant, they are just a branch from the same tree of Daco-Thracians/Gava/Channelled Ware. I think you know better the local cultural groups, decisive is always, just like you pointed out, whether they showed influence from Gava/Channelled Ware. If they do, they likely had E-V13, if not, they could have too, but its just much less likely.

----------


## Hawk

> I think the Central Balkan groups are clearly not distant, they are just a branch from the same tree of Daco-Thracians/Gava/Channelled Ware. I think you know better the local cultural groups, decisive is always, just like you pointed out, whether they showed influence from Gava/Channelled Ware. If they do, they likely had E-V13, if not, they could have too, but its just much less likely.


This is interesting, nothing conclusive, but nevetheless it should not be neglected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peresadyes

Not only it's close to Berisades, but also to Spartocid dynasty (supposedly Odrysians who deposed Greek Bosphoran rulers) ruler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paerisades_I

As for Channeled Ware, i am trying to find Namik Bodinaku's reference to it, apparently in Central Albania:




> For southeast see Andrea 2009, p. 17-19; Gori-Krapf 2015, p. 117, 119; furtheranalysis on the channelled ware in Albania is provided by N. Bodinaku, referringalso to its first appearance in the tumuli of Pazhok, in central Albania, since the13th century B.C., see Bodinaku 1982, p. 72-73, 98, Tab. IX: v. 43; see also Prendi1978, p. 14-15. 
> 
> https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/...95818/document


UPDATE:




> The French-Albanian Mission of the Korçë Basin excavated from 1993 to 2006 the Bronze andEarly Iron Age site of Sovjan and surveyed in the following years the plain around the ancient lakeMaliq.20 The period from the MBA/LBA to EIA is documented in 5 layers and several C14 dates are 
> 
> available. It is possible to follow in detail the chronological development of the local ceramic typology,which can be linked to the stratigraphies of other sites such as Kastanas. A major typological change isapparent between the MBA and the LBA and an increase of pottery decoration styles and quality ischaracteristic of the LBA. Both channelled and matt-painted pottery appear at the end of the LBA insmall quantities and become common in the EIA. Few Southern imports are equally present both inLBA and EIA layers. 
> 
> https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/...am/PDF_01/view

----------


## Riverman

> As for Channeled Ware, i am trying to find Namik Bodinaku's reference to it, apparently in Central Albania:
> 
> UPDATE:


If there is regional persistence, it would be interesting to get some Iron Age samples then. Aren't some Albanian samples from the IA on the way?

----------


## Hawk

> If there is regional persistence, it would be interesting to get some Iron Age samples then. Aren't some Albanian samples from the IA on the way?


I have no information on that, but someone mentioned that they are on the way.

----------


## Riverman

> I have no information on that, but someone mentioned that they are on the way.


For the earlier origins of E-L618, this map is interesting imho: 

https://static.cambridge.org/binary/...ub-status=live 

I guess enough Proto-Sesklo samples should yield some E1b1b and early Neolithic remains from Cyprus could be interesting as well.

----------


## Hawk

> For the earlier origins of E-L618, this map is interesting imho: 
> 
> https://static.cambridge.org/binary/...ub-status=live 
> 
> I guess enough Proto-Sesklo samples should yield some E1b1b and early Neolithic remains from Cyprus could be interesting as well.


Interesting indeed, we need enough samples to get the whole picture. Look how the timelines fit, PPNB being the commong source E-L618 heading toward Europe, and E-V12/E-V22 heading toward North Africa? Just a hypothesis which can easily be invalidated of course.

----------


## Riverman

> Interesting indeed, we need enough samples to get the whole picture. Look how the timelines fit, PPNB being the commong source E-L618 heading toward Europe, and E-V12/E-V22 heading toward North Africa? Just a hypothesis which can easily be invalidated of course.


Yes. In Southern Sinai the Neolithics were closer to PPN too, with small measurements, gracile build, even more so than Natufians, so the exact opposite of the North African variation: 



> All the graves were found within the living area of
> sites. *Some aspects of the burials hint to a common inherited ideology with other Levantine Neolithic*
> groups as : the burials are associated with dwellings or courtyards; adult skulls were removed for
> secondary burials: children and adults were treated differently; *"nest" burials, known from Jericho and
> 'Ain Ghazal, are present*; no offerings were found with the dead.





> Although they show more resemblance to the Levantine PPN
> populations than to any other circum-Mediterranean group, it seems that the Sinai Pre-pottery
> population may have their biological roots, neither in the Levant nor in North Africa, but most probably
> in the Arabian Peninsula.





> In sum, the Sinai PPN skulls present a very gracile morphology. The skulls are small in size, with nearly unnoticeable muscles markings, especially in the case of the masticatory apparatus. Sexual dimorphism is small, and the population, in general, is morphologically homogeneous,


https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153...4_num_20_2_961

Of course, only ancient DNA can really prove it.

----------


## Hawk

I still insist that PPNB is the one to look for, also E-L618 was a minor Y-DNA even on Europe up until Middle Bronze Age, hence why it's so difficult to pop in ancient samples. 

rafc made an interesting observation about some older E-V13 subclades, but Myceneans didn't come by 3rd millennium b.c, not according to newer studies.

_Insights into admixture history and social practices in the prehistoric Aegean from ancient DNA_
_

Content:__
European genetic history went through major transformations during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Despite the significance of the Aegean for European prehistory, preservation challenges have hindered a comprehensive understanding of human mobility and population dynamics in this region through time. In this paper, we present insights from ancient DNA (genome-wide) analyses on Early Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Mainland Greece, Crete and the Aegean islands. Our results indicate multi-phased genetic shifts in the Aegean populations since the early Neolithic that can be traced to populations related to Anatolia and then, during the Late Bronze Age, to Central-Eastern Europe. Besides the long-lasting biological connections with these adjacent regions, we also found that Bronze Age Aegeans exhibited endogamy in high frequencies so far unobserved in the rest of the ancient West Eurasia. These close-kin marital practices, likely equivalent to first-cousins unions, were substantially higher in Crete and other Aegean islands than in Mainland Greece. Our study highlights the potential of novel biomolecular methods to unravel the interplay of genetic admixture and cultural entanglements in the Aegean and beyond.
Keywords:
ancient DNA, Aegean prehistory, marital practices, human mobility

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa202...?Abstract=2323_

----------


## Riverman

> I still insist that PPNB is the one to look for, also E-L618 was a minor Y-DNA even on Europe up until Middle Bronze Age, hence why it's so difficult to pop in ancient samples. 
> 
> rafc made an interesting observation about some older E-V13 subclades, but Myceneans didn't come by 3rd millennium b.c, not according to newer studies.
> 
> _Insights into admixture history and social practices in the prehistoric Aegean from ancient DNA_
> _
> 
> Content:__
> European genetic history went through major transformations during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Despite the significance of the Aegean for European prehistory, preservation challenges have hindered a comprehensive understanding of human mobility and population dynamics in this region through time. In this paper, we present insights from ancient DNA (genome-wide) analyses on Early Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Mainland Greece, Crete and the Aegean islands. Our results indicate multi-phased genetic shifts in the Aegean populations since the early Neolithic that can be traced to populations related to Anatolia and then, during the Late Bronze Age, to Central-Eastern Europe. Besides the long-lasting biological connections with these adjacent regions, we also found that Bronze Age Aegeans exhibited endogamy in high frequencies so far unobserved in the rest of the ancient West Eurasia. These close-kin marital practices, likely equivalent to first-cousins unions, were substantially higher in Crete and other Aegean islands than in Mainland Greece. Our study highlights the potential of novel biomolecular methods to unravel the interplay of genetic admixture and cultural entanglements in the Aegean and beyond.
> ...


I thought about that independently from you and did mention it already. There is still a lot unknown about Cardial-Impresso culture in particular. So many options, so few data points. If just having the Sopot data from the South, nobody would have thought of Lengyel-Sopot having E1b1b at the Middle Danube, yet even two samples were found there. That just shows how sampling matters a lot.

----------


## Jack Johnson

You think it’s possible E-V12 and E-V22 tagged along with E-L618 via Anatolian Ceramic Farmers (ACF) into Europe? I think for sure we will find E-M123/E-M34 in some EEFs, perhaps more towards the Late Neolithic.

----------


## Riverman

> You think it’s possible E-V12 and E-V22 tagged along with E-L618 via Anatolian Ceramic Farmers (ACF) into Europe? I think for sure we will find E-M123/E-M34 in some EEFs, perhaps more towards the Late Neolithic.


Certainly possible, but more likely since the Copper Age probably. Last word like always has the ancient DNA and high rates of regional sampling with solid TMRCA. We can always talk about archaeological cultures and how they connect, people could have migrated, but in the end the evidence needs to come from the DNA. I follow more closely the spread of E-V13 and just looking at how some clades ended up in different portions of the old world shows what's possible within a few generations.

----------


## Hawk

I checked the latest Y-DNA study on Bosnian-Herzegovinians, sample size is 100 but it's decent. I guess all E1b1b is E-V13.




> AbstractIn a study of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian (B&H) population, Y chromosomemarker frequencies for 100 individuals, generated using PowerPlex® Y23 kit,were used to perform Y chromosome haplogroup assignment via Whit Athey’sHaplogroup Predictor. This Whit Athey’s algorithm determines Y chromosomehaplogroups from Y chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) data usingBayesian probability-based approach.* According to the results of the presentstudy, the most frequent haplogroup appears to be I2a, with a prevalence of 49%,followed by R1a and E1b1b, each accounting for 17% of all haplogroups withinthe population.* Remaining haplogroups encountered in this study are J2a (5%), I1(4%), R1b (4%), J2b (2%), G2a (1%) and N (1%). These results confirmpreviously published preliminary B&H population data published over 10 yearsago, especially the prediction about B&H population being a part of the WesternBalkan area, which served as the Last Glacial Maximum refuge for the Paleolithichuman European population. Furthermore, the results corroborate the hypothesisthat this area was a significant stopping point on the “Middle East-Europehighway” during the Neolithic farmer migrations. Finally, since these results arealmost completely in accordance with previously published data on B&H andneighboring populations that were generated by Y chromosome single nucleotidepolymorphism (Y-SNP) analysis, it can be concluded that in silico analysis of YSTRs is a reliable method for approximation of the Y chromosome haplogroupdiversity of an examined population.
> 
> https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80495777.pdf

----------


## Johane Derite

> To be fair, when I first saw the Sardinian samples I was surprised as well, because the diversity was higher than let's say in Austria for E-V13 at first look. But then I realised that they all came from Cagliari and that a lot of other haplotypes absolutely not common in Sardinia being present as well. When knowing the background of the Sardinian samples, namely the big study done on the region, it makes more sense and just shows that large sample sizes matter. 
> 
> I mean there are clades in Sardinians which we haven't found in people of which we know they must have it in good numbers, like Hungarians, Austrians, Czech, Croats, Romanians and so on, yet they are in Sardinia. That is remarkable indeed and just shows that a quite diverse bunch of V13 guys entered the island, but all with a profile of the Iron Age largely. My best guess is still that an unknown Italian group carried them all, but we'll see. 
> 
> Its so annoying to not have that kind of data for all regions ;) 
> 
> A new E1b1b sample from Germany, a warrior/mercenary which was hacked to death with his comrades (I1 and R1b each) of supposed Western European (old German?) origin: 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously we need more data from every region, but I am still not convinced by your argument. I don't see why only hallstatt clades would be spread by later groups and not any branches from their own time, probabilistically this doesn't click for me. These branches are confirmed for now, so they have to be explained properly.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Did he really? Do you think we didn't saw those subclades before?
> 
> That guy is a charlatan and is a freak obsessed with E-V13. He has gone rampant trying to lump all E-V13 into a single place and explaining a Middle Age expansion from it which is stupid of course.
> 
> Like denying EIA Thracian leaks, Viminacium leaks, E-V13 presence in Greece.
> 
> It's obvious that his rampants are not of good-will, nor objectivity, and i am actually quite surprised you quote him.


Regardless, his point stands, those branches are significant, they are there. One of them only has an Albanian cousin. I don't think they could all have been sent there by later romans or germanics, it doesn't make sense probabilistically that they would spread such old branches. For some sure, but for all?

I have countered his arguments when I have disagreed with them (like his argument about the IE *sk cluster in IE > Albanian). This doesn't mean I now have to banish him and shun any argument he makes.

----------


## Riverman

> Obviously we need more data from every region, but I am still not convinced by your argument. I don't see why only hallstatt clades would be spread by later groups and not any branches from their own time, probabilistically this doesn't click for me. These branches are confirmed for now, so they have to be explained properly.


I will write a new post/thread, because I have now a good explanation for the two wave TMRCA of E-V13. 
The first being Gava/Chanelled Ware/Fluted Ware, that's practically proven at this point. The second comes from within this horizon, but it has a somewhat different distribution. Its basis are the Northern Thracians/Daco-Thracians, with first the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, then Basarabi-Bosut and finally the Geto-Scythians. These three create, successively, networks which first create Hallstatt itself, then influence it big over time and finally even connecting the West and the East up to La Tene, by transmitting new cultural innovations. Part of it were the trousers, new cavalry tactics and the animal style. Basaraboid influences were widespread throughout Hungary, into Austria and the Czech Republic. In my opinion these migrations of individuals and small groups for the most part, used Hallstatt like a hub which spread it into the Celtic population. 

There were later subclades spread too, but, and this is big, they usually went North to South. Its more likely they spread from Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Ukraine, Romania to the Balkan, than vice versa. The primary exceptions are some Vlach groups, they are really the one big exception. But simply by looking their own frequency, and the subclades will prove it too, they can't explain the vast majority of the European distribution. 

The crucial question is: Is there an overlap of the TMRCA between large regions and the answer is, mostly no. not after Hallstatt. Obviously subclades were mobile between ethnicities and regions, but they rarely jump over two to three such regions and ethnicities anywhere, that's really exceptional. But its absolutely not exceptional, E-V13 was even more mobile than many other haplogroups, in the typical expansion timings: 1.300-900 BC and 800-400 BC and the reason is clearly Channelled Ware and Hallstatt. 

Even for the Balkan itself it might be provable: There were before the Romans, Germanics and Slavs two major expansion waves: One with the LBA-EIA transition/Channelled Ware, the second in Hallstatt with Basarabi. Basarabi split, especially its elite, in major branches in different directions, like North, West, East and South. We have so far no later overlap and while it surely will appear, it won't explain a lot. The vast majority of the modern distribution, unless its Greek colonisation, Germanics and Slavs, can be attributed to this two groups, Gava and Basarabi. Pșenicevo is part of the same complex for example, a descendent of Gava and contributor to Basarabi_._

----------


## Johane Derite

Macurdy argued that Dardanians were a people known particularly for knowledge of metal working & mining, and possibly early users of iron.


Even in the Roman period, Dardania was considered important for mining industry. 


Pic: Dardanici coin issued by Emperor Trajan & Hadrian

----------


## Hawk

> Regardless, his point stands, those branches are significant, they are there. One of them only has an Albanian cousin. I don't think they could all have been sent there by later romans or germanics, it doesn't make sense probabilistically that they would spread such old branches. For some sure, but for all?
> 
> I have countered his arguments when I have disagreed with them (like his argument about the IE *sk cluster in IE > Albanian). This doesn't mean I now have to banish him and shun any argument he makes.


That's absolutely not true. That guy is a J2b2-L283 carrier who is closely associated with Rrenjet project and perhaps the other one as well. So, please don't bring his propaganda in this thread. His opinion, his barking like a dog in internet is not welcomed.

----------


## Riverman

> That's absolutely not true. That guy is a J2b2-L283 carrier who is closely associated with Rrenjet project and perhaps the other one as well. So, please don't bring his propaganda in this thread. His opinion, his barking like a dog in internet is not welcomed.


For Albanians its clear that E-V13 and J-L283 are highly important haplotypes, present since at least the early historical period, potentially much longer, since the later Iron Age. But probably its a more ancestry and clan oriented point of view which makes such infights more likely? The good side of this is, that Albanians get a lot more people tested, especially in comparison to Romanians, Slovakians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Germans and so on. If the mentioned Central Europeans would test as much as Albanians, we would know a lot more about the distribution and history of E-V13. Czechs do test more than the others with their project, but unfortunately most of it is just lower level STR testing. Better than nothing, but doesn't help to pin some subclades and their routes down.

----------


## Johane Derite

> That's absolutely not true. That guy is a J2b2-L283 carrier who is closely associated with Rrenjet project and perhaps the other one as well. So, please don't bring his propaganda in this thread. His opinion, his barking like a dog in internet is not welcomed.


I do not really respect your opinion here.

Especially seeing how acceptiny you are when it comes to huban/asurg and how prone you are to paranoiac conspiracy thinking from whay i've seen in the past.

I was shocked to see you insinuate that the Albanian projects are somehow supressing E-v13 or minimising it artificially, when almost all you know about E-v13 comes from these projects, and we would have absolutely nothing without them. 

Huban/Aspurg is one of the most deranged users on these forums, he constantly admits to not being objective, he constantly admits to his creepy rape fantasies and how this colours almost all of his "analysis", he constantly projects his insane and incorrect stereotypes about albanians in every comment he makes, he is one of the most ugly creeps I have witnessed on here, one of those weakling types that do school shootings and to see you have such a visceral reaction to Bruzmi ("a barking dog"), but casually accept this Huban/Aspurg guy as a "reasonable" commentary provider, all because he has convinced you of some non-existant J2b-l283 "consiparcy" agianst E-v13. This is so pathetic.

----------


## Hawk

> I do not really respect your opinion here.
> Especially seeing how acceptiny you are when it comes to huban/asurg and how prone you are to paranoiac conspiracy thinking from whay i've seen in the past.
> I was shocked to see you insinuate that the Albanian projects are somehow supressing E-v13 or minimising it artificially, when almost all you know about E-v13 comes from these projects, and we would have absolutely nothing without them. 
> Huban/Aspurg is one of the most deranged users on these forums, he constantly admits to not being objective, he constantly admits to his creepy rape fantasies and how this colours almost all of his "analysis", he constantly projects his insane and incorrect stereotypes about albanians in every comment he makes, he is one of the most ugly creeps I have witnessed on here, one of those weakling types that do school shootings and to see you have such a visceral reaction to Bruzmi ("a barking dog"), but casually accept this Huban/Aspurg guy as a "reasonable" commentary provider, all because he has convinced you of some non-existant J2b-l283 "consiparcy" agianst E-v13. This is so pathetic.


Not really, not true at all. I do not agree with Huban/Aspurg in many issues, you are bringing him just to cover up that guy which is extremely weird. But i agree on him on the case of Bruzmi. He is 100% correct in that and every E-V13 member will agree on that what that guy is trying to promote.

So one more time, please don't derail this thread with that kind of propaganda. Not from that guy. We all saw in that thread how pathetic that guy is and how obsessed he is. I am straight to the point guy, i am not a passive-aggressive type, hiding behind nicknames and insulting others in indirect ways.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Not really, not true at all. I do not agree with Huban/Aspurg in many issues, you are bringing him just to cover up that guy which is extremely weird. But i agree on him on the case of Bruzmi. He is 100% correct in that and every E-V13 member will agree on that what that guy is trying to promote.
> 
> So one more time, please don't derail this thread with that kind of propaganda. Not from that guy. We all saw in that thread how pathetic that guy is and how obsessed he is.


You are the one that derailed it. I posted interesting point by him which still stands about sardinian ev13, and you tried to discredit it and hand waive it by syaing he is J2b-L283, and trying to make demands that i not post his arguments.

Many of his counter points are perfectly valid. Sardinian ev13 is real and has tmrca dates of MBA-EIA.

----------


## Hawk

> You are the one that derailed it. I posted interesting point by him which still stands about sardinian ev13, and you tried to discredit it and hand waive it by syaing he is J2b-L283, and trying to make demands that i not post his arguments.
> Many of his counter points are perfectly valid. Sardinian ev13 is real and has tmrca dates of MBA-EIA.


Oh yeah, do you agree with him and his attempts lumping all E-V13 and originating somewhere in modern Kosovo and were underclass/slaves?

You strike me as very fishy in all of this. This thread was created in good faith, so i don't want to see any more of your post or his.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Oh yeah, do you agree with him and his attempts lumping all E-V13 and originating somewhere in modern Kosovo and were underclass/slaves?


He literally never once said that so how could I agree to that. 
That is a demented paranoid straw man projection of the Huban/Aspurg type.

I agree with him that sardinian ev13, 10 out of all 27 Italian ev13 in yfull, is significant. I was not convinced by the argument that all these older branches were piggybacked to sardinia later on. Very simple.




> You strike me as very fishy in all of this. This thread was created in good faith, so i don't want to see any more of your post or his.


I strike you as fishy? Why, because I am posting information which doesn't match Hubans rapist fantasies? 
You don't want to see me or his post? You are free to log off, because I will continue to post if something doesn't make sense. You have grave misperceptions if you think you can tell me where to post.

----------


## Riverman

Guys, it actually doesn't matter, please come back to real arguments. 
@Hawk: He doesn't even post here, and he will be proven wrong on all levels, because his comments on the spread of E-V13 just make absolutely no sense. The data is against him.

----------


## Aspurg

> Huban/Aspurg is one of the most deranged users on these forums, he constantly admits to not being objective,



In what way am I not objective? I am the one bringing actual data in far greater % than the others.





> one of those weakling types


 I am all for rational debate. But once things get irrational such as said individual or anyone not being rational, providing evidence. 


I would very much prefer if we had a little public debate, then some of you would learn first hand how "weak" I am.. Physically, strength wise I am quite gifted, and I never took steroids to pump paper muscles.. Mentally likewise as confirmed by DNA actually. I do have a bunch of favorable SNP's associated with higher performance. 


No wonder I have been a Nietzschean.


What is really pathetic, Bruzmi objected to me posting analysis of Serbian historian of Vimnacium names based on her supposed "Milosevic" connections. You too objected to Garasanin for similar reason. She wrote than in 1976 actually and Garasanin too wrote much before the 1990.. I despise "nationalism" based on "victimology" because it is against the Nietzschean and Darwinist principles I adhere to. 

So whenever anyone complains about things that were done to his/her ancestors he is a weakling by definition.. Most Albanian nationalists are weaklings, most Serbian nationalists are weaklings.. In my book and in the book of those who think the way I do..

I said to him that you unlike him are an example of someone who is willing to accept the facts. 





> that do school shootings and to see you have such a visceral reaction to Bruzmi ("a barking dog"), but casually accept this Huban/Aspurg guy as a "reasonable" commentary provider, all because he has convinced you of some non-existant J2b-l283 "consiparcy" agianst E-v13. This is so pathetic.



He can "bark" with 80 % of nonsense in posts. He can't bite though, and as they say "_the barking dog doesn't bite_".. I put him in his place almost everywhere. Lastly he claimed most Polish E is not V13. I brought papers proving the opposite..


It's just that Albanians have extra favor on some internet fora so they can get away with posting more nonsense..

----------


## Aspurg

> That's absolutely not true. That guy is a J2b2-L283 carrier who is closely associated with Rrenjet project and perhaps the other one as well. So, please don't bring his propaganda in this thread. His opinion, his barking like a dog in internet is not welcomed.


 One of his views sums him up well. When Daunian study was out he said that actually there were great many E-V13 in Daunians, it's just that they didn't test the slaves and underclass. Supposedly had they done that they would have found out that they were mostly E-V13.. But as they supposedly tested elites J-L283 is there.. 

He vehemently opposes any notion of E-V13 having any relation to IE while vehemently supporting that J2b2 is 100 % IE.. Those Nuragics were actually of Illyrian origin... 

My job is to crush these E-V13 haters once and for all and beat them into submission, and I have been successful in general and upcoming data will put them where they belong. I don't care whether they are Bruzmi or some Serbian admins of poreklo for example, and I have history opposing them on this topic as well. 

NE Hungarian LBA and EBA samples will do exactly that..

----------


## Riverman

> He can "bark" with 80 % of nonsense in posts. He can't bite though, and as they say "_the barking dog doesn't bite_".. I put him in his place almost everywhere. Lastly he claimed most Polish E is not V13. I brought papers proving the opposite..


It wasn't just you, but 4 more knowledgeable posters, all provided him with actual papers and material, an explanation for the pattern and why he can't just sum up Polish flag results from YFull that easily. And he still keeps saying the same wrong things. Of course, that's annoying and complete nonsense, but let's come back to the topic in question. Otherwise other readers will just stop reading on and its, honestly, just wasted energy and space. He is already proven wrong and the more results will trickle in, the more ridiculous his or other people's views on the matter will become. 
On the other hand, 5 years ago many of the results which came in lately were not that easy to anticipate. There were just a few writers which came even close to how it really turned out. Regardless of whether I'm right in every aspect of my theory, but the general pattern of an rapid LBA-EIA expansion from one group and centre is now beyond doubt. Its actually even written in the recent studies, so the scientists which care for the subject already know - presumably from additional material we don't have as well.

----------


## Hawk

I opened the thread on good faith, so i don't have any intention to derail it. In fact most of what we supposed in this thread was indirectly confirmed by the new paper.

I insist that perhaps Illyri proprii dicti can be loaded with E-V13, like Ardiaei-Pirusti-Enchelei-Taulanti. With Enchelei being far more purer E-V13, while the other tribes more mixed.

I know that Taulanti are related to Enchelei, and they used cremation urns in Epidamnus noted by archeologists that those were not brought by Greek colonizers but were native.

Pirusti and Dardanii are noted to use cremation urns.

As for Enchelei, the Early Iron Age Enchelei as noted by Pasko Kuzman cremated their deaths on a pyre. Latter Trebeniste Culture used also rectangular pits and eventually necropolises to bury their death.

----------


## Hawk

> It's just that Albanians have extra favor on some internet fora so they can get away with posting more nonsense..


Don't mix Albanians here, this is a very specific group which has nothing to do with mainstream Albanians. And are using Serbs as scape-goat to hide behind it and promote their agenda.

----------


## Johane Derite

How did those middle bronze age E-V13 branches get to Sardinia. Some branches getting piggybacked later on by germanics, etc, can be feasible, but all of them, and all of them maintaining a mean Tmrca of ~3000 ybp, doesnt make sense.

----------


## Riverman

> I opened the thread on good faith, so i don't have any intention to derail it. In fact most of what we supposed in this thread was indirectly confirmed by the new paper.
> 
> I insist that perhaps Illyri proprii dicti can be loaded with E-V13, like Ardiaei-Pirusti-Enchelei-Taulanti. With Enchelei being far more purer E-V13, while the other tribes more mixed.
> 
> I know that Taulanti are related to Enchelei, and they used cremation urns in Epidamnus noted by archeologists that those were not brought by Greek colonizers but were native.
> 
> Pirusti and Dardanii are noted to use cremation urns.
> 
> As for Enchelei, the Early Iron Age Enchelei as noted by Pasko Kuzman cremated their deaths on a pyre. Latter Trebeniste Culture used also rectangular pits and eventually necropolises to bury their death.


The cremation tradition also matters, because E-V13 quite obviously is primarily connected with Gva-Holigrady culture and Belegis II-Gva, Fluted Ware horizon respectively. Whether they were even dominant in the whole Channelled Ware has to be shown, but inside of it they spread. The more Western Middle Danubian Urnfielders seem to have been from a different group and are unlikely to have been heavy in E-V13. 
The Pannonian region became just penetrated by E-V13 carriers on a larger scale by Thraco-Cimmerian and Basarabi-Hallstatt, as well as the succeeding groups which all had an East -> West impact primarily on the Pannonian-Northern Illyrian and Celtic areas. The Dardanians had in their Eastern archaeological group strong Belegis II influences, so there is a direct link.




> How did those middle bronze age E-V13 branches get to Sardinia. Some branches getting piggybacked later on by germanics, etc, can be feaaible, but all of them, and all of them maintaining a mean Tmrca of ~3000 ybp, doesnt make sense.


We don't know yet! But it seems to have come in later, because like I wrote before, they are mostly restricted to Cagliari and came together with other Central European haplotypes. The typical transitional phase age is common in many V13 local populations and leads back to the massive early LBA-EIA expansion, of which, presumably, a lot of lineages died out, whereas others became later successful in various different people. The Channelled Ware and Basarabi unit was later broken. 

I still have a big problem with Northern Italy, because the frequency of E-V13 is not that high there, and we don't know for sure when and with which groups it came. Could have been as early as Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt influences, or as late as Germanics and even Germans and Balkan people. We'll see, there is just a need for way more data. There is also the option that some Southern Italian ones (Greco-Thracian and Balkan Medieval derived) came to the North, for individual cases it already seems like that.

----------


## Johane Derite

With respect to "Mycenaean-like" autosomal results of Albanians, please keep in mind that archaeologically myceneans literally did have soldiers from west balkans and even italy serving for them:




The tumulus of Mati, Albania are known for having many mycenaean weapons found in them, they are known as weapon loving.

----------


## Riverman

> With respect to "Mycenaean-like" autosomal results of Albanians, please keep in mind that archaeologically myceneans literally did have soldiers from west balkans and even italy serving for them:
> 
> The tumulus of Mati, Albania are known for having many mycenaean weapons found in them, they are known as weapon loving.


That's how Channelled Ware people too first met Greeks and even lived among them probably, they were migrants, especially mercants and artisans. We know from the Barbarian ware that it preceded the downfall of Mycenaean Greeks. So first there were small groups of migrants, which even lived among these Bronze Age Greeks, then they did unite with their tribal brethren to overturn the Greek rule. Naue II swords and iron swords played an important role in this, when the Carpathian people (Channelled Ware) started their mass production. You can see that both the Naue II sword production and first iron swords had a massive centre in the Carpathians.

I found a comment on Eupedia which might give us a hint for Sardinian clades: 



> Sards/Sardinians are their own distinct people and culture, with a very distinct genetic heritage and language, not considered part of the 
> Italian ethnicities. In Sardinia itself, however, you need to be aware that there are historical ethnic minority enclaves which need to be 
> taken into account in your analysis of genetic markers there - Catalans in Alghero, Genoese/Ligurians on the islands of Sant'Antioco and San Pietro off the southwest coast, and the Gallurese (who are mixed Corsican-Sardinian ancestry) in the northeast region of Gallura. Gallurese, like other Corsicans, have significant Italian (Tuscan and Ligurian) admixture, and their language is a dialect of Tuscan Italian. Thus, the amount of R1b, J1, J2, E-M81 and E-V13 ancestry in Sardinia is actually much lower among the specifically aboriginal, Sardinian-speaking Sards of central and southern Sardinia (Logudorese, Nuorese and Campidanese-speaking regions). J1, R1b and E-M81 are partially inflated because of the Catalan enclave, *while J2, E-V13 and R1b are all made higher because of the Ligurian and Gallurese populations*. The actual indigenous, Neolithic farmer-descended Sards have even higher I2a and G2 (Mesolithic HG and Neolithic Farmer markers) than reported here, when the Ligurian, Gallurese and Catalan minority populations are excluded.


https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml#maps

That was also my idea of a North Italian origin, even though I couldn't be that concrete. I didn't even know Gallurese: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallurese_dialect

Would be great to have as good of a sample from Corsica, ultimately Tuscany and other Northern Italian regions also, especially the former Ligurian.

----------


## Archetype0ne

Wait Aspurg is Huban?  :Embarassed:  :Laughing: 

Now I feel bad for trashing some of his theories on Anthrogenica... Here I try to close an eye when I read some of his cringe statement regarding Albanians, since he is the devil I know, and I know he has some master-slave morality fantasies. Should have gone a bit easier on him on Anthro, at lest on the rhetorical side, had I known it was him. 

As long as you account for his biases, he does provide some useful tidbits of esoteric publications not easy to come by, so I value his posts, even the cringe ones.


Sorry mate  :Cool V: 

Edit: LMAO I was on page 5 when I made this reply, but at least I got something right.




> No wonder I have been a Nietzschean.

----------


## Hawk

Lol at Derite trying to gaslight us, everyone saw through that guy intentions through and through.  :Bored:

----------


## Pr0_

There are apparently inscriptions of the 'Albanoi' in ancient Dardania / North Macedonia believed to of been found after the Roman-Illyrian wars, could this testify that such population movements already occurred back then ?

----------


## Aspurg

> Wait Aspurg is Huban? 
> 
> Now I feel bad for trashing some of his theories on Anthrogenica...


 The only attempt of yours was to "prove" that Albanians have no Slavic auDNA admxiture or that it is very low. Literally nobody who knows about auDNA agrees with that so you cannot trash anything. And look how they model the Albanians in this new Viminacium study, as having 35 % of Slavic-like, which is way too high.. 




> Here I try to close an eye when I read some of his cringe statement regarding Albanians, since he is the devil I know, and I know he has some master-slave morality fantasies.


 Everybody has them. You have them , that's why you want so much to be IE. In Bronze Age IE's were "masters", others were "slaves". At least in the areas where they were active..




> Should have gone a bit easier on him on Anthro, at lest on the rhetorical side, had I known it was him. 
> 
> As long as you account for his biases, he does provide some useful tidbits of esoteric publications not easy to come by, so I value his posts, even the cringe ones.
> 
> 
> Sorry mate 
> 
> Edit: LMAO I was on page 5 when I made this reply, but at least I got something right.


 I've never done anything cringe like on this or other fora. I will openly clash with anyone. Here and there some of my statements are abit coded as otherwise I'd be banned. I got banned once on anthrogenica for going hard on that Bruzmi guy. But things I said (that were deleted) I stand by. And it was 100 % Nietzschean. Meaning was you are not going to make dominator hg a servile hg..

I see many Albanians were banned from there, Derite, Hawk, Gjenetika and Rrenjet (Gjergj) admins..

----------


## Aspurg

> There are apparently inscriptions of the 'Albanoi' in ancient Dardania / North Macedonia believed to of been found after the Roman-Illyrian wars, could this testify that such population movements already occurred back then ?


 There was a woman Delus daughter of Mucat from Albanopolis.. She was married to a man from Scupi where also some non-Illyrian and non-Thracian names were common. Delus is a name with Phrygian parallels and Mucat is very likely Thracian as compound names with Muca/Muco were extremely common or quintessential Thracian names. Recently I found some Mucanius, which points towards Mucat being Thracian. If not for the "t" at the end it would have been counted instantly as 100 % Thracian.

So the oldest known inhabitant of Albanopolis born in mid 1st century AD was not an Illyrian, neither was his daughter, judging by their names.. Un-Illyrian in a sea of Illyrians as we do have names from various other places in Albanian Illyria from that period (Durrachium etc.). 

So Albanians have been avoiding Bessoi like a plague only to find an Albanoi Bessian. :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Pr0_

> There was a woman Delus daughter of Mucat from Albanopolis.. She was married to a man from Scupi where also some non-Illyrian and non-Thracian names were common. Delus is a name with Phrygian parallels and Mucat is very likely Thracian as compound names with Muca/Muco were extremely common or quintessential Thracian names. Recently I found some Mucanius, which points towards Mucat being Thracian. If not for the "t" at the end it would have been counted instantly as 100 % Thracian.
> 
> So the oldest known inhabitant of Albanopolis born in mid 1st century AD was not an Illyrian, neither was his daughter, judging by their names.. Un-Illyrian in a sea of Illyrians as we do have names from various other places in Albanian Illyria from that period (Durrachium etc.). 
> 
> So Albanians have been avoiding Bessoi like a plague only to find an Albanoi Bessian.


Bessoi were a partially Hellenized tribe that lived South of the Jirecek line. Bessoi could of never of possibly been proto-Albanian based on this, which is considered to of developed north of the Jirecek. Albanian also received their Christian teachings in Latin, this is evident by Christian Albanian teachings which are largely Latin loan words too. Bessoi were also mentioned in Bulgaria supposedly in 900 AD (if I am not mistaken) while Albanian dialect split had already occurred in 400 AD or so. 

I certainly would not judge the ethnic origin of people based on a few personal names. These people lived in each others lands and picked up names from
each other. Eastern Kosovo and Macedonia was also inhabited by Thracians for example. 

The Albanoi were mentioned as an Illyrian tribe by all ancient sources I know of. Dardani were mentioned as Illyrian by Strabo. The Roman-Illyrian wars
could of triggered the Albanoi expansion east wards. Anyway, Alb- names in Illyrian lands are common so I wouldn't be too sure that Albanians came from this tribe anyway.

----------


## Fustan

These slavs are so pathetic. They have been going at it for almost half of a decade to try to disprove any sort of connection to Albanians and Illyrians. They don't even have enough gut to admit that J-L283 is related to Illyrians, instead hypothesizing some stupid Sardinian theory. Albanians are anything but Illyrians, even with good enough evidence so far. It's funny how obsessed they are about both modern Albanians and the ancient Illyrians, I'd expect these slavs to pay more time, energy and effort into studying their own ancient peoples, namely the ancient slavs. Maybe since they realize the ancient slavs were a bunch of buffalo-pee drinking barbarians, they have no interest in such inquiries.

----------


## Aspurg

> I opened the thread on good faith, so i don't have any intention to derail it. In fact most of what we supposed in this thread was indirectly confirmed by the new paper.
> 
> I insist that perhaps Illyri proprii dicti can be loaded with E-V13, like Ardiaei-Pirusti-Enchelei-Taulanti. With Enchelei being far more purer E-V13, while the other tribes more mixed.
> 
> I know that Taulanti are related to Enchelei, and they used cremation urns in Epidamnus noted by archeologists that those were not brought by Greek colonizers but were native.
> 
> Pirusti and Dardanii are noted to use cremation urns.
> 
> As for Enchelei, the Early Iron Age Enchelei as noted by Pasko Kuzman cremated their deaths on a pyre. Latter Trebeniste Culture used also rectangular pits and eventually necropolises to bury their death.


 There were Illyrian groups which had more Urnfield component. As one goes farther to the North they get stronger. For example Breuci were largely Urnfield derived.

The problem here is that E-V13 is associated with the very Eastern Urnfield, extreme eastern end of Urnfield. And this upcoming Gava E-L539 guy was quite different from the whole Urnfield C.European - up until W.Hungary range. These were Urnfielders that were the bulk of Urnfield influence in Illyrian areas and they surely carried also various R-L51 clades. 

I'll look into that Trebeniste culture and whether they might show some Urnfield connection. 

The only Urnfield people who reached territory of Albania were actually some Gava groups, not sure about their strength though. And they actually reached precisely that area where the Enchelei, Dassareti were located.

Albania has very low R-L51 while Pannonian Illyria has high R-L51 diversity (some of these are Celtic also but some look Pannonian)..

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS9981/

Sample from Montenegro is of Moračani Bogićevci tribe who have even tradition of coming from the Hoti area, not sure how reliable that is considering this clade wasn't found there. You see the upstream clades in N.Croatia and Slovenia, this clade is very likely local in the area and not Celtic, Roman.. Though Z70 is quite Italian..

Also
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y4353/

Herzegovina Vlach clan with an Albanian name, Vlachs *Zot*ović (and Ugarci) belong to this clade. There are many R-Y4353 clades around Balkans. For example this Bulgarian but he is very distant to Zotovići. Also in SW Romania one R-Y4353 was found again very distant from the others. And also there is a Greek R-Y4353 clade also unalerted to the others. Interestingly this clade is the cause of the very elevated R1b on Crete. Some were saying this clade cold be Celtic but then again there are so many different Y4353 on the Balkans..

I know in NE Hungary there is R-L51 Gava as well. I wonder whether this clade might be related to that as there are several Russian clades also..

----------


## Archetype0ne

> The only attempt of yours was to "prove" that Albanians have no Slavic auDNA admxiture or that it is very low. Literally nobody who knows about auDNA agrees with that so you cannot trash anything. And look how they model the Albanians in this new Viminacium study, as having 35 % of Slavic-like, which is way too high.. 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody has them. You have them , that's why you want so much to be IE. In Bronze Age IE's were "masters", others were "slaves". At least in the areas where they were active..
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything cringe like on this or other fora. I will openly clash with anyone. Here and there some of my statements are abit coded as otherwise I'd be banned. I got banned once on anthrogenica for going hard on that Bruzmi guy. But things I said (that were deleted) I stand by. And it was 100 % Nietzschean. Meaning was you are not going to make dominator hg a servile hg..
> ...


You are cool mate  :Cool V: . Its the small nuances in your writing, that give some things away, which I don't want to get into.

I did enjoy Nietzsche when I was a teenager, and I do admit he did contribute some valuable insight into relative morality, but if you do not find some/most of his later stuff cringe, than you would not understand my pov.

About IE, not sure I care much, albeit it is cool. Still autosomaly, me as well as you are more farmer like than IE.

Not sure about the bans was not that active on anthro at the time to see the show. Must have been a spectacle. I am surprised I have not been banned there yet. But then again Eupedia has accustomed me to dodging bait so...

----------


## Pr0_

> These slavs are so pathetic. They have been going at it for almost half of a decade to try to disprove any sort of connection to Albanians and Illyrians. They don't even have enough gut to admit that J-L283 is related to Illyrians, instead hypothesizing some stupid Sardinian theory. Albanians are anything but Illyrians, even with good enough evidence so far. It's funny how obsessed they are about both modern Albanians and the ancient Illyrians, I'd expect these slavs to pay more time, energy and effort into studying their own ancient peoples, namely the ancient slavs. Maybe since they realize the ancient slavs were a bunch of buffalo-pee drinking barbarians, they have no interest in such inquiries.


Slavs in the Balkans are basically like the Muslim immigrants that migrate to West Europe. Soon they too will take over West Europe and start wars against
the indigenous people and claim themselves as the original inhabitants. That's basically what has happened in the Balkans when you look at all the historical
evidence.

Native Balkan people today like Aromanians don't even have their own home country and are at the brink of extinction.

----------


## Fustan

> Native Balkan people today like Aromanians don't even have their own home country and are at the brink of extinction.


Tbh they kind of deserve it, you must be a super weak ethnicity if you get absolutely ultra assimilated in every single country you have colonies/immigrants in. At least the Arbresh, Arvanites etc. spoke Albanian for a long ass time, up until modernity (where most minority languages are dying).

----------


## Aspurg

> Bessoi were a partially Hellenized tribe that lived South of the Jirecek line. Bessoi could of never of possibly been proto-Albanian based on this, which is considered to of developed north of the Jirecek. Albanian also received their Christian teachings in Latin, this is evident by Christian Albanian teachings which are largely Latin loan words too. Bessoi were also mentioned in Bulgaria supposedly in 900 AD (if I am not mistaken) while Albanian dialect split had already occurred in 400 AD or so. 
> 
> I certainly would not judge the ethnic origin of people based on a few personal names. These people lived in each others lands and picked up names from
> each other. Eastern Kosovo and Macedonia was also inhabited by Thracians for example. 
> 
> The Albanoi were mentioned as an Illyrian tribe by all ancient sources I know of. Dardani were mentioned as Illyrian by Strabo. The Roman-Illyrian wars
> could of triggered the Albanoi expansion east wards. Anyway, Alb- names in Illyrian lands are common so I wouldn't be too sure that Albanians came from this tribe anyway.


 There are archeological records of Bessoi from 2n, 3rd, 4th century AD. They were located in the Shop area, modern Serbian-Bulgarian border zone as well as NE Macedonia. Take a look at this map. Black dots are Bessi archeological finds from late Antiquity. White are historical and epigraphic evidence concerning the Bessi. They match each other..

They lived on higher altitudes of 500 m above sea level and above and their culture was radically different from the mainstream Romanized culture. They cremated dead and placed remains in Kernoses. These were surely the non-Latin speaking Bessoi. What you refer to are some earlier mentions of the Bessoi from the time of Herodotus.. But these are Roman-era non-Latin speakers. Bessian language is attested as alive still in 570 AD, after the death of Justnian.. Just based on geography, Albanians should have some people descended of these..

Linguistics wise Albanian doesn't quite fit with Thracian, it fits better with Illyrian but there is something off about Albanian. There are reconstructed Illyrian words, I know one of them that actually has relatives in Dacian and Thracian and all evidence points towards this word being totally mainstream Illyrian word in usage, ditto for Thracian yet Albanian uses something totally different not only that but there are words denoting _similar things_, all of them non-Latin and Albanian still doesn't use the Illyrian-Thracian word.. Things like these make things hard for Illyrian-Thracian connection. 

If Bessoi were some mainstream Thracian people, I doubt Albanian could descend of these.. I think there were some other language groups around that are poorly known, Paeonian, original Dardanian. Dardanians in Late Iron Age were Illyrians but their Illyrianisation is a Mid Iron Age phenomenon via Glasinac related people arriving from the West. Prior to that they have Thracian influence, and prior to Thracian they have something else that is likely related to proto-Paeonians..

We have evidence that in Early Iron Age proto-Thracians descended upon Balkans and they were very heavy with E-V13. Prior to that there were some other groups living in Central/Eastern Balkans. It's possible R-Z2705 is related to one of these and this is the most Albanian hg of them all..

I am not really denying or affirming in some concrete way Albanians are this or that. But I research here primarily the E-V13. And it seems E-V13 were the original Thracians, and not proto-Albanians, because proto-Albanian is not a Thracian proper language.. You have people believing V13 and proto-Albanian are very related or J-L283 and proto-Albanian are closely related, I don't believe that at all. I think proto-Albanian is clearly R-Z2705 related and most people agree on this..

----------


## Hawk

Basarabi Culture chariot pulled by water birds.



Similar to Dubovac Zuto Brdo/Garla Mara Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age chariot pulled by water birds.



I think considering the approximate territory they have been living, it's likely E-V13 was a survivor after the downfall of Vinca-Turdas Culture, some metalworkers retreating to safer Alpine/Carpathian buffer zone.

The same motive was encountered at Battle of Delta, Mycenean ships modified by the water-bird motive, exactly the same time archeological evidence points movement from people around Danube heading South.

----------


## Johane Derite

> 


Whats the source for the map?

----------


## Hawk

Strictly speaking this thread is more about Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

So don't bring up Albanians or Slavs. There is enough threads about that topic.

In several instances we brought up E-V13, but the connection between the topic and E-V13 has become more and more cemented like the quote from Viminacium paper:




> *A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Ychromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-IronAge expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans \. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living at Viminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial andlater periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE)*

----------


## Riverman

> Strictly speaking this thread is more about Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.
> 
> So don't bring up Albanians or Slavs. There is enough threads about that topic.
> 
> In several instances we brought up E-V13, but the connection between the topic and E-V13 has become more and more cemented like the quote from Viminacium paper:


I don't know if you read it already, but there was exchange between Lengyel-Sopot and the Michelsberger, especially via the Mnchshfen culture in Bavaria. Its Jordanow/Jordansmhl culture in Bohemia is a late Lengyel-descendent. Its pretty bad some groups of late Lengyel did cremate and we have no samples from those which did not. In the Bohemian paper, there were no male samples from Jordanow included afaik, but even if, we would need a wider range geogrpaphically and larger quantity, because I don't expect E1b1b being dominant. 
But that link kind of connects Lengyel-Sopot with Michelsberger, the two groups with more than a single E1b1b sample within close proximity to the other find(s). My guess is that Lengyel-Sopot or better Northern Sopot/Lengyel was the main Middle Neolithic source and that the carriers transitioned directly from Jordanow or other Lengyel/Epi-Lengyel derived groups, or possibly Baden, into the Epi-Corded horizon, into Unetice and then around 1.700-1.400 BC becoming one of the dominant lineages in Pre-Gava. 

This graphic illustrates some possible pathways: 

https://de-academic.com/pictures/dew.../Megawal97.PNG

Its noteworthy that they were among the metal working pioneers in Northern Central Europe and had burial customs which were, in part, similar to GAC and Corded Ware respectively. Like: 




> *In Schlesien meist von Steinpackungen umgebene OW-gerichtete Hockergrber. Frauen liegen auf der rechten Seite, Mnner auf der linken.* Relativ hufig ist Grabschmuck aus Kupferblech (Perlen aus eingerolltem Blech), auerdem kupferne Spiralarmringe und brillenfrmige Doppelspiralen; daneben Abschlge aus Feuerstein und zwei bis vier Gefe am Kopfende. In Bhmen dominiert dir Brandbestattung.


https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/711006




> From Jordanw/Michelsberg contexts 
> exist first evidence of burials under barrows (Březno u Loun (100)), assumed also for the Funnel Beaker 
> period and later on a mass scale for the CW and BB (50), alternatively for the EBA (101).


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941

In Bohemia many of the Jordansmhler cremated and those they picked up possibly, in the Bohemian paper, seem to have been mostly women. Its in any case interesting that the Michelsberger and the Lengyel-Sopot cultural formations were connected. I interpret it rather as an influence from Lengyel bringing E1b1b to the Michelsberger, which dominated by other haplogroups overall. Already then they used and settled along the Danube. The Mnchhfener settlers might have carried E1b1b too, actually I'm pretty sure they did, because they are the obvious link between these two major players in the Middle Neolithic. 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B...B6fener_Kultur

The Michelsberger finds are younger than those from Lengyel and they are from Southern Germany, close to the Lengyel-colonisation groups. We could argue the other way around also, but I think a primary Michelsberger origin is much less likely and considering time and space, they were a dead end anyway, largely. 

But at this point I think its possible that the Middle Neolithic E1b1b finds being connected. They don't have to be, they could be old E1b1b carriers from Impresso-Cardial, but rather I think they being more clearly connected to Lengyel. We hopefully see this resolved as well in the near future. The Bohemian study was a miss in this respect.

----------


## Hawk

There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.




> Slightly biconical shaped bowls, the upper cone (rim and shoulder) of which is decorated with horizontal and slanted facets or slanted channels, as well as semi-globular bowls of inverted rim decorated with horizontal facets or slanted channels are characteristic of the end of Bronze Age and mark the beginning of Iron Age in many cultural groups within the Balkan Peninsula. Problem of their origin, chronology and distribution is present in archaeological literature for a long time. Many authors perceived the significance of this ceramic shape for the chronological, ethnic and cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze, that is, of the Early Iron Ages within the territory of the Balkans. Pottery from the burned layers in Vardina and Vardaroftsa sites in the north of Greece, among which there were bowls with inverted, slanted channeled rim, was designated way back by W. Heurtley as Danubian pottery or Lausitz ware, connecting its origin with the Danube Basin. Anumber of conclusions have been reached upon the study of finds of slightly biconical bowls and bowls of inverted rim, decorated with channels or facets, from several indicative sites from Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages within the Balkan Peninsula and south part of the Middle Europe. It has been stated that the bowls appear first within the southwest Slovakia and northwest Hungary in the Br D period, to spread very fast, already in the Br D/Ha A1 period, from its home territory to the east, to the northeast Hungary and northwest Romania. Namely, this first spreading wave into these territories brought along only variety Ia bowls, which were further distributed to the south, during the Ha A1 period, to the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula and consequently it can be concluded that these bowls are somewhat older than other varieties. In the period Br D - Ha A1, in north Hungary, under the influence of Gava Culture, on one hand, and Čaka Culture, on the other, appear also variety IIa bowls (turban dish), distributed to the east with a new migration wave, in the same manner as was the case with the first migration wave, but also to the south, along the Bakonjska Range, to the present day Croatia and Slovenia, where, in the Ha A1/A2 periods, were stated exclusively variety IIa bowls. Representatives of the variety Ia bowls remained in the Pomoravlje region and Južna Morava Basin, as confirmed by a large number of these bowls and also by other ceramic shapes of that stylistic and typological pattern, prevailing within this region in the Ha A1/A2 periods. First variety IIa bowls (Mediana, Kržince) appear only during the second migration wave coming from the north of the Balkans to the central part of the Balkan Peninsula (Ha A2 period). These bowls, however, are particularly characteristic of Macedonia and lower Povardarje, where variety Ia bowls were not stated at all. The second migration wave representatives, with turban dish bowls (variety IIa), were much more aggressive as witnessed by many burned settlements from that period in the Vranjska-Bujanovačka Valleys and Povardarje. During Ha B-C periods, bowls of both types (particularly variety IIa) became inevitable part of ceramic inventory of nearly all cultural groups in the Balkan Peninsula, which could be explained by the spread of cultural influence of the new stylistic trend, though, however, it could be possible that migrations, which at the time were numerous and of greater or lesser intensity, were one of the spreading causes of this ceramic shape into the east, south and west parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the Ha B period. Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations. The assumed direction of these migrations coincides mainly with the distribution direction of bowl types I and II. Migrations spreading the bowl types I and II started in the south part of the Middle Europe, but were initiated by the representatives of the Urnenfelder cultural complex from the Middle Europe, as observed in certain ceramic shapes, stated together with type I bowls and originating from cultures of the Urnenfelder complex, and in numerous metal finds, which were produced in Middle European workshops. It is of interest to point out that bowl movements could be followed up to the northwest shores of the Aegean Sea, but they are not stated in the south Trace and in Troy, thus imposing conclusion that their representatives did not reach Troy. Consequently, their possible participation in destruction of VIIb2 layer settlements is utterly uncertain. The migrations, however, started chain reaction of ethnic movements in the Balkans, causing many ethnic and cultural changes within this territory which will lead to creation of new cultural groups to mark the developed Iron Age. To what extent bowls of this type, particularly variety IIa, left deep trace in the Iron Age Cultures in the central Balkans, is shown in the fact that survivals of this variety remained within these regions even several centuries later, in late phases of the Ha C period (VI/V century BC).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00059/art00005

----------


## Riverman

> There was two waves of inter-related cultures which spread deeper in Balkans, the second one is the Gava/Channeled Ware Culture.


They did reach the Aegean and Troy though, ultimately, because we have the regional Knobbed Ware, which was just part of the same movement and people. And in the end, the Thiny, Bithyny and probably even Phrygians, as Thracian-related people, might be explained in part by it. 

I came across another interesting fact, namely that there was a very big shift in the early Gava military tactics and equipment, from the Carpathians, down to the Balkans where they moved. During the Late Bronze Age transition, the frequency of spearheads among metal goods and weaponry drastically increased, as did swords, which is less suprising. Both the spearheads and swords took new shapes, like the Naue II examples, but even more advanced swordtypes than those. The swords changed in the Carpathian area from thrusting to cutting weapons. This in combination with the spearheads suggests to me that a new military tactic was introduced as well, coming closer to fighting in close quarters, in formation, even approaching a phalanx style military order. 
Interestingly, some old experts on the matter recognised spearheads of the new type from Transcarpathia, over the Balkan, to Greece. In Greece it seems to be new and intrusive, and appears in the transitional and Dorian period. 
In the earlier phase, axes were much more common the cultures which preceded Gava. The rise in typical spearheads is very steep and points to a drastic shift. 

The later Gava success seems therefore also due to the adoption of a completely new tactic and military equipment than they had before and this shift being recognisable in the archaeological record from Poland-Ukraine to Greece and beyond (Sea Peoples) with related artefacts of spearheads and swords. This change would have most certainly also affected the whole society and we see even in Eastern Hallstatt still some kind of units of a leading sword-bearer with a squad of spear and axe bearers. 

By the way, if you use Google translate for this interesting paper, you can find something about the burial customs of Lăpuș II, which was at the core of Gava.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

Going by the settlement of Rotbav, the Gava people also build more pit houses instead of on the ground, like the earlier Noua and Wietenberg people:




> Die Siedlung der Gva-Kultur zeigt Unterschiede zu den Hausstrukturen der Siedlungsphasen
> der Wietenberg- und der Noua-Kultur, die durch Oberflchenbauten charakterisiert sind.


The authors assume it was also because of a colder climate, with pit houses giving more protection. But in any case its a completely different architecture and settlement structure. 

They also bred more ovicaprids, also for the secondary products, especially wool and milk:




> Schon in den Noua-Phasen, vor allem aber in der Siedlungsphase
> der Gva-Kultur werden vor allem Schweine frher geschlachtet, sie knnen offenbar nicht mehr
> ber den Winter gehalten und gefttert werden, *whrend Ovicaprinen in grerer Zahl vorkommen als
> frher und vermutlich auch fr ihre sekundren Produkte, wie Wolle, gehalten wurden*.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...zer_Vorbericht

About the end of Gava in the North: 



> The beginning of the Early Iron Age in the northeastern
> part of the Carpathian basin is characterized
> by strong historical-cultural changes connected with
> the appearance of new ethnic groups of eastern Iranian
> origin - the representatives of the Mezőcst Culture
> (PATEK 1967.101-105,PATEK 1974.339, PATEK 1980.
> 162, KEMENCZEI 1984.228, CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.
> 527-534, CHOCHOROWSKI 1993.231-218). The questions
> of the genesis of this culture are still discussed.
> ...


In the Southern zone there was a fluent transition into Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, while in the North Gava persisted as long or longer, but was more drastically transformed by Cimmerians and Scythians. How the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions affected their paternal genetics is of course largely unknown. So far the E-V13 connection being only proven for Psenichevo and Basarabi, and made likley for some Thraco-Scythians/Geto-Scythians with the single find in the North Carpathians. 

It seems they formed a huge defensive line against the steppe incursions:




> A specific moving factor of this process
> was the situation formed as a result of the appearance
> of the militant "Cimmerians" at the territory of Alfld.
> At the turn of HB2-HB3 probably a part of the
> Gva and Kyjatice population under the pressure of
> the Mezőcst population appeared here, *moved into
> the regions of the Eastern Carpathians together with
> relative tribes. Here they formed a defensive line in
> the mountainous regions of East Slovakia, Transylvania
> ...


https://www.academia.edu/15002240/St...pathian_region

It is absolutely evident that this was one united network, most likely one cultural sphere, one language (Proto-Daco-Thracian) and religion. The climate change and new innovations in technology, military tactics and economy, all added up to a mass movement led by powerful elites, close to the princes of the Unetice provinces, probably even related to their tradition. 

Gava was to the south intrusive and replaced on a big scale: 



> In terms of relative chronology, the early Gva
> phase in Central and Southern Transylvania is later
> than the Lăpuş II-Gva I horizon in North-West Romania
> (K a c s  1990, 49; M a r t a 2009, 102) and
> it is partially contemporary to the Susani group from
> Banat (S t r a t a n, Vu l p e 1977, 5658; G umă
> 1993, 169170; Vu l p e 1995, 8386). The finds
> from Hunedoara (L u c a 1999, pl. 4:56,16, 5:6,910;
> S  r b u et al. 2005, fig. 4:5) and Simeria (B a s a 1970,
> ...


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Transylvania

I also read up on why many archaeologists don't interpret it that way and one comment is particularly noteworthy: The majority of archaeologists refused the idea of a migration being the main factor, because the sheer size of the change and the settlements of Gava/Channelled Ware would imply a true tribal mass movement of people! They only backed off from the demic model, for the most part, because it would suggest such a massive, grande scale intrusion of people. Its so massive that people refused to accept it, while many earlier authors and some more courageous observers said it right away, that this was a people on the move. And that's what it is. The spread of E-V13 will prove it. 
And the explanation for the chaotic distribution of the main clades is that they decided to split up not along the main clan-tribal formations, but sending with every colonist group members of all tribes. That's something we know from history and ethnology, that people do if they want to keep cohesion intact, even with far away colonists, which conquer and settle new lands. Every clan had to choose some warriors for the war party or colonist group. That's the only reasonable explanation, because as soon as the Channelled Ware loses its cohesion, the regional subclades become apparent. 
The second spread is already more specific, related to Iron Age subgroups, like Thraco-Cimmerian, but especially Basarabi/Thraco-Scythian/Eastern Hallstatt as one of the main connections.

----------


## Hawk

What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?

----------


## Riverman

> What if there were groups that spoke more than just Daco-Thracian?


That's possible, but I'd say its primarily possible for those groups which were heavily mixed, showed large scale substrate or later adstrate effects, like the Dardanians. And in the regions which have continuity (Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Serbia) the only pre-Celtic people we see in the later historical records are Daco-Thracians or primarily Daco-Thracians (like Thracians, Moesians, Dacians, Getae, Thraco-Scythians, Triballi, Costoboci etc.). 
For the E-V13 hotspots its even more clear than for the rest of their territory, because Psenichevo-Basarabi are without doubt Daco-Thracian. The question is just whether the extremely high rates of these Southern groups were a regional thing, since Psenichevo and Basarabi were very close and influenced each other, or whether it was common throughout all of Gava/Channelled Ware. That's not answered yet. Like it could have been the case that in the North E-V13 was just a minority, but became dominant in the Southern groups. But then we would have to ask which other groups dominated in the Northern groups. I guess it started already in the North, with E-V13 being absolutely dominant, but we might see more regional founder effects which increased or decreased its frequency, that's unknown. 
In any case the later Cimmerian-Scythian incursions should have spread even more R1b and R1a among the Thraco-Scythians in particular, but among all Daco-Thracians. So the highest frequency for E-V13 in any people will be reached, presumably, directly in the LBA-EIA transition, and decrease soon after, while dispersing throughout Europe with Thraco-Scythians, Pannonians and Celts, especially via Hallstatt in the North, and Greeks and Thracians in the South, Geto-Scythians in the East, with sporadic travellers to Armenia, Central Asia, probably even India and China through the Iranian speaking networks. But in the core zone of Carpathians-Eastern Pannnonia-Balkans, the frequency would already rather decrease in the Iron Age again, with some regional-tribal exceptions possibly.

----------


## Riverman

About the huge fortified settlement of Corneşti-Iarcuri, which was a more Southern fortification of the Channelled Ware people similar to Teleac. Interestingly there is no local continuity proven yet, it seems to have been build completely new, by newly incoming settlers. Before that were probably minor local settlements, but nothing comparable. This was therefore a true colonisation event on a grande scale: 




> A complete bowl recovered at the exterior foot of the phase B rampart can be dated to
> the C*ruceni-Belegis IIA* phase (equivalent to Hallstatt A1) (Figure 8). The Cruceni-Belegis
> culture is part of the south-east European Urnfield culture, with a distribution similar to
> the preceding Vatina group in Oltenia, Banat and eastern Hungary. In terms of relative
> chronology, it is situated between the Middle Bronze Age Vatina culture and the Early
> Iron Age Gornea-Kalakaˇca culture. The absolute chronology places the group between the
> fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
> Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
> later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
> ...


The timing is exactly like Teleac and fits the main dispersion of the main E-V13 clades. If they will ever find human remains from that settlement which can be tested, its quite likely the males will be packed with E-V13. 

About the buildings inside of the settlement: 



> The magnetogram shows concentrations of pits, and large rectangular houses (about 20 or
> 2530m) possibly forming an urban scheme with lanes orientated along rampart II. It is
> difficult to identify clear outlines of houses in the magnetogram. However, it is possible
> that closer to the burnt rampart II some burnt houses exist, which may give a more precise
> city plan once further survey is undertaken. There is also a remarkable number of circular
> structures with diameters of 812m, looking like flattened barrows (ring-ditches) or huts.


The increase in production and population with the formation of the town and colonisation through Channelled Ware people:




> Analysis of the Bronze Age sherds shows that Early Bronze Age (Mako) finds are
> uncommon. The sherds become more frequent towards the Middle Bronze Age (Vatina).
> *It is only in the Late Bronze Age (Cruceni-Belegis) that sherds are found in all areas in
> relatively high numbers*.





> ...the evidence strongly suggests that the main settlement phase belongs to the
> Late Bronze Age.





> What is still not well understood is how such an enormous construction project
> could have been undertaken, either on this particular site or on others of the same date 
> bearing in mind that so far the size of Cornesti-Iarcuri is unparalleled at this period either
> locally (the Romanian Banat), within the wider area (theHungarian Plain and Transylvania),
> or internationally.


The new elites of Channelled Ware people concentrated populations, specialists and warriors, in huge fortified settlements, with well-organised structures to support them economically and armies to defend their interests. The sudden appearance can just mean that whole subsets of these people, like also suggested by the even spread of the main clades in that time, colonised, as a whole tribe or even proto-state, large regions collectively. It might be compared with Greek colonies, though their impact on the local populations seems to have been far bigger. 
The ultimate origin is the Gava centre in the Northern Carpathians: 




> At the moment little is known about the development of fortified sites in the Banat, though further south in the
> Vojvodina some analyses have been conducted on the Titel plateau (Falkenstein 1998). A site
> with many similarities to Cornesti-Iarcuri in terms of topographic situation and structure
> is Santana near Arad (known in the older Hungarian literature as Szentanna), about 45km
> away, and recently under excavation by a team from Cluj under the direction of Dr Florin
> Gogaltan. Earlier excavations on the site found a rampart sequence not dissimilar to that
> at Iarcuri with pottery from Eneolithic to Hallstatt B; the largest part fell in the periods
> Bronze D to Hallstatt A1, *the pottery being mainly of Gava style* (Rusu et al. 1999). This
> is close in time to what is present at Iarcuri, and Rusu et al. considered Iarcuri the closest
> ...


The cultural ties are obvious, now we need genetic evidence - E-V13 will be the main marker - to prove it to be a demic-ethnic diffusion. Going back in time, in search of this Gava colonisation, we come to: 




> *In northern Hungary and Slovakia
> too, sites of both the Middle Bronze Age Piliny and the succeeding Kyjatice cultures saw
> a number of fortifications erected and used* (Furmanek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982). A
> marked increase in defended settlements can be noticed during the Urnfield culture in many
> parts of Europe (Harding 2000: 296). This stronghold horizon probably begins inHallstatt
> A2 (Rind 1999: 13) and stops in Hallstatt B3 (Jockenhovel 1990: 219). A similar situation
> may be discerned in Slovakia (Furmanek et al. 1982) and Transylvania (Soroceanu 1982). (Furmanek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982).


These were not simple warbands on the move: 



> A purely agrarian socio-economic
> framework for the society that built Iarcuri seems unlikely; *the social and economic structures
> present must have included a range of craft specialisms and personal identities, probably
> including leadership and warriorhood.* On the other hand, the site cannot have been purely
> urban in character across its full extent; the population would have been enormous.


The colonisation happened exactly in the time frame of the main E-V13 spread: 



> We are
> therefore talking about large numbers of people, from a sizeable area around Cornesti, who
> would have taken part in the sites construction. This brings with it the need to consider
> motivation, not to speak of logistics.
> The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze
> Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around
> 3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means
> that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even
> wider.


Suciu de Sus and Lapus represent elite burials, of kings or at least princes form the Gava/Channelled Ware people in the wider region, probably of transregional importance: 



> It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates
> at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of
> the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus in the Maramures fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;
> C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and *many other phenomena across Europe have been
> radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the
> start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across
> the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been
> refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways*. Although it would be too simplistic
> to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major
> fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Romanian_Banat

----------


## Hawk

Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia where Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.

Probably more in South is where the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.

----------


## Riverman

> Something worth mentioning is that according to Marija Gimbutas the so called Unetice/Urnfield/Tumulus Culture was uniform in Central Europe except for one group in Northern Hungary and Eastern Slovakia were Otomani elements survived, in fact the Tumulus learned smithing techniques from the Otomanis, who initially were conquered but later after adopting the IE speech seem to have gotten stronger when they went further down for searching copper mines and eventually migrating even more in south.
> 
> Probably more in South is were the Tumulus-Grave/HugelgraberKultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture were finally beaten by so called Channeled-Ware/Gava (with the help of iron swords) or as Gimbutas called them Piliny group and latter called Tisza which in her nomenclature meant Gava/Channeled Ware.


I think the breakthrough against Incrusted Ware happened earlier, before iron swords became more common, still in the regular bronze swords of Naue II and more advanced types, the flame spears and typical axes they used. The really complicated issue is indeed that of different groups of regional Tumulus culture, and Otomani. Otomani surely was a hot candidate for E-V13, but it seems rather to have been overtaken and the question is whether they could be sampled. Looks like local clans which lived there since Unetice and being incorporated into the Tumulus horizon were "it". 
The Tumulus culture was not that uniform, but the point is during its spread all the later Urnfield-related groups seem to have been formed already. You have the Middle Danubian and the Carpathian, which just proceed becoming Middle Danubian Urnfield and Gava/Channelled Ware, respectively. Quite at the beginning of the rise of Channelled Ware/Gava are these elite burials: 



> Cremation is the only burial practice in Transylvania dur-
> ing the Late Bronze Age. The small number of burials in 
> relation to settlements is remarkable. The burial mounds of 
> 
> Lăpuş, Suciu de Sus-Troian and Bicaz are burial places of 
> elites, which emerged thanks to the rich ore deposits of the 
> region


https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

Unfortunately everything burned, but they should be E-V13, at least a portion of these elites. Because that would be the first big leverage for its spread. One could speculate the core was Lăpuş, if indeed from them the custom came and was brought to Suciu de Sus. 




> Das Hgelgrab von Medieşu Aurit gehrt der Anfangsphase der 
> Suciu de Sus-Kultur an, die in die mittlere Bronzezeit datiert wird. Vergleichbare frhe Hgelbestattungen sind im 
> ganzen Verbreitungsgebiet der Kultur nicht bekannt.
> Erst in einem entwickelten Abschnitt der Sptbronze-
> zeit, d. h. Sptbronzezeit 2, wurden im Norden Siebenbr-
> gens, *als Denkmler der L**ăpuş-Gruppe, die eigentlichen 
> **Hgelgrberfelder angelegt*.


Some of the oldest iron founds of Europe: 




> In den Hgeln von Lăpuş wurden auch verschiedene 
> Ton- und Steinartefakte, Gussformen sowie ein eisernes 
> Tllenbeil, das zu den ltesten Eisenfunden Europas zhlt, entdeckt.2


The second phase Lăpuş II = classical Gava. There is a difference between phase I and II which could also be interpreted as a new population element appearing, but the transition here is much smoother than in most other regions. There might be also some of the oldest finds for the typical Channelled Ware in the region: 




> Die aus dem Hgel 26 gewonnenen 14C-Daten37 deuten 
> darauf hin, dass die kannelierte Keramik vor dem 12. Jh. 
> v. Chr. bereits im spten 14. und 13. Jh. v. Chr. vorkam.3


https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

Looks to me that similar to the Western Celtic groups, the Tumulus culture was also a phase of consolidation, whereas with the new innovations and a stabilised ethnic culture, with the new religious impetus, Urnfield was the big expansion phase where they "went out" on a grande scale.

----------


## Hawk

Anyone who can provide chronology for Ottomany Culture? Mostly from which culture it descends from.

----------


## Hawk

_Marcin S. Przybyła

Early Bronze Age Stone Architecture Discovered in the Polish Carpathians
_
Something about Otomani-Füzesabony culture.




> There are two regions however, from where constructions similar to those discovered on Zyndram’s Hill areknown (fig.12). A few hillforts from the territory of present-day Switzerland and the adjacent part of Italy,especially Crestaulta nearby Lugnez (Kt. Graubünden/CH), Flums-Gräpplang (Kt. St. Gallen/CH), andVinschgau-Ganglegg (South Tyrol/I) (Burkart 1946; Steiner 2007; Lanzrein 2009), share the same combination of construction terrace and retaining stone wall, and date to a similar period (18th-16th century BC) asthe site in Maszkowice. However, better parallels for the stone fortifcations themselves can be found indefensive settlements from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Caput Adriae region. Most of them had not beenestablished before the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, but some existed already in the Early Bronze Age(e.g. Čović 1989, 108-109). The best example is a huge site in Monkodonja near Rovinj (Istarska županija/HR),sometimes regarded as a settlement centre of proto-urban character (Hänsel/Mihovilić /Teržan 2015). Thewall discovered there, which survived extraordinarily well, consists of the outer face built of large, roughlyhexagonal blocks, and the inner part made of smaller stones. Three elaborated gates have narrow passages,which also reminds the construction revealed on Zyndram’s Hill. Finally, the set of the three oldest radiocarbon dates (3415±33 BP, 3385±29 BP, 3430±27 BP – Hänsel et al. 2015) is identical with those obtainedfor phases Maszkowice I and II, pointing at the second half of the 18th century BC.





> This does not mean, however, that the site was abandoned. Probably shortly afterwards two new houseswere built within the area encompassed by our excavations (phase Maszkowice III). The southern one isespecially well preserved. Its massive, palisade-like eastern wall was established closely to the former gatepassage, which by this time had already been completely sealed with clay and large stones. Within thenorth-eastern corner of the dwelling a stone structure (hearth?) was documented, built of pebbles.Layers connected with the younger houses and with the ceiling part of the pit’s fll yielded large amounts ofpottery and animal bones. The former displays the shapes and ornamentation typical of both the post-classic (16th-15th century BC) and terminal (15th-13th century BC) Otomani-Füzesabony style (fig.10, 13-16). Anisolated and unusual fnd originating from the southern house is a small part of an anthropomorphic fgurine (fig.10,18). The artefact, described in detail elsewhere (Przybyła/Skoneczna 2011, 35-37), representsthe so-called violin-shaped idols, particularly characteristic of the Mycenaean culture and northern Balkansin the 15th-14th centuries BC. It is worth noticing that, despite its exotic form, the statuette was apparentlymade locally.

----------


## Hawk

> The Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Com-plex (OFCC) should be considered one of the most impressive archaeological phenomenon of the Bronze Age Central Europe (Kristian-sen/Larsson 2005: 125). The OFCC com-munities in the Carpathian Basin and beyond established the most technologically, politically and economically advanced culture of this time north of the Alps, mainly due to the control of major trade routes. Typical were large set-tlement complexes established in strategic locations, often surrounded by elaborate for-tiﬁcations with numerous even superimposed wattle-daub houses. These have been discov-ered on OFCC sites across today’s territory of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.1 In the OFCC settlement zones, large quanti-ties of gold and bronze objects were deposited not only in graves but also in hoards. 
> 
> Substan-tial growth in metallurgical communities and industrial output can be observed pan-region-ally. While large quantities of bronze items are found inside fortiﬁed areas, there is further evi-dence for bronze being accumulated and stock-piled en masse, removing it from circulation.2The OFCC settlement organisation is gradually gaining the desired research atten-tion in the studied territory. Early scientiﬁc works linking to environmental aspects of archaeology can be dated to the beginning of the 20th century (Lehóczky 1908). For a very long time, the research was focused on climatic reconstructions, faunal/ﬂoral investi-gations and pedological factors of soil forma-tion.3 In the 1990s the archaeological debate took a sharp turn to focus on socio-economic aspects of prehistoric lifestyles.4 Today, envi-ronmental, palaeoecological studies and hab-itat analyses, strongly reinforced by the nat-ural sciences, create a new interdisciplinary research frontier.5 The relationship between prehistoric humans and the surrounding environment can be studied in myriad ways, including through modern spatial analyses and visuali-sation tools, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS can explore spatially the relationships proposed by using location as the key index variable.6 Although, standalone GIS approaches are limited by their capacity to integrate a temporal aspect into the analy-sis, as well as the restrictions installed through the data input, model reductionism and user contribution. More recently, it has become increasingly possible to model test GIS-de-rived outputs to account for temporal uncer-tainty, chieﬂy through the incorporation of quantitative statistical methods.7In this pilot study, quantitative methods were employed to examine the development of the OFCC settlement networks in East-ern Slovakia. The present approach enables the study of socio-economic processes linked to long-lasting environmental changes. Our main aim was to analyse habitat strategies based on speciﬁc environmental parameters. Using specialised analytical techniques, the results have been evaluated in the continuum by combining spatio-temporal modelling and multivariate statistics.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...odelling_study





> The southern part of central Slovakia was linked to the Hatvan culture. Archaeological evidence suggests that the OFCC replaced the Hatvan culture during and after the BA2 (Bátora 2018: 94). However, some research suggests that transformation might have been linked to regional adaptations, and in fact, local Hatvan communities imitated the OFCC pot-tery style until the BB1 chronological phase (Guba 2009: 134; Fischl 2012: 42; Guba 2016: 84). The common denominator and con-sensus is that in the following chronological stage (phase BB1/BB2) the OFCC transforms gradually into Urnﬁeld decorative style (in the Piliny and Suciu de Sus cultures; Šteiner 2009: 76–119; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12), and Tumulus – post Otomani style respectively (Przybyła 2009: 120–123). In this study, we focused on radiocarbon dates ranging from the Hatvan to the Piliny culture (ﬁg.2). The ear-liest OFCC radiocarbon date is available from Gánovce (3500±90BP; Barta et al. 2013), the latest from Nižná Myšľa (features 89 and 120a, dated to 3290±100 BP and 3300±70 BP respectively; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12).


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...odelling_study

----------


## Riverman

> Anyone who can provide chronology for Ottomany Culture? Mostly from which culture it descends from.


If we go some steps back, its very important to check Mak and Nyrsg. The whole pre-Gava succession of cultural groups is extremely complex and its just with Gava that it gets simpler, because they eat them all up. What's more, and that is something Michelsberg and Lengyel, Sopot teach us: We can have samples from hundreds of individuals, if they are from the wrong clan and province, they will miss it. Like Lengyel-Sopot along the Danube had a lot of E1b1b, Michelsberger in some areas too, but in others, nothing or close to nothing. Something similar could have been the case with any of the local cultures around the Carpathians. It might be one subgroup which rose to prominence from within, with a new cultural shift and conquest, profiting from it. 

I found this work interesting: 




> The Nagyrv complex evolved locally on the Danube west of the Tisza-Krs
> confluence at the same time that the Perjmos group evolved on the Maros (Bna 1994a).
> Since Mak sites were found in the same area of the Pitvaros, an EBA culture around
> Szeged with little resemblance to them, Bna (1965) argued that the Pitvaros represented
> an intrusive group that pushed the Mak out. His account invoked the migrations of
> people in the Balkans and Anatolia as the driving factor that brought the Pitvaros and
> Nyrsg groups to the Carpathian Basin. This in turn was premised on Mellaarts (1958)
> description of mass migration of people displaced by Indo-European invasions at the end
> of the Early Bronze Age in Macedonia and Anatolia (ca. 1900 BC).
> ...


Now this get really interesting, because like predicted, they expanded out of the Epi-Corded environment: 




> To the north on the Upper Tisza the
> *Fzesabony group is supposed to have crystallized out of eastern Corded Ware group in
> the Hernd valley. The different burial customs of the Hatvan and the Fzesabony
> (cremations in the former, inhumations in the latter) suggested to Bna (1994a) they were
> mortal enemies. It was not surprising, then, that the Fzesabony expanded in the Middle
> Bronze Age and destroyed a whole series of Hatvan settlements. It is at this time that they
> profoundly affect other people of the Great Plain, including the stylistic development of
> the Vatya, remaining Hatvan, and in the Krs basin, the emergence of the Gyulavarsnd
> style out of the Ottomny*.


Since they buried, they can be tested, let's see. 




> The Tumulus culture was described as an invasion across
> the Little Plain of the Danube, and few of the classical Bronze Age settlements
> persisted into this period (Bna 1958). *Those that did, such as the Piliny in northeastern
> Hungary and Slovakia, evolving out of the Fzesabony, were in remote areas where the
> Tumulus culture did not penetrate. Some existing traditions merged with the Tumulus
> culture on the Danube* (Kreiter 2005a, b), but most, such as the Gyulavarsnd tradition of


Piliny and Kyjatice are key are of course to look for too. 

A typical element of Gava is the burnished ceramic, which is typical for Gyulavarsnd/Otomani III, not the earlier horizon: 




> *Perhaps most obvious to excavators is the replacement of wiped or brushed
> surface treatment with burnishing across multiple forms.* Brushed ceramics (besentrecht
> in German, seprűztt or broom-stroked in the Hungarian literature) are typically
> considered household wares33. *Brushed surface treatment is phased out between the late
> Ottomny and early Gyulavarsnd*. Bnas (1974:149) excavations indicate that 48% of
> the brushed ceramics from excavation came from the lowest Ottomny level (Layer 4; he
> was calling it Hatvan at the time). The next layer above it (Layer 3), contained 28%,
> and the two upper Gyulavarsnd layers (Layer 2 and 1) had 18% and 6%, respectively.





> During the Gyulavarsnd, spiral or otherwise curved
> decoration is added. The spiral feature (girland in German) is sometimes accompanied by
> a bas-relief technique or bossing (created through pushing out the interior of the vessel
> wall before firing). The effect, usually found on mugs or other liquid containers,
> heightens the visual effect of the spiral, and is not seen in the preceding Ottomny with
> geometric patterns.
> The third feature that distinguishes Ottomny from Gyulavarsnd ceramics is the
> addition of flare to vessel body parts. In the Gyulavarsnd, rims flare out more, lips
> protrude, and handles extend high above the rim. These formal modifications, along with
> ...


Absolute chronology, Gyulavarsnd is directly followed by Piliny/Gava: 



> The radiocarbon chronology, in contrast to
> the traditional chronology, the Hungarian Ottomny and Gyulavarsnd phases show a
> 100 year overlap, from 2150-1650 BC, and from 1750-1400 BC, respectively.





> The contemporaneity
> between the late Hatvan and Ottomny in the northern part of the Plain also support the
> claim for a strong northern influence contributing to the genesis of the Ottomny





> During the subsequent Gyulavarsnd, major new fortified settlements 
> Vărşand and Socodor  appear on the Fekete Krs where there were none before. New
> fortified sites also appear on the Berretty, such as Esztr-Fenyvesdomb and Szilhalom,
> and on the Sebes Krs (Sntion), and in the Ier valley (Pir). It is a geographical
> expansion of the style southeast and northeast further up river.
> Bna (1974, 1994a) argued that the crystallization of the Gyulavarsnd culture
> was the result of immigration into the Ottomny area. Like Roska before him, he noted
> that some new ceramic forms had precedents in the Vattina area to the south. Many
> forms in the Gyulavarsnd, such as highly polished shallow bowls with spiral engraving
> ...



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DmmWSpfxLO-Z4E

Nyrsg is a group which should keep an eye on too, I heard. I wait for the Pannonian study to which group the E1b1b (V13?) belonged. He was close by, at the triangle between Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, which is absolutely key for everything. 

Gyulavarsnd-Fzesabony is much closer to later Gava than Otomani proper, and its exactly Fzesabony from which Piliny is supposed to have developed in North Eastern Hungary and Slovakia. Even if the that's not the direct line, its a direction we have to look.

----------


## Riverman

I was searching for a connection of the old "smith caste" surviving in the Epi-Corded context, as one theory of how E-V13 could survive the steppe conquest and being integrated in the new Corded Ware world from Lengyel. This might be a possible path, the origin of Gava can be traced to the Upper Tisza, the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, and cultural formations like Suciu de Sus, Lăpuş, Kyjatice, Piliny - about which possible origin I wrote my last post. Now I made this highly interesting find: 




> Die Bronzewerksttten der Pilinyer und der Kyjatice-Kultur31 beschafften ihre regionalen Rohstoffen aus der Erzlagersttten der
> slowakischen Erzgebirge (Nin Myľa), der westlichen Karpaten (Umgebung von Kremnitz/ Kremnica/ Krmcbnya), sowie der Kleinen und Weien Karpaten (pania Dolina). Die Nutzung dieser
> Bergwerke begann ab der spten Lengyel-Kultur, doch ist auch ihre bronzezeitliche Nutzung (z.B. durch
> die Lausitzer-Kultur) bzw. die Erzverhttung gut bekannt32


https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Cha...nd_settlements

Piliny-Kyjatice used the same mines as the Lengyel, there is an ongoing tradition of mining and forging in the Carpathians - a direct continuation from late Lengyel usage in Slovakia! That's bulls eye and could be it.

----------


## Hawk

So, actually in chronology Gava, Piliny, Caka, Mako all are just nomenclature and specific regional designations of the so called Middle-Danube Urnfield Culture.

*Middle-Danube Urnfield culture*


- Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
- Čaka in western Slovakia
- Gáva culture
- Piliny culture
- Kyjatice culture
- Makó culture


So, i wonder if Austrian archeologists are right:




> _Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves._
> 
> https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publi...-roman-albania


The Middle-Danube Urnfield influence on Glasinac-Mat would make sense then, mostly during Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age transition. Of course just as the article states, Glasinac did follow earlier Early/Middle Bronze Age Culture primarily but with strong Middle-Danube Urnfield influence.  :Thinking:  

The most notable/recognizable piece from this culture is actually the water birds in chariot. 



The Glasinac chariot with water birds.

----------


## Riverman

> So, actually in chronology Gava, Piliny, Caka, Mako all are just nomenclature and specific regional designations of the so called Middle-Danube Urnfield Culture.
> 
> *Middle-Danube Urnfield culture*
> 
> 
> - Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
> - Čaka in western Slovakia
> - Gáva culture
> - Piliny culture
> ...


A common motif being the sun & birds in Gava-related formations, so this looks very familiar. 

Kyjatice, Piliny and Gva-Holigrady culture are regional designations from a very closely related Channelled Ware context, some use it almost synonymous, especially Piliny and Gava. My understanding is that Fzesabony-Gyulavarsnd is more Epi-Corded and Pannonian-Carpathian derived, whereas the Western Tumulus culture groups, which destroyed Gyulavarsnd and pushed Fzesabony are more North Western in origin. They later fuse, to some degree, in the Urnfield age, but Gava might be considered closer to Lusatian than the more Western Pannnonian Tumulus-Urnfielder groups. 
And that's quite a fundamental difference for the theory, up to this point, because E-V13 came either with the Epi-Corded warriors or was present in the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere already - or both, since the Epi-Corded groups themselves weren't coming from far away but from the same sphere. 

The relation is like Gava - Piliny - Kyjatice - Lusatian. That's the chain to the North.

You see the fusion element in the Middle Danubian zone, but its recognisable as Channelled Ware influence: 




> Using the evidence of the artefacts showing the connections of the population 
> of the Urnfield culture living in Transdanubia during the 
> HaA1 and HaA2 periods, cultural impacts from *the East-**
> ern Alpine and western Slovakian region can be observed.43 
> That means the dominance of the general northwestern-
> **southeastern polarity in the communication network*.44 At 
> the same time the high number of characteristics in shape 
> and motifs typical of the *Kyjatice and Gva cultures* indi-
> cates that the population living in the Danube River Bend 
> ...





> Naturally, it is impossible to conclusively determine 
> whether the strong mixing of cultural motifs and design elements of the *Kyjatice and Gva cultures* with the 
> *Transdanubian and eastern Alpine Urnfield* cultures at the Bksmegyer cemetery resulted from broader intercultural 
> interactions or reflects an integrated society comprised of individuals from the various cultures.


Channelled, burnished, black ceramic war with knobs is characteristic for the high quality production of the horizon, here the authors name all the regional variant names which being related in the wider region: 




> Among the urns with everted and faceted rims, cylin-
> drical necks, curved shoulders, and wide bellies found in 
> the Bksmegyer cemetery, the vessel of Grave 404 is deco-
> rated with channelled, upright knobs (Tab. 8/3). The deco-
> ration of its shoulder has the characteristics of the ceramic 
> production of the Upper Tisza Region during the HaB1 
> period.27 The slanted fluting of its rim (Tab. 8/23) offers 
> evidence that it could have been produced during the transi-
> tion of the HaB1 and HaB and HaC periods.28 The com-
> ...


Unfortunately the contribution about cremation burials in Albania is missing: 




> Lorenc Bejko zum Thema Cremation 
> burials in Albania between 1300 and 750 BC konnten lei-
> der nicht in den Band aufgenommen werden.


https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

These are two blocks meeting around the Middle Danube. That way E-V13 could have entered more Western groups very early, but its origin is in the Tisza/Carpathian block. They fuse with and infiltrate the Western groups in Pannonia, but their origin and grouping is different imho.

In some schemes there are chronological differences, like Piliny being old, probably the oldest of the group, Kyjatice and Gava younger layers, rather. Piliny and Lăpuş, are for me at the moment two very important phenomenons for the later developments. Because with Gava and Kyjatice, we already see the developed group which expanded outwards.

----------


## Hawk

You are all over the place and mixing stuff.  :Wink:

----------


## Hawk

Something to think about.




> The Late Bronze Age burial customsBefore focusing on the Early Iron Age, it seems relevant to have a quick look at the Late Bronze Age burialcustoms. They are documented by a limited number of sites located mostly in the southern part of theregion, along the middle course of the Haliakmon river, as well as in Pieria and east of the Strymon river(Fig.1). To briefly summarize, the cemeteries display up to eight main funerary features: collective tumulusor flat cemetery, stone enclosure, inhumation, secondary cremation, simple pit grave, slab cist, bouldercist, and ash urn (Fig. 2). As we shall see, this is much less than in cemeteries of the Early Iron Age. Most ofthe tombs of the Late Bronze Age have been found in organised cemeteries.17 As in the rest of Greece, theuse of secondary cremation has already been known since the Neolithic, and the custom spread widely
> 
> during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, especially in the Chalcidice and Western Macedonia,18 followedby a decline in the Late Bronze Age along with the abandonment of cemeteries that were in use duringthe preceding periods. However, it becomes popular again at the end of the Late Bronze Age especiallyeast of the Strymon River, where tumuli and collective structures, mostly associated with ash-urns, arepredominant.19 In the rest of the region inhumations in individual graves prevail.20 The architecture of thegraves varies from a simple pit to a more elaborated cist graves lined with boulders or slabs,21 primarilylocated in southern Pieria,22 and along the middle course of the Haliakmon river.23 Tombs with inhumations are organized in flat cemeteries or are grouped under tumuli in a few cases.
> 
> https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document





> The Early Iron Age burial customs: diversification and regionalismFrom the 11th–10th century BCE onwards, three major changes can be seen in the burials customs thatclearly show the crucial position of this region between the central Balkans and the Aegean Sea. The adoption of new funerary practices leads to a complex geographical distribution of these practices, displaying at a large-scale clear regionalism (Fig. 3 and 4).The first practice, which is connected to a broader central Balkan phenomenon, is the multiplication of cemeteries with collective tumuli.
> 
> Even if this type of organisation is well known since the EarlyBronze Age in western, southern Greece and the present area of interest,30 the increase of such collective architecture in the Early Iron Age is particularly pronounced in northern Greece as well as in the adjacent northern and western regions. Indeed, dating to the Bronze Age, including the Early, Middle, andLate periods, we have recorded up to ten burial mound cemeteries, which are relatively well distributed between the Pindus and the southwestern Rhodopes,31 whereas for the period between the 11thto the 7th centuries BCE up to twenty sites have been recorded.
> 
> 32 Not only does the number of tumuliincrease, but so does the number of graves inside collective monuments.33 Moreover, it is worth notingthat in the Early Iron Age, just as during the Bronze Age, the tumuli are far from being similar in termsof their construction. They are made up of earth (at Vergina),34 or of stones (in southern Pieria and eastof River Strymon),35 or display unusual and original architecture (such as the stone enclosures containing several ash urns in Palio Gynaikokastro36 or the tholos-like collective tombs set in stone moundsin Almopia).
> 
> 37 Additionally, unlike northern Epirus and southern Albania, the collective tumulus is notthe only type of organisation by far. No Early Iron Age tumulus cemetery has been recorded so far inChalcidice and in the eastern part of the Thermaic Gulf. Even if a few tumuli have been observed orassumed to have existed at some sites, such as Nea Philadelpheia, it does not seem to be the structuring form for most of the graves, which are mainly organised in large flat cemeteries.38 It is still difficultto understand in detail the development of tumulus cemeteries at the beginning of the Early Iron Age,but we can say that there is not a single explanation for this complex phenomenon, especially when weconsider the diversity of the architecture of collective monuments and the diverse treatments of thedeceased inside them. Moreover, apart from southern Pieria and western Rhodopes where it is possible to follow the evolution of the practices from the Bronze Age and where it seems that the development of tumuli follows a pre-existing local practice, the lack of funerary data directly prior to the EarlyIron Age at sites elsewhere makes it difficult to assume any definitive conclusion.
> 
> The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary cremation. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the restof Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th–11th centuries BCE, especially inthe north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos “Verpen”39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attributed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th–11th century BCE) identified further in the northat cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjicaculture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovoand which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.43 On the other hand, secondary cremation reappears in southern Chalcidice at the end of the 11th century BCE. The cemetery ofTorone displays a connection with Ionian traditions visible through the imported wheelmade ash containers or local pottery displaying influences from southern Greece (Attic, Euboea and then Cyclades,Thessaly, Locris and Crete), visible as well through the treatment of the deceased and the shape of thegraves, which are not unlike the first Submycenaean secondary cremations discovered in Athens.44 InGreece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces havelong been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northernItaly.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, showing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue.
> ...





> Towards the beginning of the early Iron Age several transformations in the material culture of Greece are striking. Particularly the appearance of cremation and individual inhumation burials was long held as the main argument for numerous historical reconstruction of early Greek history, however, this phase has only rarely been viewed from a cultural anthropological angle.
> 
> Some changes in Greek culture dating to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE have been traditionally perceived as evidence for an invasion of people from the north to Greece. These transformations are particularly perceptible in the burial rites of southern Greece, e.g. the change from multiple burials in champer tombs to single inhumations in cist tombs and shortly afterwards the widespread practice of cremation. This change was often identified as the legendary ›Dorian invasion‹ mentioned by some historiographers of the classical period. These tales developed into historical facts and formed the departure point for many reconstructions of the past in Greece and the Balkans.
> 
> 
> 
> *The geographical focus*The aim of this project is not to search for Dorians in the Greek and Balkan prehistory but instead to reanalyze the archaeological data that fully addresses the already mentioned changes in an up-to-date interpretation. The area of interest comprises Serbia, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia, and northern Greece (especially Macedonia and Chalkidike, and Thessaly). In the past scholarly debate and exchange of knowledge was difficult for political reasons but the time has come to overcome national and ideological barriers and begin an international scientific discussion.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Riverman

By the way, the chain of Gava (narrower sense) - Kyjatice (out of Piliny) - Lusatian seems to be very real, with flow of technological innovations in both directions, like specific sword types and smiths, probably whole workshops. 

Another interesting observation is the architecture: Gava people used quite often pit houses in a more irregular layout, "egg shaped" from above.

Also interesting that in some areas of Greece there were intrusions from the Balkan Urnfielders which might have been fought back and driven out by the local population. Like their settlements burnt and more typically local artefacts on top.

----------


## Hawk

But that doesn't even matter, all of these cultures Gava, Piliny, Kyjatice, Caka, Mako are lumped as Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture.

Do you really think these guys are making stuff out of thin air?




> _Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.
> 
> https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/publi...-roman-albania
> _

----------


## Riverman

> But that doesn't even matter, all of these cultures Gava, Piliny, Kyjatice, Caka, Mako are lumped as Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture.
> 
> Do you really think these guys are making stuff out of thin air?


By whom? Note they say Danubian Urnfield culture. The Middle Danubian is a different thing than Danubian, because just East of the Middle Danube, the territory of Gava-Channelled Ware started, occupying Eastern Hungary, Romania, Northern-Eastern Serbia etc. The Middle Danubian Urnfield group was closer related to the Austrian and Alpine networks, whereas the Channelled Ware was more North - South oriented with Lusatians as a primary contact to the North. 

About the Middle Danubian group: 



> Die mitteldonaulndische Urnenfelderkultur umfasst 
> die Regionen *Niedersterreich, Sdmhren, die Sdwest-**
> slowakei, Teile Westungarns, des Burgenlands sowie der 
> **Steiermark. Sie ist eine kulturelle Einheit,* die um 1300 v. 
> Chr. auf der Basis regionaler Hgelgrberkulturen und im 
> Zuge eines gegenseitigen Assimilationsprozesses mit den 
> Nachbarregionen entstand und 800/750 v. Chr. von der 
> Hallstattkultur abgelst wurde. 
> Die von Jř Řhovsk 1958 vorgenommene grund-
> ...


https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debe9.pdf

They stem directly from the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture groups, which explains the Pannonian-Illyrian affinity. In some regions they have replaced and pushed those groups, which contributed to e.g. Piliny, which could hold their position in the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. 

These are really two different, even though related, blocks. The main block for the LBA-EIA is Kyjatice-Gva, you could add Holigrady, Belegis II and Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon of Bulgaria as expansion groups. The lower Danubian Urnfield groups were all Channelled Ware, but there were in the Western fringe regions splinters of Middle Danubians which were either intrusive or fused.

Additionally, I found this nice map here on the forum: 



https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post574878

As you can see, and what confuses people, both the Middle Danubians (Illyrian) and Gava (Daco-Thracian) met.

----------


## Riverman

Google translation of a German text: 



> South of this area was the culture (cultural group
> pe) Donja Brnjica - Gornja Straava since a later phase
> se of the urn field culture (Ha  widespread (Fig. 1/18 - D.
> Brnjica; Fig. 1/19 - G. Straava). This group included
> the *southern Morawa areas, Kosovo and Sandak*. she
> is through cremation, mainly in urns,
> indicates - type III-A / 1, but also without urn - type III-
> B / 1.25 Although their method of burial is very similar
> with the urn field culture, it becomes
> ...


https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

----------


## Hawk

Well, you are clearly contradicting yourself by quoting this paper.

Previously you said (in fact you just go with the stream what Huban says), that Brnjica, Paracin, Mediana have nothing to do with E-V13. Yet, i posted you archeological papers saying that Psenichevo is linked with Mediana so on and so forth.

I posted how Middle-Danube Urnfield are actually split into various local cultures like Caka, Mako, Gava, Piliny, Kiyatice, yet you speak about Middle-Danube Urnfield and Gava as separate cultures.  :Wink:

----------


## Hawk

Something more related to topic.




> *Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age CentralDalmatia in the Sphere of Interaction between theCarpathian Basin, the Apennine Peninsula andthe Aegean
> *
> _Sabine Pabst_
> 
> *Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Philipps University Marburg
> *
> The region of Central Dalmatia in the eastern Adriatic area and itshinterland represents the starting point of the paper. Even though inthe region between the rivers of Neretva in the south and Krka in thenorth the current state of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age sourcesand research is unfavourable, we can observe amazing supra-regionalconnections in the surviving metal finds. Mostly the metal objectscame to light as single or aquatic finds, sometimes they occurred inhoards or burials in caves.In the late Bronze Age strong Carpathian influences are noticed inCentral Dalmatian weaponry and costume elements. A great many ofthese original Carpathian metal shapes display a wider distributionarea comprising parts of Italy and Greece as well. New supra-regional comparative analyses into typology, chronology and chorology ofseveral late Bronze Age metal artefacts confirm the thesis of a wideranging spread via the costal region of Central Dalmatia and theAdriatic Sea up to Central Italy and the Aegean. Especially the contactswith the Aegean area have not been one-way from north to south. Reversely we can observe several Mycenaean influences in the late BronzeAge eastern Adriatic hinterland as well. These phenomena can be interpreted as part of extensive exchange and trade connections whichtook place between the Mycenaean society and the local communitiesof the western and eastern seaboards of the upper Adriatic (in combination with smaller population movements).The communication routes partly changed at the transition from thelate Bronze Age to the early Iron Age in the 11th/10th century BC. 10Early Iron Age artefacts from the north-western Balkans and CentralDalmatia are showing special connections with north-western Greeceand the southern Albanian-Macedonian area. At the same time thetransadriatic contacts with Central Italy became stronger and had adifferent character. Additional structural analyses of early Iron Agewarrior equipment and costume sets of several regions now suggest adifferent social background. It must be assumed that a larger numberof emigrants deriving from different Carpathian and north-westernBalkan regions moved abroad via the costal region of Central Dalmatia and the Adriatic Sea
> 
> [email protected]
> ...

----------


## Riverman

> Well, you are clearly contradicting yourself by quoting this paper.
> 
> Previously you said (in fact you just go with the stream what Huban says), that Brnjica, Paracin, Mediana have nothing to do with E-V13. Yet, i posted you archeological papers saying that Psenichevo is linked with Mediana so on and so forth.


There is no contradiction, because this is what I just wrote some minutes before on Anthrogenica on the issue: 
Because what we see is that very early Daco-Thracians from Belegis II-Gava/Paraćin became an adstrate and replaced the locals around Brnjica, especially in the elite. We see a steady increae of burial shifts to cremation in the Channelled Ware style. So "Brnjica culture" is most likely not E-V13 heavy, but it became infiltrated and overtaken from Belegis II-Paraćin, which were. This was a North -> South expansion from Belegis II-Gava. Like Belegis itself was also, most likely, not dominated by E-V13, its the later phase when Gava took over ("Belegis II") which is the sure thing. 




> I posted how Middle-Danube Urnfield are actually split into various local cultures like Caka, Mako, Gava, Piliny, Kiyatice, yet you speak about Middle-Danube Urnfield and Gava as separate cultures.


They are, they are separate branches and blocks of the Urnfield system. That's something most authors recognised and wrote about. Piliny and Kyjatice are largely just stages, you have a smooth transition from one (Piliny) into the other. And Piliny descends from local Carpathian groups and Fzesabony. Channelled Ware is deeply rooted in Pannonia-Carpathians and from the Epi-Corded context. Middle Danubian Tumulus and Urnfield group is more intrusive, coming from the Alpine region, rather, but picking local elements up and fusing with them. Its really Pannonian-Illyrian vs. Channelled Ware Daco-Thracian. 

You also don't see, unless in some elite graves and in the borderzone, like described before, the typical inventory of the Channelled Ware groups in the Middle Danubian context. They are definitely ethnically and culturally separate by definition. Even Gimbutas noted that clearly, as did most others since then. You mentioned Velatice before, this just a site for the Middle Danubian group, nobody would put it into the context of Gava. And for the E-V13 story, Gava is the main thing, probably even just their Southern expansion groups. 




> Something more related to topic.


What's very interesting, there were two spheres of influence, one going around the Adriatic, with Illyrians and Italics, the other along the Danube, over the Alps, into Northern Italy. The later being the chain from Greeks - Psenichevo (Thracian) - Basarabi (Daco-Moesian) - Eastern Hallstatt (Pannonian-Dacian-Celtic) - Northern Italy Hallstatt related groups (Ligurians, Alpine Celts, Veneti). And its typical that, because of that transmission, Pannonians and the Northern Italian Hallstatt related groups seem to have a much higher rate of E-V13. Compare with the recent results from Switzerland and Italy (high rates in St. Gallen, Liguria/Genua and Venice province).

----------


## Hawk

You are contradictory, so according to you Brnjica is Proto-Illyrian-Pannonian related. According to actual data Brnjica practiced cremation from Middle Bronze Age, then again you go around claiming Illyrians as a whole practiced inhumation so they were different from cremating groups.

You cannot make conclusions from impartial DNA results and impartial archeological records.

A textbook example is Ancient Egyptians, the most common Y-DNA among Ancient Egyptians is R1b-M269 so far, then H2 and G2, but is it really true? Likes of Carlos Quiles say yes. Reality is different of course.

----------


## Riverman

> You are contradictory, so according to you Brnjica is Proto-Illyrian-Pannonian related. According to actual data Brnjica practiced cremation from Middle Bronze Age, then again you go around claiming Illyrians as a whole practiced inhumation so they were different from cremating groups.


Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me: By my understanding, I have no idea what Brnjica was, but they were later overrolled and largely replaced or fused with Belegis II-Paracin. And from my understanding, Belegis II-Gava and Paracin, as well as the expansion into Brnjica, being a safe starting point, there should have been E-V13 there. What the preceding group of Brnjica was, whether they were of the same stock or rather a different, unknown people, I have no idea. What's your take on this? 

Illyrians did practise inhumation originally, but they being influenced by the both the Middle Danubian group (Pannonian) and Gava-Channelled Ware, started to use cremation burials as well, either because of imitation or intrusive elements from these two. 

Again from the paper: 



> In dem gesamten brigen, kontinentalen und adriati-
> schen Balkangebiet (*Bosnien, Herzegowina, Dalmatien,* *
> Montenegro) werden Krperbestattungen, meist unter H-
> geln, aber auch in Flachgrbern, verwendet. Sie sind fr das 
> Bestattungsritual in diesem als frhillyrisch bezeichneten 
> **Raum kennzeichnend*. Brandbestattungen sind hier nach 
> der Frhbronzezeit nicht mehr nachzuweisen. Das fhrt 
> zum Schluss, dass frhillyrische Gemeinschaften in diesem 
> Bereich eine andere, sich von den benachbarten, nrdlichen 
> ...


Google translate: 



> In all of the rest of the continental and Adriatic in the Balkans (*Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia,** Montenegro) are body burials, mostly under tumuli, but also in flat graves. You are for that Burial ritual in this one referred to as early Illyrian* *Characterizing space*. Cremations are here after the Early Bronze Age can no longer be proven. Leading in conclusion that early Illyrian communities in this Area another, different from the neighboring, northern Cultural development that distinguishes areas have taken.



https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

There was a wide transitional, mixed and influenced zone, and an Illyrian core. In the Illyrian core, inhumation clearly prevailed. Brnjica was in any case not part of the Illyrian core. My main point was that the Belegis II-Gava and Paracin being safe starting points for both Channelled Ware and E-V13 and they did replace the original population or of Brnjica or fused with it.

More on the expansion: 

From the archaeological perspective, these patterns of the transitional period, with burned down settlements and new fortified structures are key: 



> The descriptions of the hillforts named above indicate
> that settlement patterns changed significantly during
> the Late Bronze Age, especially on the southern side
> of the Morava valley, where hilltops comprise 50 % of
> all known settlements (Maps 12). Many of the hilltops,
> both of the residential or defensive type, were burned
> down, and the material culture of the successor population
> that settled here in the following period displayed
> completely different features (Fig. 5). *Unlike the
> ...


The clash of the Northern with the Souther, Aegean related groups: 



> During the Late Bronze Age (Br CD), weapons that
> originate in the Aegean Bronze Age area appear in the
> Morava valley (Fig. 6).19 Several Mycenaean-style rapiers
> turned up in the wider region of the Morava valley,
> with another one in the South Morava valley (Aleksinac).
> 20 Mycenaean-style daggers and knives with one
> or more rivet holes were found together with these
> swords, along with bronze sheet-metal arrowheads of
> different types. Further evidence of influence from the
> ...





> The appearance of numerous types of Central European
> weapons has been documented for the Transitional
> period (Ha AB) in the Velika (Great) Morava valley,
> and their number and diversity exceed that of the previous
> period (Fig. 7).25 Considering the Great Morava
> valley as a somewhat wider territory, it is extraordinary
> that five types of swords have been identified.26
> 21 examples are short-tanged swords of the Reutlingen
> type, and three of them belong to the Konjua variant
> ...


Like already Gimbutas noted, the flame shaped spears are a classic signal of Channelled Ware people: 



> Thus, the *socketed arrowheads occur in the territory of
> the Belegi II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures*, while the
> bronze sheet metal arrowheads circulate exclusively
> in the territory of the late Brnjica culture (i.e., outside
> of the Morava valley).29 A casting mould for these distinct
> bronze sheet metal arrowheads was found on the
> Kokino site in Macedonia, close to the South Morava
> valley.30 Spearheads found in this Transitional period
> between the Belegi II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures,
> ...


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...terial_culture

----------


## Hawk

I am not so much in the mood to quote and highlight everything here.

I just put a quick eye and it looks interesting: 

*Short single-edge curved swords with a bent hilt in the Early Iron Age. A discussion on the stage of the research*

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...f_the_research

----------


## Hawk

> Illyrians did practise inhumation originally, but they being influenced by the both the Middle Danubian group (Pannonian) and Gava-Channelled Ware, started to use cremation burials as well, either because of imitation or intrusive elements from these two.


On the upper link i shared about the sword types of Early Iron Age i checked and Bassarabi burials consist mostly of inhumation on a tumuli. So i guess they were not Gava-Channeled Ware then? Material culture need to be studied in detail, not just whether they cremated or not, that's just the starting point, cremating on a pyre, and doing the rituals was a very expensive ritual, so not all times could be afforded.

----------


## Riverman

> On the upper link i shared about the sword types of Early Iron Age i checked and Bassarabi burials consist mostly of inhumation on a tumuli. So i guess they were not Gava-Channeled Ware then? Material culture need to be studied in detail, not just whether they cremated or not, that's just the starting point, cremating on a pyre, and doing the rituals was a very expensive ritual, so not all times could be afforded.


Its the same in a lot of the former Channelled Ware groups: They transition to inhumation, presumably based on external influences. The main influence might have been the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Scythians, in my opinion. I'm not absolutely sure, but those groups in the Transcarpatian region, which fought them off and were not as influenced from the steppe, practised cremation longer, as did Lusatian remaining groups and Proto-Slavs. 
The good aspect of this is that we can test both Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo where they did transition to inhumation under Cimmerian and Scythian influence. But many were sticking to cremation anyway. 

Obviously Vekerzug and the other Thraco-Cimmerian/Scythian groups were not fully Channelled Ware derived, but to a large degree. Since its patchy, some cremating, others not, its hard to get the full picture, but some glimpses are there and more is possible and hopefully will trickle in over time. 

At the same time, Basarabi is, most likely, for the most part Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava derived, but there were of course layers in between: 



> The collection of finds
> which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
> of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
> which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the *Transitional
> period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
> (Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
> Celtic populations during the 4th century BC*.6


https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._NAD_KLEPECKOM

The Kalakaca horizon is already more fused and influenced, by other local and new elements. 

From the paper you linked: 



> Contacts between the Basarabi and the Glasinac communities are also proved by Glasinac-type swords
> at the cemeteries from Basarabi and Desa, but also by other materials, especially double loop bow 􀂿􀁅ulae. On
> the other hand, Basarabi-style pottery, while formed in the Lower Danube area, has a wider distribution both
> in the east and the west. While the eastern part may be considered a periphery of the Basarabi phenomenon120,
> Basarabi-style pottery can also be found in the southeastern Alpine area at Frg121, Po􀃣tela122, Bor􀃣te􀁎123
> etc., and even further in the westward124 as early as the Hallstatt B3/C phase. Whether or not this represents
> an actual movement of population or just contacts across multiple regions is still a matter of debate.


They meant at least movement of people, mostly from Basarabi, to the Eastern Hallstatt area - and many were elite members, elite warriors, specialists, elite brides. This is absolutely evident and proven for Frg in particular. Basarabi was in the early Hallstatt phase a very influential and culturally dominant power in the whole of Eastern Central Europe. 

Basarabi is the Daco-Thracians of the central sphere with new influences, with some Cimmerian elites and local impulses, sometimes, maybe, even mediated by the females they took, like in the pottery styles, in which there is some resurgence of older elements. But the main impulse was coming from the steppe. 

One context for the finds points to it: 



> Associated finds: two iron lances (fig. 11/2-3); fragmentary iron curved knife (fig. 11/5); a pair of bronze
> 􀂳Thraco-Cimmerian􀂴 horse bridles


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...f_the_research

The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon reached and influenced the Pannonians, Illyrians, Ligurians, Veneti, Celts etc. It had a major impact especially on Basarabi and the Eastern Hallstatt sphere. Ideologically this was a real change.

----------


## Hawk

We will get sooner or later aDNA results and i do believe things will get resolved once and for all, they already started to get clearer. I am of the opinion that E-V13 was scattered in Middle Danube Urnfield and some older clades were already present in Balkans via the so called Vatin Cultural complex and Brnjica/Paracin/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo. But, let's see and wait.

I opened a new thread, if you might be interested to give it an eye: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...lture?p=633769

----------


## Riverman

> We will get sooner or later aDNA results and i do believe things will get resolved once and for all, they already started to get clearer. I am of the opinion that E-V13 was scattered in Middle Danube Urnfield and some older clades were already present in Balkans via the so called Vatin Cultural complex and Brnjica/Paracin/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo. But, let's see and wait.
> 
> I opened a new thread, if you might be interested to give it an eye: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...lture?p=633769


Some ancient DNA finds of related groups are already there, and they show that every province and group could harbour its own diversity: 


Possible finds from Kyjatice yielded so far just one sample, it was J2a, the Mezcst individual haplogroup N: 



> Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1.110-1.270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1
> Individual IR1, Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezcst Culture (830-980 BC) = Y-Haplogroup N





> Our two Bronze Age samples, BR1 (1,9802,190 cal BC) and BR2 (1,1101,270 cal BC) fall among modern Central European genotypes. Within this period the trade in commodities across Europe increased and the importance of the investigated region as a node is indicated by the growth of heavily fortified settlements in the vicinities of the Carpathian valleys and passes linking North and South26. These two Bronze Age genomes represent the oldest genomic data sampled to date with clear Central European affinities.





> A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcst Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques





> BR2 was classified as J2a1. Haplogroup J is currently frequent in the Fertile Crescent 
> and the Caucasus, showing decreasing frequency patterns to southern Europe and Iran 121. Because of these patterns it has been traditionally associated with the Neolithic 
> diffusion from the Near East 126,127, but this simplistic interpretation does not 
> recognize the complexity of both geographic patterns and phylogenetic resolution 128. 
> Post-Neolithic migration has been suggested to be responsible of the spread of sub-
> haplogroup *J2a1b1 129,130, probably during the Bronze age, together with the spread of 
> the Maritime Troy culture 131. This last hypothesis might explain the detection of this 
> haplogroup only during the Late Bronze Age*.


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257

Also: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ne-Gamba-et-al

Piliny was part of the same South Eastern Urnfield group block as Gva, but had more influences from Fzesabony and closer contacts to the Middle Danubian groups. Out of Piliny Kyjatice evolved under various influences from neighbouring groups, which was very closely connected to Gva and in foreign contexts, there is often no way to decide which subgroup brought the artefacts. Kyjatice being more centered in Central Slovakia, with Gva to the East and South.
Even though J2a is obviously not the same as E-V13, it could have taken a simlar path north and its interesting that it was present in a Carpathian Central European context. Clearly a Lengyel -> Epi-Corded pathway is probably the most likely for both. Even though later Aegean-Balkan influences are always possible, they must be further back in time, considering the genetic profile of BR2.

There are more samples around, which exact affiliation and background is not always 100 percent. But what they all show, already, is a great range of haplogroups and autosomal profiles. But the basic descendents are quite clear if comparing Viminacium, Timacum Minus, Glinoe and Psenichevo.

----------


## Hawk

Stefan Albrecht, Falko Daim, Michael Herdick (Hrsg.). Die Völker der Krim im Frühmittelalter – Anwendung und Potential der Paläogenetik auf archäologische => https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ogische_Fragen

*The Peoples of the Crimea in the Early Middle Ages – Application and Potential of Paleogenetics to archaeological questions

In the context of a pilot study on the population genetics of early medieval hilltop settlements of Crimea, eleven individuals of the sites Adym Chokrak, Almalyk, Luchistoe, and Eski Kermen were molecular genetically examined.
The tests were used to review the genetic material and included the analysis of uni-parental inherited and relevant population-genetic markers of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome.
The studied samples showed exceptionally good DNA preservation. It was possible to typify 91% of the surveyed individuals in a mitochondrial manner, and 78% of male individuals by Y-chromosome. The collected mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data suggests a Scandinavian origin of individuals. Moreover, in two cases there are indications of potential kinship. The results of this pilot study and the exceptional preservation justify the extension of paleogenetic investigations. The clearly definable hilltop settlements of Crimea therefore represent a unique opportunity to pursue hypotheses on the population structure and dynamics in the early middle ages based on excellently preserved skeletal material.

*


Nevgen prediction results:

Ind1: R1b-V4746 (>FGC21047?) => https://yfull.com/tree/R-V4746/
Ind9: E-BY6357 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY6357/
IndA: E-FGC11457 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

We jave 2 E-V13 results from Crimean Goths, these were either E-V13 descendants from Greco-Thracian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom or they were ethnical Goths. If E-V13 was a minor Y-DNA among Goths.

----------


## Riverman

> Stefan Albrecht, Falko Daim, Michael Herdick (Hrsg.). Die Völker der Krim im Frühmittelalter – Anwendung und Potential der Paläogenetik auf archäologische => https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ogische_Fragen
> 
> *The Peoples of the Crimea in the Early Middle Ages – Application and Potential of Paleogenetics to archaeological questions
> 
> In the context of a pilot study on the population genetics of early medieval hilltop settlements of Crimea, eleven individuals of the sites Adym Chokrak, Almalyk, Luchistoe, and Eski Kermen were molecular genetically examined.
> The tests were used to review the genetic material and included the analysis of uni-parental inherited and relevant population-genetic markers of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome.
> The studied samples showed exceptionally good DNA preservation. It was possible to typify 91% of the surveyed individuals in a mitochondrial manner, and 78% of male individuals by Y-chromosome. The collected mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data suggests a Scandinavian origin of individuals. Moreover, in two cases there are indications of potential kinship. The results of this pilot study and the exceptional preservation justify the extension of paleogenetic investigations. The clearly definable hilltop settlements of Crimea therefore represent a unique opportunity to pursue hypotheses on the population structure and dynamics in the early middle ages based on excellently preserved skeletal material.
> 
> *
> ...


It could be from local Greeks or Thraco-Scythians, or from the Goths. If from the Goths, I would bet they picked it up in Poland, in areas occupied by Celtic, Lusatian, Kyjatice or Gva descendents, so from the Eastern to South Eastern Urnfield sphere. So they might have been ethnic Goths, at the time of their arrival, but assimilated in the Polish-Carpathian area.

Was the autosomal DNA analysed?

Ethnically, the cemetery was Alanic and Gothic it seems: 
https://barbarzynskie-tsunami.muzeum...t-cleanup.html
https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/2495386

----------


## Riverman

Since I mentioned it various times, here the illustration on a map: 



https://ibb.co/gJ9VT9V

Its not very accurate in detail, but just there to give a general impression about how from the core area in the Northern Carpathian zone (red), with Gva and neighbouring, related Kyjatice, Channelled Ware spread, especially East and South, in the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition (orange). This expansive wave of the culture and people did infiltrate other areas, which weren't really turned, but just influenced, this is the yellow shade.
And after that, in the developed Iron Age, there were secondary spreads and expansions, while they were thinned out in their former core areas, because of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, the formation of Basarabi-Hallstatt, the expansion of the Hallstatt culture, the settlement of the Greeks and the assimilation of Daco-Getae by the Scythians, which formed the Geto-Scythians in the Western steppe and Thraco-Scythian groups in Pannonia, which influence reached even La Tene Celts.

Don't pin me down on every district and please consider that some districts would be split, if possible - like in Poland for example.

The reason why Gva expanded primarily East and South at first is simple, because to their West was the strong Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture and later Urnfield culture, which formed the base of the Pannonian-Illyrian block. The Urnfield groups in Pannonia being heavily influenced by Gva and Kyjatice, but the real Gva settlement didn't reach much beyond and it went forth and back. So they turned to the easier targets South and East, than to their fellow Urnfielders to the West at first. This changed with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt, when the movements of people from the Channelled Ware territory, went right through Pannonia and into the Upper Danubian, Alpine and North Italian zone. 

But to make it clear, I don't expect to find E-V13 before the Late Bronze Age far away from the Gva core and most certainly not outside of the Channelled Ware maximal spread and sphere of influence. But a lot of its Southern territory was already extensively tested, which makes the Gva core region at the Northern Carpathians at least one of the best candidates left.

----------


## Hawk

Just a guess, the core region corresponds to Carpathian region called Beskidy (according to Cabej and Orel deriving from Proto-Albanian bjeshke).

Could it be Pre/Proto-Albanoid (note that i don't necessarily mean directly Albanian here but Albanian and/or Albanian-like) was one of the languages brought by Gava/Channeled-Ware?

----------


## Riverman

> Just a guess, the core region corresponds to Carpathian region called Beskidy (according to Cabej and Orel deriving from Proto-Albanian bjeshke).
> 
> Could it be Pre/Proto-Albanoid (note that i don't necessarily mean directly Albanian here but Albanian and/or Albanian-like) was one of the languages brought by Gava/Channeled-Ware?


Another question is how closely related Daco-Thracian and Illyrian is and whether modern Albanian clearly descends from one of these or just a related language. I'm no linguist and don't bother too much with linguistic questions, so I don't know, but these are issues some raised. Its certainly possible, to put it that way. 

A German etymology is also possible: 



> Das Wort _Beskid/Beskidy_ ist mit dem mittelniederdeutschen Wort _besht_, _beskēt_ Scheide, Wasserscheide verwandt. Unwahrscheinlich ist die Abstammung vom albanischen Wort _bjeshk_.[1] Historisch gesehen wurden die Begriffe _Bieszczad_ und _Beskid_ jahrhundertelang benutzt, um die Berge zu beschreiben, die das Knigreich Polen bzw. die Adelsrepublik Polen-Litauen vom Knigreich Ungarn trennten.


https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskiden#Etymologie

Its in any case an interesting "coincidence", who knows. If you think about it, it should have persisted for three millenia.

----------


## Hawk

> E-CTS1273 I18832 0.0293957 HRV_Pop_CAE-V13 I14465 0.03366259 HUN_MBA_Vatya
> E-Y142743 I18527 0.02445165 SRB_Mokrin_EBA
> E-Z1057 I16272 0.02587514 CZE_Unetice_EBA


Assuming CA is Chalcolithic we can safely build a chronological story of E-V13, it looks like it really arose in Dalmatia, but left Dalmatia earlier than Early Bronze Age, during Chalcolithic maybe, heading and pushing northward and participating in the Danubian Urnfield Cultures, one part of it probably arose to prominence in Gava, Piliny and related Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture. But, note that it probably had earlier spinoffs, one of the Mokrin EBA samples was E-V13 L241, so i would expect cultures more in south like Brnjica to have atleast some E-V13.

----------


## Hawk

> Another question is how closely related Daco-Thracian and Illyrian is and whether modern Albanian clearly descends from one of these or just a related language. I'm no linguist and don't bother too much with linguistic questions, so I don't know, but these are issues some raised. Its certainly possible, to put it that way. 
> 
> A German etymology is also possible: 
> 
> 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskiden#Etymologie
> 
> Its in any case an interesting "coincidence", who knows. If you think about it, it should have persisted for three millenia.


That's the lesser known theory though which in German version is being promoted as the first one, Cabej and Orel separately agreed that bjeshket and Beskidy atleast have a common origin. But, who knows.

----------


## Riverman

> Assuming CA is Chalcolithic we can safely build a chronological story of E-V13, it looks like it really arose in Dalmatia, but left Dalmatia earlier than Early Bronze Age, during Chalcolithic maybe, heading and pushing northward and participating in the Danubian Urnfield Cultures, one part of it probably arose to prominence in Gava, Piliny and related Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture. But, note that it probably had earlier spinoffs, one of the Mokrin EBA samples was E-V13 L241, so i would expect cultures more in south like Brnjica to have atleast some E-V13.


No its not. These are just similarities in G25, not the burial context of the finds and the similarities might be mostly based on the people, or better mostly women, the incoming E-V13 males paired up with. I think a survival within Lengyel is really the most likely scenario. The spread to the West happened later, especially with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Hallstattzeit

There are direct links between Psenichevo, through Basarabi, through Pannonia deep into Southern Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, within the Hallstatt sphere. The similarities and quick spread of styles and techniques means that people migrated, at least specialists and small groups.

Going by the similarity maps ph2ter made, one of the assignable is Hallstatt-Illyrian-Pannonian related I14465 (E-BY4643) the other I18527 (E-Y142743) full blown Celtic: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post813841

Interestingly the lineage of the more Hallstatt-Illyrian/Hallstatt-Dacian autosomal profile ended up in Britain early on and autosomally similar are primarily the Slovenia IA finds with a lot of R-U152.

----------


## Hawk

> No its not. These are just similarities in G25, not the burial context of the finds and the similarities might be mostly based on the people, or better mostly women, the incoming E-V13 males paired up with. I think a survival within Lengyel is really the most likely scenario. The spread to the West happened later, especially with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection: 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Hallstattzeit
> 
> There are direct links between Psenichevo, through Basarabi, through Pannonia deep into Southern Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, within the Hallstatt sphere. The similarities and quick spread of styles and techniques means that people migrated, at least specialists and small groups.
> 
> Going by the similarity maps ph2ter made, one of the assignable is Hallstatt-Illyrian-Pannonian related I14465 (E-BY4643) the other I18527 (E-Y142743) full blown Celtic: 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post813841
> 
> Interestingly the lineage of the more Hallstatt-Illyrian/Hallstatt-Dacian autosomal profile ended up in Britain early on and autosomally similar are primarily the Slovenia IA finds with a lot of R-U152.


My bad, it just looked like the labels were actually the burial context.

----------


## Riverman

In my opinion the E-V13 expansion happened with different modes, to the West rather with elite warriors, specialists, especially artisans like smiths and potters, probably even priests and the retinue this rather higher social ranks had. To the South and East it was more a male dominated conquest. So in both cases, the E-V13 incoming individuals from Channelled Ware did mix early and heavily with local women, which means they quickly became autosomally whatever was typical for the region. Just in their primary domains, they are supposed to have a bigger impact autosomally. This would mean regions like the Banat/Vojvodina in particular, with its Belegis II-Gva centres. Already to their South with groups like Paraćin down to Greece, they became more mixed. Its even visible in the record for areas like Brnjica, that it was no sudden full scale replacement anywhere. This usually means, even if most male lineages got replaced, what doesn't have to be, that they took local women, rather. 

If this is correct: 



> I14465 E1b1b1a1b1a20~ E-BY4643
> I16272 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xZ36787,BY5793,BY6349,FGC14093,L250,Y164 02,Z36882,S20250,A11798,Z36778)
> I18527 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xL17,A2192,L252,Y17722,A783,S20250,Z2135 5,Z36778)
> I18832 E1b1b1a1b1a E-PF2211*(xL17,BY4642,BY5791,BY6349,FGC14100,L250,Y1 6402,SK888,Z37880,Z21355,Z42778)


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post812508

It is quite interesting that I14465 is where I'd say Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt should plot. This would be really like "E-V13 on the move", considering that his closest relatives yDNA wise ended up in Scandinavian Vikings and British Celts. 

The J2b's largely plot where expected, in the Pannonian-Illyrian and Eastern Hallstatt variation. 

Modern variation: 

Looks older, probably a Corded Ware - Neolithic mix? 
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 2.6253% / 0.02625307 | R5P
50.6 Sardinian
37.2 Lithuanian_VA
12.2 Abkhasian

Definitely Celtic-like: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.1904% / 0.02190421 | R5P
40.4 Orcadian
37.8 Lithuanian_PZ
20.0 Spanish_Soria
1.8 Australian

Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 1.8709% / 0.01870861 | R5P
33.6 Basque_French
24.0 Spanish_Menorca
21.4 Lithuanian_SZ
17.6 Bulgarian
3.4 Roma_Balkans

Clear Balkan affinity: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 2.7806% / 0.02780560 | R5P
55.6 Albanian
19.2 Greek_Laconia
18.8 Sardinian
6.4 Spanish_Soria

I also did my classic basic run for the Antiquity, and again, this is a clear Hallstatt/Celtic-like individual: 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I18527
0.03613966 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05726453 DEU_MA
0.06119596 CZE_Early_Slav
0.07741727 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.12529365 ITA_Rome_Imperial

This one is quite close to Germanics: 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03721365 DEU_MA
0.04632402 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05023861 CZE_Early_Slav
0.12162772 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA

Not close to anyone - the sample with the subclade which ended up in the North, but probably very old (Epi-Corded - Neolithic?): 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I14465
0.06022000 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.06463709 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.08812298 CZE_Early_Slav
0.09048243 DEU_MA

In detail, we have two highly mixed more Balkan like, one probably more ancient, the other more recent, one Hallstatt/Celtic and one Germanic with Slavo-Celtic admixture probably: 

Old sample (?), probably from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 3.5719% / 0.03571851
36.2 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
17.6 CZE_Early_Slav
17.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial

Germanic: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 3.1456% / 0.03145579
46.2 DEU_MA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
25.2 CZE_Early_Slav

Hallstatt/Celtic: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 2.2138% / 0.02213783
51.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
24.8 CZE_Early_Slav
14.4 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
8.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.8 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
0.2 Yoruba

Newer Balkan: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 3.4567% / 0.03456743
46.8 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
38.0 ITA_Rome_Imperial
15.2 CZE_Early_Slav

I know that the North European PCA is not always ideal, but I prefer it for making some comparisons, even with more Southern shifted groups. Note where they plot: 



https://ibb.co/XFqs5P0

I think its quite likely that they being separated by a lot in space and time. The oldest might be I14465, which, if his assignment is correct, lineage ended up quite early in the Centre and North of Europe, with relatives moving on to British Celts.

----------


## Riverman

The fits with moderns are quite telling, because I14465 is very likely indeed to have been EBA-MBA. The others might be significantly younger. Note he is the only one which gets a good regional composition from the regional elements, even with something surely involved in or picked up by Gva, like Mako. 

I18527 and I18832 are more difficult to place, they could be older (LBA) or younger (historical era). I made my bet (Hallstatt/Daco-Pannonian and provincial Roman, but could as well be Daco-Thracian). 

Its very obvious, even from these few results, that the E-V13 males bred within different groups, like expected, after their initial dispersal and took local women. That means they will shift in whatever direction the region was before. The question is which is their true, original core component, but that might be quite tricky from the start, since Gva and the region they expanded was fairly mixed from the start.

If I16272 is more recent, then he is just Germanic with Celtic and Slavic drift and that's where he plots, close to modern Central-Eastern Germans. *But if he is from the Bronze Age instead, this would be a bomb:* 
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 1.5592% / 0.01559189 | R4P
*38.0 CZE_Unetice_EBA*
33.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
15.8 DNK_MN_B
13.2 Baltic_LVA_BA

But if he is ancient, the closest matches are similar to what Kyjatice got, so very Northern, his top matches are astonishing and highly important: 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
*0.02587514 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA*
0.03152717 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA
0.03196382 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA
0.03197782 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA
0.03221041 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
0.03254794 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA
0.03268734 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA
0.03319641 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA
0.03365558 DEU_Tollense_BA
0.03409277 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA
0.03418643 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA
0.03432919 CZE_Unetice_C
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA
0.03486488 DEU_Unetice_EBA
0.03508099 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA
0.03531730 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale
0.03604838 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA
0.03642078 VK2020_IRL_Dublin_VA
0.03648861 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
0.03665115 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA
0.03698556 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA
0.03721365 DEU_MA_Baiuvaric

Because *Fzesabony being an Epi-Corded/Unetice influenced group which lived in Pannonia*, was replacing older layers of Otomani culture and were among the first to introduce typical ceramical elements of the Channelled Ware groups. They were later pushed to the Upper Tisza by the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture, and were probably very influential in the formation of *Piliny, out of which Kyjatice and Gva were in part formed, first with the very South Eastern Tumulus groups, later the starting of the Urnfield.*
So if this unusual sample is old, it would be from the very Northern Gva core and similar, but not the same, to BR2. 

His closest matches individually: 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
*0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772*
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
*0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531*
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
*0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949*
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
*0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044*
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
*0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003*
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

So he can be just Germanic with Celto-Slavic admixture or if he is older, if he is really dating to the Bronze Age, he would be from the Gva core or even up North, most likely from Uneticians and Fzesabony(-Otomani). So his age is really, *really crucial.* 
*Thanks for pointing that out, because I missed before that he is THAT CLOSE to Uneticians and Fzesabony-Otomani, that would be huge if he is older.* 

Distribution of Fzesabony, right at the later core zone of Kyjatice-Gva at the Upper Tisza basin: 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...y-Cultures.png




> The landscape of the north-
> eastern part of Hungary and south-east Slovakia, the setting for the Fzesabony
> Culture, is again quite different. The highest mountains of Hungary are found
> here in the foothills of the Carpathians along the Slovakian border. In the early
> stages of the Fzesabony Culture, the valley of the river Hernd, north of the
> Tisza-Bodrog confluence, seems to be an important centre. Later, the Fzesabony
> Culture expanded south along the Tisza to the Krs, remaining mainly on the
> left bank of the Tisza. In Middle Bronze Age II, the Fzesabony Culture almost
> reached the Danube near Budapest and became a neighbour of the Vatya
> Culture (Bna 1975:146)





> Fzesabony probably developed as a
> successor to the Kotany Culture with influences from Hatvan and Otomani.





> Bronze industry
> flourished and is well documented by finds of moulds from sites such as Tiszafred,
> Tszeg and Fzesabony, including several moulds for heart-shaped pendants and
> pins (Meier-Arendt 1992:198199). In this region, a large quantity of decorative
> bronzes has been found as hoards and in graves; these bronzes include objects to dec-
> orate the person, such as pendants, small plates, and arm and leg spirals. The spiral
> dominates the shape of the objects themselves and they can be highly decorative, at
> the same time the surfaces of objects such as weapons are richly engraved with the
> same spiral motifs. This motif is mirrored in the pottery, which is of a high quality,
> well burnished and of elaborate shape.


They produced Channelled Ware (among the first in the Bronze Age!) and had a focus on metal working: 



https://ibb.co/27bkyxn

There are clear lines of tradition directly from them to Gva. 

It had on some sites a smooth transition from inhumation to cremation: 




> Cremation and inhumation burials share a number of common characteristics.
> Addressing them merely as an opposing set of concepts therefore misses potentially
> important similarities in the wide range of practices involving the body. For example,
> the placing, orientation, and composition of objects as well as the body in graves 24
> and 35 from Streda nad Bodrogom (Fzesabony Culture) are almost identical (Fig. 4).
> Grave 35 is an inhumation with the body placed on the left side with the head to the
> west. The rectangular pit of grave 24 is oriented the same way, but it contained a cre-
> mation, which was similarly placed to the west of the pottery. In both cases the pot-
> tery was placed at the feet. In addition, the set of pottery was organized similarly in
> ...


But overall inhumation prevailed, as well as this custom: 




> . A remarkable feature of the Fzesabony cemeter-
> ies is the presence of so-called symbolic graves (e.g. Streda nad Bodrogom: 9; Gelej:
> 16). They are usually grave pits similar in size and orientation to the rest of the
> graves, and they frequently contain pottery sets, but there are no traces of a body.


https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/ar...Landscapes.pdf

Fzesabony was in any case close to the Gva core and had gene flow with it, whether it was the origin itself or not.

Of course, this makes him similar to Germanics, because they too are very similar and partly descend from Uneticians, but that he is that close is really big if he is from the right context. 
*Because like described above, Fzesabony is among the top candidates for carrying E-V13 or being at least a direct neighbour to the main group.* They occupied the Upper Tisza region, from which Kyjatice and Gva were descending from, the river downwards.

Run with Hungarian samples only: 
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.04836276 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I4178
0.05063912 HUN_LBA:I20771
0.05320501 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2365
0.05355098 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.05444726 HUN_LBA:I1504
0.06067116 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2786
0.06395714 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE484
0.06938301 HUN_Mako_EBA:I1502
0.07092779 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3528
0.08941707 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.08962666 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.09037461 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2787
0.09684574 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.09698558 HUN_BA:I7043
0.09943624 HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.10079216 HUN_BA:I7040
0.11279229 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE247
0.11493525 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.12223336 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.12948504 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045
0.13020760 HUN_MBA_Vatya_o:RISE479
0.13180524 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.13974116 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788

Admixture without La Tene: 
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.3272% / 0.02327212
38.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
34.8 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA
13.6 HUN_Mako_EBA
11.4 HUN_LBA
0.8 HUN_MBA_Vatya
0.6 HUN_Koros_N_HG

So he could be that ancient, he could be from Fzesabony, Piliny, Kyjatice or Northern Gva. The fit is good and the composition would make sense. Doesn't have to be, could be younger, but its definitely possible. 
Very noteworthy is the great distance of this sample and Fzesabony to Mako and Vatya. They have way more Epi-Corded/Unetician admixture, just like BR2 from Kyjatice had too.
If this sample is older, it could be the breakthrough. If not, its not that exciting of course, especially since the subclade couldn't be determined like in the others.

----------


## Hawk

Riverman, i found this facebook page to be informative on Central Balkans Bronze/Iron Age: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia/

I thought, you might be interested on reading some of the posts.

----------


## Riverman

> Riverman, i found this facebook page to be informative on Central Balkans Bronze/Iron Age: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia/
> 
> I thought, you might be interested on reading some of the posts.


Thank you, I will take a look. 

The interesting part is that R1b overlaps with E-V13, but J2b does not, while we actually have J2a samples which do (Kyjatice): 



https://ibb.co/NyvT09d

R1B-Z2103 started as pure steppe, became admixed over time, E-V13 started in the middle, between about 75 % Unetice and 25 % Vatya/Mako, going down towards the Balkan on. The starting point could have been Fzesabony-like. 

This is even more evident if going by North European PCA: 



https://ibb.co/v1J9KH5

This means R-ZZ2103 started as pure steppe in the Bronze Age, E-V13 most likely intermediate (Fzesabony-like) and J2b was picked up in the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere. Note that some E-V13 end up more "Southern" or South Eastern than J2b, because they most likely mixed with Aegean elements early and their starting point is more Eastern, more "Balto-Slavic" like, just like Fzesabony and Kyjatice (BR2) was, because of the more Unetician and Epi-Corded, rather than Bell Beaker heritage. 
The more Southern Bell Beaker trend being more pronounced in J2b, the earliest cluster with French (Auvergne, Swiss French).

Scythian_HUN and Scythian_UKR repeat the same variation as does E-V13 and R-Z2103. They completely overlap, they just have some outliers (in the direction of Mako and more exotic) and never reach the Balkan extreme. Scythian_MDA is the same variation, again, but they reach the Southern extreme. Why and how exactly is unknown, could be achieved in multiple ways. 

The most interesting part is therefore the possible Northern Pannonian-Carpathian cluster from the Tisza, with Fzesabony. Now what's really interesting about this cluster is that it has ONLY Neolithic and rather exotic lineages: 
I2, E-V13, H, G2, J. 
This is absolutely striking. Its like a local Lengyel-Baden group, probably even with more Southern influences (Maritime Troy being suggested for J2a in Kyjatice, Aegean) picked up Epi-Corded/Unetice women. Then, from all those lineages, primarily E-V13 survived in the environment of the Tisza basin, within Channelled Ware groups, developed Gva and expanded in all directions, first at the expense of the other Neolithic-Copper Age lineages.

I checked what BGR_IA is, and its simply an unmixed continuation of BGR_EBA on the same PCA - I know its not well-arranged, but the main point is were all the other Carpatho-Pannonian-Balkan plot and where BGR_IA is: 



https://ibb.co/vv70cqD

Its easy to note the extreme position, even in comparison to Vatya and Mako, of BGR_IA. If even just a large portion of the Bulgarian/Lower Danube Fluted Ware groups descended from BGR_IA, let's say the majority of the women and a minority of men, they would already pull the whole Thracians much further South than the Illyrians, which being more influenced by a mix of Southern Bell Beaker-like plus Vatya-like probably. That's also why even the Central Balkan Daco-Thracians will be more Northern, than the Bulgarian Thracians. 
The substrate was different! 

But I absolutely don't expect the Thracian E-V13 carriers from Psenichevo/Svilengrad to cluster where BGR_IA, but rather where the more "Southern" E-V13 being positioned. Clearly, even if people which were Fzesabony-like would mix with BGR_EBA, they would plot much more South Eastern than all the Daco-Moesians, Illyrians and Pannonians. Even if this would have been a 50 : 50 mix. Just imagine where that would end up between Fzesabony and BGR_EBA. 
Thracians are more South Eastern not because of E-V13, but because of the pre-E-V13 substrate effect. The cline in the Iron Age comes therefore more from the old substrate, than from the expanding Daco-Thracians and Pannonian-Illyrians, or Celts. Because as one can see, Vatya and Mako are just very different from the Bulgarian Bronze Age individuals. The only BGR_EBA which plot closer are those with heavy Yamnaya admixture, which existed too (like I2165).

I want to repeat that what the Svilengrad/Psenichevo just have to show, to prove the movement, is that the E-V13 carriers come closer to the Central Balkan samples than the EBA and the singular BGR_IA sample, and that's very likely, in my opinion. Because for being pulled there, they need additional steppe, just like Fzesabony got it.

----------


## Hawk

Belegis/Szeremle to Bosut-Basarabi...




> Th e ceramic fi nds from the settlements and cemeteries of the Titel Plateau and the adjacent part ofŠajkaška show characteristics of two diff erent pottery stiles. Th us, ornamented ceramic shapes of thedeveloped early Belegiš group (Belegiš Ib) and the late Szeremle group appear side by side. Th e incrustedlate Szeremle pottery according to the studies of Ch. Reich represents the most recent occurrence ofMiddle Bronze Age Incrusted Pottery along the Danube. Besides the Drava estuary and the Iron Gatesregion, a micro-regional agglomeration of settlements and cemeteries with Incrusted Pottery is evidentalso in the area at the confl uence of the Tisza and Danube69. In addition, anthropomorphic clay fi gurineswith incrusted ornamentations that are also characteristic of the Late Szeremle group were frequently
> 
> encountered70. Thus, a discontinuity of the Vatin-Moriš culture of the early Middle Bronze Age at Feudvarcan be observed both in the settlement pattern and in the development of the pottery, and on this basis itis possible to postulate a population change in the micro-region at about 1500 BC71.
> 
> https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...r_III_2016.pdf





> 4.3 The Late Bronze Age4.3.1 Late Belegiš GroupThe settlement pattern that was installed in a short time and perhaps in the course of systematic colonisationby population groups from the Danube-Sava region (Belegiš group) and from the confluence of the Danubeand Drava (Szeremle group) remains virtually unchanged from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age (15th–13thcentury BC) (horizon 14–15).
> 
> Only at local level can be observed that individual buildings were moved fromone place to another, whereby the built-up areas of the open hamlet-like sites tended to increase72.The time of the greatest possible continuity of settlement is however characterised by a drastic change inpottery decoration from the incised, stamped and incrusted pottery of Middle Bronze Age type (BelegišIb, Late Szeremle) to a black-polished and fluted ware of the Late Bronze Age Belegiš group (Belegiš IIa),whilst the shapes of the vessels continued without a break73.The subsequent settlement phase (horizon 16) of the latest Belegiš group (Belegiš IIb) of the 12th–11thcentury BC is a transitional phase that shows signs of disintegration of the traditional settlement structure.Thus, at the beginning of the phase all earlier sites were abandoned, and new settlements were built atdistances of a few hundred meters to two kilometers. 
> 
> Also, in the urn grave cemetery of Stubarlija which isunfortunately only partly excavated the burial activities seem to cease at the beginning of Belegiš IIb phase.As the area of exploited agricultural land and the settlement density remained virtually the same, it wouldbe expected that the restructuring was caused by socio-political rather than economic or demographicfactors. However, the former even distribution of hamlets in the landscape was replaced by a less regularsettlement pattern comprising sites of very different sizes. Thus, farmsteads and hamlets now alternatedwith large settlements of village-like character74.
> 
> Whilst the shapes of the pottery gradually changed, the black polished surfaces and the fluted decoration of the later Belegiš group continued. In addition, coarsely made vessels with incised and stampeddecoration appear in a still small, but already regular proportion and thus mark the beginnings of theEarly Iron Age Bosut group75.From the characteristic finds in Feudvar it appears that, in the course of the reorganisation of the settlement pattern on the Titel plateau in the 12th / 11th century BC, also the Bronze Age settlement moundof Feudvar was occupied again. The transition from the Middle Bronze Age settlement to the Late BronzeAge habitation, with the intervening hiatus, seems to correspond stratigraphically with level I after Röderin excavation trenches D and E76. The apparent decline in the settlement structure and in the potteryproduction support the view of a period of cultural transition and reorientation between the Late Bronzeand Early Iron Age in the middle Danube region77.





> Th e beginning of the Early Iron Age in the Tisza estuary area and throughout the Serbian Danube region is characterised by the appearance of the early Bosut group (Kalakača horizon). Compared withthe black-polished fi ne ware of the Late Bronze Age there is now a prevalent trend towards coarserceramic wares, as well as a sharp decline of fl uted decorations in favour of incised, stitched and stampedornaments
> 
> 
> In the settlement phase of the early Bosut group (horizon 17) either a signifi cant increase nor a reduction of settled area can be observed in relation to the immediately preceding period, thus the populationsize in the micro-region of the Titel plateau was presumably fairly stable. However, the settlement patternhad been radically regulated through resettlement measures that aff ected about two thirds of the existingsites (Fig. 15). Along the edge of the plateau towards the Tisza the mostly village-like sites were situated atregular distances of 2.5–4 km and within sight of each other. Especially striking is the complete depopulation of the lower terraces, for all settlements originally located at the foot of the plateau or in the plain weremoved to the shelter of a nearby spur of the plateau. In addition, the settlements on the promontories atthe natural access routes to the micro-region were protected by earthworks
> 
> Th e earliest Iron Age settlement of Feudvar on the central northern edge of the plateau was likewisefortifi ed by a ditch approximately 10 m wide and up to 4.5 m deep (Fig. 16). Two passageways fl anked bythe inwardly receding ditch give reason to expect pincer gates. Th e excavated earth from the ditch wasused to level the area in front of the fortifi ed settlement, and therefore the remains of the Bronze Age ditch were also completely levelled. Immediately on this levelled loess layer the suburbium of the Kalakačaperiod was built, which extended over an area of approximately 6 ha (Fig. 16)80
> 
> The beginnings of the Bosut group are therefore marked by strategic measures that were carried out withconsiderable effort. As a result, the settlement activities were shifted from the lower terraces to naturallyprotected locations on the Titel plateau and the settlement area was safeguarded at the neuralgic pointsagainst military attacks from the outside The resettlement and reinforcement measures take place at a time when a complex cultural change canbe discerned in the Carpathian basin. In the zone of the Great Hungarian plain, the cultural break hasespecially dramatic effects. Thus, the settlements and urnfields of the Csorva, Kyjatice and Gáva groupsin the middle and upper Tisza basin were in the course of 10th–9th century BC replaced by the burial sitesof the Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group. The metal finds from the graves and depots represent a repertoire offorms of Pontic-Caucasian origin. At the same time it can be assumed, especially due to the lack of settlement remains, that the population groups in the Alföld were of nomadic steppe character81. The presenceof a nomadic steppe population in the geographically adjacent lowlands is in perfect agreement with theresettlement and reinforcement activities of the early Bosut group, for such measures would be expectedin the case of threat from steppe nomadic attacks.
> 
> ...


Is the so called Szeremle group (North Carpathian + local Vatin) the origin of E-V13?




> The origin of the ornamentation of the ceramics, used initially within a narrow area, respectively in Transdanubia, are difficult to be explained. The archaeological investigations in Hungary in the second half of the 20th century revealed the existence, within this huge complex of inlayed ceramics, of two large areas: the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics where the Esztergom and Veszprém cultural groups developped, and, respectively, the southern-Pannonian ceramics of which the Szekszárd and Pécs1 groups were characteristic. As a consequence of the pressure exercised by the communities of the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur), warrior populations coming from Central Europe, to which the hiding of the bronze hoards from Koszider2 horizon are hypothetically related, communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics culture (Esztergom group) leave Transdanubia and they withdraw to the south along the valley of the Sió river, occupying the area between the Danube and the Tisza3.
> 
> 
> The movement to the south of the communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics stimulated, but at a reduced extent, elements from the southern area of Transdanubia, too. The grafting of the elements of civilization typical of the communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics with local ones (Gerjen, Vatina and Verbicioara) determined the appearance of a new ethnical-cultural manifestation known especially as „Szeremle group”4, and recently as „Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group”5 in the archaeological literature. 
> 
> 
> Generally, it is admitted that the formation of the Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group took place during the Middle Bronze, in the period of transition from Bz. A2 to Bz. B1. The evolution of these communities was considered as being extremely short, respectively to the end of the Bz. B1 phase in P. Reinecke’s modified chronological system6. But, the presence of certain ceramic materials typical of the Szeremle group in the region controlled by the Cruceni-Belegiš culture suggests a little bit longer evolution of the communities of Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo type. Their end took place in the period in which the first phase of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture was developping, respectively at the beginning of the so-called „Reinecke” Bz. B2 phase7. 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Riverman

The reason for the "resettlement" and defensive measures were the Cimmerian and later Scythian raids. 




> Thus, the settlements and urnfields of the Csorva, Kyjatice and Gáva groupsin the middle and upper Tisza basin were in the course of 10th–9th century BC replaced by the burial sitesof the Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group. The metal finds from the graves and depots represent a repertoire offorms of Pontic-Caucasian origin


This group is "Thraco-Cimmerian", a sample showed exotic Eastern haplogroups, but I expect a large portion, either at the beginning or over time, to be largely "Gva" like, at least autosomally. 

Culturally, Pannonia was "steppified", "yurtified", the population collapsed, culturally there was a massive demise - the Cimmerian intrusion really ended the Channelled Ware network and rule in every respect, it was a real caesura of historic proportions - if it wouldn't have been prehistory. With Hallstatt everything got more settled down and things built up again, in a different way, then came the Scythians, and the same happened once more. Pannonia was a very deadly environment throughout the ages. 

Very important is this - because Belegis II-Gva was an intrusive break in the record, while then there was continuity along the Danube: 



> On the basis of the pottery, P. Medović has recognised a clear stratigraphic sequence of the Kalakača,Basarabi and Fluted Pottery periods (Bosut IIIa–IIIc / IVa–IVc) in Feudvar and defined it with reference to the settlement of Gradina on Bosut92 (Fig. 19). M. Röder in his stratigraphic assessment of thehouse phases Q to S however places a different emphasis. Thus he stresses that high-quality wares andthe associated surface polishing and fluted decoration were already revived at the transition to theBosut II (resp. Bosut IIIb / IVb) period, without any sharp differentiation from the ceramic repertoireof the subsequent Bosut III (resp. Bosut IIIc / IVc) period. The ceremonial bowls of Basarabi style thatoccur irregularly among the pottery finds in houses he considers as no defining element of the Bosutpottery (Fig. 20)93.





> Is the so called Szeremle group (North Carpathian + local Vatin) the origin of E-V13?


No, I don't think so. They were rather short lived, not very successful and didn't connect that well with the Channelled Ware horizon, which was at least the main vehicle of E-V13, regardless of its exact origins. 

I think it was either within Otomani or just Fzesabony (later stage), or a group nearby. From one of these Upper Tisza elements, they made it into Piliny - Kyjatice and especially Gva, the South Eastern Urnfield group of the Channelled Ware horizon. There is, however the possibility that they didn't start, but just hopped on the train. Like being one of the other Vatya related Pannonian-Danubian elements, being incorporated, or adopted the package, and then expanded from a more southward position of Belegis II-Gva. However, that would, in my opinion, make the whole dispersion process on both sides of the Carpathians only more complicated, but its surely possible. 
Its even thinkable, though probably the least likely, that a Lower Danubian/Bulgarian group was it, and then it spread from within Channelled Ware later, with Psenichevo-Basarabi primarily. But that is, from the currently available evidence, much less likely than a spread already from the Upper Tisza, from Gva. 

A lot depends on the date and context of the samples in the upcoming British paper, because some more experiments: 




> it's the Vahaduo custom PCA: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/


Thank you. I did play around with that too, but it turns out its really all about the age of the two Central European shifted samples, and the one in the Southern Balkan cluster - as well as their subclades, which we might never know, because they could be dead ends or without relevance for the majority of the modern carriers of these haplogroups. 

In any case, the WHG shift some of the samples is interesting and if they are ancient, that would be a typical feature of the Pannonian sphere. Even in a very global, primary setting, the majority of J2b end up in their own cluster, with the funny part being the only E-V13 is not just in it, but goes beyond, presumably because he got a lot of BGR_EBA admixture. The R-Z2103 samples being clearly split in the original Yamnaya-like and the Balkan-admixed category, which just shows how misleading autosomal DNA couid be, without knowing the context. 
The potential Fzesabony cluster overlaps mostly with modern Central Europeans on most PCA, so in theory they could be more modern, but going after their haplogroups, they are rather not. Which leads us back to the question of how old I16272 and I14465 are and from which context. In this PCA there are J2b in the same cluster, largely, as the E-V13 which are close to Fzesabony, but the bulk is still elsewhere, but all could have been admixed in this or that direction, but J2b, which position is fairly solid closer towards to the Neolithic reference: 


https://ibb.co/hcZFt1Y

On that PCA, the J2b sample which is close to the Unetician/Fzesabony cluster is I24882. Still to the left of the main two E-V13 which are more Central European. Again a comparison of these three more Northern shifted J2b and E-V13 samples, only the relevant BCE samples taken: 
Distance to: J2B:I24882
*0.02553878 HRV_MBA:I4331*
0.02777536 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03101111 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR109
0.03189288 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.03203852 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.03237255 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03306335 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.03345776 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03392020 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK26A
0.03431842 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03435462 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03455291 DEU_Lech_BBC:UNTA58_68Sk1
0.03462611 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108
0.03488047 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03541587 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03550127 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94
0.03602340 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK14
0.03622285 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
0.03662921 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03697531 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.03703984 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
0.03713174 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.03779579 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03783558 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03790343 ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1221


Note how close he is to Southern Bell Beakers and HRV_MBA (Middle Danubian Tumulus-related)

Now the two E-V13ers to his right, first the one closer to the Fzesabony/Uneticians, for comparison: 
Distance to: EV13:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
*0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772*
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

Second the less clear one, which oscillates between Mokrin and the Hungarian Bronze Age: 
Distance to: EV13::I14465
*0.03548909 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK12
0.03594579 HUN_BA:I7043*
0.03985902 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03985922 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04024971 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13
0.04064740 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK25A
0.04111966 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.04129588 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.04142847 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524
0.04189682 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.04198434 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:HOP004.A0101
0.04213984 DEU_Lech_MBA:OTTM_151ind2_d
0.04300076 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.04300706 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105
0.04304478 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.04344422 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK33
0.04419069 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.04438459 HUN_BA:I7040
0.04468141 CHE_IA:SX18
0.04499030 DEU_Roman:FN_2
0.04510409 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK9B
0.04554125 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.04597888 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR61
0.04606241 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.04612385 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94

So even between these three, there is still a marked difference in the direction of the West Balkan-Upper Danube vs. Pannonia-Carpathians, though these are close and are very interesting.

----------


## Riverman

To be sure, I did run many moderns and ancient candidates against Fzesabony and only one single German from my chosen candidate groups reached a distance below 0,032: 
German:German76 0.03191012
Finnish:HG00350 0.03205930
German:German13 0.03386772
Czech:NA15724 0.03428785

I also checked, from all ancients, which are closest to Fzesabony: 
*Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531 0.02876167
CZE_Unetice_C:MIS002.merged 0.03025527
Scythian_UKR:scy009 0.03147418*
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352 0.03278466
VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509 0.03279856

Note one of the closest is among the "Southern shifted" individuals assigned to (Thraco-) "Scythians" once more! 

There is currently no sample in the whole data base which is as close to Fzesabony as some of the new samples from the British study: 
FuzesabonyCluster:I25525 0.02440513
FuzesabonyCluster:I12106 0.02489549
FuzesabonyCluster:I17322 0.02893993
FuzesabonyCluster:I16272 0.03078742
EV13:I16272 0.03078742
FuzesabonyCluster:I7964 0.03253927
FuzesabonyCluster:I11719 0.03283871

This means the Fzesabony cluster is very real. The individuals with Neolithic-Copper age haplogroups and a Unetician : Vatya/Mako mix seem to be a reasonable assumption. The EV13:I16272 has a slightly increased Vatya/Mako ancestry probably, but is still solidly within as one can see. 

All the other ancients and moderns got a much worse fit. On the PCA, modern Polish, German and Swedish are closest to the Fzesabony cluster, but their distances are all worse, as you can see. Going by that, a close relationship of E-V13 carrier I16272 to a Fzesabony-like population from Pannonia are quite likely, from my point of view. 

In a reduced custom PCA, the arrangement of the samples from the different haplogroups reproduces a very clear pattern, once more: 


https://ibb.co/Zzn4qnK

Two E-V13 are in the Balkan cluster, two outside, with one being intermediate between Fzesabony/North Pannonian and Balkan. There is no single J2b outside of the Balkan cluster, but only E-V13 and R-Z2103. This means, in any case, that they are not part of the same cultural formation, because such a large sample of J2b with so few E-V13 means a lot. Its the final proof for the Illyrian : Daco-Thracian division in this respect. Its however possible, that a majority of E-V13 samples with a Balkan profile existed, but these were not tested, probably because they are from cultures using cremation, like expected, if they spread with Channelled Ware. 

Single outliers of E-V13 in a Mokrin-like population could mean many things, we'll see how this ends up, but in any case, the important sample I16272 does look like belonging in the Bronze or Early Iron Age, rather and clusters with North Pannonians with a lot of Unetician-related ancestry like Fzesabony.

----------


## Hawk

Albania's transition to iron age was enriched by the Pannono-Balkan Urnfield group which didn't have a great impact or ethnical change in Early Iron Age Albania.







https://books.google.de/books?id=vXl...%20age&f=false

----------


## Riverman

Especially the flame-shaped spearheads seem to be a tell-tale for Gva. I found out, also thanks to other users on Anthrogenica, that the burial used for G25 HUN_LBA is considered Gva but its an irregular burial of a female. Interestingly, both the irregular Kyjatice and Gva sample in G25 (HUN_LBA) have a strong tendency towards WHG and are in between Fzesabony and the J2b-cluster of Pannonian-Illyrians. So they are more Northern, but not as Northern (any more?) as Fzsesabony, presumably because they mixed with local older Otomani, Vatya and Mako elements. Mako being the strongest shifted towards WHG. 
So Gva is definitely in the game, going by that and I really want to know the context of the samples in the British paper. Hope there is something provided.

----------


## Hawk

I would put forward and say that Glasinac-Mat (more influenced by Hugelgraberkultur) + Trebeniste Culture (either mainly or influenced by Gava/Channeled-Ware) is what made the historical Illyrians.

----------


## Hawk

> Especially the flame-shaped spearheads seem to be a tell-tale for G�va. I found out, also thanks to other users on Anthrogenica, that the burial used for G25 HUN_LBA is considered G�va but its an irregular burial of a female. Interestingly, both the irregular Kyjatice and G�va sample in G25 (HUN_LBA) have a strong tendency towards WHG and are in between F�zesabony and the J2b-cluster of Pannonian-Illyrians. So they are more Northern, but not as Northern (any more?) as F�zsesabony, presumably because they mixed with local older Otomani, Vatya and Mako elements. Mako being the strongest shifted towards WHG. 
> So G�va is definitely in the game, going by that and I really want to know the context of the samples in the British paper. Hope there is something provided.


What do you think about this?




> *Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Central Dalmaain the Sphere of Interacon between the CarpathianBasin, the Apennine Peninsula and the Aegean*
> 
> _Sabine Pabst_
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
> The region of Central Dalmatia in the eastern Adriatic and its hinterland represents the starting point of the article. Even though the current state of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sources and research in the region between the Neretva River in the south and the Krka River in the north is unfavourable for complex investigations,the material remains suggest remarkable supra-regional connecons. In the Late Bronze Age, strong Carpathianinuences can be recognized in northwestern Balkan as well as in central Dalmatian weaponry and costumes.Many of the original metal shapes from Carpathian Basin are widespread also in parts of the Balkans, Italy andGreece. New supra-regional comparative analyses of the typology, chronology, distribution and origin of several Late Bronze Age metal artefacts confirm the thesis of a wide-ranging spread via the coastal regions of centralDalmaa and the Adriac Sea up to central Italy, the southern Balkans and the Aegean. 
> ...

----------


## Hawk

If i am not wrong, the first language spreaders of Proto-Illyrians/Proto-Thracians has to be either Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 or some Bell-Beaker/CW R1b clade.

Then as secondary factors which will rise in prominence would be J2b2-L283 and E-V13 in their respective regions, why not? Y-DNA J1 specific-clades seems to be major Proto-Semitic lineage, despite the Afro-Asiatic language having close ties to E-M35 subclades. I2a2-Dinaric for Slavic languages as well, I1 for North-Germanic so on and so forth.

Based on this language tree, chances are slightly higher for R1b-Z2103 than CWC/Bell Beaker R1b subclade: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post634584

----------


## Riverman

I'm pretty sure that the context is rather Epi-Corded into Unetice. The connection of Fzesabony to Uneticians is too obvious, also in their values. A possible scenario might be a Mokrin-like population, dominated by a variety of Neolithic-Copper Age and Yamnaya haplogroups migrated North, fused with locals and Epi-Corded groups and within this sphere E-V13 rose to prominence and came back with Gva. In the Fzesabony cluster, most lineages are dead or nearly dead, or if alive, comparatively rare. By the looks of it, its like within this North Pannonian sphere, E-V13 became the last man standing, exactly when they rose to power at the transition from Carpathian Tumulus to Kyjatice-Gva/South Eastern Urnfield. Like if some dominant E-V13 clan took over. This would also explain why there are some rather rare and old lineages, possibly, of E-V13, which probably didn't participate in this pivotal founder effect. 
But its now quite clear that E-V13 was just one element, paternally, in a largely Copper Age-Yamnaya environment. In the same clusters are R-Z2103, I2, J2a, G2, H - and E-V13. But then some clans, probably exactly the founders of Gva, largely eliminated the others, before moving out even much beyond the borders of this group's sphere during Urnfield and Basarabi-Hallstatt.

----------


## Riverman

> What do you think about this?


That's a fantastic article, with some faults, but still. Most interesting and important was the description how the tell-tale flame-shaped spearheads spread and related Carpathian spearhead forms. I finally have a direct connection of Channelled Ware people to the Ligurians! 




> The hoard inventory from Roko Polje also includes further types of bronze spearheads. Particularly noteworthy are some examples with a flame-shaped blade (Fig. 11,1).46 The spearheads with a flat flame-shaped blade already have a long tradition in the Carpathian Basin. Here, spearheads of the classical flame shape were most frequently found in hoards of the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Bz D/Ha A1 or the 13th/12th centuries BCE).47 Further Late Bronze Age examples (Fig. 12 [black symbols]) came to light in settlements from the northwestern Balkans as well as from northern Italy. In the Carpathian Basin and the northwestern Balkans, a longer time span for this spear shape must be assumed. Here, the shape still sporadically occurs in hoards of the period Ha B1 or in the 10th century BCE (Fig. 12 [white triangles]). From the region of central Dalmatia mainly known are single finds of flame shaped spearheads without exact dating.48 *In central and southern Italy the flame-shaped spearheads come, without exception, from Early Iron Age graves and cemeteries whose origins must be searched* *in the 10th century BC*E (Fig. 12 [white circles]). Thus, we can observe a connection in time between the Carpathian-northwestern Balkan and the central as well as southern Italian items in the 10th century BCE.49 This mainly suggests contacts across the central Adriatic Sea, bypassing northeastearn Italy.


Note how well this timing would fit with the Sardinian-Genuese known subclades! Most important is always whether there was *a local production*. 




> The pointed out trans-Adriatic contacts are supported by the distribution of another original Carpathian spear shape, which is characterized by its distinctive ribbed socket (Fig. 13). The main distribution area of these spearheads comprises the Carpathian Basin as well as bordering regions of the northwestern and eastern Balkans. It is a very long-lasting spear shape that in the northeastern Carpathian Basin appeared already at the end of the Early Bronze Age and continued in different types and variants up to the period Ha B1 or the 10th century BCE.55 In areas west of the Balkan-Carpathian region, only a few pieces reached the Alps. The area between Garda Lake and Po Plain, which is otherwise rich in Late Bronze Age metal artefacts, is free of finds. *On the other hand, however, single pieces of local production occur in Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age find contexts in Tyrrhenian Italy.*56 In the Carpathian Basin as well as in the northern Balkans the blades of these spearheads are frequently designed in the form of laurel leaves.57 A single spearhead with a distinctive ribbed socket and a laurel leave-shaped blade is recorded in the surrounding area of Sinj in central Dalmatia (Fig. 13,1). A central Italian example from an Early Iron Age grave find of Veio-Quattro Fontanili58 in southern Etruria finds its best prototypes in northwestern Balkan spearheads with a special narrow flame-shaped blade and a distinctive ribbed socket. In particular, such pieces came to light in the cave of kocjan59 in western Slovenia and in Mostarsko Blato in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Fig. 13,2), which again points to cultural contacts across the central or upper Adriatic.


The centre of the distribution is Belegis II-Gva: 



https://ibb.co/D8ymDL7

Flame shaped spearheads are one of the primary signals for Channelled Ware peoples migrations and influences. The map is disproportionate insofar, as further up we find those spearheads too, even in Transcarpathia. The Vojvodina area just produced more, not earlier, and being better researched imho. 

https://www.academia.edu/43656713/Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_Central_Dalmati a_in_the_Sphere_of_Interaction_between_the_Carpath ian_Basin_the_Apennine_Peninsula_and_the_Aegean


That the possibly Illyrian groups have single finds means they acquired it or Gva elements were already among them. But more important is, whether such spearheads were also produced locally or buried in hoards. And interestingly, that's primarily the case in Northern Italy it seems.

----------


## Hawk

Is the flame-shaped spearheads so specific to Gava really?

I mean it could be an influence as well, other cultures adopting it. But i would agree if other elements are present in package as well.

----------


## Riverman

> Is the flame-shaped spearheads so specific to Gava really?
> 
> I mean it could be an influence as well, other cultures adopting it. But i would agree if other elements are present in package as well.


Let's put it that way, you find these spearhead types primarily within Gva and groups which being influenced by them. Note also, that the cult of flame and iron seems ot have been essential to Urnfield in general, but the iron-producing Gva in particular. They also had a specific type of swords and the ceramic and if you look at the distribution maps, these overlap largely, but not everywhere and always the same way. There are of course regional formations and zones of trade and influence. 
But especially this burnished black ceramic, red in the inside, with channels/fluting and flame shaped spears, together with some other symbolism (sun, sun-rays etc.) are very common in the Gva zone and in combination rare outside. So they had a cult of iron & flames/sun imho.

----------


## Riverman

That's a very important publication with many interesting aspects of the topic:



https://1lib.at/book/3044792/9cbe5d

One of the conclusions is that the two main contributors to Psenichevo were Channelled Ware and Incrusted Pottery groups, with an overall dominance of the latter, because they being in the right context, while Incrusted Ware was cut off, which doesn't allign well with the wider spread Daco-Thracian relations of Basarabi. And of course the few samples we got yielded only different yDNA so far.

----------


## Hawk

I would never guessed that what 23andme wrote about E-V13 spreading from the Balkans toward Central Europe following the river paths during Early Bronze Age was right, and it turns they were very likely right indeed.

----------


## Hawk

An overview of timeline-cultures in Balkans.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> An overview of timeline-cultures in Balkans.


Very useful. Thanks for sharing.

Would be very cool if some of those excavated Maliq samples were ever published. Last I read some of them have been excavated since the 60s, and deteriorated since...

----------


## Riverman

> An overview of timeline-cultures in Balkans.



I think its important to stress especially two movements: 
1st in the MBA Otomani and related Pannonian groups moved North/North East. Fzesabony being of particular importance in this context, but also the local groups at the Upper Tisza with which they merged. 
2nd Gva-Holigrady expanded massively and related Channelled Ware groups much beyond what's being shown. I would especially connect the area of Hallstatt A finds with the "Vojvodina group" with this general expansion, since its basically Belegis II-Gva to Mediana down. 

Note how these are separate movements, one from the Middle Danubian TC/Urnfield groups and Glasinac (= Illyrian-related), the other from Gva and Belegis II-Gva/Channelled Ware (= Daco-Thracian). They both reached the areas of Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece, with some splinters moving beyond, sometimes probably together, both to the Western Adriatic coast of Italy and as the Sea Peoples even beyond.

----------


## Hawk

> Very useful. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Would be very cool if some of those excavated Maliq samples were ever published. Last I read some of them have been excavated since the 60s, and deteriorated since...


But Maliq samples are in pipeline if i am not wrong? The Lazaridis South-East European paper will publish them. I am not sure though, let's see.




> I think its important to stress especially two movements: 
> 1st in the MBA Otomani and related Pannonian groups moved North/North East. F�zesabony being of particular importance in this context, but also the local groups at the Upper Tisza with which they merged. 
> 2nd G�va-Holigrady expanded massively and related Channelled Ware groups much beyond what's being shown. I would especially connect the area of Hallstatt A finds with the "Vojvodina group" with this general expansion, since its basically Belegis II-G�va to Mediana down. 
> 
> Note how these are separate movements, one from the Middle Danubian TC/Urnfield groups and Glasinac (= Illyrian-related), the other from G�va and Belegis II-G�va/Channelled Ware (= Daco-Thracian). They both reached the areas of Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece, with some splinters moving beyond, sometimes probably together, both to the Western Adriatic coast of Italy and as the Sea Peoples even beyond.


So:

1. Dalmatian Neolithic moving up north to Pannonia and Carpathians during Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic.
2. Central Balkans all the way, Armenochori-Bubanj-Hum up to Ottomani, Vinca-Turdas metal-workers survivors.
3. Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-Culture(sub-section of them, only the group who migrated in Carpathians) from Southern Germany during Middle Bronze Age, initially in Carpathians then deeper in Balkans.

These are the options in the table.

----------


## Hawk

> Previously readmi-lim.
> They appear in EA 101:4, 33; 105:27; 108:38; 110:48(?); lll:2l(?);and 126:63.Hencken (1968: 568-70, 625-8) has suggested that there may be a connection between the Sea Peoplesand the European urnfield cultures. Apart from the evidence from Hama (see below), and the ÔnorthernbronzesÕ, the ships of the Sea Peoples portrayed at Medinet Habu recall the ÔbirdboatsÕ of the urnfield art(Hencken, 1968: 516,
> fig.
> 478a-b) and also an undated boat-shaped pendant of bronze from the SomesRiver in northern Rumania (Gottlicher, 1978: Taf. 33: 439) in that theyalsocarry bird-head insignia atstern and stern. If the Sea Peoples included elements originating in the urnfield cultures one wonders howsuch inland peoples could have taken to the sea with such ease. Hencken (627-8) offers an duminatinphistorical parallel:The Vandals had long been inland migrants in Europe when they crossed over from Spain
> to
> Africa in
> AD
> 429. But a mere eight years later, in 437, Vandal pirates were scouring the Mediterranean and attack-ing the coasts of Sicily. In 440 Gaiseric, the Vandal king, fitted out a powerful fleet to attack not onlySicily but Sardinia, and in 455 he sailed to Italy and plundered Rome. His fleet commanded the wholeMediterranean and by 468 was attacking Greece. Native North Africans are sometimes mentioned asaccompanying him, and they may well have taught seamanship to their masters. But if the Vandals couldtake to the sea
> so
> ...


Somes is near Tisza River, probably within the territory of Gava-Channeled Ware Culture.

----------


## Riverman

> Somes is near Tisza River, probably within the territory of Gava-Channeled Ware Culture.


Its firmly in later Gva territory and close to the former princely and miner centres with huge burial mounds, some of the richest of their time. The eponymous sites for the preceding cultures of *Suciu de Sus and Lăpuș* are South East of it. That's part of the formative zone for the Gva core, just compare with the post from above: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post635020

*Lăpuș* had some specific elements, but I mentioned it before because it developed into Gva and it was a huge Bronze Age centre, which was however largely abandoned later, *as if a good portion of the local population migrated to somewhere else*. It was a metallurgical centre with a hierarchical, stratified society and very important for its time.

The whole area being connected through various waters and tributaries, which end up in the Lăpuș -> Someș -> Tisza -> Danube. They are all interconnected: 


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Raul_Lapus.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C4%83pu%C8%99_(river)

----------


## Hawk

One of the E-V13 samples from British study is from Slovakian Iron Age.

----------


## Hawk

2 E-V13 are from Hallstatt La Tene Culture Western Hungary, Sopron, and 1 from Central Bohemia Hallstatt La Tene, very interesting. The other one is from Vekerzug Iron Age Slovakia.

----------


## Hawk

Worth noting that there is also 1 E-M35 very likely E-V13 from La Tene, Southern France i think from French Neolithic paper.

So, 4 E-V13 from Hallstatt La Tene, 2 from Western Hungary, 1 from Southern France, 1 from Central Bohemia Czech. And 1 E-V13 from Vekerzug Hallstat, which might have connection with La Tene Hallstatt.

----------


## Riverman

> 2 E-V13 are from Hallstatt La Tene Culture Western Hungary, Sopron, and 1 from Central Bohemia Hallstatt La Tene, very interesting. The other one is from Vekerzug Iron Age Slovakia.


Vekerzug = Thraco-Scythians, local Gva/Basarabi descendents being picked up/acculturated/transformed by Scythians. Do you have the IDs?

----------


## Riverman

> Worth noting that there is also 1 E-M35 very likely E-V13 from La Tene, Southern France i think from French Neolithic paper.
> 
> So, 4 E-V13 from Hallstatt La Tene, 2 from Western Hungary, 1 from Southern France, 1 from Central Bohemia Czech. And 1 E-V13 from Vekerzug Hallstat, which might have connection with La Tene Hallstatt.


Going by the current distribution, it was always clear to me that the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection must be real and Hallstatt (especially Frg) into Alpine-Danubian Celts must have lots of E-V13, both from Hallstatt transmission and by assimilating local Daco-Thracian and Pannonian groups.

----------


## Hawk

> Vekerzug = Thraco-Scythians, local G�va/Basarabi descendents being picked up/acculturated/transformed by Scythians. Do you have the IDs?


I16272
I16272
P7A-16157 (P1973)
Pinhasi, Ron
This study
Context: Archaeological - Period
2250
58
400-200 BCE
Czech_IA_LaTene
Central Bohemia, Prague 5, Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre)
Czech Republic
50.054385
14.363387
1240K
1
1.439704
616399
M
n/a (no relatives detected)
E-Z1057
E1b1b1a1b1
J1c2e
[0.981,0.996]
0.1
0.43
[0.002,0.009]
ss.half
S16272.Y1.E1.L1
PASS
no red flags




I18832
I18832
S-1352; inv. 1396; P3869
Pinhasi, Ron
This study
Context: Archaeological - Period
2210
35
320-200 BCE
Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast
Győr-Moson-Sopron county, Kópháza-Széles földek
Hungary
47.647501
16.629722
1240K
1
2.248
658680
M
n/a (no relatives detected)
E-BY3880
E1b1b1a1b1
U5a1b
[0.964,0.988]
0.096
0.468
[0.003,0.008]
ss.half
S18832.Y1.E1.L1
PASS
damage.ss.half=0.096




I18527
I18527
S-6; inv. 205; P3877
Pinhasi, Ron
This study
Context: Archaeological - Period
2200
40
320-180 BCE
Hungary_IA_LaTene
Győr-Moson-Sopron county, Győr-Kert utca
Hungary
47.674394
17.630908
1240K
1
2.64891
683507
M
Győr-Moson-Sopron, Győr-Kert utca Family A (2 members) (I18839-I18527 have a 2d or 3d relationship)
E-BY3880
E1b1b1a1b1
H3
[0.974,0.996]
0.118
0.469937654
[0.006,0.012]
ss.half
S18527.Y1.E1.L1
PASS
Xcontam=[0.006,0.012]




I14465
I14465
820; grave 2 (1952)
Pinhasi, Ron
This study
Context: Archaeological - Period
2525
43
650-500 BCE
Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug
Komárno, Chotín IA
Slovakia
47.808164
18.218719
1240K
1
0.179246
190124
M
n/a (no relatives detected)
E-V13
E1b1b1a1b1
U5a2b1b
[0.938,0.984]
0.125
0.381
n/a (<200 SNPs)
ds.half
S14465.E1.L1
PASS
no red flags

----------


## Hawk

> Going by the current distribution, it was always clear to me that the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection must be real and Hallstatt (especially Fr�g) into Alpine-Danubian Celts must have lots of E-V13, both from Hallstatt transmission and by assimilating local Daco-Thracian and Pannonian groups.


To me it's very clear-cut now that Carpathian Urnfield equates to E-V13. The bulk moved South into Balkans attracted by the riches of Mediterranean cultures.

----------


## Hawk

Target: I14465_Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug:I14465
Distance: 3.2800% / 0.03280040

58.4
TUR_Barcin_N



29.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



12.4
WHG







Target: I18832_Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast:I18832
Distance: 2.3133% / 0.02313348

66.6
TUR_Barcin_N



32.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



1.0
WHG



0.2
Han






Target: I18527_Hungary_IA_LaTene:I18527
Distance: 3.5353% / 0.03535346

48.8
TUR_Barcin_N



36.4
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



14.8
WHG







Target: I16272_Czech_IA_LaTene:I16272
Distance: 4.1424% / 0.04142366

48.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



33.8
TUR_Barcin_N



18.2
WHG

----------


## Riverman

What's also clear from the paper is the near total uniformity of the J2b cluster from the MBA-Tumulus culture on. They cluster pretty close, being more homogeneous than modern populations and its really concentrated around Croatia in this setting. I think that's a pretty good candidate for the Illyrian core.

----------


## Hawk

> What's also clear from the paper is the near total uniformity of the J2b cluster from the MBA-Tumulus culture on. They cluster pretty close, being more homogeneous than modern populations and its really concentrated around Croatia in this setting. I think that's a pretty good candidate for the Illyrian core.


J2b is from Belotic Bela Ckrva, and before that Mokrin/Maros. MBA-Tumulus, if u read carefully migrated from Southern Germany to Carpathian mountains not Croatia, in Croatia migrated the Koszider hoard during Late Bronze Age, which might very well have been a Hugelgraberkultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture mixture.

----------


## Riverman

> J2b is from Belotic Bela Ckrva, and before that Mokrin/Maros. MBA-Tumulus, if u read carefully migrated from Southern Germany to Carpathian mountains not Croatia, in Croatia migrated the Koszidor hoard during Late Bronze Age, which might very well have been a Hugelgraberkultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture mixture.


What I read about it, not too much, but what I gathered is that the Koszider hoard horizon is basically a local Tumulus culture variant expansion, probably a fused group, similar to what we can observe later with fused Thraco-Cimmerians or Thraco-Scythians. But clearly, very clearly rleated to the Alpine-Danubian TC nevertheless, basically their expansive, conquering phase in the region. Encrusted pottery got rolled over by both TC and later Gva, but the bulk did evade them and moved down the Danube, which is why even after the TC conquest they could still fuse with Gva later, to create the Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon.

----------


## Aspurg

> J2b is from Belotic Bela Ckrva, and before that Mokrin/Maros. MBA-Tumulus, if u read carefully migrated from Southern Germany to Carpathian mountains not Croatia, in Croatia migrated the Koszidor hoard during Late Bronze Age, which might very well have been a Hugelgraberkultur + Encrusted Pottery Culture mixture.


 Belotic Bela Crkva is slightly older than Mokrin/Maros. J2b is from Maros. Posušje proto-Illyrian were partially derived from Mokrin anyway before the genetics so it fits nicely. 

E-V13 as will Pannonian study clearly indicate is originally most likely from *Nyirseg* (or Ottomani less likely). And then a big LBA boom with *Gava*.

----------


## Aspurg

> What's also clear from the paper is the near total uniformity of the J2b cluster from the MBA-Tumulus culture on. They cluster pretty close, being more homogeneous than modern populations and its really concentrated around Croatia in this setting. I think that's a pretty good candidate for the Illyrian core.


 Though J2b has no relation to Tumulus culture. Tumulus culture were Central Euro MBA R-L51 migrants into Pannonia. J-L283 EBA locals in Eastern Pannonia who massively spread to the Western Balkans in EMBA/MBA, first Dalmatia then Albania. 

Based on Pannonian study the strongest forming component of Maros was likely Yamnaya, as there is one very early Maros sample in the Hungarian study with a Yamnaya profile.

----------


## Hawk

> Belotic Bela Crkva is slightly older than Mokrin/Maros. J2b is from Maros. Posušje proto-Illyrian were partially derived from Mokrin anyway before the genetics so it fits nicely. 
> 
> E-V13 as will Pannonian study clearly indicate is originally most likely from *Nyirseg* (or Ottomani less likely). And then a big LBA boom with *Gava*.


You are right on this one, i just got carried away by some comparisons by Frano Prendi between Belotic Bela Crkva, Glasinac and Matt-Painted Pottery. And probably by this picture-timeline of cultures which puts it during Late EBA and MBA.



Are you sure there is no Belotic-Bela Crkva both during EBA and MBA?

----------


## Hawk

Also, i wouldn't belittle the fact that E-V13 was found in different La Tene sites, 3 so far(Western Hungary, Western Slovakia, Central Bohemia, Southern France). And the E-M215 La Tene from Southern France was very likely E-V13 as well. That's too much to be a coincidence. They probably joined the ranks during Late Bronze Age and were a minority among them. Let's see the subclades when the BAM files are ready. But, it's also the Pannonian region.

Well, according to this Hungarian website, before 350 B.C they assign the Sopron region to Illyrian-Pannonians?




> According to our knowledge, the first real castles, fortifications of soil appeared in the 6th-4th centuries B.C. (Iron Age). The age is referred to as the religion of Hallstatt-age. The plateau of Várhely (Burgstall, 483m) was a fortified settlement of Illyrians in the Hallstatt-age. Around 350 B.C. the area was occupied by the Celts. The building of fortifications and ditches was continued after the first appearance of the Romans; their final length reached 2000m. Similar fortifications were built at today's Károly-magaslat (Károly-hill). From the 2nd century B.C. onwards these strongholds were also fixed by stonewalls from the outside.
> 
> https://www.budapest.com/hungary/cities/sopron/history.en.html

----------


## Riverman

We have no proper designation for these people imho, but they were related to Pannonian Illyrians most likely, which derive from the Middle Danubian Urnfielders plus Channelled Ware Urnfield groups (Kyjatice-Gva) for the most part.

----------


## Aspurg

> You are right on this one, i just got carried away by some comparisons by Frano Prendi between Belotic Bela Crkva, Glasinac and Matt-Painted Pottery. And probably by this picture-timeline of cultures which puts it during Late EBA and MBA.
> 
> Are you sure there is no Belotic-Bela Crkva both during EBA and MBA?


 Belotic Bela Crkva might have existed also in some very early MBA. It existed throughout the entire EBA I believe. It had connections to various groups, Nagyrev, Maros, Glina III, maybe most with Vinkovci culture. 

There are samples from all of these bar Glina III , except there are some Glina III cousin culture finds from an upcoming Bulgarian study, that might be an indication for Glina, Vinkovci being in this upcoming Hungarian study.

----------


## Hawk

I would say the evidence so far points just as the nomenclature defines the Middle-Danube Urnfield Cultures: Caka, Maho, Gava. E-V13 was scattered around these cultures, at some more at some less. 

Romania/Moldavia/Ukraine didn't have any E-V13 before LBA, nor inner Balkans.

----------


## Hawk

This female sample from Slovakian Hallstatt Vekerzug is my closest ancient sample. She has a mtDNA H1

Distance to:
Hawk_scaled

0.02996871
SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12105

0.03299762
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43

0.03397282
HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259

0.03438320
IND_Roopkund_B:I6936

0.03482785
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36

0.03561805
HUN_La_Tene:I18493

0.03569511
GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log02

0.03749184
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o1:NIEcap3b

0.03756047
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37

0.03811515
HRV_Pop_CA:POP39

0.03823018
HRV_EIA:I23904

0.03832633
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55

0.03939553
IND_Roopkund_B:I3404

0.03943402
Scythian_MDA:scy192

0.03964654
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33

0.03980929
HRV_EIA:I26742

0.04000153
GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log04

0.04000693
SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12098

0.04003507
SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23205

0.04018759
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR36

0.04023831
SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean:MOK17A

0.04031992
Scythian_MDA:scy197

0.04048246
ITA_Tarquinia_EMA:TAQ022

0.04074609
HUN_LBA_EIA:I11683

0.04081200
SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721

0.04085139
DEU_MA_ACD_Baiuvaric:NW_54

0.04117742
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b

0.04135765
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970

0.04174284
HRV_MBA:I4331

0.04206426
HUN_BA:I7043

0.04220230
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c

0.04226506
VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538

0.04232969
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28

0.04239937
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287

0.04252108
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1

0.04253080
UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12

0.04253610
SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23208

0.04254209
Levant_LBN_MA_o4:SI-53

0.04254560
HRV_LIA_La_Tene:I26735

0.04255467
HUN_La_Tene:I18491

0.04281506
HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832

0.04297053
HRV_EBA:I3499

0.04324516
HRV_EIA:I24882

0.04341950
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ32

0.04353485
HUN_IA_La_Tene:I18529

0.04374269
ITA_Chiusi_EMA:ETR007

0.04392579
Scythian_MDA:scy305

0.04399249
DEU_MA_ACD_Nordic:STR_310

0.04406290
HUN_IA_La_Tene_o:I4998

0.04423490
HRV_IA:I3313





Target: Hawk_scaled
Distance: 2.7935% / 0.02793452

49.2
TUR_Barcin_N



38.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



11.8
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N



1.0
WHG






Target: SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12105
Distance: 2.9510% / 0.02950952

38.2
TUR_Barcin_N



37.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



21.6
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N



3.0
WHG

----------


## Hawk

Interesting.

Distance to:
SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12105

0.03197551
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o1:NIEcap3b

0.03289225
GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log02

0.03588961
VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538

0.03606130
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1

0.03702759
GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log04

0.03713559
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017

0.03744101
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37

0.03763850
HRV_MBA:I4331

0.03839663
HRV_IA:I3313

0.03842446
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36

0.03848363
IND_Roopkund_B:I6936

0.03871577
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55

0.03877038
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43

0.03932423
DEU_MA_ACD_Nordic:STR_310

0.03940208
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28

0.04035895
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR61

0.04076426
IND_Roopkund_B:I3404

0.04101105
ITA_Chiusi_EMA:ETR007

0.04102651
Scythian_MDA:scy192

0.04124017
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ32

0.04153653
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL36

0.04185326
BGR_EBA:I2165

0.04216936
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c

0.04233774
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33

0.04253173
SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean:MOK17A

0.04285562
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR36

0.04318517
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287

0.04356558
HRV_Pop_CA:POP39

0.04359026
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b

0.04377833
Scythian_MDA:scy197

0.04395528
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105

0.04407008
HUN_BA:I7043

0.04412002
Scythian_MDA:scy305

0.04495946
Scythian_MDA:scy300

0.04535238
Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A195

0.04543427
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL23

0.04550404
HRV_EBA:I3499

0.04602326
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524

0.04610942
ITA_PoggioPelliccia_EMA:POP001

0.04654003
ITA_Tarquinia_EMA:TAQ022

0.04657406
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111

0.04725015
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970

0.04741879
ITA_Tarquinia_EMA:TAQ011

0.04752087
DEU_MA_ACD_Baiuvaric:NW_54

0.04760093
Levant_LBN_MA_o4:SI-53

0.04766521
Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A198

0.04790926
SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:MOK20

0.04791195
Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101

0.04827428
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27

0.04839195
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ18

----------


## Riverman

> I would say the evidence so far points just as the nomenclature defines the Middle-Danube Urnfield Cultures: Caka, Maho, Gava. E-V13 was scattered around these cultures, at some more at some less. 
> 
> Romania/Moldavia/Ukraine didn't have any E-V13 before LBA, nor inner Balkans.


Romania surely had, the question is which part, like only the Banat region close to the Danube, or the Upper Tisza area like suggested with a Gva origin. Moldova was early conquered/transformed by Gva and Transcarpathia was a secondary core zone. From these Eastern groups a large fraction of the Fluted Ware Southern groups seems to descend from, so these Psenichevo Thracian E-V13 could come both from Belegis II-Gva in Southern Romania-Northern Serbia or the Carpathian-Moldovan group. Some authors give one more importance for Bulgaria, the other prefer the opposite. 
For such a huge scale, rapid expansion, with massive group founder effects, not just of single individuals, but whole groups of clans, you always need an *ethnic replacement event*. And the primary group for that is Gva/Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi, which are basically just different shapes of the same (Daco-Thracian) theme. By the way, Gva was considered Daco-Thracian/Proto-Thracian in the past already, E-V13 might just serve as a mean to prove it.

The Vekerzugs are autosomally mostly Basarabi-Pannonian mixed derived I'd say.

----------


## Hawk

> Romania surely had, the question is which part, like only the Banat region close to the Danube, or the Upper Tisza area like suggested with a G�va origin. Moldova was early conquered/transformed by G�va and Transcarpathia was a secondary core zone. From these Eastern groups a large fraction of the Fluted Ware Southern groups seems to descend from, so these Psenichevo Thracian E-V13 could come both from Belegis II-G�va in Southern Romania-Northern Serbia or the Carpathian-Moldovan group. Some authors give one more importance for Bulgaria, the other prefer the opposite. 
> For such a huge scale, rapid expansion, with massive group founder effects, not just of single individuals, but whole groups of clans, you always need an *ethnic replacement event*. And the primary group for that is G�va/Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi, which are basically just different shapes of the same (Daco-Thracian) theme. By the way, G�va was considered Daco-Thracian/Proto-Thracian in the past already, E-V13 might just serve as a mean to prove it.
> 
> The Vekerzugs are autosomally mostly Basarabi-Pannonian mixed derived I'd say.


Jeez, Riverman. I am talking about Transdanubia, Western Hungary. Historically it was called Pannonia. During historical times there was no Daco-Thracian in Central Bohemia or Southern France where E-V13 was sctretching in La Tene. For me it's a clear-cut, obvious thing already that Daco-Thracians were exclusively E-V13, i am trying to find out if E-V13 was present at other ancient nations as well.

To me, it means E-V13 was roaming somewhere between East Alps and Western Carpathians, i cannot pinpoint exactly where, for Romania North-Western part for sure, but not that east, not really.

In addition, Matzinger in his 2021 book of Illyrians puts Proto-Illyrians in Eastern Alps which spread into Western Balkans probably during Middle Bronze Age, that gives us a hint the original Proto-Illyrians were really Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave people who incorporated on their way J2b2-L283 which chances are already spoke some form of Indo-European.


Matzinger says that Thracian, Greek, Albanian and Messapian do not have common IE origin with Illyrian. This leaves a lot of things open for discussion.

----------


## ihype02

E-V13 migrants during the IA and LBA seem always "identical" with the people they have admixed with. Like in Greece and in Northern Illyria, both of those groups overlap with their Bronze Age predecessors, genetically. I feel like this hypothesis is pretty much going down.

----------


## Hawk

> E-V13 migrants during the IA and LBA seem always "identical" with the people they have admixed with. Like in Greece and in Northern Illyria, both of those groups overlap with their Bronze Age predecessors, genetically. I feel like this hypothesis is pretty much going down.


Can you elaborate more, because i didn't understood what was the hypothesis originally and what is your observation now?

----------


## ihype02

> Can you elaborate more, because i didn't understood what was the hypothesis originally and what is your observation now?


Iron Age Illyrians and Iron Age Greeks overlap with Bronze Age Illyrians and Bronze Age Greek. 
So E-V13 being spread during the LBA would mean that E-V13 people that migrated to those zones were identical genetically for both of them, which is why I found this hypothesis a little odd.

----------


## Hawk

> Iron Age Illyrians and Iron Age Greeks overlap with Bronze Age Illyrians and Bronze Age Greek. 
> So E-V13 being spread during the LBA would mean that E-V13 people that migrated to those zones were identical genetically for both of them, which is why I found this hypothesis a little odd.


Calculators like G25 will of course not spot any difference, since by Middle Bronze Age the whole South-East Europe would more or less have similar autosomal components, similar percentages with marginal differences with some more WHG in the North/West and more CHG in the South/East.

----------


## ihype02

> Calculators like G25 will of course not spot any difference, since by Middle Bronze Age the whole South-East Europe would more or less have similar autosomal components, similar percentages with marginal differences with some more WHG in the North/West and more CHG in the South/East.


We know that Greek colonists of Campania and Spain during the Iron Age plotted with Mycenaeans too based on Academic studies. 
I suspect Illyrians of Montenegro were shifted towards BGR_IA, so E-V13 was, IMO, present there. Even if there was no E-V13 among Illyrians, still pre Slavic Gheg Albanians would be 40%-45% Illyrian and the rest Thracian.

----------


## torzio

> Jeez, Riverman. I am talking about Transdanubia, Western Hungary. Historically it was called Pannonia. During historical times there was no Daco-Thracian in Central Bohemia or Southern France where E-V13 was sctretching in La Tene. For me it's a clear-cut, obvious thing already that Daco-Thracians were exclusively E-V13, i am trying to find out if E-V13 was present at other ancient nations as well.
> 
> To me, it means E-V13 was roaming somewhere between East Alps and Western Carpathians, i cannot pinpoint exactly where, for Romania North-Western part for sure, but not that east, not really.
> 
> In addition, Matzinger in his 2021 book of Illyrians puts Proto-Illyrians in Eastern Alps which spread into Western Balkans probably during Middle Bronze Age, that gives us a hint the original Proto-Illyrians were really Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave people who incorporated on their way J2b2-L283 which chances are already spoke some form of Indo-European.
> 
> 
> Matzinger says that Thracian, Greek, Albanian and Messapian do not have common IE origin with Illyrian. This leaves a lot of things open for discussion.



He is correct
*Matzinger in his 2021 book of Illyrians puts Proto-Illyrians in Eastern Alps*

Illyrians are mixed with Italics and celtic people ...............and not with Thracian or Greeks or Albanians

BTW......thracians are comprised of 4 major groups ( Dacian, Moesian, Odyssian and Getae ) ..............they also have a sub-branch north of the black sea called Thracian-Cimmerian

----------


## Riverman

> Iron Age Illyrians and Iron Age Greeks overlap with Bronze Age Illyrians and Bronze Age Greek. 
> So E-V13 being spread during the LBA would mean that E-V13 people that migrated to those zones were identical genetically for both of them, which is why I found this hypothesis a little odd.


Its not odd, because the picked up women on the way and on various occasions allied up with local groups too. So autosomally they will be way more mixed than on the patrilinear side. This is evident throughout, even the expansion from the Upper Tisza to the Banat was accompanied by cultural changes which are particularly common if a large portion of the local population was picked up, especially women, which created most of the pottery. But the general cultural package, the innovations, belief system, social order etc., was all copy-pasted from the Upper Tisza Gva core. So the males came in, turned the local population, took a lot of local women, some local men. And in the case of the Sea Peoples it seems that bands, clans and small tribal groups of both Daco-Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks among others did join together for a common enterprise. So these were very dynamic times, it was a migration period without a doubt, and just like in the later migration period, when Huns, Germanics, Iranians, Slavs and Dacians made various alliances, the same happened then in many regions. This also explains why E-V13 appears West of the Daco-Thracian territory, because we see the Channelled Ware elite penetrating the territory of the Middle Danubian Urnfielders in Transdanubia. The Middle Danubian Urnfielders were the descendents of the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture largely, which was formative for the Illyrians to the South. They just split in a Pannonian group which cremated and had stronger Channelled Ware influence and a Southern which kept the inhumation in tumuli as their burial tradition. In the Middle Danubian Urnfielder zone, there were more extensive contacts to Kyjatice-Gva, contrary to the Southern Illyrian core area with the inhumation ritual. 
One E-V13 came from Chotin, Slovakia, Vekerzug Thraco-Scythians. That's what we can read about the area: 




> The pottery fragement revealed in Grave 239 and deco-
> rated with a herring bone motif could belong to an amphora
> or to a vessel with a conical neck (Tab. 4/1). The closest
> parallel of its decoration  the combination of horizontal
> channeling and rows of impressed dots  *is known from the
> cemetery of Chotn*.20 This analogy helps the restoration of
> the vessel of Bksmegyer, since the herring bone pattern is
> a frequent form of decoration both on the finds of the Laus-
> athian and Kyjatice cultures.21 The sherd from Bksmegyer
> ...


You may read on in this very interesting and enlightening article, if its about the Hungarian plain: 




> The deco-
> ration of its shoulder has the characteristics of the ceramic
> production of the Upper Tisza Region during the Ha B1
> period.27 The slanted fluting of its rim (Tab. 8/23) offers
> evidence that it could have been produced during the transi-
> tion of the Ha B1 and Ha B and Ha C periods.28 *The com-
> bination of these ornamentations can also be found in the
> pottery manufacturing tradition of the Gva culture; the
> two forms of decoration appear together on a bowl from
> ...


The Daco-Thracian influence increased in the LBA-EiA transition: 




> At
> the same time the high number of characteristics in shape
> and motifs typical of the Kyjatice and Gva cultures indi-
> cates that the population living in the Danube River Bend
> Gorge region during the Ha B period maintained intensive
> relations principally with communities inhabiting the Hun-
> garian Northern Mountain Hills and the Great Hungarian
> Plain.45
> The material evidence of cultural interactions shows that
> ...



https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

That's why the area under Channelled Ware influence yielded E-V13, the Southern core areas of Illyrians don't before the LBA-EIA transition, when Channelled Ware spread to those regions as well. The Channelled Ware people got the upper hand once they developed the mass production of first improved slashing type swords (advanced Naue II) and especially iron weapons. They were among the first in Europe to produce high quality iron weapons and "Hallstattisation" being to a large degree the influence of Gva and later Basarabi on the more Western Urnfield networks.

Its not by chance that almost all the main clades of E-V13 experienced a massive founder effect and further branching events during the LBA-EIA transition. Now we just see them being present were they should be and they aren't Illyrians from the Adriatic, because those are different, not that different autosomally, but they belong to a different cultural formation (Tumulus Culture/Glasinac) and have different patrilineages.




Most of the spread of Channelled Ware people happened initially along the river system of the Danube - in some areas going beyond it early (Northern Italy, Switzerland, Greece), on the Illyrian frontier being blocked - e.g. they were largely blocked in Northern Croatia, didn't go much further with great impact, only as more cultural and small scale influences.

----------


## Riverman

> .........they also have a sub-branch north of the black sea called Thracian-Cimmerian


They are no subbranch in the linguistic sense, but it was a cultural horizon created by the invading Cimmerians, which seem to have picked up a lot of local Daco-Thracians in the course of events. We don't know how they look on the patrilinear side, with just one N sample so far. There are Prescythian samples in the British paper, which fit the bill for the Thraco-Cimmerian core group of Mezocsat, but unfortunately all of them are women. There is not a single male among them to say anything more about how much of the locals survived in the male lineages in this group. 
The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is important because this event destroyed the "Channelled Ware empire" or network. They truly cut through the Channelled Ware people like a wedge, separating the Northern groups in Transcarpathia from those in the South, on the Danube, from which Psenichevo-Basarabi emerged. This was a huge catastrophy for them on the one hand, on the other those which eventually might have joined their ranks or survived that onslaught did profit from the new network which was created, which directly led to Basarabi-Hallstatt and Thraco-Cimmerian elites far to the West. Frg is a prime candidate for a direct survivor of this tradition and its not by chance that they had among the most of Thraco-Cimmerian stuff in their elite burials plus marital ties with Basarabi and the Carpathian-Danubian zone.

----------


## torzio

> They are no subbranch in the linguistic sense, but it was a cultural horizon created by the invading Cimmerians, which seem to have picked up a lot of local Daco-Thracians in the course of events. We don't know how they look on the patrilinear side, with just one N sample so far. There are Prescythian samples in the British paper, which fit the bill for the Thraco-Cimmerian core group of Mezocsat, but unfortunately all of them are women. There is not a single male among them to say anything more about how much of the locals survived in the male lineages in this group. 
> The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is important because this event destroyed the "Channelled Ware empire" or network. They truly cut through the Channelled Ware people like a wedge, separating the Northern groups in Transcarpathia from those in the South, on the Danube, from which Psenichevo-Basarabi emerged. This was a huge catastrophy for them on the one hand, on the other those which eventually might have joined their ranks or survived that onslaught did profit from the new network which was created, which directly led to Basarabi-Hallstatt and Thraco-Cimmerian elites far to the West. Fr�g is a prime candidate for a direct survivor of this tradition and its not by chance that they had among the most of Thraco-Cimmerian stuff in their elite burials plus marital ties with Basarabi and the Carpathian-Danubian zone.



I never look at linguistics...............it is a useless tool for ethnicity

----------


## Aspurg

I got banned at last at Anthrogenica too. Good to be in the club. For attacking that little ***** Bruzmi. LOL I didn't say anything overly "aggressive". Other than suggesting he takes evidence into account. And I asked him, are you Selca, Nikci or Muriq. So if he is not V13 why does he post so much about this? :) And that J2b2 guy is thanking his every post.

I did mention he edits and war-edits at wikipedia, and apparently one or few of his friends at Anthrogenica also do. Someone posting so much nonsense should not be allowed on a serious board, but maybe some of his friends from edit-wars are there too, I might have hit a nerve there. Good. 

I was never banned on any board before. Also I never reported anyone on any forum for anything. Unlike your "brave" Albanian, he cries to the mods all the time. I am more in line with "kanun", I find reporting sort of "dishonorable".

Anyway this "Thraco-Cimmerian" horizon needs investigating in detail. Because there were Cimmerians, in several cultures, and then this phenomenon. 

So Riverman you are suggesting, that this wave compromised their Channelled Ware cohesion. The origin of Basarabi is not so clear. But the origin of Psenicevo group is. Our V13 should stem from Gava indirectly in the case of Psenicevo. Because the other alternative, Encrusted Pottery is a no (due to results).

----------


## Polska

> I got banned at last at Anthrogenica too. Good to be in the club. For attacking that little ***** Bruzmi. LOL I didn't say anything overly "aggressive". Other than suggesting he takes evidence into account. And I asked him, are you Selca, Nikci or Muriq. So if he is not V13 why does he post so much about this? :) And that J2b2 guy is thanking his every post.
> 
> I did mention he edits and war-edits at wikipedia, and apparently one or few of his friends at Anthrogenica also do. Someone posting so much nonsense should not be allowed on a serious board, but maybe some of his friends from edit-wars are there too, I might have hit a nerve there. Good. 
> 
> I was never banned on any board before. Also I never reported anyone on any forum for anything. Unlike your "brave" Albanian, he cries to the mods all the time. I am more in line with "kanun", I find reporting sort of "dishonorable".
> 
> Anyway this "Thraco-Cimmerian" horizon needs investigating in detail. Because there were Cimmerians, in several cultures, and then this phenomenon. 
> 
> So Riverman you are suggesting, that this wave compromised their Channelled Ware cohesion. The origin of Basarabi is not so clear. But the origin of Psenicevo group is. Our V13 should stem from Gava indirectly in the case of Psenicevo. Because the other alternative, Encrusted Pottery is a no (due to results).


I think you were too honest for some folk over there at AG. Their loss, although I’m sorry you were banned. Seems excessive, but this is a weird time in history when it comes to censoring people with unconventional views.

Regarding Wikipedia, I’ve noticed that any reference to L283 and Illyrians has been removed from Wikipedia. I’m curious if this was done by someone who didn’t like the results from the Daunian study and the recent GB study, among others? Are these the edits that you’re referencing?

I think the moderators here are pretty reasonable. Whatever you do, don’t get banned here. You have some valuable insights on the Balkans and a deep understanding of the phylogeny of different Y lines in the region. I like reading your posts. I’ve learned a lot about my Y line over the years as a result of reading many of your posts here at Eupedia.

----------


## Hawk

> I think you were too honest for some folk over there at AG. Their loss, although I’m sorry you were banned. Seems excessive, but this is a weird time in history when it comes to censoring people with unconventional views.
> 
> Regarding Wikipedia, I’ve noticed that any reference to L283 and Illyrians has been removed from Wikipedia. I’m curious if this was done by someone who didn’t like the results from the Daunian study and the recent GB study, among others? Are these the edits that you’re referencing?
> 
> I think the moderators here are pretty reasonable. Whatever you do, don’t get banned here. You have some valuable insights on the Balkans and a deep understanding of the phylogeny of different Y lines in the region. I like reading your posts. I’ve learned a lot about my Y line over the years as a result of reading many of your posts here at Eupedia.


Nope, the guy he is refering to is very likely J2b2-L283 himself. So, i highly doubt it.

----------


## Riverman

> I got banned at last at Anthrogenica too. Good to be in the club. For attacking that little ***** Bruzmi. LOL I didn't say anything overly "aggressive". Other than suggesting he takes evidence into account. And I asked him, are you Selca, Nikci or Muriq. So if he is not V13 why does he post so much about this? :) And that J2b2 guy is thanking his every post.
> 
> I did mention he edits and war-edits at wikipedia, and apparently one or few of his friends at Anthrogenica also do. Someone posting so much nonsense should not be allowed on a serious board, but maybe some of his friends from edit-wars are there too, I might have hit a nerve there. Good. 
> 
> I was never banned on any board before. Also I never reported anyone on any forum for anything. Unlike your "brave" Albanian, he cries to the mods all the time. I am more in line with "kanun", I find reporting sort of "dishonorable".


Too bad, I think reporting is ok, if its really bad behaviour, but first provoking, then reporting, that's obviously pretty sneaky to say the least. Is it a permanent ban? 




> Anyway this "Thraco-Cimmerian" horizon needs investigating in detail. Because there were Cimmerians, in several cultures, and then this phenomenon. 
> 
> So Riverman you are suggesting, that this wave compromised their Channelled Ware cohesion. The origin of Basarabi is not so clear. But the origin of Psenicevo group is. Our V13 should stem from Gava indirectly in the case of Psenicevo. Because the other alternative, Encrusted Pottery is a no (due to results).


I think with Encrusted pottery we have a nother problem, because the influence and spread of this group is not big and wide enough, to easily explain the earliest expansion of E-V13. Their influence was, in comparison to Channelled Ware, much more regional. Whereas early splinters and small groups of Channelled Ware had with the start of Urnfield access to wide ranging, powerful networks, which makes a limited early spread easy to explain. 
Otherwise everything must be explained by Psenichevo-Basarabi only, which is probably possible too, but much harder to do - even more so since most archaeologists which dealt with the subject claimed that the lasting impact and dominance of Channelled Ware was bigger than Encrusted Ware. Obviously the end result is culturally a fusion at the Danube, but the bigger weight has Channelled Ware/Gva.

----------


## Hawk

> Too bad, I think reporting is ok, if its really bad behaviour, but first provoking, then reporting, that's obviously pretty sneaky to say the least. Is it a permanent ban?


Similar scenario to me as well. The dude with his "friends" reported one of my posts, probably more than 1 person. And the funny thing is the post wasn't even overly agressive, or any kind of insults. Petty i would say.

----------


## Aspurg

> I think you were too honest for some folk over there at AG. Their loss, although I’m sorry you were banned. Seems excessive, but this is a weird time in history when it comes to censoring people with unconventional views.
> Regarding Wikipedia, I’ve noticed that any reference to L283 and Illyrians has been removed from Wikipedia. I’m curious if this was done by someone who didn’t like the results from the Daunian study and the recent GB study, among others? Are these the edits that you’re referencing?
> I think the moderators here are pretty reasonable. Whatever you do, don’t get banned here. You have some valuable insights on the Balkans and a deep understanding of the phylogeny of different Y lines in the region. I like reading your posts. I’ve learned a lot about my Y line over the years as a result of reading many of your posts here at Eupedia.


 On these SJW (and i am very liberal but...) sites Albanians get away with talking anything because they are "victims", alongside other "victim" ethnicities. That is the bottom line. 

It is a very bad idea for administrators or moderators of insignificant webspaces that are genetics sites to flex their non-existent muscles to me who moderated site ranked around 300 on Alexa, Anthrogenica is ranked 407,000. 

And I doubt I will post here often if ever. I don't belong here, and I am used to being in charge. But I might try to make a deal with someone elsewhere. I still have a reputation and friends after all that you are not aware of..

I went to anthrogenica after an Albanian spread lies about my family there. Like they tried here. But a wrong genetic cluster. But recently I got a new close relative who hails from Romania/Transylvania and there is no chance there is any relation whatsoever with Albanian ethnicity. And my ancestors it does look now came from Romanian areas in Medieval times, with strong evidence for riders of the Apocalypse. 

About Bruzmi, this is him on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maleschreiber

Originally at anthrogenica he was registered as "Maleschreiber", he edited alot "Illyrians" article as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

Maybe he removed it, he waits for E-V13 to be found together with J-L283.

----------


## Aspurg

> Too bad, I think reporting is ok, if its really bad behaviour, but first provoking, then reporting, that's obviously pretty sneaky to say the least. Is it a permanent ban?


 Yes it is, as I once got banned before long ago after Bruzmi reported my posts probably alongside few other Albanians.
He cannot handle me in most debates. So he uses such sneaky tactics. He said literally that J-L283 and E-V13 were the same population. But many things he says are nonsense, and that should not be allowed.

But he is getting nervous because his case is increasingly hopeless, and it will only be downhill for him..

He has likely a friend from wikipedia there among the mods/admins. As I saw some prominent members there thanking some of his pretty average posts. 

But then again, I wont worry much about 407,000 ranked site.. 




> I think with Encrusted pottery we have a nother problem, because the influence and spread of this group is not big and wide enough, to easily explain the earliest expansion of E-V13. Their influence was, in comparison to Channelled Ware, much more regional. Whereas early splinters and small groups of Channelled Ware had with the start of Urnfield access to wide ranging, powerful networks, which makes a limited early spread easy to explain. 
> Otherwise everything must be explained by Psenichevo-Basarabi only, which is probably possible too, but much harder to do - even more so since most archaeologists which dealt with the subject claimed that the lasting impact and dominance of Channelled Ware was bigger than Encrusted Ware. Obviously the end result is culturally a fusion at the Danube, but the bigger weight has Channelled Ware/G�va.


 What I meant is that we have so many Encrusted Pottery results from the Pannonian study and no V13. But we do have E-L539 (ofc V13) in Eastern Gava culture proper, that is the most important thing. 

Pure Channelled Ware communities in the Balkans also existed, in some secluded enclaves.

----------


## Hawk

I don't think that he wants to make E-V13 Illyrian lineage, it's just a mask-up/coverage of his real intentions. It has nothing to do with Albanian ethnicity/nationalism or well-being. It's much more personal. So, your objections are not valid as well Aspurg when you are trying to portray that guy as representative of all Albanians.

He was going around and around claiming all E-V13 in Balkans is due to recent Middle-Age expansion from somewhere from Dardania/Kosovo for all E-V13 in all directions. He was exclusively quite opposed on E-V13 being quite present among Thracians and potentially present among Greeks. He was running in circles and obviously he didn't like the idea/reality that it was very widespread among Daco-Thracian populations.

----------


## ihype02

> This female sample from Slovakian Hallstatt Vekerzug is my closest ancient sample. She has a mtDNA H1
> 
> Distance to:
> Hawk_scaled
> 
> 0.02996871
> SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12105
> 
> 0.03299762
> ...


Hawk are you Gheg or Tosk? And do you mind sharing your coordinates, if you are Gheg?

----------


## Riverman

By the way, some of the samples coming probably closest to Gva/Channelled Ware and early Daco-Thracians are the new Thraco-Cimmerian samples, they plot exactly between Kyjatice, Gva and the E-V13 from La Tene Hungary and the J2b cluster. So just a little bit North/North East of them, even though they might have some real Cimmerian admixture, they still are primarily local Daco-Thracians and many of the Hungarian "Scythians" plot just like the Gva sample still, as the most North Eastward variation of these people, similar to Fzesabony: 


https://ibb.co/71gwvMd

So even the late and probably admixed Daco-Thracians from Pannonia, from the Thraco-Cimmerian core group, can score pretty similar to the J2b/Illyrian cluster. There is just a general overlap of basic components ratio here. 

Some examples of how these Thraco-Cimmerians score in comparison to a selection of some other relevant Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan samples: 

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18211___Date:-775___Coverage_65.63%
0.03645638 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03790514 Scythian_HUN:I20746
0.03798084 BGR_EBA:I2165

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213___Date:-775___Coverage_65.63%
0.03287116 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03354655 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03896735 J2B::I5691

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239___Date:-775___Coverage_66.49%
0.03081740 R1bZ:I23207
0.03118333 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03327847 J2B::I5691
0.03686988 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245___Date:-775___Coverage_68.31%
0.02904312 R1bZ:I4996
0.03069460 Scythian_HUN:I20746
0.03153734 Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A197
0.03248499 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03542056 HUN_LBA_Kyjatice:I1504

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246___Date:-775___Coverage_67.64%
0.02714464 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03007541 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03852494 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465
0.03884865 R1bZ:I23207
0.03909868 Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A195
0.03915274 Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A197



*Also note the reasonable fits, all below 0,04!* 

The J2b Illyrian cluster is close indeed and gets into the range quite often, but even more often samples from Pannonia and the Carpathian sphere top them. That's even easier to recognise if there is an actual Illyrian outlier! *This individual looks like coming from the Illyrians*: 

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o3:I11683___Date:-775___Coverage_69.72%
0.03123643 J2B:I24639
0.03497661 J2B:I22940
0.03584851 J2B::I23911
0.03590331 J2B:I23995
0.03827002 J2B:I26726
0.03865594 Scythian_HUN :Laughing: A198
0.03979095 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465

Only in this sample all the top samples are from the J2b Illyrian cluster and it also plots in the midst of the J2b cluster on my PCA! That's a striking difference to the more typical Thraco-Cimmerians with a more clearly Pannonian cluster. Also check how low the distance is, even lower than for the others, which proves the homogeneity of the Illyrians. This individual was probably an Illlyrian bride, brought to the Thraco-Cimmerian centre. 
Its just such a pity that they haven't sampled a dozen or so Mezocsat males, because looking at these samples autosomal make up, I'm pretty sure some E-V13 would have popped up among them.

What really sets the Pannonians apart though is the increased WHG and lowered Neolithic ancestry: 



https://ibb.co/sWQGhdX

Note the Illyrian outlier with much lowered WHG, increased Neolithic. The Eastern oulier among the LT samples from Hungary with E-V13 is even much below the Illyrians for his Yamnaya and WHG share. He is simply very mixed with more Eastern and Southern elements, going in the direction of Bulgarian EBA/IA. 

Both the Mezocsat and E-V13 La Tene samples are not fundamentally different from Illyrians, just somewhat more Northern shifted. Also note that they have nearly zero East Asian admixture, unlike other "Cimmerians". They are genetically with high probability overwhelmingly Daco-Thracians.
The more Northern Pannonians main feature is the increased WHG ancestry. The Illyrians have as much or more Yamnaya, but on average less WHG, while there is still no clear cut border, but just a fluent transitioning between them.

----------


## Hawk

I have never encountered any literature classifying any population living in Western Hungary, Western Slovakia, or Central Bohemia as Daco-Thracian. That's just nonsense IMO. Those E-V13 remains among La Tene are very likely remains from older populations, the ones who contributed in various Danubian Urnfield cultures, and the the big bulk of it migrated during the LBA transition in Balkans and eventually forming Daco-Thracians latter on. But it cannot go in reverse.

----------


## Riverman

> I have never encountered any literature classifying any population living in Western Hungary, Western Slovakia, or Central Bohemia as Daco-Thracian. That's just nonsense IMO. Those E-V13 remains among La Tene are very likely remains from older populations, the ones who contributed in various Danubian Urnfield cultures, and the the big bulk of it migrated during the LBA transition in Balkans and eventually forming Daco-Thracians latter on. But it cannot go in reverse.


There are at least three inputs from the Daco-Thracians to the West: 
- Channelled Ware infiltration, I quoted it already, its especially about elite warriors from the Hungarian plain which not just infiltrated Transdanubia, but pushed and caused migrations of these Pannonians to the West. Some of these movements could have involved E-V13 and J-L283 side by side
- Thraco-Cimmerian horizon - this was just a very big and highly influential push from the steppe, which caused the assimilation of various Daco-Thracian tribes which pushed on, deep into the West, into Southern Germany and Northern Italy even: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian
This was a pulse but it resulted in lasting relations to 
- The Basaraboid-Hallstatt connection. Especially in the earliest phase, and in groups like Frg and Kalenderberg, but again up the Danube to Bavaria, we find significant Basarabi related influences: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Hallstattzeit

This influence was, like some burials in Frg prove, accompanied by elites and their retinue migrating West, rarely if ever East. So this was primarily an East -> West gene flow. However, this changed already during developed Hallstatt in some areas and even more so in La Tene, when there was a massive West -> East migration. 

And talking about the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, its like with the Hunnic empire, it some cultural and archaeological centres and one of the main centres was the Mezocsat culture. Just like later the Vekerzug Scythians were Thraco-Scythians in all likelihood. If you read up on Vekerzug, its basically Pannonians and/or Daco-Thracians adopting Scythian ways. 
The other relevant group being Ferigile. These were basically Daco-Thracians and being closely connected to Basarabi - the connection therefore goes Basarabi -> Ferigile -> Vekerzug: 



> Die eisernen Streitmesser zeigen zwei Verbreitungsschwerpunkte  in der Vekerzug-Kultur, wo diese seit Ha D1 vorkommen, und in sdlichen Vorkarpaten und am unteren Donaugebiet, wo sie schon auf den Fundpltzen der Basarabi-Kultur und besonders der nachfolgenden Ferigile-Kultur hufig vetreten sind (Vulpe 1990, 8191, Taf. 26, 27, 28, 29: 184191). Der Waffenkanon beider genannten Kulturregionen weist auch andere Gemeinsamkeiten auf, die sich z. B. im Vorkommen von fast identischen eisernen bzw. bronzenen lnglich-trapezfrmigen Scheiden und Lanzenschtzern niederschlagen, deren Verbreitung sich wie auch im Falle der Streitmesser weitgehend auf die Vekerzug- und Ferigile-Kultur beschrnkt (Abb. 13: 3). In der Ferigile-Kultur wurden solche Schneiden im Laufe der zweiten Hlfte des 7. Jhs. und des ganzen 6. Jhs. v. Chr. im Gebrauch. Die Beifunde aus den Vekerzuger Grbern datieren Schneiden und Lanzenschtzer in die entwickelten Stufe Ha D1 und in die Stufe Ha D2 bzw. an den Anfang Ha D3 und es ist daher evident, dass eiserne Streitmesser zusammen mit Schneiden unter den Einflssen der Ferigile-Kultur in die Vekerzug-Kultur bergenommen wurden (Vulpe 1990, 97102, Taf. 32, 33; Kozubov 2013a, 105 f., Abb. 33)


https://fphil.uniba.sk/fileadmin/fif...2019_final.pdf

But they rarely crossed into the Western Hungarian area. The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon however, at least as an influence and small group migration event, is very real.

----------


## Hawk

I was right on my assumptions. Romanian archeologists consider the Polgar region in Eastern Hungary as Pre/Proto-Gava originated: https://www.academia.edu/50256053/Th...wer_Mure%C8%99, 

Similar ancestral groups inhabited here, Nagyrev/Ottomany then Vatya/Hatvan and it's hard to pinpoint the origin.

All in all, this is exactly the Middle Danube region.

----------


## Riverman

Various groups you mentioned intermix, especially late Otomani Fzesabony and Nagyrev being interesting. But remind you on this: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post635020

The point is, the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture pushed the groups to the East, and its from the Upper Tisza, where different elements amalgameted, that pre-Gva came up. In that map its just the very North East of the Middle Danubian part, whereas most of the Middle Danubian area was occupied by Tumulus Culture and later Middle Danubian Urnfield which grew out of it. Its geographically the Middle Danube, yes, but culturally Middle Danubian Tumulus culture, and Middle Danubian Urnfield culture have specific meanings. As does Kyjatice-Gva/Channelled Ware, which was seperate from those. 
In the developed phase, the bend was borderline and in the end phase of the Bronze Age, Channelled Ware influenced reached all the way from the Upper to the Lower basin and beyond. But the main expansive Southern core with Belegis II-Gva was were teh Middle and Lower Danube region met. 

I made a map, green shows the Tumulus culture push which caused the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture to expand East and South, the white and black arrows represent Gva and Channelled Ware expansions: 


https://ibb.co/5KwmKwP

The Middle Danubian Tumulus culture influence prevailed in the MBA, pushing various Pannonian groups, including Fzesabony, eastward. In the very late Bronze Age to Iron Age transiton, Channelled Ware being more influential in most regions, but there was still influence in both directions, but rather from the successor of the Middle Danubian TC, the Middle Danubian Urnfield group, whereas the Southern inhumation groups of the Illyrians got more isolated.

----------


## Hawk

> There are at least three inputs from the Daco-Thracians to the West: 
> - Channelled Ware infiltration, I quoted it already, its especially about elite warriors from the Hungarian plain which not just infiltrated Transdanubia, but pushed and caused migrations of these Pannonians to the West. Some of these movements could have involved E-V13 and J-L283 side by side
> - Thraco-Cimmerian horizon - this was just a very big and highly influential push from the steppe, which caused the assimilation of various Daco-Thracian tribes which pushed on, deep into the West, into Southern Germany and Northern Italy even: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian
> This was a pulse but it resulted in lasting relations to 
> - The Basaraboid-Hallstatt connection. Especially in the earliest phase, and in groups like Fr�g and Kalenderberg, but again up the Danube to Bavaria, we find significant Basarabi related influences: 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Hallstattzeit
> 
> This influence was, like some burials in Fr�g prove, accompanied by elites and their retinue migrating West, rarely if ever East. So this was primarily an East -> West gene flow. However, this changed already during developed Hallstatt in some areas and even more so in La Tene, when there was a massive West -> East migration. 
> ...


But your sources are vague. Indirect and nothing conclusive. I wouldn't rush so much IMO. Initially i would generalize the region then when we have more facts we can scope it down to specific culture if that really happened.

----------


## Riverman

> But your sources are vague. Indirect and nothing conclusive. I wouldn't rush so much IMO. Initially i would generalize the region then when we have more facts we can scope it down to specific culture if that really happened.


I brought up some papers dealing with that specifically. The Middle Danubian expansion had nothing to do with the Channelled Ware ceramic and customs. If talking about the name giving ceramic alone, the predecessors all belong to the Pannonian local cultures which were pushed by the invading Tumulus culture. Like Otomani-Fzesabony. Also the very direct predecessors of Channelled Ware groups, like Berkesz and Piliny. You can read up on those, they had nothing to do with the TC invaders. Even when they themselves joined the TC network, probably under pressure, when being forced to the Upper Tisza region, where all the refugees and locals amalgamated to something new = Channelled Ware. For this process and development, the Middle Danubian TC groups were rather a push factor, but not the creators themselves. 
Surely they influenced each other, but for Gva-Kyjatice its more about groups like Fzesabony and the direct ancestors Piliny -> Kyjatice and Berkesz-Demecser -> Gva.

If you go back in time, important cultures are always Fzesabony-late Otomani and even older Nyrsg, the latter occupy exactly the later Gva core region: 



> Almost all locations of the Nyrsg culture lie in the north-east Hungarian lowlands and the neighbouring regions in north-west Romania and east Slovakia.


http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version

The sites in question for the earliest phase of Berkesz, Nyrsg and Demecser are all very close in the North East of Hungary, in the classical triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. And they being connected with Proto-Thracians even before: 



> A. Mozsolics made an important statement according to which the finds of NyrkarszGyulahza are cosely linked with the material of the areas east of the Carpathian Basin by the tumulus burials and by a few bronze types (e. g. wart-necked pin, the socketed celt of the Transylvanian type) and the parallels of several bronze finds from NyrkarszGyulahza occur in the hoards coming to light in Eastern Hungary. 8 These results are supported by several proofs in her article evaluating the hoard of Oplyi. According to her final conclusions numerous hoards were put into the earth in the second half of the В IV period mainly in Szabolcs-Szatmr County (Hungary), in the Carpathian Ukraine and in the area of Northern Transylvania which included several objects in common and the material from the tumulus of Nyrkarsz (Felsőszőcs culture) 9 provide important aid in dating those finds. According to I. Bona the eastern forms appearing in the pottery and metallurgy of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin in the 12th century was the result of the immigration from the East which affected the whole area of Transylvania and the Great Hungarian Plain. (With the exception of the daggers of eastern type he treats these only in general.) In his opinion, in a transitory period"  a term he coined for Late Bronze Age 3  (R BD  HA,) a Thracian population (the ethnic group represented by the cemeteries of Muhi, Berkesz, Demecser) invading from the East culturally superseded the Egyek cultural group. It is important for us that he by collecting parallels determined the age and eastern origin of the dagger found at Berkesz Csonksdűlő. 1 0 In brief, from the quoted opinions it is clear that both Mozsolics and Kalicz noted that some of the finds of the Felsőszőcs culture (called by Kalicz the Felsőszőcs group) is younger than the Felsőszőcs pottery with deeply incised decorations, but they still treated as part of one cultural unit the material which in reality was only genetically related. The cause of this seems that Mozsolics did not take into consideration several assemblages of finds from the Nyrsg (in particular those typical of Berkesz  Demecser) while Kalicz discussed only those pieces of these assemblages of finds which closely resemble in form the Felsőszőcs types. Thus he neglected those which primarily prove that the inheritace of other ethnic components is traceable in the material of several cemeteries (e. g. Berkesz, Demecser, Nyregyhza Bujtos).
> A. Mozsolics and I. Bona also emphasized the eastern relations or origin of the Felsőszőcs culture (on the basis of the NyrkarszGyulahza finds) or that *of the Thracian ( ?) population indicated by the Muhi Berkesz  Demecser* cemeteries.





> *The fact that those hoards which mark the end of the life of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group 106 were hidden in the earth indicates an outside attack. As it is commonly held, the inheritance of the invaders are the finds of the 
> Gva* 107 type among which several ceramic forms occur which have their roots in local development. 108 Among the hoards which were buried in the Early Iron Age there are also several metal types of local origin. This indicates that a considerable part of the population did not move. It can be surmised that the path of those compelled to flee is traceable in the material of a few graves unearthed in the cemetery on the outskirts of Soldanesti.


https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/vi...pg=29&layout=s

The picture is complex, but there is no way around that triangle for Channelled Ware/Gva. It also proves why there were no finds of E-V13 in the Early and Middle Bronze Age from most of Pannonia, but, if we are lucky, only from the very North East, at the end of the period: Because they came there just late probably. 

Cultural formations which should be remembered, also for future sampling, are Berkesz, Demecser, Egyek group, Nyrsg group among others. All pretty much in the same region of the triangle, all related sites and groups, but with newcomers influencing and transforming them in part or fully, which is not yet fully understood, just like the true origin of Gva in this context remains elusive.

----------


## Hawk

> I brought up some papers dealing with that specifically. The Middle Danubian expansion had nothing to do with the Channelled Ware ceramic and customs. If talking about the name giving ceramic alone, the predecessors all belong to the Pannonian local cultures which were pushed by the invading Tumulus culture. Like Otomani-F�zesabony. Also the very direct predecessors of Channelled Ware groups, like Berkesz and Piliny. You can read up on those, they had nothing to do with the TC invaders. Even when they themselves joined the TC network, probably under pressure, when being forced to the Upper Tisza region, where all the refugees and locals amalgamated to something new = Channelled Ware. For this process and development, the Middle Danubian TC groups were rather a push factor, but not the creators themselves. 
> Surely they influenced each other, but for G�va-Kyjatice its more about groups like F�zesabony and the direct ancestors Piliny -> Kyjatice and Berkesz-Demecser -> G�va.
> 
> If you go back in time, important cultures are always F�zesabony-late Otomani and even older Ny�rs�g, the latter occupy exactly the later G�va core region: 
> 
> 
> http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version
> 
> The sites in question for the earliest phase of Berkesz, Ny�rs�g and Demecser are all very close in the North East of Hungary, in the classical triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. And they being connected with Proto-Thracians even before: 
> ...


I don't think you realize that you are wrong by two factors, both timeline and location.

According to Frano Prendi the Illyrian tumuli are descended from Cetina tumuli. And Cetina Phenomenon was a phenomenon from 2200-1600 B.C which predates Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture even on their initial expansion from Southern Bavaria to Carpathian Basin/Pannonia.






> Since the excavation of the Early Iron Age tumulus cemetery of Vergina (Bräunig – Kilian-Dirlmeier 2013) in the middle of the 20th century, these mounds have definitely become an emblematic feature of the funerary landscape of Northern Greece. Tumuli have been equally characteristic ofthe Epirote highlands already sincethe Bronze Age, and their use continues deep into the Iron Age, not to mention the Medieval graves found in some of the mounds, as in Albania just across the border. In Epirus, most important are the tumuli of Pogoni, Liatovouni, a newly discovered mound near Igoumenitsa, and those in the monumental settlement of Xylokastro/Ephyra (Tartaron 2004: 148). Both Epirote and Southern Albanian tumuli (for the most recent publication of a tumulus excavation see Papadopoulos et al. 2014) often contained large numbers of graves (88 at Parapotamos, 202 at Rehovë) and the pottery and other finds are very similar on both sides of the modern borders. While the Macedonian, Epirote, and South-Albanian tumuli are built as earth mounds surrounded by a stone circle, the tumulus structure is quite different in Northern Albania and Dalmatia, where the overwhelming majority of them isentirely built with stones, making excavation extremely difficult.
> 
> Dozens of tumuli have been recently identified on coastal ridges in the Albanian districts of Lezha and Shkodra close to the border with Montenegro thanks to a new project carried out since 2014 by the Albanian Archaeological Institute. Their structure is quite similar to Montenegrinian tumuli, e.g. those of the Planinica Hill (Bugaj et al. 2013) and those even further North in Dalmatia. There, mounds became an extremely popular form of burial monument already during the Early Bronze Age, when the so-called Cetina culture spread over Dalmatia. Within the Cetina tumuli both inhumation and cremation are attested. Cist graves are often – but not exclusively – placed in the middle of the tumulus, while simpler graves are built with smaller stones and placed in different parts of the tumulus (Marović 1991). Within the CEVAS – Cetina VAlley Survey project clusters of burial mounds excavated by Marović in the Cetina valley from the 1950s to the 1990s are being mapped, and, together with newexcavations and intensive survey, the transregional cross-cultural connections of tumulus landscapes are being re-evaluated (Tomas 2017). In the same area, archaeometric analyses of various archaeological materials combined with a thorough study of the ceramics have been undertaken on the tumuli of Brnjica and Poljakuše as part of the project “Cultural Encounters across the Adriatic and Ionian Seas 2500–2000 BC”. Besides focusing on the chronological dimension of the tumulus phenomenon, this project has produced new data regarding mobility, ritual practices and cross-cultural interconnections, which have been analysed in the wider framework of the spread of the Cetina phenomenon across the Central Mediterranean (Gori – Recchia forthcoming). The eastern Adriatic coast is indeed important for the study of the diffusion of tumuli: it is no coincidence that the first Early Bronze Age tumuli of Greece appeared in the West, as on Lefkada island. Some grave goods from the EH IIB burial mound cemetery at Steno appears to have parallels with those from the early 3rd millennium BC burial mounds at Mala Gruda and Velika Gruda in Montenegro (Della Casa 1995).
> 
> 
> https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247


So, if tumulis were introduced from somewhere from the Alps, it must have been some Bell Beaker culture similar or brother/sister to ancestral culture to the actual Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus Culture somewhere from 2500-2000 B.C who has different timeline and indeed could have made an influence at Illyrians via Danubian Urnfielders during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition. Frano Prendi calls this the Pannono-Balkan migration at exactly LBA to EIA transition.




> In this transitional period which was to last some three centuries with each century providing new elements in its material culture, several components are discernible: the autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric civilization, and elements of Cental European origin which were spread through Albania by the second wave of the Pannono-Balkan migration (end of the twelfth and the eleventh centuries B.C.). This wave, unlike the first, had a marked influence on Albania, although only in some areas.

----------


## Riverman

Yes, Albania was completely taken just later, but gor the larger region the trend and influence started already much earlier.

----------


## Archetype0ne

Boys, I am out of my depth here.

But could one of you enlighten me on smth.

Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?

----------


## Aspurg

> Boys, I am out of my depth here.
> 
> But could one of you enlighten me on smth.
> 
> Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?


 Illyrian tumulii descend of Tumulii of Posušje culture dominated by J2b2, Posušje culture adopted this tradition from Cetina culture which preceded it. Some say this tradition came from NE (Glina culture), while others claim this tradition came from Peloponesus, is of Southern, non-IE Near Eastern/East Mediterranean origin.

----------


## Hawk

> Boys, I am out of my depth here.
> 
> But could one of you enlighten me on smth.
> 
> Is there a way for Cetina->Illyrian Tumuli to be on a sibling relation to para*-Tumulus Grave culture further north? Meaning not a parent progeny relation, but a sibling relation. What would the comparative method say regarding this?


That's what i am thinking and i actually said in my post earlier.. If J2b2-L283 was a major Cetina lineage who initially got assimilated by some Bell-Beaker lineage R1b-L51. Before that, it could actually spoke some earlier Yamnaya language. Who knows, let's see.

----------


## Riverman

> That's what i am thinking and i actually said in my post earlier.. If J2b2-L283 was a major Cetina lineage who initially got assimilated by some Bell-Beaker lineage R1b-L51. Before that, it could actually spoke some earlier Yamnaya language. Who knows, let's see.


That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.

Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.

I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.

----------


## Aspurg

> That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
> We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
> E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.
> Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.
> I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.


 Cetina was a syncretic culture.

1. Adriatic Ljubljana culture
1.1. Ljubljana culture looking EEF heavy R-Z2103 per new study
1.2. Dalmatian EEF locals G2a, C-V20, E-L618 etc
2. Bell Beaker R-L51
3. Yamnaya in East Herzegovina R-Z2103
4. Glina III and Ezero influences J2a, I2a etc

Posušje culture dominated by J2b2 was a new culture which had nothing to do with Cetina culture. Posušje overwhelmed Cetina, and assimilated its remnants. Per consensus they were of different origins.

----------


## Riverman

> Cetina was a syncretic culture.
> 
> 1. Adriatic Ljubljana culture
> 1.1. Ljubljana culture looking EEF heavy R-Z2103 per new study
> 1.2. Dalmatian EEF locals G2a, C-V20, E-L618 etc
> 2. Bell Beaker R-L51
> 3. Yamnaya in East Herzegovina R-Z2103
> 4. Glina III and Ezero influences J2a, I2a etc
> 
> Posušje culture dominated by J2b2 was a new culture which had nothing to do with Cetina culture. Posušje overwhelmed Cetina, and assimilated its remnants. Per consensus they were of different origins.


How do you see their relationship with the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture?

----------


## Hawk

Here is something about Posusje:

https://books.google.de/books?id=hef...ulture&f=false

----------


## Riverman

> Here is something about Posusje:
> 
> https://books.google.de/books?id=hef...ulture&f=false


I have to confess I didn't look too much into that group before, because I think its influence and scope was to weak to account for the J-L283 spread. Because J-L283 appears so widely in territories clearly being influenced by the Middle Danubian TC and UF expansions, that they have to be in some way associated with it. Its just like it is with E-V13 to the East, they need a big vehicle to gain that momentum, not a localised group, unless it can be linked to larger movements of which it was "a passenger".

----------


## Aspurg

> How do you see their relationship with the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture?


 No relationship whatsoever, these tumulii in Cetina/Posušje culture were of totally different origin and nature. The only thing is common is that their burials are called "Tumulii", Cetina/Posušje burial are stone cists. Just two different burial types going under "Tumulus" umbrella.

Cetina stone cyst from Orah, East Herzegovina. Does this resemble Pannonian/C.European Tumulus culture?


Pannonian study has multiple Tumulus culture sites, R-L51 dominates, no J2b2.

----------


## Riverman

> No relationship whatsoever, these tumulii in Cetina/Posušje culture were of totally different origin and nature. The only thing is common is that their burials are called "Tumulii", Cetina/Posušje burial are stone cists. Just two different burial types going under "Tumulus" umbrella.
> 
> Cetina stone cyst from Orah, East Herzegovina. Does this resemble Pannonian/C.European Tumulus culture?
> 
> 
> Pannonian study has multiple Tumulus culture sites, R-L51 dominates, no J2b2.


But the Tumulus culture expansion went Southward too, at least in a more "localised form" and the second thrust went on with the Middle Danubian Urnfielders. I think there was some kind of transitional group in Slovenia-Croatia from which J-L283 spread, but probably I'm wrong. 

Do you know from where exactly the E1b1b find was coming from in the Pannonian study by now and from what time frame?

----------


## Archetype0ne

Wrong thread, so sorry.

But do we know the context of the dozen Slovenian/Croatian BA L283 samples? Maybe working back from Glasinac-Mat to whichever is more appropriate is the way to go?

There has been various surveys done in North Albania regarding tumuli recently. Albeit these are preliminary surveys from what I gather documenting them, and not proper digs.

----------


## Hawk

> Wrong thread, so sorry.
> 
> But do we know the context of the dozen Slovenian/Croatian BA L283 samples? Maybe working back from Glasinac-Mat to whichever is more appropriate is the way to go?
> 
> There has been various surveys done in North Albania regarding tumuli recently. Albeit these are preliminary surveys from what I gather documenting them, and not proper digs.


Nah, it's the correct thread actually, we are talking about Late Bronze Age Balkans, case of inhumating groups and cremating.

I don't know about the L283 sample assignments, but none was from actual Glasinac-Mat so far. But i guess all of these are somewhat interrelated cultures.

----------


## Hawk

> That's possible, because Cetina was in the Bell Beaker networks, but with a regional tradition of its own. This would make their later Integration, with the survival of the local patrilinear heritage, into the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture network easier to explain.
> We already have a transitional zone from Bell Beaker R1b to J-L283 in Slovenia-Croatia.
> E-V13 would have been in a similar role, but within Epi-Corded and Unetice networks, more oriented to the North rather than the West.
> Beside Cetina, another contact point with Yamnaya-Pannonia would have been Csepel.
> I think that the J-L283 Illyrians came from one of these BB-Yamnaya contact points in any case, with Cetina being a good candidate.


I am going by latest Matzinger claims, if he is right that Proto-Illyrians were from East Alpine to West Balkans scretch and he doesn't think it belongs to classical Balkan languages like: Proto-Albanoid, Messapian, Thracian, Greek then we must look something from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age, a push from Eastern Alps to Western Balkans, i know Hugelgraberkultur would make sense but somehow the timeline doesn't fit, Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture pushed into Pannonia and further into Carpathians somewhere during 1500-1400 B.C. It might be some Bell-Beaker spinoff culture related to the ancestor of Hugelgraberkultur likely.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> Nah, it's the correct thread actually, we are talking about Late Bronze Age Balkans, case of inhumating groups and cremating.
> 
> I don't know about the L283 sample assignments, but none was from actual Glasinac-Mat so far. But i guess all of these are somewhat interrelated cultures.


Thanks.

Yes. I was more referring to the morphology of the burials. Was it mounds at all? If so, what type? So we can test this Posusje / Cetina debate. And if it was, can such types of burials be found further south and/or east? What were the first instances of such etc...

----------


## Hawk

> Thanks.
> 
> Yes. I was more referring to the morphology of the burials. Was it mounds at all? If so, what type? So we can test this Posusje / Cetina debate. And if it was, can such types of burials be found further south and/or east? What were the first instances of such etc...


Yes, mounds were used by all, even by Thracians, if u check the link i shared the South-Albania and North Epirus tumuli differed from the ones from North Albania and Dalmatia which had a continuus cline.

You can read Frano Prendi about Cetina and Mat-Glasinac: https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727..._num_15_2_1360

Of course we need samples in order to confirm something, because sometimes archeological evidences can be missleading actually.

----------


## Aspurg

> But the Tumulus culture expansion went Southward too, at least in a more "localised form" and the second thrust went on with the Middle Danubian Urnfielders. I think there was some kind of transitional group in Slovenia-Croatia from which J-L283 spread, but probably I'm wrong. 
> 
> Do you know from where exactly the E1b1b find was coming from in the Pannonian study by now and from what time frame?


 Culture J2b2 was found in is simply not related to Central European Tumulus culture, and it even slightly precedes it.

E1b1b1a find from Pannonian study? All LBA sites are from the very NE Hungary. He should be from Pácin (Slovakian border town and 20 km away from Ukrainian border), where there are 3 Y-DNA LBA finds. Eastern Gava culture. E1b1b1a find has most Steppe ancestry of any LBA find.

----------


## torzio

> I don't think you realize that you are wrong by two factors, both timeline and location.
> 
> According to Frano Prendi the Illyrian tumuli are descended from Cetina tumuli. And Cetina Phenomenon was a phenomenon from 2200-1600 B.C which predates Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture even on their initial expansion from Southern Bavaria to Carpathian Basin/Pannonia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if tumulis were introduced from somewhere from the Alps, it must have been some Bell Beaker culture similar or brother/sister to ancestral culture to the actual Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus Culture somewhere from 2500-2000 B.C who has different timeline and indeed could have made an influence at Illyrians via Danubian Urnfielders during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition. Frano Prendi calls this the Pannono-Balkan migration at exactly LBA to EIA transition.


in 1967 mr.Prendi and mr.Hammond where claiming what you stated...........he( Prendi ) also said this occurred around 2100 BC and with further claims that Dorians and Macedonians are also of Illyrian origins ...................are we really going down this path which is nearly 50 years old????

----------


## Hawk

Or, the Koszider hoard that came via Pannonia and was mixed Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture did really impact Glasinac Culture formation during Late Bronze Age and brought this hypothetically Proto-Illyrian East-Alpine block language in Balkans!?

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

Would that actually make Marija Gimbutas assumptions right about Proto-Illyrians? https://books.google.de/books?id=Bvt...ulture&f=false

----------


## Riverman

> Or, the Koszider hoard that came via Pannonia and was mixed Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus-grave Culture did really impact Glasinac Culture formation during Late Bronze Age and brought this hypothetically Proto-Illyrian East-Alpine block language in Balkans!?
> 
> We need samples from Illyri proprii dictii as well. If R1b-L51 shows at small percentages then it would be clear case IMO. It doesn't really have to be a population replacement. The Etruscan model can work as well, most of Etruscans were R1b but were the R1b the carriers of the language? Linguistic comparison with great certainty classifies Etruscan as EEF surviving language so the ~20% G2a Etruscans were more likely to be the original language bearers.
> 
> Would that actually make Marija Gimbutas assumptions right about Proto-Illyrians? https://books.google.de/books?id=Bvt...ulture&f=false


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

----------


## Hawk

> Here is something about Posusje:
> 
> https://books.google.de/books?id=hef...ulture&f=false


Posusje is actually related to Castellieri Culture from Histria,




> The hillfort settlement of Monkodonja, located in the vicinity of the town Rovinj, is representative of the Bronze Age Castellieri culture in Istria. Twelve years of excavations that lasted one month each year revealed a proto-urban settlement with extensive fortification system, and a tripartite division of its interior that could well reflect the hierarchical social structure of its inhabitants. Remarkably, a change in the fortification concept during the time of the settlement’s existence could also be observed. With regard to bronze objects and ceramic finds the settlement is dated generally between the developed Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, or in Br A2 and Br B1 periods according to the chronology of Paul Reinecke. Moreover, about 40 radiocarbon dates from the Monkodonja settlement have also been analysed. The foundation of the settlement is dated to around 1800 cal BC. The second extensive building phase, including the rebuilding of the fortification system according to new defensive concepts, is dated approximately to 1600 cal BC, while the destruction of the settlement occurred around 1500 cal BC or in the middle of the 15th century BC at the latest.
> 
> 
> 
> http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfur...20/docId/53990


Something more: https://www.academia.edu/1997747/The...rthern_Croatia

Which Middle Danube Tumulus influence is mentioned.

----------


## Hawk

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


I am actually seeing this as realistic scenario. Looks like Tumulus Culture bearers lost their ground on Pannonia/Carpathian Basin/Lower Danube during LBA to EIA transition from Carpathian Urnfielders who imposed the cremation on urns burial rite on them, and the Koszider hoard who enriched Glasinac in LBA was the inhumating Tumulus successor. They might not have changed the previous EBA/MBA population structure, might have been some few elite warriors.

----------


## Hawk

We have a new E-L618 from Germany, Baden-Württemberg. :)

----------


## Riverman

> We have a new E-L618 from Germany, Baden-Württemberg. :)



Which sample?

----------


## Hawk

> Which sample?


Forgot to mention, he is not aDNA but modern sample.

----------


## Riverman

> Forgot to mention, he is not aDNA but modern sample.


Isolated E-L618 in South Western Germany could be Michelsberger/Lengyel survivors too.

----------


## Hawk

> Isolated E-L618 in South Western Germany could be Michelsberger/Lengyel survivors too.


Possible scenario, yes.

----------


## Hawk

An overview of Middle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin cultures.

----------


## Riverman

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

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

Examples from an excavation: 



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





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





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





> Almost 250 sites of that culture6 have been attested so far. Most of them have been known from fieldwlkings, as only few of them have been intensely researched. The latter category includes the settlements at Boineşti Coasta Boineştilorbi, Culciu Mare Sub grădini"M, Culciu Mic La gropi de siloz0', Lazuri Lubi-Tag"00, Mcdieşu Aurit Şuculeu67 (jud. Satu Marc), Lăpuşel Ciurgăubi, Mesteacăn Valea caselor69, Oarţa de Jos  Vlceaua Rusului10, Oarţa de Sus Om/ Făgetului1', Vad Poduri72 (Romania); Medvedivce Babinka73, Diakovo Kişerda, Modicitag / Mondicitag, "Ferma, Virgvr1*, Kvasove75, Solotvino Cetate (Ukraine)76, Skrabsk Zhumienky (Slovakia)77, as well as the funerary finds from Medieşu Aurit Togul lui Schweizer1'1, Nyrkarsz-Gyulahza (Ungaria)79, Stanovo80, Lochovo Şkorobabki (Ukraine)81, Vel'ke Raskovce82; Zemplinske Kopcany Kutka (Slovakia)83.


https://library.hungaricana.hu/en/vi...pg=20&layout=s


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




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


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

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

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

Berkesz-Demeter and Suciu de Sus are key groups to take samples from if possible: 



> Among the materials from Wierzchosławice the most conspicuous are characteristic vessels decorated with knobs, such as vases and jugs/cups, usually on a small, hollow foot (Figure 4:ab, gh, kl). These vessels are often additionally decorated with vertical groups of incised strokes or narrow grooves, and with horizontal lines or bands of hollows. Vessels of this kind, and analogically decorated cups in particular, are already known from post-classic assemblages of the Otomani-Fzesabony culture on the Streda nad Bodrogom site (Polla 1960: plate VII:5, XII:1, XIX:1). However, in the light of the remaining materials connected with the TranscarpathianTrzciniec settlement phase, the cups in question should rather be linked with slightly younger cultural phenomena. These forms often occur on the Piliny culture cemeteries in Slovakia, such as Barca II (Jlkov 1961: fig. 8:5, 9:34, 10:1, 35, 11:6, 12:5) and afrikovo (Furmnek 1977: fig. 7:1, plate III:14, IV:13; XIV:1; 1981: fig. 5:4), and in the Hungarian variant of this culture known as the Zagyvaplfalva group (Kemenczei 1967: fig. 2:8, 15:3, 17:7). Younger variants of these vessels are dated to BrC (Furmnek 1977: 308). Apart from the Piliny culture in Slovakia and Zagyvaplfalva group, the knobs from Wierzchosławice  pointing downward and encircled with grooves  find their best analogies in the ceramic material of the Slovakian variant of the Suciu de Sus culture, in such cemeteries as Zemplnske Kopčany, Viničky and Budkovce (Demeterov 1984: plate III:2, XIII:4, XIX:4,7, XXIX:5, XXXI:20). To a lesser degree, they also refer to the Carpathian Tumulus culture in Slovakia, e.g. Salka, Mal nad Hronom (Točik 1964: fig. 4:5, 7, plate XVII:2, XXIX:6, XXXV:4). In Poland, analogical knobs are known from the cemetery at Chełmiec associated with the Piliny culture (Szymaszkiewicz 1985: fig. 3:1, 34, 6). In the period in question, combinations of horizontal and vertical incised strokes and grooves, as well as rows of hollows (Figure 4:ab, f, h, jn), were ornaments which were popular in virtually every culture from the southern slopes of the Carpathians.3 *This decoration was relatively rare in the Carpathian Tumulus culture (Točik 1964: plate XVIII:6, XXI:6), and is unknown in the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture* (Duek 1980). In the territory of Poland, such ornamentation was quite popular in the Carpathian zone, where Transcarpathian influences were recorded, e.g. on such sites as Chełmiec (Szymaszkiewicz 1985: fig. 3:1, 34, 6) and Wielka Wieś (Okoński/Szpunar 2002: fig. 22:d).
> 
> Among Transcarpathian pottery one should also mention characteristic fragments of amphorae or vases, with conical necks and thickened, everted rims (Figure 4:c), which were decorated in the upper part with vertical grooves and rows of hollows (Figure 4:f). Most of them were found in feature 520 from cluster A, and find their best analogies in the pottery of the Berkesz-Demecser culture from the Hungary-Slovakia borderland. The forms known from feature 520 are numerous at Alsberecki in Hungary, which is one of the most important cemeteries of the culture in question (Kemenczei 1981: fig. 3:3, 8, 4:7, 10-11, 5:8, 6:12, 7:4, 9, 12). These forms also show a strong similarity to the Suciu de Sus culture in Slovakia (Demeterov 1984: plate III:8, V:10, X:6). Both the Berkesz-Demecser culture and the younger phase of the Slovakian variant of the Suciu de Sus culture (the latter being regarded by some scholars as tantamount to the former) (Furmnek et al. 1991: 144) are dated to BrC2-BrD (Kemenczei 1981: 92; Demeterov 1984: 70). Characteristic pottery of a Transcarpathian character occurred in all the clusters of features presented above.


https://www.academia.edu/32255479/Tr...2awice_Site_15

----------


## Riverman

Another table with the cultural formations in the crucial regions and which archaeological groups preceded the Gva/Channelled Ware horizon: 



https://ibb.co/PM2k6w9

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



https://ibb.co/yNfcmNh

After Rung: https://www.academia.edu/2409522/E_R...%C3%A1va_Stil_

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

I mainly disagree with Rung on the ethnic interpretation of the phenomenon, because I'm convinced it was an ethnic expansion and surely much more than a style. If taking the associated elements into account, which he did not as much, like hoards, sword types, casted spearheads etc., its clearly a package moving, even if it has clearly defined provinces, most likely because of local assimilation processes, especially the taking of local females, similar to Bell Beakers in Western Europe. Its also noteworthy how much of the Gva territory was later taken by the Prescythian/Thraco-Cimmerian/Mezocsat culture, which I think had real Cimmerian/Iranian admixture, but was primarily Gva genetically in its later phase, because of the assimilation of local Daco-Thracians.

----------


## Riverman

While Psenichevo-Basarabi being largely derived from Channelled Ware, they came up from Danubian centres rather and might have expanded Northward too. This being proven now even for North Western Romania, like in this very interesting paper about Şimleu: 




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


https://www.academia.edu/1436528/EAR...PE_DISCOVERIES

----------


## Riverman

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




> Cultura hallstattiană timpurie Holihrady din regiunile
> de la est de Carpaţi şi din Podolia de Vest
> (cca 1200  cca 800(?) a. Chr.), ţine de cultura cu
> ceramică canelată Gva, originară din bazinul carpatic,
> formnd toate mpreună aşa-numitul bloc
> cultural Gva-Holihrady-Grăniceşti (Свєшнiков
> 1964, 40 ş.u.; Смирнова 1969, 7-33; idem 1976,
> 18 сл.; idem 1990; Крушельницька 1990; idem
> 1993, 56 ş.u.; Малеев 1981; Крушельницкая,
> ...


Google translate: 



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



https://www.researchgate.net/profile...t-carpatic.png

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

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._2010_p_49-102

In any case this shows how these groups of the Channelled Ware horizon being interconnected and that even the house forms changed with the next culture numerous times is quite impressive and imho a clear sign for actual colonisation, the appearance of newcomers, if no replacement.

----------


## Riverman

That the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, especially the so called Prescythians/Mezocsat group might indeed represent Northern Pannonian Gva being indicated also by this comment from gnes Kirly: 



> The single inhumation burial (Grave 1) of the Tiszabura cemetery raises several questions.
> First of all, if we examine all data available, it turns out that no further biritual cemeteries are known
> in the territory of the Gva culture. Two isolated inhumations of stretched, S-N aligned skeletons accompanied by Gva style pottery were published from both SzentesSzentlszl (V. Szab 1996, 23) and
> Mediaş (Pankau 2004, 24). From this latter site cremation burials are also known, but for lack of proper
> investigation, we cannot state that all graves belonged to the same cemetery (Pankau 2004, 24-25). Attila
> Lszl also mentioned seven inhumations from Simeria without any further description (cited by Vulpe
> 2008, 270), but the cultural classification of these graves is absolutely uncertain. *The main problem about
> these inhumations is that the stretched position and S-N alignment is a typical attribute for the funerary
> practices of the following, so-called pre-Scythian period in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. In
> ...


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

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




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


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

Similar patterns are also known from Babadag and Psenichevo: 




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


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...astern_Hungary

Even the Kapitan Andreevo site, from which we expect the first Bulgarian Thracian Iron Age samples, shows a similar pattern with a special burial in pits. Fortunately one which includes males.

----------


## Riverman

This article is absolutely recommended:
https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...felderzeit.pdf

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

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

The author is refreshingly clear about the replacement event in the Central Balkans due to the expansion of Channelled Ware people, when stating:



> Nach dem Niedergang der sptbronzezeitlichen Phase Kastanas IV in der Siedlungsschicht 14b und 14a wandelte sich in der Schicht 13 die Siedlungsgestalt der Toumba, d.h. der Haustypen, der Bauweise und der Flchennutzung so radikal, da B. Hnsel von einem echten Neuanfang ohne Rcksicht auf die vorhergegangenen Bauphasen spricht34 So wurde etwa die Lehmziegelbauweise durch die kontinentaleuropisch anmutende Flechtwerktechnik ersetzt. Die Architekturelemente und Kleinfunde, Tierknochen- und Pflanzenfunde lassen auf einschneidende nderungen in der Lebens- und Wirtschaftsweise der Bewohner schlieen35  Einzigartig in der gesamten Besiedlungsabfolge des Hgels ist der sprunghafte Anstieg der verzehrten Wildtiere gegenber den Haustieren auf einen Anteil von ber 50 %36 Auch bietet die handgemachte Tonware der Schicht 13 ein vllig neues Bild gegenber der der frheren Horizonte. Trotz der Kontinuitt gewisser Merkmale sind die Unterschiede zum lteren so stark, da vom Standpunkt der handgemachten Keramik von einer Epochengrenze gesprochen werden kann. Zudem erscheint in dieser Schicht, wenn auch noch in sehr geringem Anteil, erstmals die Gattung der Kannelur-Keramik. Hinsichtlich ihrer wenig qualittvollen Machart hebt sich diese variantenreiche Tonware klar von der lokalen Tpfertradition ab. Dessen ungeachtet entwickelt sich die Kannelurtechnik aber bereits in der nchstjngeren Schicht 12 zum regelmigen Bestandteil des keramischen Repertoires37 Als Ursache fr den vielfltigen Kontinuittsbruch in Kastanas und das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik in Makedonien vermuten Hnsel u.a. eine Einwanderung fremder Bevlkerungsgruppen aus dem Norden38


Google translate:



> After the decline of the Late Bronze Age phase of Kastanas IV in the settlement layers 14b and 14a, the Toumba settlement, i.e. the house types, the construction and the land use, changed so radically that B. Hansel thought of a real new beginning regardless of the previous ones Construction phases speak34  For example, the mud brick construction method was replaced by wickerwork technology that looks like a continental European one. The architectural elements and small finds, animal bones and plant finds suggest radical changes in the way of life and economy of the residents35  Unique in the entire settlement sequence of the hill is the sudden increase in the number of wild animals consumed compared to domestic animals to a share of over 50% 36  Also the handmade ceramics of layer 13 offers a completely new picture compared to that of the earlier horizons. Despite the continuity of certain features, the differences from the older ones are so great that from the point of view of handmade ceramics one can speak of a boundary between epochs. In addition, the genus of fluted ceramic appears for the first time in this layer, albeit in a very small proportion. With regard to its low-quality design, this varied pottery clearly stands out from the local pottery tradition. Regardless of this, the fluting technique developed into a regular component of the ceramic repertoire in the next younger layer12. The reason for the diverse break in continuity in Kastanas and the appearance of fluted ceramics in Macedonia was, among other things, *an immigration of foreign population groups from the north*38


https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...felderzeit.pdf

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

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



https://ibb.co/xHKhZCY

This seems to cover the core of the Urnfield phenomenon itself and at the same time the maximum early, more Northern spread of E-V13, at least as a minority element, before the Greek colonisation (possible Southern route?) and Roman era and later population movements from the Balkans.

----------


## Hawk

That's not possible though, the Proto-Villanovans whoever they were either Proto-Etruscan or some Italic tribe were clearly Urnfield derived and they did influence Italy.

----------


## Hawk

I was just checking the origin of Roman gladius, this is a masterpiece of a sword, minimalistic in design yet so overly effective. The Romans adopted this from some Celtic tribe from Iberia, very likely Vettones. It looks like Naue II was it's prototype but this was further extended and made more effective in shape.



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




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

Dardanian blacksmiths used to forge machaira swords, and it looks like Glasinac-Illyrians preferred them. I don't know how they got it, either through Celtic contact, or as one paper gives parallel, it could be Glasinac were getting from Bassarabi Culture who used to forge this sickle-shaped swords. Greek general Xenophon suggested using machaira-like/kopis in mounted warfare, the shape of it would make it more deadlier when you attack the enemy.

----------


## Riverman

> That's not possible though, the Proto-Villanovans whoever they were either Proto-Etruscan or some Italic tribe were clearly Urnfield derived and they did influence Italy.


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




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


https://www.britannica.com/topic/anc...eople#ref63544

If true, this would also explain why Etruscans are so far the only non-Indoeuropean people which could be associated with Urnfield and why some aspects of the culture might have been present already, in earlier times, in the Carpathian zone. But then again, we need more data to be sure, like always.

----------


## Riverman

It is indeed everything clear, especially if you compare the new Mezocsat samples with the earlier sample which came out more Eastern admixed and with haplogroup N, so definitely with ancestors freshly from the steppe (IR2 = HUN_Prescythian_IA). Only I18211, which we debated about before, deviates somewhat in this direction, all the other new Thraco-Cimmerian/Mezocsat samples plot with HUN_LBA samples and close to a couple of E-V13 too! Basically between the La Tene and the Vekerzug sample, so absolutely in the known range for Pannonian E-V13 carriers in the Iron Age. 

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



https://ibb.co/B2J6wTc

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

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

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

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

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

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

He plots right below the HUN_MBA_Vatya and quite differently from the rest of the HUN_LBA cluster, like one possible Gva and Kyjatice. Another one of the possible female Gva samples plots quite differently, closer to "Halva", which comes from the core zone of LBA Gva in North Eastern Hungary too. About this sample - even an image of a female skull with headgear from Hajddorog-Szllsfold: 



> The objects  according to the preliminary evaluation of their context  are present in the archaeological material from the BC (tumulus/Early Piliny cultures) to the HaB period (Kyjatice and Gva cultures), although, most of the figurines were accompanied by typical find material of the BD period (Late Piliny Culture and the so-called pre-Gva Period).


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...astern_Hungary

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

There is a clear cline going from Middle Danubian -> Kyjatice -> Gva. And this cline being already present in the earlier period, as the Vatya samples prove.

----------


## Hawk

Riverman can you post the G25 coordinates of E-V13 in Western Hungary and the J2b2 samples, and possibly all samples.

I want to build a custom calculator to check the Neolithic and Steppe sources in all of them.

----------


## Riverman

This was the work of Bruzmi by the way which provided this list: 



> E-V13:CZE_IA_La_Tene:I16272,0.125205,0.133034,0.0637 33,0.05814,0.041238,0.01255,0,0.001154,0.005931,-0.004556,-0.010068,0.003147,0.000149,0.007019,0.012893,0.003 05,-0.002608,-0.001647,0.001885,0.010005,-0.001996,0.005317,-0.001109,-0.001205,-0.004431
> E-V13:SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I14465,0.135449,0.149283,0.035 826,-0.007429,0.04924,-0.011156,-0.003995,0.008077,0.010431,0.019499,-0.00682,0.009142,-0.007582,0.006881,-0.010993,-0.008353,0.01356,0.003674,0.006285,0.01013,-0.008735,0.010263,0.003328,-0.022292,-0.002634
> E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene:I18527,0.125205,0.136081,0.0426 15,0.027778,0.040315,0.006414,0.000235,0.007384,0. 017589,0.012939,-0.015752,0.002847,-0.006541,0.001927,-0.008143,-0.003447,0.002608,-0.002534,0.003897,-0.00075,-0.000125,0.002473,-0.001725,-0.016749,-0.003952
> E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832,0.125205,0.148267, 0.018102,-0.028101,0.029236,-0.016176,0.00141,-0.003231,0.008999,0.03262,0.005846,0.005095,-0.017691,-0.007844,-0.027551,0.003978,0.027772,0.005448,0.008547,-0.004877,-0.015473,0.004204,0.003328,0.006025,-0.00012
> E-V13:Migration_LIB:LIB11,0.1161,0.142174,0.05242,0. 041667,0.046162,0.010877,0.011045,0.001154,0,-0.020046,0.002111,0.001948,0.00773,0.016652,-0.0057,-0.003978,-0.004303,-0.012162,-0.003771,-0.002751,0.001622,-0.00779,0.013434,-0.002048,-0.001557
> E-V13:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38,0.101303,0.144205,-0.018856,-0.055556,0.007386,-0.016455,-0.00846,-0.008538,-0.004704,0.014397,0.004709,0.009591,-0.00996,-0.005643,-0.014251,0.000928,0.010561,0,-0.002263,0.001251,0.001123,0.006306,-0.002095,0.010001,0.008023
> E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107,0.119514,0.149 283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
> E-V13:VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362,0.127482,0.13709 6,0.053174,0.026809,0.034776,0.008646,0.00517,0.01 3384,-0.000614,0.003098,-0.001949,0.000749,-0.003568,0.007569,-0.002307,-0.002387,0.010561,-0.00228,0.002765,0.003752,-0.004243,-0.000989,0.002835,0.001325,-0.010538
> E-V13EU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005,0.120652,0.137096,0.071 276,0.071706,0.049548,0.01004,0.01081,0.014538,-0.009408,-0.018041,-0.00341,-0.001499,0.003419,0.018717,0.00285,-0.004773,0.003129,-0.002154,0.005154,0.004502,-0.009858,-0.004946,0.008381,-0.007591,0.001796
> ...


This is the list for J2b, not named after site etc., you can find it by going after the ID: 
J2B:I22940,0.124067,0.152329,0.036581,-0.00646,0.039392,0.002231,-0.001175,0.000692,0.017794,0.034078,0.004709,0.007 343,-0.023042,-0.002752,-0.0038,-0.023203,-0.01356,0.005954,0.006913,-0.000125,-0.006738,0.001731,-0.003451,-0.004217,0.002634
J2B::I24345,0.122929,0.147252,0.064111,0.0 20672,0.035699,-0.021475,0.015746,0.009,-0.001841,0.016401,-0.007795,0.005995,-0.048463,-0.018029,-0.005836,0.001724,-0.028684,0.012542,0.00905,-0.016008,-0.010232,-0.004451,0.003451,-0.009881,0.003592
J2B::I5691,0.129758,0.146236,0.043369,0.00 6783,0.044008,-0.000837,-0.002585,-0.000231,0.012885,0.028429,0.002761,0.008243,-0.016501,-0.011423,0.002443,-0.001989,0.004433,0.00228,-0.002137,0.002001,0.000374,0.006925,-0.000616,0.001687,0.000239
J2B:I26726,0.121791,0.14319,0.029038,-0.013243,0.024928,-0.000837,-0.006345,-0.006461,0.007772,0.027518,0.013803,0.004796,-0.023191,-0.00289,-0.002172,-0.014452,-0.013951,0.003167,0.013575,-0.008129,-0.003743,0.008656,0.005546,0.003976,-0.000479
J2B::I23911,0.126344,0.140143,0.032432,-0.005814,0.044316,-0.002231,-0.004935,0.002077,0.012271,0.038999,0.000325,0.010 94,-0.012042,-0.007432,0.005157,-0.005701,-0.001565,0.004687,0.011439,-0.004627,0.001872,0.001237,-0.002588,-0.002771,-0.005269
J2B:I24638,0.129758,0.149283,0.033564,0.0 04845,0.038161,0.005857,0.00705,0.010846,0.011453, 0.028793,0.001949,0.011839,-0.020812,-0.008533,0.002172,-0.000796,0.002608,0.008108,0.006662,0.003001,-0.007612,-0.001978,0.002218,-0.012291,-0.003113
J2B:I24639,0.124067,0.149283,0.028284,-0.002261,0.031083,0.000558,0.000705,0.005077,0.007 976,0.022962,0.001299,0.006594,-0.01115,-0.004542,-0.00475,-0.005171,-0.014342,-0.005574,0.004022,-0.005127,-0.0141,0.004822,0.003328,-0.006145,0.005987
J2B:I24882,0.133173,0.146236,0.033941,0.0 01615,0.040931,-0.006972,-0.000235,0.000231,0.002863,0.019135,-0.000325,0.01169,-0.016204,-0.005367,-0.0019,0.00305,0.009257,-0.001014,0.007416,-0.006753,-0.003369,0.008285,0.001972,0.00976,-0.009101
J2B:I26742,0.122929,0.148267,0.024136,-0.010013,0.034776,-0.003068,0.000705,0.000692,0.010431,0.032256,0.004 222,0.006444,-0.024083,-0.012524,-0.006515,0.00358,0.00691,0.00076,0.012947,-0.010255,-0.002496,0.001607,0.00419,0.011447,-0.006826
J2B:I4998,0.118376,0.161469,0.016216,-0.022287,0.034776,-0.009203,-0.003525,0.001615,0.01268,0.028247,0.003573,0.0041 96,-0.019772,-0.008533,-0.010315,0.01074,0.025686,-0.004181,0.003897,0.011881,-0.002496,0.006677,0.007272,-0.000723,-0.008502
J2B:I23995,0.122929,0.146236,0.026021,0.0 01292,0.036007,0.002231,0.00564,0.000692,0.009204, 0.026242,-0.007795,0.009142,-0.014866,-0.00234,0.000271,0.001458,0.005476,0.007601,0.0084 22,0.004002,0.000125,-0.003215,-0.003574,-0.005061,0.000718

And the HUN_LBA samples, of which most are Kyjatice-Gva related, I'm pretty confident about this by now, being in the general spreadsheet anyway, as is Fzesabony.




> MDE - tooth HUNG395B I20750 Polgr Kenderfld, Hungary 4,300-3,600 Dani, 2002; Dani and V.Szab 2003; Dani et al 2003; Dani and V,Szab 2004 U4b2 M
> WTR - tooth HUNG395B I20772 U4b2 M


Did anyone check the yDNA of this sample? Its from the area and MBA-LBA one of the very few males, from the very important Fzesabony-Otomani group. The sample is from this paper: 
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...08.19.256412v1

----------


## Riverman

This is how they plot on a general Northern European PCA, which I very much like because of its clear geographical separation of components: 



https://ibb.co/VVLTJzj

I actually do think that this gap can be filled and in the middle will be probably the original source group. Now let's add the J2b Illyrians, HUN_LBA and the Thraco-Cimmerians, and look where they plot: 



https://ibb.co/PMX5jSj

I'd say that's bullseye! Note that the Illyrians/Middle Danubians (J-L283 and BB derived R1b) form their own cluster, whereas right in the centre of E-V13, right in the gap left by the current sampling, with no published male samples from Channelled Ware people other than the one Kyjatice J2a, which plots right in the centre too, there are the Channelled Ware samples! 
Just look at the difference, this is a standard PCA for Northern-Central Europeans, which is very good in distinguishing regional origins in Europe, and look how neatly it separates the groups and easily connects, just like in my PCA, the HUN_LBA, Thraco-Cimmerians (Dacians-Basarabi largely, not fully) with the E-V13 centre. 
The only HUN_LBA in the Illyrian cluster is once more the R1b sample from Vas county, a Middle Danubian Urnfielder, just like it should be. 

Ssomewhere in the gap left by the current sampling is both the original source population and the bulk of E-V13. As you can see, that's somewhere between Northern Pannonians and EBA Bulgarians. Best fits have so far Channelled Ware related samples, like those from HUN_LBA and Mezocsat.

----------


## Hawk

Ok, i created a Late_Neolithic/Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age Calculator.


I separated, Adriatic/Dalmatian Neolithic, Aegean Neolithic, East European Neolithic and Panonnian_Carpathian Neolithic, as well as Bell Beakers and Yamnaya to see where the influence comes.



Target: E-V13:SCY197_Glinoe_MLD
Distance: 2.8163% / 0.02816303

31.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



29.8
Bell_Beaker



18.6
West_Asian



14.0
East_European_Neolithic



5.8
Yamnaya







Target: E-V13:ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 2.8723% / 0.02872344

51.0
Bell_Beaker



30.4
Yamnaya



14.4
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



2.2
Baltic



2.0
East_European_Neolithic







Target: E-V13EU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005
Distance: 5.3201% / 0.05320119

31.6
Yamnaya



27.0
Bell_Beaker



22.6
Baltic



18.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic







Target: E-V13:VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 2.9807% / 0.02980732

38.0
Bell_Beaker



24.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



21.6
Yamnaya



8.2
Adriatic_Neolithic



7.4
Baltic







Target: E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
Distance: 2.8793% / 0.02879281

59.6
Aegean_Neolithic



20.4
West_Asian



12.8
Baltic



5.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



1.4
Bell_Beaker







Target: E-V13:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38
Distance: 3.1033% / 0.03103341

54.0
Aegean_Neolithic



38.6
West_Asian



4.4
Yamnaya



3.0
Baltic







Target: E-V13:Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 5.0604% / 0.05060384

48.8
Yamnaya



23.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



15.6
Baltic



12.4
Bell_Beaker







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







Target: E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene:I18527
Distance: 2.6935% / 0.02693516

29.4
East_European_Neolithic



21.0
Yamnaya



18.2
Bell_Beaker



15.8
Baltic



9.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



6.4
Aegean_Neolithic







Target: E-V13:SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I14465
Distance: 3.4356% / 0.03435601

40.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



22.8
West_Asian



19.0
Baltic



17.6
Bell_Beaker







Target: E-V13:CZE_IA_La_Tene:I16272
Distance: 2.8888% / 0.02888834

53.2
Bell_Beaker



16.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



15.4
Yamnaya



15.2
Baltic




Target: E-V13:SCY197_Glinoe_MLD
Distance: 2.8163% / 0.02816303

31.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



29.8
Bell_Beaker



18.6
West_Asian



14.0
East_European_Neolithic



5.8
Yamnaya

----------


## Hawk

This is for J2b2:


Target: J2B:I23995
Distance: 2.0557% / 0.02055683

49.8
Bell_Beaker



14.0
East_European_Neolithic



13.8
Aegean_Neolithic



11.6
West_Asian



4.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



4.0
West_Mediterranean



2.0
Yamnaya



0.8
Baltic






Target: J2B:I26742
Distance: 2.1870% / 0.02187002

39.4
Bell_Beaker



36.8
Aegean_Neolithic



12.6
Yamnaya



8.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



2.6
West_Mediterranean






Target: J2B:I24882
Distance: 2.0878% / 0.02087759

46.8
Bell_Beaker



18.2
Aegean_Neolithic



16.0
Adriatic_Neolithic



13.2
Yamnaya



5.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic






Target: J2B:I24639
Distance: 2.0979% / 0.02097939

47.6
Bell_Beaker



19.2
West_Asian



16.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



15.8
East_European_Neolithic



0.6
Yamnaya






Target: J2B::I23911
Distance: 2.0015% / 0.02001465

52.0
Bell_Beaker



15.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



12.2
West_Mediterranean



12.0
West_Asian



8.2
Yamnaya






Target: J2B:I26726
Distance: 2.5393% / 0.02539303

34.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



31.2
Yamnaya



21.6
Bell_Beaker



13.2
West_Asian






Target: J2B::I24345
Distance: 5.9167% / 0.05916667

58.0
Bell_Beaker



23.2
East_European_Neolithic



18.8
West_Mediterranean






Target: J2B:I22940
Distance: 2.4455% / 0.02445502

34.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



27.4
Yamnaya



26.4
Bell_Beaker



11.4
West_Mediterranean




Target: J2B::I5691
Distance: 1.3444% / 0.01344396

56.6
Bell_Beaker



25.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



12.4
Yamnaya



3.0
East_European_Neolithic



2.2
Aegean_Neolithic



Target: J2B:I24638
Distance: 2.1504% / 0.02150381

58.8
Bell_Beaker



13.2
West_Asian



11.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



9.6
West_Mediterranean



7.4
East_European_Neolithic



Target: J2B:I4998
Distance: 3.1864% / 0.03186448

51.6
Aegean_Neolithic



21.0
East_European_Neolithic



15.0
Bell_Beaker



6.8
Baltic



5.6
Yamnaya

----------


## Riverman

The separation of the Channelled Ware AND Encrusted Pottery people vs. the West Pannonian/West Balkan groups is very strong. Encrusted Pottery is even more distant from the Illyrians, even when they lived already in (Northern) Croatia! By the way, there is indeed some possible overlap on the PCA, but rather with this group: Jagodnjak-Krčevine Middle Bronze Age Southern Transdanubian, in the G25 its HRV_Jag_MBA. That's Encrusted pottery, the second candidate for an E-V13 spread, but so far the haplogroups don't point to it, and while they fused, they being largely dominated by Channelled Ware. But its interesting that these people which too moved from more Northern Pannonia southward, under the pressure of the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture expansion, have practically the same profile as HUN_LBA and the Thraco-Cimmerians/Mezocsat! Somewhat more Eastern, but still not that dissimilar on the PCA, with some being very close to the so far available Channelled Ware samples (Gva-Kyjatice). About that archaeological group: https://www.academia.edu/38067725/Re...iona_Museum_HU They are the only "Croatian sample" which is really close to Gva-Kyjatice and the E-V13 midpoint, because they come from Pannonia too:  https://ibb.co/QJqM42Y Note how different they are from all the other Croatian samples which plot at the J2b cluster and being more Bell Beaker-South Western shifted. The close relationship of the Central and Eastern MBA Pannonians (HUN_LBA/Mezocsat = Channelled Ware largely, HRV_Jag_MBA = Encrusted Pottery) vs. the Western Pannonian/Western Balkan groups is absolutely striking. And its absolutely clear where the haplogroups trend towards, respectively. I also added the two Mezocsat outliers, just to make clear how different these more Eastern specimen are and that the majority of the Thraco-Cimmerians seems to have been indeed Pannonian in origin and related to Channelled Ware, just like the archaeological remains always indicated (dominance of Gva standards in the common populace). This will be proven to be at the maximum as similar situation as with Avars and Slavs, with the majority being not steppe newcomers.

----------


## Hawk

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.

----------


## Riverman

What did you use for Pannonian-Carpathian Neolithic?




> 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.


Imho the best fit would be a Geto-Scythian (Eastern/Southern influenced Daco-Thracian, going in the direction of Psenichevo-Babadag) with additional Greek admixture. Greek admixture was present in the West Pontic region. And yes, he is very Eastern, that's why he's being called "Eastern outlier" in the paper...

----------


## Hawk

If someone wants to check or improve the model, i did it on the quick, i might have missed something:




> Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.17864 87,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.12876 24,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176 702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155 305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498 ,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN,0.12 72922,0.1777177,0.0206787,-0.0799425,0.0635502,-0.040997,-0.0038777,-0.0036153,0.0460522,0.0810342,0.0099055,0.0092667,-0.0207628,0.0022018,-0.0366672,-0.0123087,0.0169498,0.0019425,0.0106215,-0.009442,-0.0118957,0.0040187,-0.006984,-0.0086758,-0.0011178
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengy el,0.124067,0.177718,0.019987,-0.082365,0.05878,-0.034861,0.00141,0.001615,0.051949,0.075081,0.0115 3,0.009741,-0.016353,0.008808,-0.036237,-0.023999,0.003781,0.005701,0.023757,-0.01063,-0.015722,0.005317,0.002218,-0.005061,-0.007185
> East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C,0.120652,0.17 1624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.0 10191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
> East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En,0.132035, 0.165531,0.032809,-0.027778,0.065551,-0.0251,0.00282,0.012923,0.046631,0.057222,0.005684 ,-0.002248,-0.016353,-0.017065,-0.018322,0.000663,0.02725,0.004054,0.010559,-0.000875,0.010731,0.004451,-0.019596,-0.027835,-0.001437
> Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218 633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.005091 7,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
> ...

----------


## Hawk

> What did you use for Pannonian-Carpathian Neolithic?
> 
> 
> 
> Imho the best fit would be a Geto-Scythian (Eastern/Southern influenced Daco-Thracian, going in the direction of Psenichevo-Babadag) with additional Greek admixture. Greek admixture was present in the West Pontic region. And yes, he is very Eastern, that's why he's being called "Eastern outlier" in the paper...


IMO, impossible he is Geto-Scythian. Not even mixed, a Southern Balkanite through and through. I did take in consideration each region, if he was Geto-Scythian he will get either Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic or East European Neolithic but he didn't.

He is not Illyrian either. So, Greek is the better contender, or even Southern Thracian from the shores of Greek world.

----------


## Riverman

> If someone wants to check or improve the model, i did it on the quick, i might have missed something:


Interesting that a model with Lengyel works so well. Probably the path is really from Lengyel with Unetician/Epi-Corded admixture. The Fzesabony sample is R-Z283, this might point to the real possibility of another theory being true: Pannonian groups got an infusion from the Epi-Corded zone, like from more Northern and Western Slovakia, groups like Nitra for example. This made them change once more, autosomally and culturally. However, as you can see on my PCA's, all later Channelled Ware samples score relatively more Southern and less Northern than Fzesabony on these plots. So either he was an outlier or the admixture from the Epi-Corded sphere got largely evened out and fairly equally distributed later. 
Its in any case apparent, also from your models, that between Middle Danubians : Channelled+Encrusted Ware the ratio of BB : CW admixture is different.

----------


## Hawk

> Interesting that a model with Lengyel works so well. Probably the path is really from Lengyel with Unetician/Epi-Corded admixture. The F�zesabony sample is R-Z283, this might point to the real possibility of another theory being true: Pannonian groups got an infusion from the Epi-Corded zone, like from more Northern and Western Slovakia, groups like Nitra for example. This made them change once more, autosomally and culturally. However, as you can see on my PCA's, all later Channelled Ware samples score relatively more Southern and less Northern than F�zesabony on these plots. So either he was an outlier or the admixture from the Epi-Corded sphere got largely evened out and fairly equally distributed later. 
> Its in any case apparent, also from your models, that between Middle Danubians : Channelled+Encrusted Ware the ratio of BB : CW admixture is different.


Should we include some Corded sample as well to make a steppe triquetra: Bell Beaker, Corded, Yamnaya?

----------


## Hawk

Try with this one, the distance is lowered i think.




> Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.17864 87,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.12876 24,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176 702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155 305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498 ,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN,0.12 72922,0.1777177,0.0206787,-0.0799425,0.0635502,-0.040997,-0.0038777,-0.0036153,0.0460522,0.0810342,0.0099055,0.0092667,-0.0207628,0.0022018,-0.0366672,-0.0123087,0.0169498,0.0019425,0.0106215,-0.009442,-0.0118957,0.0040187,-0.006984,-0.0086758,-0.0011178
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengy el,0.124067,0.177718,0.019987,-0.082365,0.05878,-0.034861,0.00141,0.001615,0.051949,0.075081,0.0115 3,0.009741,-0.016353,0.008808,-0.036237,-0.023999,0.003781,0.005701,0.023757,-0.01063,-0.015722,0.005317,0.002218,-0.005061,-0.007185
> East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C,0.120652,0.17 1624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.0 10191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
> East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En,0.132035, 0.165531,0.032809,-0.027778,0.065551,-0.0251,0.00282,0.012923,0.046631,0.057222,0.005684 ,-0.002248,-0.016353,-0.017065,-0.018322,0.000663,0.02725,0.004054,0.010559,-0.000875,0.010731,0.004451,-0.019596,-0.027835,-0.001437
> Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218 633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.005091 7,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
> ...

----------


## torzio

> Try with this one, the distance is lowered i think.


not working

states ....tabsource data 22: Error

----------


## Hawk

> not working
> states ....tabsource data 22: Error


Yeah, interesting, try this one, this one worked on vahaduo, i just copied and pasting here.



```
Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.1786487,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172
West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.1287624,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN,0.1272922,0.1777177,0.0206787,-0.0799425,0.0635502,-0.040997,-0.0038777,-0.0036153,0.0460522,0.0810342,0.0099055,0.0092667,-0.0207628,0.0022018,-0.0366672,-0.0123087,0.0169498,0.0019425,0.0106215,-0.009442,-0.0118957,0.0040187,-0.006984,-0.0086758,-0.0011178
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengyel,0.124067,0.177718,0.019987,-0.082365,0.05878,-0.034861,0.00141,0.001615,0.051949,0.075081,0.01153,0.009741,-0.016353,0.008808,-0.036237,-0.023999,0.003781,0.005701,0.023757,-0.01063,-0.015722,0.005317,0.002218,-0.005061,-0.007185
East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C,0.120652,0.171624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.010191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En,0.132035,0.165531,0.032809,-0.027778,0.065551,-0.0251,0.00282,0.012923,0.046631,0.057222,0.005684,-0.002248,-0.016353,-0.017065,-0.018322,0.000663,0.02725,0.004054,0.010559,-0.000875,0.010731,0.004451,-0.019596,-0.027835,-0.001437
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163
```

Here is mine:


Target: Hawk_scaled
Distance: 2.5834% / 0.02583351

28.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont



28.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



25.4
Aegean_Neolithic



9.0
Yamnaya



8.2
West_Asian



1.4
Baltic

----------


## Hawk

The point here is not to increase the distance, remember. Just leave it at zero, if you merge the components it will eventually fallback to and assign all of similar components to one. The algorithm is obviously not so advanced to know the difference, so we have to play around by flipping the sides of coin and manually comparing the results.

----------


## torzio

> Yeah, interesting, try this one, this one worked on vahaduo, i just copied and pasting here.
> 
> 
> ```
> Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.1786487,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172
> West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.1287624,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
> Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
> Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
> ...


it worked
Distance to:	Torzio_scaled
0.06967182	Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C
0.07771560	Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR
0.09964819	East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En
0.10018328	East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C
0.10319787	West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C
0.10320471	Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL
0.11193968	Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early
0.11731321	Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA
0.12528398	Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late
0.13029004	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengy el
0.13240502	Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja
0.13243124	West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
0.13358530	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.13876650	Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N
0.14128138	West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C
0.14303012	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN
0.19279264	Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR
0.28668563	Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN
Target: Torzio_scaled
Distance: 1.7453% / 0.01745329
31.0	East_European_Neolithic
30.4	Corded_Ware_Horizont
19.4	Yamnaya
16.0	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic
3.2	West_Asian

----------


## Hawk

Cremation graves in Thesprotia: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...protian_Graves

----------


## bigsnake49

> Cremation graves in Thesprotia: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...protian_Graves


Ancient Athenians used cremation rather extensively. Other areas mostly practiced inhumation. Of the 70 graves in the article above, 42 were inhumations, 22 were cremations, 4 were both and 2 are unknown.

----------


## Hawk

> Ancient Athenians used cremation rather extensively. Other areas mostly practiced inhumation. Of the 70 graves in the article above, 42 were inhumations, 22 were cremations, 4 were both and 2 are unknown.


Yes, i have read about Athenian regions during Early Iron Age, and it's interesting nevertheless.

----------


## Hawk

Some bronze tools from Belegis-Gava Culture, modern Serbia, Belgrade area. Late Bronze Age 1200-1000 B.C. The tools were likely deposited to be recycled/melted for recreating new bronze tools.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> SNIP





> E-V13 samples:
> 
> 
> 1) *ALTper442*; Middle-Late Avar (670-750 CE); *E-PF2211*
> 
> 
> 2) *KKper541*; Late Avar (seventh century CE); *E-PF2211*
> 
> 
> ...


New E-V13 samples from https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2011103
There are also 3 L283 samples, including mine posted in the L283 thread.

----------


## Fustan

So.. avars are Daco-Thracian?

----------


## Archetype0ne

My guess would be that these are absorbed populations by the incoming horde, given the late presence in said populations. The earliest being Middle-Late Avar

But lets leave that Daco-Thracian circular discussion for once. I find these new samples much more interesting.

An interesting fact, among the 10th century Hungarian Conquering elite we have both L283 and E-V13. That's really cool.

----------


## Johane Derite

> My guess would be that these are absorbed populations by the incoming horde, given the late presence in said populations. The earliest being Middle-Late Avar
> 
> 
> An interesting fact, among the 10th century Hungarian Conquering elite we have both L283 and E-V13.


I'm afraid you and your buddies (fustan, entertain, mount123, etc) proved conclusively last week and with perfect evidence that Asian Avar invaders in the Balkans were impossible. 

Therefore this paper must be fake news!

No Asian Avars in the Komani-Kruja culture, no Avars in Pannonia! 

It is a vatican conspiracy to hide the truth that the Avars were in fact the ALBANOI! 

No migratory populations in Illyria at all! All pure Illyrians that became Albanoi that became Albanians. 

All the archaeologists, physical anthropologists, historians, linguists, etc arguing otherwise are fools unlike you sublime divine minds and Illyrian defenders 💪.

No such thing as Avars, these simply must all have been proto-Albanian Illyrians. 

Jem ilira jem teuta, jem avara jem magjara 💪!

----------


## Archetype0ne

Shoq pei hapat. You legit are obsessed and have created a whole alternate reality version of me in your head. There is a real world outside that skull, wake up.

----------


## Hawk

> New E-V13 samples from https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2011103
> There are also 3 L283 samples, including mine posted in the L283 thread.


Obviously local Pannonians, as for E-V13 it's either ultimately Hugelgraber or local Early Bronze Age Carpathian derived, there is no other choice.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> Obviously local Pannonians, as for E-V13 it's either ultimately Hugelgraber or local Early Bronze Age Carpathian derived, there is no other choice.


Yes, that is my guess as well, as I stated in an earlier reply, absorbed populations by the horde.
An interesting fact is that autosomaly, us Albanians, a population that shows both haplogroups, have among the closest matches Szolad samples. Now, it would be really interesting when we get the G25 coordinates to compare different models. This could go much further at explaining modern Balkan genetics, if making correlations between the Danubian Limes, the Szolad samples, and the Migration Era Medieval Slavs, of whom IIRC the consensus on fora is that particular Medieval Avar sample is representative of early migration Slavs.

----------


## Fustan

> Obviously local Pannonians


Local Pannonians were Illyrians? Daco-Thracians?

----------


## Hawk

> Local Pannonians were Illyrians? Daco-Thracians?


Local Pannonians were largely Pannonian-Illyrian, Daco-Thracians were more on the East, but this group used cremation and inhumation btw, they were descended from Danubian Urnfielders (Albanian archeologist Prendi argued that Pannonian migration affected Central/South Albania and they skipped coastal Croatia and Northern Albania during Late Bronze Age) something which i have been advocating and a point where we differ on opinion with Riverman/Aspurg.

Although the Dacians invaded Pannonians, it wasn't large-scale migration, it was more putting them under tributary, and afraid of Dacians Pannonians accepted Roman rule instead.

----------


## Fustan

> Local Pannonians were largely Pannonian-Illyrian.


E-V13 is daco-thracian tho, so the assimilated E-V13 in the avars must've been from a daco-thracian people living in Pannonia.

----------


## Hawk

> E-V13 is daco-thracian tho, so the assimilated E-V13 in the avars must've been from a daco-thracian people living in Pannonia.


You are playing with words, obviously i am saying they were descended from Danubian Urnfielders, and Urnfield network consisted of various people during Late Bronze Age, so i definitely expect Pannonian-Illyrians to have E-V13, i shared here or somewhere, the E-V13 sample from La Tene, the site from where he was from, was classified by Hungarian archeologists as Pannonian-Illyrian site.

----------


## Archetype0ne

At this point we have Le Tene V13 in Pannonia with similar autosomal to L283 samples from the same region and timeframe. Now we further get a very similar mix in the early MA in Pannonia, with quite a lot of V13. Furthermore, we have in the Danubian limes where Legio Dardanorum where stationed V13 and L283 together.

I know we demand more, so do I, we wanna know when and how and from whom this mix was created, of a population rich in both. We want facts to extrapolate our theories.

But what I can extrapolate from now, is that L283 and V13 must have had a border and intermixing at least by late antiquity if not earlier. When similar finds are made in southern Europe, where for now we know of L283 in Albania that has to be published, and where we expect V13 connected with Thracians and Ancient Greeks, there shall be no question that these two paternal lines, even of different origin initially contributed to a synthesis during Roman or more likely in my opinion pre Roman antiquity to a population from whence Albanians descend from locally.

Right now this is a theory loosely based on circumstantial evidence and merely a hypothesis in itself, but I do not think it is the least likely theory in comparison to what others have proposed.

If V13 can be found from Bulgaria to Pannonia, I am willing to bet it will be found close to Greece and Albania as well during this period. Hopefully the Lazaridis paper will soon reveal much more by the time the Bulgarian paper comes out in a few years.

----------


## Hawk

> At this point we have Le Tene V13 in Pannonia with similar autosomal to L283 samples from the same region and timeframe. Now we further get a very similar mix in the early MA in Pannonia, with quite a lot of V13. Furthermore, we have in the Danubian limes where Legio Dardanorum where stationed V13 and L283 together.
> 
> I know we demand more, so do I, we wanna know when and how and from whom this mix was created, of a population rich in both. We want facts to extrapolate our theories.
> 
> But what I can extrapolate from now, is that L283 and V13 must have had a border and intermixing at least by late antiquity if not earlier. When similar finds are made in southern Europe, where for now we know of L283 in Albania that has to be published, and where we expect V13 connected with Thracians and Ancient Greeks, there shall be no question that these two paternal lines, even of different origin initially contributed to a synthesis during Roman or more likely in my opinion pre Roman antiquity to a population from whence Albanians descend from locally.
> 
> Right now this is a theory loosely based on circumstantial evidence and merely a hypothesis in itself, but I do not think it is the least likely theory in comparison to what others have proposed.
> 
> If V13 can be found from Bulgaria to Pannonia, I am willing to bet it will be found close to Greece and Albania as well during this period. Hopefully the Lazaridis paper will soon reveal much more by the time the Bulgarian paper comes out in a few years.


I quoted in one the thread here, 1 E-V13, 2 J2b2-L23 tombs are either connected to Legio Dardanorum or Numero Dalmatica.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> I quoted in one the thread here, 1 E-V13, 2 J2b2-L23 tombs are either connected to Legio Dardanorum or Numero Dalmatica.


Would you please refresh my memory. In the Danubian Limes paper, we had 3 E-V13s, 3 L283s and 2 Z2103s? Or am I recalling wrong. Was discussing this with Riverman over the other forum.

----------


## Hawk

> Would you please refresh my memory. In the Danubian Limes paper, we had 3 E-V13s, 3 L283s and 2 Z2103s? Or am I recalling wrong. Was discussing this with Riverman over the other forum.


Yes, here it is:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post638310

So, i could find tomb associations for 2 J2b2 and 1 E-V13, and unfortunately we have two options not a clear one:

1. Dardania
2. Dalmatia

Serbian archeologists are unsure from where do they hail. Or whether the three of them hail together from the same region.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> Yes, here it is:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post638310
> 
> So, i could find tomb associations for 2 J2b2 and 1 E-V13, and unfortunately we have two options not a clear one:
> 
> 1. Dardania
> 2. Dalmatia
> 
> Serbian archeologists are unsure from where do they hail. Or whether the three of them hail together from the same region.


Interesting. Thanks.
I lean more towards Dardania given not only the haplogroups present, but also the ratio of them. 

Although I am starting to believe that E-V13 is a Southern European marker. The Scythian E-V13 had an ancient Greek like autosomal makeup, it was found along z2103 and had closest affinity to today Albanians, Greeks and Italians. Today Albanians and Northern Greeks are almost indistinguishable autosomaly. While logkas samples also prove that such admixture was present as early as BA in Northern Greece. Furthermore from the Hun and Avar paper it seems that the V13 samples fall on the southern European cline:

_"EU_Core1 clusters with Langobards from Hungary , Iron Age, Imperial and Medieval individuals from Italy, Minoans and Mycenaeans from Greece. EU_Core2, 3 and 4 cluster among others with Langobards7 and Bronze Age samples from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Germany, while EU_Core5 clusters with Hungarian Scythians.

In the SZK, ALT, KK1, OBT, SZKT, HH and SZM cemeteries most males belonged to the E1b1b1a1b1 (E-V13) Hg, which is most prevalent in the Balkan44, and accordingly many of the samples from these cemeteries fell in EU_Core1, or its vicinity, with typical Southern European genomes.

EU_Core1: This group is located at the southernmost part of the EU-cline, and their PC2 position overlaps with modern Greeks, Albanians, Italians and European Neolithic-Chalcolithic samples. This group is best represented by samples; ALT-224, KK1-251, KK1-252, SZK-83, SZK-180 and SZOD376 (Extended Data Fig.1b), all of them from the Avar period, except for the 11th century commoner SZOD-376. On PC50 clustering EU_Core1 clusters together with Langobards from Hungary, Iron Age, Imperial and Medieval individuals from Italy, as well as with Minoans and Mycenaeans from Greece13 (Table S3), indicating an ancient southern European genetic affinity of this group."

_This makes me think that there is a high chance Ancient Greeks could have had E-V13 yet to be found in auDNA, alongside the already found J2a and G2a. Also, this really opens the door for Trojan Dardanians to be an offshoot of Balkan Dardanians, and for the 1:1 correspondences that happen between ancient people in the Balkans and Asia Minor that Derite was earlier arguing.

This could further explain how Lazaridis in the Minoan and Mycenean paper found the highest affinity to modern populations included Albanians, despite what we know from unipaternal markers L283 being so far found in Northern ancient peoples. What could explain this is either z2103, or V13 or more likely both.

----------


## enter_tain

> I'm afraid you and your buddies (fustan, entertain, mount123, etc) proved conclusively last week and with perfect evidence that Asian Avar invaders in the Balkans were impossible. 
> 
> Therefore this paper must be fake news!
> 
> No Asian Avars in the Komani-Kruja culture, no Avars in Pannonia! 
> 
> It is a vatican conspiracy to hide the truth that the Avars were in fact the ALBANOI! 
> 
> No migratory populations in Illyria at all! All pure Illyrians that became Albanoi that became Albanians. 
> ...


Has this guy been hit in the head? Avars have *significant Asian ancestry*. They are Eurasian people. Albanians have *almost 0 Asian DNA and 0 Asian vocabulary*.

Those Avar clades are of Panonian origin (who were Illyrians), and are not ancestral to Albanian clades. This is late middle Ages. Albanian Geg/Tosk dialect split in the 4th-6th centuries around Shkumbin river.

----------


## Archetype0ne

I would ask for us to put this behind. I have to apologize to Derite for my offensive rhetoric, despite being offended myself I should have been less emotional and held my tongue. I am sure Derite has no ill intentions despite our world views and reading comprehensions being of different perspectives.

----------


## enter_tain

> I would ask for us to put this behind. I have to apologize to Derite for my offensive rhetoric, despite being offended myself I should have been less emotional and held my tongue. I am sure Derite has no ill intentions despite our world views and reading comprehensions being of different perspectives.


Why apologize? That he's being dense on purpose? The Avars were literally called the *Panonian Avars*. That was their name. All these samples from *Panonia.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars

They have nothing to do with Albanians other than absorbing remnants of Central Europeans who are distantly related to Balkanites. The authors mention that.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> Why apologize? That he's being dense on purpose? The Avars were literally called the *Panonian Avars*. That was their name. All these samples from *Panonia.*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars
> 
> They have nothing to do with Albanians other than absorbing remnants of Central Europeans who are distantly related to Balkanites. The authors mention that.


I agree with you on that view. I am saying the arguments are too emotional right now and really do not help keep the conversation on topic.

Now on the paper.

I find it interesting that V13 only shows up in Middle and Late Avar period in the region, while showing Southern European affinity. As Riverman pointed out all the V13 samples are to the east of Budapest. I wonder what created the conditions, in otherwise tough times under tough rulers for V13 to expand in Pannonia, in such numbers and diversity, even within a short time gaining elite status as this paper points out. Seems either Avars were not as brutal as thought, or they had some symbiotic relation with the local populations that allowed both to thrive. For reference after the Franks it seems V13 today is not at the levels of the Avar and Hungarian conqueror period.

Edit: From the little extra reading I did, it seems Avars and post Roman urban fort dwellers had a good relation, in exchange for goods they were allowed to prosper.
Maybe metal/gold mining and smithing played an important role that led V13 and L283 to gain elite status within the Avar / Hungarian conquerors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keszth..._kNlJuJ5WqeQeo

----------


## Johane Derite

> I would ask for us to put this behind. I have to apologize to Derite for my offensive rhetoric, despite being offended myself I should have been less emotional and held my tongue.


Back at you.

----------


## Hawk

> Interesting. Thanks.
> I lean more towards Dardania given not only the haplogroups present, but also the ratio of them. 
> 
> Although I am starting to believe that E-V13 is a Southern European marker. The Scythian E-V13 had an ancient Greek like autosomal makeup, it was found along z2103 and had closest affinity to today Albanians, Greeks and Italians. Today Albanians and Northern Greeks are almost indistinguishable autosomaly. While logkas samples also prove that such admixture was present as early as BA in Northern Greece. Furthermore from the Hun and Avar paper it seems that the V13 samples fall on the southern European cline:
> 
> _"EU_Core1 clusters with Langobards from Hungary , Iron Age, Imperial and Medieval individuals from Italy, Minoans and Mycenaeans from Greece. EU_Core2, 3 and 4 cluster among others with Langobards7 and Bronze Age samples from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Germany, while EU_Core5 clusters with Hungarian Scythians.
> 
> In the SZK, ALT, KK1, OBT, SZKT, HH and SZM cemeteries most males belonged to the E1b1b1a1b1 (E-V13) Hg, which is most prevalent in the Balkan44, and accordingly many of the samples from these cemeteries fell in EU_Core1, or its vicinity, with typical Southern European genomes.
> 
> ...


That's a possibility as well, who knows. Maybe they initially lived in Northern Greece/Macedonia and during Late Bronze Age turmoil moved up north following rivers. I don't know. But material culture indicates completely the opposite. It was Carpathian-Danubian Urnfielders moving down south during Late Bronze Age. During ancient times there were South European-like rich people living in Carpathian/Pannonian basin.

----------


## enter_tain

At this point we have to consider the non-zero possibility that a lot/most EV-13 may be Slavic in origin. That would explain it's ubiquity in modern day Eastern Europeans. Tying to a random group of people like Thracians is utter non-sense as this is a Pan-European Y-DNA.



Most of Central Europe has a lot of EV-13 and it was quite common in Slavs. Now these Hungarian dudes have EV-13 just like the Czech samples. Scythians (who were absorbed by Slavs) also had this.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> At this point we have to consider the non-zero possibility that a lot/most EV-13 may be Slavic in origin. That would explain it's ubiquity in modern day Eastern Europeans. Tying to a random group of people like Thracians is utter non-sense as this is a Pan-European Y-DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of Central Europe has a lot of EV-13 and it was quite common in Slavs. Now these Hungarian dudes have EV-13 just like the Czech samples. Scythians (who were absorbed by Slavs) also had this.





> I'm checking the locations, and it looks like these Avars with non-Asian Y-DNA are concentrated mostly in Southeast Hungary. It looks like an oasis of Daco-Romans survived in this area.
> The lack of Slavic Y-dna among these Avars is surprising, it looks like Avaro-Slavs were a thing of the outer edges of Pannonia, and in the core area was more of a Avar-Roman-Germanic mix. It's hard to believe now Slavic was a lingua franca of the Avar Khaganate.


Although there might be singular clades of V13 during the genesis of proto-Slavs, I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible for E-V13 as a whole to be Slavic. Unless Slavs had a Southern European origin.

----------


## Hawk

That's not possible, you have high rich uniparental Slavic markers among Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians and high autosomal Slavic and you see a decrease on E-V13 among them. I think that's clear.

Herodotus claimed that after Indians the Thracians were the most numerous nation in the ancient world, so i wouldn't be surprised if E-V13 was solely Thracian. I don't know.

----------


## enter_tain

Although this might bum some people out like those Bosnians who thought all their I2 was Illyrian in origin, because only R1a was supposed to be Slavic. This EV-13 penetrates deep within Russia and the steppe.

----------


## enter_tain

> Although there might be singular clades of V13 during the genesis of proto-Slavs, I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible for E-V13 as a whole to be Slavic. Unless Slavs had a Southern European origin.


I didn't say all of EV-13 is Slavic. It's too widespread to be any one thing. But labelling as a Balkanite Y-DNA is factually wrong at this point. It's way too common outside of the Balkans in antiquity.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> I didn't say all of EV-13 is Slavic. It's too widespread to be any one thing. But labelling as a Balkanite Y-DNA is factually wrong at this point. It's way too common outside of the Balkans in antiquity.


I am not sure. Could you take an example? Of the very old E-V13 I know of only a Spanish or was it French one? So if anything West European. All the others I am aware of are in the Balkans, with even scientific papers claiming E-V13 likely originated in the Balkans.

Furthermore the E-V13 that you claim is in the Steppe and Russia is downstream from basal clades. Don't quote me on this as I am no expert on V13.

Lastly... Kosovars would not be so E-V13 heavy and clustering with Northern Greeks if E-V13 was Slavic. Really this does not add up. Please read bce's quote I had above in my first response. If anything there is a lack of Slavic markers even in Pannonian Avars, which many fora members considered Slavic ethnically.

----------


## enter_tain

> I am not sure. Could you take an example? Of the very old E-V13 I know of only a Spanish or was it French one? So if anything West European. All the others I am aware of are in the Balkans, with even scientific papers claiming E-V13 likely originated in the Balkans.
> 
> Furthermore the E-V13 that you claim is in the Steppe and Russia is downstream from basal clades. Don't quote me on this as I am no expert on V13.
> 
> Lastly... Kosovars would not be so E-V13 heavy and clustering with Northern Greeks if E-V13 was Slavic. Really this does not add up. Please read bce's quote I had above in my first response. If anything there is a lack of Slavic markers even in Pannonian Avars, which many fora members considered Slavic ethnically.


Kosovar EV-13 is just a recent genetic bottleneck. Northern Albania was dominated by a few clans that drastically change the Y-DNA% ratios.

Don't confuse modern YDNA% with autosomal/descent. We've seen how Y-DNA ratios have drastically change in Europe over thousands of years. Small populations will change their % a lot.

----------


## enter_tain

> clustering with Northern Greeks if E-V13 was Slavic.


We had a study that said 1/3 of Greek DNA is "Polish-like" or "Ukrainian-like". Certainly makes more sense that the guy who said Thracian gave it to the Greeks.

----------


## Hawk

> Kosovar EV-13 is just a recent genetic bottleneck. Northern Albania was dominated by a few clans that drastically change the Y-DNA% ratios.
> 
> Don't confuse modern YDNA% with autosomal/descent. We've seen how Y-DNA ratios have drastically change in Europe over thousands of years. Small populations will change their % a lot.


Not at all, the only bottleneck we know is Berisha-Sopi. These two families have no other subclade anywhere close to them after Late Bronze Age, the closest one are one Italian from Calabria i think and one Bulgarian from Plovdiv.

Otherwise, the same can be said of J2b2-L283, there is absolutely no diversity in Kosovo as far as J2b2-L283 comes. Krasniqi, Gashi are the most common surnames in Kosovo nowadays. (though a part of Gashi seem to be E-V13 ->L241 due to them being Bardhi).

----------


## enter_tain

> Not at all, the only bottleneck we know is Berisha-Sopi.
> 
> Otherwise, the same can be said of J2b2-L283, there is absolutely no diversity in Kosovo as far as J2b2-L283 comes. Krasniqi, Gashi are the most common surnames in Kosovo nowadays. (though a part of Gashi seem to be E-V13 ->L241 due to them being Bardhi).


There's no diversity because most Kosovars are just a recent expansion of the Gegs. Their language attests to this. Their dialect is almost identical all the way up to Shkodra.

----------


## Johane Derite

> But labelling as a Balkanite Y-DNA is factually wrong at this point. It's way too common outside of the Balkans in antiquity.


Now you are resorting to outright lies in desperation.

Ev13 has been found confirmed in pre-slavic viminacium, it has been found in iron age thrace. We already have ancient samples of it in the balkans, and they are just going to keep coming. 

It is factually wrong to try claim it is not a balkan haplogroup at this point.

----------


## mount123

> That's not possible, you have high rich uniparental Slavic markers among Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians and high autosomal Slavic and you see a decrease on E-V13 among them. I think that's clear.
> 
> Herodotus claimed that after Indians the Thracians were the most numerous nation in the ancient world, so i wouldn't be surprised if E-V13 was solely Thracian. I don't know.


Neither would I be surprised.

----------


## mount123

> There's no diversity because most Kosovars are just a recent expansion of the Gegs. Their language attests to this. Their dialect is almost identical all the way up to Shkodra.


As someone with roots in Central and East Kosovo I can assure you that neither are we an extention of the Gegs of Northern Albania nor is our language identical to people from Shkodra. Our roots run deep we did not "move" here in the dark ages.

----------


## enter_tain

> Now you are resorting to outright lies in desperation.
> Ev13 has been found confirmed in pre-slavic viminacium, it has been found in iron age thrace. We already have ancient samples of it in the balkans, and they are just going to keep coming. 
> It is factually wrong to try claim it is not a balkan haplogroup at this point.


Yes, we've seen all the Slavs, Avars, Scythians that come from the Balkans. You are just being hard-headed because you know your theories rely on stupidity.

----------


## mount123

> Not at all, the only bottleneck we know is Berisha-Sopi. These two families have no other subclade anywhere close to them after Late Bronze Age, the closest one are one Italian from Calabria i think and one Bulgarian from Plovdiv.
> 
> Otherwise, the same can be said of J2b2-L283, there is absolutely no diversity in Kosovo as far as J2b2-L283 comes. Krasniqi, Gashi are the most common surnames in Kosovo nowadays. (though a part of Gashi seem to be E-V13 ->L241 due to them being Bardhi).


*There is diversity in regards to J2b-L283 in Kosovo*: What about *Kastrati?* Which may I add is a big tribe. One might have the surname Strofci but that does not change the fact that Strofci are a subset of Krasniqi. Also what about *Korbi*? *Hoti*?

----------


## enter_tain

> As someone with roots in Central and East Kosovo I can assure you that neither are we an extention of the Gegs of Northern Albania nor is our language identical to people from Shkodra. Our roots run deep we did not "move" here in the dark ages.


Come on mate



I'm from southern Albania, but it's quite clear my ancestors (for the most part) came from Northern Albania north of the Jirecek line too.

----------


## Hawk

> *There is diversity in regards to J2b-L283 in Kosovo*: What about *Kastrati?* Which may I add is a big tribe. One might have the surname Strofci but that does not change the fact that Strofci are a subset of Krasniqi. Also what about *Korbi*? *Hoti*?


Kastrati and Korbi are relatively quite small in numbers. Hoti is like the only big tribes i can see.

----------


## mount123

> Come on mate
> 
> 
> 
> I'm from southern Albania, but it's quite clear my ancestors (for the most part) came from Northern Albania north of the Jirecek line too.



*Kam ken* in Shkodra is *Jum kan* in the Prishtina Valley how are these closely related. Kam ken is clearly more related to standard Albanian and even Tosk just to name one example. I can assure you that a Shkodra native won't understand a Central or East Kosovan when they speak pure Katun style.

----------


## Hawk

> Now you are resorting to outright lies in desperation.
> Ev13 has been found confirmed in pre-slavic viminacium, it has been found in iron age thrace. We already have ancient samples of it in the balkans, and they are just going to keep coming. 
> It is factually wrong to try claim it is not a balkan haplogroup at this point.


Yeah, that sounds right. Now Bruzmi plays the cards, tries to project it as Southern European marker, he comes too desperate on his attempts. Ignoring what other people already are acknowledging.

Let's just put it like this, i will not label as Proto-Thracian, but rather one of the main lineages on forming the Danubian Urnfield Complex. It's quite clear that E-V13 is not a steppe lineage, it's a Neolithic derived, but that doesn't change the fact that it rose up in and around somewhere from Alps to Western Carpathians initially during Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.

He is so good at cherrypicking, he tries to make it Southern European, but then again when Ancient Greece is mentioned he says that E-V13 percentage in Greece is artificially inflated, there is no E-V13 in Greece and similar stuff. Dude is textbook cherrypicker.

----------


## enter_tain

> Yeah, that sounds right. Now Bruzmi plays the cards, tries to project it as Southern European marker, he comes too desperate on his attempts. Ignoring what other people already are acknowledging.
> 
> Let's just put it like this, i will not label as Proto-Thracian, but rather one of the main lineages on forming the Danubian Urnfield Complex.


You're just making up fake Y-DNA/cultures at this point, because we lack samples.

EV-13 is a Pan-European Y-DNA, which yes, is most common in southern Europe. We have a pre-EV13 from Neolithic Spain. But it's association with Central/Eastern Europeans like Slavs, Avars and Scythians is undeniable. Better than you trying to make Greeks Thracians.

----------


## mount123

> You're just making up fake Y-DNA/cultures at this point, because we lack samples.
> 
> EV-13 is a Pan-European Y-DNA, which yes, is most common in southern Europe. We have a pre-EV13 from Neolithic Spain. But it's association with Central/Eastern Europeans like Slavs, Avars and Scythians is undeniable. Better than you trying to make Greeks Thracians.


What the heck? Those were pre existing locals that were incorporated into their ethnos. That does not mean that they are Slavic in origin. Wasn't "Bruzmi" that editor at the Illyrians Wikipedia page that deleted the genetics section with the tons of J2b-L283 samples because he did not like that it wasn't found together with E1b-V13? What is wrong with you people. Get help.

----------


## enter_tain

> What the heck? Those were pre existing locals that were incorporated into their ethnos. That does not mean that they are Slavic in origin. Wasn't "Bruzmi" that editor at the Illyrians Wikipedia page that deleted the genetics section with the tons of J2b-L283 samples because he did not like that it wasn't found together with E1b-V13? What is wrong with you people. Get help.


Who is "Bruzmi"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

EV-13 is like I2. An originally Neolithic Y-DNA (though inherited from HGs) that got spread all over Europe. It's most common in southern Europe and the Balkans, but it is not "Balkanite". Plenty of Slavs have I2, even though it's common in southern Europe.

----------


## Hawk

> You're just making up fake Y-DNA/cultures at this point, because we lack samples.
> 
> EV-13 is a Pan-European Y-DNA, which yes, is most common in southern Europe. We have a pre-EV13 from Neolithic Spain. But it's association with Central/Eastern Europeans like Slavs, Avars and Scythians is undeniable. Better than you trying to make Greeks Thracians.


You do know that Slavic urhemait/homeland is very deep probably in forest steppe, chances E-V13 to be part of their group are slim to 0%, for Avars 0%, for Scythians same 0%. The Steppe was like a highway, and Carpathian mountains were like natural barrier. Once the Romans beated Dacians in their war against Decebalus, a lot of Dacians were enslaved (just as Dalmatians were previously enslaved and most of young males ended up working in Italian mines) then the Free Dacians living in Carpathian mountains hated the Romans, so probably they will join the ranks whoever was enemy of Rome.

----------


## enter_tain

> You do know that Slavic urhemait/homeland is very deep probably in forest steppe, chances E-V13 to be part of their group are slim to 0%, for Avars 0%, for Scythians same 0%. The Steppe was like a highway, and Carpathian mountains were like natural barrier. Once the Romans beated Dacians in their war against Decebalus, a lot of Dacians were enslaved (just as Dalmatians were previously enslaved and most of young males ended up working in Italian mines) then the Free Dacians living in Carpathian mountains hated the Romans, so probably they will join the ranks whoever was enemy of Rome.


"Slavs" are a modern ethnic group that go back to Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages. I'm not talking about some Neolithic R1a people.




> Once the Romans beated Dacians in their war against Decebalus, a lot of Dacians were enslaved (just as Dalmatians were previously enslaved and most of young males ended up working in Italian mines) then the Free Dacians living in Carpathian mountains hated the Romans, so probably they will join the ranks whoever was enemy of Rome.


You should write some fiction on Reddit or something. This ain't the forum for you.

----------


## Hawk

> You should write some fiction on Reddit or something. This ain't the forum for you.


That's certainly true, after Bato's Wars, a lot of young Dalmatian males were enslaved by Romans, hence why J2b2-L283 is so low today in Dalmatia. They devastated and moved people all over the place.

In between I-II century their biggest enemy in Europe were the Dacians. After beating Dacians they did the same to them as they did to Dalmatians.

----------


## Fustan

E-V13 non-Balkanic? This has to be the most stupid thing ever written in any thread on Eupedia. I'm sorry entertain but your posts are absolutely ridiculous right now.

----------


## enter_tain

> E-V13 non-Balkanic? This has to be the most stupid thing ever written in any thread on Eupedia. I'm sorry entertain but your posts are absolutely ridiculous right now.


What is "non-Balkanic"? EV-13 is spread all over Europe. The earliest related Y-DNA is from Neolithic Spain.



There are Scythians, Slavs, and Avars with this Y-DNA. It exists in Italy, Germany, Russia, Scandinavia, etc... It has it's highest modern frequency in the Balkans, but that doesn't make it "Balkanic". 

It's like saying I2 is "Balkanic".

----------


## enter_tain

People are too biased here. They're just trying to make their Y-DNA exclusive to their own ethnic groups. Even Illyrians that have been pre-dominantly J2B2-L283, are not the sole carriers of that Y-DNA.

You can't say those J2B2-L283-heavy Sardianians "Balkanic" or "Illyrian". Regions or ethnic groups don't own a Y-DNA. The whole point of the analysis is to see the path of migration and how it got there.

----------


## Archetype0ne

These are diversity heatmaps.
You can not say E-V13 (as a whole, not particular branches that might not apply) is not Balkanic in origin due to it being widespread in all of Europe, and not say the same thing for L283 if you are basing your conclusion on the same faulty logic.

"
Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%).
— Cruciani et al. (2007)According to some authors E-V13 appears to have originated in Greece or the southern Balkans and its presence in the rest of the Mediterranean is likely a consequence of Greek colonization.[22][23][24] Within Europe, E-V13 is especially common in the Balkans and some parts of Italy. In different studies, particularly high frequencies have been observed in Kosovo Albanians (45.6%[25]), Macedonian Albanians (34.4%[14]), Albanians (32.29%Cruciani et al. (2007)) , and in some parts of Greece (ca. 35%[26]).[27] 

The TMRCA of European V13 is 4700–4000 years ago.[35] Phylogenetic analysis suggest that the European v13 spread through Europe from the Balkans in a "rapid demographic expansion".[35]

The distribution and diversity of V13 are often thought to represent the introduction of early farming technologies, during the Neolithic expansion, into Europe by way of the Balkans.[12] The haplogroup J2b (J-M12) has also frequently been discussed in connection with V13, as a haplogroup with a seemingly very similar distribution and pre-history.[3][6][12] (There is no consensus regarding the circumstances or timing of its evolution.)"


All this is not news. Out of the blue going reactionary and attributing V13 to non Balkan peoples due to some faulty logic is perplexing.

----------


## Riverman

These heatmaps are not representative though, because a lot of the relevant populations being severely undertested.
The situation is even worse on YFULL than on FTDNA, where way more other people tested.

The story of E-V13 might be rather complex, with different centres at different times.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> These heatmaps are not representative though, because a lot of the relevant populations being severely undertested.
> The situation is even worse on YFULL than on FTDNA, where way more other people tested.
> The story of E-V13 might be rather complex, with different centres at different times.


Interesting that you noticed when I was not even making that point. It is that obvious.
The concern you raise I have myself raised before. But we can not focus on the data we do not have, and ignore the data we do have.
I myself am trying to use the most up to date tools I can, if anyone knows better tools, suggest them and I will incorporate them into my posts.

----------


## Riverman

> Interesting that you noticed when I was not even making that point. It is that obvious.
> The concern you raise I have myself raised before. But we can not focus on the data we do not have, and ignore the data we do have.
> I myself am trying to use the most up to date tools I can, if anyone knows better tools, suggest them and I will incorporate them into my posts.


I usually go after the FTDNA Blocktree, Scaledinnovation predictions, ancient samples and on YFULL the general phylogeny and TMRCA.
There is no easy tool to sum it all up imho.

----------


## Archetype0ne

Thanks for the suggestion. You might know my reservation on the FTDNA database from my discussions with Ghurier. 
On the ancient samples though, that is a point I have to agree on, and even thought of adding as an edit to my previous reply. The lack of V13 in the Western Balkans from the current ancient samples really complicates things*. I think it will be clear one way or the other once both the Lazaridis as well as the Bulgarian papers are out.
I would add your cultural analysis is also a very nice tool. But things get complicated as you say with limited data points.

*Added the asterix since Western Balkans and a Southern route are not equivalent. And the large block of sourced text I lifted of wikipedia (yes, I know) was making an argument for a southern route.

Do you have a stat about number of Romanian flags on Y-Full btw? Would be interesting to actually do the math. If we were talking about heatmaps, it would indeed be an unavoidable factor, but I do believe statistically speaking diversity could be accurately depicted even using survey methods given a certain minimal data threshold.

----------


## Riverman

Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, Carpathian Poland and Transcarpathian Ukraine are key areas for the debate, with both the ancient and modern samples being absolutely insufficient.
A huge Problem is the cremation horizon. Illyrians are in their Southern core regions easier to test because of inhumation burials.
Daco-Thracians did cremate most of the time...

As for modern ethnic Romanians, there are just not enough samples anywhere, but from those I saw, they can be split in Southern Vlach derived, unklar and more Northern affinities.
But key is that even the few Romanian and Moldovan samples can rival the diversity and position of much better tested Albanians in some major clades.
This is no final proof of anything, but it means that we are just not there yet with the limited data base available to be sure.
Like even Greeks do appear with old clades too, again split in a similar way as Romanians.
They both have old subclades with no current matches anywhere. We don't know where they fit in exactly, but it looks old.
In many major clades the diversity of Albanians doesn't exceed that of the English, the othrr well tested group.
That alle is quite telling.

The ratio of sampling vs diversity is imho relatively better in a lot of people, including Bulgarians and Greeks, but also more Northern people.

----------


## enter_tain

> These are diversity heatmaps.
> You can not say E-V13 (as a whole, not particular branches that might not apply) is not Balkanic in origin due to it being widespread in all of Europe, and not say the same thing for L283 if you are basing your conclusion on the same faulty logic.
> 
> "Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%).
> — Cruciani et al. (2007)According to some authors E-V13 appears to have originated in Greece or the southern Balkans and its presence in the rest of the Mediterranean is likely a consequence of Greek colonization.[22][23][24] Within Europe, E-V13 is especially common in the Balkans and some parts of Italy. In different studies, particularly high frequencies have been observed in Kosovo Albanians (45.6%[25]), Macedonian Albanians (34.4%[14]), Albanians (32.29%Cruciani et al. (2007)) , and in some parts of Greece (ca. 35%[26]).[27] 
> 
> The TMRCA of European V13 is 4700–4000 years ago.[35] Phylogenetic analysis suggest that the European v13 spread through Europe from the Balkans in a "rapid demographic expansion".[35]
> 
> The distribution and diversity of V13 are often thought to represent the introduction of early farming technologies, during the Neolithic expansion, into Europe by way of the Balkans.[12] The haplogroup J2b (J-M12) has also frequently been discussed in connection with V13, as a haplogroup with a seemingly very similar distribution and pre-history.[3][6][12] (There is no consensus regarding the circumstances or timing of its evolution.)"
> ...


NONE of those Y-DNA are Balkanic in origin. J2B2, EV13 are markers of Indo-Europeans who settled in the Balkans, just like R1b, R1a, etc... Their dates states so.

Native Balkans ("Pelasgians"), were G, T, I2, J1, etc... Sorry to break this to you but the current J2B2/EV13s clades were brought to the Balkans by Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans are not Balkanites.

----------


## enter_tain

Only reason people ever claimed J2 and EV-13 were non-IE was because they were found in high EEF populations. But Spain is high EEF and almost entirely IE paternally. No reason why it'd be different for Albanians and Greeks.

The EEF components in Europeans are maternal, even in populations where they're 70-80% EEF. J2B2-L283 is clearly CHG-related (very likely a minority IE-CHG lineage). EV-13 might have originally been Neolithic (we'll see), but all the modern clades go back to the Bronze Age, and are clearly from Central/Eastern like all IE-lineages.

Are we back to denying Indo-European migrations now?

----------


## Dibran

> Thanks for the suggestion. You might know my reservation on the FTDNA database from my discussions with Ghurier. 
> On the ancient samples though, that is a point I have to agree on, and even thought of adding as an edit to my previous reply. The lack of V13 in the Western Balkans from the current ancient samples really complicates things*. I think it will be clear one way or the other once both the Lazaridis as well as the Bulgarian papers are out.
> I would add your cultural analysis is also a very nice tool. But things get complicated as you say with limited data points.
> 
> *Added the asterix since Western Balkans and a Southern route are not equivalent. And the large block of sourced text I lifted of wikipedia (yes, I know) was making an argument for a southern route.
> 
> Do you have a stat about number of Romanian flags on Y-Full btw? Would be interesting to actually do the math. If we were talking about heatmaps, it would indeed be an unavoidable factor, but I do believe statistically speaking diversity could be accurately depicted even using survey methods given a certain minimal data threshold.


If I recall correctly, supposedly an upcoming paper on Albanian aDNA(think more the South of Albania??) has E-V13 appearing in Iron Age Albania and J2b-L283 in Middle to late BA Albania together with R1b-PF7652.

----------


## Dibran

> Although there might be singular clades of V13 during the genesis of proto-Slavs, I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible for E-V13 as a whole to be Slavic. Unless Slavs had a Southern European origin.


Its not Slavic. Perhaps he meant to say that if some of the E-V13 in these Avars(who also had Slavic admixture) is related to some E-V13 in the Balkans, then, perhaps at least recently some(and not all) E-V13 may have a more recent Avaro-Slavic extraction and spread. In which case some E-V13 in the Balkans could habe arrived with Avars and not been native there. I think perhaps this could be more true for some South Slavic E-V13 as I recall someone mentioning these Avar V13 samples have no recent matches with Albanian V13 until at least the Iron Age.

----------


## Dibran

> We had a study that said 1/3 of Greek DNA is "Polish-like" or "Ukrainian-like". Certainly makes more sense that the guy who said Thracian gave it to the Greeks.


Northern Greeks have a ton of R1a/I-Y3120, and their ratios seem to coincide with that of autosomal Slavic-like ratios which is more like 40% and not 1/3. 

However, if some E-V13 clades in Avars piggy backed with Slavic tribes in the early medieval to the Balkans, some branches could be connected to their movements and need a more careful approach on a case by case basis before painting all V13 as paleobalkan. 

Though, someone mentioned that these V13 Avar clades had no recent matches with Albanian E-V13 until at least the Iron Age or around 1000BCE. So its more likely some South Slavic E-V13 could have arrived with Avaro-Slavs and not the Albanian branches.

----------


## Dibran

> As someone with roots in Central and East Kosovo I can assure you that neither are we an extention of the Gegs of Northern Albania nor is our language identical to people from Shkodra. Our roots run deep we did not "move" here in the dark ages.


PH1751 as a whole seems more diverse around Northern Albania. As far as I'm aware, between both projects, Kosova is still very under-sampled, so that could of course change in time. I mean, I guess 300-400 is not too few but still, at least 1000 from Kosova would be a nice measure. So far most J2b-L283 in Kosove is overwhelmingly PH1751 which only split in the early medieval. Likely from somewhere in Northern Albania. 

There's a paper supposedly coming on mid to late Bronze Age and Iron Age Albania that found J2b-L283 and R1b-PF7652. And E-V13 appeared in the Iron Age supposedly.

----------


## Dibran

> What is "non-Balkanic"? EV-13 is spread all over Europe. The earliest related Y-DNA is from Neolithic Spain.
> 
> There are Scythians, Slavs, and Avars with this Y-DNA. It exists in Italy, Germany, Russia, Scandinavia, etc... It has it's highest modern frequency in the Balkans, but that doesn't make it "Balkanic". 
> It's like saying I2 is "Balkanic".


That's incorrect. E-V13 has it's highest diversity in the Balkans regardless of the spread. You practically can find an Albanian flag in yfull at every level of the step tree even if outliers. 

There's really no comparison with I-Y3120 which has its diversity in Ukraine/Belarus, despite the overwhelming frequency in the Balkans which is simply due to bottlenecks/founder effects.

----------


## Dibran

> People are too biased here. They're just trying to make their Y-DNA exclusive to their own ethnic groups. Even Illyrians that have been pre-dominantly J2B2-L283, are not the sole carriers of that Y-DNA.
> You can't say those J2B2-L283-heavy Sardianians "Balkanic" or "Illyrian". Regions or ethnic groups don't own a Y-DNA. The whole point of the analysis is to see the path of migration and how it got there.


Sardinia was invaded and settled a number of times and is by no means homogeneous. If I recall, most of their J2b-L283 is related to that of the Balkans, and likely arrived with the Byzantine occupation of that island. And Balkaners, especially Albanians, were under the Byzantines. 

So J2b-L283 arriving with them or earlier Roman occupations isn't out of the realm of reason and is the likely scenario unless it's some old basal branch. Which is likely not true for most J2b-L283 in Sardinia.

They even have R1a and I-Y3120 as well. Which is also probably from Byzantine era occupations. Unless some came with the temporary Slavic Taifa state that tried invading from Spain.

----------


## enter_tain

> Sardinia was invaded and settled a number of times and is by no means homogeneous. If I recall, most of their J2b-L283 is related to that of the Balkans, and likely arrived with the Byzantine occupation of that island. And Balkaners, especially Albanians, were under the Byzantines. 
> So J2b-L283 arriving with them or earlier Roman occupations isn't out of the realm of reason and is the likely scenario unless it's some old basal branch. Which is likely not true for most J2b-L283 in Sardinia.
> They even have R1a and I-Y3120 as well. Which is also probably from Byzantine era occupations. Unless some came with the temporary Slavic Taifa state that tried invading from Spain.


Mmm what? Sardinian J2B2-L283 has been found like 1200 BC with the Nuragic Civilization. Nothing to do with Byzantines.

I know that Albanians have been in the Balkans for 4 thousand years, but let's cut out this "Balkanite" bullshit. We're only Balkanites maternally. Our ancestors came from Central and Eastern Europe just like everyone else during the Bronze Age. That includes J2 and EV13.

I think this Pelasgian b.s. has gotten to people and it's widespread in the media

http://www.gazetadita.al/bojaxhi-fle...nga-pellazget/

----------


## Dibran

> Mmm what? Sardinian J2B2-L283 has been found like 1200 BC with the Nuragic Civilization. Nothing to do with Byzantines.
> 
> I know that Albanians have been in the Balkans for 4 thousand years, but let's cut out this "Balkanite" bullshit. We're only Balkanites maternally. Our ancestors came from Central and Eastern Europe just like everyone else during the Bronze Age. That includes J2 and EV13.
> 
> I think this Pelasgian b.s. has gotten to people and it's widespread in the media
> 
> http://www.gazetadita.al/bojaxhi-fle...nga-pellazget/



Who said anything about Pelaagians? They weren't even Indo-Europeans. I never even brought them up. 

No need for assumptions. When I'm saying Balkanite I'm speaking about the present population. If you want to get technical and keep going back with a time machine, most Proto-Indo-Europeans were just mammoth hunting dudes in Siberia(R1a/R1b), with the Js near the Zagros and Es in Africa.

----------


## enter_tain

> Who said anything about Pelaagians? They weren't even Indo-Europeans. I never even brought them up. 
> 
> No need for assumptions. When I'm saying Balkanite I'm speaking about the present population. If you want to get technical and keep going back with a time machine, most Proto-Indo-Europeans were just mammoth hunting dudes in Siberia(R1a/R1b), with the Js near the Zagros and Es in Africa.


Like I said for the last 4 thousand years, yes. But we don't own the property rights to J2B2 nor EV-13. These are clearly present all over Central, Eastern and southern Europe. Some of them are from the Roman Empire, but some of them are just simply distant cousin branches to the ones in the Balkans that never migrated there.

----------


## Hawk

We don't even know who the Pelasgians were btw.

For example Marija Gimbutas made a hypothesis claiming Pelasgians were bearers of Grla Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo Culture from Serbia/Romania border who migrated into Greece during the big turmoil of Late Bronze Age. That would still made them Neolithic derived since this culture is to be linked with Encrusted Pottery Culture which usually bear G2a and I2a lines and perhaps some E-V13 (but this one is more to be related with Channeled-Ware/Gava phenomenon).

She might have been right since Attica and Thessaly where Pelasgians were supposed to settle were the regions transforming the burial rite to cremation.

If Gimbutas was right, she thought ancient Greek writers were just confused, and it was the Achaean Greek who were older than Pelasgians in Greece.

But, material culture on Lemnos indicate of Pelasgians as derived from Mycenaean times and their decorations have none of Geometric patterns associated with the Danubian migrants of Late Bronze Age.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> If I recall correctly, supposedly an upcoming paper on Albanian aDNA(think more the South of Albania??) has E-V13 appearing in Iron Age Albania and J2b-L283 in Middle to late BA Albania together with R1b-PF7652.


Wait, there is a leak about the South Albania samples and it contains E-V13 from the Iron Age?

I guess it does not take much to be right in archeo genetics, just a sliver of common sense... Thanks for letting me know about this. Last time I heard the Southern samples were not tested yet.

Is there other information on what haplogroups are found in the south?

----------


## Dibran

> Wait, there is a leak about the South Albania samples and it contains E-V13 from the Iron Age?
> 
> I guess it does not take much to be right in archeo genetics, just a sliver of common sense... Thanks for letting me know about this. Last time I heard the Southern samples were not tested yet.
> 
> Is there other information on what haplogroups are found in the south?


It was discussed on Anthro a couple times. I could be wrong. Maybe I'm mixing things up lol

----------


## Archetype0ne

> It was discussed on Anthro a couple times. I could be wrong. Maybe I'm mixing things up lol


Have not kept up. Last I checked with Gjergj here more than 6 months ago, only the North Samples were tested and they were R1b and L283, while the South Samples had still to be tested. Could you doublecheck please. As this could be huge to settle all these talks here.

----------


## Riverman

> Northern Greeks have a ton of R1a/I-Y3120, and their ratios seem to coincide with that of autosomal Slavic-like ratios which is more like 40% and not 1/3. 
> However, if some E-V13 clades in Avars piggy backed with Slavic tribes in the early medieval to the Balkans, some branches could be connected to their movements and need a more careful approach on a case by case basis before painting all V13 as paleobalkan. 
> Though, someone mentioned that these V13 Avar clades had no recent matches with Albanian E-V13 until at least the Iron Age or around 1000BCE. So its more likely some South Slavic E-V13 could have arrived with Avaro-Slavs and not the Albanian branches.


Most of the branches which being found in the Pannonian samples are also present in Albanians, but their phylogeny is rather shallow, they mostly spread with recent founder effects, like its the usual thing for Albanians. That's a big problem for any sort of estimation and placing, because it could mean everything. They could have entered with Channelled Ware in the Late Bronze Age, probably even with first splinters in the MBA from Pannonia, the Danubian zone, or they could have come with Slavs and Vlachs really, really late. I mean subclades which are more common to the North of Albanians and have a TMRCA of around High Medieval times. 
In theory they could have come from Medieval settlers which just came to Albanians in the 14th century and there is no way to prove the opposite, until more modern and ancient samples arrive which allow us to properly place these subclades. We just don't know and like you stated, it must be worked out case by case, clade by clade. Any generalisation might be very misleading, because some subclades in Albanians might be really old in the Central-Southern Balkans, while others are probably really young and came from the North - or South, like Greeks, very late. 




> That's incorrect. E-V13 has it's highest diversity in the Balkans regardless of the spread. You practically can find an Albanian flag in yfull at every level of the step tree even if outliers. 
> There's really no comparison with I-Y3120 which has its diversity in Ukraine/Belarus, despite the overwhelming frequency in the Balkans which is simply due to bottlenecks/founder effects.


Sampling bias is real and a strange thing, because there are now on FTDNA not that many Albanians left in basal positions any more, most could be assigned to their typical subclades. There are other, undertested people, with much less samples, yet they have solid positions upstream too. 

We really need a lot more sampling. Highly interesting are obviously Romania and Bulgaria. Especially Bulgaria is very diverse per tested individual. Its really astonishing. Even with the few Bulgarians tested, they already have as basal and diverse sampling as the much better tested Albanians for many clades. Romanians are more complicated, because they tested even less and about one half is more Southern Vlach derived of those few ethnic Romanians. What is being needed is getting the other half tested.

----------


## Jovialis

> Who said anything about Pelaagians? They weren't even Indo-Europeans. I never even brought them up. 
> No need for assumptions. When I'm saying Balkanite I'm speaking about the present population. If you want to get technical and keep going back with a time machine, most Proto-Indo-Europeans were just mammoth hunting dudes in Siberia(R1a/R1b), with the Js near the Zagros and Es in Africa.


E was big among the Natufians, and the Levant was later supplanted by a lot of J from Iran/Caucasus. E probably comes from the Middle east, from where it supplanted African Halogroups, from back-migrations.

----------


## Hawk

> Have not kept up. Last I checked with Gjergj here more than 6 months ago, only the North Samples were tested and they were R1b and L283, while the South Samples had still to be tested. Could you doublecheck please. As this could be huge to settle all these talks here.


If i recall correctly gjergj said *i expect* E-V13 to show in Iron Age, but he said it that one sample during EBA was R1b-PF7562 and one sample during MBA was J2b2-L283. So the last two were confirmed by him as a leak.

----------


## Riverman

> E was big among the Natufians, and the Levant was later supplanted by a lot of J from Iran/Caucasus. E probably comes from the Middle east, from where it supplanted African Halogroups, from back-migrations.


Indeed. And even if E originated in Africa, E-M35 was in the Near East very early ans the predecessors of E-V13 lived in the Near East at the advent of the Neolithic Revolution, in which they were among the pioneers of the process leading to the cultural package.

----------


## Riverman

> If i recall correctly gjergj said *i expect* E-V13 to show in Iron Age, but he said it that one sample during EBA was R1b-PF7562 and one sample during MBA was J2b2-L283. So the last two were confirmed by him as a leak.


The issue of cremation is a big problem even if they were there, it might be tricky to prove it.

----------


## Hawk

> E was big among the Natufians, and the Levant was later supplanted by a lot of J from Iran/Caucasus. E probably comes from the Middle east, from where it supplanted African Halogroups, from back-migrations.


That's not something i agree with, i think Y-DNA E is a native African lineage, native to East-Africa. Probably very deep in prehistory when E-P2/E-M215 somewhere in Paleolithic pushed in North Africa maybe displacing the Y-DNA CF/D and other E branches pushed more in Central/Western/South Africa subjucating various Shum-Laka like and other more basal African people like Y-DNA A00, A0, A, B.

As for Natufians, they were clearly North African migrants there mixing with Dzudzuana-like females. Then hypothetically E-M78 (likely E-L618 the ancestor of E-V13) might have been present to a degree with the Mesolithic migration of Mushabian Culture from Egypt.

----------


## Jovialis

> That's not something i agree with, i think Y-DNA E is a native African lineage, native to East-Africa. Probably very deep in prehistory when E-P2/E-M215 somewhere in Paleolithic pushed in North Africa maybe displacing the Y-DNA CF/D and other E branches pushed more in Central/Western/South Africa subjucating various Shum-Laka like and other more basal African people like Y-DNA A00, A0, A, B.
> 
> As for Natufians, they were clearly North African migrants there mixing with Dzudzuana-like females. Then hypothetically E-M78 (likely E-L618 the ancestor of E-V13) might have been present to a degree with the Mesolithic migration of Mushabian Culture from Egypt.


Hey, maybe you're right, I don't have strong opinions on this issue. That's just something I recall reading that a paper (I forget which) had suggested.

Speaking of Dzudzuana... I wish that paper would _at least_ release the samples already. Maybe it is going to shake things up a bit too much, and is threatening to some people's beliefs. Nevertheless, one cannot cover the sky with their hands.

----------


## Hawk

> Hey, maybe you're right, I don't have strong opinions on this issue. That's just something I recall reading that a paper (I forget which) had suggested.
> 
> Speaking of Dzudzuana... I wish that paper would _at least_ release the samples already. Maybe it is going to shake things up a bit too much, and is threatening to some people's beliefs. Nevertheless, one cannot cover the sky with their hands.


But i still think Y-DNA E is to be associated with ANA (Ancient North Africans) which is classified as separate component from both Eurasians and Sub-Saharans but it looks like influenced both Basal Eurasian and Sub-Saharan autosomal to a degree.

Even the Iberomaurusian cranium which was noted by anthropologists hinted at quite separate group of people. Likewise the more deep in time, the more pure ANA and less Dzudzuana the more robust the crania like this Paleolithic Egyptian hunter gatherer whom i bet he was Y-DNA E-M35



Then you have the Iberomaurusian/Taforalt cranials



Note how they started to remove their front teeth. They started collecting specific food, and were having tooth decay. Or it was a ritual thing IDK, during Capsian time this practice stopped. Nevertheless he is good to be stamped in a Pirate flag or to be weared as Halloween mask.

----------


## Jovialis

> But i still think Y-DNA E is to be associated with ANA (Ancient North Africans) which is classified as separate component from both Eurasians and Sub-Saharans but it looks like influenced both Basal Eurasian and Sub-Saharan autosomal to a degree.


If the pre-print is correct, I think that's plausible.

----------


## Riverman

> Note how they started to remove their front teeth. They started collecting specific food, and were having tooth decay. Or it was a ritual thing IDK, during Capsian time this practice stopped. Nevertheless he is good to be stamped in a Pirate flag or to be weared as Halloween mask.


That's a cultural practise widespread in (rather Subsaharan) Africans up to recent times. 

As for E, E-M35 and the direct predecessor of E-V13, all three need to be treated separately. The safest assumption is that E-L618 came with Natufian -> Pre Pottery Neolithic to Levantine/Anatolian Neolithics, from which Impresso-Cardial settlers came to Europe.

----------


## Aspurg

Well I managed to find clear Byzantine affinity for 12 out of 20 V13 (including 3 "L618" which ofc won't stay there most likely). Archeological Byzantine links + autosomal DNA etc.

But what I find it interesting is that of those almost all are Z5018+, while of those V13 samples that by auDNA and their location seem locals Z5016+ dominates.. This might indicate Dacians (maybe also earlier Pannonian Scythians) were heavy on Z5016, and indeed there is plenty of diversity of that clade around there. 

Some of those very Southern people were not likely to have been locals anyway especially counting in subsequent Germanic etc migrations. For one of these (Z5016) I deeply looked at it is clear he is a Gepid of earlier Daco-Carpian extraction. As on the same Avar site there were Gepid finds and also earlier Daco-Carpian finds, and some authors even mentioned such a mixed Daco-Germanic-Celtic population existing there. By auDNA he was rather Germanic like it seems and he was found together with the two I1.

----------


## Aspurg

> Its not Slavic. Perhaps he meant to say that if some of the E-V13 in these Avars(who also had Slavic admixture) is related to some E-V13 in the Balkans, then, perhaps at least recently some(and not all) E-V13 may have a more recent Avaro-Slavic extraction and spread. In which case some E-V13 in the Balkans could habe arrived with Avars and not been native there. I think perhaps this could be more true for some South Slavic E-V13 as I recall someone mentioning these Avar V13 samples have no recent matches with Albanian V13 until at least the Iron Age.


 Avars proper had little to no Slavic admixture. And Avars had 0 I2a Din. 0. few Slavic R1a's too. That some V13 could have arrived with the Avars is definitely an option. But definitely not Slavs. Especially considering high diversity and presence in the area of Komani-Kruja culture which *had also Avar admixture*.

Ofc that great part of those Avar V13's seem Byzantine is another matter.. 

But clearly Avars did not mix with the Slavs at all. They mixed with the local Gepids, other remnants and ofc these Romanoi that came there either forcefully (I guess more likely) or willingly (opportunists).

----------


## Riverman

> Well I managed to find clear Byzantine affinity for 12 out of 20 V13 (including 3 "L618" which ofc won't stay there most likely). Archeological Byzantine links + autosomal DNA etc.
> 
> But what I find it interesting is that of those almost all are Z5018+, while of those V13 samples that by auDNA and their location seem locals Z5016+ dominates.. This might indicate Dacians (maybe also earlier Pannonian Scythians) were heavy on Z5016, and indeed there is plenty of diversity of that clade around there. 
> 
> Some of those very Southern people were not likely to have been locals anyway especially counting in subsequent Germanic etc migrations. For one of these (Z5016) I deeply looked at it is clear he is a Gepid of earlier Daco-Carpian extraction. As on the same Avar site there were Gepid finds and also earlier Daco-Carpian finds, and some authors even mentioned such a mixed Daco-Germanic-Celtic population existing there. By auDNA he was rather Germanic like it seems and he was found together with the two I1.


I think the individuals with "Byzantine" affinity were simply Roman provincials, so Romanised locals which got an extra bit of "Imperial Roman" admixture from the East Mediterranean, just like some of the Viminacium samples might have. Its typical, archaeologically, for the Roman pockets like Keszthely, that they being more Eastern oriented, since that was, at that time and for the region, their religious and cultural centre. You can even see that they copied Eastern Roman style. So I would describe them mostly as Daco-Romans or Pannonian-Roman provincials. 
The more Northern shifted individuals you are talking about might have been from the neighbouring, non-Roman settled areas, like in the Danube bent and up the Carpathians, being ethnically derived from Sarmatians with Dacian influences, like the Iazyges, or Dacian people directly, like the Costobocci and Carpi among others, as well as the mixed Celtic-Dacian people like the Cotini and Bastarnae. 

The Romance communities were strong in the South West and South too, but most samples being clearly concentrated to the South East, like close to the Tisza river, like around Szeged. And they are still stronger in Eastern Hungary, than in Southern and Western Hungary. Its really a peculiar region, which was once the centre of Belegis II-Gva and later Bosut-Basarabi, its especially the Banat and the Eastern side of the Tisza basin. 

Counties of Hungary, you can click on the map: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_Hungary

Most of the samples being concentrated in in the komitats (counties): 

Csongrd-Csand (South Eastern Hungary)
Kiskundorozsma-Kettőshatr I (3)
Szkkutas-Kpolnadűlő (2)
Pitvaros-Vztroz (1)
Szeged-Kundomb (1)
Szegvr-Oromdűlő (1)

Jsz-Nagykun-Szolnok (Central Eastern Hungary): 
Alattyn-Tult (2) 

Bks ([South] Eastern Hungary) 
Oroshza-Bnum Tglagyr (2)

Hajd-Bihar (Eastern Hungary)
Pspkladny-Eperjesvlgy (1)
Srrtudvari-Hzfld (1)

Bcs-Kiskun (Eastern-Central South of Hungary): 
Sksd-Sgod (1)

Heves (Central North Eastern Hungary): 
Tiszanna-Cseh tanya (1)

Jsz-Nagykun-Szolnok (Central Eastern Hungary): 
Tiszafred-Majoros-halom (1)

So the main commonality is: All are in Eastern Hungary, a lot being concentrated along the Tisza and there is an even higher concentration in Csongrd-Csand, which is the area which connects directly with the Romanian and Serbian Banat. This is the area which was an absolute centre of Belegis II-Gva and later Bosut-Basarabi. Szeged and Belegi being directly connected by the Tisza river. As are most of the other sites and provinces mentioned. Note especially that West of Csongrd-Csand there is almost nothing! There are more samples from the Northern East than from the very South, which had strong Roman communities too. 

The question is how old it is, and how much dates to the old Gva from the Upper Tisza vs. the Basarabi expansion from the South Banat. A good portion of this area was not constantly and late Roman controlled, because of the Danube bent: 


Before the big migration period, in later Roman times, when the Dacian power was broken, this area was mostly inhabited by Sarmatians, like the Iazyges: 


Note the whole macro-region North of the Roman borders were controlled by Sarmatians and Daco-Thracians, like the Costobocci, Carpi and possibly mixed people more Celtic influenced, like the Cotini. Considering how the earlier Thraco-Cimmerians and Vekerzug Scythians score, I guess the Iazyges and other Sarmatian tribes too got their fair share of Dacian-related ancestry. 
The question is how the Costobocci and Carpi would look like, but like so often with Daco-Thracians, a lot of them kept the tradition of burning their dead, which makes the whole quest even more difficult. 

We definitely need a lot more samples from Romania in particular. Talking about E-V13 prehistory, Romania is key, together with Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, Transcarpathian Ukraine and adjacet Polish areas, as well as Romania as a whole, which will be important, regardless of a Northern (Gva = Upper Tisza) or more Southern (Belegis II-Gva and Bosut-Basarabi = Tisza-Danube area, Banat and East) ultimate main source region for the Bronze-Iron Age founder effects.

For Medieval Hungary, the lack of sampling from around Lake Balaton hurts, like I said before, but its quite telling that they had one sample taking from the crucial period and it was J2b. I doubt the E-V13 will be higher in South Western Romance Hungary than in the East, because while Channelled Ware people and Basarabi had their strong impact there too, it was not as strong as along the Tisza.

----------


## Riverman

By the way, VPBper167 Conq. elite 10. (2nd half) sample belongs to J-Y17946 which is the same as the Bronze Age Kyjatice BR2 sample, which was from Heves county by the way and fully Eastern Central European autosomally: 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y17946/
*
This might be the first direct evidence for Channelled Ware continuity in Pannonia!* Good catch. 

He is a conqueror elite, at a time most of the older structure might have been already lost, yet not fully so, from Vrs-Papkert-B, county of Somogy, directly at the Lake Balaton and within reach of Keszthely, so from an area known to have had strong Romance continuity, among the longest in the whole Pannonian region! 

The area was probably dominated by Pannonian Illyrians, but got heavily influenced by Channelled Ware/Kyjatice-Gva in the transitional period: 




> At
> the same time the high number of characteristics in shape
> and motifs typical of the Kyjatice and Gva cultures indi-
> cates that the population living in the Danube River Bend
> Gorge region during the Ha B period maintained intensive
> relations principally with communities inhabiting the Hun-
> garian Northern Mountain Hills and the Great Hungarian
> Plain.45
> The material evidence of cultural interactions shows that
> ...


https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

I would assume the Iron Age, pre-Celtic population of the area should have been J-L283 dominated, with Bell Beaker R1b and a minority from Channelled Ware. This individual, if really being in the same clade, could be a direct descendant of the earlier Channelled Ware expansion from Kyjatice-Gva. Interestingly, he looks more Northern, possibly Sarmatian or Slavic or Germanic influenced, but keep in mind, the Kyjatice sample BR2 was similar! 

From the paper: 



> VPB-167 Vrs-Papkert-B Conq. elite EU_cline 89% EU_Core5 11% EU_Core1


Since that's no super common lineage, that's quite exciting and shows once more how important main and subclades are, in a best case scenario down to a terminal SNP. Quite exciting and it just shows that Channelled Ware people might indeed have influenced the whole Pannonian region and survived there up to the Hungarian conqueror period at least!

----------


## Hawk

We already have La Tene results from Western Hungary who should be pre-Celtic, and from those small samples E-V13 is there, even moreso than J2b2-L283 in Pannonia.

----------


## Riverman

> We already have La Tene results from Western Hungary who should be pre-Celtic, and from those small samples E-V13 is there, even moreso than J2b2-L283 in Pannonia.


The problem with E-V13 is that its a major European haplogroup, so by just stating E-V13 was there, we don't prove continuity, because it could have been a branch from every cardinal point. We don't know. This lineage from Kyjatice however is kind of more specific. For E-V13 we really come to the point, like I repeatedly stressed, where we don't just need to know it was E-V13, but the exact subclades! 

Its good this paper has some, which is absolutely key for putting things into context, but the British paper wasn't as successful unfortunately.

----------


## MOESAN

> But i still think Y-DNA E is to be associated with ANA (Ancient North Africans) which is classified as separate component from both Eurasians and Sub-Saharans but it looks like influenced both Basal Eurasian and Sub-Saharan autosomal to a degree.
> 
> Even the Iberomaurusian cranium which was noted by anthropologists hinted at quite separate group of people. Likewise the more deep in time, the more pure ANA and less Dzudzuana the more robust the crania like this Paleolithic Egyptian hunter gatherer whom i bet he was Y-DNA E-M35


Is not the above skull the Taforalt one, rather than the one yu placed under? BTW this first skull you posted shows strong similarities with 'combe-capelle' one.

----------


## mount123

> Avars proper had little to no Slavic admixture. And Avars had 0 I2a Din. 0. few Slavic R1a's too. That some V13 could have arrived with the Avars is definitely an option. But definitely not Slavs. Especially considering high diversity and presence in the area of Komani-Kruja culture which *had also Avar admixture*.
> 
> Ofc that great part of those Avar V13's seem Byzantine is another matter.. 
> 
> But clearly Avars did not mix with the Slavs at all. They mixed with the local Gepids, other remnants and ofc these Romanoi that came there either forcefully (I guess more likely) or willingly (opportunists).


*I2a Slav nothing "Dinaric" about it, it is not native to the area so that's an obsolete term.

----------


## Hawk

> Is not the above skull the Taforalt one, rather than the one yu placed under? BTW this first skull you posted shows strong similarities with 'combe-capelle' one.


No, he is from Paleolithic Egypt, i forgot the site name. I think he is dated archeologically 22k-20k B.C. Similarities with European Paleolithic is probably due to convergent evolution. I guess they were quite different.

----------


## kingjohn

Yes basically a branch of e-z830 entered the levant
In mesolithic ( probably also e-m78 joined him)
Than in late neolithic -chl
j haplogroup came from the north and began 
To reduce our numbers :Thinking:

----------


## Hawk

> Yes basically a branch of e-z830 entered the levant
> In mesolithic ( probably also e-m78 joined him)
> Than in late neolithic -chl
> j haplogroup came from the north and began 
> To reduce our numbers


The rise in number of Y-DNA J1 likely post-date their initial arrival, because they speak Semitic language a spinoff of Afro-Asiatic languages clearly linked with E-M35 lineage. Otherwise Middle East would have spoken a different language family today.

----------


## kingjohn

> The rise in number of Y-DNA J1 likely post-date their initial arrival, because they speak Semitic language a spinoff of Afro-Asiatic languages clearly linked with E-M35 lineage. Otherwise Middle East would have spoken a different language family today.


they might have adopted the language from the E 
but unfortuntley later there was some selection against E 
because our number been reduced .... 
we see it also in chl peki'in cave ( huge % of T in that case and only 1 E)  :Thinking: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peki%27in


p.s
at least E (in the form of e-v13) was a big hit in the balkan  :Wink:

----------


## Hawk

> they might have adopted the language from the E 
> but unfortuntley later there was some selection against E 
> because our number been reduced .... 
> we see it also in chl peki'in cave ( huge % of T in that case and only 1 E) 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peki%27in
> 
> 
> p.s
> at least E (in the form of e-v13) was a big hit in the balkan


Yeah, that looks like it. Maybe some climate even initially? Because some of them also back-migrated into North/East Africa as well.

----------


## Angela

> Yes basically a branch of e-z830 entered the levant
> In mesolithic ( probably also e-m78 joined him)
> Than in late neolithic -chl
> j haplogroup came from the north and began 
> To reduce our numbers


Well, according to the recent Reich Lab paper (Patterson) for which I just started a thread, Iran Neo arrived in Anatolia pre-agriculture. That's not to say more didn't come with time, of course.

----------


## MOESAN

> No, he is from Paleolithic Egypt, i forgot the site name. I think he is dated archeologically 22k-20k B.C. Similarities with European Paleolithic is probably due to convergent evolution. I guess they were quite different.


I asked because I saw more than a time a skull pic posted with a false identification.
Combe-capelle and your Egyptians have more chances to share ancient links than convergent evolution, IMO. But yes it's uneasy to prove...
The skull you posted under the name of 'taforalt' surprised me, based upon what I read about Taforalt proportions. But it's true I never saw its skull. What I had read evocated a high long face, not this one, so...
ATW if you have other old well identified skulls like those to share, don't fear doing it, perhaps in the "collection ofskulls" thread, if you don"t mind. Thanks beforehand.

----------


## Hawk

> I asked because I saw more than a time a skull pic posted with a false identification.
> Combe-capelle and your Egyptians have more chances to share ancient links than convergent evolution, IMO. But yes it's uneasy to prove...
> The skull you posted under the name of 'taforalt' surprised me, based upon what I read about Taforalt proportions. But it's true I never saw its skull. What I had read evocated a high long face, not this one, so...
> ATW if you have other old well identified skulls like those to share, don't fear doing it, perhaps in the "collection ofskulls" thread, if you don"t mind. Thanks beforehand.


Hmm, in all sources i have read a parallel is thrown between Taforalt/Iberomaurusian and European Paleolithic/Mesolithic but they always indicate that Taforalt/Iberomaurusian has more robusticity than their European contemporary.

But, yes, i am sure those two skulls under Taforalt/Iberomaurusian are skulls from those. And the first skull Paleolithic Egyptian hunter gatherer resides actually in one of the Cairo museums as i have been told.

----------


## Riverman

I was reading in this book: Perspectives on Balkan Archaeology 1, Spheres of Interaction, 2020. 
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/publikat...an-archaeology

From the chapter: Similarities and Differences between Material Culture of the Belegis-Gava Group from the Southern Pannonian Plain and the Morava River Basin, Aleksandar Kapuran, Aleksandar Bulatovic (p. 37 ff)

It confirms, just like the Albanian papers on the issue, two things:
First, Belegis II-Gva has some characteristics of its own, which point to influences in Southern Pannonian-Banat areas changing it from classical Gva. I think this is merely a substrate and branching effect, but this is debatable.
Secondly, it also proves that even core elements and groups of Belegis II-Gva penetrated much deeper into the South than some authors and comments seem to have suggested before.

Especially the Preevo valley which connects Southern Serbia and the Kosovo was a stronghold of Channelled Ware people (p. 43):




> Recent research conducted by M. Stojic and A. Bulatovic in the basins of Leskovac, Vranje-Bujanovac and Presevo led to discoveries of new sites with Belegis II-Gava cultural characteristics. Excavations of the largest extent were conducted at the hillfort site of Hisar in Leskovac. The site was divided in two sectors: the upper plateau with dwelling structures of a dugaout type, which mostly belonged to Brnjica I horizon (Sector II), and a sector comprising the plateau and the southeastern slope of the hill with dwelling structures, which contained channelled pottery decorated in the Gava manner (Sector I).
> 
> [...]
> 
> A. Bulatovic has suggested that the channelled vessel belongs to the period between the 11th and the 10th cenutry BCE, which would represent a terminus ante quem for the emergence of the settlement in this sector. Numerous finds of channelled pottery here also confirm their prominence over the earlier Brnjica pottery culture, which clearly was in an intrusive deposit because of the erosion from the upper plateau. Comparable rectangular houses are rare during the Belegis II-Gava period both in the Pannonian-Danubian region and in the central Balkans. The surveys and test excavations in the surroundings of Hisar brought to light one lowland settlement at the site of Sastanci in the village Bobiste near Leskovac and hillfort Kale in Grdelica at the very entrance to the Gredelica Gorge. The pottery found in both sites corresponds to the Belegis II-Gava cultural complex.


On the local pre-Channelled Ware (pre-Gva/Belegis II/Mediana II) population (p. 44):




> ...although certain Brnjica-like forms have been noticed, thus indicating that indigenous populations were still present, though not as an own ethno-cultural group but rather as an assimilated minority.


The spread happened in some areas with a destruction horizon:



> The most important results have been achieved at the hillfort of Gradiste in Konculj, positioned at strategically important place at the entrance to the Konculj gorge. the hillfort is enclosed by a rampart. In the layer above the destroyed and burnt Brnjica-period settlement, pottery of poorer quality appears together with channelled ware that can be attributed to Ha A1 to Ha A2 or to time of 12th and 11th century BCE.


Illustration for the expansion of Belegis II-Gva: 



Figure 2, page 40. 

https://ibb.co/VgZn5cZ

The earlier population survived in isolated areas if not being subjugated, or they turned South:



> In short, we can assume that Brnjica societies were pushed from north into regions to the southeast of the Juzna Morava, into the Bujanovacko-Presevski Basin, due to the invasion of populations that used channelled pottery. The large number of settlements on the riverbanks of the Juzna Morava with finds of the Belegis II-Gava culture predominating indicates assimilation of earlier population, in contrast to the situation in settlements in mountainous areas an perimeters of these basins.


The situation was therefore very, very similar to later Germanic and especially Slavic tribal migrations into the area: The river basins and lowlands were under full control of Channelled Ware, whereas in the mountainous areas and highlands some local populations survived and kept their independence in part. 

Cenotaphs and ritual pits were also found in the Belegis II-Gava context, reaching both Southern Serbia and Western Bulgaria.

in the conclusions (p. 49):




> This insufficiently documented and most probably turbulent period seems, according to settlement stratigraphy, to have been *characterised by activities of people who used channelled pottery, which, after a longer period of existence in southern Pannonia, started to move into the southern Balkans*. *The influence of the channelled pottery had started to spread along the Velika Morava River and into the hinterland of the Iron Gates even before this presupposed movement*. *The lack of cemeteries of the Belegis II-Gava group in the Juzna Morava and the Nisana River basins points to the swift advancement of population groups*. Unstratified chance finds of symbolic nature, namely burials with cenotaphs, might support this assumption. There also seems to be an urgent need for weaponry during these aggressive migraitons towards the south, perhaps related to the absence of bronze hoards with deposited metal objects. The advancement from the north into the territory of the Brnjica culture in the Juzna Morava Basin is evidenced by a sudden cessation of habitation at the settlements of Konculj and Vranjski Priboj. These developments and the evidence from the recently excavated cemetery near Mali Dol-Negotino, as well as other burial sites mentioned here, in addition to the settlements in the Vardar River basin, point to certain contacts or *movements between the central Balkans and the Vardar River basin. In a certain way, what has been described as the Aegean migration should not be completely ruled out, but which certainly shold not be exclusively linked to the "Sea peoples" thesis.*

----------


## Johane Derite

> I was reading in this book: Perspectives on Balkan Archaeology 1, Spheres of Interaction, 2020. 
> https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/publikat...an-archaeology
> 
> From the chapter: Similarities and Differences between Material Culture of the Belegis-Gava Group from the Southern Pannonian Plain and the Morava River Basin, Aleksandar Kapuran, Aleksandar Bulatovic (p. 37 ff)
> 
> It confirms, just like the Albanian papers on the issue, two things:
> First, Belegis II-G�va has some characteristics of its own, which point to influences in Southern Pannonian-Banat areas changing it from classical G�va. I think this is merely a substrate and branching effect, but this is debatable.
> Secondly, it also proves that even core elements and groups of Belegis II-G�va penetrated much deeper into the South than some authors and comments seem to have suggested before.
> 
> ...


Really interesting post. Especially about some Brnjica populations surviving in the mountainous regions.

----------


## Riverman

Some chapters from the book are freely available online, like this one about the Balkan influence on LBA-IA Greece: 
Connections between the Balkans and the Aegean:
The Case of Iron Age Burial Customs in Northern Greece
Anne-Zahra Chemsseddoha

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document

----------


## torzio

> they might have adopted the language from the E 
> but unfortuntley later there was some selection against E 
> because our number been reduced .... 
> we see it also in chl peki'in cave ( huge % of T in that case and only 1 E) 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peki%27in
> 
> 
> p.s
> at least E (in the form of e-v13) was a big hit in the balkan



there was only one line for all the T 

Peqi'in Cave ( 6150 yBP - Late Chalcolithic )

I1155
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: K1a
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.09
Other IDs: CHPK021 / S1155.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1160
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: N1a1b
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 308
Other IDs: CHPKL101B-005, CHPKL101B-011 / S1160.E1.L1, S1161.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1165
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: HV1a’b’c’
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.95
Other IDs: CHPKL104-004 / S1165.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1166
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: H
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.981
Other IDs: CHPKL104-014, CHPKL104-026 / S1166.E1.L1 / S1167.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1170
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: T1a2
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.67
Other IDs: CHPKL105-030 / S1170.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1172
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: K1a
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.12
Other IDs: CHPKL108B-024 / S1172.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1178
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: I6
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 2.56
Other IDs: CHPKL109L-015 / S1178.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1180
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: T
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.09
Other IDs: CHPKL109M-028 / S1180.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1187
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: U6d
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.12
Other IDs: CHPKL301N-001 / Library S1187.E1.L1
Other IDs: CHPKL109M-028 / S1180.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

Peqi'in Cave atDNA notes: Northern origin. They also carry the WHG G allele for Blue eyes at Rs12913832.

----------


## torzio

> there was only one line for all the T 
> Peqi'in Cave ( 6150 yBP - Late Chalcolithic )
> I1155
> Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
> mtDNA: K1a
> Sample: Petrous
> Coverage: 0.09
> Other IDs: CHPK021 / S1155.E1.L1
> Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM
> ...



all Blue eyed and Northern origin , in later papers stated origin as ......Black sea Georgia area

----------


## Hawk

I am a fan of Forged in Fire show, in one of the episodes the blacksmiths are given the job of smithing a romphaia sword, the iconic Thracian sword.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> I am a fan of Forged in Fire show, in one of the episodes the blacksmiths are given the job of smithing a romphaia sword, the iconic Thracian sword.


Beautiful art.

----------


## MOESAN

@Hawk



it seems to me this skull is one of Hassi El Abiob, and not the Taforalt T1 one. I know it isn't not the focus of this thread.

----------


## Hawk

> @Hawk
> 
> 
> 
> it seems to me this skull is one of Hassi El Abiob, and not the Taforalt T1 one. I know it isn't not the focus of this thread.


It could be, but these people look like Iberomaurusian/Taforalt-like Southern spinoff anyway.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...des_du_Maghreb

----------


## MOESAN

Look at collection of skulls,please

----------


## Hawk

> Look at collection of skulls,please


I was busy and on mobile, i still don't get it, that French article says that Hassi El Abiob skulls show great similarity with Taforalt/Iberomaurusian.

----------


## MOESAN

It seems all of them were envolved in the same culture roughly said, but we see they were not so homogenous we could have thought.
ATW some possible mt DNA from Paleo-Meso times seem having crossed Mediterranea to AFN. That left aside, some local isolated groups may have developped peculiar phoenotypical traits. What they share is the hyperdevelopment of bones, common at their times.
I 'm afraid human beings were already diverse for some unselected traits and according to crossings or isolation in small groups could have showed more or less homogenous external aspects. Here, some are on the "capelloid" side, other more on the "croma" side, and others even different.

----------


## Hawk

How i see the pattern with Paleolithic North Africans is that the more Eurasian admixture the more petite they became, this is the pattern following the Paleolithic Egyptian Hunter to Taforalt. They were likely exotic looking for us, but nevertheless it was noted long time ago that they had sort of specific look not resembling any modern race.

The southern groups probably contributed in the autosomal of modern SSA people.

----------


## Hawk

Reutlingen Naue II sword along with a Romphaia, ancient Thrace.





Thracians switched mostly to romphaia during classical times and kopis/machaira swords usually.

----------


## Hawk

I just found out something interesting.

Draga Garasanin considered the whole Balkano-Carpathian complex like Mediana, Psenichevo, Paracin to have connections to Early Bronze Age Bubanj-Hum Culture. The northern part of Bubanj-Hum was a continuation of Late Neolithic Vinca-Turdas Culture while the southern part had a Bulgarian Neolithic origin. Bulgarian Neolithic was dominated by G2a.

----------


## Riverman

> I just found out something interesting.
> 
> Draga Garasanin considered the whole Balkano-Carpathian complex like Mediana, Psenichevo, Paracin to have connections to Early Bronze Age Bubanj-Hum Culture. The northern part of Bubanj-Hum was a continuation of Late Neolithic Vinca-Turdas Culture while the southern part had a Bulgarian Neolithic origin. Bulgarian Neolithic was dominated by G2a.


That's possible, they even had a ceramic tradition resembling later Channelled Ware.

----------


## Hawk

> That's possible, they even had a ceramic tradition resembling later Channelled Ware.


Ofcourse this would still fit Gava chronology, that would be the northern variants. Vinca-Turdas were one of the world's first metal-workers. But, this is just one of scenarios, deeper in time, especially Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age is very problematic to tackle down.

----------


## Riverman

> Ofcourse this would still fit Gava chronology, that would be the northern variants. Vinca-Turdas were one of the world's first metal-workers. But, this is just one of scenarios, deeper in time, especially Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age is very problematic to tackle down.


I do now consider the option of a stronghold in Western Romania/Transylvania with a close connection to the WHG-rich population which also contributed to Slavs, but was strong (proven) in Mako, Encrusted Pottery and other populations of the Pannonian-Carpathian region. Interestingly, the Romanian Copper Age outlier (GB1) is from this context, presumably from the Broomstick (Besentrich) horizon of the region, related to Gornea-Orleşti and with close ties to Nagyrev, Hatvan, Mako, Glina and for the possible sincle E1b1b find from Pannonia very important, from Nyrsg too.
This is really the Tisza-Transylvanian connection, with a high concentration in and around the Apuseni mountains, which were extremely resource rich, and in which local populations did persist when Corded decorated pottery people came (merged into Cotofeni) and later Yamnaya in the lowlands. So this whole Carpathian region, extending much to the North and South, also into Wallachia, was inhabited by local people with very high WHG-rich ancestry which survived the steppe influences by first transforming into Cotofeni, then other local variants, like the ones mentioned. 
This group with its obvious centre in Romania being by now almost not sampled at all, with the exception of some individuals here and there, some outliers, but nowhere males! I don't think they were all E-V13, but also e.g. I2a, R-Z2103 and J2a among other lineages, but this is a viable option for a stronghold for a so far severely undersampled people in the right place, with direct connections to the North Carpathians and the Danube at the same time, from early on. Gva developed from specific subgroups of this sphere, as did presumably Lusatians and the Tollense warriors belong to it too. 
There is one big core for the Urnfield phenomenon, at least its Eastern portions, with varying degrees of this WHG-rich component and Epi-Corded steppe rich people mixing with more Neolithic shifted or Bell Beaker like people during their expansion. This is also related to issues like the spread of a millet based diet, or better millet fed pork. "A millet rich diet" was noted in the warriors from Tollense, and this spread from Pannonia-Carpathian area to the West-North West. Probably it got introduced by the Noua pastoralists from the steppe (Cimmerian/Iranian related), which first crashed and later fused with Wietenberg groups, which were related to this sphere too. 

These were all fairly important groups and some of which became very influential in the Urnfield period, spreading the cremation rite wide and far, while having practised it themselves far longer, sometimes with interruptions caused by foreign dominant influences, but the religious rite seem never have been forgotten and came back. This fits very well into a scheme which influenced both Kyjatice-Gva, Lusatians and Tollense warriors at pretty much the same time from Eastern Pannonia as a centre.



They were never fully replaced but only merged with Yamnaya and Corded Ware respectively. All sources go back to one region in particular, the Apuseni mountains: 




> *The Apuseni Mountains of southwestern Transylvania (Romania) are home to the richest gold and copper deposits in Europe, key resources that fueled the development of social complexity during the Bronze Age (ca. 2700800 B.C.E.).*





> In this study we focus our attention on the Apuseni
> Mountains of southwestern Transylvania, Romania.
> This region has t*he richest gold deposits in Europe
> and the third-largest gold deposits globally*, making it
> one of the most important mountainous mining
> landscapes in the world. *In addition to gold, southwestern
> Transylvania has major deposits of copper,
> silver, and salt. These resources make this area,
> dubbed the Golden Quadrangle, a nexus for human
> ...





> The Transylvanian Early Bronze Age lasted from approximately
> 2700 to 2000 B.C.E. (Ciugudean 1996;
> Quinn et al. 2020a:Figure 7). During this period, the
> local Livezile (27002500 B.C.E.), Șoimuș (2500
> 2250 B.C.E.), and Iernut (22502000 B.C.E.) culture
> groups occupied the eastern fringe of the Apuseni
> Mountains (Figs. 1 and 2). These cultural groups
> have been defined by archaeologists based on shared
> material culture, socioeconomic systems, and mortuary
> ...





> In Transylvania, there is a geographical and
> topographical split in landscape use between
> local communities and Yamnaya newcomers;
> *Livezile and Șoimuș material culture is found in
> the uplands and lowlands, while Yamnaya-style
> earthen tumuli are primarily found in the lowlands*
> (Ciugudean 2011).


The Yamnaya earthen tumuli were different from the stone covered upland ones, which show the persistence of Cotofeni/Copper Age people: 



> The stone-covered mounds of the uplands thus
> present a contrast to the larger Yamnaya-type earthen
> tumuli of the lowlands. While stone-covered tumuli
> are restricted to higher mountain ridges, earthen tumuli
> show a circumscribed distribution within the
> Transylvanian Plateau, the Mureș River Valley, and
> the lower hills (Ciugudean 1995). Both tumulus construction
> and mortuary treatment are distinct from
> the upland tumuli. In the lowlands, a central pit is
> ...



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...den_Quadrangle

I finally found the paper: 




> We investigated the interactions between hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Lower Danube basin in Romania by recovering the genomes of four prehistoric individuals: a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Ostrovul Corbului (OC1_Meso) dated at 8.7 thousand years ago (kya), two Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Schela Cladovei (SC1_Meso and SC2_Meso) dated at around 8.8 kya, and *an Eneolithic (the period between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age) individual dated at 5.3 kya from Gura Baciului (GB1_Eneo), located north-northeast of the Iron Gates on a terrace of the Suceag creek* (Figure 1A and STAR Methods, Method Details).





> Based on the presence of the ancestral forms of both SLC45A2 (rs1426654) and SLC24A5 (rs16891982), two genes that were found to have gone through strong positive selection for skin depigmentation in the ancestors of modern Europeans, the three Romanian Mesolithic individuals were predicted to have had dark skin pigmentation. *The Eneolithic individual most likely had a lighter skin tone, as it was homozygous for the derived version of SLC45A2 and heterozygous for the derived version of SLC24A5*.


*The HG component was there in the Eneolithic, but it was not from the region originally! 
*




> The Romanian Eneolithic individual, on the other hand, once again showed a mix of affinities. Based on outgroup f3, the genomes that shared the most drift with this Eneolithic sample are WHGs, in line with the large amount of that ancestry detected in ADMIXTURE. However, its affinity to Neolithic samples is also relatively high compared to the Romanian Mesolithic samples (Data S2). This conclusion is supported by D statistics of the form D(GB1_Eneo, Romanian HG, Anatolian Neolithic, Mbuti), which indicate some Near Eastern ancestry (Table 2). *Our three Romanian hunter-gatherer samples are not direct representatives of the hunter-gatherer component in GB1_Eneo* (Table 2); however, this might be due simply to the geographic distance between the sites, especially given the observed heterogeneity among Spanish Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.


Too bad they had not more of her kind and no males. That's yet another good candidate for E-V13 ancestors. 




> The genetic analysis of the Eneolithic individual from Gura Baciului provides support for a scenario of complex interactions between hunter-gatherers and farmers in the Lower Danube Basin. At this stage, we cannot discern at what point during or after the Neolithic transition the observed hunter-farmer admixture occurred.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483232/

I also have now more confidence that E-V13 might have indeed survived in the same context. We definitely need more Romanian samples for both these quests (WHG-rich population and E-V13). This means in any case all typical WHG-rich individuals of importance and early date found so far are from the Carpathian mountains refuge and rich deposit areas, especially from around the Apuseni mountains. Absolutely no coincidence, that's striking.

Unfortunately the information provided on the burial is very sparse and it gives no cultural context, even though they mention pottery finds: 



> The individual from Gura Baciului included in this study (laboratory ID: GB1_Eneo) *comes from grave no. 1 (archaeological ID: M1)*.
> This grave was a chance find when the section of an older trench collapsed. Discovered in 1962 near a pit-house, it is a primary inhumation
> of a single individual (GB1_Eneo) in anatomical connection, deposited in the crouched position on the left side, with ESE
> WNW orientation (head to east). The reported grave goods comprise ten flint flakes in the feet area and a bone awl and two ochre
> fragments in the cheek and hip areas. Eighty-three fragments of animal bones (of Bos taurus, Ovis aries/Capra hircus, Cervus elaphus,
> Bos primigenius), mollusca, broken stones and numerous ceramic fragments supposedly formed a bed underneath the body
> [5558]. Among this material were three loose human bones of an 1113 year old child [56]. The skeleton from grave no. 1 is
> that of an adult female, around 155 cm tall [50, 56]. The AMS 14C date of 4,621  28 yBP (5,4565,299 cal BP, MAMS-28614, this
> study) (Table S1) places this burial in the Eneolithic period, and is further evidence of the post-abandonment use of the Starcevo
> ...


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483232/

She was brachycranic and there are similarities to Hungarian finds - another find from this context yielded one of the first cremation burials in Romania (Google translate): 




> Anthropological analysis:Human osteological materials (16 individuals), for the most part, fall into the evolved and slender Mediterranean type, to which is added the robust Mediterranean type. *A thorough anthropological analysis was performed on the skeleton discovered in M1 by Olga Necrasov in 1964. Biometric data (dimensions and indices) of the skull skeleton and analysis of long bones and muscle insertions led to a clear typological diagnosis. The type to which it belongs is an alpinoid one with moderate brachial cranial elements and dolico-meso-cranial elements, with a slender stature, which performed heavy manual labor during its life.* Although there are not enough elements to interpret the data related to the origin of the individual, The author of the analysis mentions that *the research of Hungarian anthropologists has already highlighted the existence of the brachicran element in the Krs (Criș) culture in Hungary*. Human osteological remains have also been identified in the "carpet" of bone fragments and shells. These are 3 fragments that all belonged to an 11-13 year old child. Their condition and small size led the anthropologist to consider them as household waste ("kitchen waste") without being able to draw any firm conclusions about possible traces of anthropophagy. The 1990 study by Olga Necrasov and her collaborators observed the best correlations between serial metric data from M2 (Gura Baciului) and similar ones from M6 (Trestiana), M24 (Ostrovul Corbului). In the same study, the bone parts from M6, as a result of the restoration operations, they helped to calculate the waist, obtained by the average of the 3 stairs (Manouvrier, Trotter-Gleser, Bach-Breitinger), which was 157 cm (upper middle female waist). The study concluded that, from a typological point of view, this skeleton has a predominantly Mediterranean background, with protoeuropoid characters and some nordoid characters (at the level of the mandible) integrating in the typological picture of the early Neolithic populations in Romania.


Krs remains were already sampled, didn't checked them in detail, but at least a cultural connection and gene flow makes sense for the earlier period of the region: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_culture




> Analogies:The deposition of the supply vessel at the head, in M6 (Gura Baciului) presents analogies with M4 (Cluj-Str. 30 Decembrie) and with M6 (Trestiana) where the neck of the dead man rested on the bottom of a supply vessel. The analogy proves that we are facing a well-known ritual elsewhere. *Covering or laying the skeletons on the carpet or under the carpet of fragments, shards, bones or stones (M1 and M6) is also a widespread custom in the area of ​​this culture: Gornea, Valea Lupului, Leț, Trestiana but also in other related cultures.* The closest analogies for the stone heads that mark the tombs at Gura Baciului, overlapping the bones and sometimes the skull, are in Lepenski Vir and Einan. From an anthropological point of view, it is important to note the analogy mentioned by O. Necrasov (1965) for *M1 with brachycranean skeletons discovered at Hdmezvsrhely - Bodzspart, Hungary. Considered so far as the oldest cremation grave in Romania,* in terms of the type of ritual, M7 has analogies with 2 other cases from Suplacul de Barcău. In both cases, only the deposit of the remains is archeologically attested, and in the absence of traces of burning, it is presumed that the actual incineration took place elsewhere.


http://diam.uab.ro/homines/guest_fre...zare_fisa&id=5


Particularly important is that they mention the site of Gornea for M1. In a later period, Gornea-Orleşti relates to the broomstick/Besenstrich ceramic which form an own horizon in the region: 



> Distribution: Banat, Oltenia (Gornea-Orleşti), Western Transylvania (Iernut), Eastern Transylvania (Zoltan), Muntenia (Tei, Bungetu Stage)


Related formations: 



> Because of the vessel ornamentation, the broomstick groups are primarily compared with the Early Bronze Age cultures of eastern Hungary, Nagyrv, *Nyrsg and, primarily, Hatvan*.


http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...strichhorizont

Now I'm even more confident, this is the context which led to Mako and Nyrsg! I guess E-V13 (together with other lineages, like I2a of course) will really be found close by at that time and it indeed might be connected to the WHG-rich population element in the Bronze Age. These are too many coincidences to be neglected.

Most of these groups were at the end of the period primarily transhumant pastoralists by the way, of some there are not that many concentrated remains, but still enough to be sure they were present and numerous, like some groups from Livezile and Nyrsg.

----------


## Riverman

A problem with the find GB1/M1 is that its from a site with a long chronology and sometimes I get confused whether some older authors even dated it right, because things jump between Neolithic and Copper Age associations. But in any case, from a geographical and genetic point of view, this sample is really interesting and important, because it represents in a more extreme/pure form what later appears throughout the region and beyond, this WHG-rich ancestry.

----------


## Riverman

Alexandra Papazovska, Early Iron Age Settlements in Macedonia and Their Relationship to Cemeteries. From the printed version of: 
https://www.academia.edu/43626649/Sp...%C4%8D%C3%ADk_

About the invasion of the Channelled Ware people in the area of (North) Macedonia (p. 142 ff.): 



> *From the end of the 12th to first half of the 11th century BCE, the territory along the Vardar River Valley might have been under frequent attacks and exposed to movements of populations from north to south, who brought new elements from the northern and central Balkans, which were especially visible in the material culture (including channelled pottery, fibulae and weapons such as swords of the Erbenheim and Nenzingen type as well as axes). These movements at the end of the Bronze Age hindered and influenced the development of communities in this part of the Balkans, which suggested by the discovery of burnt layers in settlements along the Vardar River Valley (for example, at Stolot near Ulanci, Manastir near Caska, Veles, Vardarski Rid, and Kastanas).* Some settlements were destroyed completely, while others changed their location to a safer position, as is the case of the settlement at Vardarski Rid by Gevgelija, which was moved to a neighbouring hill of Kofilak (Fig. 2). 
> The most illustrative example of these occurrences was identified on the site Manastir near the village of Caska, Veles, where the discovered material (including monochrome pottery, bronze and bone tools, spindle whorls, hand mills, and jewellery) illustrated local character, cultural and economic power of the settlement until its destruction. The nature of the destruction layers in which these objects were discovered suggests the settlement suffered from a severe fire.* A couple of bronze axes, spearheads, and arrowheads simply links to the northern Balkans (Fig. 3), and if the context of discovery is taken into account, it is feasible that they might have belonged to those who destroyed settlement. These types of weapons were unknown to this territory in the previous period and hence they seem to be unique.* Thanks ot the relatively simple stratigraphy of the settlement and the clear original context of the finds, it is evident that the settlement suffered in a heavy fire and was never rebuilt again. Burnt layers dating to the Late Bronze Age were also discovered at settlements in the Lower Vardar Valley (such as at Kastanas, Vardino Vardaroftsa), wher ea number of "influences" from the northern and central Balkans are visible in the portable finds.


Things to note: 
- The Channelled Ware people moved south along the river valleys and burnt a large fraction of the local peoples settlements down along their way. 
- The local peope did not disappear completely, but they retreated to upland fortified and hidden settlements. 
- The Channelled Ware people did not leave, but primarily settled in the lowlands 




> If we reveiw known settlements and cemeteries in the region, two types of both settlements and cemeteries can be distinguished. The flat cemeteries with inhumation burials are found around settlement positioned on high and dominant hills, while the cemeteries with cremations are usually associated with unfortified settlements positioned on lower terraces.


The situation was really similar to some later Germanic and Slavic settlements in the Alpine and Carpathian zone. The end result was most likely a merged-fused population at some point, with one side keeping the upper hand on the long run.

----------


## Hawk



----------


## Hawk

Something to add...




> Neolithic and Eneolithic bird making legacy
> The making of bird-shaped and ornamented ceramic objects in Europe has a long historygoing back to the Late Neolithic/Eneolithic cultures of southeast Europe. It is not the aim ofthis paper to chart the detailed history of prehistoric bird representations, but it is important tostress that the Bronze Age interest in making birds out of clay was not a new thing andneither was the appreciation of waterfowl. At Neolithic
> Vinča
> , Serbia (
> c
> .5300 -
> c
> .4500 BC)the vessels shaped as water birds were part of the remarkable figural ceramic opus dominated
> 
> ...

----------


## Hawk

Worth noting that the Chalcidian type of helmet was the most common helmet found among Thracian warriors.

So, Thracian noble warriors would probably look like depicted here (though the helmet looks a bit more closed than the Chalcidian one). For close combat they probably would either carry a makhaira sword, romphaia or newer versions of Reutzlingen swords.



So, slightly more opened version than the above, like the Seuthes helmet. But ofcourse less fancy/decorated.



And secondly, the so called Thraco-Phrygian helmet was the most common after Chalcidian helmet. Slightly more armored version of Peltasts but still within the confines of a Peltast warrior. Carrying romphaia and spears.



And a very light/mobile peltast warrior. Very common and mobile/lightweight warriors.

----------


## Hawk

Some of helmets found among Thracians, as i said before Chalcidian type was the most common which is the first helmet from the left on second row followed by Phrygian type of helmets.

The Illyrian type of helmet was quite rare and interesting enough it appears with golden decoration which occurred only among Enchelei/Trebenishte Illyrians.



Enchelei/Trebenishte Culture helmets



Phrygian-Thracian type of helmet

----------


## J Man

I have seem some talk of some upcoming possible Glina-Schneckenberg and related culture samples from Bronze Age Bulgaria having J2a. Hopefully soon there will be some confirmation of this.

----------


## Hawk

> I have seem some talk of some upcoming possible Glina-Schneckenberg and related culture samples from Bronze Age Bulgaria having J2a. Hopefully soon there will be some confirmation of this.


That's likely, one of those particular cultures had a recent Bronze Age Anatolian origin afaik.

----------


## J Man

> That's likely, one of those particular cultures had a recent Bronze Age Anatolian origin afaik.


Yes I agree an Anatolian origin is certainly very possible.

----------


## Dushman

> Worth noting that the Chalcidian type of helmet was the most common helmet found among Thracian warriors.
> 
> So, Thracian noble warriors would probably look like depicted here (though the helmet looks a bit more closed than the Chalcidian one). For close combat they probably would either carry a makhaira sword, romphaia or newer versions of Reutzlingen swords.


The only thing “Thracian” about this warrior is his shield’s shape. That helmet is of the Corinthian type by the way, and the tunic and cloak pattern are too basic, lacking the typical Thracian patterns. That heavy bronze cuirass fits better a slow paced early Spartan Royal Guard or Cretan elite units rather than Thracian elites. 

So the guy depicted there could only represent a rare Thracian chieftain type.

----------


## Hawk

> The only thing “Thracian” about this warrior is his shield’s shape. That helmet is of the Corinthian type by the way, and the tunic and cloak pattern are too basic, lacking the typical Thracian patterns. That heavy bronze cuirass fits better a slow paced early Spartan Royal Guard or Cretan elite units rather than Thracian elites. 
> 
> So the guy depicted there could only represent a rare Thracian chieftain type.


I already noted his helmet is too closed, Corinthian types were used among Odrysians but the more opened version of Corinthian called Chalcidian was the most widely used helmet among Thracians followed by the Phrygian-like helmets.

----------


## Hawk

For the sake of information: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...presso_pottery

There was an influence of Mediterranean Cardial Farmers (ultimate origin of E-L618) in Northern Black Sea, although i don't really believe E-V13 arose in Eastern Europe, it just doesn't make sense with current phylogenetic tree where the initial split happens in Central-Western Europe (best chance is Michelsberger Culture considering it's the only Neolithic site with more than few E-M78 samples with the rest being lonely wolfs). I do believe very early they just followed the river paths, mainly Danube and after a population boom during MBA/LBA colonized initially Carpathian Basin and then Balkans.

----------


## Hawk

Well, interesting read.




> But by about the fourteenth century fundamental changes had begun to affect both regions. In the north expansion had been replaced by 
> contraction to its Carpathian core, in which the long lasting Otomani- 
> Wietenberg culture was yielding to the Gava-Holihrady. Agriculturally and 
> metallurgically the area was still wealthy but internal unrest appears to 
> have been considerable 46 and fortified settlements were increasing in 
> 
> 
> 
> " N. Tasic, "The Problem of "Mycenaean influences" in the Middle Bronze Age Cultures 
> ...

----------


## Riverman

> For the sake of information: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...presso_pottery
> 
> There was an influence of Mediterranean Cardial Farmers (ultimate origin of E-L618) in Northern Black Sea, although i don't really believe E-V13 arose in Eastern Europe, it just doesn't make sense with current phylogenetic tree where the initial split happens in Central-Western Europe (best chance is Michelsberger Culture considering it's the only Neolithic site with more than few E-M78 samples with the rest being lonely wolfs). I do believe very early they just followed the river paths, mainly Danube and after a population boom during MBA/LBA colonized initially Carpathian Basin and then Balkans.


Lengyel and Krs related samples from the Carpathian basin could be interesting. So far Lengyel is still older than Micheslberger and they expanded westwards and influenced the Michelsberger - exactly close to the regions which brought up E1b1b, whereas more Northern Michelsberger further away from the river paths had none. Will be seen.

----------


## Riverman

The article on the Avars is out, we might have our first E-V13 in a Sarmatian context and from the Upper Tisza region, the possible heartland of E-V13! 




> Ancient genomes reveal origin and rapid trans-Eurasian migration of 7th century Avar elites
> Guido Alberto Gnecchi-Ruscone et al
> https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...674(22)00267-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highlights
> ...


There are 3 potential E-V13 carriers among them, as far as I can see: 



> I20799 P7224; O:53, S:62 Derecske-Hossz lapos 53/62. Hungary Transtisza region 8th century AD Avar Late Avar Late Avar Period cemetery, partly excavated iron belt buckle poor/average Zoltn Farkas (Salisbury Ltd.) + Dri Museum, Debrecen Tams Hajdu, Antonia Marcsik and Tams Szeniczey female, 18-20 years old pars petrosa l.s. male U5a2e E1b1b1a1b1 (L618) 47.353162 21.511603 Possible eatern European population + admixture with others... - it started with the similar population as Derecske Karakas but continued with mixed population! And we found same deformation type as in Karakas cemetery! The cemetery started in the late phase of te Early Avar period and continued in the Late Avar Period





> I16750 n/a KvegyNagy-fldek (M43/49) obj. 28, str. 41 Hungary South-East Hungary, Transtisza/Maros region first half of 7th century Avar Early Avar Early Avar cemetery (partly excavated) no grave goods, reversed oriantation YES poor and irregular Andrs Benedek Antnia Marcsik 50-59-year-old male pars petrosa l.s. H35 E1b1b1a1b1a We took the petrous and tooth within the framework of the pathogen project but it is possible that I can arrange to get the permission to use it for population history point of view too.


*This is the Sarmatian individual:* 



> I20802 P7226; O:54, S:54 Derecske-Karakas dűlő 54./54. Hungary Transtisza region *3rd century AD Sarmatian* Sarmatian Roman/Sarmatian period Sarmatian cemetery Roman bronze coin, bronze arm ring, iron sickle (?), iron object. (average) Zoltn Farkas (Salisbury Ltd.) + Dri Museum, Debrecen Tams Hajdu, Antonia Marcsik and Tams Szeniczey male, 25-34 years old pars petrosa l.d male H41a E1b1b1a1b1a (Page102, L142.1) 47.370104 21.527122



From the supplement: 



> I20802 - Feature 55/Str. 55
> Grave of a 25-34 years old male. The grave pit is rectangular (265cm x 110cm x 88cm).
> Orientation SE-NW. In the northeast corner of the shaft, at a depth of 55 cm, the long bones of
> an adult were found, in a secondary position. The tomb, however, belonged to a child. The
> burial was disturbed; the child's bones were partially found in a secondary position.
> Grave goods: 1. Bronze bracelet. 2. Fragment of an iron sickle(?). 3. Bronze coin. 4. Iron object.
> *The genomic profile of this individual matches the one of the later Sarmatian period individuals
> from the same region, Transtisza (LS_P_Transtisza_4−5c) that overall matches also the
> ancestry of the Szolad_others_6c group and was therefore included in the
> LS_P_Transtisza_4−5c group for the group-based analyses* (Fig xvii).


https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.c...698a0/mmc5.pdf

The place Derecske-Karakas dűlő is close to the former core zone of Gva/Belegis II-Gva/Basarabi. Might be a coincidence, but it's yet another nail to the coffin of the idea of a late Roman era dispersal North of the Danube.

----------


## Hawk

14 years ago Dienekes and Maju were discussing the origin of E-V13, Dienekes proposed a Late Bronze Age expansion from North of Greece, whereas Maju proposed a Danubian Neolithic in and around Northern Balkans.

Both of them were right in a way, in that E-V13 indeed did have a Late Bronze Age expansion (as was hinted by Dienekes) and that it started from Carpatho-Danubian region (as the pattern was spotted by Maju, but he was wrong in that it was scattered widespread from Danubian Neolithic times something which was opposed by Dienekes since it's impossible due to the subclades age). 

To me a good candidate is Northern Vinca-Turdas (though, other local Neolithic related cultures are equally possible) who had contacts with Carpathian Basin and took shelter in Oltenia and in Carpathian Mountain chain network and surroundings then bounced back in Late Bronze Age with Gava and the broader Kanellure/Channeled-Ware phenomenon, the type of people who are also called as Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt or Carpathian Urnfield.

The starting point is not Illyria or Western Balkans, South-Western Balkans excluding Dalmatia was probably just the meeting point when E-V13 expanded and invaded the Southern Balkans region meeting the resistance of local people.

----------


## Riverman

> 14 years ago Dienekes and Maju were discussing the origin of E-V13, Dienekes proposed a Late Bronze Age expansion from North of Greece, whereas Maju proposed a Danubian Neolithic in and around Northern Balkans.
> 
> Both of them were right in a way, in that E-V13 indeed did have a Late Bronze Age expansion (as was hinted by Dienekes) and that it started from Carpatho-Danubian region (as the pattern was spotted by Maju, but he was wrong in that it was scattered widespread from Danubian Neolithic times something which was opposed by Dienekes since it's impossible due to the subclades age). 
> 
> To me a good candidate is Northern Vinca-Turdas (though, other local Neolithic related cultures are equally possible) who had contacts with Carpathian Basin and took shelter in Oltenia and in Carpathian Mountain chain network and surroundings then bounced back in Late Bronze Age with Gava and the broader Kanellure/Channeled-Ware phenomenon, the type of people who are also called as Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt or Carpathian Urnfield.
> 
> The starting point is not Illyria or Western Balkans, South-Western Balkans excluding Dalmatia was probably just the meeting point when E-V13 expanded and invaded the Southern Balkans region meeting the resistance of local people.



Yes, there was a broad zone of interaction, basically both the Illyrian J-L283 and the Thracian E-V13 met along a long line from the Middle Danube down to Greece. The areas of Albania and to the North and East of Albania were "disputed territories" and at one point this side pushed, at another the other side. Which led to the long term mixture in Albanian-Greek areas. 

The other individuals with the same autosomal make up of Transtisza Sarmatians have actual Sarmatian, but majority wise Germanic-Celtic paternal haplogroups: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post839498

Another potentially Germanic-Lusatian-Dacian related find will come up from Poland, from Masłomęcz: 



> PCA0110 - Masłomęcz E-V13 (E1b) 1760 Poland - Wielbark undetermined


https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_...3&ybp=500000,0

----------


## EV13SON

Well I have always been a fan of Bacchus so I will drink to this news, cheers  :Beer:

----------


## enter_tain

Riverman never stops with his agenda. They found Sarmatian EV-13 and he goes "iLlyRiAn J2B2 aNd tHrAcIaN eV13". Amazing logic. 

No population has been 100% in Europe. Ever. Even Yamnaya were I2.

----------


## Riverman

> Riverman never stops with his agenda. They found Sarmatian EV-13 and he goes "iLlyRiAn J2B2 aNd tHrAcIaN eV13". Amazing logic. 
> 
> No population has been 100% in Europe. Ever. Even Yamnaya were I2.


It doesn't have to be 100 percent for a clear association. But its clear by now that E-V13 was largely associated with the spread of the Thracian language group (not just Thracians in the narrower sense) and J-L283 with the Illyrians. The distribution, the timing of the branches and their dispersal, all the ancient samples found so far point in the same direction. What's even more, E-V13 has a very rapid, even explosive spread, as we know from the modern subclades and its absence in earlier periods, which also means, it needs "a vehicle" and as it seems right now, the main "vehicles" were the Proto-Thracian Gva/Belegis II-Gva cultures of the Channelled Ware complex and after that Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo. Clearly distinct from the Illyrian sphere, different distribution, and much better to align with the current evidence. 
New evidence might prove it right or might led to corrective adaptations. But that its being completely refuted is, as of now, impossible. Latest the Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon was both Thracian and dominated by E-V13. Most likely already Gva/Belegis II-Gva was.

----------


## Riverman

The G25 coordinates are out. The early Sarmatian E-V13 from the Transtisza region scores in my basic Antiquity calculator: 



> Target: Cluster3:Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802
> Distance: 2.1501% / 0.02150103
> 41.2 CZE_Early_Slav
> 27.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
> 16.8 DEU_MA
> 11.6 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
> 3.0 TUR_Ottoman


He seems to have Germanic and some kind of Slavic or Iranian-Sarmatian ancestry. In any case, he does not look like an unmixed Balkan inhabitant, but rather like a Carpathian with additional more Northern, Germanic and Slavic-like/Sarmatian ancestry.

The Carpathians locals being put into a cluster 3 by Aleje, the E-V13 carrier is right in the centre of this cluster in the North European PCA, closest to Austrians: 


https://ibb.co/DknKC0N

The same pattern repeats itself in a customised European PCA, on the global we can see that cluster 3 has indeed little to non actual East Asian admixture. Again, in the general European custom PCA, the early Sarmatian individual with E-V13, I20802, is right in the centre of the cluster, he is therefore a typical representative of cluster 3, the Carpathian inhabitants of that time - no outlier, quite to the contrary. 

Some of those "to the North" of him have even more significant, very clear, presumably recent Germanic admixture and are from later eras.

In comparison to moderns, he plots on the general PCA closest to Serbs, Romanians and Bulgarians: 



https://ibb.co/r3NR0c2

Closest distance to him, ancients: 



> Distance to: Cluster3:Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802
> 0.02875150 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
> 0.02889167 SVK_LIA:I11710
> 0.03019729 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
> 0.03380323 DEU_MA_ACD_Nordic:STR_310
> 0.03401604 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
> 0.03525893 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ18
> 0.03537922 GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log04
> 0.03553840 HRV_Pop_RomanP:POP23
> ...


Moderns, highest matches with modern, Slavic admixed/Germanic admixed Carpathians: 



> Distance to: Cluster3:Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802
> 0.03012574 Moldovan:MOL-069
> 0.03021177 Italian_Northeast:ALP435
> 0.03077937 Romanian:A374
> 0.03085751 Romanian:A343
> 0.03169490 Italian_Northeast:ALP093
> 0.03205318 Bulgarian:BulgarianE2
> 0.03229033 Moldovan:MOL-024
> 0.03237977 Serbian:Serbian_Serbia4
> ...


The ancient admixture run is highly interesting: 



> Target: Cluster3:Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802
> Distance: 1.0076% / 0.01007573 | ADC: 0.5x RC
> 24.8 GRC_Logkas_MBA
> 21.4 ITA_Etruscan_Marsiliana
> 13.0 SVK_LIA
> 12.4 England_MIA_LIA_low_res
> 9.6 DEU_MA_ACD_Nordic
> 5.4 Scythian_UKR
> 5.0 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late
> ...


He definitely has a strong local, Carpathian basin ancestry from the LBA-IA.




> Target: Cluster3:Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802
> Distance: 1.3732% / 0.01373218 | ADC: 0.5x RC
> 34.2 Swiss_German
> 24.2 Romanian
> 16.0 Turkish_Rumeli
> 14.0 Gagauz
> 9.2 Moldovan
> 2.4 Albanian


The map made by ph2ter: 

https://i.imgur.com/VWSMwjG.png

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post839779

----------


## Riverman

The other two samples are later and not that important, but its still worth to take a look: 



> I16750 Early Avar_(poor and irregular) 625 69,31% South-East Hungary, Transtisza/Maros region H35 E1b1b1a1b1a


He basically looks like a Southern Italian or Greek, he is definitely from the South - probably the first Greek E-V13 from the record so far? 



> Distance to: Cluster3:Avar_Early_Kvegy:I16750
> 0.04524137 Italian_Apulia:Pu45
> 0.04680684 Italian_Campania:NaN289RM
> 0.04688364 Greek_Izmir:GreeceF51k
> 0.04782078 Greek_Peloponnese:GreeceNE231
> 0.04812320 Italian_Apulia:cera2
> 0.04834610 Greek_Peloponnese:GreeceNE209
> 0.04838288 Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo22
> 0.04886289 Albanian:AL29
> ...


The E-L618 (don't know whether its just poor coverage or he is really E-L618*): 



> I20799 Late Avar_(poor/average) 750 77,54% Transtisza region U5a2e E1b1b1a1b1 (L618)


He is basically an Avar autosomally: 



> Target: Cluster5:Avar_Late_Transtisza:I20799
> Distance: 1.8606% / 0.01860610 | ADC: 0.5x RC
> 52.2 Tatar_Crimean_steppe
> 25.2 Buryat
> 21.2 Nogai
> 1.4 Bashkir

----------


## torzio

> It doesn't have to be 100 percent for a clear association. But its clear by now that E-V13 was largely associated with the spread of the Thracian language group (not just Thracians in the narrower sense) and J-L283 with the Illyrians. The distribution, the timing of the branches and their dispersal, all the ancient samples found so far point in the same direction. What's even more, E-V13 has a very rapid, even explosive spread, as we know from the modern subclades and its absence in earlier periods, which also means, it needs "a vehicle" and as it seems right now, the main "vehicles" were the Proto-Thracian G�va/Belegis II-G�va cultures of the Channelled Ware complex and after that Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo. Clearly distinct from the Illyrian sphere, different distribution, and much better to align with the current evidence. 
> New evidence might prove it right or might led to corrective adaptations. But that its being completely refuted is, as of now, impossible. Latest the Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon was both Thracian and dominated by E-V13. Most likely already G�va/Belegis II-G�va was.


As per your first sentence ................I agree fully

But it is not the main Ydna Haplogorup for these groups, ...........................they also have a different main ydna haplogroup

The Illyrians would have had a lot of Adriatic coast Italian markers , plus Central-European ones...including modern Austrian and Czech lands which would have been part celt people

----------


## Riverman

> The other two samples are later and not that important, but its still worth to take a look: 
> 
> 
> He basically looks like a Southern Italian or Greek, he is definitely from the South - probably the first Greek E-V13 from the record so far?


Another option people on Anthrogenica reminded me on is that he simply was a Thracian-like individual, because he resembles the more Southern specimens from Bulgaria and Moldova too. So it remains open whether he was an actual Mediterranean inhabitant or a Thracian - which we might be better to evaluate once we finally, at some point, get the Psenichevo E-V13 samples and can look at how they score. Because they should represent the Southern fringe of the clearly more "original" Thracians/Daco-Thacians before their even more extensive mixture with more Southern, Greek and possibly even Levantine populations. 




> As per your first sentence ................I agree fully
> 
> But it is not the main Ydna Haplogorup for these groups, ...........................they also have a different main ydna haplogroup
> 
> The Illyrians would have had a lot of Adriatic coast Italian markers , plus Central-European ones...including modern Austrian and Czech lands which would have been part celt people


My basic theory is that E-V13 had a role like R-L51 for Bell Beakers, R-Z2103 for Yamnaya and R1a for Corded Ware. *At least the role of I1 for Proto-Germanics*. And the most consistent association being with Psenichevo-Basarabi up to this point, this is practically proven. But the spread must have started earlier, which is why I think that Gva/Belegis II-Gva/Channelled Ware/South Eastern Urnfield was the carrying culture, the successfully used "vehicle" to spread E-V13 in the right time (branching events, current subclades TMRCA) and place (Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan sphere). 
There is, with that chronology and geography, not much of an alternative left. 

I'm just still unsure whether E-V13 was that dominant (70 % plus) in Gva already or became that dominant in Belegis II-Gva or even later in the transition to Psenichevo-Basarabi. It must have started at the time of Gva, and Gva is the ultimate source, so that would be most logical, but its not proven yet. 
However, at the point of Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo E-V13 must have been dominant, yet in some regions already decreasing, because its after the peak and with new incursions from the East (Cimmerians, Scythians) and West (Illyrians, Celts, Romans). 

Therefore if the places so far sampled have still such high numbers of E-V13 into the developed and even Roman Iron Age, they must have started even higher (= 70 % plus) in the original spreading culture (presumably Gva and/or Belegis II-Gva).

----------


## mount123

> Another option people on Anthrogenica reminded me on is that he simply was a Thracian-like individual, because he resembles the more Southern specimens from Bulgaria and Moldova too. So it remains open whether he was an actual Mediterranean inhabitant or a Thracian - which we might be better to evaluate once we finally, at some point, get the Psenichevo E-V13 samples and can look at how they score. Because they should represent the Southern fringe of the clearly more "original" Thracians/Daco-Thacians before their even more extensive mixture with more Southern, Greek and possibly even Levantine populations.


If I recall correctly he plots towards Bulgaria_IA so that would make sense. I don't really understand the whole urge of affiliating E1b-V13 in any case with ancient Greeks. Most of it, if even present amongst ancient Greeks, would most likely be the result of close contacts with bordering Thracian tribes.

----------


## Riverman

> If I recall correctly he plots towards Bulgaria_IA so that would make sense. I don't really understand the whole urge of affiliating E1b-V13 in any case with ancient Greeks. Most of it, if even present amongst ancient Greeks, would most likely be the result of close contacts with bordering Thracian tribes.


That's true, but it could have been in the Greeks as soon as they were "actual, classical Greeks", because the Sea Peoples and other groups caused in part the collapse of the Mycenaean Greeks. And among these people were Channelled Ware warriors, which introduced a variety of artefacts and patterns, including more widespread cremation with urnfields. Among these might have been E-V13 carriers, and they moved deep into Greece, but then being pushed out by the locals and/or assimilated. This was in the transitional era, when most of the big E-V13 happened (about 1.300-1.000 BC). If the Channelled Ware people which reached Greece carried E-V13 and survived in the Aegean, E-V13 would have been in Greece and among Greece basically from the start, after Mycenaean collapse. We don't know if this was the case, and if it was, which subclades and frequency it included. 
We know for sure that later Thracian contacts increased the frequency of E-V13 for sure, but there might have been an appreciable percentage already since the beginning of the Iron Age, like described. That's uncertain at this point, because its possible the Channelled Ware groups which reached Greece had no high E-V13 numbers to begin with, or they were all pushed out and eliminated by the locals. Because in some of the cemeteries they were people apart and later we see them pushed back. Their cultural influence, especially in weaponry and burial rite, remained, so we don't know how much of them survived genetically.

----------


## Hawk

I do agree, there is enough archaeological evidence giving support that E-V13 entered Greece during Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, but that is to be backed up by aDNA of course.


In fact Homer in his Iliad describes the burial rite of Achilles, Patroclus and Hector as very similar to Enchelei, Dacians and further Central Balkans tribes. Probably during Homer's time that burial rite was the norm and he wrongly assumed Achaeans practiced as well.

----------


## Hawk

Likewise if you check this subclade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

Though it was theorized the Greek sample from Kilkis is a Bulgarian/Macedonian the new samples from Messina Italy and Herault South France make it equally possible to be from Ancient Greeks. Who knows.

I do agree at this point it's very confusing but it's hard to oppose the Danubian/Tisza Urnfield origin of E-V13. Considering that the highest E-V13 samples in a group and oldest ones are the Psenicevo-Babadag samples who were direct offshot of greater Gava complex according to archaologists.

----------


## Riverman

> Likewise if you check this subclade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/
> 
> Though it was theorized the Greek sample from Kilkis is a Bulgarian/Macedonian the new samples from Messina Italy and Herault South France make it equally possible to be from Ancient Greeks. Who knows.
> 
> I do agree at this point it's very confusing but it's hard to oppose the Danubian/Tisza Urnfield origin of E-V13. Considering that the highest E-V13 samples in a group and oldest ones are the Psenicevo-Babadag samples who were direct offshot of greater Gava complex according to archaologists.


Also if you follow the current samples with higher rates of E-V13 among the regional population (minus East Asian/steppe and obvious Northern Slavic/Germanic newcomers), you get the Tisza valley into the Danube like pearls on a string. Especially the fairly strong concentraton in South Eastern Hungary and Viminacium is extremely unlikely to have come later than Basarabi. Because who should have had such higher percentage of E-V13 other than Thracians/Dacians? It subtracting the non-local Roman etc. elements, you end up by more than 70 if not more than 90 percent - and a good portion of the locals cremated still, which would add up too! 
There is no Roman era movement which can explain that high frequency of E-V13 there. This means it must be pre-Roman. And quite obviously, Pannonian-Illyrians are at this point very unlikely to have anywhere such high numbers. Celts neither. Both had it, but never in this frequency. Cimmerians? No. Scythians? No. Sarmatians? No. 
By the rule of exclusion, we end up with Dacians/Thracians and what remained of Gava/Belegis II-Gava and Bosut-Basarabi in the region. Especially since these Tisza-Danubian areas were absolute core regions of the Channelled ware/Gva into Basarabi.

As for the old clades in modern samples: Unless there are real concentrations and related groups anywhere, I don't really trust it. If we find somewhere real clusters of specific clades and subclades, that might mean something. Single samples can always be misleading, because its hard to tell when they came to the place.

----------


## Hawk

> The material culture of the communities living in the Middle Tisza Region during the 14th–13th centuries BC was formed by multiple cultural effects of diverse origin. The archaeological record of the settlement in Tiszabura, dated to the pre-Gáva period, is marked by an influence of the early Urnfield culture, maintaining strong con-nections with Transdanubia and the Eastern Alpine region, as well as by the local ceramic style having Belegiš II-type elements of Bánság origin blended in.The thousands of ceramic sherds yielded by a large-scale excavation of the site made it possible for one to create a network based on ceramic styles and surface treatment. The topology and resource distribution model of the constructed graph describe the direction and intensity of the Tiszabura community’s strongest connections and define its position in the interaction network of contemporary communities.





> The rural settlement unearthed in the outskirts of Tiszabura is positioned by the left bank of the river Tisza, stretching on top of a NE–SW directed, dou-ble elevation of 5–6 meters. Based on the results of field walking investigations and excavation its maximum extent is about 2.5–3 hectares (Fig. 1, 1). The settlement features are grouped in a large and a smaller cluster divided by a lower polder zone. The two-hectare-large excavated part of the settle-ment comprises 92 pits, the remains of altogether 19 complete or partial post-framed buildings, and a timber-framed well; its southern perimeter is be-girded by a deep ditch. The pits seem to have served diverse purposes: regular, round storage pits, and large, irregular clay extraction pits are also present. The majority of both types contain ceramic, bone, and lithic objects and waste in large quantities. Almost 200 bronze objects were collected from the infills of the pits and the area of the buildings. These are mostly broken jewellery items, chipped edge fragments of tools, and nuggets of various sizes, the byproducts of bronze casting. Based on the finds the settlement can be dated to the pre-Gáva horizon preceding the emergence of the Gáva culture, i.e., to the Br D–Ha A1 transitional period between the second half of the 14th century and the first decades of the 13th century BC (V. Szabó 2017, 242–247).


http://ojs.elte.hu/comarchhung/article/view/3570/3263

----------


## Hawk

> Due to its hardness and elasticity iron was far superior to bronze for the production of weaponry and implements.16 In addition, iron occurs on the Earth’s surface more frequently than the two com-ponents of bronze: copper and tin.  e introduc-tion of iron technology has still not been su ciently elucidated; yet, without doubt Anatolia was an early centre. Iron is  rst mentioned only sporadically in Hittite texts of the 18th century BC, whereas in texts of the 14th and 13th centuries BC weapons made of iron are named ever more frequently.17  e oldest object made of iron found in Europe – a knife or sickle – comes from Ganovce, district of Poprad, Slovakia, in a forti ed settlement of the Otomani culture.18 Nevertheless, this episode seems to have remained sporadic as such. It is the 11th century BC that  rst marks the transition from bronze to iron technology, with bronze swords replaced by those made of iron, in Southern Europe and especially in Greece.  e introduction of iron technology in various regions of western Asia and Europe cannot be assessed in detail yet. Nonetheless, the catalogu-ing and critical discussion of iron  nds have made great progress.19 It was indeed a time of change in many di erent spheres of society, a change that can also be observed in other material remains.  ere proved to be di erences in the production of the broad commodity of pottery:  e technically de-manding, black-polished pottery of the Gáva cul-ture decorated with garland patterns or channels displays an unmistakable metallic aspect (Fig. 5).20 Changes occurred not only in the production of pottery and diverse implements, but also in symbolical and ideological aspects.  e hoards in Transylvania, an important medium of commu-nication with the imaginary supernatural pow-ers, underwent quite a noticeable change during this time (HaA2/HaB1):21 It is the expression of changed values in society.  e characteristic frag-ment hoards of the older Urn eld culture ceased; instead hoards containing mostly intact objects were deposited.22 On the one hand, the latter in-





> cluded preferably vessels and defensive arms made of sheet metal, while on the other hand large  bu-lae and spiral ornaments became characteristic elements of a hoard. Weaponry by contrast with-drew somewhat into the background. Yet another change in hoards came in the 9th century BC, in which jewellery or elements of dress predomi-nated.23 One characteristic feature in the hoards is their content of horse gear, a presence that in turn emphasises the importance of driving and riding.  e density of hoards in the closer surroundings of Teleac is particular conspicuous.





> The early use of iron in southern Europe
> 
> A.Snodgrass distinguished three stages in the in-troduction of iron technology in the Mediterra-nean area, a distinction that is of fundamental im-portance.25 Accordingly, during the Late Bronze Age iron was used to a limited extent for ceremo-nial purposes and prestigious objects (phase 1),
> 
> 
> whereas in the Early Iron Age objects of daily use were produced in iron for the  rst time, although still far fewer in number than those made of bronze (phase 2).  en, as of the 10th century BC iron became the prevailing metal in use (phase 3).  is scheme illustrates the situation of  nds; how-ever, it does not take any possibly limiting factors into account. Funerary customs, for instance, are a decisive factor in the tradition of iron objects.26 Particu-larly during the early times of iron technology the ritual use of this valuable raw material in fu-nerary activities stood in contradiction to very practical considerations, namely, that the objects were to be re-forged in order to make new tools or weapons. Only when a stable supply was pres-ent could o erings – especially of weapons – be placed in graves and in sanctuaries. Phase 2 ac-cording to Snodgrass, thus, represents a subject of debate. Namely, the actual extent of the use of iron is not ‘precisely’ denoted anywhere. Its em-ployment could have been far greater than it seems in archaeological  ndings. Iron could have been re-forged at any time and made into new objects, a way of re-cycling like today.27  e technical know-how for this was certainly not limited to speci c centres, but instead was wider spread.28 One cen-tre of iron extraction was on the island of  asos in northern Greece.29 However, the  nds and  nd contexts there do not allow a precise description of the knowledge at that time concerning carburiza-tion or other hardening processes. e transition to iron technology in Greece, foremost in Athens and Attica, can be best drawn in great detail from the funerary practice of of-fering weapons.30  erefore, the replacement of bronze by iron in Greece is highly relevant, not in the least with regard to armed con icts. Unfor-tunately, attempts at absolute chronology for the phases of ceramic styles in Greece are not at all securely con rmed and at present vary strongly.31 Since Submycenaean times (c. 1080–1020 BC) 
> 
> 
> a profound transition in the handling of the de-ceased took place: the transition from inhumation burial to cremation. Further, bronze weapons were not deposited with the deceased either. Hence, it cannot be determined whether iron weapons were indeed already used extensively in Submycenaean times, but not given as funerary o erings.32 As of Protogeometric times, traditionally dated between 1020/1000 and 900 BC, but which surely began earlier in the 11th century BC, almost all swords and most lanceheads known in Greece were made of iron.33 B.Weninger and R.Jung have sug-gested the years around 1070 BC for the beginning of the Protogeometric period.34 An early burial – grave 6 – containing a sword as grave gi was re-vealed in the cemetery of Kerameikos in Athens.  e amphoriskos in grave 6 was associated with a  ange-hilted sword made of iron (Fig. 6). Allegedly the 43.8-cm long sword was laid around the vessel.35 Grave 28 in Kerameikos also held a bent  ange-hilted sword made of iron (Fig. 7,6) and in addition also a bent iron knife (Fig. 7,4).36  e ritual bending of a sword has been attested in several  ndings in Athens.37 An iron arrowhead found in the cremated remains might have caused the death of the male in grave 28 (Fig. 7,5).  e pottery comprises two amphorae, two spheri-cal pyxides with a lid, and a pitcher with trefoil-shaped mouth.  e representations of horses on the neck of an amphora are indeed noteworthy, because they express the high esteem of the horse in society in Geometric times (Fig. 7,2). Grave 40 contained a larger set of clay vessels, composed of two skyphoi, two pitchers with trefoil-shaped mouth, eight lekythoi and two amphorae (Fig. 8).  e metal objects in this grave consisted of a large bronze phalera and the fragment of a  bula; the accompanying trunnion axe (Ärmchenbeil) and a chisel are made of iron.38 Grave E in Kerameikos contained a cup together with a 46-cm long iron sword that was broken in several pieces (Fig. 9).39 In the present state of research these four graves cannot be dated precisely within the time span of the late 11th to late 10th century BC.40 A continuity can be observed then in weaponry of the Early Geometric period (probably earlier than 900–850 BC) and the Middle Geometric pe-riod (850–750 BC), whereas a de nite decrease in the number of weapons in graves is noticeable at least in Attica during the Late Geometric period of the 8th century BC.41It should be emphasised that initially iron played a decisive role in the production of weapons, because this new material had superior proper-ties, which – quite signi cantly – were immedi-ately used for military purposes.  is con rms once again the technological basis of Christian Jürgensen  omsen’s three-period time sequence. It is indeed the “cutting tools” with which the Bronze and Iron ages should be de ned.42 With emerging iron technology, the dynamics in exchange processes between the East and the West changed. In this regard, the expansion of the Phoenicians as far as the west of the Iberian Pen-insula is obviously of great signi cance.43 H. Schu-bart emphasised iron production in Phoenician establishments. He interpreted the precolonial  nd of bronze swords from Ría de Huelva in the con-text of early trade in iron.44 As early as in the pre-colonial phase, the search for iron ore and also for silver was an important mission for Phoenicians on
> ...





> Yet, the Hallstatt-period group of  nds iden-ti ed by the authors cannot be considered a possi-ble date for the production of the iron sword. For this issue the sword  nd from Alsenborn may be brought forth (Fig. 11), whose iron blade F. Spra-ter had already earlier compared to the sword from Mušja jama.52 
> 
> Yet another extraordinary  nd should be men-tioned here: the sword found in grave 169 in the cemetery at Brno-Obřany, Moravia (Fig. 12–13).  e sword has a length of 56.6cm and a similar form with two rivets in the hilt and presumably originally two rivets on the since broken-o tongue.53  e hilltop settlement that used the cemetery was an important crossroads between the Lusatian and the Podol cultures, ever since the 11th century BC. Covering an area of 42 ha it has an unusually large expanse.54 Moreover, grave 169 in the cemetery at Brno-Obřany contained a remarkably long iron lancehead (L. 48.4 cm), two fragments of an iron knife, and a bow-shaped iron object as well as an iron socketed axe.  e last-named object belongs to a group of socketed axes with a slit in the socket, whose production – according to B. Teržan – may be presupposed as early as the 9th century BC, if not since the 10th century BC. Further, implied with that would be the dissemination of technical know-how.55 Socketed axes such as these are also known from Teleac and surroundings (VinĠu de Jos). e scabbard terminal of the sword from Brno-Obřany (Fig. 12) leads to the Caucasus, where com-parable “ n-shaped chapes” (Flossenortbänder) are common.56 Although their dating through 14C must still be determined, their placement in the 10th century BC seems nonetheless plausible.57  e  n-shaped chape might have stimulated the production of semi-circular chapes of the late Urn eld period in the West.58 Further grave goods comprise a golden spiral, a so-called whetstone and  ve clay vessels.59Iron lanceheads are known from the Mušja jama as well (Fig. 14). Concerned here are ten ex-amples with – as far as recognisable – a narrow


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...outhern_Europe

----------


## Riverman

I would really like to have ancient DNA, especially yDNA results from around Teleac, because its one of the biggest and most important Gva centres of that time. If E-V13 was central in Gva and spread a lot with iron working, it should have been there. If it joined later, then only on a lower level or not and all the more in Belegis II-Gva. With ancient DNA, it would be easy to test. But unfortunately they cremated and there are practically no results from Romania from any period.

----------


## Hawk

It's hard to pinpoint the exact location and the exact specific culture, but all in all generally i am quite sure that within the Middle to Early Iron Age it was one of the Eastern Urnfield groups which gave rise to E-V13.

But prior to that who was the E-V13 rich group, that's something i don't know, Ottomany-Füzesabony, Hatvan, Nagyrev, Piliny, Caka with Hugelgraber from the West and the Eastern Steppe represented by Noua and related cultures? How are actual LBA Gava related to them? Looks like archaeologists prefer to remain silent on exact relationships.

----------


## Riverman

> It's hard to pinpoint the exact location and the exact specific culture, but all in all generally i am quite sure that within the Middle to Early Iron Age it was one of the Eastern Urnfield groups which gave rise to E-V13.
> 
> But prior to that who was the E-V13 rich group, that's something i don't know, Ottomany-Füzesabony, Hatvan, Nagyrev, Piliny, Caka with Hugelgraber from the West and the Eastern Steppe represented by Noua and related cultures? How are actual LBA Gava related to them? Looks like archaeologists prefer to remain silent on exact relationships.


Basically you have in Gva primarily local and Eastern (North Carpathian-Trzciniec/Komarov and Noua-steppe) related influences dominating. Piliny-Kyjatice on the other hand is basically the same, but it had more Tumulus culture influences along the lines of Egyek & Co. Otomani and related groups were quite diverse and complex, but I think we have to look at the post-Otomani North Eastern Hungarian and Western Romanian cultures, especially those associated with the sites *Berkesz-Demecser in Hungary and Suciu de Sus-**Lăpuș Romania*. These are key cultures/type sites for the formation of Gva and I think E-V13 was already at a high frequency in it. 
You can type the sites into Google maps and you see a clearly defined area for the type sites of importance between very North Eastern Hungary and North Western Romania. Whether new patrilineages being introduced later, I don't know, but their influence on the later cultures and layers was still big enough, at least as a substrate, that I don't think Gva will have a very different make up, nor that E-V13 could have been absent.

----------


## Hawk

> Basically you have in G�va primarily local and Eastern (North Carpathian-Trzciniec/Komarov and Noua-steppe) related influences dominating. Piliny-Kyjatice on the other hand is basically the same, but it had more Tumulus culture influences along the lines of Egyek & Co. Otomani and related groups were quite diverse and complex, but I think we have to look at the post-Otomani North Eastern Hungarian and Western Romanian cultures, especially those associated with the sites *Berkesz-Demecser in Hungary and Suciu de Sus-**Lăpuș Romania*. These are key cultures/type sites for the formation of G�va and I think E-V13 was already at a high frequency in it. 
> You can type the sites into Google maps and you see a clearly defined area for the type sites of importance between very North Eastern Hungary and North Western Romania. Whether new patrilineages being introduced later, I don't know, but their influence on the later cultures and layers was still big enough, at least as a substrate, that I don't think G�va will have a very different make up, nor that E-V13 could have been absent.


The general picture is clear, we just want more details which regions were affected during LBA to EIA, particularly interested in Greece and Illyrian Albania.

----------


## Oroku Saki

So there is LBA Pannonian study E1b1b1a, with 48 % of Steppe/Yamnaya per diagram.

These are the tested LBA locations in the study:
Pácin - 3 male samples , Gava culture
Oszlár-Nyárfaszög - 1 male , Berkesz culture
Felsődobsza - 1 male
Mezőkeresztes - undetermined
Köröm-Kápolnadomb - 1 female
Méra - unknown number

- On autosomal plot, there are 3 LBA samples in different autosomal positions. One of them seems to correspond to the E1b1b1a's autosomal position. Another one with low Steppe.
- On another diagram indicating age and autosomal makeup, there are at least two samples that are youngest (1000 BC), one with high Steppe, one with low Steppe. This matches the autosomal plot. 
- And also E1b1b1a and another R1b low steppe sample are slightly younger than other LBA samples, that indicates the youngest LBA site, Pácin.

It seems that the E1b1b1a is from Pácin. Which is the site of Gava culture. And this site is connected to the *Lăpuș group* *in Romania. 

*So this should be the most important find for V13 of all so far. More important than even Bulgarian EIA samples. 

Regarding the older find, explaining would take a long time, I can guarantee 100 % it does not belong to almost all other cultures tested, it should be of Nyirseg or Ottomany origin. So basically from similar area as Gava in LBA. I'd say Nyirseg is more likely. And that too would be the most important V13 find so far.

----------


## Riverman

> The general picture is clear, we just want more details which regions were affected during LBA to EIA, particularly interested in Greece and Illyrian Albania.


I think we can say with high probability that those regions were affected, because of the modern distribution and branching events. Like in the past months, my main uncertainty is when E-V13 reached the critical mass for the replacement in the Central and Eastern Balkans, could be already in the North, in the region described before (between Berkesz and Suciu de Sus) with Gva, or in a secondary founder series event in Belegis II-Gva. Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon is, from my point of view, already too late. 
We know how big the impact of Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi was, on areas like Albania and Greece. 
I'd guess the main thing we will find out is the exent, like which frequency it reached when, between the MBA-LBA trickling, over to the main spreading event for E-V13 with Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon, well into the Hellenistic period and Roman, up to the migration period. 
But just going by the current data of moderns, I think E-V13 should have been in Albania and Greece, at least at low frequency and some areas, by about 1.300-1.000 BC the latest. They did arrive in the Transitional Period, no doubt about that. 

I think its also possible that E-V13 was in some regions, but being replaced later, just to come back from a neighbouring region and so on...

----------


## Hawk

> So there is LBA Pannonian study E1b1b1a, with 48 % of Steppe/Yamnaya per diagram.
> 
> These are the tested LBA locations in the study:
> Pácin - 3 male samples , Gava culture
> Oszlár-Nyárfaszög - 1 male , Berkesz culture
> Felsődobsza - 1 male
> Mezőkeresztes - undetermined
> Köröm-Kápolnadomb - 1 female
> Méra - unknown number
> ...


It's interesting that there is not a clear line on separation between all of these cultures, but no doubt it's North-East-Hungary-North-West Romania-South-East Slovakia.





> Since the Sanislău group is strongly involved in the genesis of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (cf. below) and coincides with the spread of inhumation burials, we must not forget to mention that there are some very early inhumation burials that can by all means be attributed to the Sanislău group, if we want to view it as a local group of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (Thomas in prep.). Here, we can attribute grave 52 from Sanislău as well as a collective burial from Andrid (Németi 1996).







> Exactly this lack of chronological fixed points is the main problem when we deal with all finds related to the Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence. We are also in dire need of a clear nomenclature, with especially the term “Ottomány” needing a new definition. It becomes more and more evident that finds are attributed to the name of a culture which cannot be placed homogeneously in terms of time and space and and therefore should be classified anew.Since there are no radiocarbon dates, the Nyírség culture can only be dated using extern dates and therefore be placed roughly in the second half of the third millenium BC. The Sanislău group survives accordingly longer and, being a part of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, certainly reaches the second millenium BC.




http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version

So: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence, probably Middle-Danube Caka Culture as well. All of these are ancestral to Eastern/Carpathian Urnfielders.

----------


## Oroku Saki

> It's interesting that there is not a clear line on separation between all of these cultures, but no doubt it's North-East-Hungary-North-West Romania-South-East Slovakia.
> 
> 
> So: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence, probably Middle-Danube Caka Culture as well. All of these are ancestral to Eastern/Carpathian Urnfielders.


 Most of these are related to each other, Sanislau a subtype of Nyirseg. And Makó too part of broader Vucedol. However Mako had this strong WHG autosomal element, it doesn't seem Nyirseg had it, so these cultures though similar might have had quite different ancestries. Otomany too it seems shared this low WHG profile common East of Danube, and uncommon West of Danube. 

partial information about Pannonian study was leaked in a study about paleodietary reconstruction from aDNA NE Hungary. All LBA, MBA, EBA sites from there were named. 
here is info

HUNG137 *S62* Felsődobsza-2.lelőhely LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 34–42 Adult-Mature M M P,G
HUNG144 *1010* Oszlár-Nyárfaszög (M3-32. lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 20–39 Adult – M P,G
HUNG177 *154. objektum* Mezőkeresztes-Cethalom (M3-10.lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 6–10 Infant I–Infant II U – P √
HUNG863 *S67* Köröm-Kápolnadomb LBA Gáva culture 20–39 Adult – F P,G BM
HUNG967 *S64A* Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 1–6 Infant I M –
HUNG968 *S64B* Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 15–39 Juvenile–Adult M M P,G √
HUNG969 *S100* Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 30–60 Adult–Mature M M P,G

First codes, bolded are grave numbers. Only LBA site of Méra is missing (thats where I locate it based on the map).

For most here it says pre-Gava, I am pretty sure those graves from Pacin are Gava classic/proper.


Hg Yamnaya ancestry % Age
E1b1b1a 47.7 1096 BC
R-Z2103 39 1202 BC
R1a 36.3 1154 BC
I2a 34 1154 BC
I2a 32.7 1048 BC
R-L51 21 1096 BC
J2a 18.3 1202 BC

It is likely these with the same age are found together. I bet E1b1b1a is together with the R-L51 and possibly I2a. 


Autosomal Plot Yamnaya - Mbuti - Iron Gates
Blue circle Hungary LBA outlier
1. Clusters near Czech Bell Beakers (likely E1b1b1a)
2. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
3. Clusters near Maros samples


Purple Hexagonal Hungary LBA
1. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
2. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
maybe one or few more.


Yellow circle Hungary LBA
1. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians


So there are 3 Hungarian LBA clusters, one is marked as an outlier likely as it oscillates wildly. Someone who posted before about this cluster on Eurogenes mistakenly presented the Encrusted pottery cluster as this LBA cluster. Encrusted pottery cluster is blue Hexagonal, not blue circle. It has one typical member, one higher Steppe (but it seems low WHG) sample that looks to be E1b1b1a, and also one additional low Steppe, low WHG sample. 


So I strongly suspect this Blue circle is from Pacin. It seems most of Hungarian LBA is similar to the samples we already have, Kyjatice, most of those Hungarian Scythians, these are defined by stronger WHG admixture. Such admixture was even stronger West of Danube in a whole range of Encrusted pottery cultures, dominated by I2a. These usual LBA samples also bear strong resemblance to Füzesabony autosomal samples. there is already one Füzesabony R1a sample, and this study has many of them, and it seems most of them are again R1a. Also one Hungarian Scythian with such profile is R1a. 

This might be the explanation why V13 didn't pop out in these typical Hungarian LBA (that have been tested) areas. V13 belongs to the low WHG area to the very East. And among Balkan samples, especially Thracian samples, it doesn't look like this heavy WHG ancestry left any imprint on the Balkans, nor did the Y-DNA associated with it (I2a, R1a). 

Of the leaked samples there are 5 male samples, 7 are overall in LBA, does that mean that Méra has also two Y-DNA samples. Likely. 

Pácin-Alsókenderszer is definitely the youngest of all, it seems to have most samples, 3, and you see E1b1b1a is among the youngest. LBA outlier cluster has high Steppe and low Steppe samples, E1b1b1a is higher steppe, R-L51 is lower steppe sample, and they are of identical age. 
It seems obvious E1b1b1a and R-L51 are from there, and that they are these outliers seen on the autosomal plot. But even if it somehow isn't, it is from some of these other sites. 

It is possible to derive Moldovan Scythians/Getae and Iron Age Bulgarian/Thracian from such samples. It is not possible to derive them from these "usual" LBA higher WHG admixed samples, that seem to be derived mostly of Füzesabony-like people.

----------


## Excine

From anthrogenica about https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106743119 : 
I10349; 5600-5000 BC; Füzesabony-Gubakút, Hungary; Alföld Linear Pottery Culture_MN; I2-L701 (xP78,Y5606)

I7127; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; R1b-V2219>V88>Y127541

I14163; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; I2-Y3721>pre-Y3670

I15623; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; G2a2b-CTS342* (xY36001,PF4202,Z724,FGC12126)

I11665; 1500-800 BC; Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; I2-Y3721>Y3670>L1229 (xS20743,Y6512,Z2069)

I11695; 1500-800 BC; Pácin-Alsókenderszer, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; R1b-Z2103>M12149 (xY4362,Z2110)

I11670; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; I2-L596>Y14158>S6635>S6724>pre-PF3885

I11674; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-U152>L2>Z49>BY96884* (xBY55682)

I11676; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-L51>L52>FT123498>BY44535* (xY289225)

What's the count? 1 BA E-V13 in 150-160 BA samples from Hungary? The BA/IA samples are from northeastern Hungary. Some theories about E-V13 in Hungary are getting fringe-y.

----------


## Riverman

Fzesabony had strong influences from the Epi-Corded Ware groups, even more than the other Otomani related groups. It was even suggest that warlike Epi-Corded males took over. The second push comes from the East (Noua) and a third from the West (Tumulus culture). But the Tumulus culture never fully penetrated the Transtisza-Transylvanian area, it did mix into it a bit, mainly at the fringe. The influence being stronger for Kyjatice than Gva, because in the Piliny core region, from which Kyjatice emerged, the TC influence was stronger than East of the Tisza. 
However, I still think that one of the main problems is that the groups mostly cremated. 

As for some "cultures", they might have been just tribes and some of them were even the same people, but there is this peculiar thing that Hungarian and Romanian scholars in particular always give different names to basically the same culture. Most prominent is Felsőszőcs in Hungarian vs. Suciu de Sus in Romanian. Its even the same place, just the name in the respective Hungarian and Romanian tongue. But even the Slovakian and Serbian scholars oftentimes do the same, and with the splitters all around, it gets even worse. Yet for some groups we can't say for sure how much of a continuity there was, without having tested the population. Because there surely was continuity, but it could have been more female mediated, whereas the male population could be more replaced in the process of a new people moving in. That's unknown without testing it. 

I think its possible that E-V13 was in the Eastern Carpathian basin since the time of Cotofeni, probably even earlier. So far the Gva and Kyjatice plot close, but not exactly the same, especially not with Fzesabony. They are all close, but not the same, which could mean something. I would love to get a lot of samples from groups like Suciu de Sus, but doesn't look like it.

----------


## Oroku Saki

> I10349; 5600-5000 BC; Füzesabony-Gubakút, Hungary; Alföld Linear Pottery Culture_MN; I2-L701 (xP78,Y5606)
> 
> I7127; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; R1b-V2219>V88>Y127541
> 
> I14163; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; I2-Y3721>pre-Y3670
> 
> I15623; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; G2a2b-CTS342* (xY36001,PF4202,Z724,FGC12126)
> 
> *I11665; 1500-800 BC; Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; I2-Y3721>Y3670>L1229 (xS20743,Y6512,Z2069)*
> ...


 It seems these are *two of these seven LBA* samples that I mentioned! Just they have the new codes, more typical for studies instead of HUNG. If I can find grave numbers that would be a clear clue. One LBA sample from Pannonian study is indeed R-Z2103, and two are I2a.. Too bad the E1b1b1a sample is not among them yet.
This sample has moderate to high Steppe, so he could be one Pacin sample with the usual LBA Hungary profile. 





> What's the count? 1 BA E-V13 in 150-160 BA samples from Hungary? The BA/IA samples are from northeastern Hungary. Some theories about E-V13 in Hungary are getting fringe-y.


 Actually there are two, there is one EBA sample. V13 in both EBA and LBA East/NE Hungary is very significant. The issue is not the number here, but the sites. Some areas of Hungary are overtested, Western Hungary, West of Danube, Kisapostag, Encrusted pottery, Füzesabony. These have a huge number of samples, and they are useless for modern DNA. As they are mostly dead I2a, R1a clades. There is only one such I2a clade surviving found in Bulgaria. The numbers would have been better had they tested more the Eastern areas.

Only east Hungary is interesting for V13, or far East. And this area has much less samples. Nevertheless crucial is the autosomal situation which points V13 not to be associated with the WHG admixed autosomal profile present in most of Hungary, but with the profile on the EEF-Steppe cline present only in Eastern (or extremely E/NE ) areas of Hungary.

----------


## Riverman

Look at where Urziceni is, not even close: 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urziceni

From the Danubian-Tisza area we have some of the earliest E1b1b in Central Europe from Lengyel-Sopot. 

*Since the crucial Bronze Age cultures largely cremated, every find is key*. If its really from a pre-Gva Upper Tisza group, that's decisive. There are now two very interesting samples from the region, I11665 and I11695, those are interesting indeed. But just two samples and completely different haplogroups. Exact timing and context would be interesting to know. Needs to be checked in detail if possible.

----------


## Oroku Saki

Look at how many Füzesabony finds there are in the Pannonian study. And most of these 8 male samples should be R1a, looking at the hg age and autosomal profile.

HUNG127 4/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult F F √ OM
HUNG128 3/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 10–13 Infant II M – √
HUNG129 2/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 35–44 Adult–Mature – M √
HUNG130 16/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult F F √ BM
HUNG131 41/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 34–42 Adult–Mature – M √
HUNG132 6/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 5–7 Infant I–Infant II F – √
HUNG133 31/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult – M √
HUNG134 10/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 5–10 Infant I–Infant II M – √
HUNG135 56/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 35–50 Adult-Mature – M √
HUNG136 57/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 33–46 Adult–Mature F F √
HUNG147 1 Mezőkeresztes-Csincse-tanya MBA Füzesabony 12–14 Infant II – – P √
HUNG163 S296 Nagyrozvágy-Papdomb MBA Füzesabony 35–45 Adult–Mature – M P,G BM
HUNG933 S109 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 8–13 Infant II F – √ √
HUNG934 S257/II Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult – ? S,P BM
HUNG935 S169 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony Adult Adult F ? √
HUNG936 S279 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 40–59 Mature U M √
HUNG937 S257/I Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 20–30 Adult U ? √

MBA is much better tested than LBA.

----------


## Riverman

> It seems these are *two of these seven LBA* samples that I mentioned! Just they have the new codes, more typical for studies instead of HUNG. If I can find grave numbers that would be a clear clue. One LBA sample from Pannonian study is indeed R-Z2103, and two are I2a.. Too bad the E1b1b1a sample is not among them yet.
> This sample has moderate to high Steppe, so he could be one Pacin sample with the usual LBA Hungary profile. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are two, there is one EBA sample. V13 in both EBA and LBA East/NE Hungary is very significant. The issue is not the number here, but the sites. Some areas of Hungary are overtested, Western Hungary, West of Danube, Kisapostag, Encrusted pottery, Füzesabony. These have a huge number of samples, and they are useless for modern DNA. As they are mostly dead I2a, R1a clades. There is only one such I2a clade surviving found in Bulgaria. The numbers would have been better had they tested more the Eastern areas.
> 
> Only east Hungary is interesting for V13, or far East. And this area has much less samples. Nevertheless crucial is the autosomal situation which points V13 not to be associated with the WHG admixed autosomal profile present in most of Hungary, but with the profile on the EEF-Steppe cline present only in Eastern (or extremely E/NE ) areas of Hungary.


The areas along but even more so East of the Tisza are most important. All key sites of the local cultural development which contributed to Gva like Berkesz, Demecser, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș are East of the Tisza river. 

Suciu de Sus (NW Romania): 
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna...Maramure%C8%99

Berkesz (very NE Hungary): 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkesz

Felsődobsza and Pcin are already more Eastern, but still West of the Tisza. That's no core area and the burial context needs to be looked at very carefully too, since usually the important cultures for these questions, especially those of North Eastern Hungary, mostly cremated.

The Fzesabony lineages should be more related to Nitra than to the Eastern Carpathian basin locals and Carpathian inhabitants on the patrilinear side, but we'll see.

Too bad they didn't publish the E1b1b results. Would really love to know whether they are from the Transtisza area of pre-Gva and Gva-related groups. But doesn't look like they have sampled males from actual Suciu de Sus, Berkesz-Demecser, Lăpuș and Gva. 

The Fzesabony got a strong injectoin of more pastoralist and warlike Epi-Corded clans, probably from the direction of Nitra or the North. Should be a mix of the earlier Pannonian Tell-culture groups (like Encrusted and Otomani) with this newcomers. Then pushed, from the West, the Tumulus culture in, they should have brought mainly Southern Bell Beaker lineages. 

What all these results show, so far, is how volatile the environment was, how quickly whole populations could move or being annihilated, like in the case of Encrusted Pottery people, of which only splinters survived in their homeland, many died out, many others moved to the South East, as far as the Lower Danube in Bulgaria to evade the two-fold pressure from Tumulus Culture/Middle Danubian Urnfield and Channelled Ware/Gva. 

The R1b "Scythians" look like descendents from these Tumulus culture warriors, the two samples from between the Danube and Tisza are harder to pin down, but look like locals of Encrusted Ware or Otomani indeed. Couldn't find some quick information on the sites and finds in more detail, but they could be from the Channelled Ware horizon and rather between Kyjatice and Gva in position, closer to Kyjatice rather. I wonder why they weren't cremated though. 




> Kyjatice culture  A ceramic style attested in the region of the Brzsny, the Mtra and the Bkk Mountains as well
> as in eastern Slovakia between the twelfth and ninth centuries BC. The distinctive pottery assigned to this style
> such as cups with interior decoration and funnel-necked, biconical amphoras decorated with shallow fluting and
> punctates has been found on the regions hillforts and the cemeteries containing cremation burials in their area.





> *Gva culture*  A ceramic style distributed *east of the Tisza on the Hungarian Plain and in the Transylvanian Basin
> from the twelftheleventh centuries onward*, characterised by vessels with a black exterior and yellow interior.
> The vessels are carefully polished to lend them a metallic sheen. They often have scalloped rims and are decorated
> with fluting or incised bundles of lines.


https://www.academia.edu/43113142/Br...xt_in_English_

If they were related to the Kyjatice group, this could mean that the Kyjatice group was indeed fairly mixed (an older sample was J2a).

----------


## Riverman

> The closest parallels to the Tllya-Vrhegy hoard are two hoards from Felsődobsza (Hoard A, for example, contained similar conical
> sheet metal pendants: Fig. 53),81 and the assemblages of sickles, spearheads and bronze phaleras from Tiszabezdd, Pap and Kemecse-Hamvaspart.


https://www.academia.edu/43113142/Br...xt_in_English_

If they were related to the Kyjatice group, this could mean that the Kyjatice group was indeed fairly mixed (an older sample was J2a). I guess E-V13 will be in Kyjatice as well, but on a lower level than in Gva. But that's just my best guess at the moment and every find needs to looked at with care, since the regular burial of both Kyjatice and Gva was cremation.

At this point I don't even know for sure whether the find being related to the hoard from the same site or not. Because that's quite a range for the date too.

----------


## Hawk

Hitting the rabbit hole is easy, but trying to reason exactly why some things ended up the way they are requires much thourough thinking.

I am of the opinion E-V13 participated in forming Southern Illyrians. I am just of the opinion that these were Late Bronze Age newcomers with the Kanellure phenomenon. How true is this is yet to be revealed. Enchelei were the first attested Illyrian tribe and their burial rite with cremation on a pyre and using pits( rectangular ) resembles Channeled-Ware/Eastern Urnfielders.

Though, these related tribes mostly concentrated in migrating in Mycenean Greece rather than Illyria.

On the other hand, Thracians as a whole per Herodotus were the largest nation in the world second only to Indians. So, i would not be surprised E-V13 to be solely Thracian.

These are just options in the table.

----------


## Riverman

> Hitting the rabbit hole is easy, but trying to reason exactly why some things ended up the way they are requires much thourough thinking.
> 
> I am of the opinion E-V13 participated in forming Southern Illyrians. I am just of the opinion that these were Late Bronze Age newcomers with the Kanellure phenomenon. How true is this is yet to be revealed. Enchelei were the first attested Illyrian tribe and their burial rite with cremation on a pyre and using pits( rectangular ) resembles Channeled-Ware/Eastern Urnfielders.
> 
> Though, these related tribes mostly concentrated in migrating in Mycenean Greece rather than Illyria.
> 
> On the other hand, Thracians as a whole per Herodotus were the largest nation in the world second only to Indians. So, i would not be surprised E-V13 to be solely Thracian.
> 
> These are just options in the table.


The data distribution we have means that Thracians are impossible to imagine as a low E-V13 people. Rather, its about where they picked it up on the route from pre-Gva -> Gva -> Belegis II-Gva -> Gornea-Kalakača/Insula Banului -> Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi horizon. 
Fix is, that the Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon was full of E-V13, the question is whether original pre-Gva groups (which? all?) were packed with E-V13 or whether it grew in a series of Southern expansion founder effects or even was picked up along the route. To know that, we need a solid number of samples from the respective groups. 
Its likea surprise package, you don't know for sure what's in even if you know it roughly...

----------


## Oroku Saki

Indeed, it is confirmed these two samples are from the Pannonian study


*HUNG137 S62* Felsődobsza-2.lelőhely LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 34–42 Adult-Mature M M P,G
*Hung137 S62*, 2012.06.12/*I11665* Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely




HUNG144 1010 Oszlár-Nyárfaszög (M3-32. lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 20–39 Adult – M P,G
HUNG177 154. objektum Mezőkeresztes-Cethalom (M3-10.lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 6–10 Infant I–Infant II U – P √
HUNG863 S67 Köröm-Kápolnadomb LBA Gáva culture 20–39 Adult – F P,G BM
HUNG967 S64A Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 1–6 Infant I M –
HUNG968 S64B Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 15–39 Juvenile–Adult M M P,G √


*HUNG969 S100* Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 30–60 Adult–Mature M M P,G
*Hung969 S100/I11695* Pácin-Alsókenderszer




So the E1b1b1a sample is from Pácin-Alsókenderszer (2 samples left), Oszlár-Nyárfaszög 1 sample, or Méra-Bélus-patak, should be also with 2 samples.


So E1b1b1a, R-L51, I2a, R1a and J2a are distributed among these.


In Pacin the remaining two are both from grave S64, if these are those atuosomal outliers (as E1b looks like), they could be arrivals from elsewhere (from the East).


Méra-Bélus-patak I located myself, as this site wasn't in the study where others were mentioned, as it was more to the West. This was a Piliny culture site. I located it at Méra and then I guessed it should be the the site of Méra-Bélus-patak.

----------


## Riverman

> Indeed, it is confirmed these two samples are from the Pannonian study
> 
> 
> *HUNG137 S62* Felsődobsza-2.lelőhely LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 34–42 Adult-Mature M M P,G
> *Hung137 S62*, 2012.06.12/*I11665* Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are areas of contact between Piliny-Kyjatice and Gva and related pre-Gva cultures. 
Most likely: 
R1a = Nitra/Fzesabony-Epi-Corded
R-L51 = Tumulus Culture
I2a = Local substrate
J2a and E1b most likely local too, but rather from Otomani and Eastern related formations probably. Clearly, the Gva substrate/formative elements had a lot from those groups of Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus, I would guess that's where higher E1b1b should come from. 
Key for the E-V13 debate is if its really from the Tisza/Transtisza area and a culture related to pre-Gva/Gva or not. 

A key aspect for the whole debate is the connection between Gva proper and Csorva/Belegis II-Gva. That they are related is without a doubt, but to which degree one descends from the other or replaced it being debated since decaded. Like I said before, I see no viable path other than
- Gva proper
- Belegis II-Gva

We will see, hopefully rather sooner than later and still in my lifetime, whether the Gva proper have a high frequency of E-V13, or it rises to the levels we know from Viminacium just in the Belegis II-Gva group. It surely will be present in both, its really more about exact clades/subclades and frequencies. 
I have little hopes that these Pannonian samples, once they come out, will have a decent high resolution to talk about that. The cremation horizon remains a huge problem for this problem. 

But let's hope, since the first samples being now published in a paper, that the whole samples taken will come out soon and we finally know from which group exactly the E1b1b carrier comes from. And hopefully it can be proven that he is indeed E-V13, if nothing more about his subclade can be said.

----------


## Hawk

As can be seen from this translation which was translated from Serbian to English, it states what was Draga Garasanin thinking.




> The character of the pottery of the West Serbian variant of the Vatin group, indicates close contacts with this group in Vojvodina. The distribution of this group during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages has already been mentioned earlier in this survey. The metal finds which can be chronologically divided into several phases, illustrates here as well, that this bronze industry is very closely related to Central Europe and the Carpathian region. On this basis, these finds can without any difficulty can be attributed as a whole to the Vatin group, i.e. the Balkano-Carpathian complex of the Bronze Age. The important difference here, however, is the method of tumulus burial. According to the traditions, that can be traced in these parts from the Early Bronze Age, the burial rites practiced in southern Pannonia must have known a different evolution. In western Serbia the rites that were performed along with the local variations could be found on the whole area of the western Balkans all the way south to Marathon, and can be traced even during the Iron Age when we have the complete development of the Illyrian population of these parts. It must not be forgotten that burial rites, as has already in archaeological literature been pointed out, always remain rather conservative. Therefore, they offer very often a much sounder basis for the ethnic interpretation of a population, than is the case with movable grave goods that can be much more easily adapted to the existing local forms. If one keeps this in maid, especially the existing cultural continuity and development in the western portion of the Balkan Peninsula, it is not difficult to see that we are dealing with the Indoeuropeanization of the indigenous population that later is to be the foundation for the Illyrian tribes. This assimilation and regrouping of ethnic elements on the western part of the Balkan Peninsula took place at the end of the Aegean Migration, during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age around the year 1200 BC*****
> 
> In the above survey, we have tried to offer, on the basis of the available archaeological material, a picture of the Bronze Age and its cultural and chronological development during the centuries that this important period in prehistory belongs to. The distinction between cultural areas, depends to a great deal on the geographic and topographic character of the land, and indicates the basis for finer distinctions of the written sources that pertain to the Paleobalkan peoples. It is very important, that during the whole Bronze Age a continuity can be followed that extends to the period of transition into the Iron Age. This is characteristic of all the cultural groups of this area, including the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo, which in Oltenia is followed by the Insula Banului group and later the Bassarabi group in these parts and Transylvania (compare also some of the finds from Saraorci near Smederevo).* In Thrace at this time we have the appearance of the new group, the so called Psenicevo which kept close contacts with the peoples of the Morava Lands area as can be seen from the finds in the Mediana group. It can also be noticed that the people, who during this period lived in the Morava Lands area took part if only partially in the movements attributed to the so called Aegean Migration. In this manner, the Bronze Age evolves as a very important stage in the process of formation of the Paleobalkan peoples, their ethnogenesis, and the historical events that have left their imprint, in a sense on the historical evolution of the old Balkans.* Until now, enough attention has not been paid to this very important period in the ancient history of southeastern Europe except among the small circle of interested specialists. It is the purpose of this exhibition, to try and fulfill this gap, and offer a more understanding picture of this, not too well known period. We shall be very pleased if this exhibition and this short accompanying survey helped in any way to achieve this aim.
> 
> https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dgarasanin-the_bronze.htm





> But by about the fourteenth century fundamental changes had begun to affect both regions. In the north expansion had been replaced by
> contraction to its Carpathian core, in which the long lasting Otomani-
> Wietenberg culture was yielding to the Gava-Holihrady. Agriculturally and
> metallurgically the area was still wealthy but internal unrest appears to
> have been considerable 46 and fortified settlements were increasing in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kapitan Andreevo and on general Svilengrad especially the pit burials which were secondary burials are very well known to be classified as Psenicevo Culture.



We see E-V13 right into the Early Iron Age. And not in Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. 



We have no doubts to think that Psenicevo, Babadag, Mediana group, Paracin, Dubovac Zuto Brda, and possibly the Vatin evolved from similar Danubo-Carpathian origin and specific culture, as has been written all over it was likely related to the generalized Channeled-Ware, there is absolutely no doubt Thracians were E-V13, the question so far is whether Southern Illyrians and Ancient Greeks had E-V13 which if we follow archaeological publications and studies dots they should have. So, E-V13 was a Pan-Balkanic lineage which spread and expanded during Late Bronze Age which if we want to further generalize, it did with the Eastern Urnfielders which urn burials and cremation on a pyre can be found among the more Central/Southern Balkan tribes, like in Iron Age Greeks, Dardanians, Enchelei.

----------


## Riverman

I think the main source will be Belegis II-Gva. Gva proper will have it too, but at which frequency has to be seen.

----------


## Hawk

> I think the main source will be Belegis II-G�va. G�va proper will have it too, but at which frequency has to be seen.


Definitely, we already have aDNA that Psenichevo directly derived from Belegis II-Gava is packed with E-V13, one Y-DNA Q from the screenshot is from Bulgar times and that E is from Classical Antiquity, so historical Thracian.

----------


## Papayaseeds

Interesting thread.

----------


## Hawk

Facebook page ArchaeoSerbia usually likes to post stuff from Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age.




> Composite gold necklace and crescent-shaped pendants, Dubovac-Žuto brdo cultural group, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in Velika Vrbica, vicinity of Kladovo, eastern Serbia.The necklace consists of 9 strings made of several hundred gold beads of various shape and size.
> 
> 
> Seven pendants have crescent-shaped ornament on one ending, while opposite ends are perforated for attaching pendants on the clothes.
> 
> 
> Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
> 
> 
> These items are part of group find which, besides this necklace and pendants, consisted of one gold plate and 2 snake-shaped hair rings. They were made in a local workshop, and were worn by a woman who was a high-ranked member of prehistoric society








> Snake-shaped hair ring, gold, middle Bronze age, around 1500-1200 years BC, found in Velika Vrbica, vicinity of Kladovo, eastern Serbia.The ring is decorated with small circles and wavy ornament, representing snake skin.
> Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
> It belongs to group find of gold jewelry, which consisted of one lavish composite necklace made of 9 strings with several hundred gold beads of various shape and size, gold plate and 7 crescent-shaped gold pendants. They were made in a local workshop and used to be worn by a woman who was a high-ranked member of prehistoric society.
> The motive of a snake is very common in many prehistoric cultures from the Balkan region. Wide outspread of snake motif, especially on jewelry, indicates that this animal had a special religious and cult significance for tribes in this part of Europe





I am wondering something though, whether we will find E-V13 among Middle Bronze Age Serbian sites, cultures like Vatin, Grla Mare, Dubovac Zuto Brdo, Cruceni-Belegis or E-V13 should be linked exclusively with the Gava/Channeled-Ware phenomenon?!

Would be hard to get data from these sites though, all of them used cremation.

----------


## Riverman

> Facebook page ArchaeoSerbia usually likes to post stuff from Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly, exclusively Gva/Upper Tisza would be strange, considering how interconnected these groups along the Tisza were. Especially if it was widespread in local groups like Suciu de Sus.
The question is really more about the bulk of it, ghe main LBA founder lineages.
I wouldn't wonder about singular Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery as well. 
But at that time, there needs to be a group with really high level E-V13, not just a small minority frequency. In the MBA-LBA, its no longer a handful of males. It must be at least a major tribe dominated by E-V13.

----------


## Hawk

The Daco-Thracian origin of Berisha-Sopi gets more credible: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC33614/

The Berisha tribe had one legend by Albanian elders (something along the line) that they were Odrysian in origin from the ancient city of Cabyle.

----------


## Excine

> The Daco-Thracian origin of Berisha-Sopi gets more credible: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC33614/
> 
> The Berisha tribe had one legend by Albanian elders (something along the line) that they were Odrysian in origin from the ancient city of Cabyle.


Go to the live version: 


https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-FGC33614/


You'll notice that the Romanian and the Bulgarian aren't E-FGC33614* any longer, but they form a new subclade which makes them non E-FGC33614*, hence a parallel branch to the Albanian one. The new Romanian sample does the opposite of what you originally thought when you wrote your comment.

----------


## Hawk

> Go to the live version: 
> 
> 
> https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-FGC33614/
> 
> 
> You'll notice that the Romanian and the Bulgarian aren't E-FGC33614* any longer, but they form a new subclade which makes them non E-FGC33614*, hence a parallel branch to the Albanian one. The new Romanian sample does the opposite of what you originally thought when you wrote your comment.


It doesn't really matter, this lineage is shared through Channeled-Ware/Gava anyway, there is another Romanian from much South than this one from Prahova who didn't upload in yfull, another Bulgarian from Plovdiv, Greeks from Macedonia and Greek from Crete, and the rest of FGC33621 are either from Switzerland/Germany or Western Europe.

----------


## Excine

> It doesn't really matter, this lineage is shared through Channeled-Ware/Gava anyway, there is another Romanian from much South than this one from Prahova who didn't upload in yfull, another Bulgarian from Plovdiv, Greeks from Macedonia and Greek from Crete, and the rest of FGC33621 are either from Switzerland/Germany or Western Europe.


It does matter. You literally mentioned the new sample because you thought that it is E-FGC33614* but now neither the Bulgarian, nor the Romanian are E-FGC33614*. So your argument doesn't stand. How other samples are related to each other is a matter of speculation "they're Gava anyway" with 0 samples is a moot point.

----------


## Hawk

> It does matter. You literally mentioned the new sample because you thought that it is E-FGC33614* but now neither the Bulgarian, nor the Romanian are E-FGC33614*. So your argument doesn't stand. How other samples are related to each other is a matter of speculation "they're Gava anyway" with 0 samples is a moot point.


I am not going to continue with your type of debate "a needle in a haystack". It's quite clear to majority of people with the exception of "one particular group".

----------


## Hawk

The SZM-259 from Szeged-Makkoserdő shares the same E-FGC33614 subclade and mtDNA U1a1a with Derite.

----------


## Hawk

The myth origin of Berisha (the Sopis were very likely just a very early split-offs of Berisha who lost track of their origin since very early split and sometimes considered themselves as either Thaq or close to Bytyqi both of whom are wrong, they either come from Shopel or Fierz villages expanding on Kukes/Topojan and then Kosovo and primarily Nish).




> Berishësit mund të jenë nji fis thrak ardhë prei Deti së Zi (Murrdéti): por ndër fise thrake qi banuenë buzë Déti së Zi njehënë Odryzët prei Kabyles djerë ndëByzantium e Astaejtë, ndoshta Berishësit janë nji tepricë e këtyn'e fisevet
> HYLLI I DRITES Vjeta XV 1939, 8-10 fq 409-411


translation:




> The Berishas may be a Thracian tribe that came from the Black Sea (Murrdéti): but among the Thracian tribes that inhabited the Black Sea were the Odrysians from the Kabyles who lived up in
> Byzantium and the Astaeans, perhaps the Berishas are a surplus of these tribes

----------


## Hawk

This is interesting, because the author is clearly hinting that the Lapus group has clear dominant Ottomany Culture influence. And it makes a connection between Vattina, Dubovac Zuto Brda, Girla Mara and inter-related Eastern Urnfielder complex. E-V13 stands there as was hinted by the leaks of Psenicevo-Babadag site Early Iron Age, per Draga Garasanin Psenicevo had clear link with Paracin and Mediana groups in Central Balkans.



https://books.google.de/books?id=vXl...ulture&f=false

----------


## Hawk

Riverman, perhaps this can be of your interest.




> 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 of innovations. The emergence of urnfields in Middle and Late Bronze Age Europe is certainly one of these large-scale phenomena; its wide distribution has been traditionally emphasized by the use of the general term _Urnenfelderkultur/zeit (starting around 1300 BC). Thanks to new evidence, we are now able to draw a more comprehensive picture, which shows a variety of regional responses to the introduction of the new funerary custom. The earliest ‘urnfields’ can be identified in central Hungary, among the tell communities of the late Nagyrév/Vatya Culture, around 2000 BC. From the nineteenth century BC onwards, the urnfield model is documented among communities in northeastern Serbia, south of the Iron Gates. During the subsequent collapse of the tell system, around 1500 BC, the urnfield model spread into some of the neighbouring regions. The adoption, however, appears more radical in the southern Po plain, as well as in the Sava/Drava/Lower Tisza plains, while in Lower Austria, Transdanubia and in the northern Po plain it seems more gradual and appears to have been subject to processes of syncretism/hybridization with traditional rites. Other areas seem to reject the novelty, at least until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. We argue that a possible explanation for these varied responses relates to the degree of interconnectedness and homophily among communities in the previous phases.
> __
> https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0_





> The earliest examples of urnfields in the area under consideration can be found in the Carpathian Basin, where this new and complex way of treating and disposing of the dead tends to be juxtaposed with and/or replace the traditional flat inhumations, primary cremations (‘in situ cremations’), or scattered cremations from at least the twenty-fifth century BC. However, it is during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC—and more intensively around the sixteenth–fifteenth centuries BC—that the urnfield custom crosses its original boundaries and starts to be intensively practised in other regions, or isolated sites still surrounded by communities practising other kinds of funerary ritual. To what extent the spread of the urnfield model is the result of cultural transmission rather than (at least partially) a demic diffusion can be debated, but unfortunately not easily verified, since cremation destroys DNA and therefore the identification of any population movement via aDNA analysis. Beside the ideological aspects, the new biomolecular evidence of virulent pathogens, most notably _Yersinia pestis, found in individuals dated to the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, from Central Asia to Central/Northern Europe (Andrades Valtueña et al., 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2015; Spyrou, 2018; Rascovan et al., 2019), suggests that the diffusion of certain epidemics, especially in densely populated and well-interconnected regions, might have triggered practical responses by societies attempting to limit transmission. The burning of corpses may be one of these._





> What appears clear from the current archaeological evidence is that the neighbouring regions maintained a range of attitudes towards the exogenous innovation, spanning from radical acceptance to gradual introduction, or from hybridization to complete rejection (see also Falkenstein, 2012, p. 329; Rebay-Salisbury, 2012, p. 21).

----------


## Riverman

For the E-V13 story I would especially follow from Nyrsg -> Suciu de Sus/Berkesz-Demecser ->Lăpuș/Csorva -> Gva -> Belegis II-Gva. 
Especially the scattering of the ashes and burial in urns, two types of burial common throughout most of the unchanged Thracian groups, being already proven for Nyrsg. 

I think a concentration of the irregular group/mass burials of Bosut-Basarabi and Babadag would be very interesting, as well as later inhumation burials of Basarabi. If its possilbe to connect Basarabi <-> Babadag <-> Psenichevo, it proves the huge Thracian network, the Thracian koine. And I expect E-V13 in all three. The Northern Dacians which remained more in the old tradition are harder to grasp, but the Maslomecz yDNA might help somewhat. Hopefully they get more E-V13 and don't drop the sample they had low coverage.

----------


## Hawk

I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.




> In general, it can be concluded that the first groups meeting all essential criteria of the urnfield package started in the central Balkans between the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries BC (northeastern Serbia). In the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, several local groups along the Danube (DGŽ, Belegiš 1) and in the Morava valley (Paraćin, Brnjica) also fully accepted and implemented cremation in urn graves, but with different regional traditions regarding the grave constructions. Except for scattered cremation graves in some of the local groups of the time around 2000 BC (Glasinac, Belotić-Bela Crkva and Cetina), the concept of cremation was completely rejected by Bronze Age groups in the Dinaric Alps or in the western Balkans. The start and spread of the urnfield phenomenon at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (fourteenth/thirteenth centuries BC) primarily influenced the regions between the Rivers Sava, Drava and Danube. Cremation graves with urns became the standardized burial custom, yet again with considerable regional peculiarities (Virovitica/Barice-Gređani group). *At the same time, cremation was radically rejected during the Middle and Late Bronze Age of the Dinaric Alps, regardless of specific cultural or regional groups.*


This is where J2b2-L283 is popping out.


Anyway, a lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.

The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.

----------


## Hawk

This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.

----------


## Riverman

> I am reading this paper, and i believe is quite systematic in approach.
> 
> A lot of different people accepted cremation, but cremation vs inhumation doesn't tell the whole story, the whole package or material culture needs to be checked because different material cultures adopted this ritual.
> 
> The authors explicitly mention and believe that cremation ritual was probably initially started in Carpathian Basin and probably by Neolithic survivor population that survived Yersinia Pestis pandemic, and as i mentioned once it was transformed in a way as a religious/ritual rite to survivors. Yersinia Pestis is the same bacteria that caused Justinian Pandemic and Black Death.


It's really the Tisza-Danube area which expands down, with its rituals and customs. The Illyrian core fully rejected the cremation indeed, and stuck with its custom of burying the dead in collective clan tumuli. That's a major cause for having so many J-L283 vs. so few E-V13 in the Bronze to Early Iron Age. Because the whole zone from Lusatians to Brnjica - so all candidate groups for more E-V13, was one big cremation horizon community.




> This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.


The area in North Eastern Italy should be relevant, as it could have used the Alpine route to spread and its a potential hotspot for E-V13 (Liguaria, Western Switzerland, Eastern Switzerland-St. Gallen). At least going by the now available modern results.

----------


## Hawk

Something more...




> Nonetheless, flows of people and cultural/ideological change do not necessarily occur under peaceful conditions, especially if we consider the strong propensity of Middle Bronze Age societies for warfare (Frieman et al., 2017), which implies a high degree of conflict and competition for resources. The fact that the diffusion of the urnfield package occurs simultaneously with the collapse of the Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary raises a crucial question: is there any connection between these two phenomena? After several centuries of demographic growth and economic prosperity (c. 2000–1500 BC), concurrently with the appearance of the Tumulus culture in present-day Hungary, the tell system experienced a phase of crises, which brought, in some cases, substantial depopulation and/or reorganization of the settlement pattern (Sánta 2010; Fischl et al., 2013). Most of the tell sites were gradually abandoned, leaving space for a more dispersed and less structured settlement system.
> 
> It is not impossible that the supposed penetration of ‘Tumulus people’ into Hungary, perhaps when the tell settlement systems were already suffering a general crisis, provoked diasporas of refugees, especially along the corridors previously established towards more ‘friendly’ (or homphilous) communities, and consequently, a certain degree of admixture and cultural syncretism. Reflecting on the complex geopolitical scenario of the mid second millennium BC, Risch and Meller have openly suggested considering ‘how much these societies (Terramare) profited from the economic and political crises and/or collapse of other societies (Middle Bronze Age cultures in Hungary)’ (Risch & Meller, 2015, p. 253). A parallel can be seen in the spread of the urnfield tradition across peninsular Italy during the final phases of the Bronze Age (after 1150 BC), which coincides with the collapse and diaspora of the _terramare people and the wide diffusion of the urn cremation rite throughout the peninsula (Cardarelli et al., 2009)._

----------


## Riverman

> Something more...



I think the Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures being interconnected and largely cooperating. There came a rebellion from the Southern German EBA groups which were maximally in the Unetician sphere of influence (like Straubing, Adlerberg etc.). From these groups that the Tumulus culture emerged and threatened the combined Unetician core and Carpathian sphere, which were in fact in some ways as close or closer. Basically the Unetician-Carpathian Tell culture sphere got threatened from two sides: Kind of Rebelling Bell Beaker derived groups which created the Tumulus culture - supposed to have included Italo-Celtic - and Eastern chariot complex groups from the steppe, related to the NouaSabatinovkaCoslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. These two took the middle group into a firm grip, until they both broke (Uneticians and Pannonian Tell cultures) and this created the MBA scene. 
In the LBA it reverted back to a dominance of a middle group in many respects (Lusatians-Kyjatice-Gva, Urnfield culture), just to end similarly. 
The same repeated itself once more when both La Tene and Scythians took the Hallstatt core into their grip, until it broke and both Celts and Scythians expanded once more on top of the middle groups. 

In this context its in any case remarkable that I-M253 did grow with the Unetician networks, and suffered from its collapse.

So the first part of the weakening of the Unetician-Pannonian Tell sphere came from the East, being related to the NouaSabatinovkaCoslogeni complex of Western steppe cultures. They hit the networks first, then the rebellions from the West brought it almost completely down. Its just in the North Carpathians that they survived, not without being influenced by TC, but still, largely independent. And its from there, at the Tisza-Krs area of Eastern Hungary-Western Romania, that Gva/Channelled Ware emerged as the expansive factor for the Balkans.

----------


## Hawk

This archaeological paper is very important, we have a systematic explanation of Urnfield phenomena. It didn't dwell on particular sub-cultures but totally understandable.

----------


## torzio

> This is interesting, the acceptance or rejection of cremation burials.



Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings

----------


## Riverman

> Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings


I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours. 

About Romania and the Dacians: 

Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data: 




> It is known to have been practised by the peoples who inhabited the
> Romanian Lands during the Bronze Age (Schuster, Comşa and Popa
> 2001). Indeed, it is known to have been practised even earlier than that:
> cremain deposits dating from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods have
> been found. Although these deposits are not numerous, and are
> geographically *concentrated in north western Romania*, they are very
> similar to examples from the Starcervo Cris and Zau regions (Lazăr and
> Băcueţ 2011).


= homeland area of Nyrsg, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, Gva. 




> *The oldest documented archaeological
> evidence of cremation is the group at Gura Baciului (Shepherds Mouth),
> which has been dated to the early Neolithic period (c.66005500 BC)* and
> consists of seven deposits of cremated remains. Overall, the gradual
> replacement of burial by cremation du ring that period indicates that a
> profound change of spiritual belief was taking place. Furthermore, the
> Eneolithic period witnessed an interesting synthesis of different types of
> disposal practices, *for example in the Eastern Carpathians, where the
> raised grave (tumulus) was combined with cremation* (Lazăr and B ăcueţ
> ...





> *What can be said is that from the Bronze Age onwards, cremation
> became the norm in Romania*. It arrived due in part to central European
> influences, but also as a consequence of internal developments within the
> indigenous communities. Indo-Europeanisation played a significant role
> here. The solar cult was highly influential on prehistoric funerary ritual,
> cremation being a clear and straightforward means of separating the soul
> from the body and raising it to heaven. According to contemporary belief,
> this led to an increased sense of direct contact with the divine. Fire thus
> acquired divine attributes; it was viewed as a means of making direct
> ...





> The link between the solar cult
> and cremation is clear: academic studies have established *that the Dacian
> religion was centred on this cult, which emerged in the Eneolithic period*
> and replaced the older fertility cult from then onward. These studies have
> proposed that this new religion *included a sun god, whose name could not
> be read*. Archaeological excavations in the sacred area of the enclosure at
> Sarmizegetuza Regia, the Dacian state capital, have uncovered a complex
> of rectangles and round sanctuaries of the andesite solar disc, which
> represents the sun, indicating the Ur anus-solar character of the Dacian
> ...


https://www.cambridgescholars.com/re...2-8-sample.pdf

Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible. 

Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).

----------


## Hawk

> Not accurate for the Venetics...............studies show , that the men where cremated and women and children buried with amber offerings


The map is from the paper.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0

And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.

----------


## Riverman

The text is more specific: 



> In contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.


https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0

Compare with this paper: 




> The Veneti were still able to maintain their independence both when the Celts invaded the Po plain in the 4th century BC and when the Romans began their expansion in northern Italy at the end of the 3rd. Roman politics in Veneto became more aggressive in the 2nd century BC and the region was definitively annexed to the Roman State in the 1st century BC. * Cremation was the most common funerary ritual during the Iron Age.*  (Bondini 2005; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006; Ruta Serafini 1990). *Inhumation was also practised, possibly for low-ranking people only.* The structure of cremation graves could vary from stone and wooden rectangular containers (_cassette_) to pit graves and depositions within large ceramic pots (_dolia_) (fig. 3). Cremated human bones were usually placed in an urn. Grave goods and offerings such as ornaments, tools, vessels, food and weapons were placed in the tomb container with the urn. Multiple graves were common. This may imply the deposition of more than one urn in a tomb and/or the placing of more than one individual in an urn. The wealth of the grave assemblage, the location of the tomb in the cemetery and the structure of the tomb container probably depended on the rank, age, gender and social affiliation of the deceased. Inhumation graves were usually very simple, with scanty or no grave goods at all. Cremation tombs were generally covered with a small earth mound and a layer of pyre debris.





> The present work is based on the analysis of a database of around 1,000 graves dating between c.900 and 50 BC (a full dataset and bibliography in my PhD thesis, in preparation; a preliminary analysis of magic in Iron Age Veneto in my MA dissertation: Perego 2007). This material has been excavated over a period of around 135 years (1876 - present) in several Venetic localities, such as Este, Montagnana and Padua in central Veneto, Altino near Venice, Lovara and Gazzo Veronese in the Verona countryside, and Montebelluna in the Piave Valley. Due to the brevity of this paper, my main focus is on well-studied grave assemblages from the Benvenuti, Ricovero, Muletti Prosdocimi, Alfonsi and Via Versori cemeteries at Este (Bondini 2005; Bianchin Citton _et. al._ 1998; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006) and the Via Tiepolo cemetery at Padua (Ruta Serafini 1990). This restricted dataset includes a total of c. 345 graves, *mainly cremations* (c. 320). A table which summarises findings from Este Benvenuti is at the end of the present article.


https://student-journals.ucl.ac.uk/pia/article/id/278/

----------


## torzio

> The map is from the paper.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
> And looks like main authors are your countrymen Italian in collaboration with Hungarian archaeologists. And the paper is quite recently, no more than 2 months old.


Ok
My paper is 2014 ..............it states as I stated....with the exception that about 10% of men had inhumation burials as they died in battle away from home. I state only early iron age period

----------


## torzio

> I wondered about that too, because the Venetics are among the people with more Urnfield/Channelled Ware influences afaik. And possibly even more E-V13 than their neighbours. 
> About Romania and the Dacians: 
> Why the cremation practise is so important and prevents us from having sufficient E-V13 data: 
> = homeland area of Ny�rs�g, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, G�va. 
> https://www.cambridgescholars.com/re...2-8-sample.pdf
> Nobody should talk about ancient DNA sampling while ignoring that some people did, for many generations, prefer to cremate their dead, which will, inevitably, skew all results or make any sampling impossible. 
> Therefore we have to concentrate on those oftentimes foreign influenced and mixed branches, or irregular burials, which provide us with inhumation, body burials with human remains which are testable. But the situation is way more difficult than that of the Illyrians, which always rejected cremation in their core zone and preferred the inhumation in collective clan tumuli. Which is why we got so many Bronze to Iron Age J-L283 already, but practically no E-V13, even though we know from the modern data (number of branches), that the latter were likely more numerous and widespread in those time periods (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in particular).


It seems that bronze-age Venetics practiced inhumanation in the bronze age and early iron age male death ( about 90% ) had cremations, other who died at war away from home where inhumaned

----------


## torzio

> The text is more specific: 
> n contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
> Compare with this paper:


Interesting areas...as per strabo, Roman Historian , these non cremation areas are all Illyrian tribal areas

----------


## Hawk

Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.

https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.

----------


## Riverman

> Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS
> 
> A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.


Its nice to have such summaries for the cultural formations. Especially the so called "West and Central" zone being of interest, with Nyrsg and Mak. 



> Das Verhltnis der Mak6-Kultur zu der
> von N yirseg wurde .in den siebziger Jahren
> geklrt. Neuere Forschungen erga'ben, da sich
> die Mak6-Kultur auf dem Territorium von
> Nyirseg ausbreitete, ohne Mischung ihrer
> Fundkmplexe und Berhrungspunkte aufzuweisen
> (KALICZ, 1981, 67-74). So z.B. hat P.
> Patay in letzteren Jahren in der Gemarkung
> von Tiszaluc (Nordungarn) einige Siedlungsobjekte
> ...


Two separate entities, but related in an evolutionary sense. Most of the inhumation burials of Mak being non-typical ones, the rule was cremation in most times and provinces, especially for the typical areas. Like the Tumulus culture/Koszider horizon, the invasion of the Bell Beakers caused a shift and transformation: 




> Die gemeinsame
> Wifokung mehrerer Falktoren hat auf zur
> Zeit noch unbekannte Weise und mit noch unbestimmter
> Geschwindigkeit die Mako-Kultur
> im Gebiet von Ungarn in die Kultur von Nagyrev
> und Nyirseg umgeformt.


Nagyrev und Nyirseg as potential transformed descendants. 

A basic connection between them all being the Zok-network/horizon: 




> Wegen der auffallenden hnlichkeit
> der Keram'ik hat der Verfasser die
> Funde vom Typ *Nyirseg zusammen mit Mako
> und Vucedol als Teil der Zok-Kultur*, als
> Nyirseg-Gruppe !bezeichnet, die auf ihrem Ausbreitungsgebiet
> den Beginn der Bronzezeit andeutet


Its area is practically the same as the later Gva core: 



> Auch die slowakische Forschung hat auf
> einem kleinen Gebiete der Ostslowakei Funde
> vom Nyirseg-Typ gemacht, und sie verwendet
> fr die Nyirseg-Kultur die Bezeichnung Nyirseg-
> Zatin (VLADAR, 1970, 224-229, 282-283).
> In Rumnien, 1n den Teilen der Tiefebene, die
> an Siebenbrgens nordstlichen Teil ans tassen,
> wurden ebenfalls Siedlungs- und Grberfunde
> vom Nyirseg,Typ gemacht. (KACSO, 1972, 31-
> ...


= very Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, NW Romania. 

The *Nyirseg people* seem to have been fairly mobile and largely pastoralists, but there was a great density of small scale and also a lot of large scale settlements. The author speculates about "winter quarters" when the clans moved together again. In winter and times of danger. All burials being crematon burials: 



> Trotzdem kann die Bestattungsweise
> der Kultur mit ziemlicher Entschiedenheit
> beurteilt werden.* Alle Grberfunde
> enthielten Reste von Brandbestattung*
> (KALICZ, 1968, 73-74). Am al1gemeinsten
> sind die Einzel-Urnengrber.


Most of the time the ashes were in single urns or scattered, without a vessel. 




> Gewisse Anzeichen
> lassen darauf schliessen, dass in der NyirsegKultur
> auch Brandschttungsbestattung blich
> war. Auf einigen Fundorten ohne Siedlungserscheinungen
> sind mehrere ganze Gefsse zusammen
> zum Vorschein gekommen (Tiszapalkonya,
> Tiszanagyfalu usw.). Aus Mangel an
> przisen Beobachtungen nehmen wir nur an,
> dass diese Gelsse aus Brandschttungsgrbern
> ...


The only known inhumation burials on their territory are untypical - non-representative: 



> Wir verfgen ber zwei unsichere Angaben,
> die Krpergrab-Bestattung erwhnen.* Die hierzu
> gehrenden Gefssebeiga1)en sind - trotz
> ihres frh bronzezeitlichen Cha.rakters - fr
> d'ie Nyirseg-Kulturd nicht bezeichnend*.


Nyirseg being largely a culture on its own, with only limited relations to other groups in the wider region. Closest parallels can be seen with the older Vucedol culture: 



> Wegen des speziellen Charakters des Fundmaterials
> der Nyirseg-Kultur finden wir zur
> Zeit im Karpatenbecken keine verwandte kulturelle
> Einheit. Die auffallendsten Merkmale
> der materiellen Kultur, fast ausnahmslos die
> Verzierungen der Keramik, scheinen an die in
> Raum und Zeit entfernte (ltere) Vucedol-Kultur
> Ibzw. an deren Keramik-Verzierungen anzuklingen.


Chronologically its a descendant of Mak. Hatvan and Otomani are the descendants. The evolution of Mak and Nyirseg had strong inputs from the South, the relationships to Vucedol are distant, but possible: 




> Heute beurteilen wir den Ursprung der
> Nyirseg-Kultur bereits anders als am Anfang
> der sechziger Jahre. Die Bereinigung der Chronologie
> hat auch geholfen das Abstammungsbild
> zu berichtigen. Grundlage der materiellen
> Kultur der *Nyirseg-Kultur war die Mako-Kultur,
> die mit der Somogyvar-Vinkovci und mit
> der Schneckenberg-Glina III-Kultur einen verwandtschaftlichen
> Block bildet.* Es ist also am
> ...



https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

----------


## Riverman

The chain for E-V13 likely goes, in bracket the dominant funerary rite: 

Eastern Mak (cremation) -> Nyrsg (cremation) -> Hatvan-Early Otomani (cremation) -> Suciu de Sus/Berkes-Demecser (cremation) -> Lăpuș/Csorva/Susani into Gva generalised horizon (cremation) -> Belegis II-Gva (cremation)

The next phases are already going post-Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and into Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi, Northern Gva remnants into Scythianised groups (Eastern Vekerzug: cremation).

Map for Nyirseg: 


From: https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS

Note that the Nyirseg core region is nearly identical with that of later Gva, its kind of a revival after some intrusions from Unetice-Nitra-Kostany (Fzesabony) and the Tumulus culture people. Typically, both (Fzesabony and Tumulus culture) used inhumation, whereas the local "resurgence" from the Nyirseg-Otomani substrate used cremation again.

----------


## mount123

> Riverman, this is in German, i could google translate but it's better that you go through.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/4086289/KUL...ND_NORDBALKANS
> 
> A North-Balkan <> Carpathian cline of cultural network.


I was thinking of what you were suspecting about the delay of the Kapitan Andreevo samples Hawk.

Quote from the other thread:


> You are right, something is off with the organisation here. I collected 30 samples from Plovdiv from iron age to roman and talked with archeologists around BG how to preserved newly find and to prepare them for sending (I have a papers how from few laboratories). But the problem was how and to whom to send the samples. I found out that we (Bulgaria) had an agreement with Harvard laboratory so I wrote them an email. They liked all the samples but the samples needed a document for travelling. Then I called the director of the institution and told him about the samples and the emails with Harvard, after all we had an agreement for 500 samples from all the ages. And he told me that he will just decide what to send and will prosecute everyone who sends a sample abroad. So we have samples, but noone asks for them, or they don't know who to ask or somehow the link is broken  We are waiting almost 2 years for the paper from Harvard...


I do not really know what to think of this but it does not surprise me at all. There are many things that come up to my mind e. g. the "misdating" of the Slavic sample from Bezdanjaca cave, mod. d. Croatia or individuals from institutions like Stanford who are supposedly of great renown being clueless and not schooled on the events of late antiquity/early medieval in South East Europe by making the bizarre claim of genetic continuity in the regions in question. 

I am also not taking a stand here since this person is an amateur, at least that is the impression she makes, considering some of her statements about Slavs being autochthonous in the Balkans in earlier posts of hers I have read (I regret this  :Embarassed: ).

----------


## blevins13

> The myth origin of Berisha (the Sopis were very likely just a very early split-offs of Berisha who lost track of their origin since very early split and sometimes considered themselves as either Thaq or close to Bytyqi both of whom are wrong, they either come from Shopel or Fierz villages expanding on Kukes/Topojan and then Kosovo and primarily Nish).
> 
> 
> 
> translation:


Cudia me Berishet eshte se jane te për hapur vetem ne Kosove dhe Veri, por jo ne Jug. Nje nga linjat qe kane lulezuar gjate perandorise turke si pak kush.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Hawk

> Cudia me Berishet eshte se jane te për hapur vetem ne Kosove dhe Veri, por jo ne Jug. Nje nga linjat qe kane lulezuar gjate perandorise turke si pak kush.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


In fact it is the Sopis who benefited the most from Ottoman Empire not the Berishas, the Sopis were kicked out either from Berishas or Thaqis from Malesi because we were relatively very small family/tribe in Malesi but in Nish, Toplic, Vranje and all surrounding the Sopis were the most numerous tribe and very likely the most powerful in that region(though they were never unified and there was no kinship between fellow tribesmen like the other tribes from Malesi), they converted from Catholicism to Islam in some small numbers, then their most powerful members instigated their cousins to do so, that's how they rose in numbers, and probably in Kosove it got boosted by Muhajers.

AbdulKerim Pasha a Sop ruler from Vranje was one of the most hateful figures from Serbs around that region during that time.

Otherwise, if there is any lineage who didn't benefit and was far more powerful before Ottoman Empire it was the Berishas, their number shattered and scattered around due to their war with the Pasha of Peja, Mahmud Pashe Begolli who burned their settlement to the ground, (Begolli was a Bardh-Gash, these people on general, Gashi-Bardhi benefited a lot from Ottoman Empire along with Luzha/Guri and Shipshani, so Gashi in general).

There is a lot of Berishas in Kosove, but they didn't come as beneficiaries, likely they started to expand much latter, the FGC33625 was likely boosted yet again by the Muhajers from Nish, Toplic who didn't have so strong tribal affiliations for other Sopis, and many have different surnames likely other than Sop.

----------


## blevins13

> In fact it is the Sopis who benefited the most from Ottoman Empire not the Berishas, the Sopis were kicked out either from Berishas or Thaqis from Malesi because we were relatively very small family/tribe in Malesi but in Nish, Toplic, Vranje and all surrounding the Sopis were the most numerous tribe and very likely the most powerful in that region(though they were never unified and there was no kinship between fellow tribesmen like the other tribes from Malesi), they converted from Catholicism to Islam in some small numbers, then their most powerful members instigated their cousins to do so, that's how they rose in numbers, and probably in Kosove it got boosted by Muhajers.
> 
> AbdulKerim Pasha a Sop ruler from Vranje was one of the most hateful figures from Serbs around that region during that time.
> 
> Otherwise, if there is any lineage who didn't benefit and was far more powerful before Ottoman Empire it was the Berishas, their number shattered and scattered around due to their war with the Pasha of Peja, Mahmud Pashe Begolli who burned their settlement to the ground, (Begolli was a Bardh-Gash, these people on general, Gashi-Bardhi benefited a lot from Ottoman Empire along with Luzha/Guri and Shipshani, so Gashi in general).
> 
> There is a lot of Berishas in Kosove, but they didn't come as beneficiaries, likely they started to expand much latter, the FGC33625 was likely boosted yet again by the Muhajers from Nish, Toplic who didn't have so strong tribal affiliations for other Sopis, and many have different surnames likely other than Sop.


I thought we have proved that Sopis and Berisha are the same or not?

----------


## Hawk

> I thought we have proved that Sopis and Berisha are the same or not?


They have the same subclade, that's right, but they did split somewhere during 1000-1200 and they lost any kind of memory of common kinship, i suspect that there is more E-V13 => L241 than E-V13 => FGC33625 in Kosove and North Albania on general, as i said, Berishas were probably far more powerful before Ottoman Empire, then the Begolli of Bardhi attacked them somewhere during 1700-s (forgot exact date), but he attacked them as an Ottoman beylerbeyler of Rumelia not in the name of his family or fis. Anyway both him and his two sons were killed as revenge.

----------


## Riverman

E-L241 is somewhat younger main clade, looks like it spread between Early Hallstatt-Basarabi, into the Scythianised groups (Vekerzug/Ferigile) and from there into La Tene period Celts. The bulk was staying in the Tisza-Danube area I'd say.

----------


## Hawk

Something about Southern Albania




> By the middle of the Bronze age, Maliq IIIc and Neziri cultures reveal many common elements. (Ceka, N.,Iliret, p.35) By the end of Broze Age, Maliq IIId shows wares to be decorated with geometric motives over a lustrous brown background. The motifs follow the earlier linear geometric style, naturally enriched by new motifs and more complex designs. The pottery painted before firing links Maliq IIId3 firmly with western Macedonia, represented by Boubousti, and equally with the Late Bronze Age painted pottery of central Macedonia. Frano Prendi saw a similarity in painted pottery found in Epirus with that of Maliq.N. L. G. Hammond wrote about Maliq and pointed to the autochthonous origin of the pottery painting, indicating that the “painted pottery like that of Maliq III d3 has been known in Epirus, but opinions vary as to when it first appeared in north-west Greece. We do not know of any site outside the Korce basin which has this pottery painted after firing and is of autochthonous origin, as it is at Maliq. Further, it is only at Maliq that we see the origins of this style. (N. L. G. Hammond indicated that the tumulus at Pazhok has dating that corresponds to Middle Helladic period. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1, 2008, p. 222)
> 
> 
> A study done by Barbara Horejs indicates that a total of eight different stylistic groups in Late Bronze Age mattpainted pottery have been discerned north of Central Greece. It is indicated that all these centers have a local tradition in mattpainted pottery with clear links to older prototypes. (Barbara, Horejs, Phenomenon of Mettapainted pottery in Northern Aegean, 2007)
> This pottery has been named devollite. It originated and flourished at the basin of River Devoll. During the Iron Age, this pottery characterized the whole of southern Illyrian areas. It is this pottery that is considered to provide a direct link between the Bronze Age population and the historical time population known as Illyrian. (Ceka, N., Iliret, p. 36) The area has also shown a similarity in the construction of fortifications, which became characteristic during the later Bronze Age. This construction is characterized by the placement of multi walls, use of confining tumuli, and leaving a wall encircled open space at the entrance. These construction elements could be seen In Borsh, QeparoLleshan, Tren and as far as Glasinac (Verecevo, Stipanic, Zagrovoc) and Liburnia (Budin, Oton, Dusar). (Ceka, N., Iliret, p. 36)
> According to the Albanian archaeologists, these common cultural similarities indicate formation of an ethnicity with specific cultural attributes that had taken shape during the Middle Bronze period. This was the result of a reality in which life from the Neolithic period had continued uninterrupted in the development of a distinct culture. The introduction of pastoral economy, as well as economic advances, associated with changes in means of production, must have been prime contributors in the integration of the population. The new economy would have necessitated a breakdown of the existing tribal structures.
> *The next sizable population movement took place at the end of the second millennium B.C., which some have called Doric invasion, some others Illyrian invasion, and others have used other names. The invaders were a group of people that are identified to have brought urnfield culture south. Krahe (1955) had indicated that the Illyrians were the bearers of this culture which had developed by the fusion of the Danubian Yamnaya cultures. Elements of this civilization, reached Albania towards the end of the Bronze Age. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1, 2008, p. 228) The well known Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi summarized the evidence and the scope of impact of settlemets at the end of Bronze Age that Albanian territories had faced.*
> In this transitional period which was to last some three centuries with each century providing new elements in its material culture, several components are discernible: the autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric civilization,* and elements of Cental European origin which were spread through Albania by the second wave of the Pannono-Balkan migration (end of the twelfth and the eleventh centuries B.C.). This wave, unlike the first, had a marked influence on Albania, although only in some areas.*
> *Of the number of cultural objects which spread from the north in all directions, there are swords with a tongue-shaped hilt (see Plates Vol.), flame-shaped spear-heads and socketed axes, which become fairly common in this period, and also pins with conical or vase-shaped heads (Vasenkopfnadeln), simple arched fibulae with or without buttons, whose origin, in all likelihood, is from the Liburno-Dalmatian coast, and so on. The earliest examples of this type with its many variants are recorded so far in the regions bordering southern Albania, as for example, at Dukat in Vlore, and are completely absent in the interior, as far as we know. This phenomenon suggests a purely maritime circulation of these eleventh and tenth century fibulae via the Adriatic.*
> ...

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Dardanians are very likely to have had at least some E-V13, but beyond that, I think most of Albania was not as much covered as some other regions early on. We don't even know for sure whether Proto-Albanians lived in what is now Albania, so there is a lot to do. But clearly modern Albanians Palaeo-Balkan ancestry is split at least between Illyrian (J-L283, R1b) and Daco-Thracian (E-V13).
> 
> From the article: 
> 
> 
> https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god4...%20Kapuran.pdf
> 
> Indeed, they were the ones with iron metallurgy and weapons, among the first in Europe and the whole world, especially if considering mass production. 
> 
> ...


Here is a Hollywood interpretation of haplogroup E man teaching the riddle of steel to the Bell Beakers.

----------


## Hawk

> Here is a Hollywood interpretation of haplogroup E man teaching the riddle of steel to the Bell Beakers.


Riverman doesn't break character, now he will quote you with archeological quotations of Lapush and Suciu de Sus metal working activity, as well as Teleac fortress in Carpathian region.  :Laughing:

----------


## Riverman

> Here is a Hollywood interpretation of haplogroup E man teaching the riddle of steel to the Bell Beakers.


Well, there is a factual core to some of those fantasy novels, like Gva was among the first to produce iron, like Hawk said in Teleac fortress for example and the more advanced iron technology spread with Cimmerians from the East. The Cimmerians came in, crushed into Gva people, subdued or destroyed some, while others fought them off. Like Transcarpathian-Northern Romanian Gva for example, they build a huge "wall of fortresses" to prevent the Cimmerian raids and surprise cavalry attacks. 
In the end many Thracians allied up with the Cimmerians and took up their innovations, especially improved iron working - this created the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, which reached deep into Europe. 

Looking at Pannonia at that time, the yurtification, the massive destruction and the many warlords which seem to have gathered warrior and artisan specialists around them, some aspects might resemble the Conan fantasy novel more than earlier or later times. 

Very much renowned are the "Cimmerian daggers": 


https://www.hermann-historica.de/en/...s/lot/id/41399

Very fine iron work for that time. They appear throughout half of Europe at that time of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, together with elite heavy cavalry gear. The later Hallstatt aristocracy in part stems from this elite warriors on horseback with their advanced, elaborated and quite expensive equipment. 
The Veneti, among others, took this up pretty much, from Thraco-Cimmerians, while e.g. the Illyrians, like before with Urnfield, didn't take as much up from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon.

Thraco-Cimmerians finds: 


Such a pity almost all Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerian samples with clear affinity to Gva being females. I don't expect them all to be E-V13, obviously, but some should pop up in a larger Thraco-Cimmerian sample.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

In the movie, the attire of the religious followers resembles Thracian clothing. 




> They appear throughout half of Europe at that time of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, together with elite heavy cavalry gear.


I didn't know that was possible at the time. From Estrucan painting, Cimmerians did not have stirrups and had to tie their body with a rope to the horses neck, to prevent them from falling while riding. I assumed they were light archers and would only attack with swords when panic set in.

kimmerijci_1.jpg

----------


## Riverman

> I didn't know that was possible at the time. From Estrucan painting, Cimmerians did not have stirrups and had to tie their body with a rope to the horses neck, to prevent them from falling while riding. I assumed they were light archers and would only attack with swords when panic set in.


Well, it's relative, but still a major leap forward, not just for the light, but also the heavy cavalry.
Of course no cataphracts or Medieval knights, but still.
You have many depictions of cavalry fights, e.g. from later Hallstatt and the grave goods of the elite with horse gear.

----------


## Hawk

Riverman, i guess we can continue discussing here: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani would be a good fit. How these people adopted the IE language might be via their northern neighbors, Kostany Culture which was descended from Nitra. The Ottomani-Fuszesabony switched to inhumation after their contacts with Kostany but then again during MBA-LBA switched back to cremation and eventually the Gava Cultural Complex was found. So this is why we see a cremation on a pyre on top of a tumuli burial mix occassionally, but also flat cemeteries with urns, which was a Tell Culture + Yamnaya mix of burial.

Just an educated guess.

----------


## TaktikatEMalet

> Here is a Hollywood interpretation of haplogroup E man teaching the riddle of steel to the Bell Beakers.


Whats more is thracians and dacians were described as blue eyed redheads by the ancient greeks and even tall

----------


## Riverman

> Riverman, i guess we can continue discussing here: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani would be a good fit. How these people adopted the IE language might be via their northern neighbors, Kostany Culture which was descended from Nitra.


Rather Koťany developed as an offshot of the Mierzanowice culture probably and they half conquered half fused with Otomani I, which created: 




> The Ottomani-Fuszesabony switched to inhumation after their contacts with Kostany


Not just contacts, many male patrilineages were replaced by these newly incoming herders from the Epi-Corded sphere, which is why Fzesabony will have quite a lot of R1a. 




> but then again during MBA-LBA switched back to cremation and eventually the Gava Cultural Complex was found.


That's why Fzesabony's impact was rather limited and not as strong in the Eastern Carpathian sphere, the more remote areas, in which locals prevailed. From these the tradition of the earlier people re-emerged and with this spread the clans of the East - and I think these were E-V13 dominated in Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus/Cehalut/Igrita later - from which Gva emerged as a unified horizon. Which means either they were closely related from the start, or one of these groups dominated the others - by incidence spreading E-V13 through its expansion. That's unresolved and is hard to solve, because they of course cremated their dead. 

However, I think that they might have been IE even way before, because both Yamnaya and Epi-Corded groups made it to the region first. 

It is important to stress however, that the Eastern Carpathian core zone for these autochthonous groups being the least affected by the direct influx from _Koťany and the Tumulus culture._ They lived more protected, and expanded from there, with the unified Gva horizon, emerging from the early groups - either one or all of them, especially Suciu de Sus, Berkesz-Demecser, Cehalut and Igrita. Suciu de Sus/Lăpuș might be considered the most direct autochthonous, least foreign influenced imho.

----------


## Hawk

Certainly the cult of the skull/cult of the dead in Carpathian Basin introduced in Early Bronze Age, in Mako-Nagyrev is interesting: https://www.academia.edu/44032400/Th...3%A1ncsa_Lapos

I am also interested what is the chronology of Vatya Culture. Was it part of Encrusted Pottery People?

----------


## Riverman

The maps from Carlos are really nice and largely accurate. I have to admire this work. 

Here you see Cotofeni, an absolutely crucial culture for the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, in which first Corded decorated Western Pontic steppe people mixed with locals. Even in the later Yamnaya phase, the locals did persist, as is evident in the burials, the funerary rituals in the kurgans. The possible key culture which grew out of that sphere of Cotofeni, Livezile, Mak is Nyrsg:



Note its nearly identical with the later area of Suciu de Sus/Berkes-Demecser and the core Gva territory.

More relevant maps from Carlos: 
https://indo-european.eu/maps/

----------


## Hawk

Interesting to note, Draga Garasanin considered the so called Baierdorf-Velatice complex (possible candidate for Croatian E-V13) from Lower Austria and Northern Croatia to be related to the Mediana Group from Central Balkans. Well, in Beaierdorf-Velatice appears the Riegsee Sword along with some items which archaeologists believe the origin must be sought in Carpathian Mountains.




> ... above. It suggests that Period III was a turbulent time where traditional warriors and mercenaries could rise to the highest chie fl y positions, perhaps as part of social upheaval, or perhaps because warfare and warriors now allowed war leaders to take over chie fl y leadership. We see this new trend from Achaea in Greece to the Nordic realm. Suddenly fl ange-hilted warrior swords of Naue II type appear in rich graves with local prestige goods. All evidence linked to the expansion of the Naue II sword thus points to disruption and violence along the way. How can this be sub- stantiated archaeologically, and what was the scale of the violent events accompanying Naue II swords? Already during Period III from 1350/1300 to 1150/ 1100 BC we see that full-hilted swords are more often used in combat, just as some warrior burials in this period may contain the symbolic paraphernalia of ritual chiefs: razors and tweezers. The warriors are making claims to positions previously not open to them. The stable conditions of the ‘ golden ’ Period II had come to an end after 150 – 200 years of wealth expansion and consolidation of power for the ruling chie fl y elites. However, during Period III, 1300 – 1150 BC , a dramatic change took place in the supplies of bronze, probably during the 13th century BC (HaA1). The old network with southern Germany, which had secured a steady fl ow of metal for amber during most of the 15th and 14th centuries BC and provided opportunities for warriors and traders to travel both ways ( Fig. 4), was cut off due to warfare linked to social and religious reformation throughout eastern Central Europe. The archaeological evidence for this is twofold: the successor of the octagonal-hilted swords, the Riegsee full-hilted sword, never reached Denmark, but we suddenly fi nd a group of Riegsee swords in Slovakia, the new hub for contacts to the north (Fig. 8). We may interpret this as an attempt to forge new political alliances, but perhaps it is also a result of new east/west hostilities on a regional scale. At the same time we see a geographical expansion of hoarding (Fig. 8), which was an old ritual tradition in the Carpathians, but now also occurs in central Germany and former Yugoslavia, suggesting either the intrusion of new people from the Carpathian Basin and/or new hostilities. In the Nordic zone, and in the area of the former Tumulus Culture as well as in the Aegean, warrior burials continued and suggest the continuation of old social and ritual traditions (Sperber 1999). In southern Germany one of the central hubs of trade, Bernstorff, was heavily forti fi ed around 1340 BC and shortly after burned down and deserted. Bernstorff is the largest forti fi ed settlement in southern Germany/western Central Europe with a size of 14 ha. Its huge forti fi cations were constructed in the Middle Bronze Age (middle of the 14th century BC ), when the power balance between eastern and western Central Europe was changing, and shortly after it was devastated and burned down along 1.6 km of its length (Bähr et al. 2012). We will probably never know who the enemies were, but we might suspect them to be outsiders, because at the same time we fi nd evidence of major upheavals in eastern Central ...
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig8_284811960


One thing i do wonder, it's yet to be seen whether some archaeologically undetected influence happened in Glasinac Culture. Only aDNA can prove.

----------


## ihype02

I want to add that I am, now, totally opposed to LBA and EIA theory about E-V13 being spread similarly the way I2a was spread in the Early Dark Ages.
One LBA Thracian sample was already IA Thracian-like. Additionally IA Northern Illyrians and Peloponnesians seem to have preserved their Bronze Age genetic profile even after the LBA. If E-V13 was a major line in Thracians, and it clearly was, then it was present there before the LBA/EIA. As the genetic ethnogenesis of IA Balkanites was "finished" in Middle Bronze Age.

----------


## Riverman

> I want to add that I am, now, totally opposed to LBA and EIA theory about E-V13 being spread similarly the way I2a was spread in the Early Dark Ages.
> One LBA Thracian sample was already IA Thracian-like. Additionally IA Northern Illyrians and Peloponnesians seem to have preserved their Bronze Age genetic profile even after the LBA. If E-V13 was a major line in Thracians, and it clearly was, then it was present there before the LBA/EIA. As the genetic ethnogenesis of IA Balkanites was "finished" in Middle Bronze Age.


That will be proven wrong, because Thrace had before the Fluted Ware horizon a fairly diverse landscape, with possible Greek and Anatolian influences. You will see that already mixed E-V13 carriers came in, and further mixed with locals. We need the autosomal data from the Psenichevo samples, to be sure about those, but even if they would score like BGR_IA, what I kind of doubt, that they will be EXACTLY like it, that's no game changer after 500 years of local admixture. 

Look at the Iberian case, which is pretty similar to the Channelled Ware scenario: The Bell Beakers could be even majority wise local Iberians, they still carried R1b! You will see, some day, the same for the Balkans. They picked up a lot of local women, that's what they did.

----------


## Hawk

> That will be proven wrong, because Thrace had before the Fluted Ware horizon a fairly diverse landscape, with possible Greek and Anatolian influences. You will see that already mixed E-V13 carriers came in, and further mixed with locals. We need the autosomal data from the Psenichevo samples, to be sure about those, but even if they would score like BGR_IA, what I kind of doubt, that they will be EXACTLY like it, that's no game changer after 500 years of local admixture. 
> 
> Look at the Iberian case, which is pretty similar to the Channelled Ware scenario: The Bell Beakers could be even majority wise local Iberians, they still carried R1b! You will see, some day, the same for the Balkans. They picked up a lot of local women, that's what they did.


Balkanic IE is such a generic term, it's probably a wrap-up of similar EEF + Steppe ratios. If we check their regional EEF and Steppe we might have regional differences as well in a North/West/South/East within the range from Southern Central Europe down to Greece and from Slovenia in the West to Eastern Carpathians in the East.

In addition, there is no LBA Thracian autosomal available, even if it was, that's the timeline of inter-related movement, but there is no such sample yet available. 

Similar people were spread from inner Balkan Vatin-Belegis to Gava up North in Carpathian.

----------


## ihype02

> Balkanic IE is such a generic term, it's probably a wrap-up of similar EEF + Steppe ratios. If we check their regional EEF and Steppe we might have regional differences as well in a North/West/South/East within the range from Southern Central Europe down to Greece and from Slovenia in the West to Eastern Carpathians in the East.
> 
> In addition, there is no LBA Thracian autosomal available, even if it was, that's the timeline of inter-related movement, but there is no such sample yet available. 
> 
> Similar people were spread from inner Balkan Vatin-Belegis to Gava up North in Carpathian.


There is one LBA Thracian sample in an old PCA and the sample is very genetically similar to BGR_IA. I am sure I can find it.

----------


## Riverman

> There is one LBA Thracian sample in an old PCA and the sample is very genetically similar to BGR_IA. I am sure I can find it.


If I'm right the true Proto-Thracians being the more Eastern shifted HUN_LBA samples. However, some of them might be mixed with Fzesabony/Encrusted Pottery respectively and soon afterwards, in the available, non-ideal Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerians, we see a more Southern shift haven taken place - even in Hungary. Which might be, actually, even more representative of what Gva looked like. Irregular burials are always a problem, because you never know whether they are truly representative of the population which used a different rite.

----------


## ihype02

> Balkanic IE is such a generic term, it's probably a wrap-up of similar EEF + Steppe ratios. If we check their regional EEF and Steppe we might have regional differences as well in a North/West/South/East within the range from Southern Central Europe down to Greece and from Slovenia in the West to Eastern Carpathians in the East.
> 
> In addition, there is no LBA Thracian autosomal available, even if it was, that's the timeline of inter-related movement, but there is no such sample yet available. 
> 
> Similar people were spread from inner Balkan Vatin-Belegis to Gava up North in Carpathian.


Davidski:
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a *Bronze Age Bulgarian* clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/asUl7MkRUPGCiHyQUKUl0f_UWRcEQzxVOi8XiwnjiVo=w970-h631-no

Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-ancient-bulgarian-dna-with-semiconductor-based-sequencing.html



So *Bronze Age Bulgarians* weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VwWhxXrYo8Ent1scgWhVhhEsEfTFJbD589V0Wb8kM2U=w879-h631-no

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html?showComment=1440648670914#c22698557504 91498027

----------


## Hawk

> Davidski:
> Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a *Bronze Age Bulgarian* clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...
> 
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/asUl7MkRUPGCiHyQUKUl0f_UWRcEQzxVOi8XiwnjiVo=w970-h631-no
> 
> Source:
> 
> http://docslide.us/science/decoding-ancient-bulgarian-dna-with-semiconductor-based-sequencing.html
> 
> ...


That can be the E-M215 (he was probably downstream E-V13) sample from 10 years ago, he was Early Iron Age -> Late Iron Age, Davidski might have confused, there is no sample yet from Late Bronze Age Bulgaria. In fact Stamov was explicit in that he saw an increased EEF during Late to Early Iron Age. That's surprising and yet to see how.

Indeed, here is what Alberto wrote:




> @David
> 
> Thanks, that sample seems to be P192-1. I think that's a real Thracian sample, from the Iron Age (800-500 BC). It does seem to have a low amount of ANE (8-10%?), but the shift is clearly different from the Hungarian Bronze Age ones. The Hungarians seem to have Motala-like admixture, while this Thracian is shifted towards the Caucasus.
> 
> I hope they're resequencing the other Thracian samples too. They were too noisy to really know how they looked like.
> 
> https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html?showComment=1440648670914#c22698557504 %2091498027

----------


## Riverman

From a longer answer - here specifically about the Eastern Carpathian groups relevant for E-V13: 
Fzesabony is not identical with the whole Otomani horizon and came up by the intrusion from the North. What you have here is just the lineages which spread because of Epi-Corded groups, especially Koťany, possibly also from Nitra, entering Pannonia on a large scale. That formed the Fzesabony core, which will be just R1a. They might have been very influential, but they didn't replace all local groups. Also note, they didn't cremate! 

Out of the wider Otomani horizon, from a more local, less Epi-Corded influenced context, Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus and related groups (Cehalut, Igrita) grew out. That's where E-V13, those are the local people. They cremated and prevailed, which led to Gva. 

The main group of Fzesabony will just yield the same haplogroups like Koťany, the Epi-Corded neighbours from which the clans expanded from. 
You see, *you need to know the context of the finds*. Some months ago I didn't know it as well, but I simply check the background of all relevant samples and groups from the region. And if you know something about the background, things make much more sense than just assuming something. You just have to know what Fzesabony was, and that it was the result of an Epi-Corded infiltration of former Nyrsg territory, but with traces from early Otomani onwards of locals persisting. *And its these locals which matter. 
*

I wouldn't completey dismiss Fzesabony as totally unimportant, because linguistically it might be important, who knows, since Koťany in turn being largely a branch of the potentially Baltoslavic related Mierzanowice culture. This would explain the close affinity of Baltoslavic and Thracian, some propose. I don't think, at this point, that E-V13 got Indoeuropeanised that late, but, its nevertheless possible. 
However, culturally and genetically, you see that from the wider Otomani context, Berkes-Demecser/Suciu de Sus developed from the Eastern region. That's key. 

First the position of Nyrsg and to its North Koťany - Koťany expanded Southward, causing the creation of Fzesabony/Otomani: 


Second out of the generalised Otomani sphere, with more Eastern influences, the relevant groups, Berkesz (-Demecser), Suciu de Sus, Cehalut and Igrita, the key cultures for E-V13, formed: 


Piliny is a related group as well, but has stronger Tumulus culture influences than the Eastern ones (Berkesz-Demecser, Suciu de Sus etc.) which formed the Gva horizon later. The Fzesabony group clearly did not prevail on the long run, at least the Koťany introduced R1a clans, but the local East Carpathian elements took over, when the Otomani ended - which created these cultures and in the end Gva. The most likely source seems to be Nyrsg, which practised cremation in a similar way as later Berkesz-Suciu de Sus related groups and Gva into the historical Thracians and Dacians. 

The dynamic is absolutely key and the most important, most sticky signal is definitely cremation since the EBA, since Nyrsg - cremation burials, scattering of ashes: 



> Nyrsg and Sanislău are both characterised by cremation burials in urns which almost always occur singly or in small groups. Indications for burials where the ashes was scattered are as uncertain as the cultural attribution of two inhumation burials (due to the lack of decorated vessels. Kalicz 1984, 111; Dani 1997, 56f.).


http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version

Urnfield culture as a whole did receive a lot of impulses from this Eastern Carpathian sphere, which was, throughout the ages, a centre for the rite and associated religious beliefs. Fzesabony was an exception, because they were foreign clans in the area, coming ultimately from Poland. Because to the West, Tumulus culture did not cremate. North, Epi-Corded related formations, especially Mierzanowice didn't, to the East, steppe groups like Noua-Sabatinovka didn't cremate. The Eastern Carpathian zone was a centre and source for this rite and religion.

We would need samples from Nyrsg, Berkesz-Demecser, Suciu de Sus-Lăpuș, Cehalut and Igrita. Nyrsg seems to be pretty clear by now, because its the central source group - but it might contain more haplogroups, with a founder effect in the period from Otomani into Suciu de Sus being very likely. Developed Otomani is different from Suciu de Sus, note: 




> Genauer wurden besonders die Siedlungen undGrberfelder der Otomani-Kultur in den Ortschaften Otomani, Slacea (Bez.Bihor), Medieșu Pir, Tiream (Bez. Satu Mre), sowie die Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Medieșu Aurit, Culciu Mre, Culciu Mic untersucht.


https://www.degruyter.com/document/d...79.54.1.3/html

Look up where these places are. The centre of the culture was in Romania. Like between Satu Mare and Baia Mare. E.g.: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medie%C8%99u_Aurit

But always at the Upper Tisza and with related groups down to the Transtisza-Krs zone.

Gva had close relations with the Lusatians, so the link between the North <-> South did persist, since the formation of Fzesabony, in culture and trade, but bi-directional migration also. 

Both used a millet based diet, which spread from the Carpathian area to other zones of Europe. Probably it was rather pork, with the pigs being fed with millet on a large scale. In many Gva groups, millet seems to have been one of the primary grains: 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail

Just like in the Lusatians - and the warriors of Tollense. It was characteristic for the Eastern Urnfield groups (Lusatians, Kyjatice, Gva).

----------


## Hawk

> As such Bronze Age tells were not the first settlementmounds that occurred during the prehistory of theCarpathian Basin, but there was an earlier horizon of tellsettlement in the area that started – *south of the Danube andalong the Morava river – at the beginning of the MiddleNeolithic Vinča culture (Vinča A, c. 5400/5300 to 5200cal BC; Borić 2009: 234–236 fig. 47), and subsequentlyexpanded north along the Tisza river and its easterntributaries during the Late Neolithic Tisza culture, as wellas in the neighbouring Herpály and Csőszhalom groupsfrom broadly 5200/5000 to 4500 cal BC (Link 2006: 16*
> 
> fig. 8; Parkinson 2006: 57 fig. 4.4).5 Both horizons of tellsettlement are separated by a more dispersed settlementpattern during the local ‘Eneolithic’ or ‘Copper Age’, i.e.the Tiszapolgár, Bodrogkeresztúr and Baden sequence, aswell as during subsequent groups like Vučedol and Makó/Kosihy-Čaka (from c. 2800/2600 cal BC) which in localterminology constitute the beginnings of the Bronze Age.6
> 
> https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeo...506-sample.pdf


To me it sounds reasonable, and i would accept such scenario for E-V13, one thing that bugs me is that why E-V13 tree starts to split in Germany/Central Europe and not Carpathian-Balkan cline.

In addition of LBA/EIA expansion we didn't answer rafc EBA initial expansion question, though not nearly successful as the LBA/EIA. Is it real, if yes with what should we associate, everything beyond MBA is very tricky i guess. Only aDNA can answer.

----------


## Riverman

> To me it sounds reasonable, and i would accept such scenario for E-V13, one thing that bugs me is that why E-V13 tree starts to split in Germany/Central Europe and not Carpathian-Balkan cline.


I think there are primarily the following reasons: 
- A lot of the North Carpathian diversity being largely erased by subsequent migrations, the Slavs in particular. I think some E-V13 lineages did even profit from the Slavic expansion, but a lot of the diversity was erased in the migration period and Slavic expansion phase. 
- Testing bias might also play a major role, because the core zone of Gva/Channelled Ware with Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Hungary, North Western Romania and Transcarpathia, South-Eastern Poland is not exactly well tested. 
There are quite a few samples from there, but not many of them have tested BigY, practically none of them YFull. 




> In addition of LBA/EIA expansion we didn't answer rafc EBA initial expansion question, though not nearly successful as the LBA/EIA. Is it real, if yes with what should we associate, everything beyond MBA is very tricky i guess. Only aDNA can answer.


The most likely candidate for the EBA expansion is Nyrsg into Otomani-Wietenberg into Suciu de Sus. Suciu de Sus seems to have emerged from the very Eastern regional periphery of Otomani, close to Wietenberg. Like in between these two groups.

----------


## Hawk

Some Thracian helmets.









Snake motives



Makhaira sword.

----------


## Johane Derite

Both Trojans and Dardanians cremated their dead on a pyre according to the Iliad.
"Now they were sitting in assembly, Trojans and Dardanians alike, all gathered in one body waiting..."
"so in silence they heaped the corpses upon the pyre, their hearts sore stricken..."

----------


## Hawk

A very explicit article, by renowned Hungarian historian/archaeologist Gabor Vekony.




> The slow emergence of this culture is abruptly halted around 2000 B.C., when a new wave of migration once again transforms Transylvania's population: groups of shepherds from the Macedonian and Bulgarian highlands move into southeastern Carpathian region. Their settlements appear first in Oltenia (Coţofeni I culture), southwestern Transylvania (Karácsonfalva, Tărtăria-Alsó Tatárlaka); later, during the Early Bronze Age, they spread over the entire territory of Transylvania (Coţofeni II, Kolozskorpád I). Evidence of their settlement can be found virtually everywhere, from the highlands to alluvial grasslands, and often in mountain caves. They were the first in Transylvania to cremate the dead, although skeletons — often powdered in ochre — have been found in the lower levels of their early burial grounds; they may have borrowed the latter custom from their eastern neighbours (Folteşti II culture), although it is equally conceivable that they were preserving their own, essentially East European traditions. The environment and nature of their numerous, scattered dwellings, fit the lifestyle of a semi-nomadic shepherd population. Signs of rudimentary agriculture appear only at a later time, together with a change in the structure of their dwellings: there is evidence at Kolozskorpád that one of their later communities used wattle and daub over a log foundation or log floor.
> 
> In the period of the Coţofeni II-Kolozskorpád culture, shepherd tribes from beyond the Carpathians flooded into southeastern Transylvania. People of the Folteşti III-Zăbala culture spread from the Háromszék Basin (Zabola) and the Brassó area (Gesprengberg) to the middle reaches of the Maros (Vládháza, Nándor). Little is known of their settlements. Their dead were buried on their side, with their legs pulled up, sometimes in simple pits, at other times in stone chests covered by mounds of earth. Their spherical, two-handled vessels, tall, barrel-like amphorae, and ribbed coarse pots evoke not only the east, but also the west, where similar pieces have been found in the middle reaches of the Tisza River (Hatvan culture). Since these finds are sometimes mixed with those of the Coţofeni culture, it is possible that in some localities the two populations had merged.
> At the end of the 14th century B.C., the Carpathian Basin was invaded from the north by Central European tribes of shepherds. The invasion set off a chain reaction of migrations, and these destabilized — directly or indirectly — the economy of the Transylvanian goldsmiths, merchants, and warriors. Familiar trading routes were now overrun with strangers. When groups of the latter seek refuge in Transylvania, local people bury their valuables (Igenpataka, Déva, Somogyom). Moving along the Maros on the heels of the fleeing locals, people of the Tumulus (Hügelgraber) culture occupied the entire area of southern Transylvania, as attested by finds near Nagyszeben (Hermány), in the _Mezőség_ (Mezőbánd, Malomfalva), and even beyond the Hargita (Kézdiszentlélek). They, together with former inhabitants of the Great Hungarian Plain, settle also in southwestern Transylvania (Déva, Vajdahunyad). Some of the Wietenberg people withdrew to the mountains (their cave settlements date from this period), but most of them move northward. There, along the Szamos, in Máramaros and Ruthenia, they joined forces with people of the Gyulavarsánd culture resist the pressure of the Tumulus (Hügelgraber) people and {1-34.} others who had joined the latter. Elsewhere, communities were shattered into small remnants that survived in much-reduced material circumstances.Due to the turbulence and social disintegration, Transylvania at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age became easy prey for shepherds of the eastern steppes. There are no treasure finds to indicate the resulting movement of peoples, presumably because by then locals had little treasure left to conceal. The new occupiers, people of the Noua culture, reached Transylvania through the Carpathian mountain passes and spread as far as the middle reaches of the Szamos River in the north and the Érc Mountains in the west. Some followed the Szamos all the way to the eastern Great Plain, where they were absorbed into an already mixed population, the Berkesz-Demecser group.Little is known about the settlements of this cattle- and sheep- breeding people. Their dwellings were presumably similar to the light, wooden constructions they had erected in Moldavia. Burial grounds (Brassó, Keresztényfalva, Hermány, Tövis, etc.) reveal their dead lying on their side, legs drawn up, or the remains of cremation. Most of their simple, rib-decorated pots and two-handled jugs were produced by assimilated groups from Monteoru culture. Their three-edged bone arrowheads, triple-pierced bridle links made of bone, knobbed bronze pins, and sickles with hooked handles all evoke a distant eastern culture, that of Sabatinovka people, who lived between the Dnieper and Dniester rivers. These Protoeuropids (Alpine and Mediterranean anthropological types were also present in Transylvania) probably spoke Ancient Iranian, and thus settlement of the Noua people in Carpathian Basin represents the first appearance of Iranian groups in the region.It is noteworthy that most of the metal tools identified with the newcomers were found beyond their area of settlement, in the territory of the Felsőszőcs culture. The weapons and tools of the conquerors appear to have been produced by the Late Bronze Age {1-35.} descendants of the Wietenberg culture. The relationship between the two peoples was peculiarly symbiotic in some places: the tumuli of Oláhlápos contain objects from both the Felsőszőcs and the Noua cultures.Sometime around 1000 B.C., the inhabitants of Transylvania and the Szamos-Tisza region were driven to bury their accumulated treasures (Felőr, Domahida, Ópályi). It was, however, mainly the people of the Felsőszőcs culture who hid their valuables, as seen at Felőr and Domahida. To escape servitude, most of the Noua people fled eastward.The new conquerors, groups of people of the Gáva culture, occupied the Küküllő region (Medgyes), then the Olt valley (Réty), the _Mezőség_, and the Szamos region (Oláhlápos). Some of their dwellings were built of wood beams or on wooden foundations, others were oval or square, sunken huts with a central, plastered fireplace; some of their settlements were fortified. They bred mainly cattle but also kept many horses. Although many bronze sickles have been found, agriculture was not a major activity, and they obtained much of their meat by hunting.Their arrival sparked off a renaissance of bronze craft in the region of the Érc Mountains. Almost all of their implements, weapons, and jewellery was fashioned from bronze; huge stores of axes, sickles, swords, lances, belts, pins, and vessels have been unearthed at Ispánlaka, Felsőmarosújvár, Nagysink and Marosfelfalu (Cincu-Suseni 'horizon').*By the end of the Late Bronze Age, the people of the Gáva culture, who buried cremated remains in urns, and related groups had expanded their domain. Their settlements and burial places are found not only in Transylvania, but also in the Banat, in areas east of the Tisza, and, east of the Carpathians, in Galicia and Bessarabia (Holihrad and Kisinyov cultures). Some of their groups travelled across the wooded steppes as far as the Dnieper River. Judging from the material evidence, peoples who lived at this time south of {1-36.} the Carpathians, in Wallachia and northern Bulgaria, spoke a language related to that of the Gáva culture (Babadag and Pšeničevo cultures). This region is roughly contiguous with the subsequent settlement areas of the Dacians, Gaetians, and Mysians.*Between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the first mention of these peoples in ancient sources, there were no migrations significant enough to radically alter the composition of the population. It is therefore likely that the finds from the Gáva culture and related groups are the legacy of ancestors of Dacians, Gaetians and Mysians.* Their origins are clear: the indigenous communities of Middle Bronze Age people and conquerors bearing the Tumulus culture had coalesced by the end of the Late Bronze Age into a group of peoples speaking identical or related languages. The stability of this pattern is reinforced by the organizing skills of an equestrian group that arrived from the east in the middle of the Late Bronze Age. To be sure, the latter's rule was short-lived; well before the end of the Late Bronze Age, they were driven to hide their characteristic harness pieces and Caucasian axes — not only in Transylvania, but also in Transdanubia and in the region between the Drava and Sava rivers (Felsőmarosújvár, Ispánlaka, Karánsebes, Kőfarka). The first evidence of iron tools seems to coincide with their appearance in the region (Oláhlápos, Bogda, Babadag). There followed an extended period of peace in Transylvania; storehouses dating from the end of the Late Bronze Age (Mojgrád, Pusztatóti, etc.) reveal that blacksmiths produced mainly axes and sickles. Although such tools could be used in battle, their primary purpose was cultivation.*The peaceful life of miners and merchants was disrupted at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Once again, horsemen from Asia broke into the Danubian region and the Carpathian Basin. This culturally mixed group, given to much infighting, sowed chaos, devastating villages and depopulating entire regions. When the resulting waves of forced migration subside, small and, for the most part, {1-37.} culturally-mixed communities appear along the Danube (Balta Verde, Bosut, Dálya, Mezőcsát groups). On the territories of the Gáva culture and its related groups, new populations emerge. The majority of Transylvania's Late Bronze Age inhabitants thus left the region, most probably for destinations beyond the Carpathians. Their deserted villages were occupied by newcomers as well as by settlers from the Lower Danube and a smaller number of migrants southern Transdanubia.The people of the Basarab culture settled initially along the middle reaches of the Maros (Gyulafehérvár, Tărtăria- Alsó-Tatárlaka), and then throughout the Transylvanian Basin (Marosvásárhely, Maroscsapó, Kolozsmonostor). Their settlements in Transylvania, unlike those in Wallachia, were occupied for a considerable period of time, and many were fortified. They erected wattle and daub dwellings as well as some light, above-ground structures, and lived mainly off animal husbandry. A significant part of the population must have been involved in metalworking; significantly, finds in the border regions contain bronze objects that were seldom if ever used by Transylvanians, but which were commonly used in the surrounding areas (Marosportus, Alvinc, Vajdéj).The Basarabi culture was marked by advanced ironworking; iron objects include not only weapons and tools, but also a growing number of harness pieces and clothing accessories. The newcomers soon shed their former bronze objects; the earlier bronze bridle links and bits (Maroscsapó) soon give way to replicas made of iron (Maroscsapó, Maroskeresztúr). Their weapons — swords and "Scythian" daggers — often resemble the swords with open, ringed hilts of the Late Bronze Age (Aldoboly, Maroscsapó). Single-edged, curved daggers have also been unearthed, bearing T-shaped hilts similar to those found on the typical weapons of the neighbouring Balta Verde group (Miriszló, Borosbenedek).{1-38.} Although little has transpired about their ability to work gold, it is not unlikely that they produced many of the gold objects found in the Carpathians. A case in point is the ear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/9.html


I think that it's almost stamped that from Middle-Late Bronze Age E-V13 expanded with the Eastern/Carpathian Urnfield hemisphere or even general Urnfield but the core was in Eastern Urnfield. The problem we cannot solve still is what was it's ultimate Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age origin. Which group brought to Carpathians? Or did this mutation evolve there from the beginning of Neolithic times?

----------


## Riverman

> A very explicit article, by renowned Hungarian historian/archaeologist Gabor Vekony.
> I think that it's almost stamped that from Middle-Late Bronze Age E-V13 expanded with the Eastern/Carpathian Urnfield hemisphere or even general Urnfield but the core was in Eastern Urnfield. The problem we cannot solve still is what was it's ultimate Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age origin. Which group brought to Carpathians? Or did this mutation evolve there from the beginning of Neolithic times?


The Lengyel culture is a top candidate because we have E1b1b samples from it, and it persisted into the Copper Age in the region.
Another candidates are Tiszapolgar and even Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think its likely that from one of these groups E-V13 entered the Cotofeni horizon with its steppe and GAC influences (Foltesti). From there into Nyrsg is the most likely path.
This doesn't imply these cultures were dominated by E-V13 before. The founder series seems to have started between Cotofeni and Nyrsg imho.
By the way, both Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser had stronger Tumulus culture influences. But the local core was Suciu de Sus, with Berkesz being probably just Suciu de Sus with some more TC influences.

----------


## Hawk

> The Lengyel culture is a top candidate because we have E1b1b samples from it, and it persisted into the Copper Age in the region.
> Another candidates are Tiszapolgar and even Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think its likely that from one of these groups E-V13 entered the Cotofeni horizon with its steppe and GAC influences (Foltesti). From there into Ny�rs�g is the most likely path.
> This doesn't imply these cultures were dominated by E-V13 before. The founder series seems to have started between Cotofeni and Ny�rs�g imho.
> By the way, both Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser had stronger Tumulus culture influences. But the local core was Suciu de Sus, with Berkesz being probably just Suciu de Sus with some more TC influences.


Beyond Middle Bronze Age i wouldn't boldly make any statements because it's quite hard to guess.

It's funny because the Early Iron Age Psenicevo Culture is packed with E-V13 and it's up to come in Southern Arc paper (the leaks are clear, it's EIA- Early Iron Age not 500 B.C like someone wrongly stated, 500 B.C would fall somewhere in MIA- Middle Iron Age, and it has nothing to do with Western Adriatic hemisphere, this is completely different domain perse), and this culture is from various different authors (Serb archaeologists, Romanian and Hungarian) explicitely stated that it's a descended culture from Gava, and related to Babadag, Mediana, Paracin, Belegis-Gava II. Yet you see some obsessed people trying to find a needle in a haystack, ignoring the bigger picture intentionally for their own beneficial interpretation.  :Wink:

----------


## mount123

> Beyond Middle Bronze Age i wouldn't boldly make any statements because it's quite hard to guess.
> 
> It's funny because the Early Iron Age Psenicevo Culture is packed with E-V13 and it's up to come in Southern Arc paper *(the leaks are clear, it's EIA- Early Iron Age not 500 B.C like someone wrongly stated*, 500 B.C would fall somewhere in MIA- Middle Iron Age, and it has nothing to do with Western Adriatic hemisphere, this is completely different domain perse), and this culture is from various different authors (Serb archaeologists, Romanian and Hungarian) explicitely stated that it's a descended culture from Gava, and related to Babadag, Mediana, Paracin, Belegis-Gava II.* Yet you see some obsessed people trying to find a needle in a haystack, ignoring the bigger picture intentionally for their own beneficial interpretation.*


Basically mixing up the time frames and archeological contexts, as I have pointed out to that particular someone multiple times. Doing that intentionally is one thing, but when that individual is faced with his own proposals it distances itself from them, which in entirety makes the whole "argumentation" dubious. Of course the bigger picture needs to be ignored, otherwise such biased imagination would not add up. 

In another context, not that thread by the way, that particular someone is quite clear about his own beneficial interpretation and let me tell you something, ideas as such do not come from people with a healthy mind  :Lol:

----------


## Hawk

> Basically mixing up the time frames and archeological contexts, as I have pointed out to that particular someone multiple times. Doing that intentionally is one thing, but when that individual is faced with his own proposals it distances itself from them, which in entirety makes the whole "argumentation" dubious. Of course the bigger picture needs to be ignored, otherwise such biased imagination would not add up. 
> 
> In another context, not that thread by the way, that particular someone is quite clear about his own beneficial interpretation and let me tell you something, ideas as such do not come from people with a healthy mind


Sometimes i wonder myself whether i am totally wrong or something, but that's not the case. It's impossible for various of these academic people to come up with a complot to make these cultures as different as possible, it's simply that they interpret as they see it. Psenichevo is classified as one of the Eastern Urnfield-Hallstatt sites. I also don't think those leaks are made up. We already have a 10 year old sample from Svilengrad E-M215, again from irregular burial pit, and quite like downstream E-V13. I already expressed that starting from Vatin-Belegis, Grla-Mara, Dubovac-Zuto-Brdo up north to Gava similar brother cultures lived in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age, to which one E-V13 was the more dominant is up to interpretation. And in Early Bronze Age from where did it migrate is again up to interpretation,, nobody really knows. Perhaps they came from South Balkans during Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, who knows. Perhaps they were the Vinca-Turdas people retreating North/East of Tisza after the Yamnaya destructions. But, only aDNA can prove it since archaeologically those MBA sites don't show continuation.

----------


## Riverman

> Sometimes i wonder myself whether i am totally wrong or something, but that's not the case. It's impossible for various of these academic people to come up with a complot to make these cultures as different as possible, it's simply that they interpret as they see it. Psenichevo is classified as one of the Eastern Urnfield-Hallstatt sites. I also don't think those leaks are made up. We already have a 10 year old sample from Svilengrad E-M215, again from irregular burial pit, and quite like downstream E-V13. I already expressed that starting from Vatin-Belegis, Grla-Mara, Dubovac-Zuto-Brdo up north to Gava similar brother cultures lived in Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age, to which one E-V13 was the more dominant is up to interpretation. And in Early Bronze Age from where did it migrate is again up to interpretation,, nobody really knows. Perhaps they came from South Balkans during Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, who knows. Perhaps they were the Vinca-Turdas people retreating North/East of Tisza after the Yamnaya destructions. But, only aDNA can prove it since archaeologically those MBA sites don't show continuation.


Its somewhat superficial, but it sums it up for Psenichevo: 




> In this regard, the most concrete evidence is the presence of
> the so-called *knobbed ware* in layer VIIB2 at Troy
> (Koppenhfer 2002), which is identical to the *Early
> Iron Age pottery from the east Balkans and is more
> conveniently known as the Babadağ or Psenichevo group*. Surface survey in Thrace has
> revealed hundreds of sites, all of which are rather small and hamlet-like, containing this
> type of pottery, with the easternmost site actually located within the city of İstanbul
> (Fıratlı 1973). The pottery of this period (figure 29.4), besides occasionally having *horn-
> like projections, is characterized by cord-impressed, incised, and fluted decoration, with
> ...


Note that the Slavs settled the same way. This is after the conquest period and the knobbed-horn like, black burnished ceramic is typical for Gva! Channelled Ware covered most of Bulgaria, but very little of Anatolia: 




> It is also noteworthy that this type of pottery, *so abundant all over Thrace
> and Bulgaria, is virtually absent elsewhere in Anatolia. The only exceptions to this are
> Troy and the small island of Avşa in the Sea of Marmara*.
> Accordingly, it seems that if any
> group moved from the Balkans to Anatolia, it must have done so prior to the beginning of
> the Early Iron Age.





> The Middle Iron Age sees the formation of Thracian culture. The cord-decorated knobbed
> ware gave way to coarse surfaced wares. Presently, no settlement sites are known, but
> numerous tumuli and sanctuaries have been recorded. Of these, the only sanctuary to
> have been excavated is at Aşağı Pınar (M. zdoğan 2008b), where numerous sacrificial
> and votive pits have been discovered within a precinct encircled by a deep ditch. The
> invasion of the region from Persia seems to have put an end to this phase and to the
> prehistoric cultures.


https://www.docdroid.net/3VvoxrE/101...29-pdf#page=17

Therefore, we have a direct continuation in all Thracian areas from Channelled Ware into the historical Dacians and Thracians. Even the Thyni and Bithyni are likely regional founder effects from incoming Channelled Ware people - but likely with little genetic impact in Anatolia. Whereever Channelled Ware was dominant, later Thracian-related cultures emerge.

----------


## Riverman

I looked into the Sarmatian, Avar and early Hungarian period samples from a more statistical perspetives, just roughly, but still. The numbers are very small, but from the recent paper: 

E-V13 frequencies
Transtisza Sarmatian era, 3rd-5th century: *25 % total, 50 % regional* (2 Sarmatian, 1 TC/Celtic, 1 E-V13)
Transtisza Avar era, 6th-9th century: *16,66 % total, 100 % regional* (4 Avar, 1 Avar/Sarmatian, 1 E-V13)

Source: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...422002677#mmc1

We can also use the samples from this paper and list, which were not all Transtisza, but for convenience I lumped them all together, because the focus is on the East of Hungary: 
173 samples in total from the Avar and Hungarian period, very roughly grouped: 
C 4
D 1
E-V13 24
E-V22 2
E other 1
G 9
I1 12
I2 10
J1 2
J2a 9
J2b 3
N1a 25
Q1a 10
Q other 2
R1a 32
R1b 21
R-U106 4
T1a 1
172

E-V13 24
E-V22 2
E other 1
G 9
I1 12
I2 other 2
I-Y3120 8
J1 2
J2a 9
J2b 3
R1a 32
R1b other 3
R-U106 5
R-P312 12
R-Z2103 5
T1a 1
130

Source: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post828196

For simplicity I simply removed 
- the clearly East Asian samples first, which brings us to 130 samples: *European ethnicities, E-V13 = 18,46 % (minimum!)*
- if removing the mostly Germanic I1 + R-U106, Slavic-Sarmatian R1a and I2, we end up at 73 samles: *Regional E-V13 = 32,88 % (minimum!)*
One third! Even if one might question this or that sample as regional or not, well, give or take, the rough estimate won't change. More than one third being E-V13 in the regional composition. And that's the lowest estimate, because if looking at some of the haplogroups, they are more likely to have come from Roman provinces later, surely after the Middle Iron Age. 

In the regional group, R1b and E-V13 being totally dominant, followed by G and J2a. Interestingly, J2a was also found in Kyjatice and one of the samples, with a largely Slavic autosomal profile, is in the branch of the Kyjatice BR2 sample. R1b is diverse, but clearly dominant are branches related to Tumulus culture into Middle Danubian Urnfielders and La Tene Celts, but there is also some R-Z2103 and upstream/undefined branches. 

Therefore, the biggest regional lineage is E-V13 in Avar-Early Hungarian Eastern Hungary, with 1/3 in total of the regionals. 2nd come the Tumulus culture R1b, just as expected, but at a distance. 

There is no way that these numbers can come from any sort of "Romans" or "Illyrians". The very idea is ridiculous. Actually, if truly removing all non-regional lineages, sorting out everything associated with more recent steppe arrivals, Germanics and Slavs, E-V13 would be far above 30 percent. The Roman influence is there, mainly in the form of lineages which are exotic to the region. 

Also interesting: The ratio of E-V13 : J-L283: Again, impossible that such a skewed ratio could ever have come from Illyrians, which, even if some got E-V13 by the Iron Age, won't ever reach such frequencies to have worked as a source. Because the Tumulus culture R1b is not from them, the E-V22 and other exotic lineages aren't, which means a nearly 100 % E-V13 Illyrian or "Roman" colony in the midst of Sarmatian-Free Dacian territory would have been needed, which is an blatantly absurd idea to begin with. 

Everybody is free to add more data, but please with sources which can be checked and labels. We should concentrate on the Transtisza region, because there any Roman other than very miniscule Daco-Roman contact can't be the main issue, not at all. Typically, the Roman settled Western Pannonian areas have a completely different make up. 

We got a lot of E-V13, even a Kyjatice J2a sample, and Tumulus culture/Celtic R1b as major regional players for the pre-migration period Eastern Pannonian sphere, just like expected from the background of the region. J-L283 is practically non-existent in this samples, R-Z2103 is though, even if just on a very low level. I generally think that R-Z2103 will be closer in space and origin to E-V13 than J-L283 will. Kind of the middle man in the Balkans in particular.

----------


## Hawk

I have double checked inter-related cultures, like Babadag Culture, it's amazing how consistent the similar cultural spheres are, once upon a time the burial pits where Psenicevo E-V13 were found were thought to be the burial practice of these people, and the burials indicated that these people were quite poor cultures/people, but it was quite wrong, these were irregular burials, ritual burial pits, probably very new for these people, some kind of new religious ideas, these were Eastern Hallstatt/Urnfield sphere and their primary burial rite was cremation on a pyre which unfortunately we cannot get the results but considering modern diversity and percentage no doubt that the E-V13 in burial pits were religious sacrifices from their own kind.

Most of the time Psenicevo-Babadag are included inseparable because of their similarity. Babadag should be the ancestral or inter-related in turn with Bassarabi Culture.

There should have been Western Channeled-Ware formations as well, the Gava was recorded in Northern Croatia, Slavonia as well. We have hints they were present in Dardania and even deep in Albania. The Bardyllis dynasty name Peresadyes is interesting, since it indicates a link with Enchelei/Sessarethi and Taulanti and in turn deep connections with Odrysians where similar names were being used, especially among Spartokid dynasty where one king was named Peresadyes as well.

It's very hard to guess the ultimate source though, since yoy have the old Szeremle group coming down from North being pushed by Tumulus warriors, old Vatina-Belegis layer and the new incoming Gava. But considering the rise of E-V13 during this period it does mimick the rise of Gava and probably inter-related Channeled-Ware people, but Gava shouldn't be the only source. I expect Vatina and Cruceni-Belegis along Zuto Brdo/Dubovac/Grla Mara to contain E-V13 as well. These were in deeper times similar hemispheres. Also, to me, it's interesting how Gava, Cruceni-Belegis, Vatin show some similarity with Proto-Villanovans. It makes me wonder whether splinter groups of these Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere were in close contacts with Proto-Villanovans.

----------


## Riverman

> I have double checked inter-related cultures, like Babadag Culture, it's amazing how consistent the similar cultural spheres are, once upon a time the burial pits where Psenicevo E-V13 were found were thought to be the burial practice of these people, and the burials indicated that these people were quite poor cultures/people, but it was quite wrong, these were irregular burials, ritual burial pits, probably very new for these people, some kind of new religious ideas, these were Eastern Hallstatt/Urnfield sphere and their primary burial rite was cremation on a pyre which unfortunately we cannot get the results but considering modern diversity and percentage no doubt that the E-V13 in burial pits were religious sacrifices from their own kind.
> 
> Most of the time Psenicevo-Babadag are included inseparable because of their similarity. Babadag should be the ancestral or inter-related in turn with Bassarabi Culture.
> 
> There should have been Western Channeled-Ware formations as well, the Gava was recorded in Northern Croatia, Slavonia as well. We have hints they were present in Dardania and even deep in Albania. The Bardyllis dynasty name Peresadyes is interesting, since it indicates a link with Enchelei/Sessarethi and Taulanti and in turn deep connections with Odrysians where similar names were being used, especially among Spartokid dynasty where one king was named Peresadyes as well.
> 
> It's very hard to guess the ultimate source though, since yoy have the old Szeremle group coming down from North being pushed by Tumulus warriors, old Vatina-Belegis layer and the new incoming Gava. But considering the rise of E-V13 during this period it does mimick the rise of Gava and probably inter-related Channeled-Ware people, but Gava shouldn't be the only source. I expect Vatina and Cruceni-Belegis along Zuto Brdo/Dubovac/Grla Mara to contain E-V13 as well. These were in deeper times similar hemispheres. Also, to me, it's interesting how Gava, Cruceni-Belegis, Vatin show some similarity with Proto-Villanovans. It makes me wonder whether splinter groups of these Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere were in close contacts with Proto-Villanovans.


I think the burial pits are sacrifices or even delinquents, or something else along these lines. Most of the non-cremation burials appear to be some sort of irregularity. Ritual pits are a common feature throughout Channelled Ware, already in beginning Gva. That bodies being thrown into them is more rare, but it had to have a special meaning, probably a rather negative one for the individuals concerned. 
Like which people don't get a proper burial, in any culture? Think about it. 

As for the South West of Channelled Ware in the Balkans, Belegis II-Gva into Gornea-Kalakaca into Bosut-Basarabi. The bad thing is, that there were foreign influences in these later groups of Kalakaca and Bosut-Basarabi, which could mean a change in patrilineages as well. But the good thing is, some of them largely buried their dead, used inhumation and abstained from cremation for some generations. This is good, because they can be tested on a larger scale. 

I have read about some finds in a ditch and some proper burials from Romania and Serbia, and some might even have been send to the labs. I don't really know, but what the author wrote sounded like it. So there is a small chance for getting actual regulars, from a largely related culture. Even if Bosut-Basarabi had foreign influences, I would really wonder if the Channelled Ware element wasn't dominant among them. Therefore I would really wonder, if they have no E-V13 in a larger sample. 

And interesting aspect is that Suciu de Sus, one of the absolutely central formations for the debate, had very diverging influences from all directions. Including from as far as the Aegean, Thrace and Serbian Danube areas. So already Belegis I and Vatin might have had some sort of relation with them as well. 
But at the base of Suciu de Sus I still see rather local Nyirseg elements which survived in Eastern Fzesabony borderzones, which just kept stronger ties to their relatives South.

----------


## Hawk

The burial pits are most likely human sacrifices.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...GICAL_EVIDENCE

In fact, these burial pits are one of the material culture phenomenon which connects Dacians with Thracians.

----------


## Riverman

> The burial pits are most likely human sacrifices.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...GICAL_EVIDENCE
> 
> In fact, these burial pits are one of the material culture phenomenon which connects Dacians with Thracians.


Yes, like there were other offerings in the ritual pits as well. But sometimes sacrifices and the other aspects overlapped, like prisoners of war or delinquents getting sacrificed. And ritual pits, not necessarily for human sacrifices, appear already in Gva. 
There is something else in common, also between Thracians and Eastern Hallstatt, especially the heavily Basarabi influenced Frg group, which is that (usually one of the) wifes of elite leaders was being killed at his burial. This being also noted by historical accounts. Might have been an Iranian custom originally though, not sure about that.

Edit: Its in the text also: 



> AncientauthorsundoubtedlyattestedThraciansperforminghuman
> sacrifices: the ritual death of the messenger to Zalmoxis, the story of King
> iegylis sacrificing two Greeks; the custom according to which the favourite
> wife accompanied her husband in death48. The examples, already numerous, of
> human sacrifices in pit-sanctuaries seem to support the ancient written sources
> andposemanynewquestionsabouttheinterpretationofthatauthentic
> archaeological evidence.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail

Its part of the reason why I think, that beside many other material which points to Thraco-Cimmerian connections and Basarabi contacts, Frg might be "different" especially in comparison to the more Illyrian neighbours to the South or more Celtic ones to the West. At least heavily influenced by Thracians, with proven migration from Basarabi.

----------


## Hawk

The burial pits with human sacrifices usually lasted until Early Iron Age mostly. It was a phenomenon of the Urnfield Culture, since this phenomenon happened in Bohemia as well, and for the Late Bronze Age timeline archaeologists usually scope it down as a specific Central European habit of the time.

----------


## Riverman

> The burial pits with human sacrifices usually lasted until Early Iron Age mostly. It was a phenomenon of the Urnfield Culture, since this phenomenon happened in Bohemia as well, and for the Late Bronze Age timeline archaeologists usually scope it down as a specific Central European habit of the time.


Knoviz is different though, because they had way more sites and showed direct evidence for cannibalism. That's something we don't have from Eastern Urnfield, and in Gva too sites for human sacrifices seem to rather rare. Seems it increased in situ, in the Southern Thracian groups for whatever reasons.

----------


## Riverman

E-V13 from Avar-Hungarian paper: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post828196

Official G25 coordinates: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post856597

I picked up most of the Avar samples for E-V13 and added the early Sarmatian to the sample: 



```
HUN_Sarmatian_Early_Transtisza:I20802,0.119514,0.133034,0.038089,0.013889,0.016926,0,0.002115,-0.003923,-0.001023,0.005467,0.001137,0.007343,-0.004608,-0.005092,-0.005836,-0.003315,0.00678,0.00152,0.007416,-0.009505,-0.004243,0.003339,0.006039,0.001687,-0.006347
HUN_early_Avar:SZK102,0.1161,0.156392,0.000754,-0.050065,0.024312,-0.016733,0.003995,-0.002308,0.008999,0.036265,0.002273,0.005845,-0.014717,-0.006193,-0.020222,0.007027,0.026598,-0.000127,0.005782,0.003502,-0.002995,0.004699,0,-0.000241,-0.005389
HUN_early_Avar:SZOD1829,0.133173,0.142174,0.034695,0.02261,0.037853,0.008088,0.003995,0.009923,0.001636,-0.000729,0.000325,-0.002398,-0.000743,0.00055,0.005022,0.005701,0.002086,0.005194,-0.004777,-5e-04,-0.000499,-0.00136,0.004314,0.006386,0.005868
HUN_middle_Avar:SZK83,0.125205,0.149283,0.006411,-0.026163,0.021235,-0.011435,-0.000235,0.000692,0.00859,0.024784,-0.000162,0.01154,-0.011596,-0.005918,-0.006107,-0.006497,0.00339,0.003927,0.008296,-0.01113,-0.000998,0.005564,-0.007272,0.008435,0.00455
HUN_middle_Avar:SZM259,0.1161,0.122879,0.014331,-0.02907,0.022466,-0.006414,-0.003525,0.002308,-0.002045,0.028247,-0.00065,0.003597,-0.009366,-0.000963,-0.012079,-0.005171,0.008084,0,0.002263,-0.002126,-0.000374,-0.000742,0.003328,-0.003494,-0.002515
HUN_middle_Avar:SSD144,0.122929,0.139128,0.026398,-0.013566,0.026774,-0.004462,0.00235,-0.004615,-0.003477,0.013121,-0.003735,-0.001349,-0.003419,0.000138,-0.008007,-0.006099,0.007693,0.002787,0.006913,-0.001876,-0.002745,0.001113,0.007148,-0.00012,-0.003832
HUN_middlelate_Avar:ALT442,0.125205,0.136081,0.039975,0.004845,0.032006,-0.001673,0.00376,0.003692,-0.002045,0.002187,0.001786,0.004346,0,-0.000413,-0.007329,-0.006364,0.000782,0.001774,0.010559,-0.005628,-0.007112,0.005812,0.005423,0.002169,-0.001078
HUN_late_Avar:SZKT311,0.118376,0.14319,0.011314,-0.014535,0.01908,0.001952,0.002115,0.006692,-0.004295,0.015672,-0.000974,0.001499,-0.002973,0.004404,-0.012215,-0.005436,-0.003781,-0.002027,0.008799,-0.004877,0.006489,0.003339,-0.001356,-0.00494,0.001676
HUN_late_Avar:SZKT70,0.117238,0.113739,0.029038,0.007106,0.01508,0.006693,0.00329,0.001154,0,-0.00164,-0.005196,0.006894,-0.0055,0.00812,-0.011808,-0.010607,-0.011213,0.006588,0.012067,-0.004877,-0.007112,0.005441,-0.001972,0.004579,-0.004191
HUN_late_Avar:SZKT265,0.125205,0.145221,0.021119,-0.016473,0.025235,-0.010319,0.00094,-0.002077,0.001023,0.024602,0.000162,0.003297,-0.010406,0.006881,-0.015336,-0.001724,0.005476,0.001394,-0.001508,-0.003877,-0.010981,0.00643,0.00037,-0.002892,-0.007903
HUN_late_Avar:SZK130,0.117238,0.128972,0.015085,-0.008721,0.017542,-0.009482,0.001175,0.002077,-0.006749,0.00656,0.002923,0.002398,-0.006392,0.01101,-0.014115,-0.00053,-0.006128,0.004054,0.009176,-0.003877,-0.010107,-0.003957,0.001602,0.00241,-0.001557
HUN_late_Avar:KK1252,0.117238,0.152329,0.000754,-0.036822,0.028621,-0.005299,-0.00282,-0.007384,0.001023,0.038634,0.004709,0.010641,-0.020367,0.006744,-0.016558,0.002784,0.016428,0.003294,0.006536,-0.000625,-0.000374,-0.000866,0.007888,0.006989,-0.001078
HUN_late_Avar:KK1541,0.10927,0.156392,0.004903,-0.027132,0.019388,-0.013387,-0.00047,0.002308,0.000818,0.017677,-0.002923,0.000599,-0.005203,0.005643,-0.013572,0.00305,0.002477,-0.004561,0.001885,-0.002626,-0.003619,0.005564,0.003081,0.004338,-0.007903
HUN_late_Avar:PV12,0.113823,0.076165,0.025267,-0.002584,0.017542,-0.006972,0.005405,-0.005769,-0.001023,0.011663,0.00065,0.005095,-0.007433,-0.00055,-0.010858,0.001989,0.010561,0.005068,0.003394,0.003502,-0.006114,0.001978,-0.01023,-0.000964,0.002395
HUN_late_Avar:TMH199,0.133173,0.128972,0.063356,0.042636,0.038776,0.008367,0.00376,0.004615,0.011862,0.004738,-0.007307,0.006444,-0.002081,0.005092,0.016151,0.010872,0.001173,0.003547,-0.001257,-0.002876,0.005241,-0.004204,0.002095,0.006507,-0.002994
HUN_late_Avar:OBT51,0.092197,-0.023357,0.024513,-0.001292,-0.016311,-0.010319,0.00893,0.008307,-0.004909,0.008018,-0.009906,0.001349,-0.005352,0.000138,0.002036,-0.004641,0.001565,-0.003421,0.00993,0.002126,-0.002745,0.002102,-0.003451,-0.004458,-0.004071
HUN_late_Avar:OBT106,0.087644,-0.072103,0.028284,-0.006783,-0.018773,-0.014223,0.00799,0.003692,0.000614,-0.003098,-0.024845,-0.003747,0.002527,-0.009634,-0.008958,0.009149,0.007041,-0.002154,0.00352,0.005628,-0.003119,-0.005317,0.000246,0.004458,0.000958
HUN_late_Avar:ALT369,0.1161,0.116786,0.034695,0.012597,0.022158,-0.000279,0.01034,0.008307,0.0045,0.002734,0.006658,-0.002698,-0.002379,0.007019,-0.016558,0.004641,0.011735,-0.004307,0.00817,0.00025,-0.002246,0.003957,-0.006902,-0.000964,0.005149
```

I created a model for these samples: 


```
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213,0.127482,0.149283,0.0445,0.01615,0.040931,0.004183,0.002585,-0.002538,0.01084,0.018041,-0.000974,0.008243,-0.004014,0.002202,-0.007193,-0.00769,-0.013951,0.005701,0.007165,-0.006753,-0.003868,0.000618,-0.008997,-0.014701,0.005748
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239,0.12862,0.14319,0.049026,-0.001938,0.047701,0,0.004465,0.000462,0.01309,0.018953,0.006171,0.007493,-0.007582,-0.00234,-0.007057,0.001989,0.007693,0.00114,-0.004274,-5e-04,0.001622,0.004328,-0.005793,-0.010001,0.003952
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245,0.133173,0.149283,0.05506,0.026486,0.044931,0.006972,0.011986,0.009,0.01268,0.006743,0.001949,-0.000749,-0.003865,0.003165,-0.004207,0.006099,0.005607,0.002534,0.002137,-0.001126,0.002246,-0.004451,0.000986,-0.005181,-0.010897
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246,0.119514,0.149283,0.056945,0.013243,0.047393,0.005578,0.001175,0.003231,0.01309,0.014397,0.002761,0.002398,-0.004906,0.006744,-0.005836,-0.004243,-0.001304,-0.007095,0.005656,-0.000375,-0.009234,0.009521,0.003574,-0.013616,0.003233
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20749,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096,0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I1504,0.125205,0.15436,0.060716,0.033592,0.061242,0.008646,0.00423,0.007615,0.014317,0.007836,-0.004547,-0.006594,0.001041,0.007432,-0.002579,-0.001591,0.010952,-0.002027,0.008547,0.004752,0.004617,0.005317,0.003081,-0.013134,0.000239
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20751,0.126344,0.142174,0.059962,0.032946,0.051394,0.009482,0.00517,0.003461,0.016157,0.020046,-0.007307,-0.000599,-0.001784,-0.003303,-0.006786,0.018297,0.014603,0.006968,0.004274,0.002626,-0.001497,0.001484,-0.004437,-0.00012,-0.002515
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20771,0.133173,0.135065,0.061094,0.046512,0.050779,0.016455,0.002585,0.003461,0.010226,0.007472,-0.00065,-0.01109,-0.002676,0.001651,-0.007736,0.017237,0.024773,-0.009755,-0.005154,0.013256,0.00549,0.001237,0.000246,-0.014098,-0.005149
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20773,0.132035,0.146236,0.064488,0.035207,0.056318,0.01004,0.013631,0.001154,0.018203,0.018953,0.00406,-0.002997,0.003122,-0.003991,0.00285,0.024264,0.004694,0.010515,-0.002765,-0.000875,-0.01984,0.007419,-0.014543,-0.012291,-0.002994
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I25505,0.130897,0.147252,0.064488,0.033592,0.045855,-0.000279,0.003995,0.004154,0.015544,0.01057,-0.007145,0.01169,-0.00223,0.005367,0.001764,-0.012066,-0.008996,0.005828,0.010307,-0.005253,0.004617,0.008285,0.002465,-0.015062,-0.004071
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134,0.1161,0.054839,0.037335,0.057817,-0.033852,0.031236,0.00846,0.000231,-0.037223,-0.043554,0.001786,-0.005245,0.000149,-0.026974,0.02348,0.004508,-0.014473,-0.002154,-0.004777,-0.001126,-0.008859,0.01422,0.003697,0.008314,0.005029
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA136,0.113823,0.039606,0.039221,0.061047,-0.028005,0.020638,-0.007755,0.002077,-0.023111,-0.033349,-0.005521,0.006145,-0.004906,-0.03358,0.021308,0.030496,-0.002738,0.003927,-0.007793,0.009379,-0.010232,0.019166,-0.008011,0.003133,0.003592
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA139,0.104717,0.051792,0.02753,0.047481,-0.021235,0.015897,0.00094,-0.009461,-0.032724,-0.03262,-0.002111,-0.003597,-0.009217,-0.017478,0.015879,0.009149,0.01343,-0.012669,-0.003897,0.007754,-0.012728,-0.004699,-0.005546,0.009519,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA141,0.112685,0.039606,0.033564,0.073967,-0.031083,0.031236,0.00658,0.005538,-0.032928,-0.030616,-0.003085,-0.005245,-0.010406,-0.026974,0.018322,0.020021,0.000652,0.000507,-0.001383,-0.005878,-0.003369,0.000866,0.009367,0.014098,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA143,0.112685,0.054839,0.039598,0.07429,-0.033852,0.030678,0.00094,0.007384,-0.021066,-0.039545,-0.002761,-0.000899,-0.006838,-0.021056,0.019815,0.008221,-0.011735,-0.004814,-0.011187,5e-04,-0.005116,0.000866,0.002711,-0.005302,-0.000239
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA144,0.10927,0.043668,0.032432,0.076874,-0.022158,0.030678,-0.00893,0.000231,-0.032724,-0.03991,-0.011367,-0.009591,0.010704,-0.02491,0.019679,0.004641,-0.001434,0.001014,0.00088,-0.000375,-0.023583,-0.001113,-0.001356,0.010122,0.011376
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16099,0.126344,0.145221,0.064111,0.021641,0.044931,0.010319,0.001175,0.003692,0.015544,0.015855,-0.00341,0.009292,-0.017393,-0.007982,0.00095,0.023999,0.002347,0.005954,-0.001508,0,0.005615,0.004946,-0.008874,-0.01699,-0.005389
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16100,0.129758,0.133034,0.061094,0.050065,0.046778,0.016733,0,0.005077,0.008385,-0.002187,-0.005359,0.001798,-0.007284,-0.005505,0.004343,-0.002784,0.002738,-0.003674,-0.001508,-0.005503,0.008735,0.005935,-0.002342,-0.007953,0.002036
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16111,0.126344,0.145221,0.053551,0.033269,0.045547,0.01004,0.007755,0.006,0.001227,0.018953,0.005846,0.004196,-0.008176,-0.004266,0.006107,-0.013657,-0.02725,-0.001394,-0.001885,-0.001,0.000125,-0.001607,-0.012078,-0.002048,-0.005987
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16112,0.130897,0.142174,0.054305,0.022287,0.047393,0.009203,-0.00047,0.007154,0.002045,0.019499,-0.006008,0.001948,-0.018731,-0.014863,-0.005157,0.001591,-0.005737,-0.000887,-0.000126,-0.001126,-0.003619,-0.005688,-0.005423,-0.007591,-0.002994
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0.0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561,0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Dai,0.0156507,-0.438709,-0.046763,-0.0609662,0.1201762,0.0622622,0.00047,-0.0073845,-0.0189698,-0.013121,0.0109208,0.0020232,-0.000446,-0.006193,0.0012895,0.0045742,0.0061282,-0.0009502,-0.0043368,-0.011662,0.0121972,0.0090268,0.0149438,0.002892,0.007095
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-0.0024966,-0.003735,0.001109,-0.0091576,-0.0038398,0.0161643,-0.0008352,-0.0133511,0.0032684,0.0041354,0.0040271,0.0060019,0.0037342,-0.0007273,0.011146,-0.0004429
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_North_IA:VK418,0.125205,0.132019,0.070144,0.064277,0.040315,0.019522,0.00423,0.013846,0.007567,-0.007107,-0.001786,-0.002847,-0.011001,-0.001514,0.031487,-0.005967,-0.029858,-0.0019,0.00352,0.003001,0.010606,0.000371,0,0.003012,-0.000838
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK391,0.12862,0.141159,0.080327,0.062662,0.047701,0.022311,0.012691,0.011076,-0.003068,-0.015672,-0.012666,-0.004496,-0.002081,-0.007707,0.019679,0.0118,0.004303,0.003547,-0.006159,0.001,0.006988,-0.002597,-0.010723,0.014098,0.011017
CZE_Early_Slav,0.12862,0.129988,0.068259,0.046835,0.02739,0.013387,0.007285,0.014076,-0.001841,-0.018406,-0.000812,-0.004346,0.003717,0.007156,-0.010993,-0.003182,0.011604,-0.002027,-0.002388,-0.004752,0.005615,0.000618,0.001725,-0.000964,-0.006706
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany,0.12862,0.1376045,0.0705215,0.034238,0.0481625,0.004044,0.0019975,0.001385,0.018509,0.019955,-0.012017,-0.0052455,-0.00944,0.0006195,0.0095685,-0.0013255,-0.005998,0.001774,0.0048395,0.0080665,0.001061,0.0019785,-0.0006165,-0.005422,-0.0034725
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I24342,0.127482,0.138112,0.041483,0.009367,0.038776,-0.006414,-0.002115,0.001385,0.015544,0.023144,0.004384,0.012289,-0.018285,-0.011285,0.0095,0.001724,-0.001043,0.002154,0.001383,0,0.006738,0.005193,-0.00493,-0.001807,-0.001557
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26726,0.121791,0.144205,0.032432,-0.012274,0.026466,-0.000279,-0.006815,-0.001154,0.005931,0.030069,0.008444,0.006145,-0.029137,0.001789,-0.000814,-0.017634,-0.01369,-0.000633,0.014078,-0.010505,-0.004617,0.004575,0.002342,0.004458,-0.001317
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26773,0.122929,0.144205,0.045254,0.004199,0.023697,-0.006414,-0.006815,-0.005538,0.006136,0.026242,0.002273,0.01169,-0.021853,-0.015414,0.005836,-0.001458,0.007041,0.009375,0.004274,-0.006128,-0.012228,0.003091,-0.00419,0.005543,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26774,0.12862,0.149283,0.039221,0.002907,0.033852,0.000279,-0.00282,0.008538,0.008385,0.026242,-0.000812,0.01094,-0.016353,-0.000826,0.001764,-0.006364,-0.002086,0.00076,0.007668,-0.004502,0.000374,0.011994,-0.003821,0.004097,-0.003952
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26893,0.129758,0.149283,0.041106,0.013889,0.02739,0.002789,0.00188,0.002077,0.004909,0.023144,-0.007957,0.010491,-0.024975,-0.014588,0.001764,0.005569,0.021383,0.001394,0.006536,0.001876,-0.002995,0.004946,0.002465,0.005302,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4331,0.12862,0.151314,0.028284,-0.007429,0.038776,-0.006972,-0.00705,-0.006,0.003681,0.028064,0.006171,0.010341,-0.017542,-0.003578,-0.0076,0.006497,0.008084,-0.003041,0.006159,-0.011631,-0.005865,-0.001113,-0.00037,0.003856,-0.001197
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4332,0.120652,0.147252,0.034318,-0.012274,0.038469,0.002231,-0.00423,0.001154,0.009613,0.032074,-0.006008,0.01094,-0.012487,-0.014726,-0.005972,0.01074,0.02047,-0.00114,0.000754,-0.011005,-0.001248,0.008656,-0.00419,0.002048,-0.002395
South_Thrace_local:BGR_IA:I5769,0.126344,0.157407,0.007165,-0.051034,0.029852,-0.02259,0.00423,-0.001385,0.007772,0.032074,-0.001461,0.005695,-0.013974,-0.003028,-0.015065,-0.001458,0.01369,0.006968,0.006285,-0.014757,-0.006239,0.004699,-0.007888,0.003494,-0.008861
GRC_Mycenaean:I9006,0.119514,0.160454,-0.006788,-0.068476,0.014464,-0.03514,-0.003055,-0.006923,-0.002863,0.050115,0.004384,0.015137,-0.009366,0.00289,-0.019815,-0.005304,0.024643,0.007601,0.020992,-0.000375,-0.007487,-0.012365,-0.010969,-0.000602,-0.001796
GRC_Mycenaean:I9010,0.110408,0.160454,-0.015462,-0.071383,0.029544,-0.038487,-0.003525,0.004154,0.013499,0.056129,0.018025,0.017235,-0.00223,-0.00234,-0.023208,-0.005038,0.031553,0.003421,0.005908,-0.004002,-0.006613,0.003215,-0.016145,-0.007109,-0.003113
GRC_Mycenaean:I9033,0.091058,0.150298,-0.004148,-0.050388,0.022773,-0.013387,0.007285,-0.006692,0.003068,0.041003,-0.003573,0.019333,-0.020218,0.005505,-0.006515,-0.026518,0.00678,-0.003167,0.012193,-0.008629,-0.002995,-0.006306,-0.000616,0.005904,0.006945
GRC_Mycenaean:I9041,0.110408,0.15436,-0.006034,-0.068476,0.020004,-0.021475,-0.00282,0.000923,0.007976,0.042097,0.003248,0.016036,-0.019326,-0.008533,-0.016015,-0.002387,0.021122,0.006588,0.010182,-0.002876,-0.006364,0.016199,0.001356,0.006386,-0.00491
Levant_LBN_Roman,0.0887823,0.1447132,-0.0554368,-0.085595,-0.0116175,-0.0282378,-0.0074612,-0.0076152,0.0076698,0.0121642,0.0031262,-0.01139,0.0130822,-0.0017893,-0.0105862,0.0093475,0.002673,-0.0006652,0.0025138,0.0022512,0.000655,0.0059042,-0.0035742,0.0001205,-0.005299
Berber_Tunisia_Chen,-0.0279499,0.1390711,-0.0080871,-0.0764792,0.0277316,-0.0352023,-0.0313867,0.0052818,0.0684246,0.0297957,0.0040057,-0.0043877,0.0196314,-0.0161248,0.0140923,-0.0169052,0.0001521,-0.0232896,-0.0467247,0.0078579,-0.0168314,-0.0404275,0.0281347,-0.0044517,0.0063666
TUR_Ottoman,0.079107,-0.0741335,0.01829,-0.0075905,-0.043085,-0.0133865,0.0029375,0.000808,-0.010124,-0.012119,-0.00885,-0.0063695,-0.0057235,-0.0088075,0.0052255,0,0.007758,0.000887,-0.0018855,-0.000375,-0.0089845,-0.0004325,-0.0096135,-0.001747,0.0003595
ITA_Rome_Imperial,0.1039821,0.1495156,-0.0235307,-0.0574065,0.0045265,-0.0204055,-0.0011946,-0.0051488,0.0006604,0.0196549,0.0034575,0.0025539,-0.0040602,-0.0014737,-0.0081715,-0.0014474,0.0035992,0.000454,0.0012178,-0.0032854,-0.0025579,0.0020454,-0.0006985,-0.0004845,0.0004141
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA,0.0970122,0.1472908,-0.0604988,-0.090117,-0.0156477,-0.0341748,0.0015728,-0.0050412,-0.00306,0.0125111,0.006408,-0.0047555,0.0086109,0.004912,-0.0113588,0.0070272,-0.0005767,0.0018711,0.0047668,-0.002535,0.0021548,0.0038048,-0.0040007,-0.0040968,0.0005988
```

That's the result for model 1 without the Sarmatian era samples: 


https://ibb.co/8bqKXQj

All but one, even though I did overfitting with a multitude of sources, did pick up Channelled Ware-related ancestry. 

If adding the Sarmatian era samples, those begin to dominate: 



https://ibb.co/6vj2ZDd

But even then Channelled Ware related ancestry being picked up in all but 4!

The two almost fully Avar East Asian samples, which being phenotypically classified as Mongoloid in the paper, are very clear in this model too. They can be modelled with Turkic + (one quarter) Channelled Ware.

----------


## Riverman

I added AV2 to the Slavic source, because its the closest we got: 



```
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181013,0.129758,0.103584,0.037335,0.036176,0.001846,0.014223,0.005405,0.004615,-0.018203,-0.012392,0.002273,0.002847,-0.000446,-0.006881,-0.008007,-0.007823,0.019688,0.010642,0.005028,-0.003126,-0.015473,0.000989,0.001356,0.00735,-0.003712
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181014,0.126344,0.12491,0.039598,0.026486,0.025851,0.008925,0.00329,0.006461,-0.001227,0.000729,-0.007145,0.009292,-0.008622,-0.002615,0.000679,-0.011138,-0.008475,0.000887,0.004022,-0.000625,-0.001747,0.002226,-0.002218,0.000361,-0.002275
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181015,0.119514,0.100537,0.031301,0.030362,0.008309,0.008925,-0.00423,-0.001846,-0.007772,-0.000364,0.001624,0,-0.006838,-0.002752,0.002579,-0.009149,-0.009648,-0.001014,0.005405,-0.003502,-0.00836,-0.006677,0.00456,-0.005302,-0.010658
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181016,0.122929,0.101553,0.038843,0.034238,0.005232,-0.000837,0.011045,-0.003,-0.00859,0.003462,0.001461,-3e-04,0.004608,-0.010046,0.008279,-0.004641,-0.015646,-0.009628,0.008422,0.003001,-0.001622,-0.005193,0.006162,-0.006025,-0.004311
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181017,0.126344,0.110693,0.041483,0.038437,0.022466,0.013387,0.001175,0.004615,-0.004295,-0.001458,-0.005359,0.005545,-0.007879,-0.011698,-0.002036,0.003182,0.00339,0.001394,-0.000628,0.003627,-0.005241,0.000124,0.001849,0.00964,-0.00455
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181018,0.135449,0.125926,0.069013,0.060401,0.041854,0.021475,0.00705,0.013846,-0.000614,-0.01221,0.000162,0.003447,-0.005649,-0.002615,0.012486,0.017634,0.008214,0.0019,0.009679,0.007253,0.006114,0.002597,0.000123,0.013737,0.010298
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181019,0.129758,0.12491,0.044877,0.02261,0.020311,0.004462,-0.00423,0.003923,-0.001227,0.001276,-0.009256,0.010641,-0.009068,-0.001651,0.006107,-0.001458,0.008345,0.006841,0.003142,-0.005503,0.000374,-0.000124,-0.000493,-0.006386,0.000359
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza:A181020,0.126344,0.128972,0.039598,0.030362,0.031083,0.008088,-0.000235,-0.000692,0.005931,0.003827,0.008769,3e-04,-0.003717,-0.005505,-0.010179,-0.006232,0.001434,0.00152,0.010684,-0.003627,-0.006239,-0.007419,0.009983,0.005663,-0.005628
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181021,0.135449,0.146236,0.051666,0.01615,0.041238,0.007809,0.00047,0.004615,0.005113,0.00492,0.000162,0.003747,-0.006838,0.008945,-0.002986,-0.010607,-0.009127,0.002027,0.004525,0.001126,0.001497,0.00371,0.007025,-0.001687,0.001676
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181022,0.122929,0.140143,0.036204,0.015181,0.029852,0.000279,0.00752,0.009923,-0.001432,0.00656,0.002111,0.010041,-0.012042,-0.000138,-0.006922,0,0.009388,-0.000507,0.002011,-0.005002,0.000749,0.003586,0.003204,-0.010122,-0.008023
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181023,0.125205,0.119832,0.048271,0.044251,0.025851,0.020359,0.003525,0.003461,-0.001432,-0.00164,-0.003085,-0.002398,-0.000892,-0.001651,0.012351,0.005038,-0.003651,-0.00266,0.004274,5e-04,0.000624,-0.000618,-0.001725,0.006025,-0.002275
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181024,0.124067,0.133034,0.038089,0.002907,0.026774,0,0.000235,0.003461,0.000409,0.012939,0.001624,0.006294,-0.005203,-0.001239,-0.014251,-0.004508,0.013038,-0.00152,0.006159,-0.007128,-0.002371,0.002968,-0.005176,0.002169,-0.001197
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181025,0.130897,0.132019,0.036958,0.018734,0.037238,0.00502,0.001175,0.001846,0.005931,0.00492,0,0.004646,-0.008771,0,-0.001629,0.000265,0.005085,-0.003547,0.005531,-0.004127,-0.003494,0.001237,0.008381,0.002289,-0.005508
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181026,0.133173,0.13405,0.053551,0.014858,0.036622,0.00753,0.00376,0.005077,0.001636,0.009294,0.001949,0.008542,-0.010555,0.006193,-0.004343,-0.006629,-0.013169,0.004307,0.009679,-0.003752,-0.012728,-0.002226,0.006162,0.003976,0.001437
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181027,0.120652,0.146236,0.02225,-0.013889,0.031698,-0.010598,0.00282,0.003231,0.003886,0.025513,-0.001299,0.004346,-0.018583,-0.008808,-0.011808,0.009546,0.026598,-0.003294,-0.002891,-0.002626,-0.006114,0.002226,0.002835,0.007109,-0.010298
HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Transtisza:A181028,0.133173,0.11577,0.049403,0.024548,0.032929,0.004183,0.003055,0.002077,0.004295,0.001458,-0.003735,0.002098,-0.007284,-0.009771,0.000814,0.012729,0.008866,0.000887,0.007542,0.003627,-0.012353,-0.004575,-0.007888,0.004097,-0.006227
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213,0.127482,0.149283,0.0445,0.01615,0.040931,0.004183,0.002585,-0.002538,0.01084,0.018041,-0.000974,0.008243,-0.004014,0.002202,-0.007193,-0.00769,-0.013951,0.005701,0.007165,-0.006753,-0.003868,0.000618,-0.008997,-0.014701,0.005748
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239,0.12862,0.14319,0.049026,-0.001938,0.047701,0,0.004465,0.000462,0.01309,0.018953,0.006171,0.007493,-0.007582,-0.00234,-0.007057,0.001989,0.007693,0.00114,-0.004274,-5e-04,0.001622,0.004328,-0.005793,-0.010001,0.003952
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245,0.133173,0.149283,0.05506,0.026486,0.044931,0.006972,0.011986,0.009,0.01268,0.006743,0.001949,-0.000749,-0.003865,0.003165,-0.004207,0.006099,0.005607,0.002534,0.002137,-0.001126,0.002246,-0.004451,0.000986,-0.005181,-0.010897
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246,0.119514,0.149283,0.056945,0.013243,0.047393,0.005578,0.001175,0.003231,0.01309,0.014397,0.002761,0.002398,-0.004906,0.006744,-0.005836,-0.004243,-0.001304,-0.007095,0.005656,-0.000375,-0.009234,0.009521,0.003574,-0.013616,0.003233
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20749,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096,0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I1504,0.125205,0.15436,0.060716,0.033592,0.061242,0.008646,0.00423,0.007615,0.014317,0.007836,-0.004547,-0.006594,0.001041,0.007432,-0.002579,-0.001591,0.010952,-0.002027,0.008547,0.004752,0.004617,0.005317,0.003081,-0.013134,0.000239
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20751,0.126344,0.142174,0.059962,0.032946,0.051394,0.009482,0.00517,0.003461,0.016157,0.020046,-0.007307,-0.000599,-0.001784,-0.003303,-0.006786,0.018297,0.014603,0.006968,0.004274,0.002626,-0.001497,0.001484,-0.004437,-0.00012,-0.002515
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20771,0.133173,0.135065,0.061094,0.046512,0.050779,0.016455,0.002585,0.003461,0.010226,0.007472,-0.00065,-0.01109,-0.002676,0.001651,-0.007736,0.017237,0.024773,-0.009755,-0.005154,0.013256,0.00549,0.001237,0.000246,-0.014098,-0.005149
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20773,0.132035,0.146236,0.064488,0.035207,0.056318,0.01004,0.013631,0.001154,0.018203,0.018953,0.00406,-0.002997,0.003122,-0.003991,0.00285,0.024264,0.004694,0.010515,-0.002765,-0.000875,-0.01984,0.007419,-0.014543,-0.012291,-0.002994
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I25505,0.130897,0.147252,0.064488,0.033592,0.045855,-0.000279,0.003995,0.004154,0.015544,0.01057,-0.007145,0.01169,-0.00223,0.005367,0.001764,-0.012066,-0.008996,0.005828,0.010307,-0.005253,0.004617,0.008285,0.002465,-0.015062,-0.004071
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134,0.1161,0.054839,0.037335,0.057817,-0.033852,0.031236,0.00846,0.000231,-0.037223,-0.043554,0.001786,-0.005245,0.000149,-0.026974,0.02348,0.004508,-0.014473,-0.002154,-0.004777,-0.001126,-0.008859,0.01422,0.003697,0.008314,0.005029
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA136,0.113823,0.039606,0.039221,0.061047,-0.028005,0.020638,-0.007755,0.002077,-0.023111,-0.033349,-0.005521,0.006145,-0.004906,-0.03358,0.021308,0.030496,-0.002738,0.003927,-0.007793,0.009379,-0.010232,0.019166,-0.008011,0.003133,0.003592
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA139,0.104717,0.051792,0.02753,0.047481,-0.021235,0.015897,0.00094,-0.009461,-0.032724,-0.03262,-0.002111,-0.003597,-0.009217,-0.017478,0.015879,0.009149,0.01343,-0.012669,-0.003897,0.007754,-0.012728,-0.004699,-0.005546,0.009519,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA141,0.112685,0.039606,0.033564,0.073967,-0.031083,0.031236,0.00658,0.005538,-0.032928,-0.030616,-0.003085,-0.005245,-0.010406,-0.026974,0.018322,0.020021,0.000652,0.000507,-0.001383,-0.005878,-0.003369,0.000866,0.009367,0.014098,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA143,0.112685,0.054839,0.039598,0.07429,-0.033852,0.030678,0.00094,0.007384,-0.021066,-0.039545,-0.002761,-0.000899,-0.006838,-0.021056,0.019815,0.008221,-0.011735,-0.004814,-0.011187,5e-04,-0.005116,0.000866,0.002711,-0.005302,-0.000239
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA144,0.10927,0.043668,0.032432,0.076874,-0.022158,0.030678,-0.00893,0.000231,-0.032724,-0.03991,-0.011367,-0.009591,0.010704,-0.02491,0.019679,0.004641,-0.001434,0.001014,0.00088,-0.000375,-0.023583,-0.001113,-0.001356,0.010122,0.011376
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16099,0.126344,0.145221,0.064111,0.021641,0.044931,0.010319,0.001175,0.003692,0.015544,0.015855,-0.00341,0.009292,-0.017393,-0.007982,0.00095,0.023999,0.002347,0.005954,-0.001508,0,0.005615,0.004946,-0.008874,-0.01699,-0.005389
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16100,0.129758,0.133034,0.061094,0.050065,0.046778,0.016733,0,0.005077,0.008385,-0.002187,-0.005359,0.001798,-0.007284,-0.005505,0.004343,-0.002784,0.002738,-0.003674,-0.001508,-0.005503,0.008735,0.005935,-0.002342,-0.007953,0.002036
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16111,0.126344,0.145221,0.053551,0.033269,0.045547,0.01004,0.007755,0.006,0.001227,0.018953,0.005846,0.004196,-0.008176,-0.004266,0.006107,-0.013657,-0.02725,-0.001394,-0.001885,-0.001,0.000125,-0.001607,-0.012078,-0.002048,-0.005987
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16112,0.130897,0.142174,0.054305,0.022287,0.047393,0.009203,-0.00047,0.007154,0.002045,0.019499,-0.006008,0.001948,-0.018731,-0.014863,-0.005157,0.001591,-0.005737,-0.000887,-0.000126,-0.001126,-0.003619,-0.005688,-0.005423,-0.007591,-0.002994
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0.0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561,0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Dai,0.0156507,-0.438709,-0.046763,-0.0609662,0.1201762,0.0622622,0.00047,-0.0073845,-0.0189698,-0.013121,0.0109208,0.0020232,-0.000446,-0.006193,0.0012895,0.0045742,0.0061282,-0.0009502,-0.0043368,-0.011662,0.0121972,0.0090268,0.0149438,0.002892,0.007095
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-0.0024966,-0.003735,0.001109,-0.0091576,-0.0038398,0.0161643,-0.0008352,-0.0133511,0.0032684,0.0041354,0.0040271,0.0060019,0.0037342,-0.0007273,0.011146,-0.0004429
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_North_IA:VK418,0.125205,0.132019,0.070144,0.064277,0.040315,0.019522,0.00423,0.013846,0.007567,-0.007107,-0.001786,-0.002847,-0.011001,-0.001514,0.031487,-0.005967,-0.029858,-0.0019,0.00352,0.003001,0.010606,0.000371,0,0.003012,-0.000838
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK391,0.12862,0.141159,0.080327,0.062662,0.047701,0.022311,0.012691,0.011076,-0.003068,-0.015672,-0.012666,-0.004496,-0.002081,-0.007707,0.019679,0.0118,0.004303,0.003547,-0.006159,0.001,0.006988,-0.002597,-0.010723,0.014098,0.011017
Slavic:CZE_Early_Slav,0.12862,0.129988,0.068259,0.046835,0.02739,0.013387,0.007285,0.014076,-0.001841,-0.018406,-0.000812,-0.004346,0.003717,0.007156,-0.010993,-0.003182,0.011604,-0.002027,-0.002388,-0.004752,0.005615,0.000618,0.001725,-0.000964,-0.006706
Slavic:HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2,0.134311,0.126941,0.081458,0.065569,0.035391,0.033746,0.00987,0.005769,0.004704,-0.02278,-0.002436,-0.005395,0.01219,0.020643,-0.015201,-0.003845,0.005867,0.004561,0.008673,5e-04,0.001497,-0.00272,0.013804,-0.007109,0.002634
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany,0.12862,0.1376045,0.0705215,0.034238,0.0481625,0.004044,0.0019975,0.001385,0.018509,0.019955,-0.012017,-0.0052455,-0.00944,0.0006195,0.0095685,-0.0013255,-0.005998,0.001774,0.0048395,0.0080665,0.001061,0.0019785,-0.0006165,-0.005422,-0.0034725
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I24342,0.127482,0.138112,0.041483,0.009367,0.038776,-0.006414,-0.002115,0.001385,0.015544,0.023144,0.004384,0.012289,-0.018285,-0.011285,0.0095,0.001724,-0.001043,0.002154,0.001383,0,0.006738,0.005193,-0.00493,-0.001807,-0.001557
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26726,0.121791,0.144205,0.032432,-0.012274,0.026466,-0.000279,-0.006815,-0.001154,0.005931,0.030069,0.008444,0.006145,-0.029137,0.001789,-0.000814,-0.017634,-0.01369,-0.000633,0.014078,-0.010505,-0.004617,0.004575,0.002342,0.004458,-0.001317
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26773,0.122929,0.144205,0.045254,0.004199,0.023697,-0.006414,-0.006815,-0.005538,0.006136,0.026242,0.002273,0.01169,-0.021853,-0.015414,0.005836,-0.001458,0.007041,0.009375,0.004274,-0.006128,-0.012228,0.003091,-0.00419,0.005543,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26774,0.12862,0.149283,0.039221,0.002907,0.033852,0.000279,-0.00282,0.008538,0.008385,0.026242,-0.000812,0.01094,-0.016353,-0.000826,0.001764,-0.006364,-0.002086,0.00076,0.007668,-0.004502,0.000374,0.011994,-0.003821,0.004097,-0.003952
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26893,0.129758,0.149283,0.041106,0.013889,0.02739,0.002789,0.00188,0.002077,0.004909,0.023144,-0.007957,0.010491,-0.024975,-0.014588,0.001764,0.005569,0.021383,0.001394,0.006536,0.001876,-0.002995,0.004946,0.002465,0.005302,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4331,0.12862,0.151314,0.028284,-0.007429,0.038776,-0.006972,-0.00705,-0.006,0.003681,0.028064,0.006171,0.010341,-0.017542,-0.003578,-0.0076,0.006497,0.008084,-0.003041,0.006159,-0.011631,-0.005865,-0.001113,-0.00037,0.003856,-0.001197
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4332,0.120652,0.147252,0.034318,-0.012274,0.038469,0.002231,-0.00423,0.001154,0.009613,0.032074,-0.006008,0.01094,-0.012487,-0.014726,-0.005972,0.01074,0.02047,-0.00114,0.000754,-0.011005,-0.001248,0.008656,-0.00419,0.002048,-0.002395
South_Thrace_local:BGR_IA:I5769,0.126344,0.157407,0.007165,-0.051034,0.029852,-0.02259,0.00423,-0.001385,0.007772,0.032074,-0.001461,0.005695,-0.013974,-0.003028,-0.015065,-0.001458,0.01369,0.006968,0.006285,-0.014757,-0.006239,0.004699,-0.007888,0.003494,-0.008861
GRC_Mycenaean:I9006,0.119514,0.160454,-0.006788,-0.068476,0.014464,-0.03514,-0.003055,-0.006923,-0.002863,0.050115,0.004384,0.015137,-0.009366,0.00289,-0.019815,-0.005304,0.024643,0.007601,0.020992,-0.000375,-0.007487,-0.012365,-0.010969,-0.000602,-0.001796
GRC_Mycenaean:I9010,0.110408,0.160454,-0.015462,-0.071383,0.029544,-0.038487,-0.003525,0.004154,0.013499,0.056129,0.018025,0.017235,-0.00223,-0.00234,-0.023208,-0.005038,0.031553,0.003421,0.005908,-0.004002,-0.006613,0.003215,-0.016145,-0.007109,-0.003113
GRC_Mycenaean:I9033,0.091058,0.150298,-0.004148,-0.050388,0.022773,-0.013387,0.007285,-0.006692,0.003068,0.041003,-0.003573,0.019333,-0.020218,0.005505,-0.006515,-0.026518,0.00678,-0.003167,0.012193,-0.008629,-0.002995,-0.006306,-0.000616,0.005904,0.006945
GRC_Mycenaean:I9041,0.110408,0.15436,-0.006034,-0.068476,0.020004,-0.021475,-0.00282,0.000923,0.007976,0.042097,0.003248,0.016036,-0.019326,-0.008533,-0.016015,-0.002387,0.021122,0.006588,0.010182,-0.002876,-0.006364,0.016199,0.001356,0.006386,-0.00491
Levant_LBN_Roman,0.0887823,0.1447132,-0.0554368,-0.085595,-0.0116175,-0.0282378,-0.0074612,-0.0076152,0.0076698,0.0121642,0.0031262,-0.01139,0.0130822,-0.0017893,-0.0105862,0.0093475,0.002673,-0.0006652,0.0025138,0.0022512,0.000655,0.0059042,-0.0035742,0.0001205,-0.005299
Berber_Tunisia_Chen,-0.0279499,0.1390711,-0.0080871,-0.0764792,0.0277316,-0.0352023,-0.0313867,0.0052818,0.0684246,0.0297957,0.0040057,-0.0043877,0.0196314,-0.0161248,0.0140923,-0.0169052,0.0001521,-0.0232896,-0.0467247,0.0078579,-0.0168314,-0.0404275,0.0281347,-0.0044517,0.0063666
TUR_Ottoman,0.079107,-0.0741335,0.01829,-0.0075905,-0.043085,-0.0133865,0.0029375,0.000808,-0.010124,-0.012119,-0.00885,-0.0063695,-0.0057235,-0.0088075,0.0052255,0,0.007758,0.000887,-0.0018855,-0.000375,-0.0089845,-0.0004325,-0.0096135,-0.001747,0.0003595
ITA_Rome_Imperial,0.1039821,0.1495156,-0.0235307,-0.0574065,0.0045265,-0.0204055,-0.0011946,-0.0051488,0.0006604,0.0196549,0.0034575,0.0025539,-0.0040602,-0.0014737,-0.0081715,-0.0014474,0.0035992,0.000454,0.0012178,-0.0032854,-0.0025579,0.0020454,-0.0006985,-0.0004845,0.0004141
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA,0.0970122,0.1472908,-0.0604988,-0.090117,-0.0156477,-0.0341748,0.0015728,-0.0050412,-0.00306,0.0125111,0.006408,-0.0047555,0.0086109,0.004912,-0.0113588,0.0070272,-0.0005767,0.0018711,0.0047668,-0.002535,0.0021548,0.0038048,-0.0040007,-0.0040968,0.0005988
```

This changes things somewhat: 



https://ibb.co/Y3H5fp8

The most striking result is for AV1, the Slavic mixed individual. It can be modelled fully with Slavic plus Channelled Ware/Sarmatian era Transtisza ancestry! He could be Slavic-Dacian by ancestry.

Also nice to see how the quarter Germanic samples stick out (2).

If adding ADC 0,5, this is what remains in the sample - very clearly dominated by Sarmatian Transtisza ancestry! 



https://ibb.co/k34m4xM

So that's the biggest constant here, the Sarmatian era Transtisza ancestry.

----------


## enter_tain

I'm wondering more and more if EV-13 was largely spread by Imperial Romans. For example in Western Europe it's definitely largely due to Romans. I'm glad we saw it in the Western Balkans in antiquity to shut some dumb theories on this forum, but there really seems to be a temporal problem with EV-13.

Ultimately, I don't think all EV-13 comes from one source. But the fact that it's so widespread all over Europe it's neither due to Albanians nor "Dacians" that cover all of Eastern Europe according to some here.

----------


## Riverman

> I'm wondering more and more if EV-13 was largely spread by Imperial Romans. For example in Western Europe it's definitely largely due to Romans.


There is no growth in the Roman era and very little to no overlap of the branches for that time frame. Most of the TMRCAs date to a much earlier period, which points to founder effects and expansions in the Late Bronze and pre-Roman Iron Age. So the only thing which could have happened in Roman era is some sort of redistribution of some lineages, of which most show no Southern/Balkan overlap however. 




> I'm glad we saw it in the Western Balkans in antiquity to shut some dumb theories on this forum, but there really seems to be a temporal problem with EV-13.


The question was never whether e.g. Croatia had E-V13 by the Roman era, in fact, by the Roman era regions like France and England should have had some (minor) E-V13 as well. But where E-V13 was in the MBA-LBA primarily and in the earlier Iron Age secondarily. If it would be found in larger numbers and diversity in MBA Croatia, that would be big. 




> Ultimately, I don't think all EV-13 comes from one source.


It has to come from one source about 4.800 years ago: 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/

And we can see when the major clades came up, had massive founder effects and spread: The main period of expansion was in the Late Bronze to Middle Iron Age, largely ending with the Roman era.

This has to be associated with one ethnic group and dispersion, most likely Proto-Thracian and Channelled Ware. But even if that would be wrong, there should be an alternative. However, there is none left big enough to account for that pattern anyway and all the evidence points towards Channelled Ware/Gva or at least Belegis II-Gva being the source. 




> But the fact that it's so widespread all over Europe it's neither due to Albanians nor "Dacians" that cover all of Eastern Europe according to some here.


Dacians will be a big part, but just one part of the bigger picture, because by the time fo the Thacians, there had been movements outside of the Thracian sphere and there were a lot of E-V13 carriers in Southern Thracians and presumably Greeks as well. Also Illyrians had picked it up, by then, especially those with closer ties to Channelled Ware peopel in the LBA-EIA.

----------


## enter_tain

> There is no growth in the Roman era and very little to no overlap of the branches for that time frame. Most of the TMRCAs date to a much earlier period, which points to founder effects and expansions in the Late Bronze and pre-Roman Iron Age. So the only thing which could have happened in Roman era is some sort of redistribution of some lineages, of which most show no Southern/Balkan overlap however. 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was never whether e.g. Croatia had E-V13 by the Roman era, in fact, by the Roman era regions like France and England should have had some (minor) E-V13 as well. But where E-V13 was in the MBA-LBA primarily and in the earlier Iron Age secondarily. If it would be found in larger numbers and diversity in MBA Croatia, that would be big. 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to come from one source about 4.800 years ago: 
> ...


You have 0 samples that show EV-13 in Thracians and Dacians. And when I say same source I'm not talking about TMRCA, but the latter branches in antiquity. Obviously everything goes back to 1 with all Y-DNA by definition.

----------


## Riverman

In Antiquity? Of course many people had E-V13 by then, but Romans played a minor role in its dispersal and originally it was coming from Eastern Urnfielders, the Proto-Thracians.

----------


## Hawk

The chronology presented in this 2022 paper is awesome.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ht_of_new_data

The importance of Belegis-Gava II into the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age is evident.

There was indeed a Balkan-Carpathian sphere which used kanellure method. In Brnjica kanellure was occassionally used before Belegis-Gava II and this influence was made by Vatin Cultural Complex.

Channeled decorations were used by Cotofeni/Wietenberg group in Transylvania.

South Albania and Epirus did saw influence from these people where flame shaped spears, Reutlingen sword appears. No wonder during Iron Age the Enchelei at the same site used cremation on a pyre on top of a low tumuli as burial site.

I think that the connection of E-V13 and Belegis-Gava II is uncanny. 

Core Gava, Vatin and Brnjica and probably Mycenae should be proven.

----------


## Hawk

I would expect earliest E-V13 to be found within Cotofeni context, something Usatovo/Cotofeni. Then Wietenberg-Ottomany and finally Gava and wider Kanellure affected cultures.

This should make sense based on the data we have so far.

----------


## Riverman

> I would expect earliest E-V13 to be found within Cotofeni context, something Usatovo/Cotofeni. Then Wietenberg-Ottomany and finally Gava and wider Kanellure affected cultures.
> 
> This should make sense based on the data we have so far.



Cotofeni is indeed highly likely, considering the strong local contribution in this steppified group and how they persisted when Yamnaya invaded. They were just never broken. But I think from there on its rather Mak-Livezile into Nyirseg and then it gets tricky, into early, Eastern Otomani or Wietenberg, yes. 
Suciu de Sus shows interesting parallels with Southern groups as well as with Nyirseg, even though there is a gap between the groups. So I would say it could be a local, Nyirseg dominated revival, so to say. This happened when the Kostany-Epi-Corded Western Fzesabony-Otomani got weakened by the Tumulus culture invasion and this created the TC influences mixed groups of Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser. And I think Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus is the direct ancestor for Gva and highly likely to harbour a lot of E-V13. Piliny is the ancestor Kyjatice, I'm less sure about these - sure they should have some, but not necessarily as much.

----------


## Hawk

> Cotofeni is indeed highly likely, considering the strong local contribution in this steppified group and how they persisted when Yamnaya invaded. They were just never broken. But I think from there on its rather Mak�-Livezile into Nyirseg and then it gets tricky, into early, Eastern Otomani or Wietenberg, yes. 
> Suciu de Sus shows interesting parallels with Southern groups as well as with Nyirseg, even though there is a gap between the groups. So I would say it could be a local, Nyirseg dominated revival, so to say. This happened when the Kostany-Epi-Corded Western F�zesabony-Otomani got weakened by the Tumulus culture invasion and this created the TC influences mixed groups of Piliny and Berkesz-Demecser. And I think Berkesz-Demecser/Suciu de Sus is the direct ancestor for G�va and highly likely to harbour a lot of E-V13. Piliny is the ancestor Kyjatice, I'm less sure about these - sure they should have some, but not necessarily as much.


It looks like Cotofeni was derived from Baden which in turn was derived from Lengyel. An option let's say. We also need Vinca-Turdas samples (the G2a/H2a so far are not from core Vinca-Turdas, but more like periphery), because the Vinca-Turdas people migrated in Carpathia/Oltenia/Transylvania after the Yamnaya invasion and east of Tisza, nobody really knows what happened with them. Perhaps Baden, Vinca-Turdas, Usatovo-Kurgan, Cucuteni-Trypillian people all mingled in Carpathians.

----------


## Riverman

> It looks like Cotofeni was derived from Baden which in turn was derived from Lengyel. An option let's say. We also need Vinca-Turdas samples (the G2a/H2a so far are not from core Vinca-Turdas, but more like periphery), because the Vinca-Turdas people migrated in Carpathia/Oltenia/Transylvania after the Yamnaya invasion and east of Tisza, nobody really knows what happened with them. Perhaps Baden, Vinca-Turdas, Usatovo-Kurgan, Cucuteni-Trypillian people all mingled in Carpathians.


Tiszapolgar/Bodrogkeresztur, and Tripolye-Cucuteni being options beside late Epi-Lengyel. In the end, considering that by about 5.000-4.500 BC at some point there was just one individual, the earlier migrations are secondary for proving it. Might be sheer luck to get one of the few E-V13ers which roamed around in the right culture. We might find "wrong dead ends" at some point, which lead nowhere. The founder in the Eneolithic-EBA matters, because 99,99 % of all modern E-V13 descend from this, even if there would be some survivors around somewhere, eventually.

----------


## Hawk

Hungarian archaeologist Emilia Pasztor in one of her presentations puts the possibility of Southern migrants in Carpathian Basin during Early Bronze Age. She thinks the avian anthropomorphic figures in Carpathian Mountains ( which latter on was noticeably detected on Grla Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo, Bosut-Basarabi and Psenicevo related E-V13 ) were brought by Southern migrants from somewhere from Thessaly, Macedonia migrating North.




Funny enough, Gabor Vekony thinks that the Cotofeni Culture was heavily influenced by invasion of shepherds from Macedonia/Bulgaria highlands and they were the first people to practice cremation there.




> The slow emergence of this culture is abruptly halted around 2000 B.C., *when a new wave of migration once again transforms Transylvania's population: groups of shepherds from the Macedonian and Bulgarian highlands move into southeastern Carpathian region. Their settlements appear first in Oltenia (Coţofeni I culture), southwestern Transylvania (Karácsonfalva, Tărtăria-Alsó Tatárlaka); later, during the Early Bronze Age, they spread over the entire territory of Transylvania (Coţofeni II, Kolozskorpád I). Evidence of their settlement can be found virtually everywhere, from the highlands to alluvial grasslands, and often in mountain caves. They were the first in Transylvania to cremate the dead*, although skeletons — often powdered in ochre — have been found in the lower levels of their early burial grounds; they may have borrowed the latter custom from their eastern neighbours (Folteşti II culture), although it is equally conceivable that they were preserving their own, essentially East European traditions. The environment and nature of their numerous, scattered dwellings, fit the lifestyle of a semi-nomadic shepherd population. Signs of rudimentary agriculture appear only at a later time, together with a change in the structure of their dwellings: there is evidence at Kolozskorpád that one of their later communities used wattle and daub over a log foundation or log floor.https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/9.html


It might be just a coincidence though, but anyway, Sesklo-Dimini is supposed to have made a contribution on Danubian Neolithic Civilization where presumably from one of them E-V13 originates from.

----------


## Riverman

Yes, that's possible and similar ideas being proposed by various authors, in which case Suciu de Sus -> Gva would have been a heavily Southern inspired phenomenon in the North, which later migrated kind of "back".

----------


## Hawk

As far as Bell-Beaker influence comes in:




> During the 3rd millennium BC, the Balkans were subdivided into a mosaic of overlapping networks with different ranges. For the early part of the 3rd millennium BC, metal objects found in funerary assemblages of the south Adriatic Vučedol group provide the only evidence for long-distance networks connecting the Balkans to the Aegean and even Anatolia (Maran Reference Maran2007). From the mid-3rd millennium BC onwards the Balkans were connected with the Central Mediterranean through supra-regional networks such as the Bell Beaker phenomenon (e.g. presence of Bell Beaker-related wrist-guards in several Dalmatian sites: Heyd Reference Heyd2007; Forenbaher Reference Forenbaher2018a; Gori Reference Gori2020). Further examples of such extensive interaction comprising also the Aegean include the Cetina phenomenon, as well as the large-scale distribution of tankards with an oval body and cylindrical neck (typical of the Belotić-Bela Crkva) and two-handled beakers (the so-called Armenochori kantharoi) in funerary contexts found in an area extending from Transdanubia to continental Greece. At the end of the 3rd millennium BC, there is an apparent increase in connectivity that cross-linked Central Mediterranean and Balkan networks, with emphasis on a north-south axis that crosses the Peninsula. In the central Balkans, a major difficulty in the identification and interpretations of the trajectories of such distant connections is in the lack of a solid chronological framework.
> 
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/radiocarbon-dating-the-3rd-millennium-bc-in-the-central-balkans-a-reexamination-of-the-early-bronze-age-sequence/EEE00CA20809AB9D0BCE858DA8E407B2


I think this goes perfectly in line with Joachim Matzinger more than a decade study of Albanian and Illyrian languages, Illyrians archaeologically via Cetina/Belotic Bela Crkva have Bell Beaker influence, Matzinger concluded that Illyrian doesn't belong to Balkanic IE but rather to East Alpine to West Balkan who latter infiltrated further into the Balkans.

This leaves Albanian language debate, either it was related to Greek-Armenian (something i am skeptical about for various obvious reasons), or a language brought by one of the groups of Channeled-Ware/Kanellure Urnfield invaders during Bronze to Irone age transition period (i am a proponent of this, based on some Albanoid/Albanoid-like toponyms and considering that John Basset Trumper is a big proponent of Southern Central Europe origin for Albanoid).

----------


## Riverman

It's really Illyrian, Thracian or something in between. That's the bottomline. Considering that J-L283 being dominant in Illyrians and E-V13 in Thracians, with many groups being mixed (like Triballi, Srem group, Dardanians, Eastern Hallstatt groups etc.), the question is which side was stronger in the Proto-Albanian earliest communities, if looking at it from the purely genetic point of view. R-Z2103 might be related to Brygi/Phrygians and is definitenly related to Greco-Armenian, though it depends on the subclades too, considering its fairly old in the region and present in different groups. I wouldn't wonder about a presence in Thracians too (lower level).

----------


## mount123

> As far as Bell-Beaker influence comes in:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this goes perfectly in line with Joachim Matzinger more than a decade study of Albanian and Illyrian languages, Illyrians archaeologically via Cetina/Belotic Bela Crkva have Bell Beaker influence, Matzinger concluded that Illyrian doesn't belong to Balkanic IE but rather to East Alpine to West Balkan who latter infiltrated further into the Balkans.
> 
> This leaves Albanian language debate, either it was related to Greek-Armenian (something i am skeptical about for various obvious reasons), or a language brought by one of the groups of Channeled-Ware/Kanellure Urnfield invaders during Bronze to Irone age transition period (i am a proponent of this, based on some Albanoid/Albanoid-like toponyms and considering that John Basset Trumper is a big proponent of Southern Central Europe origin for Albanoid).


I really don't see how Belotic-Bela Crkva has significant parallels to later Cetina or even is ancestral, as some are claiming, let alone Posusje culture. Also, a categorization of Illyrian is not possible due to it being a very vaguely transmitted language. I also don't see how the genetics would support such a hypothesis.

Out of interest, what do you two think about the idea of Belotic-Bela Crkva yielding the main bulk of EBA E1b-V13, as I see this in repetitive opinions by internet enthusiasts like Bruzmi etc.?

----------


## Hawk

> I really don't see how Belotic-Bela Crkva has significant parallels to later Cetina or even is ancestral, as some are claiming, let alone Posusje culture. Also, a categorization of Illyrian is not possible due to it being a very vaguely transmitted language. I also don't see how the genetics would support such a hypothesis.
> 
> Out of interest, what do you two think about the idea of Belotic-Bela Crkva yielding the main bulk of EBA E1b-V13, as I see this in repetitive opinions by internet enthusiasts like Bruzmi etc.?


I think it's possible, but some E-V13 only, not the main bulk (i still think Belotic Bela Crkva must have been J2b2-L283 and perhaps R1b-Z2103), i am of the opinion currently that E-V13 arose in Balkans, or Balkan-Danubian spheres with the southern Tell Cultures(Vinca-Turdas, Koros, Sopot-Lengyel, Baden: one of them must be, perhaps even more south Bubanj-Hum, Armenochori or somewhere from Thessaly-Macedonia), and they retreated nearby in Carpathian Mountains after the Yamnaya destruction and invasion. It's very hard and impossible at this stage to say which one because different groups seeked shelter in Carpathian Mountains.

This going by sheer intuition of Psenicevo (Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt) finds of E-V13 and latter time to time pop up in Hallstatt hemisphere (even on Southern France La Tene very likely).

Until now, i don't know, i am confused how Tumulus, Cotofeni-derived/like native groups like Lapus/Siu de Sus/Maramures/Gava and Encrusted Pottery Culture people interacted, these native Carpathian groups had cultural ties or were single hemisphere down to Vatin/Belegis and even Brnjica to some occasions where you see similar patterns. But to what degree they were related Y-DNA-wise i don't know. One from these groups was victorious in their constant clashes in and around Danube-Tisza basin. Which one we might see. According to archaeologists from modern countries which encompass these ancient cultures (Serb, Hungarian, Romanian) it was the so called Gava which topped over the rest in Vojvodina and Danube basin. When Gava mixed with Belegis I and Vatin-related cultures like Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo we have the so called Belegis-Gava II, or archaeologists make their work easier and they just associate various inter-related groups or lump them under the umbrella Channeled-Ware/Eastern Urnfielders.

But, there is absolutely no doubt that cremation on a pyre was a thing for these people, they also practiced inhumation, Herodotus was first-eye witness of burial rite of Thracians, they used both cremation and inhumation, so that means bi-ritual. Moesians like Triballi were more strictly leaning toward cremation, but cremation during tough times was a luxury, people because of hardships must have abandoned that practice, hence always when we see this kind of transitions archaeologists also check the pottery, weapons, and all kind of items to determine whether the intrusion of new people triggered the switch, or some kind of religious change.

----------


## Hawk

Also, interesting to note that Marija Gimbutas said that the way Homer described Patroclus burial (no matter if this character never existed) with cremation on a pyre resembles the Urnfield Culture from Caka and surroundings.




I am of the opinion that the Urnfield way of life, or Urnfield Cultural complex was formed when the Tumulus warriors invaded Pannonia and Carpathia, especially Eastern Carpathia where they mingled with native people and then re-expanded giving influence to the Urnfield way, it doesn't have to be a complete invasion, just partial/minimal, and partial more like religious/idea spread. Just notice how cremation was mixed with mound burial, something which historical Dacians, Enchelei, Dardanii used.

The Bronze to Iron Age transition was a massive event, you see turmoils everywhere in Europe, causing domino-effects of migrations.

----------


## Riverman

> I really don't see how Belotic-Bela Crkva has significant parallels to later Cetina or even is ancestral, as some are claiming, let alone Posusje culture. Also, a categorization of Illyrian is not possible due to it being a very vaguely transmitted language. I also don't see how the genetics would support such a hypothesis.
> 
> Out of interest, what do you two think about the idea of Belotic-Bela Crkva yielding the main bulk of EBA E1b-V13, as I see this in repetitive opinions by internet enthusiasts like Bruzmi etc.?


Like I wrote before, both Cetina and Posusje (with Castellieri influences) are clearly West Adriatic-Alpine influenced cultures, heavily influenced by Bell Beakers (Cetina) and Tumulus culture and Apennine Italian culture (Posusje). They are very clearly groups of the Western contact zone, and you see it in their autosomal DNA too, how close they plot with the Southern Beakers. There arose a J-L283 dominated subgroup and ethnicity, which I think being the Proto-Illyrians. 

The older Central Balkan groups seem to have influenced both the Cetina-Posusje and Gva-Channelled Ware groups, but being in the end just overrun when those two expanded. Like you can see that they really partitioned the Balkan down to the Greeks, by and large. 

There could have been single finds of E-V13, probably dead ends, virtually everywhere, but I don't see them being of any significance in these old Balkan groups, because if they would, these should be totally dominated by E-V13 and even then it wouldn't be enough, probably, becaue they were truly overrun and largely replaced. Therefore it should have popped up, long ago, in these areas tested already, if it was there and so significant. 

The new samples from Hungary just added up on this, because the clades present in both ancient and modern Hungarian samples being far more important and central to the E-V13 phylogeny and modern distribution than all the samples found further down, away from the Danube - up to this point at least. 

@Hawk: Encrusted Pottery was by and large a dead end, which got squeezed to death by all sides (Tumulus culture to the West, Posusje to the South West, Gva-Kyjatice to the North East. They all pushed it down and the last remains ended up in Bulgaria, where they finally fused with the Channelled Ware people which catched them there. You see their cultural legacy in Psenichevo, added to the dominant Gva element, you see their genetic legacy in many groups, including Western Gva (increased WHG), but they as a cohesive group seem to have ceased to exist. 
And they nowhere had the impact necessary to account for E-V13, because they were truly "beaten up" in the MBA-LBA period. Not annihilated, but really badly hurt and decimated, the remains finally soaked up by the groups mentioned. 

The question is really whether from Cotofeni -> Mak-Livezile -> Nyirseg the gap can be bridged from Early Otomani, because Fzesabony was clearly foreign influenced by Epi-Corded groups from Kostany (ultimately originating from Mierzanowice, related to Baltoslavs). 

The only problem we have right now is the gap between Nyirseg-Early Otomani to Suciu de Sus/Lapus I/Berkesz-Demecser in my opinion. And the most likely scenario is that the very Eastern Fzesabony-Otomani groups were still dominated by Nyirseg, rather than Southern newcomers, which however kept close ties to the Aegean, and when the West got smashed, all the networks of the Pannonian Tell cultures, due to the Tumulus culture invasion/Koszider horizon, they rose to power and dominance. This is when the E-V13 growth in the MBA-LBA transition started, and got rapid in the LBA-EIA when Gva was formed. 
Gva was just the unified horizon of the Eastern group dominated by Suciu de Sus/Lapus I/Berkesz-Demecser. The Western group was going from Piliny to Kyjatice. Piliny had an influence on Gva too, but I think mostly cultural. Genetically, I think we see the transition from Suciu de Sus to Berkesz-Demecser and Lapus I, which adopted Piliny and Tumulus culture elements, and then formed Gva as a unified horizon.
The main difference of Berkesz-Demecser to Suciu de Sus is this stronger TC/Piliny influence. So the main local component, im my opinion, is simply Suciu de Sus. That's the culture which had the strongest parallels - contrary to other Fzesabony-Otomani groups, both to Nyirseg substrate groups and more Southern influences too. 

I really think Suciu de Sus is the main E-V13 group in the MBA-LBA. Berkesz-Demecser is just the cultural evolution on its basis, being inspired by TC (Carpathian TC, Egyek) and Piliny to the West.

----------


## Riverman

> Also, interesting to note that Marija Gimbutas said that the way Homer described Patroclus burial (no matter if this character never existed) with cremation on a pyre resembles the Urnfield Culture from Caka and surroundings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that the Urnfield way of life, or Urnfield Cultural complex was formed when the Tumulus warriors invaded Pannonia and Carpathia, especially Eastern Carpathia where they mingled with native people and then re-expanded giving influence to the Urnfield way, it doesn't have to be a complete invasion, just partial/minimal, and partial more like religious/idea spread. Just notice how cremation was mixed with mound burial, something which historical Dacians, Enchelei, Dardanii used.
> 
> The Bronze to Iron Age transition was a massive event, you see turmoils everywhere in Europe, causing domino-effects of migrations.


That's exactly the transition from Fzesabony-Otomani to Piliny to Kyjatice on the one hand and from Suciu de Sus to Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser. Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser picked up such influences from Carpathian TC/Egyek, but this was primarily a cultural influence, because there was no major successful taking of the areas East of the Tisza. Piliny on the other hand had more direct contacts with TC, especially in the Western areas. 

The major Carpathian TC group being often associated with the site of Egyek: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyek

The pick up of Suciu de Sus locals resulted in Berkesz-Demecser and Lapus I. 

You can look up were Berkesz, Demecser and Lapus I - as well as Suciu de Sus are. Berkesz and Demecser are in the very, very North East of Hungary, Suciu de Sus and Lapus are deep in North West Romania. 

So you have Carpathian Tumulus culture -> Piliny -> Berkesz-Demecser -> Lapus I -> Suciu de Sus. 

That's the decreasing TC influence. Suciu de Sus is the "pure local" element which transitioned to Lapus I (Lapus II = Gva province) and Berkesz-Demecser (from which main - Western - Gva developed).

----------


## mount123

That is a reasonable scenario.




> I am of the opinion that the Urnfield way of life, or Urnfield Cultural complex was formed when the Tumulus warriors invaded Pannonia and Carpathia, especially Eastern Carpathia where they mingled with native people and then re-expanded giving influence to the Urnfield way, it doesn't have to be a complete invasion, just partial/minimal, and partial more like religious/idea spread. Just notice how cremation was mixed with mound burial, something which historical Dacians, Enchelei, Dardanii used.


There is Iron Age sites in Dardha (Kamenica) and also in the Prishtina Valley, not to forget all of the other archeological sites such as Ulpiana, where there are both pre-Roman and Roman era remains, Klina, Fushe Kosovë and Vushtrri. Those archeologists better sent those remains to US labs or something. Having been in Prishtina museu shtetnor and seen how they store historical artifacts is insane.

----------


## Riverman

> That is a reasonable scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> There is Iron Age sites in Dardha (Kamenica) and also in the Prishtina Valley, not to forget all of the other archeological sites such as Ulpiana, where there are both pre-Roman and Roman era remains, Klina, Fushe Kosovë and Vushtrri. Those archeologists better sent those remains to US labs or something. Having been in Prishtina museu shtetnor and seen how they store historical artifacts is insane.


A lot of the skeletons just rot everywhere. Never being properly analysed. The most we can get out of them is indeed DNA and isotopic analysis.

----------


## mount123

> Like I wrote before, both Cetina and Posusje (with Castellieri influences) are clearly West Adriatic-Alpine influenced cultures, heavily influenced by Bell Beakers (Cetina) and Tumulus culture and Apennine Italian culture (Posusje). They are very clearly groups of the Western contact zone, and you see it in their autosomal DNA too, how close they plot with the Southern Beakers. There arose a J-L283 dominated subgroup and ethnicity, which I think being the Proto-Illyrians. 
> 
> The older Central Balkan groups seem to have influenced both the Cetina-Posusje and G�va-Channelled Ware groups, but being in the end just overrun when those two expanded. Like you can see that they really partitioned the Balkan down to the Greeks, by and large. 
> 
> There could have been single finds of E-V13, probably dead ends, virtually everywhere, but I don't see them being of any significance in these old Balkan groups, because if they would, these should be totally dominated by E-V13 and even then it wouldn't be enough, probably, becaue they were truly overrun and largely replaced. Therefore it should have popped up, long ago, in these areas tested already, if it was there and so significant. 
> 
> The new samples from Hungary just added up on this, because the clades present in both ancient and modern Hungarian samples being far more important and central to the E-V13 phylogeny and modern distribution than all the samples found further down, away from the Danube - up to this point at least.


I don't really share your point of view on the former matter. The pathway of J2b-L283 and the fact that it is too diverse in said time frames cannot really be the result of some minor J2b-L283 being "Bell Beakernized" and then exploding. The Proto-Illyrians and Illyrians form their own cluster and besides not being alien to neighbouring cultures I don't see a huge impact on them by another group such as TC. I think more upcoming Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia, Montenegro and Albania will strengthen the obvious picture even more. After all it is a strong East Adriatic migration pattern that is observable in other areas such as the West Adriatic, mainland Italy or even the Western Mediterranean and not the opposite.

----------


## Riverman

> I don't really share your point of view on the former matter. The pathway of J2b-L283 and the fact that it is too diverse in said time frames cannot really be the result of some minor J2b-L283 being "Bell Beakernized" and then exploding. The Proto-Illyrians and Illyrians form their own cluster and besides not being alien to neighbouring cultures I don't see a huge impact on them by another group such as TC. I think more upcoming Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia, Montenegro and Albania will strengthen the obvious picture even more. After all it is a strong East Adriatic migration pattern that is observable in other areas such as the West Adriatic, mainland Italy or even the Western Mediterranean and not the opposite.


I think its unresolved yet, but I can go with your interpretation just as well and won't argue big time about it. 

But, and that's worth to be considered, culturally, the Western influence from Bell Beakers in Cetina and from Apennine culture and Tumulus culture on Posusje-Dinaric, prossilby with the hub of Castellieri zone, is clear. So its possible we're dealing primarily with cultural uptakes, rather than genetic and linguistic ones. But the close ties and influences, on the cultural level, are worth to be pointed out nevertheless. 

The situation might be even similar to Gva, which also had Carpathian TC influences, but was never kind of "overtaken" or assimilated by TC, just some local uptake of specific elements. Not even directly, but by mixed Carpathian TC groups and Piliny. 

The situation is really similar to the Adriatic, where there too we don't need to have a full scale invasion or assimilation and any point, but rather local uptake. Otherwise these two groups wouldn't have been dominated by non-R1b BB lineages...

----------


## mount123

> A lot of the skeletons just rot everywhere. Never being properly analysed. The most we can get out of them is indeed DNA and isotopic analysis.


It really is a bummer. I hope there is a mental shift in said state institutions, hopefully initiated by academics in archeology and/or especially human genetics. The close to non existent interest in genetic testing of aDNA and the fact that archaeogenetics in itself is not even a pioneer discipline in certain areas of Europe is the main problem.

----------


## mount123

> I think its unresolved yet, but I can go with your interpretation just as well and won't argue big time about it. 
> 
> But, and that's worth to be considered, culturally, the Western influence from Bell Beakers in Cetina and from Apennine culture and Tumulus culture on Posusje-Dinaric, prossilby with the hub of Castellieri zone, is clear. So its possible we're dealing primarily with cultural uptakes, rather than genetic and linguistic ones. But the close ties and influences, on the cultural level, are worth to be pointed out nevertheless. 
> 
> The situation might be even similar to G�va, which also had Carpathian TC influences, but was never kind of "overtaken" or assimilated by TC, just some local uptake of specific elements. Not even directly, but by mixed Carpathian TC groups and Piliny.


I mean, I definitely don't oppose attested facts such as cultural exchange as in material culture etc. that have been prevalent throughout human history, especially in areas such as the mediterranean and surroundings, but like mostly those were not one-directional.

----------


## Riverman

> I mean, I definitely don't oppose attested facts such as cultural exchange as in material culture etc. that have been prevalent throughout human history, especially in areas such as the mediterranean and surroundings, but like mostly those were not one-directional.


In the mentioned cases it was largely one-directional though, because e.g Cetina received massive influence from Bell Beakers as a peripheral group.

----------


## Hawk

Well, as expected.



And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.




> A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Ychromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-IronAge expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans17. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living atViminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial andlater periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE). *Excavations of Iron Age Balkans prior to the Roman rule showed the dead where predominantly cremated.
> 
> *_Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and theGenomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peoples_https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...211v1.full.pdf


Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.

----------


## torzio

The Neolithic group and their Ydna markers are found not just in the Balkans , but also in Central-Europe, Germany and France

The one Ydna missing is H2 from the neolithic group ( might be in "other" )

----------


## Riverman

> Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.


Well, it really migrated with Lengyel-related groups North I'd say. In fact, we have the trace: Impresso-Cardial -> Sopot -> Lengyel 
From there either staying in Epi-Lengyel and successors, or going into Tiszapolgar or Tripolye-Cucuteni (had E1b1b as well!). But this is basically in place for the later period, that's the Carpathian zone already. It kind of wintered there, in the protection of the mountains, when the steppe invasion came.

----------


## Hawk

One thing to note, during Bronze Age i do expect E-V13 to be present, just that they were part of Southern Pannonian/East Slavonia cultural complex, like Vatin, Vatin successor was Belegis, so when they mixed with incoming Gava people (their cultural cousins) they created the Belegis-Gava II. It's just that during those times they were strictly sticking with cremation unfortunately.

Vatin related groups also influenced on the creation of Belotic Bela Crkva group which was predecessor of Glasinac Culture, but their influence was probably minimal and not the core group. So, to say it clearly, i do expect E-V13 in Glasinac to some degree, but they were not part of the greater Urnfield/E-V13 massive migration and rise in percentage.

----------


## Riverman

> One thing to note, during Bronze Age i do expect E-V13 to be present, just that they were part of Southern Pannonian/East Slavonia cultural complex, like Vatin, Vatin successor was Belegis, so when they mixed with incoming Gava people (their cultural cousins) they created the Belegis-Gava II. It's just that during those times they were strictly sticking with cremation unfortunately.
> 
> Vatin related groups also influenced on the creation of Belotic Bela Crkva group which was predecessor of Glasinac Culture, but their influence was probably minimal and not the core group. So, to say it clearly, i do expect E-V13 in Glasinac to some degree, but they were not part of the greater Urnfield/E-V13 massive migration and rise in percentage.


Glasinac-Mati and Illyrian areas in general received to some degree Channelled Ware influences, therefore I think a low level minority element could pop up here and there. But it will be interesting to see, at some point, whether the cremating block around the Venetic-Histrian-Liburnian had indeed more E-V13 than the Illyrians which were geographically closer to the Thracian/Channelled Ware people. 
I'm not sure about Vatin, it is a surprise package.

From yet another paper, which most likely used some of the same samples, we know that the "Mesolithic" samples of E-V13 likely were Neolithics which turned forager: 




> According to stable isotope values, this child has been fed with large
> amounts of aquatic resources, consistent with nutritional socialization (de Becdelivre, 2020).
> Similarly, the second-generation admixed female *with  Neo Aegean-like ancestry* (LEPE46, LV
> 93; 6226-6026 cal BC) was also buried into a building (building 72) with various cultural
> elements pointing to the Early Neolithic cultural sphere (including numerous limestone beads,
> as well as a fragmented stone ring and adze). In contrast, the second-generation admixed male
> individual with  Meso European-like ancestry (LEPE18, LV 27d; 6226-6026 cal BC) was
> discovered in a primary disturbed burial that contained grave goods associated with both
> Mesolithic (deer antler) and Neolithic (pottery fragments) communities. The other individuals,
> ...


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...512v1.full.pdf

This means an E-V13 male joined the "Mesolithic" or better forager communities. Not a Mesolithic period sample. Its also questionable all that samples will be published and commented on in the paper, because some might have just been used from other papers for the statistics. And some of these papers and lab samples might be unpublished as of yet.

What the paper also proves: How important exact burial rites can be.

I wouldn't wonder if the E-V13 being from Lepenski Vir, even though there are of course other options out there.

----------


## enter_tain

Mesolithic E-V13 is wild. Could it be an esoteric WHG marker??? If so, Yamnaya have clear Mesolithic markers.

R1b was shared between the Balkans/Steppe.

----------


## Riverman

> Mesolithic E-V13 is wild. Could it be an esoteric WHG marker??? If so, Yamnaya have clear Mesolithic markers.
> 
> R1b was shared between the Balkans/Steppe.


That's the problem with ambiguous labelling, because they were living in the same time period, one group being European foragers, the other early European farmers. Some farmers found the hunter-gatherer lifestyle more appealing or being forced into a Mesolithic community, we don't know, and that's how they ended up among foragers. 
I'm pretty sure the E-V13 and the other Neolithic haplogroups will all take some Aegean Neolithic ancestry.

----------


## Hawk

I am actually quite interested if that sample is positive downstream E-V13 or just E-L618 and for the sake of simplicity they just added the orange color which is associated with E-V13.

It has been so many years and we got no reliable confirmation if the Spanish Early Neolithic was E-V13 downstream positive, considering the Early Bronze Age El Agrar E-L618 was negative to E-V13, i suspect that Spanish sample might have been just E-L618 positive.

----------


## Riverman

> I am actually quite interested if that sample is positive downstream E-V13 or just E-L618 and for the sake of simplicity they just added the orange color which is associated with E-V13.
> 
> It has been so many years and we got no reliable confirmation if the Spanish Early Neolithic was E-V13 downstream positive, considering the Early Bronze Age El Agrar E-L618 was negative to E-V13, i suspect that Spanish sample might have been just E-L618 positive.


From coming to life to the Bronze Age founding father, there are thousands of years. There have to have been some side branches of E-V13, not just E-L618, but E-V13, regardless how small or insignificant. It's even possible they still exist, but being in such a low frequency and cornered in a specific region, it just never got sampled. 
Whether the Spanish is E-V13 or not, he is closely related, but he didn't really matter to what happened later, I'd say.

----------


## mount123

> Well, as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.
> 
> 
> 
> Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.


What presentation is the screenshot taken from? The nomenclatures seem very odd to me at times. They choose the correct nomenclature for J2b-L283 but for other haplogroups they choose macro nomenclatures that can be very misleading e.g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120 for I2a-Slav in the middle ages graph. But also 0-500 ce "G2a" but G2a what? Also that being that big in that time frame is not really what the aDNA data suggests.

----------


## Riverman

> What presentation is the screenshot taken from? The nomenclatures seem very odd to me at times. They choose the correct nomenclature for J2b-L283 but for other haplogroups they choose macro nomenclatures that can be very misleading e.g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120 for I2a-Slav in the middle ages graph. But also 0-500 ce "G2a" but G2a what? Also that being that big in that time frame is not really what the aDNA data suggests.


They made a reasonable choice, because it makes no sense for the Neolithics to split up too much, and in the later period its more difficult too. Basically, they gave a concrete subclade to those which appeared later and had a signficant number of samples from this subclade. The 
older layers, especially G2a, just got a generic label, it represents farmers for the most part anyway. 

About the study: 
https://www.sanu.ac.rs/en/lecture-on...n-the-balkans/

Here a newspaper article Aspar posted on Anthrogenica: 
https://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/...geneticar.html

----------


## mount123

> They made a reasonable choice, because it makes no sense for the Neolithics to split up too much, and in the later period its more difficult too. Basically, they gave a concrete subclade to those which appeared later and had a signficant number of samples from this subclade. The 
> older layers, especially G2a, just got a generic label, it represents farmers for the most part anyway. 
> 
> About the study: 
> https://www.sanu.ac.rs/en/lecture-on...n-the-balkans/
> 
> Here a newspaper article Aspar posted on Anthrogenica: 
> https://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/...geneticar.html


Thanks for the links!

I beg to differ e. g. one could also just wright E1b but that does not entail any further information since we have it in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. The correct nomenclature is important especially when we are talking about Balkan samples e. g. I-L621 instead of I-Y3120, which was introduced by the Slavic incursions into South East Europe in the Early Middle Ages.

----------


## Riverman

> Thanks for the links!
> 
> I beg to differ e. g. one could also just wright E1b


Not really, because its a Bronze to Iron Age expansion of huge size. And that just shows. So it's an important information that its E-V13 and not just any E. 

The G being primarily used to represent the farmer lineages and I doubt they have high resolution data for the all old ones. And even if, you see in the graph better how dominant farmer G2a was initially in the Neolithic, and how it dropped later. 




> I-L621 instead of I-Y3120, which was introduced by the Slavic incursions into South East Europe in the Early Middle Ages.


Agreed, especially on that one. On the other hand it mainly appears in the latest period, so its clearly associated with Slavs.

----------


## mount123

> Not really, because its a Bronze to Iron Age expansion of huge size. And that just shows. So it's an important information that its E-V13 and not just any E. 
> 
> The G being primarily used to represent the farmer lineages and I doubt they have high resolution data for the all old ones. And even if, you see in the graph better how dominant farmer G2a was initially in the Neolithic, and how it dropped later. 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, especially on that one. On the other hand it mainly appears in the latest period, so its clearly associated with Slavs.


I mean it certainly is and that was not meant as a comparison but rather to show that I really don't like that some papers do the proper work on some haplogroups and on the other hand use macro haplogroup designations for others. Also, with G we are talking about ~48500 ybp of formation, G2a also being old and predating any of these affiliations, so not a specific haplogroup but rather a macro haplogroup. It is just my personal view on the matter I tried to get across.

----------


## Riverman

To stress how important Gva/Channelled Ware was, already the predecessors in Suciu de Sus-Lapus did create some of the largest and richest tumulus burials, as well as some of the largest ritual buildings in Europe - and when they marched South, they built the largest fortified settlements known from the South Eastern European Bronze Age, like Teleac and Corneşti Iarcuri. 

Here a video from an excavation site in Romania from 2011: 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_umwC8wOOU

More about the excavations: 




> The tumulus necropolis of Lăpuş in Northwest Romania has a long history of research. Past excavations
> revealed a *rich record of Late Bronze Age inventories of cremation graves of the 13th to 12th c. B.C.*, which
> are so far unique within the contemporary Carpathian basin. Embedded into a river valley at the foot of a
> mining mountain area, it seems a convincing explanation that the *Lăpuş Late Bronze Age community placed
> their ancestors in a guardian position close to the source of its presumed wealth. The burial rituals in Lăpuş
> are diverse; not all mounds can be classiied as proper graves but rather barrow shaped ritual monuments*,
> one of which, tumulus 26, is presently being excavated by the authors and the preliminary results are being
> published here. The monument so far has revealed a complex multi-layered occupation with traces of burning,
> multi-phased pits with various shapes and illings, hearths and a wooden threshold construction. The pottery
> ...


https://www.academia.edu/3196534/New..._L_D_Nebelsick

When they marched Southward, it was, quite obviously, an organised conquest and settlement. The fortified settlements being built within a short time and were, like mentioned, some of the biggest of the European Bronze Age, if not the biggest. Ritual pits and later hoards appear there as well. 

There was continuous, dense settlement, up to the Iron Age. When the technological shift from bronze to iron took place, most of the people seem to have left the area: 



> The irst traces of settlement activity
> date to the Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg Culture (dating to the 1st half of the 2nd mill. B.C.). There is
> massive evidence for an all but contiguous settlement of the Lăpuş river terraces, which is accompanied
> by bronze deposition sets of the *Late Bronze Age (Bz D) and continues until the end of this Period (ha B)*.
> *There is as yet no evidence for an iron Age occupation of the valley* and sporadic inds indicate a resumption
> of settlement in the Roman imperial Period. it is only in the Middle Ages that there is historical and material
> evidence for a renewed intensive settlement of this isolated region.2


I think they migrated southward, as new settlements and fortifications start to pop up all along the Tisza to the Danube. This started what became a Late Bronze Age chain reaction event of multiple migrations, one group pushing the other. 

Development of the pottery style from Suciu de Sus over Lapus to developed Gva: 




> from the excavated material and its contexts is must be concluded that the cemetery of Lăpuş, which
> has been traditionally dated to the 13th to 12th c. B.C., is an outstanding site, as its barrows have produced
> a selection of artefacts hitherto unknown from any other contemporary burial site. Different pottery styles
> could be distinguished: the irst is a rich curvilinear style in incised Kerbschnitt manner, which occurs on
> bowls. it has parallels in the suciu de sus pottery style, which has been traditionally dated to the middle
> Bronze age in central European terms (Bz B1-Bz D) 24 and whose type site, a cemetery, is located in the
> neighbouring valley ca. 5 kilometres east of Lăpuş. inventories of these heavily decorated bowls were used
> by Carol Kacs to deine the irst phase of the cemeterys use.25
> This dcor also occurs on large high necked vessels which are decorated with, among other things,
> ...


The burial rite resembles that of Nyirseg and later Dacian customs. Unfortunately, there were no inhumation burials: 




> The funerary practices in the cemetery are surprisingly varied. There are barrows with cremations in
> urns, as well as in the form of scattered cremations. A third kind of barrow did not reveal any evidence of
> human burials but instead contained profuse amounts of burnt animal bones, large quantities of fragmented
> and/or reired pottery and casting remains. structural evidence includes stratiied sequences of construction,
> burning and mound building including large pits set out in symmetrical rows and depositions of burnt wattle
> and daub structures.


Like later among Dacians and Thracians, ritual pits being found at the site - but only animal, no human bones were found: 




> The largest and most complex of these pits in the centre of the barrow is one of the most striking
> features on the site so far. The pit, which was re-cut after a period of inilling, was inally sealed with large
> fragments of a large red and black channelled vessel. its laminated illing included only very few sherds as well
> as calcinated animal bones including remains of a stag. it was the abundant charcoal from this pit which was
> the primary focus of 14C-probing (see below).


Similar rituals appeared in many parts of Romania, but also Eastern Slovakia: 




> Considering the integration of this structure into a necropolis, ritual feasting in the context of funerary
> ritual and/or ancestor worship would, of course, be a highly likely explanation for the use pattern seen in this
> monument. interestingly, evidence for broadly contemporary and analogous ritual activity has been discovered
> in other locations in Romania, which show a wider context for material intensive feasting and deposition.
> The well known barrow like structure of susani in the Banat excavated by ion stratan and Alexandru Vulpe31
> revealed pottery masses with a clear dominance of bowls, cups and burnt material, among which a large
> deposition of burnt grain is remarkable, but no obvious evidence of a funerary context. At the site of Meri in
> Muntenia, discovered by Emil Moscalu, a different structure under a barrow shaped mound was uncovered. it
> contained several ire places in a central position in the mound, accompanied by pottery depositions.32 There are
> ...





> summing up, we can conclude that the emergence of channelled pottery in Lăpuş can be dated perhaps as
> early as the late 14th and clearly to the early 13th c. B.C., which is roughly around one hundred years earlier than
> previous scholarship had assumed. While the fact that the samples are derived
> from charcoal might be seen as a cautionary factor in accepting such a high
> dating range, the fact that the sequence of the dates matches the stratigraphy
> makes it highly likely that the absolute dating range seen in tumulus 26 relects
> chronological reality. furthermore, it is interesting to note that the use, reuse
> and reilling of the central pit complex in barrow 26 of Lăpuş presumably took
> place over a hundred year period.
> ...


https://www.academia.edu/3196534/New..._L_D_Nebelsick

*Note especially that after about 400 years of continuous development, in which the Lapus-people produced highly important impulses and products for the rest of Europe, especially the Urnfield sphere, the whole areas seems to have been largely abandoned at the beginning of the Iron Age!* 

I would most definitely put this into the context of a large scale migration, after the first introduction of iron working, as it has been seen e.g. in Teleac among other sites, and the opportunities which came from the technological edge they developed already in the Late Bronze Age. 

It is not by chance that roughly at the time the Lapus area was left, in all of South Eastern Europe Channelled Ware sites pop up like mushrooms.

----------


## Hawk

One thing which is puzzling me is the Barbarian-Ware/Knobbed-Ware in Greece, so we have two waves flooding Balkans the Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni-like (probably E-V13 as well) and Late Urnfield/Early Halstattian-like (E-V13 Psenicevo-Babadag/Gava).

So, subsequently questions arise, why did Early Iron Age Greeks turn to cremation? Was it because of new population admixture, and what language did they speak? On her book, on Central-Eastern Europe during Bronze/Iron Age Marija Gimbutas boldly proposed that we should connect the so called Pelasgians with the Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo Culture, and that they were intruders in Greece and whatever was left of Bronze to Iron Age invaders, the people who contributed on the fall of Mycenae. The classical Greek authors were probably just confused according to Gimbutas, they were not earlier Aegean populations.

Well, no way to proof that, they might or might not have been, they might have indeed been earlier Aegean population, instead of descending from Tell Cultures from Danube basin migrating in Aegean during Bronze Age collapse.

But, one does wonder when Vatin/Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto-Brdo sometimes reminded archaeologists of Proto-Villanovans/Proto-Etruscan culture. Were some of the Tell Cultures from Pannonia Proto-Tyrrhenian speaking? The Y-DNA from Etruscan paper were rather disappointing on proving this, a lot of R1b for a non IE people. But the G2a presence was on spot. This looks like the original Proto-Tyrrhenian lineage, and G2a was somewhat present as well among Hallstatt, so likely among Encrusted Pottery People and on general Tell Cultures from Pannonia.

----------


## Riverman

> One thing which is puzzling me is the Barbarian-Ware/Knobbed-Ware in Greece, so we have two waves flooding Balkans the Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni-like (probably E-V13 as well) and Late Urnfield/Early Halstattian-like (E-V13 Psenicevo-Babadag/Gava).


I don't think Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni was E-V13 oriented. Some things to note about those people: 
- They came from the Western steppe and were largely pastoralists, which moved aggressively into the Carpathian basin and down to the Lower Danube. 100 % like Yamnaya earlier. They likely were Iranian speakers and pushed Wietenberg West, before fusing and mixing with them (Noua-Wietenberg), while pushing down at the Lower Danube, Thrace too, where they potentially caused the Proto-Greeks moving into the Aegean in my opinion. I guess they will be overwhelmingly steppe and R1a. However, since they crashed into various related cultures of Romania, its perfectly plausible that they picked up some E-V13 along the route, like later steppe pastoralists did as well. 
- This happened earlier, before Gva developed in the MBA (about 1.600). Like when the Tumulus culture came from the West, these steppe people came from the East. Both together crashed the old Carpatho-Balkan cultures and Unetice in the middle. Both influenced the East Carpathian survivors, which fought them off. So they influenced Piliny/Suciu de Sus/Lapus into Gva, but they are more of the competitors, than the E-V13 clans. 




> So, subsequently questions arise, why did Early Iron Age Greeks turn to cremation? Was it because of new population admixture, and what language did they speak? On her book, on Central-Eastern Europe during Bronze/Iron Age Marija Gimbutas boldly proposed that we should connect the so called Pelasgians with the Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo Culture, and that they were intruders in Greece and whatever was left of Bronze to Iron Age invaders, the people who contributed on the fall of Mycenae. The classical Greek authors were probably just confused according to Gimbutas, they were not earlier Aegean populations.


The Urnfield rites spread with Urnfield people, in this case with limited settlement and mixture in Greece. But the Channelled Ware influence was nowhere in actual Greece strong enough on the longer run. They were more of an intrusion and influence, which the Greeks either fought off (some returned North or moved on) or incorporated and assimilated (presumably especially the Doric, Northern Greeks). 

At that time the Greeks themselves might have been in the region no much longer than 400 years, if coming after having fled the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni invasion themselves. So we don't know which pre-Greek and non-Greek people were around. Surely more than just Channelled Ware people, which were, overall, mostly important in the very North, and that was Thracian territory, not actual Greek. 




> But, one does wonder when Vatin/Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto-Brdo sometimes reminded archaeologists of Proto-Villanovans/Proto-Etruscan culture. Were some of the Tell Cultures from Pannonia Proto-Tyrrhenian speaking? The Y-DNA from Etruscan paper were rather disappointing on proving this, a lot of R1b for a non IE people. But the G2a presence was on spot. This looks like the original Proto-Tyrrhenian lineage, and G2a was somewhat present as well among Hallstatt, so likely among Encrusted Pottery People and on general Tell Cultures from Pannonia.


That's indeed very confusing, but it seems to me that the G2a groups of the Alpine zone were the original carriers of the Tyrsenian languages, Rhaetic-Etruscan, which could turn some of the Tumulus culture/Italic people during Urnfield. But I have no strong opinion on that at the moment. It's in any case strange that even though Proto-Villanovan and Gva being so close culturally, we don't see an exact overlap, be it E-V13 or other, in patrilineages between the Rhaetic-Etruscan and the East Carpathian groups. So probably some sort of cultural connection with limited gene flow. The Ligurians and Venetic/cremation group of the North East (with Histrians and Liburnians) are the secret, whether they show some more overlap. Because they could be in an intermediate position between Illyrians and Thracians concerning the Carpatho-Balkan influences. But again, no strong opinion on that.

----------


## Hawk

Something from South-West Serbia. Quoted just the conclusion, in details it talks about how before 700 B.C the Dardanians prevailed before the incursion of Glasinac-Mat people which lasted until 500-400 B.C before the Dardanians supressed their former opressors.




> *Conclusions.*
> The Novi Pazar region is a boundary area, where zones of influencefrom Glasinac-Mati cultural complex (ethnically identified with the Autariatae) and aboriginalDaradaninan populations met and even overlapped. Connection of this area with the originalwestern zone of the Glasinac culture is much stronger during the period that immediatelysucceeds the penetration of the newcomers to the Pešter plateau. The Glasinac culturestarted to diminish in the last decades of 4th century BC. Its branches in Serbia, although vitalduring the whole 5th century BC, are so conservative, that it is hard to separate older culturalachievements from the new ones (Срејовић 1981: 61). Starting from the 5th century BC up tothe 2nd century BC, the influence of the Autariatae on the Dardanians weakened. TheDardanian society became class, its culture being under the Greek infuence, which isconfirmed by the numerous finds of the Greek pottery and the pottery locally produced under the Greek influence, and even by the find of princely grave under the St. Peter and Paul’schurch near Novi Pazar.Dardanian supremacy at the Pešter plateau is confirmed up to 700 BC, when this areawas overwhelmed with the communities that had come from the west – from the Lim valley,and which in ethnical sense can be connected with the Autariatae. A number of archaeological finds from the tumular graves of the Pešter plateau are similar to the findsbelonging to the Glasinac culture. On the other hand, exept the graves with the material fromthe earlier phase Glasinac IVb (beginning of the 7th century BC) originating from the siteLatinsko groblje in the Glogovik village (the 3rd burial horizon at the mound I), which may onlyconfirm a short penetration of the Glasinac populations at the Pešter plateau, this regionbelongs to the Glasinac complex probably from the end of middle and the beginning of thelate phase of the Hallstatt period. It is worth mentioning that the hillforts from the Novi Pazar region also have a thin Hallstatt layer, which seems to be contemporary with massivepresence of the Glasinac finds in the necropolises (Jevtić 1990: 116). Local populations, mostprobably Dardanians, which could not resist the newcomers carrying iron swords and spears,descended to the Raška valley, where they developed their distinctive culture during theHallstatt period (Летица 1982: 16).Since the time of stabilization of Paleo-Balkan tribes (7th century BC) until the firstmentioning of Dardanians in historical sources (approximately middle of 4th century BC) inthe Raška vally there was no inflow of people from abroad, except perhaps during the short-term Thraco-Cimerian penetration, when most of Kosovo and Southern Serbia were involvedin the Basarabi cultural circle (Срејовић 1977: 74). It is very interesting that a number of Basarabi elements were determined on the material from the mound with incinerations inMelaje. There is a tempting idea, according to which a woman originating from the Triballitribe (or Norht-Thracians) was cremated and buried among some local inhabitants of North-Dardanian origin. Etnical attribution of the deceased is confirmed by both the sherds of theBasarabi bowls found at the mound base, and the small ceramic cogged tool, used for thepottery decoration. Such tools have been found mainly in the western part of the vastBasarabi complex, where the
> tremollo
> pottery was most common, and to which the earlyTriballi can be cautiously connected (Јевтић 1992: 15).Finally, the picture of funerary practice during the Hallstatt period in the Novi Pazar area reveals neither chronological nor ethnical unity. Two groups of graves can be sortedout: an older one, with skeletal burials in stretched position, within massive, rectangular or oval stone grave constructions, and a younger one, in which cremations predominate, withhuman remains scattered across foundations made of pebbles and broken stones. Accordingto grave goods (more elaborated and refined bronze jewelery and ceramic vessels,sometimes imported or made under the influence of the material from north Greece or southMacedonia, or even from the Thracian world as it is the case with the Latinsko groblje fibula),these younger biritual burials are much stronger connected to Kosovo and southern parts of the Balkan peninsula, in constrast to the older ones, which are incorporated in the wider complex Glasinac-Mati.
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/2495871/SOM...ESTERN_SERBIA_

----------


## Hawk

From my understanding, from the above paper these Serbian archaeologists although a bit cautious they try to assign ethnical designation to cultures:

Glasinac-Mat => Autariate/Illyrians invaders from the West starting from 700 B.C and lasted until somewhere 500-400 B.C
Brnjica and Channeled-Ware => Dardanians aboriginal population from Late Bronze Age.

and they propose that the latest to come are the West Bassarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian => Thracoid invaders from the North/East which associate with Triballi.

Could be wrong though, but i got that impression reading them.

----------


## Riverman

Talking about the Brnjica group, which expanded big into Greece, its important to stress that it was heavily influenced from the Carpathian basin especially in its late phase: 




> From a chronological perspec-
> tive, it is important that this channel decoration has
> not yet been found on sites dated to the early phase of
> the Brnjica group (Br CC/D), such as Svinjarička
> Čuka, Medijana and Svinjite.24 The earliest appear-
> ance of channel decoration in the area of the Brnjica
> group is recorded in Končulj (Pl. IV/2, 3), in a context
> dated to the 13 th century calBC (Tab. 1). At Končulj,
> the channelled ornaments are reminiscent of those on
> ...







> Oblique channel decoration is also a common mo-
> tif on pottery at LBA sites in the south-eastern part of
> the Carpathian Basin, and dates from the end of 16 th
> to the early 13th century calBC.33
> Regarding the absolute chronology of this atypi-
> cal pottery of the Brnjica group with oblique channel
> decoration, it is documented on vessels dated to the
> 15 th Century BC.





> Taking account of the pottery and metal-
> work together, the evidence indicates that there were
> clear links already in place connecting societies in the
> Central Balkans with those in the northern Aegean
> and the southern Carpathian Basin during the 15 th to
> 13th centuries BC.


Brnjica migrated on a large scale into Greece and Bulgaria, in part because of the pressure exerted by the already connected (see above) Belegis II-Gva expansion: 



> This had been exca-
> vated into the natural subsoil. Sealing this feature, and
> after its abandonment, a substantial layer of debris from
> a burnt and collapsed fortification palisade was docu-
> mented. Cut into this burnt layer was a pit with Belegi
> IIGava ceramics.81 The absolute date of the pithouse
> is not yet known, but results are expected soon.82


Belegis II-Gva is unthinkable without migration, but the extent of which is unclear without ancient DNA comparisons of Gva (proper) vs. Belegis II-Gva: 




> From the 12 th century (possibly as early as the
> late 13 th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
> settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.
> This new style of pottery derived from the tradition of
> channel-decorated pottery of the Pannonian Plain,
> commonly called Belegi II (or part of the Gava com-
> plex in Hungarian literature). The development of this
> style after ca. 1200 BC is called Belegi IIGava, to
> account for minor, but chronologically relevant, de-
> ...


On the one hand its a completely new package, a clear break from the local traditions and associated with movements of locals to the hills. On the other side while clearly being a descendant of Gva, Belegis II-Gva is no 1:1 copy. Therefore the proportion of the gene flow from Gva proper into Belegis II-Gva can only be properly assessed with ancient DNA. 

What is big time in favour of migration is the combination of the timing of the expansion from Gva plus the modern E-V13 phylogeny. When Gva expands, E-V13 branches kind of explode in rapid series of founder effects. Archaeologically, its also unthinkable that this change came without migration: 




> However, it appears more likely
> that migration played a key role. *Ruppensteins gen -
> eral and rough principles for archaeological recogni-
> tion of migration in this same context are salient as
> they require 1) introduction of a set of cultural novel-
> ties, 2) their rapid and widespread appearance, and 3)
> a clear area of origin where there was older use of the
> object types (Ruppenstein 2020: 107). In this case, it
> is clear that cultural conventions from the Pannonian
> ...





> Characteristic
> amphorae with a long conical neck with an everted
> rim with fluted decoration often on the neck, belly
> and rim and with two protrusions or four sets of two
> parallel tongue-shaped protrusions on the belly are
> also documented, with one protrusion pointing down-
> wards and the other upwards (Pl. VIII/5, 7).92 This
> type of amphora is characteristic of the Belegi II
> Gava and Gava groups and is widespread in southern
> ...





> Parallel to the appearance of Reutlingen swords,
> the so-called flame shaped spearhead was also intro-
> duced in Ha A1. This had no predecessors in the MBA
> Central Balkans, and its distribution is similar to the
> swords. 110


Very important for the differentiation from the locals: 



> *In the area where bronze swords of the Central
> European type and spears with flame-shaped blades
> appear, bronze axes of the so-called Montenegrin-Al-
> banian type do not appear.* Their distribution is more
> clearly related to the area of Montenegro and south-
> western Serbia.117 Also, arrows made of bronze sheet,
> common in the previous period on the MoravaVardar
> axis, are unknown from the period Ha A1/A2. Some
> rare examples of this date were found in the Central
> Balkans far from these major river valleys.


Channelled Ware people introduced or intensified the cultivation of millet, just like all Eastern Urnfielders did - like the Lusatians as well, which can be seen in the analysis of the Tollense warriors. Millet was either consumed directly, or used for raising pigs for pork production: 




> This was the marked
> increase in the cultivation of millet alongside other
> plant species. It was found at Hisar in feature 7 (12th
> century calBC), as well as in Ranutovac in feature 3c
> (late 9thearly 8th century BC). 133 Millet can be culti-
> vated as a springtime crop, which increases temporal
> diversification in agricultural risk management in a
> community by providing fresh crops in different sea-
> sons, perhaps a reason for its popularity at this time.134
> ...


Gva expanded to the Balkans while in the Carpathian basin fortified settlements being abandoned! Remind you on Lapus and how this major Bronze Age centre was left - same for various Pannonian settlements. It was clearly a North -> South migration: 



> The material typologically related to the Belegi IIGava
> group has been recorded throughout the Morava and
> Vardar/Axios valleys and as far as the Aegean coast,
> demonstrating a long chain of interacting societies.
> Importantly, *this distribution of Belegi IIGava style
> pottery began after the abandonment of most or all
> mega-fort sites and related cemeteries in the Pannoni-
> an Basin.*148


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ication_detail


In end its not about whether Gva people migrated South, but how big their impact was, genetically. And they must have left a mark, on the Balkans, that goes without a doubt as well. And E-V13 is simply the only/best candidate, especially if considering its modern phylogeny and distribution, as well as the available ancient DNA samples, which prove the late E-V13 in various areas of the Balkans. Its also important that the influences from the Carpathian basin started already before Gva, the connection was there before already, with e.g. Wietenberg and Pre-Gva connections down to Paracin and Brnjica.

----------


## Riverman

> From my understanding, from the above paper these Serbian archaeologists although a bit cautious they try to assign ethnical designation to cultures:
> 
> Glasinac-Mat => Autariate/Illyrians invaders from the West starting from 700 B.C and lasted until somewhere 500-400 B.C
> Brnjica and Channeled-Ware => Dardanians aboriginal population from Late Bronze Age.
> 
> and they propose that the latest to come are the West Bassarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian => Thracoid invaders from the North/East which associate with Triballi.
> 
> Could be wrong though, but i got that impression reading them.


Brnjica seems to have been connected to the Carpathian basin before, see above. Already to Wietenberg, which is highly interesting, because some researchers assumed that Pre-Gva received an Eastern input. They being connected to later Channelled Ware/Gva territories already before the Gva expansion, which is apparent in their customs as well (cremation, channelled pottery appears etc.). 

It seems to me, you should read the full paper linked, that Brnjica kind of incorporated a lot of the Channelled Ware people which settled in the lowlands, while they had retreated to the hillforts, while some groups moved deep into Greece and Bulgaria - where they later being caught by Channelled Ware people and fused with them. 

On top of Basarabi came Scythian influences, this formed in some regions the so called Ferigile culture, a group which corresponds to Vekerzug, just to the South. And its with these Scythianised Basarabi people, with which some more safely associate the Triballi later. So basically Basarabi-Ferigile in a certain regional context. 

I'd agree with that, and its clear that Basarabi evolved from Belegis II-Gva -> Gornea-Kalakaca (local influences!) -> Basarabi (Thraco-Cimmerian influences!) -> Ferigile (Scythian influences!)

In my opinion Basarabi should be one if not the main group carrying E-V13 in the earlier stages of the Iron Age and because of local and Thraco-Cimmerian influences, they started to use inhumation more often. This is dangerous though, because of the foreign influences and some biritual cemeteries, but its still the best chance we got, since earlier groups, before Kalakaca, had no regulars buried with their intact body. 

By the way, I read an interesting theory about cremation in the Late Bronze Age: When the warriors were on long campaigns, long raidings and conquests, the dead bodies would have began to decompose. So it was better and more dignified to burn their remains at home, rather than using the old customs. I don't think that was the main or original meaning, but thinking about the constant, large scale campaigning of Urnfielders, it could have been an additional reason for making the rite more popular. Just an additional one. 

Glasinac-Mati surely is the main Illyrian culture in the North (of Albania). Matt pained pottery is likely having been part-Illyrian too, especially in Albania, related to the Iapygian/Messapians (?).

----------


## mount123

> The real issue is that in the core Illyrian groups and territories, we have dense sampling with a lot of J-L283. That's not the primary home for both E-V13 or R-Z2103. Even if it would pop up, among outliers and as a very small minority, for E-V13 we need a way bigger home, and the Balkans being sampled already. Only the Serbian Danube area, where Belegis II-Gáva came up can still be considered, but even that is rather unlikely, everything considered. The Transtisza zone is the last option remaining and its the best anyway with Gáva into Channelled Ware.


I have quoted your post from the other forum, hope you don't mind Riverman.

I agree, that is what the data clearly shows and upcoming data will too. The thing that the person you referenced knows but chooses to ignore is the absence of E1b-V13 in the Bronze Age in that region. We have a continuity for both BA and IA J2b-L283 samples from the East Adriatic, we have the archeology, the data is there in front of all of us, these were Illyrians. 

The BA hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere and it came down during the transitional BA-IA period, obviously. IA samples as being a clear minor component in other areas does not make them the main haplogroup, the data speaks for itself.

----------


## Riverman

> I have quoted your post from the other forum, hope you don't mind Riverman.
> 
> I agree, that is what the data clearly shows and upcoming data will too. The thing that the person you referenced knows but chooses to ignore is the absence of E1b-V13 in the Bronze Age in that region. We have a continuity for both BA and IA J2b-L283 samples from the East Adriatic, we have the archeology, the data is there in front of all of us, these were Illyrians. 
> 
> The BA hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere and it came down during the transitional BA-IA period, obviously. IA samples as being a clear minor component in other areas does not make them the main haplogroup, the data speaks for itself.


At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.

----------


## mount123

> At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.


That is the point and didn't he actually repetitively claim Belotic-Bela Crkva to be the EBA hub of E1b-V13? As far as the graph shows, and there is a good chance for Belotic samples to be a part of that Serbia Bronze Age cluster too, E1b-V13 is not even mentioned. So, even if E1b-V13 would part of that "others" graph it still won't be significant and such a place won't be the expansion area.

----------


## Johane Derite

> At least he finally came up with his own theory, which is basically Eastern Bosnia-Kosovo, around that corner. But there was no important, expansive culture in that zone, and as will be shown, J-L283 just marched through. The good thing is, that can be more easily tested than the Eastern Carpathian basin.


He has proven over and over again that he is a bad faith actor / malicious.

Some of the most obvious cases being when he tries to deny Brnjica culture existed when this is accepted as plain fact by most Albanian archaeologists, international archaeologists, etc.

Another important one was his claims about the indo european /sk/ cluster in Albanian, which must have been long lost before the Roman era, which he tries to minimise because it is a big problem for Illyrian names like Skerdilaidis, Skenobardus, etc.

Seeing him brazenly lie and manipulate about these two issues made it clear that he is willing to bend facts without blinking to force an Illyrian -> Albanian linguistic continuity.

He also intentionally attempts to frustrate with bis gaslighting and provocations to get people banned.

Also, that he selectively uses papers like the famous Nenova one, where he uses one quote about Thrace, but totally ignores the more relevant one that outright claims that channelled ware overcame major territories, etc. This shows him to be a totally untrustworthy character that misrepresents authors arguments.

Not to say that everything he says is false, but if it is something that potentially endangers or problematises illyrian to Albanian continuity, he is totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous.

Note how he has totally ignored the latest book on illyrians.

----------


## Riverman

> He has proven over and over again that he is a bad faith actor / malicious.
> Some of the most obvious cases being when he tries to deny Brnjica culture existed when this is accepted as plain fact by most Albanian archaeologists, international archaeologists, etc.
> Another important one was his claims about the indo european /sk/ cluster in Albanian, which must have been long lost before the Roman era, which he tries to minimise because it is a big problem for Illyrian names like Skerdilaidis, Skenobardus, etc.
> Seeing him brazenly lie and manipulate about these two issues made it clear that he is willing to bend facts without blinking to force an Illyrian -> Albanian linguistic continuity.
> He also intentionally attempts to frustrate with bis gaslighting and provocations to get people banned.
> Also, that he selectively uses papers like the famous Nenova one, where he uses one quote about Thrace, but totally ignores the more relevant one that outright claims that channelled ware overcame major territories, etc. This shows him to be a totally untrustworthy character that misrepresents authors arguments.
> Not to say that everything he says is false, but if it is something that potentially endangers or problematises illyrian to Albanian continuity, he is totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous.
> Note how he has totally ignored the latest book on illyrians.


He says false things. Like talking about Thrace, he always comes back to the diversity and continuity, yet he ignores the Fluted/Channelled Ware horizon in the transitional period. Funnily, the same being done by many archaeologists though, claiming first large scale continuity, but then, in detail, you see there is nothing of a continuity in the LBA-EIA. Just one group after another crashing into Thrace/Bulgaria. 

By the way, here is the current sampling situation - note especially the total lack of relevant Brone Age samples from the Gva core regions: 


Source: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../45.699/19.775

Zero samples from the Gva core zone, especially nothing which fits into the Gva Proto- or developed culture proper. We have females and a sample from Kyjatice (J2a) though. We have close samples from the Avar and early Hungarian period, from areas where Gva expanded into, and there was significant E-V13 in all sample groups, but that's of course too late to be sure about that. 

Belegis II-Gva territory being better sampled, but again largely from irrelvant times and cultures, mostly too late. But Belegis II-Gva core and expansion territory, which includes Viminacium, was later packed with E-V13.

The unsampled Balkan area is not enough for the massive E-V13 position and expansion from the MBA-MIA. And its in between J-L283 dominated zones, which makes it extremely unlikely if taking both into consideration, as well as the geographically bad position for the Northern expansions E-V13 had, going by both modern and ancient DNA.

----------


## Hawk

It's interesting to me how these knobs appear in Bubanj-Hum, latter to reappear among Vatin up north to Gava/Ottomany/Cotofeni in Eastern Carpathians.

Ceramic goblet, Bubanj-Hum I cultural complex, Chalcolithic period (Copper age), around 3000 years BC, found at Livade-Kalenić archaeological site, vicinity of Ub, western Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Valjevo





Ceramic goblet decorated with linear ornaments, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 years BC found at Zlatica archaeological site in Omoljica village, vicinity of Pančevo, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade





Ceramic urn decorated with linear ornaments, Dubovac-Žuto brdo culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in eastern Serbia.
The ornaments are filled with white inlay, in a typical manner of Dubovac-Žuto brdo art.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia



Ceramic goblets, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Dimensions - height 11 cm.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade



Ceramic goblet, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in vicinity of Paraćin, central Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Paraćin



Ceramic goblet richly decorated with linear ornaments, Belegiš culture, Late Bronze age – early Iron age, around 1300 – 1000 years BC, found at Siglova ciglana archaeological site in Bela Crkva, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Bela Crkva



Ceramic goblet with two handles, polished terracotta, Vatin culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 BC found at Zlatica archaeological site in Omoljica village, vicinity of Pančevo, Banat region, Vojvodina province, northern Serbia.
Surface of the goblet is decorated with ornaments composed of curved lines.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
During the middle Bronze age at Zlatica site existed settlement, fortified by trenches and possibly defensive walls, but unfortunately possible traces of fortifications were destroyed by construction of the drainage channel.
Archaeologists have discovered traces of 7 trenches, few houses, several pits and deposits



Crescent-shaped gold pendants, Dubovac-Žuto brdo culture, middle Bronze age, around 1500 years BC, found in Velika Vrbica, vicinity of Kladovo, eastern Serbia.
On ending opposite to the crescent ornaments there are holes used for attaching these pendants to the clothes.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade.
Pendants are part of group find, which consisted of one lavish composite necklace made of 9 strings with several hundred gold beads of various shape and size, gold plate and 2 gold snake-shaped hair rings. They were made in a local workshop, and used to be worn by a woman who was a high-ranked member of prehistoric society.
Motif of a crescent is common on jewelry among many contemporary Bronze age cultures from the territory of Serbia




Bronze swords, part of hoard of various bronze items discovered at Pađina Larga archaeological site in Topolnica, vicinity of Donji Milanovac, eastern Serbia.
Late Bronze age – early Iron age, around 1100 – 1000 years BC.
Dimensions – length of the lonest sword 67.5 cm.
Collection of Krajina Museum in Negotin




Posts/pictures made by: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia

----------


## Hawk

Ceramic burial urn, Western-Serbian cultural group of the late Bronze age, around 1500 – 1200 years BC, found in one of the graves at necropolis at Dubac archaeological site, in Jančiči village, Kablar mountain, vicinity of Čačak.
Collection of Museum in Čačak.
Burial urns were used for depositing ashes and remains of burnt deceased after cremation



Ceramic urn, older Iron age - Hallstatt A period, around 1000 BC, excavated in Orašje, vicinity of Varvarin, central Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade



Hair rings, gold, middle Bronze age, around 1600-1500 years BC, found in eastern Serbia. 
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade

----------


## Hawk

Stone mold for casting bronze spearheads, middle-late Bronze age, around 1500 - 1200 years BC, found in Serbia.
Dimensions - length around 17 cm.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade

----------


## Hawk

Bronze sword, transition period between tje ate Bronze age and early Iron age, around 1200-1000 years BC, found in Konjuša village at Cer mountain, western Serbia.
Collection of National Museum of Serbia

----------


## Hawk

Ceramic urns and goblets, late Bronze age, Gava cultural complex, around 1200 – 900 BC, found at remains of prehistoric settlement in vicinity of Banatski dvor, Banat region, northern Serbia.
At this site archaeologists have found remains of fortified late Bronze age settlement, with visible remains of houses, pits and defensive trench. Excavated items consist mostly of pottery and some terracotta moulds for casting bronze weapons and tools

----------


## Hawk

Ceramic goblet, Belegiš culture, Middle-late Bronze age, around 1300 – 1000 BC, excavated at Gomolava archaeological site in Hrtkovci village, Srem region, northern Serbia.
Dimensions – height 15.6 cm.
Collection of Museum in Ruma.
Gomolava is one of the most important and richest archaeological sites in Serbia, laying along the Sava river, with traces of different cultures starting from 7000 year ago. Many communities founded their settlements there, oldest being Vinča culture from the Neolithic period 5000 BC. After that site was occupied by different cultures from Bronze age, Iron age, from the Roman period and Medieval times. Cultural layer is more than 6 meters thick



Ceramic burial urn, Belegiš culture, Middle-late Bronze age, around 1300 – 1000 BC, found at Kovačica-Vinogradi archaeological site, Banat region, northern Serbia.
Collection of Museum in Pančevo.
Burial urns were used for depositing ashes and remains of burnt deceased after cremation

----------


## Riverman

Yes, the connections to the Central and Eastern Balkan are there and strong.
When Gva expanded however, it seems to have had a drastic impact nevertheless.

----------


## Dinaric Superman

Although I agree that it looks as if E-V13 spread from Carpathian region, maybe even close to Slovakia, some here have a tendency to overstate the 'proto-Thracian'' character of Chanelled Ware (e.g. as if the the MBA period R1a-Z93 & EBA -I2a2/ R1b-Z2103 had no impact)
As far as pottery goes, there was a massive incursion of 'Anatolian Grey Ware ' in the late Iron Age also... So much for pottery styles

----------


## Riverman

> Although I agree that it looks as if E-V13 spread from Carpathian region, maybe even close to Slovakia, some here have a tendency to overstate the 'proto-Thracian'' character of Chanelled Ware (e.g. as if the the MBA period R1a-Z93 & EBA -I2a2/ R1b-Z2103 had no impact)
> As far as pottery goes, there was a massive incursion of 'Anatolian Grey Ware ' in the late Iron Age also... So much for pottery styles


But the spread of this pottery style was much more limited in comparison and more cultural-trade shifted, quite obviously. But there could have been an Anatolian influx even, with an autosomal effect. 

Yet the big difference to Channelled Ware is, especially if talking about Thracian, that they covered all later Thracian regions and connected them, from the Transitional period, to one big koine. If you think that Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni steppe groups were the Proto-Thracians, possible, but rather unlikely, in my opinion. Because it was Channelled Ware in particular, which might have picked up some of these influences, but in the end pushed them back.

----------


## Hawk

I have drawn a line where i believe E-V13 was residing in Middle to Late Bronze Age. I believe E-V13 during Middle to Late Bronze Age was already present in South-East Pannonia, Western Serbia/Eastern Croatia, down to Brnjica, Paracin to a degree and Northern Aegean, but the core groups resided within Wietenberg-Cotofeni and Gava/Ottomany as well. This is the cultural horizont, so called Balkan-Carpathian, Danubo-Carpathian.

----------


## Riverman

> I have drawn a line where i believe E-V13 was residing in Middle to Late Bronze Age. I believe E-V13 during Middle to Late Bronze Age was already present in South-East Pannonia, Western Serbia/Eastern Croatia, down to Brnjica, Paracin to a degree and Northern Aegean, but the core groups resided within Wietenberg-Cotofeni and Gava/Ottomany as well. This is the cultural horizont, so called Balkan-Carpathian, Danubo-Carpathian.



The issue is that we have influences and connections from various directions. But more generally speaking, I still think that Suciu de Sus/Lapus/Berkesz-Demecser is the main thing, but there could be connections not just into Wietenberg, but also deeper into Romania. Related formations with connections down to the Lower Danube.

----------


## Riverman

More about the Scytho-Sarmatian connection, about the E-V13 Sogdian, from Karatau 1: 




> ...Karatau 1 (E-CTS9320) share a common direct paternal line ancestor (E-BY3880) who lived around 1900 BCE (3 900 years ago).
> 
> Karatau 1 was a man who lived between 245 and 343 CE during the Iron Age Central Asia and was found in the region now known as Konyrtobe, Kazakhstan.
> 
> He was associated with the Otyrar cultural group.
> 
> His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup I1c1.
> 
> Reference: KNT001 from Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021


Also notable, that the other male from the same site was J2a1h2 (J-L25). 




> The individuals from the ancient city of Otyrar Oasis in southern Kazakhstan show a quite distinct genetic profile. Three of five individuals (Konyr_Tobe_300CE) *fall close to the published Kangju_250CE individuals from a similar time period and region (11), between Sarmatians and BMAC (Fig. 2C).* KNT005 is shifted toward BMAC in PCA (Fig. 2C and fig. S1). Furthermore, KNT005 is the only one carrying a South Asian Y haplogroup, L1a2 (data file S1), and showing a South Asian genetic component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2D and fig. S2). KNT004 is shifted in PC1 toward East Asians (figs. S1 to S3). Admixture models including ~10% South Asian and ~50% eastern Eurasian influx adequately explain KNT005 and KNT004, respectively (data file S4). In contrast, the individuals from the site of Alai Nura (Alai_Nura_300CE) in the Tian Shan mountains (~200 km east from the Konyr Tobe site) still lay along the IA cline of the Tian Shan Saka, with four individuals falling closer to Konyr_Tobe_300CE and four closer to the Tasmola/Pazyryk cloud (Fig. 2C and figs. S1 to S3).


The individual being from Konyr Tobe: 



> The highly variable admixture proportions and dates obtained for those individuals suggest that this was an ongoing process that characterized the first centuries CE (first to fifth century at least; Fig. 3C, fig. S4, and table S3). Additional genetic data from the first millennium CE will allow a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and the extent of this heterogeneity. Instead, in the southern Kazakhstan region, *the individuals from the Konyr Tobe site located in the ancient city of Otyrar Oasis show a different genetic turnover mostly characterized by an increase in Iranian-related genetic ancestry, most likely reflecting the influence of the Persian empires (Fig. 4C) (20, 29). Outliers, with high eastern Eurasian admixture or with gene flow from South Asia, suggest that the population of this city at that time was heterogeneous (Fig. 2C and data file S4). During this period, Otyrar was a main center of the Kangju kingdom and a crossroad along the Silk Road (29).* In the neighboring region of the Tian Shan mountains, in the third century CE site of Alai Nura, a genetic profile typical of the much earlier IA Tian Shan Sakas can still be found (Fig. 3B and data file S4).


The sample being from this paper: 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

The samples are in G25 and plot between Karelians and Udmurts or RUS_Tagar. 


```
KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity_o1:KNT004,0.069432,-0.138112,0.000754,-0.01938,-0.043085,-0.006136,0.011751,0.011769,-0.011862,-0.000364,-0.016401,-0.003147,0.006392,-0.004679,0.002036,0.003315,-0.004303,0.00038,0.001257,-0.001126,-0.015098,-0.00272,-0.003574,-0.003856,0.006227
KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT001,0.093335,0.061947,-0.011691,0.033915,-0.039084,0.016733,0.00423,-0.004615,-0.031088,-0.031345,-0.005034,-0.004046,0.011001,-0.025735,0.019815,0.020949,0.01017,0.00114,-0.00264,0,0.005615,-0.005193,-0.003081,0.00976,0.002874
KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT002,0.106994,0.058901,0.010182,0.045866,-0.028621,0.024263,0.00188,-0.007384,-0.025361,-0.029887,0.009581,-0.003297,-0.003419,-0.015414,0.016422,0.013126,-0.008345,0.001394,0.004022,-0.008504,-0.017594,-0.006554,0.000246,0.003735,0.000239
KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT003,0.101303,0.059916,-0.008674,0.042959,-0.039084,0.018965,-0.00376,-0.011538,-0.035383,-0.02606,-0.001299,-0.004346,0.003717,-0.025047,0.021172,0.025722,-0.001043,-0.005068,0.000251,-0.006378,-0.005989,-0.005564,-0.001356,-0.005302,0.005269
KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT005,0.086506,0.067025,-0.073161,0.040698,-0.065243,0.027331,0.00423,0.003461,-0.02802,-0.024602,-0.003248,-0.007044,0.000743,-0.006331,0.006243,0.015646,-0.008214,-0.00152,0.007668,-0.022761,-0.003868,-0.001731,0.004437,-0.00494,0.008263
```


We have a Sarmatian from the Transtisza area with E-V13, from about the same time, so this kind of proves the Scytho-Sarmatian backflow. 

If you look at the Chinese samples, for those with subclades, we find primarily E-S2979 and subclades like E-FGC11457/E-B409 and E-L241: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....E-V13-in-China

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2979/ (TMRCA of about 3.700 BC). 

These are the same which being widespread in Europe today and were found in Pannonian Avar era samples as well. We now have the step in between the Sarmatian from Transtisza which was E-V13, the Sogdian in Central Asia and the samples from China, which prove the trail.






> Archaeological evidence suggests that the Kangju spoke an Eastern Iranian language, which was probably identical to Sogdian,[10] or derived from it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangju

The admixture is also pretty clear. There was just an increase, compared to older Sarmatian groups, of Iranian-related ancestry.

The map nicely shows why among the Western Chinese and Northern Chinese populations more E-V13 was found. Especially in the Uyghurs, some Muslim groups and in the Northern Chinese provinces - there parallel to the R-Z93 presence, which is of course much higher.

----------


## ihype02

> Well, as expected.
> 
> And, this is for some people still trying to make propaganda. Read it boldly.
> Another surprising thing for me, is that E-L618/E-V13 might have been present in Balkans during Mesolithic times, i zoomed the graph and indeed, it was present probably in very small percentage, but none in Neolithic and Bronze Age. It reappears during Bronze to Iron Age transition.


Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias. 
The genetic ethnogenesis of Balkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.

----------


## mount123

> Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias. 
> The genetic enthogenisis of Ballkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
> Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.


Pardon, which Bronze Age samples were from Greece? It is not "geography bias" the majority of the samples in the chart are from the Western/ Central Balkans. One who goes through the phylogeny of E1b-V13 will clearly see when it heavily expanded. What all of this just further tells us is that the Bronze Age expansion hub of E1b-V13 was elsewhere. 

Also, it is totally unrealistic that it spread as some sort of secondarily absorbed lineage amongst other groups later on. It does not work with its phylogeny.

----------


## Riverman

> Still does not prove a mass explosion of E-V13 during the LBA. Very likely it is geography bias. 
> The genetic enthogenisis of Ballkanic nations was finished before the EIA.
> Also the only Bronze Age samples in the leaked PCA were from Greece.


It is very clear what mount123 already said and I may add that if anything, E-V13 is a "funerary rite bias" = they largely cremated. Yet you have to ask yourself, which groups did largely cremate and which regions being undertested in general. In the Balkans were large formations which did cremate as well, but these had close relations to the Carpathian groups and many didn't use the rite uninterrupted. Therefore what the current results show very clearly is first and foremost that E-V13 can't be primarily associated with the Illyrians, especially the early/Proto-Illyrians. Because the distinctive feature of those was that they preferred most of the time, especially in the Balkans, inhumation in collective tumuli. It's like their signature, just like all/most early Thracian associated groups did cremate in the LBA-EIA. 

Therefore we have to search for the E-V13 source to the North and East of the Illyrians, not in the midst of them. Among the cremating horizons of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. And considering the modern phylogeny of E-V13, which is glass-clear, the best association can be made with Channelled Ware, which expanded into the Balkans right when E-V13 did (proven case) expand rapidly, in the Transitional Period (1.300-1.000 BC). Almost all major subclades of E-V13 came up, split and spread in that time period big time. This was a huge series of founder effects, much bigger than Illyrian J-L283 had it in that time frame. And the only phenomenon big and influential enough, affecting all the regions from which we know E-V13 in later periods, was Channelled Ware and the following Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon, which can be largely equated with Thracians.

Everybody can check that: 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/

----------


## ihype02

There are like 7 E-V13 samples from the Iron Age this could easily be sample bias or geographical bias. Let's wait and see where the Bronze Age samples are from and then we can compare the ratio of E-V13 BA vs. IA in those locations.

----------


## mount123

> It is very clear what mount123 already said and I may add that if anything, E-V13 is a "funerary rite bias" = they largely cremated. Yet you have to ask yourself, which groups did largely cremate and which regions being undertested in general. In the Balkans were large formations which did cremate as well, but these had close relations to the Carpathian groups and many didn't use the rite uninterrupted. Therefore what the current results show very clearly is first and foremost that E-V13 can't be primarily associated with the Illyrians, especially the early/Proto-Illyrians. Because the distinctive feature of those was that they preferred most of the time, especially in the Balkans, inhumation in collective tumuli. It's like their signature, just like all/most early Thracian associated groups did cremate in the LBA-EIA.


Thanks for adding the cremation factor, which I forgot to add to my response, sorry for that. Very important point and it will clearly show with further samples that it cannot legitimately be ignored when it comes to the overall aDNA picture (it actually is already evident).

----------


## Riverman

> There are like 7 E-V13 samples from the Iron Age this could easily be sample bias or geographical bias. Let's wait and see where the Bronze Age samples are from and then we can compare the ratio of E-V13 BA vs. IA in those locations.


So far, there is not a single E-V13 from the Bronze Age, actually there is none from anywhere, but we know that it will come up in North Eastern Hungary, in the borderzone of Gva in the LBA. Before that there is another E1b1b sample from BA Hungary, we need to check those. Even more important would be Romania, but the key groups largely cremated...

----------


## Hawk

Something about Illyrians:




> Mënyra e lashtë e djegies së të vdekurve dhe e vënies së eshtrave të djegura e të hirit drejtpërdrejt në varr e jo nëpër urna, është ruajtur nëpër viset ilire deri në shek. III të e.r. pra deri në kohën kur romanizimi kishte përfshirë shumë viset ilire.
> https://balkancultureheritage.com/fi....son%C3%AB)/79





> Më së miri janë hulumtuar tumulat në Gllasinc, në këtë nekropolë të madhe në të cilën janë varrosur pjesëtarët e fisit të desidiatëve. Supozohet se në rajonin e fushës së Gllasincit (midis maleve Romania dhe Devetakut, si edhe lumit Drina dhe degës së saj Praça) gjenden nja 20 000 tumula, prej të cilave që nga viti 1880 janë zbuluar gjithsejt 1000. Tumulat ishin të ngritura nga dheu dhe gurët mbi të vdekurin i cili ishte shtrirë drejtpërdrejt në tokë, ndërsa kur i vdekuri ishte djegur, atëherë në varr është vënë hiri i tij. Analiza e kujdesshme e tumave na bën të mundur të mendojmë mënyrën e punimit të atyre tumave si dhe ceremonitëe komplikuara lidhur me varrimin e të vdekurve në atë nekropoL Afer vendit ku do të ngrihej tumula është ndezur turra e druve ku është djegur trupi i të vdekurit. Kur digjej kufoma, mbeturinat, hiri dhe eshtrat, mblidheshin dhe viheshin në varr, në të cilin më pas hidhej dheu dhe gurët Gjatë ngritjes së tumulave bëhej thyerja rituale e enëve të baltës, e kjo vazhdonte edhe atëherë kur tuma ishte e gatshme. Pjesë përbërëse e ceremonisë ishin edhe vallëzimet mortore që në artin figurativ të ilirëve janë paraqitur prej shek. V. para e.re. (në një urnë guri të japodëve nga Ribiçi) deri në periudhën romake. Mbi varr pjesëmarrësit e varrosjes hanin e pinin dhe kështu vinin lidhjen me të ndjerin, i cili edhe si i vdekur nuk do të pushojë kurrë të ishte anëtar i gjinisë, por për të do të kujdesen edhe më tutje anëtarët e gjinisë dhe do ta ndihmojnë në rastet e vështirësive.





> Nëtruallin ilir hasim gjithashtu edhe llojetëtjera varresh: madje edhe në të njëjtat nekropola përzihen mënyra të ndryshme të varrimit. Në vendbanimin e njohur të lakustrave në Donja Dolina, për shembull, gjejmë në të njëjtën kohë tri lloje varrezash. Në vetë vendbanimin, nën dyshemetë e shtëpive janë varrosur të vdekurit në arka druri. Varrimi nën shtëpi kishte domethënie të thellë: anëtari i vdekur i klanit mbetet edhe më tutje në shtëpi dhe do t’i mbronte anëtarët e shtëpisë. Natyrisht, nën shtëpi nuk janë varrosur të gjithë të vdekurit, por vetëm anëtarët me autoritet të klanit të cilët janë konsideruar si anëtarë të shtëpisë. Të vdekurit e tjerë janë varrosur jashtë vendbanimit në nekropol, kështu që janë vënë drejtpërdrëjt në tokë dhe janë mbuluar me dhe, ose disa janë djegur, ndërsa hiri i tyre është vënë në urna.


So, technically Albanian archaeologists say that cremation was present among Illyrians but limited in comparison with the older Bronze Age tradition of inhumation, besides that, they mention that cremation in Illyrian graves didn't involve using urns but they scattered the ashes in the grave most commonly.

I wouldn't expect all E-V13 people to cremate their death but in Balkans and in Europe during Bronze/Iron Age i would expect this lineage to be related with the cultures with the most conservative practice of this ritual. I read in some sources that even Celts were influenced by Pannonian natives in adopting this ritual and spreading far in Central-Western Europe.

After all, earliest E-V13 we got is from Early Iron Age Psenichevo Culture, a Early Hallstattian/Eastern Urnfielder descended culture. People known for practicing this ritual in addition with several material culture packages like ritual pits, knobbed pottery with channeling/stamping/incision/flutes, Naue II swords.

----------


## Riverman

> Something about Illyrians:
> 
> 
> So, technically Albanian archaeologists say that cremation was present among Illyrians but limited in comparison with the older Bronze Age tradition of inhumation, besides that, they mention that cremation in Illyrian graves didn't involve using urns but they scattered the ashes in the grave most commonly.
> 
> I wouldn't expect all E-V13 people to cremate their death but in Balkans and in Europe during Bronze/Iron Age i would expect this lineage to be related with the cultures with the most conservative practice of this ritual. I read in some sources that even Celts were influenced by Pannonian natives in adopting this ritual and spreading far in Central-Western Europe.
> 
> After all, earliest E-V13 we got is from Early Iron Age Psenichevo Culture, a Early Hallstattian/Eastern Urnfielder descended culture. People known for practicing this ritual in addition with several material culture packages like ritual pits, knobbed pottery with channeling/stamping/incision/flutes, Naue II swords.


Cremation appeared among Illyrians do to contacts with both Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Eastern Channelled Ware Urnfielders. Especially the latter often scattered the ashes, like related groups did earlier already in Nyirseg and Vatin. But the point is, its no Illyrian/Proto-Illyrian ritual, but came from this foreigners. Just like the opposite is true for the E-V13 dominated cremating groups. So even the E-V13 present in Illyrians after the LBA will be likely harder to find, because they will more often cremate and stick to that ritual.

----------


## Hawk

Something more about Vatin from Draga Garasanin.




> *The region of Vojvodina, just like the Morava Lands area, is for the most part related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex*. However, on the other hand there are certain factors which are more closely related to the region of Pannonia. Today, in general, in this region we can distinguish two cultural groups: the Vatin group named after the type site at Vatin near Vrsac and the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group after the types sites of Dubovac near Kovin and Zuto Brdo in the village of Vinci near Golubac in Serbia. It must be immediately noted that the characteristics of these groups can be traced in the Serbian region of the Danube Lands, in the same form as in Vojvodina, however they don't extend more south than Central Serbia and the Morava Lands area. The events in Western Serbia, on the basis of the material culture are closely related to Vojvodina, even though the burial rite is different and connected to the west Balkan complex, and shall be treated later in this survey.
> 
> *The Vatin group has been known in archaeology ever since the beginning of this century. Its typical forms and the extent of its culture are throughout the whole of the Vojvodina, although the main center is however in the Banat, the area nearest to the Carpathians*. In question is a typical Middle Bronze Age culture, which has been investigated in settlements such as Vatin and Zidovar. In these settlements the remains of rectangular prehistoric houses have been found built on the surface of the ground. Their shape and form in general, corresponds to similar features that have been noticed in other areas of the Balkano-Carpathian complex. Here, although there are differences in the shapes as well as the ornamentation of objects we can also put the Paracin group. The burial rite consisted of the cremated remains of the deceased being placed in an urn, along with the grave gifts which were arranged around the urn and other different vases, while the metal objects were placed in the urn. However, skeletal burials in an extended position certainly existed. But until now we still have no definite evidence of this, that burial under a tumulus was practised as it was in the west Balkan area. It is evident that what we have here are flat graves, that formed small groups, which on the basis of the available information would lead us to believe that they were the graves of families or small clans.
> 
> 
> As is the case with other culture groups of the Bronze Age, the basis for following culture patterns and changes, is the detailed study of the pottery of each group. Very often in the pottery we have the imitation of metallic vessels, a characteristic example of this would be the double handled vase whose handles surpass the rim from Omoljica near Pancevo. Aside from this, characteristic are the single handled vases that surpass the rim, a footed jug, lids with crossed handles, and urns, often with cylindrical necks and curved shoulders and strap handles and lugs on the belly, arranged in a definite order similar to the Paracin Grave 1962-2. There is also a rich variety of handle shapes: the so called ansa lunata, homed and volute types. The decoration on these vases as relatively poor. Of the ornaments present we have sometimes wide flutes, ribbed channels which are arranged horizontally and diagonally. More often we have incised ornaments in the shape of a gar land with spiral terminations. Sometimes on the urns these decorations are done with the aid of a cord. In any case the main esthetic value of this pottery are its proportions, the sharply profiled shapes that certainly imitate original metal shapes. Other art forms such as sculpture and the plastic arts which were so common in the Neolithic period, and which do not exist in the Bronze Age groups of the Morava valley, are somewhat better represented here, especially the animal shaped vases from Vatin, and the well known bird vase from Starcevo, where we also have the remains of a late Vatin phase grave. Today, chronologically it is possible to divide the Vatin group into three phases. This has been accomplished mainly on the basis of the differences of the material from different sites and closed assemblages from graves. At the well known site of Zidovar near Vrsac there exists well differed levels that belong to the Vatin group and other groups of the Metal Age. When this material is published in it entirety it shall no doubt offer us a clearer picture of the situation.
> 
> The oldest phase of the Vatin group is the so called Pancevo-Omoljica phase named after the type sites in Pancevo and Omoljica. They can be placed at the very beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (according to Reinecke A2/B1) and are characterized generally by the vases that have one or two ansa lunata handles, rarely they are of a developed form. In Pancevo, a small vase with three feet was found, it has been related to the so called Madarovce group of Central Europe, which also belongs to this period. The next phase, the Vatin-Vrsac phase, is actually the classical stage of the Vatin group. During this phase we have many different typical ceramic forms as well as the ones from the previous phase. The inventory of the metal finds from one of the graves from Vatin itself furnishes us with the data necessary to date this phase. The material in question is a characteristic bronze axe and a disc-like shaped headed pin. Finally, we have the large urnfield necropolises, where the urns are decorated by the use of a cord, e.g. Belegis, Surcin, Islands as well as Rospi Cuprija in Belgrade, which all belong to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Also of importance for dating, is the bronze pin with a grooved head from one of the graves from Islands, which is typical of the Bronze C period according to Reinecke. 
> 
> ...

----------


## Riverman

> Something more about Vatin from Draga Garasanin.


The piece just proves the two points I made, with data being hidden due to mainly two factors: 
- undersampled Romania
- cremation horizon

All related groups being affected by this, with E-V13 surely being present in one or more of them in the MBA.

----------


## Hawk

As we can see, Draga Garasanin was thinking that the Western variant of Vatin Culture was greatly influenced and mixed with Belotic-Bela Crkva. And the influence of Belotic Bela Crkva is what made this variant different from other Balkan-Carpathian cultures.

I must say that perhaps those Pannonian-Illyrian remains from Roman times might be this Vatin Culture influence. This is of course yet to be seen.




> *****
> 
> On the basis of its geomorphological position, and on the basis of the character of its material culture, it is evident that the region of Western Serbian is an entity in itself. In our survey so far it has been mentioned several times, that the characteristics and shapes of the movable inventory of the cultures of this region must be related to the Vatin group, i.e. with Pannonia and in the long run with the Balkano-Carpathian region. On the other hand, if we bear tin mind that the funeral rite that was practiced in this region, is the reflection in an ethnic sense of the population of this region. It can be seen that this region is related to Bosnia and to the evolution of the western part of the Balkan Peninsula as a whole, where on the basis of a given symbiosis of the Indo-European nomads from the Steppes and the indigenous population of this region, we have the nascence of the foundation for the later development of the Illyrian tribes.
> *****
> 
> Although the archaeological information has not been able to give us definite answers to all the questions that exist, we still must analyze the data that it offers us and on that basis try to solve the historical problems concerned with it in a broader sense.
> The type of settlement that is characteristic of the West Serbian variant of the Vatin group is the so called gradina or hillforts. These settlements to be found on a dominating well fortified position, and with understandable internal evolution during different prehistoric periods can be with certainty traced to the Iron Age, the era when with certainty we can speak of the existence of the Illyrian tribes. Unfortunately, archaeological research is still not developed enough, that on the basis of it we could with certainty follow this long evolution, that chronologically encompasses several centuries. On a site in Ljuljaci near Kragujevac, where a similar gradina and archeological material has been found, it has been noticed on the basis of typology that there exists several phases of the above mentioned variant of the Vatin group. The above site unfortunately was never excavated in the modern way and this is the reason that we have to rely on typology as a means of differentiation of levels. It seems sure that a systematic excavation would have the possibility of differentiating several phases of building levels and parts of the settlement. Unfortunately, no such type of research has been undertaken and the question has to remain open for the moment.
> 
> The burial rite of this group is the characteristic tumulus burial. The existence of this type of necropolis, had already been noticed at the end of the last century. This was due primarily to the excavations that took place on a series of necropolises in the regions of Valjevo, Loznica and in Dragacevo in the vicinity of Cacak. It has only been since World War II that the systematic excavations on some of the necropolises, especially in Belotic and Bela Crkva and to some extent in the surrounding of Cacak, that we have been able to gain some new and more complete information.
> ...

----------


## ihype02

From which regions are the E-V13 samples from?
I read in Anthrogenica some days ago that all or most of J2a samples in Bronze Age came from Greece. 


If, hypothetically, we had only samples from Greece dating to the Iron Age and none to the Bronze Age and given the fact that J2a was probably rare outside of Greece in Balkans, in that scenario we would see J2a popping out in considerable percentages in the Iron Age Chart. But does this not prove that there was a mass explosion of J2a in LBA/EIA Balkans? No it is only sample and geographical bias. 

Hawk's E-V13 theory is not out of question but I am just correcting some not necessarily true conclusions from the leaked data.

----------


## Riverman

> From which regions are the E-V13 samples from?
> I read in Anthrogenica some days ago that all or most of J2a samples in Bronze Age came from Greece. 
> 
> 
> If, hypothetically, we had only samples from Greece dating to the Iron Age and none to the Bronze Age and given the fact that J2a was probably rare outside of Greece in Balkans, in that scenario we would see J2a popping out in considerable percentages in the Iron Age Chart. But does this not prove that there was a mass explosion of J2a in LBA/EIA Balkans? No it is only sample and geographical bias. 
> 
> Hawk's E-V13 theory is not out of question but I am just correcting some not necessarily true conclusions from the leaked data.


The huge difference for E-V13 is that we know a lot about its later distribution in Central and South Eastern Europe from ancient DNA, as well as having a solid base of modern samples and a well-to reconstruct phylogeny. So we know that E-V13 must have been just huge, which excludes any kind of minor, hidden population segment just within the Balkans. And considering all data we have, its practically impossible that large portions of Eastern Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Southern Poland-Western Ukraine were not E-V13 heavy by the LBA-EIA transition.

You can't hide an elephant in a small doghouse.

----------


## Hawk

I tried to watch the video. And, i must say from past experience Stamov has very confusing ideas, probably pushed by nationalism, he is claiming Myceneans, Trojans and Thracians were I2a and they are related to Bulgarians/Slavs, but he mentions Bronze Age Thracians, by that we don't really know what he means, proto-Thracians or just people who geographically lived there.




Stamov is clearly confused and shouldn't be taken literally what he says. Early Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age is a lot of time, during this time we see a lot of E-V13 appearing in Central Balkans among Moesians/Triballi who were considered one of the strongest Thracian tribes, then the koine cultures like Psenichevo/Babadag, all related to Central Balkans Mediana/Parachin.

----------


## Riverman

Good summary of the current E-V13 sampling: 
https://phylogeographer.com/iron-age...tion-of-e-v13/

He should have added Eastern/Tisza-Transtisza Carpathian basin, if talking about Pannonia.

----------


## mount123

> Good summary of the current E-V13 sampling: 
> https://phylogeographer.com/iron-age...tion-of-e-v13/
> 
> He should have added Eastern/Tisza-Transtisza Carpathian basin, if talking about Pannonia.


Well, Hunter is the guy if I may say so. I like his objective and reasonable argumentation. Having said that and I agree with your addition and most of his proposal for E1b-V13, FTDNA data should have been included. This is especially important for samples from Kosovë. 

He has made a mistake in the designation of E-BY83158 where he put a J in the beginning instead of E the link however is correct, not that this is that big of an issue.

This statement is wrong: „J2b-L283 has relative maximum in the southern half of Albania peaking in the very southwest while E-V13's relative maximum stretches from north-central Albania to the western half of North Macedonia.“ Again, a problem of missing data inclusion. *FTDNA and Rrenjet/Gjenetika data must be included in order to support such a bold statement.* True statement would have been that J2b-L283 reaches its highest frequency in North Albania and Eastern/Central Kosovë.

I think it is great that he has pointed out the problem of not being able to put in the Kosovo flag location for us who are affected by this in regards to YFull, of whom I don’t have a positive opinion and don't want to attribute a great importance. Political prejudice and bad ethics of Russian founder Vadim Urasin are very evident here.

Thankfully FTDNA is a more reliable and academic resource. Nevertheless, very wrong and desperate attempt at politicizing in my opinion because we are much more important since being pre-Slavic and our local lineages are very crucial in mapping out the aDNA picture of the *native Balkan* groups.

----------


## Riverman

Nothing that new, but the Southern Arc papers confirm the clear Thracian connection for E-V13, with all earlier Iron Age samples belonging to the Thracian finds known already from around Kapitan Andreevo. Too bad they haven't sampled Basarabi and Babadag. Great miss.

----------


## Hawk

I am using this model:



```
Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.1786487,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172
West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.1287624,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN,0.1272922,0.1777177,0.0206787,-0.0799425,0.0635502,-0.040997,-0.0038777,-0.0036153,0.0460522,0.0810342,0.0099055,0.0092667,-0.0207628,0.0022018,-0.0366672,-0.0123087,0.0169498,0.0019425,0.0106215,-0.009442,-0.0118957,0.0040187,-0.006984,-0.0086758,-0.0011178
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengyel,0.124067,0.177718,0.019987,-0.082365,0.05878,-0.034861,0.00141,0.001615,0.051949,0.075081,0.01153,0.009741,-0.016353,0.008808,-0.036237,-0.023999,0.003781,0.005701,0.023757,-0.01063,-0.015722,0.005317,0.002218,-0.005061,-0.007185
East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C,0.120652,0.171624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.010191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En,0.132035,0.165531,0.032809,-0.027778,0.065551,-0.0251,0.00282,0.012923,0.046631,0.057222,0.005684,-0.002248,-0.016353,-0.017065,-0.018322,0.000663,0.02725,0.004054,0.010559,-0.000875,0.010731,0.004451,-0.019596,-0.027835,-0.001437
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163
```

samples:



```
Q1a_351:I20182,0.125205,0.144205,0.003017,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
E-V13_361:I20185,0.126344,0.158423,0.008674,-0.053295,0.040315,-0.034582,0.003995,-0.000231,0.005318,0.049204,0.004547,0.012889,-0.015015,-0.005367,-0.028366,-0.010342,0.013821,0.004307,0.010936,-0.01038,-0.009109,0.002349,0,0.000361,0.000239
E-V13_359:I20183,0.120652,0.160454,0.010559,-0.041344,0.030775,-0.02259,0.00282,-0.003,0.017794,0.047017,0.003085,0.013488,-0.008771,-0.004954,-0.029587,0.005171,0.024903,0.003674,0.008673,-0.001,-0.004866,-0.00371,0.000739,0.005784,-0.011017
R1a_362:I20186,0.122929,0.155376,0.007542,-0.059755,0.031698,-0.025937,0.0047,-0.005077,0.009408,0.049204,-0.001624,0.009292,-0.020069,0.007432,-0.028637,-0.016706,-0.001043,0.000633,0.01433,-0.010505,-0.009733,0.001855,-0.005669,0.003976,-0.002515
E-V13_358:I20181,0.119514,0.157407,0.007165,-0.039083,0.028621,-0.023985,-0.003995,-0.003923,0.014726,0.04319,0.002923,0.008692,-0.0278,0.003165,-0.016422,0.003315,0.032074,0.008108,0.018603,-0.004252,-0.00836,-0.000742,-0.010106,0.002289,-0.016885
E-V13_357:I20180,0.119514,0.167562,0.009051,-0.064923,0.03693,-0.022311,0.002115,-0.006,0.009204,0.047199,0.003248,0.004646,-0.013082,0.004542,-0.021444,-0.018695,-0.004172,0.003801,0.005405,-0.011881,-0.011605,0.002473,-0.000863,-0.006266,-0.012334
E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500,0.117238,0.1635,0.003394,-0.056202,0.022466,-0.012829,-0.002115,-0.002308,0.000409,0.03426,0.001137,0.009292,-0.018137,0.001927,-0.018865,-0.020286,0.00339,0.006714,0.012821,-0.008754,-0.004492,0.01051,-0.004683,0.005422,-0.010777
E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792,0.114961,0.180764,0.000754,-0.055556,0.023081,-0.02008,-0.00611,0.000462,0.017998,0.043737,-0.008607,0.001649,-0.024678,-0.017616,-0.021444,-0.00716,0.020079,-0.013302,-0.006913,-0.004752,-0.013227,0.016075,-0.006655,0.023377,-0.008981
```



Target: Q1a_351:I20182
Distance: 2.2479% / 0.02247869

35.8
Corded_Ware_Horizont



33.2
Aegean_Neolithic



27.0
West_Asian



1.8
Baltic



1.4
Bell_Beaker



0.8
East_European_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_361:I20185
Distance: 2.0335% / 0.02033488

38.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



26.6
Aegean_Neolithic



16.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont



15.2
West_Asian



2.2
Yamnaya



0.8
East_European_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_359:I20183
Distance: 2.5687% / 0.02568665

55.4
Aegean_Neolithic



25.0
Adriatic_Neolithic



7.4
Yamnaya



6.6
Baltic



4.0
East_European_Neolithic



1.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont





Target: R1a_362:I20186
Distance: 1.9219% / 0.01921902

49.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



19.8
West_Asian



13.4
Yamnaya



8.0
East_European_Neolithic



7.0
Aegean_Neolithic



2.8
Corded_Ware_Horizont





Target: E-V13_358:I20181
Distance: 2.9965% / 0.02996531

48.4
Aegean_Neolithic



21.8
East_European_Neolithic



16.6
Adriatic_Neolithic



13.2
Yamnaya





Target: E-V13_357:I20180
Distance: 1.9807% / 0.01980741

37.0
East_European_Neolithic



26.0
West_Asian



19.4
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



10.2
Corded_Ware_Horizont



7.4
Aegean_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500
Distance: 2.1880% / 0.02188031

34.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



33.6
West_Asian



13.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont



9.4
Yamnaya



5.4
Aegean_Neolithic



3.4
East_European_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792
Distance: 4.7003% / 0.04700340

80.2
Aegean_Neolithic



15.4
Yamnaya



4.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont

----------


## Riverman

I played a bit with the available samples and two of them show consistently increased affinity to HUN_LBA, its I20181 and I20183. They have slightly more WHG than the others and pick up HUN_LBA if being offered. The pattern is all the more striking in comparison to the rest of the samples. A bit of the WHG might be eaten up, in all of them, by the additional Iranian ancestry they got, which fuses it into Yamnaya sometimes. 



Here the more regionalised approach: 


Note the R1a carrier gets almost no HUN_LBA, but increased Noua/steppe ancestry! 

The pattern with only Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni as recent steppe source: 



The R1a carrier gets more of it, but shows less affinity to the HUN_LBA/Carpathian Basin samples. But what's the takeaway is, if, just if, any of the E-V13 samples show closer Carpathian Basin affinities, its I20181 and I20183. So I checked those, first individual 2 from: 



> Pit 28
> Bone remains from three skeletons were recorded. The anatomical position of skeletons is
> disturbed through natural decomposition and post-depositional natural stratification. Bones are
> fragmented and some parts missing as a result of taphonomical changes. Reconstruction of the
> skeletal remains reveals that there were three bodies placed one over another: on the top is
> individual 1 recorded as a 16-18 years old juvenile in supine position. The underling skeleton
> (individual 2) is on its right side in flexed position. Arm bones suggest that hands were tied
> behind the back. The individual is anthropologically identified as a male of 30-40 years at death.
> On the left parietal bone of the skull, near to the sagittal suture a trepanation survived by this
> ...


That looks like an execution of a warrior (ulna fracture is pretty typical, so are head injuries which might have needed trepanation) from the _Early Iron Age_. 

Second one: 



> Pit 91.1
> A relatively complete skeleton is found in the south sector of the pit. The body is on the
> back, the extremely contracted limbs are slightly twisted to the right and the skull is pointing
> North-Northeast. This position suggests that the body was wrapped up in a sack. Anthropological
> investigation indicates a male individual of 18 to 20-25 years at death


Nothing specific, could have been an execution too, or he was brought home from a battlefield - but rather not. 

It is a real pity that the Svilengrad sample (I19487) seems to be insufficient for both the exact haplogroup determination and the coordinates. Was just an infant, but from another site, other context. Stambolovo being females and too low coverage. Too bad so many interesting samples have a too low coverage it seems.

HUN_LBA is the closest sample group we got for the Gva-related/Channelled Ware people. Some samples fall into the Kyjatice context (brother group of Gva), others are females from a Gva related context. There is an outlier included, which plots closer to the Illyrians (HRV_MBA, HRV_IA), but the others while not ideal and probably not really representative are the closest thing we got. E.g. I don't know how much Encrusted Pottery and other Pannonian ancestry the females got. All are from irregular burials (for Gva) and its Western fringe. Second closest come the Mezocsat locals from the Thraco-Cimmerian era. Again all females. 

I made various runs and two things are for certain: The sample I20183, the adult male which might have been an executed warrior from the EIA, has the closest affinity to the Carpathian Basin/Gva-related samples from all of those from Thrace which made it into the G25 coordinates. 

The second thing is, the later samples (Rozovo and the Byzantine) show much less of a need for something like HUN_LBA in their composition. So the I20183 sample from the early period has something, potentially, in the direction of Gva, which got further diluted with time. Its in all early samples, more so than in the LIA and the Byzantine one. 

Rozovo (Central Bulgaria, Stara Zagora, Kazanlak; Late Iron Age) - *still E-V13, but less affinity, less need for an Carpathian ancestry. That's some centuries/generations after the Kapitan Andreevo finds!* 

If we would have samples from about 1.000-900 BC, when the Proto-Thracian Channelled Ware people conquered the Lower Danube area, I'm pretty sure the result would be more clear. I also checked whether Illyrians could be the source: They can't, at least not without Encrusted Pottery. HRV_Jag (Encrusted Pottery) plus HRV_MBA (Illyrian) in combination could, because the hybrid is close to Gva in a specific ratio. But HRV_MBA on its own is not such a good fit. 
In any case, after playing with those samples, it seems that the EIA E-V13 Thracians had some Carpathian and/or North Balkan ancestry which got diluted over time. That's my first impression, even though the sample size is a bit too small to be sure, of course. 

But look how the Pannonian, Gva-related ancestry (or at least something similar) drops from the Early Iron Age to the later Iron Age and the Byzantine sample: 



Also remarkable: In most runs the R1a carrier is in the early phase almost always the lowest scoring for the Pannonian-related ancestry. I20183 on the other hand always highest. And the drop in Rozovo is also remarkable, because its a more Northern region. But probably less affected by Channelled Ware on a broader scale or later diluted. More samples might help to clear that up.

----------


## Hawk

Insula Banului, Psenicevo, Babadag, Zimnicea-Plovdiv all the inter-related stamped/groomped pottery cultures also known as Thracian Hallstatt or Proto-Thracian is confirmed E-V13.

Now what's left is to confirm Gava/Belegis-Gava who was closely related with stamped/groomped culture Eastern Hallstatt, very likely we will end up with cultures like Mysians, some of the Middle Danubian Urnfielders, Triballi, Dardanii and potentially the progenitor of Proto-Albanian.





Probably from Bronze to Iron Age some Pre/Proto-Albanoid came down with Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian Cultures. Potential candidates.

----------


## Hawk

One thing i want to add, Serbian archaeologist Draga Garasanin explained in very simple words the chronology of Psenicevo Culture (E-V13).




> In the above survey, we have tried to offer, on the basis of the available archaeological material, a picture of the Bronze Age and its cultural and chronological development during the centuries that this important period in prehistory belongs to. The distinction between cultural areas, depends to a great deal on the geographic and topographic character of the land, and indicates the basis for finer distinctions of the written sources that pertain to the Paleobalkan peoples. It is very important, that during the whole Bronze Age a continuity can be followed that extends to the period of transition into the Iron Age. This is characteristic of all the cultural groups of this area, including the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo, which in Oltenia is followed by the Insula Banului group and later the Bassarabi group in these parts and Transylvania (compare also some of the finds from Saraorci near Smederevo). In Thrace at this time we have the appearance of the new group, the so called Psenicevo which kept close contacts with the peoples of the Morava Lands area as can be seen from the finds in the Mediana group. It can also be noticed that the people, who during this period lived in the Morava Lands area took part if only partially in the movements attributed to the so called Aegean Migration. In this manner, the Bronze Age evolves as a very important stage in the process of formation of the Paleobalkan peoples, their ethnogenesis, and the historical events that have left their imprint, in a sense on the historical evolution of the old Balkans. Until now, enough attention has not been paid to this very important period in the ancient history of southeastern Europe except among the small circle of interested specialists. It is the purpose of this exhibition, to try and fulfill this gap, and offer a more understanding picture of this, not too well known period. We shall be very pleased if this exhibition and this short accompanying survey helped in any way to achieve this aim.
> https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dg...the_bronze.htm


Psenicevo is ultimately derived from Dubovac Zuto Brdo from Southern Pannonia. And it's closely related to Vatin Culture which falls within the Balkan-Carpathian Complex, pretty sure that many E-V13 subclades were more up North with Gava/Ottomani.




> The region of Vojvodina, just like the Morava Lands area, is for the most part related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex. However, on the other hand there are certain factors which are more closely related to the region of Pannonia. Today, in general, in this region we can distinguish two cultural groups: the Vatin group named after the type site at Vatin near Vrsac and the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group after the types sites of Dubovac near Kovin and Zuto Brdo in the village of Vinci near Golubac in Serbia. It must be immediately noted that the characteristics of these groups can be traced in the Serbian region of the Danube Lands, in the same form as in Vojvodina, however they don't extend more south than Central Serbia and the Morava Lands area. The events in Western Serbia, on the basis of the material culture are closely related to Vojvodina, even though the burial rite is different and connected to the west Balkan complex, and shall be treated later in this survey.
> The Vatin group has been known in archaeology ever since the beginning of this century. Its typical forms and the extent of its culture are throughout the whole of the Vojvodina, although the main center is however in the Banat, the area nearest to the Carpathians. In question is a typical Middle Bronze Age culture, which has been investigated in settlements such as Vatin and Zidovar. In these settlements the remains of rectangular prehistoric houses have been found built on the surface of the ground. Their shape and form in general, corresponds to similar features that have been noticed in other areas of the Balkano-Carpathian complex. Here, although there are differences in the shapes as well as the ornamentation of objects we can also put the Paracin group. The burial rite consisted of the cremated remains of the deceased being placed in an urn, along with the grave gifts which were arranged around the urn and other different vases, while the metal objects were placed in the urn. However, skeletal burials in an extended position certainly existed. But until now we still have no definite evidence of this, that burial under a tumulus was practised as it was in the west Balkan area. It is evident that what we have here are flat graves, that formed small groups, which on the basis of the available information would lead us to believe that they were the graves of families or small clans.
> As is the case with other culture groups of the Bronze Age, the basis for following culture patterns and changes, is the detailed study of the pottery of each group. Very often in the pottery we have the imitation of metallic vessels, a characteristic example of this would be the double handled vase whose handles surpass the rim from Omoljica near Pancevo. Aside from this, characteristic are the single handled vases that surpass the rim, a footed jug, lids with crossed handles, and urns, often with cylindrical necks and curved shoulders and strap handles and lugs on the belly, arranged in a definite order similar to the Paracin Grave 1962-2. There is also a rich variety of handle shapes: the so called ansa lunata, homed and volute types. The decoration on these vases as relatively poor. Of the ornaments present we have sometimes wide flutes, ribbed channels which are arranged horizontally and diagonally. More often we have incised ornaments in the shape of a gar land with spiral terminations. Sometimes on the urns these decorations are done with the aid of a cord. In any case the main esthetic value of this pottery are its proportions, the sharply profiled shapes that certainly imitate original metal shapes. Other art forms such as sculpture and the plastic arts which were so common in the Neolithic period, and which do not exist in the Bronze Age groups of the Morava valley, are somewhat better represented here, especially the animal shaped vases from Vatin, and the well known bird vase from Starcevo, where we also have the remains of a late Vatin phase grave. Today, chronologically it is possible to divide the Vatin group into three phases. This has been accomplished mainly on the basis of the differences of the material from different sites and closed assemblages from graves. At the well known site of Zidovar near Vrsac there exists well differed levels that belong to the Vatin group and other groups of the Metal Age. When this material is published in it entirety it shall no doubt offer us a clearer picture of the situation. The oldest phase of the Vatin group is the so called Pancevo-Omoljica phase named after the type sites in Pancevo and Omoljica. They can be placed at the very beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (according to Reinecke A2/B1) and are characterized generally by the vases that have one or two ansa lunata handles, rarely they are of a developed form. In Pancevo, a small vase with three feet was found, it has been related to the so called Madarovce group of Central Europe, which also belongs to this period. The next phase, the Vatin-Vrsac phase, is actually the classical stage of the Vatin group. During this phase we have many different typical ceramic forms as well as the ones from the previous phase. The inventory of the metal finds from one of the graves from Vatin itself furnishes us with the data necessary to date this phase. The material in question is a characteristic bronze axe and a disc-like shaped headed pin. Finally, we have the large urnfield necropolises, where the urns are decorated by the use of a cord, e.g. Belegis, Surcin, Islands as well as Rospi Cuprija in Belgrade, which all belong to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Also of importance for dating, is the bronze pin with a grooved head from one of the graves from Islands, which is typical of the Bronze C period according to Reinecke. This phase in any case lasts into the next period, and we can therefore count on an uninterrupted evolution till the next phase of transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Although the rite of burial in an urn remained, the decoration of the urns is much different now, especially the use of flutings such as we have in the Grave 1962/2 from Paracin or in Grave 13 from Rospi Cuprija. Here the urn had a somewhat higher neck, a curved fluted shoulder and handles that were covered by bowl. The closest analogy to this type of bowl comes from the graves in Debark near Kragujevac which also belongs to the Late Bronze Age and transition to the Iron Age. The territory where we find the Vatin group, aside from the already mentioned Banat and Serbian Danube Lands area, is Srem, but in a separate variant. The datation of these finds was made possible by the use of the metal objects from the hoards of Lovas and Vukovar, which belong to the Middle Bronze Age. We shall return later in this survey to the West Serbian variant. According to its character the Vatin group, is no doubt to be related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex, characterized by a series of groups that are similar to it chronologically as well as in burial rite and grave goods that are to be found. Such groups would be to Otomani, Verbicioara or Tie in Oltenia, Transylvania, and Wallachia. It is especially interesting to note the position of the west Serbian variant in relation to the Vatin group, which must be given a somewhat different ethnic interpretation.
> The Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group is to be found in the Banat and the Serbian Danube Lands area, extending to the east in the Oltenian Danube Lands area and in northwestern Bulgaria - the region of Vidin. Culturally this groups is related to other groups that have a characteristic pottery where the incised ornaments and decoration are filled with a white paste, the so called incrusted ware. This type of pottery is to be found in south and west Pannonia. In essence we can say that we are dealing with the same culture complex within which we have different groups and variants, of which the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo is the richest. On the other hand even here we have local differences, which cannot unfortunately always be evaluated. This group is mainly known from grave finds, while our knowledge of its settlements is very scarce. The best investigated necropolis in Korbovo, indicates that the burial rite was similar to that if the Vatin group and other Urnfield groups of the Bronze Age in the Pannonian and Carpathian regions. Among the ceramic shapes that are current we have urns with high necks, sometimes with a steeped profile, the so called two-storied urns, vases with one or two handles very often with a sharp profile, similar to the Vatin ones. We also have different shaped bowls that were often used as urn lids or covers, and double cups similar to those of the Paracin and Vatin groups. Of special interest is the rich variety of decorations, especially the so called Greek meander which was so often later used in Greek art. We must also mention the bird rattles as well as the rich repertory of figurines and plastic arts which separates the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group from the other groups of the Bronze Age. The typical statuette is one where the figure wears a long wide bell shaped skirt. The appearance of the human figures is very simple although the rich decoration series of sites such as: Vrsac, Korbovo, different sites along the Danube in Serbia incates the use metal jewelry. This type of statuette is well known from a Cirna in Oltenia, Novo Selo in Bulgaria et alibi. The best known and by far the pretties shown example was the so called Idol of Klicevac; it was found in a grave in Klicevac near Pozarevac, unfortunately it was destroyed during World War I. Also important are the two terracotta cult chariots from Dupljaja near Vrsac. On the chariot that is being drawn by some sort of water birds we have a human figure in an upright position dressed in a characteristic skirt common to these groups. On the existing example in the National Museum in Belgrade, we have a male figure dressed in a female's dress. This scene, is definitely connected to the myth of Apollo from Delphi, who lived six months of the year in the land of the Hyperboreans, far to the north and in a fog covered area, which can be related to Pannonia and the Lower Danube area, while the other six months were spent in the sunny Greek world, at the temple in Delphi. If we take, however the information from the ancient myth and that offered by archaeology, and then combine it with the historical information that we have about the earliest period in Greek history on the basis of the archaeological material, we see that just at the time of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age or otherwise known in Greek mythology as the Epoch of the Trojan War, we have a series of events in the material culture (the meander ornament) and in religious conceptions (the Delphic Apollo cult) and other areas that show close connections to the more northern Balkan region. It must be noted here, that in some of the graves from the Kerameikos in Athens, during the period when the material culture of the Greek world- the Protogeometric and Geometric periods - was at its height, we have shapes and objects whose form and method of decoration indicate a close relationship with the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group. On the basis of the above stated it would seem possible to say that the carriers of this culture group from Pannonia a the Carpathians and Danube Lands area played an important role m the Aegean Migration.
> The chronological position of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group within the framework of the development of the Bronze Age in southeastern Europe is not open to any doubt. It is certain that it lasts from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age (according to Reinecke's Phases A2/B1 to Phase D). It is very interesting to note that certain Dubovac-Zuto Brdo type objects have been found in urn graves that are typical of the transition period to the Iron Age. One such example is the grave from Paracin or grave 13 from Rospi Cuprija. We also have another example in grave 32 from Cruceni in Romanian Banat. In a historical sense this means that certain elements of this culture group which evolved during the Bronze Age went on to exist after the end of this period, and can be so traced. It is still not clear what the relationship is to the earlier Vatin group. Culturally and historically it is difficult to believe, that these two groups no matter how similar they are to each other (some of the sites are only a few kilometers of each other) could have developed on the same territory next to each other and still retain their own distinct characteristics. Archaeology today, with its recent investigation has offered us definite answers, on the other hand historically these features are difficult to explain. It is evident that this is due to a lack of investigation and that future systematic excavations shall offer us a solution to this problem.


The famous Dupljalja chariot with water birds from Dubovac-Zuto Brdo.

----------


## Riverman

I think this group really contributed to the development of Psenichevo, but I think the other component from the Channelled Ware people was definitely dominant. This is a key quote from the article you posted: 




> The Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group is to be found in the Banat and the Serbian Danube Lands area, extending to the east in the Oltenian Danube Lands area and in northwestern Bulgaria - the region of Vidin. Culturally this groups is related to other groups that have a characteristic pottery where the incised ornaments and decoration are filled with a white paste, the so called incrusted ware. This type of pottery is to be found in south and west Pannonia. In essence we can say that we are dealing with the same culture complex within which we have different groups and variants, of which the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo is the richest.


Encrusted Pottery being predominantely G2 and I2, and interestingly, the Monteoru samples which are very close to those Encrusted Pottery samples autosomally, and which being mentioned as being part of the wider circle, were G2 and I2 too! 

So I really don't see E-V13 being primarily spread from this source, nor Psenichevo being primarily formed by these people. The Channelled Ware influence was crucial and might be even more so genetically, imho. 

The new results kind of confirm this. Interestingly, the EIA Thracian samples can be better modelled with HUN_LBA without outliers as a component to the Minoan ancestry than the Monteoru (more Encrusted Pottery-like) or the Mycenaeans (having more Noua-MCW steppe pastoralist ancestry).

----------


## Hawk

There is two ways to explain this, the Gava males butchered the Encrusted Pottery Culture and Hugelgraberkultur down the Danube, the meeting of the three cultures is precisely noted and in Serbian archaeology Gava is considered the responsible culture for the transition from bronze to iron age.

Secondly, E-V13 spread somewhere from Southern Balkan, North-Eastern Greece/Thessaly and mixed with Noua-Sabatinovska/Coslogeni to form Thracians. But, this is quite problematic, extremely problematic to explain. But you never know.

But, i think Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Gava/Ottomany were related cultures, sibling ones. They are part of Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian complex. Let's see what the final outcome is.

And, i also disagree with Aspar, it's impossible to explain E-V13 as Eastern Balkans Neolithic lineage. First, by modern phylogeny and secondly ancient DNA. Bulgarian Neolithic was rich in G2a. I also saw that Eastern_Balkans Neolithic is consistent but in addition to Pannonian_Carpathian Neolithic.

----------


## Oroku Saki

> There is two ways to explain this, the Gava males butchered the Encrusted Pottery Culture and Hugelgraberkultur down the Danube, the meeting of the three cultures is precisely noted and in Serbian archaeology Gava is considered the responsible culture for the transition from bronze to iron age.
> 
> Secondly, E-V13 spread somewhere from Southern Balkan, North-Eastern Greece/Thessaly and mixed with Noua-Sabatinovska/Coslogeni to form Thracians. But, this is quite problematic, extremely problematic to explain. But you never know.
> 
> But, i think Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Gava/Ottomany were related cultures, sibling ones. They are part of Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian complex. Let's see what the final outcome is.


 Zuto Brdo has nothing to do with V13. Zuto Brdo were just Encrusted Pottery people from Central Hungary who moved to the SE. They were heavily tested and they were not V13. 

Vatin also were MBA locals who got erased by the LBA/EIA waves. Vatin is distantly related to both Monteoru and Ulanci group that is with I2a and R1b..

It appears V13 spread this very Southern Minoan like influenced autosomal profile in its Balkan expansion, it is impossible to imagine Enctrusted Pottery WHG heavy profile having any meaningful input to it. So it seems V13 males erased the Enctrusted Pottery people. 

it is also impossible to imagine most of Gava samples having contributed to this profile. Except of course the E-L539 LBA Gava sample from NE Hungary which has very low WHG. But V13 in EBA and LBA had a lot more Steppe, but some of their J2a neighbors had extremely low Steppe, they must have mixed with them heavily and crated this EIA profile. 

Also Zimnicea-Plovdiv has nothing to do with V13. All of these cultures were related to each other, Vatin, Paracin, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Brnjica, Verbicioara, Monteoru, they were likely all I2a and R1b, and more Northern autosomally. 

In fact old low res P192.1 E sample from Svilengrad albeit low res was also like IA Thracians, that old study also had one Zimnicea-Plovdiv sample also more Northern autosomally. Back then authors assumed Northern people invaded and lived in apartheid ruling the E people, but thats not what happened. E invaded and erased the MBA/LBA locals. 

East Hungary as also some Maros outliers show and as Pannonian study shows had some very Minoan-like people, carrying J2a in both EBA and LBA.
Their descendant must be also that older J2a Gava sample which had a standard Gava auDNA profile.

----------


## Hawk

> Zuto Brdo has nothing to do with V13. Zuto Brdo were just Encrusted Pottery people from Central Hungary who moved to the SE. They were heavily tested and they were not V13. 
> 
> Vatin also were MBA locals who got erased by the LBA/EIA waves. Vatin is distantly related to both Monteoru and Ulanci group that is with I2a and R1b..
> 
> It appears V13 spread this very Southern Minoan like influenced autosomal profile in its Balkan expansion, it is impossible to imagine Enctrusted Pottery WHG heavy profile having any meaningful input to it. So it seems V13 males erased the Enctrusted Pottery people. 
> 
> it is also impossible to imagine most of Gava samples having contributed to this profile. Except of course the E-L539 LBA Gava sample from NE Hungary which has very low WHG. But V13 in EBA and LBA had a lot more Steppe, but some of their J2a neighbors had extremely low Steppe, they must have mixed with them heavily and crated this EIA profile. 
> 
> Also Zimnicea-Plovdiv has nothing to do with V13. All of these cultures were related to each other, Vatin, Paracin, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Brnjica, Verbicioara, Monteoru, they were likely all I2a and R1b, and more Northern autosomally. 
> ...


Aspar is proposing Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic, i am not trying to dismiss it, but it looks quite hard to believe. What movement can explain the E-V13 in Central Balkans among Moesi among Dacians, there was not such a thing from South to North. Archaeological records are clear. It might be the explanation you are giving.

----------


## Hawk

Also, it's not entirely true that Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo are entirely Encrusted Pottery descended, they received an influx of migrants from Transdanubia from Encrusted Pottery people Esztergom group when they ran away from Hugelgraber warriors, but they mixed with native elements and Vatin along with Verbicoara is considered native, and this native element was usually part of Balkan-Carpathian Complex which Gava/Ottomany is Northern variant of.

----------


## 1337_

> Insula Banului, Psenicevo, Babadag, Zimnicea-Plovdiv all the inter-related stamped/groomped pottery cultures also known as Thracian Hallstatt or Proto-Thracian is confirmed E-V13.
> 
> Now what's left is to confirm Gava/Belegis-Gava who was closely related with stamped/groomped culture Eastern Hallstatt, very likely we will end up with cultures like Mysians, some of the Middle Danubian Urnfielders, Triballi, Dardanii and potentially the progenitor of Proto-Albanian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably from Bronze to Iron Age some Pre/Proto-Albanoid came down with Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian Cultures. Potential candidates.



What makes you neccessarily think that EV-13 is Proto-Albanian ? What about R1b and J2b2 ? 

Also that first map is kind of nonsense as there is nothing to suggest Eastern Serbia or Western Bulgaria was any kind of homeland yet it's funny it has left out Western parts of Kosovo 'Rrafshi i Dukagjinit' which is exactly where Albanians appear 

If anything, I like Noel Malcolm's explanation better for this: 




> The main area of the Balkan interior where a Latin-speaking population may have continued, in both towns and country, after the Slav invasion, has already been mentioned: it included the upper *Morava valley, northern Macedonia, and the whole of Kosovo. It is, therefore, in the uplands of the Kosovo area (particularly, but not only, on the western side, including parts of Montenegro) that this Albanian-Vlach symbiosis probably developed. [71] All the evidence comes together at this point. What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs*. One large group of Vlachs seems to have broken away and moved southwards by the ninth or tenth century; the proto-Romanians stayed in contact with Albanians significantly longer, before drifting north-eastwards, and crossing the Danube in the twelfth century. [72]
> Having reached these conclusions, it may be possible, finally, to draw some further implications from them that point back to a much earlier period of Kosovo's history. The point is a very simple one. If Albanian-speakers were able to live in this area without losing their language during the period from the sixth century to the twelfth, is there any reason to think that they could not have been there in the previous six centuries or more? The Roman province of Dardania contained some Roman towns and several large estates, but it was far from being utterly and homogeneously Romanized: frequent Roman references to Dardanian bandits and robbers, and the presence of many forts and watch-towers, suggest that it was never completely under control. [73] References to Dardanian cheese, a famous and widely exported product, also testify to a large shepherding population. [74] And if the shepherds in the hills were speaking proto-Albanian, then perhaps that is what the ordinary Dardanians had spoken in the valleys too, before the Romans came. This is more a speculation than a conclusion; and it is not meant to exclude other areas in the Albanian (or Montenegrin) mountains further to the west, given that 'Dardania' was, essentially, a tribal division, not a linguistic one. Once again it must be emphasized that such ancient history can have no implications for modern politics. Nevertheless, the idea that the Illyrian Dardanians were ancestors of the Albanians may be of some sentimental interest to Kosovo Albanians today.

----------


## mount123

> What makes you neccessarily think that EV-13 is Proto-Albanian ? What about R1b and J2b2 ? 
> 
> Also that first map is kind of nonsense as there is nothing to suggest Eastern Serbia or Western Bulgaria was any kind of homeland yet it's funny it has left out Western parts of Kosovo 'Rrafshi i Dukagjinit' which is exactly where Albanians appear 
> 
> If anything, I like Noel Malcolm's explanation better for this:


J2b-L283 is Proto-Illyrian. The Albanian genome is made up of different sorts of people mainly a fusion of Thracians, Central Balkanites and Illyrians. It is delusional to assume that Albanians who in general, neglecting regional differences here, are dominated by E1b-V13 and claim that these folks and/or R1b-Z2103 Bryges/Paeonians did not leave their mark on our autosomal DNA, 1337/xz1333.

----------


## 1337_

> J2b-L283 is Proto-Illyrian. The Albanian genome is made up of different sorts of people mainly a fusion of Thracians, Central Balkanites and Illyrians. It is delusional to assume that Albanians who in general, neglecting regional differences here, are dominated by E1b-V13 and claim that these folks and/or R1b-Z2103 Bryges/Paeonians did not leave their mark on our autosomal DNA, 1337/xz1333.


We are not talking about different groups that were assimilated here but Proto-Albanians would be the ones that carried the Albanian language, irrelevant how many foreigners were assimilated. Where is the evidence it was EV-13 that was proto-Albanian ?

Since we are talking about mark on Autosomal DNA, samples from Western Balkans match many Albanians pretty well actually. EV-13 could simply be the result of a bottle neck effect or some Latin refugees that were assimilated during the Slavic incursion. The author I quoted above, Noel Malcolm, claims many Vlachs were assimilated and some Slavs too into the Albanian ethnicity. 

EV-13 bottleneck effect has occurred all across the Balkans where it the most dominant pre-Slavic Y-DNA today. There seems to of been a bottle neck effect in autosomal clustering too unless there was a lot of movement during the Roman/Byzantine Period within the Balkans that replaced former populations. 

EV-13 is barely the most dominant, by few % . I am not sure what makes you think R1b-Z2103 was Bryges or Paeonian specifically. Wasn't it also found in Croatia and Northern Albania ?

----------


## Riverman

> Also, it's not entirely true that Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo are entirely Encrusted Pottery descended, they received an influx of migrants from Transdanubia from Encrusted Pottery people Esztergom group when they ran away from Hugelgraber warriors, but they mixed with native elements and Vatin along with Verbicoara is considered native, and this native element was usually part of Balkan-Carpathian Complex which Gava/Ottomany is Northern variant of.


But we see this block emerging, directly North of the Cetina/Posusje-Dinaric Illyrians which expanded East also, from Central Hungary East towards Monteoru, they are practically one big Encrusted Pottery block. It makes little sense that a culturally very close formation, living in between, would be all so different. 

More likely is that there was a third block, directly to their North, which is basically Suciu de Sus and possibly to some degree also Wietenberg, from which E-V13 descended down. 

As for the proposed South Eastern origin: Critical is the Psenichevo - Basarabi connection, which is real. But even more important is how earlier Iron Age Thracians looked like and smaples from Babadag. And even more what exact profile Basarabi had and which exact profile a larger number of Gva would yield to us. 

However, that Basarabi and Psenichevo being among the most important E-V13 cultures at hand is without doubt. Basarabi in particular did infiltrate-influence with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon predecessors and itself early (Eastern) Hallstatt. Take Frg as an example, which shows so many Thracian features. That would allow a more Northern spread of E-V13 from Basarabi, but at a fairly later date. I still prefer Gva obviously, but Psenichevo and Basarabi are proven key cultures.

----------


## mount123

> We are not talking about different groups that were assimilated here but Proto-Albanians would be the ones that carried the Albanian language, irrelevant how many foreigners were assimilated. Where is the evidence it was EV-13 that was proto-Albanian ?
> 
> Since we are talking about mark on Autosomal DNA, samples from Western Balkans match many Albanians pretty well actually. EV-13 could simply be the result of a bottle neck effect or some Latin refugees that were assimilated during the Slavic incursion. EV-13 bottleneck effect has occurred all across the Balkans where it the most dominant pre-Slavic Y-DNA today. There seems to of been a bottle neck effect in autosomal clustering too unless there was a lot of movement during the Roman/Byzantine Period within the Balkans that replaced former populations. 
> 
> EV-13 is barely the most dominant, by few % . I am not sure what makes you think R1b-Z2103 was Bryges or Paeonian specifically. Wasn't it also found in Croatia and Northern Albania ?


They don't. Some Albanians clearly have more auDNA from Illyrians some less, it varies greatly. I too am part of those with a slightly more "Western" auDNA profile, but still also have other components as do all of us. There clearly is Illyrian patrilineage (J2b-L283) and autosomal survival in Albanians, I am not arguing that. But that is just one puzzle piece of the greater picture. 

Your theories regarding E1b-V13 have no scientific basis, better stick to the scientific data in this regard. 

No, R1b-Z2103 wasn't found in East Adriatic Croatia or Montenegro but in the North West of Albania bordering Paeonian territory (also in East Slavonia, bordering Hungary and Serbia too but that is a completely different culture). North Macedonian IA results are rich in R1b-Z2103.

----------


## Hawk

> But we see this block emerging, directly North of the Cetina/Posusje-Dinaric Illyrians which expanded East also, from Central Hungary East towards Monteoru, they are practically one big Encrusted Pottery block. It makes little sense that a culturally very close formation, living in between, would be all so different. 
> 
> More likely is that there was a third block, directly to their North, which is basically Suciu de Sus and possibly to some degree also Wietenberg, from which E-V13 descended down. 
> 
> As for the proposed South Eastern origin: Critical is the Psenichevo - Basarabi connection, which is real. But even more important is how earlier Iron Age Thracians looked like and smaples from Babadag. And even more what exact profile Basarabi had and which exact profile a larger number of G�va would yield to us. 
> 
> However, that Basarabi and Psenichevo being among the most important E-V13 cultures at hand is without doubt. Basarabi in particular did infiltrate-influence with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon predecessors and itself early (Eastern) Hallstatt. Take Fr�g as an example, which shows so many Thracian features. That would allow a more Northern spread of E-V13 from Basarabi, but at a fairly later date. I still prefer G�va obviously, but Psenichevo and Basarabi are proven key cultures.





> The Cruceni-Belegiš culture was considered to be, initially, the result of a long life together and cultural interpenetration of Periam-Pecica, Otomani and Gârla Mare type, on the Vatina culture background13. The recent investigations have brought significant contributions concerning the origin of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture and its début moment. The Cruceni-Belegiš culture was formed on the basis of a mixture of elements of Litzenkeramik type belonging to the Gumtransdorf-Drassburg group14 and inlayed ceramics of Szeremle type, dislocated by the pressure of the communities of the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from Central Europe. That mixture was grafted on the local background of Vatina type





> Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary. The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact with Virovitica group.
> Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it 
> was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the 
> Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside 
> the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the 
> Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary. 
> The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the 
> southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact 
> with Virovitica group.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...a_Mare_Culture

Not trying to insist, but Vatin is considered native South Pannonian, and it's quite clear that these Transdanubian newcomers came and seeked refugee among them, running away from Tumulus warriors, the Vatin northern cousin Gava came on top of all of them latter: Tumulus, Vatin, Encrusted Pottery Culture. It was a real mess.

----------


## Oroku Saki

> Aspar is proposing Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic, i am not trying to dismiss it, but it looks quite hard to believe. What movement can explain the E-V13 in Central Balkans among Moesi among Dacians, there was not such a thing from South to North. Archaeological records are clear. It might be the explanation you are giving.


 Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic is bit silly. MBA Bulgaria had R-Z93, 100 % CWC/Andronovo but cultural cousin to Zimnicea-Plovdiv actually. Old LBA sample was more northern too as I said. Only if the Pannonian study samples are E-V22 or E-V12, which they won't be. And plus EBA V13 has 39 % of Yamnaya while LBA has 47 % of Yamnaya. Yet Kapitan Andreevo has much less. That is very unusual, hence various explanations and questions. But the true explanation is the *EBA* *J2a from E.Hungary with 13 %* *of Yamnaya and 87 % of EEF and a LBA J2a from NE Hungary with 18 % of Steppe and 82 % of EEF (+CHG).

*Very Southern populations existed in EBA-LBA E.Hungary, and likely more to the East. Gava J2a with just 18 % of Yamnaya..

----------


## Hawk

> Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic is bit silly. MBA Bulgaria had R-Z93, 100 % CWC/Andronovo but cultural cousin to Zimnicea-Plovdiv actually. Old LBA sample was more northern too as I said. Only if the Pannonian study samples are E-V22 or E-V12, which they won't be. And plus EBA V13 has 39 % of Yamnaya while LBA has 47 % of Yamnaya. Yet Kapitan Andreevo has much less. That is very unusual, hence various explanations and questions. But the true explanation is the *EBA* *J2a from E.Hungary with 13 %* *of Yamnaya and 87 % of EEF and a LBA J2a from NE Hungary with 18 % of Steppe and 82 % of EEF.
> 
> *Very Southern populations in existed in EBA-LBA E.Hungary, and likely more to the East.


I agree, one must not forget the various Tell Cultures in Pannonian_Carpathian basin were the last Neolithic people of Europe still resisting the IE newcomers, even the original Etruscans are believed to come from Urnfield cultures of these varieties. One of Tell Cultures or some West-Carpathian/East Alpine spinoff.

----------


## Oroku Saki

> I agree, one must not forget the various Tell Cultures in Pannonian_Carpathian basin were the last Neolithic people of Europe still resisting the IE newcomers, even the original Etruscans are believed to come from Urnfield cultures of these varieties. One of Tell Cultures or some West-Carpathian/East Alpine spinoff.


 Yes, though they were R1b heavy Etruscans might still derive from there ultimately. Their pottery certainly had such connections. I just again took a look at leaked diagrams from Pannonian study or more like Carpathian basin study "Early Bronze Age families in Northwestern Carpathian basin" is the name. And some very Southern Mokrin/Maros samples from the earlier study cluster with these East Hungarian EBA-MBA samples. These are Minoan like Mokrin outliers bce at Anthrogenica was mentioning, and they seem to have relatives in EBA-MBA E.Hungary. Why I say E.Hungary. Well I have successfully identified every other culture in the study except that cluster. And the only two remaining sites belonged to Nyirseg and Ottomany culture sites.. it has a group of two higher Steppe influenced people, I suspect this is where the EBA V13 sample is, as it has just slightly more Steppe than Mokrin. 

Only I a year ago analyzed the leaked information from this study.. I know literally every site that has been tested in this study. Including most Y-DNA. I went to great lenghts just to find our where the older E sample was from. The only way was eliminating all sites that are impossible..

If V13 is found there Bulgarian or Balkan Neolithic makes no sense to begin with.. I just do not know whether these very Southern people are Nyirseg or Ottomany.. Something tells me V13 is Nyirseg and J2a Minoan like is Ottomany, that something being the age, E sample is slightly older and Nyirseg should be older.

----------


## Polska

> Yes, though they were R1b heavy Etruscans might still derive from there ultimately. Their pottery certainly had such connections. I just again took a look at leaked diagrams from Pannonian study or more like Carpathian basin study "Early Bronze Age families in Northwestern Carpathian basin" is the name. And some very Southern Mokrin/Maros samples from the earlier study cluster with these East Hungarian EBA-MBA samples. These are Minoan like Mokrin outliers bce at Anthrogenica was mentioning, and they seem to have relatives in EBA-MBA E.Hungary. Why I say E.Hungary. Well I have successfully identified every other culture in the study except that cluster. And the only two remaining sites belonged to Nyirseg and Ottomany culture sites.. it has a group of two higher Steppe influenced people, I suspect this is where the EBA V13 sample is, as it has just slightly more Steppe than Mokrin. 
> 
> Only I a year ago analyzed the leaked information from this study.. I know literally every site that has been tested in this study. Including most Y-DNA. I went to great lenghts just to find our where the older E sample was from. The only way was eliminating all sites that are impossible..
> 
> If V13 is found there Bulgarian or Balkan Neolithic makes no sense to begin with.. I just do not know whether these very Southern people are Nyirseg or Ottomany.. Something tells me V13 is Nyirseg and J2a Minoan like is Ottomany, that something being the age, E sample is slightly older and Nyirseg should be older.


Any idea when this Pannonia study will be published??

----------


## Oroku Saki

> Any idea when this Pannonia study will be published??


 No, but I thought of asking. Some data was published already as part of another study.

----------


## 1337_

> J2b-L283 is Proto-Illyrian. The Albanian genome is made up of different sorts of people mainly a fusion of Thracians, Central Balkanites and Illyrians. It is delusional to assume that Albanians who in general, neglecting regional differences here, are dominated by E1b-V13 and claim that these folks and/or R1b-Z2103 Bryges/Paeonians did not leave their mark on our autosomal DNA, 1337/xz1333.


The author I quoted , Noel Malcolm, suggests Proto-Albanian is from Dardanian that lived in the mountains of Northern Albania (Especially Kukes / Tropoja area) , Kosovo (Especially Western Kosovo) and Eastern Montenegro, also Macedonia. But like he said, it's just a theory. He claims Mat - Shkumbin theory does not explain Eastern Latin in Albanian, while some claim this was mostly Albanian into Romanian.

----------


## Riverman

> Yes, though they were R1b heavy Etruscans might still derive from there ultimately. Their pottery certainly had such connections. I just again took a look at leaked diagrams from Pannonian study or more like Carpathian basin study "Early Bronze Age families in Northwestern Carpathian basin" is the name. And some very Southern Mokrin/Maros samples from the earlier study cluster with these East Hungarian EBA-MBA samples. These are Minoan like Mokrin outliers bce at Anthrogenica was mentioning, and they seem to have relatives in EBA-MBA E.Hungary. Why I say E.Hungary. Well I have successfully identified every other culture in the study except that cluster. And the only two remaining sites belonged to Nyirseg and Ottomany culture sites.. it has a group of two higher Steppe influenced people, I suspect this is where the EBA V13 sample is, as it has just slightly more Steppe than Mokrin. 
> 
> Only I a year ago analyzed the leaked information from this study.. I know literally every site that has been tested in this study. Including most Y-DNA. I went to great lenghts just to find our where the older E sample was from. The only way was eliminating all sites that are impossible..
> 
> If V13 is found there Bulgarian or Balkan Neolithic makes no sense to begin with.. I just do not know whether these very Southern people are Nyirseg or Ottomany.. Something tells me V13 is Nyirseg and J2a Minoan like is Ottomany, that something being the age, E sample is slightly older and Nyirseg should be older.


Otomani was a mixture of local Hatvan and Nyirseg with incoming Southern influences (these Minoan-like samples?) and inciming Northern ones (Kostany-Mierzanowice, R1a). We have this J2a Kyjatice sample, but apparently for the autosomal profile haplogroup doesn't mean a lot, it just shows that some patrilinear movement did happen. Like the R-Z93 is as or rather more Southern than the E-V13. So the whole autosomal argument is very shallow without the context. There could have been all kind of patrilinear founder effects during the upheavals at the start of the EIA, especially coming from Channelled Ware of course. 

Nyirseg is a perfect candidate, because we see a lot of traditions in it for the first time which can be seen later in Suciu de Sus, Gva and historical Thracians and Dacians. I even read authors speculating about elements of the pottery in Suciu de Sus reminding them of Nyirseg, but the great gap made them call it "superficial". Probably it wasn't if Nyirseg groups did survive within the larger Otomani sphere. 

The most characteristic feature of Suciu de Sus is that was a deviating Otomani branch, and they deviated in the direction of Nyirseg with some of their customs and in the direction of the neighbouring Wietenberg group also. 

Therefore Nyirseg would be a perfect match. Almost "too good to be true".

----------


## Riverman

Psenichevo and the Danubian Fluted Ware has two potential routes, one from the West, through Belegis II-Gva, one from Lapus II-Gva East and then down. If we assume the latter, which some authors did, because of the specific pottery found in Thrace and Troy primarily, which looks in some respect like coming from Lapus directly even, Babadag would be the more Northern and less Southern admixed group of the same patrilinear stock. They should be less Aegean-shifted in comparison or if they are as Aegean shifted, this would be the profile of South Eastern Channelled Ware. 
There are earlier samples available, which predate all those Thracians and some would be just a couple of generations of Channelled Ware settlers. Here is e.g. a suggestion for testable remains from a pit, just like in Kapitan Andreevo, dated to the 8th-7th century BC: 




> Similar habits can be found in the same geographical area at the Geto-Dacians, in the 2nd BC - 1st AD centuries and they may be subsequent to some changes in the religious beliefs.


Basically the whole Channelled Ware area could be tested: 




> *Pits containing human remains and separate human bones were also reported at Babadag, Garvan, Niculitel, Revarsarea (Tulea county), Satu Nou, Capidava, Cernavoda, Rasova and Izvoarele (Constanta county). All of them belong to an area ascribed to the Babadag culture. Similar discoveries were notified in contemporaneous cultures to the Babadag one in Moldavia, Ukraine, Transylvania, Muntenia, and Bulgaria.*


So it's not like there are no samples for the EIA. Bulgaria was rather late and is a fringe region, the whole sphere can be sampled! 

https://www.academia.edu/1186524/A_p...evel_at_Orgame

At least 6 males, in this pit alone! From this site in Eastern Romania: 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgame

And this is just one of many sites from Babadag, containing first irregular and pit and later more regular burials. If assuming a Channelled Ware origin, and there is no doubt for Babadag and Channelled Ware, the Babadag group should be closer to the source. They are also older, so this adds up.

----------


## mount123

> The author I quoted , Noel Malcolm, suggests Proto-Albanian is from Dardanian that lived in the mountains of Northern Albania (Especially Kukes / Tropoja area) , Kosovo (Especially Western Kosovo) and Eastern Montenegro, also Macedonia. But like he said, it's just a theory. He claims Mat - Shkumbin theory does not explain Eastern Latin in Albanian, while some claim this was mostly Albanian into Romanian.


Well, Dardania is a meeting point of more than two cultural complexes and many toponyms especially in the East are considered to be of Thracian-Mysian origin. There clearly was also Illyrian influence mediated by Glasinac-Mati, no doubt about that. 

The areas that you've mentioned are not Dardanian territory. Also, Illyrian queen Teuta did not fight Dardanians for no reason.

----------


## Hawk

I am also willing to consider E-V13 is after all Pelasgian which during the Bronze/Iron Age turmoil moved North/East and mixed with Proto-Thracians?

But, it just doesn't work like that. Impossible to have been there since EBA. Bulgarians don't have such basal E-V13 clades.

----------


## Riverman

> I am also willing to consider E-V13 is after all Pelasgian which during the Bronze/Iron Age turmoil moved North/East and mixed with Proto-Thracians?
> 
> But, it just doesn't work like that. Impossible to have been there since EBA. Bulgarians don't have such basal E-V13 clades.


Not possible. It will be Thracian (Daco-Thracian/Proto-Thracian). I have no doubt about that. 

Just think about the size of E-V13 in ancient and modern DNA and the models we can derive from that. It can't have been a small group of people, its rather like Germanic, Slavic or the like - at its height. And the samples and positions we got all say Thracian/Eastern Urnfield. 

The following conditions have to be met to finally wrap this up: 
- Getting earlier Bronze Age samples. The Pannonian results could really help with this, they are key. 
- Getting samples from the pit burials mentioned, to get the full picture of the Thacian world after the Channelled Ware expansion. 

If only those pit sites mentioned in the text quoted above would be sampled, we would know enough. Because if all/most yield some E-V13, it would be the Thracian koine. There are really dozens of sites for a critical time frame, just come generations/centuries after Channelled Ware. These Thracian samples are 500 years after! We shouldn't forget that and how autosomals can change in that time.

E-V13 was bigger than J-L283, just look at the range of J-L283 we got by now! And then it should hide somewhere in a defeated group which had no expansion at all like Pelasgians? Or in South Eastern Bulgaria, where it was beaten up by numerous waves of intruders? That doesn't work out.

----------


## Hawk

I played around with the samples, used this model as source:



```
Western_Balkans_EBA:2237:I18752,0.135449,0.145221,0.027907,0.00646,0.024312,0.003347,0.00423,0.003,0.009408,0.015126,0,0.012739,-0.019772,-0.010046,-0.002172,-0.014452,-0.016037,0.004307,0.002263,-0.006503,0.001996,0.004081,-0.003081,-0.001325,-0.003233
Western_Balkans_EBA:2245:I19032,0.135449,0.159438,0.021119,-0.005491,0.017234,-0.010319,0.011751,0,0.009613,0.034807,-0.015427,0.005545,-0.012785,-0.031103,-0.002986,-0.005436,0.032726,-0.006968,0.001383,0.016633,-0.011854,0.000247,-0.003821,0.017472,-0.024429
Western_Balkans_EBA:2194:I5080,0.129758,0.15436,0.035826,-0.007429,0.039084,-0.00502,0.000235,0.004384,0.007363,0.029158,0.002761,0.01109,-0.017096,-0.00578,-0.011401,-0.003845,0.001695,-0.003421,0.004651,-0.003377,-0.003619,-0.001731,-0.007272,0.000482,-0.006826
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2132:I14916,0.110408,0.167562,-0.030924,-0.089148,0.024928,-0.043228,-0.002115,-0.011769,0.017998,0.062871,-0.004709,0.006294,-0.009812,0.001514,-0.037866,0.004375,0.026859,-0.003547,0.015587,-0.006628,-0.001123,0.005564,-0.003081,0.010604,-0.01449
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2134:I15571,0.125205,0.164516,-0.008674,-0.0646,0.023697,-0.02761,0.003525,-0.006692,0.004295,0.050479,0.009094,0.012589,-0.015461,0.001376,-0.012758,-0.009944,0.008475,0.000887,0.010056,-0.008379,-0.013726,0.012613,-0.005546,0.005181,-0.003233
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2136:I16709,0.130897,0.177718,-0.004148,-0.060078,0.026466,-0.027889,0.01081,-0.004846,0.002659,0.036629,0.002598,0.020831,-0.018731,0.013625,-0.036237,-0.020817,-0.005867,0.002407,0.001885,-0.007629,-0.018093,0.011252,-0.002835,0.000723,0.000239
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA:4321:I14166,0.132035,0.170609,0.022627,-0.072352,0.070167,-0.034861,-0.00987,-0.000923,0.041314,0.079273,0.004872,0.005545,-0.018731,-0.006331,-0.03868,0.007027,0.030379,0.003674,0.017723,-0.005253,-0.003993,0.009521,-0.007518,-0.010965,-0.003233
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA:4315:I14160,0.122929,0.178733,0.023381,-0.071383,0.065551,-0.035698,-0.00517,0.003231,0.043564,0.076721,0.002111,0.006594,-0.024083,0.001927,-0.03298,0.006232,0.034813,0.002154,0.008422,0.002501,0.005241,0.010758,-0.00037,-0.008796,-0.010059
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA:BGR_Varna_C,0.125205,0.168578,0.017348,-0.054587,0.053548,-0.03263,0.006345,-0.006461,0.030065,0.067245,0.005521,0.00015,-0.017839,0.00055,-0.033523,-0.009679,0.016689,0.001774,0.013701,-0.001876,-0.00861,0.007914,-0.009983,-0.010001,-0.002036
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tisza_LN,0.123498,0.1802565,0.029038,-0.069768,0.069551,-0.032909,-0.0105755,0.0053075,0.0435635,0.07581,0.0081195,0.006669,-0.0165015,0.001514,-0.0370515,-0.0116015,0.0033245,0.00038,0.0094275,-0.010505,-0.0038685,0.002164,-0.0056695,-0.0062055,-0.003054
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA,0.1252053,0.1790717,0.0271527,-0.0718137,0.062678,-0.0321653,-0.0040733,0.0033843,0.052631,0.0798803,0.0094727,0.0130883,-0.0236373,0.0048627,-0.0342013,-0.010298,0.0116477,0.003674,0.0091343,-0.017258,-0.0107727,0.0078313,-0.0076413,-0.0137367,0.000519
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA_contam,0.133173,0.187873,0.036204,-0.074936,0.071398,-0.040718,0.002115,-0.004384,0.034155,0.06925,0.008444,0.008093,-0.017542,0.012937,-0.024701,-0.014717,-0.014864,-0.000507,-0.00088,-0.012506,0.006738,0.008285,-0.015652,-0.017834,-0.008263
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA,0.12862,0.17264,0.025644,-0.07106,0.069859,-0.043786,-0.00235,-0.001846,0.048268,0.07581,0.003735,0.006894,-0.018731,-0.000688,-0.033794,-0.008618,0.029076,-0.000127,0.013324,0.001626,-0.005241,0.006801,-0.002711,-0.013134,0.000958
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Vinca_MN,0.120368,0.1774638,0.008768,-0.0873715,0.0611652,-0.042182,-0.0045238,-0.0019612,0.04387,0.082553,0.0060895,0.0133008,-0.0201435,-0.0020642,-0.039189,-0.0094468,0.023078,0.0027558,0.0115012,-0.0086292,-0.0093587,0.00711,-0.0033278,-0.0027412,-0.0093108
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163
```

And i can concurr that Eastern Balkans Neolithic/Chalcolithic are needed, but, the distance is still big, if i use Vatya/Mako or some Urnfielder samples which might have had Y-DNA I2/WHG admixture it doesn't seem to work for them, but if i use earlier Neolithic then that average pops almost in every of them. It looks to me, like a Neolithic population with low WHG and low EHG was in vicinity of Carpathians? Who knows.


Target: E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500
Distance: 2.1372% / 0.02137172

33.4
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



26.8
West_Asian



20.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



11.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont



8.2
Western_Balkans_EBA






Target: E-V13_357:I20180
Distance: 1.8915% / 0.01891470

45.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



23.2
West_Asian



22.2
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



9.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont




The only E-V13 sample which doesn't require Pannonian_Carpathian Neolithic:


Target: E-V13_358:I20181
Distance: 2.7669% / 0.02766900

40.0
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



19.8
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



16.4
Yamnaya



11.2
Western_Balkans_EBA



10.0
West_Asian



2.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic





Target: R1a_362:I20186
Distance: 2.0441% / 0.02044127

42.0
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



20.4
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



13.0
West_Asian



12.2
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



6.4
Western_Balkans_EBA



4.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont



1.6
Yamnaya





Target: E-V13_359:I20183
Distance: 1.7986% / 0.01798591

35.6
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



22.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



18.8
Western_Balkans_EBA



11.2
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



9.2
Yamnaya



3.2
Baltic





Target: E-V13_361:I20185
Distance: 1.8699% / 0.01869861

27.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



21.8
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



19.2
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



16.6
West_Asian



5.8
Western_Balkans_EBA



5.0
Yamnaya



4.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont




Notice how the earlier Q1a sample from Kapitan Andrevo MBA-LBA doesn't even need Pannonian_Carpathian


Target: Q1a_351:I20182
Distance: 1.9869% / 0.01986866

39.4
West_Asian



28.2
Corded_Ware_Horizont



12.0
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



9.6
Western_Balkans_EBA



8.2
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



2.6
Yamnaya





What i also realized is that, these samples do seem to lean and prefer this:



```
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Vinca_MN,0.120368,0.1774638,0.008768,-0.0873715,0.0611652,-0.042182,-0.0045238,-0.0019612,0.04387,0.082553,0.0060895,0.0133008,-0.0201435,-0.0020642,-0.039189,-0.0094468,0.023078,0.0027558,0.0115012,-0.0086292,-0.0093587,0.00711,-0.0033278,-0.0027412,-0.0093108
```

I am convinced, it should be definitely in the proximity of Northern Serbia/South-East Hungary/East Hungary/Transylvania. And the sample is even older than those Chalcolithic samples yet it leans more toward it.

I do believe it's an approximate location around, they could easily retreat in Transylvania as archaeological records indicate.

----------


## Hawk

It's interesting how the E-V13 sample from Croatia was found near Zagreb, where Gava-Urnfielders had more influence.




> Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary. *The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact with Virovitica group.*
> Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it
> was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the
> Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside
> the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the
> Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary.
> The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the
> southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact
> with Virovitica group.
> ...


I5724 382-206 calBCE (2235±20 BP, PSUAMS-3094) HRV_IA Sv. Križ Brdovečki Croatia E-Y16721 E1b1b1a1b1a14~


But, it could also be part of the so called Thraco-Cimmerian influx.

----------


## Riverman

Could be even later Vekerzug into La Tene Celts in that time frame.

----------


## Hawk

One thing i must note, Eastern Balkans/Bulgarian Neolithic origin of E-V13 looks not convincing for me for several reasons. I associate E-L618 strictly with Cardium-Pottery Culture because this is the only Neolithic Culture which has Natufian-like/Iberomaurusian-like influence. And the actual E-V13 mutation (if true) was found in Spain, though i was dissapointed when the E-L618 in South-East Spain EBA was negative for E-V13 because it goes against the hypothesis that the Spanish Early Neolithic sample was E-V13 positive, indirect assumption i mean not conclusive.

But, we are there still, we haven't found the exact origin and how it came to dominate the Thracian-related world, also will we find in classical Greece? Classical Greece was not sampled, who knows.

----------


## 1337_

> Well, Dardania is a meeting point of more than two cultural complexes and many toponyms especially in the East are considered to be of Thracian-Mysian origin. There clearly was also Illyrian influence mediated by Glasinac-Mati, no doubt about that. 
> 
> The areas that you've mentioned are not Dardanian territory. Also, Illyrian queen Teuta did not fight Dardanians for no reason.





> The main area of the Balkan interior where a Latin-speaking population may have continued, in both towns and country, after the Slav invasion,* has already been mentioned: it included the upper Morava valley, northern Macedonia, and the whole of Kosovo. It is, therefore, in the uplands of the Kosovo area (particularly, but not only, on the western side, including parts of Montenegro) that this Albanian-Vlach symbiosis probably developed.* *[71]** All the evidence comes together at this point. What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs.* One large group of Vlachs seems to have broken away and moved southwards by the ninth or tenth century; the proto-Romanians stayed in contact with Albanians significantly longer, before drifting north-eastwards, and crossing the Danube in the twelfth century.





> This is more a speculation than a conclusion; *and it is not meant to exclude other areas in the Albanian (or Montenegrin) mountains further to the west, given that 'Dardania' was, essentially, a tribal division, not a linguistic one*. Once again it must be emphasized that such ancient history can have no implications for modern politics. Nevertheless, the idea that the Illyrian Dardanians were ancestors of the Albanians may be of some sentimental interest to Kosovo Albanians today.


We are talking about the Roman period here. Whose to say Illyrians/Dardanians and some other Illyrians like the Albanoi that did not become Romanized did not live in the mountains of Northern Albania, Western Kosovo, Macedonia etc ? 


North-Eastern Albania was Dardanian possibly before Roman period as was Northern Macedonia, wasn't also part of Montenegro and Sandzak ? Also didn't Dardanian kingdom hold Albania ?

----------


## 1337_

Queen Teuta fought them just like she fought other Illyrians and Illyrian tribes fought each other. Why are you trying to spread baseless theories of ancient ''nationalistic conflicts'' supposedly ? Except for Eastern Dardania, it is dominated by Illyrian element. Malsia e Gjakoves or Tropoja in North-Eastern Albania area was probably Dardanian territory or close by




> The region was inhabited by Illyrian tribes. Archaeological evidence found in the area, such as castles or tumuli show that the area was populated since the ancient time.[7] The region lies in the geographical span of the Dardani tribes.

----------


## Hawk

> It's interesting how the E-V13 sample from Croatia was found near Zagreb, where Gava-Urnfielders had more influence.
> 
> 
> 
> I5724 382-206 calBCE (2235±20 BP, PSUAMS-3094) HRV_IA Sv. Križ Brdovečki Croatia E-Y16721 E1b1b1a1b1a14~
> 
> 
> But, it could also be part of the so called Thraco-Cimmerian influx.


Regarding this sample (the horseman burial he is referring is earlier, in Iron Age, the actual sample is from classical age but descended from these Southern Urnfield people, in Zagreb a spinoff of Gava people were there from LBA).




> [COLOR=var(--nova-color-grey-800)]Sveti Križ Brdovečki (Holy Cross near Brdoveć) is a village on a hill at a height of 310m above sea level, located 30km west of Zagreb, near the Croatian-Slovenian border, directly above the confluence of the Sutla and Sava rivers. In October 2001, Adam Tursan came across a bronze helmet while digging foundations for a garage next to his house in Tursanova Street, which is located at the above site. The foundations dug for the garage by workmen measured 6 × 4 meters. The spot where the helmet was found was in the center. Other grave goods were discovered after cleaning the area. Other than skeletal remains of the deceased, the grave contained the skeleton of a horse, items of horse equipment (a bit, phalerae), several pieces of pottery, a rectangula bronze belt buckle, and several other bronze and iron finds that were removed together with the surrounding earth and that cannot yet be described with certainty. The (possible) weapons, horse equipment, and costume accessoires indicate the prominent social status of the deceased, buried in the Hallstatt D phase. Although it is not possible to fully evaluate the value and richness of the objects found in the grave prior to their final restoration and analysis, it can be statet with certainty that this is a find whose importance and significance will place Sv. Križ among the most prominent Hallstatt sites in Croatia.
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ovecki_Croatia





> The area investigated covers today’s administrative unitsof Zagreb and Karlovac county. The site (fig. 2) is locatedright in the middle of the present day town of Velika Gorica,which was formerly a suburb of Zagreb. It is 10 km awayfrom Zagreb and lies on the territory south of the river Sava.In prehistory it was exposed to different cultural influences,both from the Balkans as well as Pannonia and the EasternAlpine region. Velika Gorica and Dobova lie on the naturalpass from the lower to the upper Sava valley. Dobova is only37 km linear distance from Velika Gorica. This territory islocated between the mountains Medvednica, Žumberak andSamoborsko gorje and we have evidendce for several hillfort sites from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age ontheir slopes like Susedgrad, Sv. Križ Brdovečki and BreganaKosovac.
> 
> https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debef.pdf


It's definitely the southern vanguard of Urnfield Culture. I find it uncanny so far the connection whenever Eastern Urnfield appears E-V13 must appear there.

----------


## Hawk

+ I don't think Aspar is right. i adjusted and re-run the model:



```
Western_Balkans_EBA:2237:I18752,0.135449,0.145221,0.027907,0.00646,0.024312,0.003347,0.00423,0.003,0.009408,0.015126,0,0.012739,-0.019772,-0.010046,-0.002172,-0.014452,-0.016037,0.004307,0.002263,-0.006503,0.001996,0.004081,-0.003081,-0.001325,-0.003233
Western_Balkans_EBA:2245:I19032,0.135449,0.159438,0.021119,-0.005491,0.017234,-0.010319,0.011751,0,0.009613,0.034807,-0.015427,0.005545,-0.012785,-0.031103,-0.002986,-0.005436,0.032726,-0.006968,0.001383,0.016633,-0.011854,0.000247,-0.003821,0.017472,-0.024429
Western_Balkans_EBA:2194:I5080,0.129758,0.15436,0.035826,-0.007429,0.039084,-0.00502,0.000235,0.004384,0.007363,0.029158,0.002761,0.01109,-0.017096,-0.00578,-0.011401,-0.003845,0.001695,-0.003421,0.004651,-0.003377,-0.003619,-0.001731,-0.007272,0.000482,-0.006826
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2132:I14916,0.110408,0.167562,-0.030924,-0.089148,0.024928,-0.043228,-0.002115,-0.011769,0.017998,0.062871,-0.004709,0.006294,-0.009812,0.001514,-0.037866,0.004375,0.026859,-0.003547,0.015587,-0.006628,-0.001123,0.005564,-0.003081,0.010604,-0.01449
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2134:I15571,0.125205,0.164516,-0.008674,-0.0646,0.023697,-0.02761,0.003525,-0.006692,0.004295,0.050479,0.009094,0.012589,-0.015461,0.001376,-0.012758,-0.009944,0.008475,0.000887,0.010056,-0.008379,-0.013726,0.012613,-0.005546,0.005181,-0.003233
Aegean_Balkans_EBA:2136:I16709,0.130897,0.177718,-0.004148,-0.060078,0.026466,-0.027889,0.01081,-0.004846,0.002659,0.036629,0.002598,0.020831,-0.018731,0.013625,-0.036237,-0.020817,-0.005867,0.002407,0.001885,-0.007629,-0.018093,0.011252,-0.002835,0.000723,0.000239
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA:BGR_Varna_C,0.125205,0.168578,0.017348,-0.054587,0.053548,-0.03263,0.006345,-0.006461,0.030065,0.067245,0.005521,0.00015,-0.017839,0.00055,-0.033523,-0.009679,0.016689,0.001774,0.013701,-0.001876,-0.00861,0.007914,-0.009983,-0.010001,-0.002036
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA:BGR_Middle_C:I2431,0.120652,0.171624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.010191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA_contam,0.133173,0.187873,0.036204,-0.074936,0.071398,-0.040718,0.002115,-0.004384,0.034155,0.06925,0.008444,0.008093,-0.017542,0.012937,-0.024701,-0.014717,-0.014864,-0.000507,-0.00088,-0.012506,0.006738,0.008285,-0.015652,-0.017834,-0.008263
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA,0.12862,0.17264,0.025644,-0.07106,0.069859,-0.043786,-0.00235,-0.001846,0.048268,0.07581,0.003735,0.006894,-0.018731,-0.000688,-0.033794,-0.008618,0.029076,-0.000127,0.013324,0.001626,-0.005241,0.006801,-0.002711,-0.013134,0.000958
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Vinca_MN,0.120368,0.1774638,0.008768,-0.0873715,0.0611652,-0.042182,-0.0045238,-0.0019612,0.04387,0.082553,0.0060895,0.0133008,-0.0201435,-0.0020642,-0.039189,-0.0094468,0.023078,0.0027558,0.0115012,-0.0086292,-0.0093587,0.00711,-0.0033278,-0.0027412,-0.0093108
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163
```

the samples i used:



```
Q1a_351:I20182,0.125205,0.144205,0.003017,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
E-V13_361:I20185,0.126344,0.158423,0.008674,-0.053295,0.040315,-0.034582,0.003995,-0.000231,0.005318,0.049204,0.004547,0.012889,-0.015015,-0.005367,-0.028366,-0.010342,0.013821,0.004307,0.010936,-0.01038,-0.009109,0.002349,0,0.000361,0.000239
E-V13_359:I20183,0.120652,0.160454,0.010559,-0.041344,0.030775,-0.02259,0.00282,-0.003,0.017794,0.047017,0.003085,0.013488,-0.008771,-0.004954,-0.029587,0.005171,0.024903,0.003674,0.008673,-0.001,-0.004866,-0.00371,0.000739,0.005784,-0.011017
R1a_362:I20186,0.122929,0.155376,0.007542,-0.059755,0.031698,-0.025937,0.0047,-0.005077,0.009408,0.049204,-0.001624,0.009292,-0.020069,0.007432,-0.028637,-0.016706,-0.001043,0.000633,0.01433,-0.010505,-0.009733,0.001855,-0.005669,0.003976,-0.002515
E-V13_358:I20181,0.119514,0.157407,0.007165,-0.039083,0.028621,-0.023985,-0.003995,-0.003923,0.014726,0.04319,0.002923,0.008692,-0.0278,0.003165,-0.016422,0.003315,0.032074,0.008108,0.018603,-0.004252,-0.00836,-0.000742,-0.010106,0.002289,-0.016885
E-V13_357:I20180,0.119514,0.167562,0.009051,-0.064923,0.03693,-0.022311,0.002115,-0.006,0.009204,0.047199,0.003248,0.004646,-0.013082,0.004542,-0.021444,-0.018695,-0.004172,0.003801,0.005405,-0.011881,-0.011605,0.002473,-0.000863,-0.006266,-0.012334
E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500,0.117238,0.1635,0.003394,-0.056202,0.022466,-0.012829,-0.002115,-0.002308,0.000409,0.03426,0.001137,0.009292,-0.018137,0.001927,-0.018865,-0.020286,0.00339,0.006714,0.012821,-0.008754,-0.004492,0.01051,-0.004683,0.005422,-0.010777
E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792,0.114961,0.180764,0.000754,-0.055556,0.023081,-0.02008,-0.00611,0.000462,0.017998,0.043737,-0.008607,0.001649,-0.024678,-0.017616,-0.021444,-0.00716,0.020079,-0.013302,-0.006913,-0.004752,-0.013227,0.016075,-0.006655,0.023377,-0.008981
```


Target: E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792
Distance: 3.9423% / 0.03942315

50.2
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



38.6
Western_Balkans_EBA



11.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500
Distance: 2.1058% / 0.02105775

34.2
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



24.2
West_Asian



21.2
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



10.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont



8.4
Western_Balkans_EBA



2.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_357:I20180
Distance: 1.7933% / 0.01793273

28.4
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



22.0
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



21.2
West_Asian



20.4
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



6.8
Corded_Ware_Horizont



1.2
Western_Balkans_EBA





Target: E-V13_358:I20181
Distance: 2.9584% / 0.02958399

39.8
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



25.8
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



20.6
Yamnaya



11.8
Western_Balkans_EBA



2.0
West_Asian





Target: R1a_362:I20186
Distance: 1.9609% / 0.01960903

46.8
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



35.8
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



8.0
Yamnaya



5.8
West_Asian



3.0
Western_Balkans_EBA



0.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont





Target: E-V13_359:I20183
Distance: 1.8139% / 0.01813949

37.6
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



27.2
Western_Balkans_EBA



25.4
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



5.2
Yamnaya



4.6
Baltic





Target: E-V13_361:I20185
Distance: 1.9096% / 0.01909590

47.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



19.0
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



16.0
West_Asian



8.8
Western_Balkans_EBA



6.0
Yamnaya



3.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont





Target: Q1a_351:I20182
Distance: 2.0725% / 0.02072499

34.8
West_Asian



25.8
Corded_Ware_Horizont



18.4
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



12.8
Western_Balkans_EBA



4.2
Yamnaya



2.2
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



1.8
Baltic




I think the trend is quite clear, on general E-V13 Kapitan Andreevo samples do prefer some kind of Carpathian/Pannonian Neolithic (or proximity) which was low on WHG or whatever, they don't lean entirely on Eastern Balkans Chalcolithic. Despite that, Neolithic people from lower Danube where on latter stages we see survivors made the greatest resistance to Yamnaya incursions, built fortified settlements. Not trying to overlook on it, but it looks to me like some people from a bit West of East Carpathians met Noua-Sabatinovska Culture hence the Eastern Balkans Neolithic incline in addition from something slightly more West. No doubt about it.

----------


## Hawk

Slightly adjusted models, and i think they are quite fair.



```
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian:HUN_Tisza_LN,0.123498,0.1802565,0.029038,-0.069768,0.069551,-0.032909,-0.0105755,0.0053075,0.0435635,0.07581,0.0081195,0.006669,-0.0165015,0.001514,-0.0370515,-0.0116015,0.0033245,0.00038,0.0094275,-0.010505,-0.0038685,0.002164,-0.0056695,-0.0062055,-0.003054
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA,0.1252053,0.1790717,0.0271527,-0.0718137,0.062678,-0.0321653,-0.0040733,0.0033843,0.052631,0.0798803,0.0094727,0.0130883,-0.0236373,0.0048627,-0.0342013,-0.010298,0.0116477,0.003674,0.0091343,-0.017258,-0.0107727,0.0078313,-0.0076413,-0.0137367,0.000519
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian::HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA,0.12862,0.17264,0.025644,-0.07106,0.069859,-0.043786,-0.00235,-0.001846,0.048268,0.07581,0.003735,0.006894,-0.018731,-0.000688,-0.033794,-0.008618,0.029076,-0.000127,0.013324,0.001626,-0.005241,0.006801,-0.002711,-0.013134,0.000958
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Vinca_MN,0.120368,0.1774638,0.008768,-0.0873715,0.0611652,-0.042182,-0.0045238,-0.0019612,0.04387,0.082553,0.0060895,0.0133008,-0.0201435,-0.0020642,-0.039189,-0.0094468,0.023078,0.0027558,0.0115012,-0.0086292,-0.0093587,0.00711,-0.0033278,-0.0027412,-0.0093108
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HRV_Starcevo_LN:I5079,0.122929,0.178733,0.013576,-0.088825,0.060934,-0.041555,0.00235,0.000692,0.044586,0.078544,0.002273,0.012739,-0.021704,-0.009771,-0.035694,-0.013524,0.016559,-0.000507,0.006913,-0.007379,-0.018218,-0.000495,-0.013927,-0.000482,0.000479
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2318,0.118376,0.180764,0.000377,-0.100776,0.048009,-0.050758,-0.00423,-0.008307,0.023725,0.07909,0.00682,0.014537,-0.029435,-0.00578,-0.043702,0.001591,0.035073,0.00038,0.010559,-0.014007,-0.021213,-0.005935,-0.003944,-0.014701,-0.010059
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2937,0.118376,0.178733,0,-0.102714,0.053548,-0.044623,0.000705,-0.000462,0.031088,0.0831,0.010718,0.013638,-0.018731,0.002615,-0.034202,-0.022275,0.00013,0.003167,0.021871,-0.019009,-0.019965,0.000989,-0.008504,0.00241,-0.007305
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic:ALB_NC:I13838,0.122929,0.18178,0.004903,-0.101745,0.04647,-0.049364,-0.001645,-0.002308,0.032519,0.080366,0.012666,0.015286,-0.02438,0.004129,-0.039359,-0.021347,0.002999,-0.00114,0.00993,-0.016133,-0.005615,0.005812,-0.000616,-0.001807,-0.010538
Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_Pop_MN:POP13,0.105855,0.176702,0.023759,-0.08398,0.065858,-0.029284,0,0.003692,0.042132,0.078362,0.007957,0.01139,-0.023488,0.001927,-0.032301,-0.020551,-0.001304,0.004434,0.007542,-0.018509,-0.007237,0.002226,-0.002711,-0.013616,-0.005029
Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_Pop_MN:POP14,0.119514,0.179749,0.019987,-0.084303,0.052317,-0.037929,-0.00846,-0.004384,0.045404,0.083829,0.007957,0.011839,-0.025867,-0.001651,-0.025108,-0.013126,0.005476,0.002407,0.00993,-0.014382,-0.009234,0.01014,-0.005423,-0.004217,-0.005987
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic:4321:I14166,0.132035,0.170609,0.022627,-0.072352,0.070167,-0.034861,-0.00987,-0.000923,0.041314,0.079273,0.004872,0.005545,-0.018731,-0.006331,-0.03868,0.007027,0.030379,0.003674,0.017723,-0.005253,-0.003993,0.009521,-0.007518,-0.010965,-0.003233
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic:4315:I14160,0.122929,0.178733,0.023381,-0.071383,0.065551,-0.035698,-0.00517,0.003231,0.043564,0.076721,0.002111,0.006594,-0.024083,0.001927,-0.03298,0.006232,0.034813,0.002154,0.008422,0.002501,0.005241,0.010758,-0.00037,-0.008796,-0.010059
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic:BGR_Varna_C,0.125205,0.168578,0.017348,-0.054587,0.053548,-0.03263,0.006345,-0.006461,0.030065,0.067245,0.005521,0.00015,-0.017839,0.00055,-0.033523,-0.009679,0.016689,0.001774,0.013701,-0.001876,-0.00861,0.007914,-0.009983,-0.010001,-0.002036
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163
```

This is the only bad fit:


Target: E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792
Distance: 4.7692% / 0.04769217

47.6
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



22.6
West_Asian



13.0
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic



12.2
Yamnaya



4.6
Adriatic_Neolithic





Target: E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500
Distance: 2.1553% / 0.02155327

39.8
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



29.4
West_Asian



17.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont



9.6
Yamnaya



3.4
Adriatic_Neolithic



0.8
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic





Target: E-V13_357:I20180
Distance: 1.6700% / 0.01670019

30.8
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



25.8
West_Asian



23.4
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian



9.4
Corded_Ware_Horizont



7.6
Adriatic_Neolithic



1.6
Bell_Beaker



1.4
Yamnaya





Target: E-V13_358:I20181
Distance: 2.7376% / 0.02737589

36.0
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic



32.8
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



20.6
Yamnaya



10.6
West_Asian





Target: R1a_362:I20186
Distance: 1.7364% / 0.01736439

55.6
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



20.4
Yamnaya



12.6
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic



11.2
West_Asian



0.2
Corded_Ware_Horizont





Target: E-V13_359:I20183
Distance: 2.2173% / 0.02217341

29.4
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



24.2
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic



18.8
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



18.0
Yamnaya



9.6
West_Asian





Target: E-V13_361:I20185
Distance: 1.7893% / 0.01789259

45.2
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic



14.6
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian



13.4
West_Asian



9.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont



8.8
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic



8.4
Yamnaya





Target: Q1a_351:I20182
Distance: 2.1085% / 0.02108499

45.8
West_Asian



33.6
Corded_Ware_Horizont



20.6
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic




From Sv.Kris Croatia


Target: E-V13_Croatia_Kris:2253:I5724
Distance: 2.0740% / 0.02074041

30.6
Bell_Beaker



28.2
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic



15.4
West_Asian



12.2
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian



9.2
Corded_Ware_Horizont



4.4
Baltic





Target: J2b2_Croatia_Kris:2252:I5723
Distance: 1.4380% / 0.01438011

27.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont



24.4
Bell_Beaker



20.4
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic



11.8
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian



9.8
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



6.6
Southern_Balkans_Neolithic





Target: R1b_Croatia_Kris:2254:I5725
Distance: 2.0322% / 0.02032217

24.8
Corded_Ware_Horizont



22.4
Bell_Beaker



20.4
South_Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



17.4
Adriatic_Neolithic



8.0
Eastern_Balkans_Neolithic



4.8
Baltic



2.2
West_Asian





Target: Female_Contemporary_E-V13_Kris:2257:I5728
Distance: 1.9020% / 0.01902040

29.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont



26.4
Northern_Pannonian_Carpathian



21.0
Adriatic_Neolithic



14.6
Bell_Beaker



9.0
Yamnaya




I don't see exclusive Eastern Balkans pattern, i do see it on general, but they also need Pannonian_Carpathian or something in approximate. And, i put all different localized EEF groups. + This is backed by archaeology.

----------


## Hawk

What are the chances that a Neolithic/Chalcolithic population will survive in this location? This was like a highway for eternity, slim i would say.




> At the beginning of the 12
> th
> century BC, the situa-tion changed considerably. Once again, this was atime of transformation, in which many palatial socie-ties in the Eastern Mediterranean experience an up-heaval. Palaces (where present) were destroyed andnew elites arose, oen searching for ties to the formerpalatial elites, but principally introducing new devel-opments. During this period, we observe a reversalin the direction of inﬂuence. New handmade pot-tery, oen decorated with plastic bands with ﬁngerimpressions, suddenly appears in the cultural layersof Troy VIIb1 (Fig. 10), along with the local wheel-made Grey Ware. Almost all of the handmade potsare one-handled coarse vessels, but amphorae withtwo horizontal ledge handles also occur. A bit later, inTroy VIIb2, a whole spectrum of new ceramic shapeswas added, consisting of medium ﬁne, handmade,well-burnished pottery oen decorated with incisedmotifs (e.g. „
> running dog 
> “), ﬂutes (similar to those ofthe Early Bronze Age) or conspicuous knobs. anksto the latter, this is oen labelled
> Knobbed Ware
> ,*which is almost unanimously linked to the region of Dobrudja*. In addition, architecture changed, andso-called orthostates are in use, which in turn canbe linked to modern southern Ukraine (Becks et al.2006). e communication route would thereby re-main the same; to what extent it was accompanied byan actual migration remains an open question.e eventful relationship between race and Anato-lia during the Bronze Age not only provides insightsinto their contacts, but in a broader sense also indi-cates links between the Balkans and the Near East.During certain periods, present-day southeasternBulgaria was indeed more strongly connected todevelopments in the south, and the reason for suchcontacts almost certainly was the rich raw materialresources that the region had to oﬀer.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/38196698/Th...ork_card=title

----------


## Riverman

Yes, Babadag. From Eastern Lapus-Gava.

----------


## Hawk

One thing to note, is that Vatin is the one which connects both the North > Gava/Ottomany and the South. Belegis II was formed on the basis of Vatin. Yugoslav archaeologists consider this culture quite impressive, and the only reason we didn't got results from them is because they heavily used cremation. Despite that, in lower Danube is where we see the heaviest resistance to Yamnaya incursions from any EEF group to date. Wouldn't be surprised if Vatin was EEF-rich and the one we are looking for. Otherwise, it's impossible archaeology-wise to connect the whole Daco-Thracian koine. If E-V13 comes from Chalcolithic Bulgaria, and if this is the lineage dominating the Daco-Thracian world, then the whole archaeological records were wrong on Balkan-Danubian complex. But, this isn't the case so far, they were quite correct on Illyrians and their inhumating traditions.

I wonder what Oroku Saki thinks of this. Of Chalcolithic Bulgaria vis a vis Vatin and Gava/Ottomany.

----------


## Riverman

> One thing to note, is that Vatin is the one which connects both the North > Gava/Ottomany and the South. Belegis II was formed on the basis of Vatin. Yugoslav archaeologists consider this culture quite impressive, and the only reason we didn't got results from them is because they heavily used cremation. Despite that, in lower Danube is where we see the heaviest resistance to Yamnaya incursions from any EEF group to date. Wouldn't be surprised if Vatin was EEF-rich and the one we are looking for. Otherwise, it's impossible archaeology-wise to connect the whole Daco-Thracian koine. If E-V13 comes from Chalcolithic Bulgaria, and if this is the lineage dominating the Daco-Thracian world, then the whole archaeological records were wrong on Balkan-Danubian complex. But, this isn't the case so far, they were quite correct on Illyrians and their inhumating traditions.
> 
> I wonder what Oroku Saki thinks of this. Of Chalcolithic Bulgaria vis a vis Vatin and Gava/Ottomany.


There is just one path for the South East, which is that Psenichevo did replace all the others in kind of a backflow moment, creating Basarabi and later Babadag into Geto-Dacian cultures. That would be very strange from the archaeological point of view, but kind of possible, that they expanded within the Channelled Ware networks and replaced the original Gva-people. 
I don't think that this is likely at all, but considering the connection Basarabi - Psenichevo - Babadag, its something which could be remotely possible. That is imho, the only way it _could_ work.

----------


## Hawk

Have you explored any Chalcolithic/EBA Neolithic survivor group in Bulgaria? Anything of importance?

----------


## Hawk

This sample is interesting:



```
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876,0.1161,0.165531,0.010559,-0.059432,0.0437,-0.022032,-0.00846,-0.003923,0.019839,0.056858,-0.00065,0.013788,-0.017393,0.003303,-0.018051,-0.016309,-0.00339,0.004687,0.006788,-0.001,-0.005366,0.003586,0.001602,-0.010845,0.006706
```

On distances he keeps showing close to Kapitan Andreevo, he is from Western Sicily LBA.

He seems to have been G2a, particularly this subclade: https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_...0&ybp=500000,0

Not among all of them, just 3 of EIA samples.

----------


## Riverman

> Have you explored any Chalcolithic/EBA Neolithic survivor group in Bulgaria? Anything of importance?


You follow on Anthrogenica, so you know from my last post that Bulgaria was higher in WHG before the Iron Age too. The locals were kind of a cline from Pannonian Encrusted Pottery -> Southern Romanian Monteoru -> EBA Bulgaria. 

From archaeological records we also know, that most of the local cultures came from this direction (Encrusted Pottery came in, groups from Romania), with the exception of groups from Paracin and Brnjica from the Central Balkans and steppe people from Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni. Therefore I see the only solution with multiple migrations, largely under the radar, so no folk migrations, from the Aegean-Anatolia for this increase of EEF-IRN and decrease of WHG-steppe. 
I see no local population in the Bronze Age of Bulgaria which was that low in WHG to explain that pattern. They were lower than Monteoru and the Pannonians, but not that low. This must have been a population replacement.

----------


## Hawk

> This sample is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876,0.1161,0.165531,0.010559,-0.059432,0.0437,-0.022032,-0.00846,-0.003923,0.019839,0.056858,-0.00065,0.013788,-0.017393,0.003303,-0.018051,-0.016309,-0.00339,0.004687,0.006788,-0.001,-0.005366,0.003586,0.001602,-0.010845,0.006706
> ```
> 
> On distances he keeps showing close to Kapitan Andreevo, he is from Western Sicily LBA.
> ...


I ran this sample, and interesting case.


Target: ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
Distance: 2.3083% / 0.02308276

22.6
Western_Mediterranean



21.4
West_Asian



20.8
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



14.6
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



11.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



9.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont




How did he end up in Western Sicily during Late Bronze Age?

I looked at ancient samples found so far.

 I2354 - Pusztataskony-Ledence I.G-CTS5990 (G2a)T2c16200Hungary - Tiszapolgar_ECA
 I2369 - BudakalászG-CTS5990 (G2a)J2a1a15186Hungary - Hungary_Baden_LCA
 I2368 - Budakalász-Luppa csárdaG-CTS5990 (G2a)U5b5025Hungary - Hungary_Baden_LCA
 I8199 - Sima del Ángel, Lucena, Córdoba, AndalusiaG-CTS5990 (G2a)[email protected]4650Spain - SE_Iberia_CA
 I8365 - Sima del Ángel, Lucena, Córdoba, AndalusiaG-CTS5990 (G2a)H4588Spain - SE_Iberia_CA
 I3876 - Sicily, MarcitaG-CTS5990 (G2a)H1+16189!2928Italy - Sicily_LBA
 I10364 - Sardinia, AlgheroG-CTS5990 (G2a)J2b1a+16311C!2923Italy - Sardinia_Nuragic_BATarget: ITA_Sicily_LBA:I3876
Distance: 2.3083% / 0.02308276

22.6
Western_Mediterranean



21.4
West_Asian



20.8
Eastern_Balkans_Chalcolithic_EBA



14.6
Aegean_Balkans_EBA



11.6
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic



9.0
Corded_Ware_Horizont




No doubt, he comes close to Kapitan Andreevo samples, he is picking something similar, not necessarily from the same context, from nearby. There is something going on IMO with regards to the triangle between: Aegean-like, Eastern Balkans Chalcolithic and Carpathian Neolithic. Perhaps something in the middle from lower Danube is reflecting the similarity.

----------


## Riverman

I think we can now safely say that E-V13 was Thracians, but we are still unable to state with certainty how Thracians spread and how E-V13 got there. For me there is absolutely no scenario in which South Eastern Thracian could have been the sole or even main carrier of E-V13 in the later Iron Age. Because of that, the connection to Bosut-Basarabi and Babadag-North Gva is key. It doesn't matter where someone thinks E-V13 started, but every hypothesis needs to account for that, for the whole Thracian/Daco-Thracian network.

----------


## Hawk

> I think we can now safely say that E-V13 was Thracians, but we are still unable to state with certainty how Thracians spread and how E-V13 got there. For me there is absolutely no scenario in which South Eastern Thracian could have been the sole or even main carrier of E-V13 in the later Iron Age. Because of that, the connection to Bosut-Basarabi and Babadag-North G�va is key. It doesn't matter where someone thinks E-V13 started, but every hypothesis needs to account for that, for the whole Thracian/Daco-Thracian network.


Look at the E-L618 which is very likely E-V13 in South-East Macedonia, it comes from a site where nearby were a lot of cremation burials, same for E-V13 Zagreb sample, i think that we still didn't get decent amount of samples in Balkans. Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age is a bad timing to decide who is present and who is not, of course we need samples from this timeline but we also need before and after that, during Early Christian period in order to fully deduce, to invalidate the cremation blocker.

But what we agree, is that Daco-Thracian world was rich in E-V13, and this world was descended of Balkan-Danubian/Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex. I am suspecting Vatin was the core of everything (i might be 100% wrong, but it's just my impression, it's in the right location, right timing and right influence on both North of it in Gava/Ottomany and South of it in Paracin/Brnjica). It's not an Encrusted Pottery people descended, it's a local lower Danube, and it even has similarities with Vinca/Starcevo and Bubanj-Hum III in the south. They likely faced Encrusted Pottery migrants but never fully mixed with them.

And it sits in the triangle between Aegean-like, Eastern Balkans and Western-Balkans and in approximity with Carpathian Mountains.

----------


## Riverman

> Look at the E-L618 which is very likely E-V13 in South-East Macedonia, it comes from a site where nearby were a lot of cremation burials, same for E-V13 Zagreb sample, i think that we still didn't get decent amount of samples in Balkans. Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age is a bad timing to decide who is present and who is not, of course we need samples from this timeline but we also need before and after that, during Early Christian period in order to fully deduce, to invalidate the cremation blocker.
> 
> But what we agree, is that Daco-Thracian world was rich in E-V13, and this world was descended of Balkan-Danubian/Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex. I am suspecting Vatin was the core of everything (i might be 100% wrong, but it's just my impression, it's in the right location, right timing and right influence on both North of it in Gava/Ottomany and South of it in Paracin/Brnjica). It's not an Encrusted Pottery people descended, it's a local lower Danube, and it even has similarities with Vinca/Starcevo and Bubanj-Hum III in the south. They likely faced Encrusted Pottery migrants but never fully mixed with them.
> 
> And it sits in the triangle between Aegean-like, Eastern Balkans and Western-Balkans and in approximity with Carpathian Mountains.


I think there was not enough continuity from Vatin. Even if it was the origin, what I doubt, I rather see Nyirseg as the predecessor in the EBA into Suciu de Sus before Gva, it would be Vatin -> Gva and back. Because Vatin too, just like the Bulgarian groups, had not the impact and size in the critcial time period.

----------


## Hawk

> I think there was not enough continuity from Vatin. Even if it was the origin, what I doubt, I rather see Nyirseg as the predecessor in the EBA into Suciu de Sus before G�va, it would be Vatin -> G�va and back. Because Vatin too, just like the Bulgarian groups, had not the impact and size in the critcial time period.


Nyirseg looks too tied/too north to WHG-like Tell Cultures of the north. Vatin did influence directly Gava/Ottomani. So, i wouldn't wonder if some Vatin colonizers mingled with EBA Ottomani-Fuszesabony. On the South on the basis of Vatin several other cultures formed, Vatin itself ceased, but there was movement, and one will never know what really happened, but in Middle Bronze Age chronology Vatin is considered quite an important culture.

So, because people here get confused, Kapitan Andreevo Iron Age finds or Svilengrad on general is part of Psenicevo Culture, Psenicevo Culture split from Mediana Culture in Central Serbia, it's ultimate origin is either Dubovac Zuto Brdo or nearby in Banat. Again, lower Danube. This is the consensus, archaeological. And they were right on Illyrians, they will be right on general with Thracians as well.

I know old Bulgarian archaeologists considered Gava as direct ancestor of Psenicevo/Svilengrad/Kapitan Andreevo, but that's not the case, they were related culture, Gava was their northern brethren. And on their core, these cultures are not considered Encrusted Cultures from Transdanubia. They had interactions with them, true, but they were not truly related. If somehow Vatin ends up R1b-Z2103/I2a/R1a then i will take of my words. But, you know they were extensive cremation users, otherwise the first results from Serbia would have come from them, since it's the greatest Bronze Age culture of interest to them.

----------


## Riverman

Suciu de Sus being noted as having Southern, probably even some Aegean-related influences. Suciu de Sus and Gva had influences from all directions, so its difficult to assess that. 

As for Psenichevo, well, the decorations and styles are reminiscent of Lapus II-Gva rather than Belegis II-Gva, to which sphere Mediana belongs. However, the origin of Psenichevo is hardly disputed and I'm not sure at all. Could be West (Belegis II/Mediana) or East (Lapus II, Holigrady, Babadag). We don't know. The good thing is, that Babadag and Basarabi can be tested, there are even some sporadic earlier remains, unfortunately mostly irregular. So if the research group really want to solve this, they could do it with ease. 
It's not their priority obviously, unfortunately, and the logic of the research groups is sometimes motivated by political and organisational considerations, as we can see for the work on the steppe people/PIE as well. 

These are really questions for which more data being needed to really solve it.

----------


## Hawk

Archaeology cannot pinpoint 100% the place of origin, but near to it. I still think the most probable is Vatin and surrounding lower Danube cultures, very likely descended from either Starcevo/Vinca somewhere in approximity. Gava/Ottomany, LBA stage might just be Vatin influences on top of the native Tisza survivors.

Sooner or latter this will either be invalidated or validated.  :Wink: 

What you see Belegis-Gava II and increase of channeled-ware, is probably a resurface of native Vatin and immediate destruction of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery people and Hugelgraber which were invading their territory.

----------


## Riverman

> Archaeology cannot pinpoint 100% the place of origin, but near to it. I still think the most probable is Vatin and surrounding lower Danube cultures, very likely descended from either Starcevo/Vinca somewhere in approximity. Gava/Ottomany, LBA stage might just be Vatin influences on top of the native Tisza survivors.
> 
> Sooner or latter this will either be invalidated or validated. 
> 
> What you see Belegis-Gava II and increase of channeled-ware, is probably a resurface of native Vatin and immediate destruction of Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery people and Hugelgraber which were invading their territory.


Belegis II-Gva has a lot of Northern influence from Gva proper.
Also, what's always in my mind, is the modern phylogeny. FTDNA with its new estimates completely confirms the LBA-EIA spread and branching events.
This timing fits perfectly with Gva, but is too late for Vatin and too early for Psenichevo.
The E-V13 people clearly lived together, the bulk, up to this point and split in all directions afterwards. No other formation has a better position to account for that than Gava.

Belegis II-Gva comes second, but the fit is worse on it's own.

----------


## alxfb

Hello, mate! 

Please, accept my friend request. I would like to send you a private message. :)

----------


## alxfb

Hello, Riverman!

Please, accept my friend request. I would like to send you a private message to talk about E-V13 lineage. :)

(Sorry, I couldn't edit my post above)

----------


## Riverman

> Hello, Riverman!
> Please, accept my friend request. I would like to send you a private message to talk about E-V13 lineage. :)
> (Sorry, I couldn't edit my post above)


For a private message you don't need to friend up, but you need to post a minimum post count here on this forum. Not sure whether it was 5 or 10...

----------


## alxfb

Thanks! I just sent you the private message. I hope it arrived!

----------


## Hawk

There was a thread opened by Oroku Saki: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Hatvan-culture

The E1b1b/E-V13 sample is from Hatvan Culture, North-Eastern Hungary.

----------


## Hawk

> „ПШЕНИЧЕВО” - археологическа култура, разпространена през ранната желязна епоха в Тракия; пряко продължение на културния комплекс Пловдив - Зимниче. Получава името си от селището край с. Пшеничево, Старозагорска област. Характеризира се с т. нар. „букел-керамика", при която характерни форми са голямата урна с роговидни израстъци и чашата с висока дръжка. Керамиката е украсена с канелюри и щампован или набоден орнамент. Някои керамични форми имат пряка аналогия в пласта VII В2 на селищната могила Троя, което показва, че в края на бронзовата и началото на желязната епоха двете археологически култури се развиват едновременно. Култура Пшеничево е идентифицирана през 1972г. от ст.н.с. II ст. Мария Чичикова.
> 
> http://www.bgjourney.com/Architecture/gloss/P.html





> "Psenicevo" - archaeological culture spread during the early Iron Age in Thrace; a direct continuation of the cultural complex Plovdiv - Zimniche. It gets its name from the settlement near the village of Pshenichevo, Starozagorsk region. It is characterized by the so-called "buquel-ceramic", in which the characteristic forms are the large urn with horn-shaped outgrowths and the cup with a tall handle. The pottery is decorated with grooves and stamped or pierced ornament. Some ceramic forms have a direct analogy in layer VII B2 on the settlement mound of Troy, which shows that at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, the two archaeological cultures developed simultaneously.The Pshenichevo culture was identified in 1972 by Maria Chichikova, Ph.D.


For clarification in English grooves means channeled. Also, if you encounter wheat it's from google translate, Psenicevo in Bulgarian derived from pcenka means wheat (it's just a Bulgarian village name after which the culture is named, it has nothing to do with the context of the culture itself).




> Culture Pshenichevo.
> Age of Bronze.
> Dating: 11th-9th centuries. BC.
> Refers to the first period of Hallstatt.
> The culture is identified by a number of sites of the South Thracian type in South-Eastern Bulgaria near the village. Psenicevo.
> Ceramics from Pshenichevo and similar settlements, in addition to kitchen pots, contains tableware made of well-washed clay with smoothed or polished surfaces, ornamented with various stamps, carvings and flutes. In pottery decorated with stamps and carvings, there is a connection with the local ceramics of the Middle and Late Bronze Age. At the same time, the ornamental motifs and methods of their execution have much in common with the ornamentation of pottery from the Badabag group and Insula Banului.
> There are bands of circles connected by tangents (an ornament especially typical of the Babadag middle layer ceramics) and patterns made with a die in the form of the letter S, which are typical for ornamentation of ceramics from Insula Banului. Along with them, there are other types of patterns.
> In addition to the settlements, researchers include several burials in dolmens and rock tombs geographically close to settlements in southern Bulgaria to the local Thracian culture of the Pshenichevo type.
> Near the village of Manole, not far from Plovdiv, a cremation was accidentally discovered in an urn, a vessel of the protovillanov type, which, according to its morphological data, approaches the urns characteristic of the A2 period of Central Europe, including the early period of the Gava-Goligrad culture. Here, already in the era of the early Hallstatt, as in later times, there was biritualism in barrowless and kurgan cemeteries.
> ...

----------


## Hawk

According to Milos Jevtic Psenicevo, Bassarabi, Insula Banului, Saharna Solonceni and all related cultures (who should be rich on E-V13) origin should be sought in lower Danube valley, from Iron Ages to Danube Delta.

It's either this, or the newly introduced black-burnished ware, channeled-ware Gava/Belegis-Gava II.

----------


## Riverman

> According to Milos Jevtic Psenicevo, Bassarabi, Insula Banului, Saharna Solonceni and all related cultures (who should be rich on E-V13) origin should be sought in lower Danube valley, from Iron Ages to Danube Delta.
> 
> It's either this, or the newly introduced black-burnished ware, channeled-ware Gava/Belegis-Gava II.


That's to some degree no contradiction, because Psenichevo-Babadag being a direct descendant of Channelled Ware, just with local influences and new innovations. So one possible argument could be, that Channelled Ware already had E-V13, but there were multiple founder effects especially in the East, in the area of the Babadag into Psenichevo Eastern groupings, and that the mixed South Eastern ancestry with increased E-V13 spread from there. 
It could have been picked up in the East, but that is much harder to harmonise with the timings we got from the modern testing and phylogeny. 

It's like I2a-Din: The question is not whether it spread with Slavs, it did spread primarily with Slavs, that's a fact, but when exactly it joined the Slavic group. The main difference being that E-V13 for the Thracians/Daco-Thracians played a much bigger role, presumably in all branches, including the Northern ones, and was presumably there from the start...

Babadag-Psenichevo is unthinkable without Channelled Ware, because they are Channelled Ware provinces by and large.

----------


## Hawk

I wanted to share this link: https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-021-09155-7

Which i think it might be potentially related to Chalcolithic origin of E-V13, and why this lineage better survived the Yamnaya incursions.

----------


## Riverman

We just lack Iron Age samples from too many regions and detecting a minority element is even harder than getting any samples, even more so, if their great majority did cremate, like most of the people associated with E-V13 just did. Frg is the primary example. 

It's particularly interesting to stress that many authors claimed that the local, more conservative population, remained with cremation, while newcomers and the extravagant elite from the Celtic West preferred inhumation during the Iron Age. So its specifcally the local, Urnfield and Thraco-Cimmerian/Basarabi associated people, which did prefer to cremate, contrary to Western newcomers and the transregional elites.




> *The Late Bronze Age Urnfield Period in Central Europe (BA D, Ha A/B, c.1300 to 800 BC) is characterized by the dominance of cremation as a burial rite.* The simple appearance of urn burials give an impression of simplicity, but they are the endpoint of a chain of actions and practices that constitute the funerary ritual, many of which may not be simple at all, but include a large number of people and resources. The washing, dressing, and furnishing of the body as it is laid out prior to cremation leave no traces. The funerary pyre, as spectacular as it may have looked, smelled, and felt during the cremation, preserves only under exceptional circumstances. The rituals and feasts associated with selecting the cremated remains from the funerary pyre and placing them in a suitable organic container or a ceramic urn prior to their deposition do not leave much evidence. The large-scale spread of cremation during the Late Bronze Age has traditionally been explained by the movements of peoples (e.g. Kraft 1926; Childe 1950), or a change in religious beliefs (e.g. Alexander 1979). More recently, a change in how the human body is ontologically understood and how it has to be transformed after death is seen as the more likely underlying cause (Harris et al. 2013; Robb and Harris 2013; Srensen and Rebay-Salisbury in prep.), although a simple and single reason is rarely the driver of such pan-European developments. This chapter will be concerned with another transition, the change from cremation back to inhumation, several hundred years later during the Early Iron Age, and investigates its background and causes. In Central Europe, cremation is given up as the solitary funerary rite, and a range of different options, including inhumations in burial mounds, bi-ritual cemeteries, and new forms of cremation graves emerge. This change happens at a different pace in the various areas of the Hallstatt Culture and adjacent areas, which will be surveyed here.


https://academic.oup.com/book/40283/...dFrom=fulltext


Also about Eastern Hallstatt, which had stronger Thraco-Cimmerian influences and was decisive in the formation of Hallstatt as whole in the earliest period. Remember that most of the major E-V13 subclades split between the macro-regions between 1.300-900 BC? Here is why:




> Next
> to the Middle Danubian Urnield Culture with various local pottery traditions as
> well as variations in burial ritual (Lochner 2013) other cultural groups or units can
> be identiied who are *direct neighbors of the Middledanubian Urnield culture:
> irst those using incised and stamped pottery  i.e. the Kalakača phase of the Bosut
> Culture (Hnsel/Medović 1991), located in the Balkans and the Lower Danube
> region, and secondly the so-called Mezőcst group (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998; 2000)
> of mobile pastoralists in the eastern Carpathian Basin. The vicinity of the Middle
> Danubian Urnield Culture  which evolves into the eastern Hallstatt culture in the
> ...


Mezocsat = Thraco-Cimmerian, many Gva elements in it, evolving with additional Scythian influences into Vekerzug. 
Gornea-Kalakaca into Bosut with Eastern influences into Basarabi. 
These are the two main Iron Age Western cultural formations, and both did, just like Gva before, heavily influence the Middle Danubian Urnfield group's sphere, from which Hallstatt evolved. There is no way that E-V13 was absent in Hallstatt, especially in the most strongest influenced groups like Frg. 
Western Hallstatt - should have get "some" too, due to contacts, but Eastern Hallstatt was surely full of E-V13 - still a minority, but probably the biggest after the dominant R-L51, especially R-U152/R-L2 lineages. 

How came the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon about? By Cimmerians invading Gva: 




> As I have argued previously (Metzner-Nebelsick 2002; 2010), due to various
> factors of supposedly overexploitation of the natural resources in the eastern
> Carpathian Basin and the impact of an incoming group of eastern mobile
> pastoralists who also intermarried with women of local residents, parts of the
> Hungarian Plain (hung. Alfld) underwent substantial social and economic as
> well as ideological changes during the 9th century BC. Profound anthropogenic
> changes of the environment led to situations of crisis and a subsequent immigration
> of newcomers from eastern Europe led to a change of subsistence strategy with
> a pastoral economy, since for the time between 900/950 and 700/650 BC no
> ...


Remember the growth of Suciu de Sus into Gva? Overexploitation of resources! That's probably part of the explanation for the sudden decrease and their migration South, even for the Bronze Age collapse. They grew to big too fast, and when things got worse, latest when iron came on the scene, they decided to leave for good and that's when Channelled Ware exploded and moved South on both sides of the Carpathians. 

*Its a tragedy we got Mezocsat samples which are clearly local, clearly no Cimmerians, but these being all females! I'm pretty sure, if we would have had 10 males, chances are high some E-V13 would be among these Thraco-Cimmerians from Mezocsat and they might still carry lineages which are now very frequent in Western Europe!* 
Chances are we might get some samples, eventually, because under Cimmerian influence, some East Carpathian Gva groups transitioned to inhumation! 

The Thraco-Cimmerians were at the foundation of Hallstatt and introduced heavy cavalry with new, typically Carpathian (essentially Gva people!) innovations: 




> As I have argued it was either members of those Carpathian Basin Urnfield
> groups or the Mezőcst people themselves who developed great creative potential
> in translating the prototypes of a new way of bridling technique  very appropriate
> for military purposes  into something genuinely Carpathian (Fig. 4; MetznerNebelsick 1998; 2002). It is still unclear where the new horse-gear types were
> produced, since so far no workshops could be located, neither within the activity
> zone of the Mezőcst people nor indeed in the hillforts and settlements of the
> sedentary Urnfield communities. Nonetheless, these Carpathian Basin hybrids
> of types of horse-gear and various forms of richly ornamented reign trappings,
> originating in the northern Caucasus and the north Pontic steppe belt, were those
> ...


These cultures being connected to the earliest stage of Hallstatt, not without reason the Carpatho-Balkan groups of Thracian origin being called "Thracian Hallstatt" in the past: 

Mezner-Nebelsick, p. 353

Note that all the important groups which descend from Channelled Ware being present - including the area from which we got the latest E-V13 from, Psenichevo group in Bulgaria, which was just part of it. Just like Northern (Late) Gva, from which the later Northern Dacians evolved, which sticked to cremation even when coming under Gothic rule. 

This is when E-V13 began to move West the latest, the first splinters might have been with Urnfield already, but the bigger impact will be with the Hallstatt connection to the Thracian sphere (Mezocsat and Basarabi in particular). Therefore I expect a strong overlap of the current Western subclades with finds from Mezocsat and Basarabi, primarily, Northern Gva secondarily, South Eastern groups only third for the North West. 

*We have this debate only, because, unfortunately, from Mezocsat only females being tested!* 

How far reached Mezocsat Thraco-Cimmerians (which evolved from the Gva base!): 



> I am dwelling on this aspect once again, because the process of a multi-stage
> adaptation and subsequent appropriation of eastern contacts became indicative
> for the eastern Hallstatt culture and beyond in the Ha C period. *The fundamental
> changes happening after ca. 1000 BC were however geographically limited and
> had the strongest impact in regions immediately adjacent to the Mezőcst groups
> living space  that is in southeast Pannonia (including areas of both southwest
> Hungary and northeast Croatia) and in eastern Austria (Lower Austria and
> Burgenland).* Here the contact with the Mezőcst people was direct and probably
> often antagonistic, triggering a quick adaptation of novelties in warfare.


Note that some of the founders of Hallstatt dynasties copied Eastern gear of the Daco-Thracians: 




> In absolute dates this process must have happened sometimes during the 8th
> century BC. In some cases like in Pcs-Jakabhegy, tumulus Trk 1 (Fig. 5A;
> Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 129 pl. 121A) which is one of the founders graves in
> the Hallstatt necropolis on the Jacabhegy in southeast Transdanubia (Southeastern
> Pannonia according to my terminology), the deceased is portrayed as a north
> Caucasian mounted warrior, in a rare case of a combination with a Caucasian
> weapon set of an iron axe, a bimetallic dagger of Gamw-Pjatigorsk type and
> an iron spearhead, but clearly in combination with local elements such as the
> cremation rite and local type pottery. The burial is one of the oldest within a larger
> ...


Whether he was local or not we can't tell, ever. *Because he was cremated.* 

Same for these local Urnfielders, no samples, all cremated: 




> A contemporaneous example of the incorporation of eastern type horse-gear is
> Stillfried at the March River in northeast Austria (Kaus 1988/89; Lochner 2013).
> Here we observe quite a different context. Although also in this elite late Urnfield
> period grave the eastern style horse-gear is present, but in contrast to Pcs the
> ideological package of a steppe bound highly mobile warrior is missing. Instead
> we find the eastern hybrids and possibly Alfld imports of horse-gear *within a
> cremation cemetery with an already then longer occupation period.*


So the Western expansion is hard to test, but we can test the Mezocsat core. We have samples, we know how the locals looked autosomally, but no males! 

Basarabi too influenced Hallstatt: 



> Second to a steppe impact another form of eastern culture contact is crucial for
> understanding the formation of the Hallstatt culture and the Ha C period in the
> Hallstatt east: that is the impact of the Basarabi Culture Complex (Gumă 1993;
> 1996), sometimes referred to as Basarabi Culture (Vulpe 1986). The specific
> pottery style of the Basarabi complex (Fig. 7) *has its core distribution in the Banat
> as well as in Muntenia and Oltenia south of the Danube. In the Banat and around
> the Iron Gate the specific pottery style can be connected to a cultural group, the
> Basarabi cultural group within the Basarabi cultural complex* (Metzner-Nebelsick
> 2004, 283-286), since *the distinctive incised and stamped pottery* has a longer
> ...


Can be tested as well! I don't get it if the Serbian project hasn't test any of these, since they are absolutely crucial for the Serbian Iron Age prehistory. 

The Southern Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi sphere of influence, which evolved from Southern Channelled Ware, being also characterised by the typical kantharoi - an older Balkan tradition, to which channels as decoration being added. Here is the map, note how close it mirrors the potential early E-V13 high concentration zones: 



Mezocsat-Vekerzug and Northern Gva-descendants being not part of it, but I'm assuming they were high in E-V13 as well. At least Mezocsat can be tested, like explained above. 

Within Hallstatt, the Eastern influenced groups all practised primarily cremation - notable exception being the Unterkrainische group: 




> In contrast to the west or Dolenjska inhumations are the absolute exception in
> Transdanubia and the whole eastern Hallstatt culture during Ha C; so besides
> western or southeast alpine artifact types a burial rite practiced either in the west or
> in Dolenjska is present.


They had Illyrian contacts, we have an J-L283 carrier with a Balkan profile from those! They used collective tumuli with inhumation, just like the Illyrians. That's why we got so many J-L283 and so little E-V13, because the Thracian influenced Northern, Austrian and Hungarian groups, all used preferably cremation, which is even a problem for the archaeological interpretation: 




> *In Ha C the almost exclusive burial rite in the mentioned barrow cemeteries
> is cremation.* Sometimes several individuals are buried within one burial like in
> Stt (Vadsz 1983) or Vaskeresztes (Fekete 1985). Weapons and horse-gear for
> a symbolic wagon with two horses is a regular feature, although it seems that *due
> to the burial rite of cremation and the burning of personal belongings on the
> pyre together with the deceased a lot of information is being lost by deliberate
> destruction.*


https://www.academia.edu/35174707/At...Hallstatt_East

Once more: A large fraction of the Gva/Thraco-Cimmerian/Basarabi influenced Iron Age people did either cremate or being not tested as of yet - at least not males.

----------


## Hawk

> I wanted to share this link: https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-021-09155-7
> 
> Which i think it might be potentially related to Chalcolithic origin of E-V13, and why this lineage better survived the Yamnaya incursions.


In relation to this paper, this makes sense.

----------


## Hawk

This abstract from Romanian archaeologist Valeriu Leahu is worth reading:

Scroll down to the English version: https://cercetari-arheologice.ro/wp-...ahu_Tracii.pdf

----------


## Riverman

> This abstract from Romanian archaeologist Valeriu Leahu is worth reading:
> 
> Scroll down to the English version: https://cercetari-arheologice.ro/wp-...ahu_Tracii.pdf


Its somewhat confusingly written and its a pity that the text of the PDF is very badly organised, so that I can't really work that easily with translate. The main text has more interesting content than the somewhat superficial and confusing abstract.

----------


## Hawk

> Its somewhat confusingly written and its a pity that the text of the PDF is very badly organised, so that I can't really work that easily with translate. The main text has more interesting content than the somewhat superficial and confusing abstract.


Scroll down to the bottom, it's already translated into English, and as far as the writing goes, it's quite good. It gives a very good picture. Aspar is right into that there is no clear evidence that Psenicevo is directly descended from Gava, that's not the case (except for old Bulgarian archaeologists who explicitly stated Gava is the ancestor of Psenicevo). But, archaeologists believe that Psenicevo-Babadag was the southern cousin of Gava people. Archaeologists like Gabor Vekony. In addition, stamped cultures are always quoted "stamped and grooved" and grooved actually means channeled. But, we can argue it was a cultural complex, which might have different Y-DNA's. Or perhaps E-V13 was present among all of the Balkan-Carpathian complex, just that in some of them moreso, like Stamped Hallstatt Culture.

----------


## Riverman

> Scroll down to the bottom, it's already translated into English, and as far as the writing goes, it's quite good. It gives a very good picture. Aspar is right into that there is no clear evidence that Psenicevo is directly descended from Gava, that's not the case (except for old Bulgarian archaeologists who explicitly stated Gava is the ancestor of Psenicevo). But, archaeologists believe that Psenicevo-Babadag was the southern cousin of Gava people. Archaeologists like Gabor Vekony. In addition, stamped cultures are always quoted "stamped and grooved" and grooved actually means channeled. But, we can argue it was a cultural complex, which might have different Y-DNA's. Or perhaps E-V13 was present among all of the Balkan-Carpathian complex, just that in some of them moreso, like Stamped Hallstatt Culture.


I know the text below, but he writes more and interesting stuff in the Romanian text corpus, which however is difficult to translate, unfortunately. 

The issue is that of course Gva was the source of this Channelled Ware movement, but it happened in stages so there was influence directly from the Northern centre, but a lot happened indirectly and we're dealing with expansions which happened in generations, with a lot of local admixture and influence. That way what came to Bulgaria was no longer the same, neither culturally nor ancestrally, as Gva, but it was caused by Gva nevertheless. 

Like I said before, there is the option of clans in between taking the movement up, and spreading it on their own, with their own successful expansion. But this is much less likely because of the phylogeny and spread of E-V13, which is much harder to explain by a more Southern starting point.

As for Psenichevo, I see it is a really fused culture, like Channelled Ware being fused with local elements of significance and then this new fusion starts to spread the other way around. In all fusions, you can always argue that this or that side was the dominant part in the process. That's really something we don't know, because the culturally dominant side might have been genetically subdominant and vice versa. I think there will be a genetic and a cultural Gva signal in Bulgaria, and the only thing we saw up to this point as a new element being E-V13. Because R-Z93 likely came with Noua and the Cimmerian-Scythian groups of the MBA. Therefore I would wonder "what else" it should be and can't think of a local lineage toppling all of Channelled Ware, after its magnificient expansion, from the South Eastern pocket. 

But that's really something ancient DNA needs to clarify, we can't do it with the material, archaeological remains imho.

----------


## Riverman

As for saying "completely different Channelled Ware in Bulgaria", compare the Knobbed Ware from Bulgaria and Troy: 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIl30RMX...jpg&name=large

Note especially the figures on the vessel from Nova Zagora, that was an evolution within the Thracian sphere which spread to Hallstatt and Central Europe: 

Metzner-Nebelsick page 79. 

With those from Lăpuș II-Gva: 

Metzner-Nebelsick page 77. 

Last two images from: 
https://www.academia.edu/3195938/Cha...ogical_aspects

And these pieces are not even the most similar (note neck height and handle in particular) you can find! There are much more similar pieces between Lăpuș and Bulgaria-Troy. Note that in Bulgaria, this type of ware truly dominated the Transitional Period and was completely unknown before. There were at least roughly similar pieces in e.g. the Central Balkans, which showed some remote similarities, but in Bulgaria this was a completely unknown ceramic tradition, as were the typical Naue II swords (type Reutlingen). 
Some similarities between Lăpuș and Bulgaria are even greater than between e.g. Lăpuș and Belegis II-Gva, just proving a potential second, Eastern route down the Prut, into Babadag, Psenichevo and Troy territory. 

Archaeologists are at times quite strict these days, in differentiating provinces, but if anybody compares the pottery and other cultural aspects of Bulgaria before and with or after Channelled Ware, to say these are minor cultural impulses without significant cultural domination - and what should have caused this other than migration, which we see in the record anyway - is abstruse. 
So the only question which remains is at which ratio the newcomers came in, how many stayed and what their impact was. That there were was none is completely out of question. That they dominated with E-V13 is likely but not proven without having the right pre- and post references from Bulgaria and elsewhere of course. There could have been a limited migration and some of the Channelled Ware groups might have been different from Gva from the beginning, we don't know. That's what needs to be investigated. But local traditions these were not.

Here is another plate which shows the evolution within Bulgaria, note how first the small knobs of the Central Balkan style (Brnjica, Belegis inspired) appeared (not here on this plate), then came Fluted Ware which evolved into Psenichevo I, with the typical vessels like we got them from Lăpuș II-Gva which large knobs: 

Elena Bozhinova, page 70. 

From: https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thr...ures_in_Thrace

There is zero tradition for that kind of pottery in Bulgaria, nothing. The Central Balkans had earlier connections and some remote similarities, but in Bulgaria was really isolated by comparison. A complete turnover in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age period with the Fluted Ware horizon and well into Psenichevo.

But there is more to that, if looking at the scheme for Bulgaria: 



The ideal timing for E-V13 is with Fluted/Channelled Ware, because about 1.300-900 BC most of the expansion and branching happened. That's the E-V13 timing, not earlier, not later. 

Flutes being not abandoned, not even in the developed phase of later Psenichevo: 



> The upper Early Iron Age layers at Malkoto kale and Ada Tepe II, and the lower layers at Cala and Psenicevo itself belong to the second stage, which marks the apogee of geometric ornamentation.53 Most used are the stamped motifs, among which the S-ornaments are generally preferred. Combinations of stamped decoration and flutes are often seen.


What really changes is the spread of Grey Ware - obviously Greek related, first imports and other ways, later local production: 



> The rich geometric decoration of the Psenicevo style is a phenomenon common to
> all of southeast Thrace, where the centre coincides with the region of the dolmens 
> Sakar, Strandja and the Eastern Rhodopes. It also features in the central part of the
> Maritza and Tundja valleys to the north and Eastern Thrace to the south.55 The
> ornate decoration is less seen in the west, and its limit should be placed in the region
> of Plovdiv (Philippopolis). In contrast to its gradual beginning, the second phase ends
> abruptly. Burnished handmade table ware is replaced for quite a short time with a
> grey wheel-made pottery that is foreign to Thrace and has its traditions in the northwestern Anatolian region.56 A short period when the two classes of pottery are found
> together is regarded as the third and last stage of the second Early Iron Age phase, but
> ...


Note how in Psenichevo III the author writes down: "grey Ware - imports?"

That's highly important, because we got these samples from a time frame in which grey were already spread quite massively. And like I said: The earlier samples are still more Northern than the later ones, even though some of the later come from further North geographically, where Channelled Ware had an even bigger impact! 

The Grey Ware influence came indeed from the Aegean-Anatolia, but it didn't change anything systematically, it was more kind of a cultural and migratory "low level influence", which however spread steadily, throughout the Eastern Balkans. I think this was primarily female mediated admixture on top of the mixture processes which took place earlier. 

In any case, nothing of that has any continuity from the earlier MBA, let alone the EBA. Close to zero.

The Channelled Ware influences didn't disappear with Psenichevo and Stamped Ware, they became truly less common with the Greek and Grey Ware influences, which were external and didn't change the ethnic character and apparently not that much in the patrilineages early on. It was a similar process as in later Greeks and Romans. So I expect multiple layers of admixture in Bulgaria, not just one, in different time frames and a constant change until the the typical BGR_IA profile being reached.

----------


## Riverman

There is no way to circumvent Channelled Ware in Bulgaria, just none. And the style with stamps and incisions did spread indeed, but not to all areas and groups known as Thracian and in a secondary, kind of "backflow manner" wthin the Stamped Pottery-Kantharoi sphere. I posted that myself, so I don't deny more Southern influences reaching e.g. Southern Pannonia, Southern-Central Transylvania or Moldova. I posted the maps myself which show these influences, migrations and settlements from Psenichevo and primarily Basarabi. 
But the origin of Basarabi itself is not as clear, and its not necessarily an expansion from Psenichevo, but this is really rather an interplay with both sides connecting. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing of the sort like the Fluted Ware horizon in Bulgaria to explain how Basarabi emerged and spread. Even if it would, and this needs to be proven, we still have the other provinces and groups, which likely carried E-V13 earlier and independently as well. 

Don't forget we will get some of the earliest Bronze and Iron Age finds from Central Europe. And the authors of the last Southern Arc paper correctly note: Unknown, unsampled region. This is not Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was better sampled. If you look at which region being undersampled, which is the elephant in the room, it's clear: 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...1154509996&z=6

Romania, Transcarpathia and Eastern Slovakia (Hornad valley in particular).

In atalca, Turkish Thrace, we find a direct associated with cannelure/Channelled Ware with stamped motifs: 



> anders als im Fundort atalka,
> der bei Hnsel die frhe Phase der frheisen-
> zeitlichen Keramik definierte, und in dem,
> neben den einfachen Kreisaugen mit Ritztan-
> genten, gerade das hufige Auftreten der Kan-
> nelur zum Anhaltspunkt fr eine Frhdatie-
> rung wurde.


According to Haensel this represents the earliest phase. The channelling decreased over time, but it was present in a lot of stamped pottery early phase sites. 

Kastanas and Troy are crucial, because of their more reliable C14 dates: 



> Coppenhfer
> sieht darin ein Datum fr das Ende der Troi-
> VII-Entwicklung generell und legt danach das
> Ende der von ihm neu eingefhrten Schicht
> Troia VIIb 3 in die Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts.
> So verweisen die C14-Daten das Ende der
> Schicht VIIb 2 wohl auf das 10. Jahrhundert,
> was mit der Entwicklung in Rumnien zu
> korrelieren ist.
> ...





> Bezieht man sich nun auf die Extremposition
> Podzuweits in der Datierungsdiskussion um
> Troia, so wre die Konsequenz letztlich die
> Verschiebung der Datierung der stempelver-
> zierten Gruppen Thrakiens um 100 Jahre zum
> Jngeren, da Troia VIIb 2 statt um 1100 nun ab
> ca. 1000 anzusetzen wre. Die Catalka-
> Gruppe knnte also erst zu Beginn des 10.
> Jahrhunderts bestanden haben.





> Aufgrund der Vergleiche mit den Schichten
> 10 und 9 von Kastanas wurde der bergang
> von der Alada-Phase zur frhen Eisenzeit fr
> das 11.vielleicht das 10. Jahrhundert vorge-
> schlagen.
> Auf die Fundorte der Alada-Phase und die
> "bergangsfundorte" folgen die Fundorte
> Kovil und Dundara. In Kovil in den Rhodo-
> pen tritt nun auch Kannelur auf, meist in
> ...


This is important if talking about some of the earliest sites with stamped decoration: 



> ltere Eisenzeit in trkisch Thrakien
> 116
> sind Kreisaugen und Abrollungsbnder, die
> das Gef berziehen oder in Form der klassi-
> schen Kreisaugen-Tangentenreihe das Gef
> horizontal gliedern. Im Fundort Dundara tritt
> neben diese Elemente auch groflchigere
> Ornamentierung in Form von Dreiecken und
> Rauten 394 . Neben die Ornamente, die aus
> ...


Different sites along the Danube, in Serbia, North Eastern Bulgaria, but also Southern Bulgaria. Quite a wider range. 

Knobs and channels still appear in the developed Psenichevo phase, by the way. With human figures, we see the Basarabi-Hallstatt evolution: 




> Ein Indiz fr eine Sptdatierung der Siedlung
> Bogdanovo mag man auch in der Scherbe mit
> der figrlichen Darstellung sehen, wie man
> berhaupt in der Mehrzahl der in diesem
> Raum auftretenden figrlichen und "subfigr-
> lichen" Darstellungen ein Indiz fr eine zeitli-
> che Nhe mindestens zum entwickelten Basa-
> rabi-Horizont, wenn nicht zur entwickelten
> Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas sehen mchte (s.o.
> ...


The Nova Zagora piece (see above) is actually one of the later to latest knob decorated pieces in a Lăpuș-Gva manner, which already shows Basarabi-Hallstatt human figures: 




> Auch die oben
> dargestellten hnlichkeiten der Vgel von
> Marica, Dikella (Roussa) und Rizia mit spt-
> geometrischen Vgeln einerseits und mit Dar-
> stellungen des Basarabi-Kreises andererseits
> rcken diese Funde in die zweite Hlfte des 8.
> Jahrhunderts. Ob dies fr alle figrlichen Dar-
> stellungen zu gelten hat, ist im Augenblick
> allerdings noch schwer zu beurteilen. Vor
> ...


This means forms which look like carbon copies from Lăpuș survived particularly long in the Psenichevo-Basarabi sphere as well. 

In Bulgaria the stamped pottery forms being largely replaced by the Grey Ware fairly early, earlier than the Thracian samples we got (!), whereas in the Basarabi sphere the stamped and channelled forms survived and evolved on, independently: 




> Die Datierung
> dieser Grberfelder ging jedoch weitgehend
> von der Annahme aus, das Auftreten der grau-
> en Drehscheibenware sei mit den Grndungs-
> daten der griechischen Schwarzmeerkolonien
> zu verknpfen, eine Annahme, die neuere
> Forschungen, vor allem die Ausgrabungen in
> Kastanas, widerlegt haben. In Kastanas treten
> die ersten grauen Scherben in der Schicht 14b
> ...


Knobbed Ware (variant of Channelled Ware, compare with Lapus II-Gva) can in practise not be separated from the stamped pottery in Bulgaria: 




> The earliest examples of stamped ornaments
> are simple bands of concentric circles with
> tangents, concentric circles with incised tan-
> gents, large S-stamps,* little bosses* with lines
> of *****s, circles without any tangents, bnder
> of circles, and pseudocord cover the jar fre-
> quently combined *with vertical bosses, al-
> mond-shaped bosses*, mostly on pots of
> Schssel 2 type, *circles combined with angles,
> ...


https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstr...=7&isAllowed=y

*Horn-like knobs like in Lapus-Gva II being typical for the early phase of the stamped pottery!* 

What we see is a fusion of the Fluted Ware horizon with local elements and Mycenaean-Greek and later (Grey Ware!) Anatolian elements. That much is fixed! The Greeks and Anatolians were not the carriers of E-V13, that much is fixed also. This leaves the different pre-Channelled Ware and Channelled Ware groups as carriers. But we know that there was little continuity in MBA Bulgaria and the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon was first the most dominant and secondly affected also other regions in the right time frame.
The MBA-LBA not even controlled much of Bulgaria, which was split between different groups. Much too small for the E-V13 phylogeny and we know it was to the North, at the Upper Tisza in the EIA already.

----------


## Riverman

Something about the burial rites in Bulgaria and warriors from Gva-related groups: 




> While settlements do not provide us with a clear enough 
> picture to define regional traits, there are specific regional burial practices. In northwest Bulgaria the tradition of cremation burials in flat cemeteries, close to river banks, a ritual typical for 
> Incrusted Culture of the Lower part of the Central "Urnenfelderkultur".
> The number of graves in a cemetery now decreases. This tradition remains dominant throughout the hole of the EIA here, although single cases of inhumation under tumuli can be dated to the period of the 9-8th century BC and mark a novelty in the burial practise, characterizing the beginning of the second phase the EIA. 
> 
> In all * other regions of Bulgaria, covering the burials with tumuli became a common practice, known from the LBA 
> *in the Western Rhodopes. In north*eastern Bulgaria, as well as in the Maritza and Tundja valleys of southern 
> Bulgaria and in Aegean Thrace in Turkey, inhumation continues to be the normal burial practice, as it was in the LBA. Now the crouched position of the body is to left and and only the arms remain in a bent position * a trend followed in the Noua culture of the Moldavian LBA and in 
> Western Rhodopes in the South. The tumulus now became the place of a family cemetery. In the Maritza and 
> ...


So we have Encrusted Pottery influences from the West, Noua from the North East and Gva-related from the North to North West (Carpathian Basin). The evidence for the migration of elite warriors with Naue II (especially type Reutlingen) swords with urn burials and knobbed ware is there. Its concrete, nothing to debate about. The only question is how big their impact was. But we know there was little to know continuity from the EBA and early MBA to the LBA-EiA, and we also know that E-V13 wasn't there and couldn't possibly have experienced the founder series in the MBA-EIA needed to explain its later appearance. The position is "wrong" also, because not central enough. 

And while we see that this cremating warrior groups did not dominate everything and their first impact might have been limited, we see another thing: The local culture completely transformed in their direction with the Fluted Ware and later Psenichevo phase. This means, in my opinion, that we deal with a fusion of newly arriving people from the North, best exemplified by these elite burials in urns with slashing type Naue II/Reutlingen swords and knobbed ceramic, but not restricted to this early phase of separation. They quickly seem to have adopted local customs also and mixed with the locals. That's what we see, as well as further Noua/Cimmerian steppe influences. 

The Cimmerian steppe influences brought inhumation to many regions, but some reverted back to cremation later: 



> With the early adoption of a cremation ritual in the
> LBA, which then is replaced abruptly by inhumation burials with the beginning of the EIA, the Western
> Rhodopes show a unique evolution in burial practices.
> After the century 9th century BC cremation returns in use
> alongside inhumation.


Due to the Channelled Ware impact, the contacts to the Aegean-Anatolian being pretty much cut for some generations: 




> Imported pottery dated to the LBA and other artefacts found as
> grave goods in complexes from the second phase of the
> EIA demonstrate this region to have been in close
> contact with Macedonia". Their lack in graves from the
> early phase of the EIA could be due to a restriction of
> contacts and/or the scarcity of precious objects during
> that period.


Fact is everything was oriented North in that period, like many authors correctly stated and that's basically due to the Channelled Ware people (or at least warrior elites) coming in. In the dolmen groups, like they dominate in the South also, cremation appears as well later, so some clans obviously sticked to their old tradition they brought at first: 




> The bones from the previous burial s are set aside
> or - in some cases - placed in a second chamber/dolmen,
> to make place for the last burial. Grave goods are usually
> placed in front of the facade. Inhumation here is the
> prevailing ritual; cremation is also observed but remains
> an exception.


The Northern orientation ended before we got samples, all the samples come from a period when the orientation was to the South and South East again, especially true for the area of South Eastern Thrace, which shows a stronger orientation towards Anatolia (Grey Ware!): 




> The second half of the 9th century BC marks the 
> widespread reappearance of bronze artefacts, mainly 
> adornments, showing a pronounced regional diversity. 
> Now the Western Rhodopes show contacts with western 
> Macedonia, *while south*eastern Thrace seems to have 
> closer links to Anatolia and the northern Aegean, and 
> north*eastern Thrace shows connections with Moldavia.* 
> Northwest Bulgaria shares similar fashions with the 
> Western Balkans and the Carpathian region. At the same 
> ...


North Eastern Thrace shows connections to the steppe and Caucasus, like expected because of the Cimmerian expansion. 

In the Early Iron Age, the Carpathian dominance is clearly visible and stays, it remains conservative for centuries: 




> In general, the EIA repertoire continues the 
> pottery categories known from the LBA. The shapes of 
> *the most popular fine vessel types * amphora*like vessels 
> and kantharoi * change under the intluence of the pottery 
> spectrum from the Carpathian region. The new style in 
> shapes develops at the very beginning of the IA and then 
> remains conservative for the entire EIA.* 
> 
> The decoration 
> ...


All the areas from which we got E-V13 samples were *totally* dominated by Channelled Ware. Here the author is wrong: 




> As a rule, this kind of 
> decoration is used only for the fine pottery with burnished 
> surface and is quasi obligatory for certain vessel types -
> [urban dishes, cups, kantharoi and amphora-like vessels.
> The last two types are often equipped with exaggerated
> buckles (knobs). These buckles could be indicative as a
> characteristic of the Eastern Balkan complex. where they
> continued to be used during the entire EIA. Nowhere,
> except in north-western Bulgaria, is the channelled
> ...


*The style is a carbon copy from Lăpuș!* 

Some Bulgarian authors don't even mention Romania in their whole papers, but this is obviously a grave mistake, because we see the traditions evolving, having their roots in Lăpuș. 

About the origin of Stamped Pottery, which evolved gradually from the Fluted Ware horizon - its a fusion with Channelled Ware conservative elements: 




> Channelled pottery is followed by the gradual adoption of
> a stamped geometric decoration style. In the regions of
> southern Thrace, the appearance of the two styles could
> have occurred simultaneously, with channelled pottery
> prevailing in the early stages. *Fluting is still an important
> part of the decoration system and maintains its
> predominance with the turban dishes, kantharoi and
> amphora-like vessels, but is now often combined with
> incised and stamped decoration.*


Basically, it was an addition, possibly from local Balkan traditions, to the Carpathian repertoire of Channelled Ware: 




> The origins of these two ornamental styles are
> speculatively sought in the Eastern Balkan complex and
> the lower Danube area respec tively. In th e Eastern
> Balkans, the concentric circles were popular in the early
> phase of the Babadag style . In the lower Danube area, the
> running spiral is well known from the Incrusted Pottery
> Culture of the LBA, and after the 10th century BC
> becomes prevalent in the geometric ornamentation of the
> EIA in the western Balkans"" . Stratigraphical observations
> ...


Obviously the author tries to disconnect the spread of Channelled Ware and iron working, as well as those two from migration, but the evidence is very clear. Critical for the spread of iron working is also the dating of Gva sites like Teleac and their iron production.

If you have elite warrior burials which truly stick out, with their urn burials, Naue II swords and knobbed ware, you know that this is the sort of "communication" we are dealing with in the first place. Because even if locals did fuse and assimilate, as they did, quite obviously, the initial impact came from Northern migrants to the region, from the wider Gva sphere. The similarities to Lăpuș in particular are just striking. 


https://www.academia.edu/41178766/Th..._of_Chronology

----------


## Riverman

While the bulk of the Cimmerians didn't move into Central Europe, some Cimmerian splinters definitely did, we see them in the record and they destroyed the Gva fortress belt in the central region - they couldn't destroy the Northern one, which allowed Late Gva to survive especially in Transcarpathia, from which later some Dacian groups might have emerged. 

But we see the actual destruction caused by the incoming Cimmerians and the individual in question proves their biological presence, as small or big as it might have been. Both Gva and Lusatians did suffer under the Cimmerian raids, this is absolutely evident in the archaeological record. 




> At a turning-point of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age mass items of eastern
> origin appeared in the area of central Europe. There were jewellery, elements of horse
> harness and military items. Presence of these objects was observed in the area of Poland,
> Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Italy as well as eastern France.
> To the earliest forms, characteristic for the classical phase of the Cimmerian culture,
> belong arrowheads. Relatively small number of these arrowheads found in central Europe is
> difficult to interpret. They are connected with the Chernogorovka and the Novocherkassk
> complex1
> dated from 1007 to 815 BC and from 997 to 805 BC2
> ...


The Scythian influence came only later, we have a pretty precise data for it: 



> *In the Period Hallstatt C, the contact of the Cimmerian groups with other regions had
> been cultural character. Their influences can be found in the East-Hallstatt cultural groups,
> which were located between the rapidly developing Etruscan culture and the Greek colonies in
> the south*, and the rich resources of the barbarian Europe to the north. At this time, societies of
> the East-Hallstatt zone began to play a major role in the exchange and interregional contact in
> central Europe. The nomadic influences on Early Iron Age cultures can be seen in the
> increasing role of horse, horse riding and wagons7.
> 
> The appearance of the Scythian type arrowheads in this time is explained mainly as an
> ...


So the Scythians pressed on to the West, where still Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerian people lived, shortly before the finds from Himera. This opens up all kind of possibilities were the mercenaries might have coming from, including remains or even fleeing Thraco-Cimmerians. 

It doesn't change the principle whether they were Cimmerians or Scythians, because both had a base of Thracians among them, as the regional substrate: 




> The position of the middlemen in contacts between the Scythians and communities
> from central Europe was held by local populations of the so-called Thracian Hallstatt, from the
> area between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers. The two cultural groups from Transylvania and
> Alfld related strongly to the Scythian traditions. In the area of these groups graves of the
> Scythian tradition were identified. *All pottery from the sites belonging to this cultural group
> was made in the local tradition deriving from the late phase of the Gva culture13, bronze and
> iron products, from the basin of the Mureş River, provide clear evidence of intensive contacts
> between local populations and the Scythian culture*14.
> 
> ...


Kutanovice = being considered Proto-Dacians by many scholars. 




> If the barrows discovered in the area of the Vekerzug culture suggest close contacts
> between the local population and the nomadic tribes from eastern Europe, then the dominance
> of cremation in cemeteries in the north-eastern region of the Vekerzug culture20 and in the
> Kutanovice group21 indicates the possibility of strong cultural and economic relations
> between these groups and local versions of the Scythian culture in the forest-steppe zone22
> .
> Direct contacts through the Carpathian Mountains have probably developed as a northern axis
> of the long distance system of exchange which linked central Europe with the east European
> steppes (Map 1).
> ...


From Chotin we have an E-V13 with a more Carpatho-Balkan-like profile too! 

https://www.academia.edu/6176834/The..._millennium_BC

On the Agathyrsi from the historical perspective: 



> After being expelled westwards from the steppe, the Agathyrsi settled in the territories of present-day Moldavia, Transylvania, and possibly Oltenia, where they mingled with the indigenous population who were largely Thracians.[2][7] In the 5th century BC, Herodotus mentioned the presence of the Agathyrsi in the area of present-day Moldavia, to the north of the Danube and the east of the Carpathian Mountains, by which time they had become acculturated to the local Getic populations[7] and they practised the same customs as the Thracians, although the names of their kings, such as Agathyrsus and Spargapeithes, were Iranian.[2][3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathyrsi

I have no doubt that even the Northern Dacian groups, which being largely derived from Gva directly, will have, even after all the mixture with the Iranians and Celts, a solid portion of E-V13 carriers if being ever sampled correctly, in sufficient numbers.

----------


## Bergin

just a ignorant question: any data or ideas how E V13 (or ancesters) moved from epicardial into cental european cultures? 
somehow it looks like they adapted into everything, from coastal in Neolithic, into better farming in central Europe and than into metalworking. so many changes...

----------


## Riverman

> just a ignorant question: any data or ideas how E V13 (or ancesters) moved from epicardial into cental european cultures? 
> somehow it looks like they adapted into everything, from coastal in Neolithic, into better farming in central Europe and than into metalworking. so many changes...


We have E-L618 form three more Central European cultures: Michelsberg (close to the Rhine, in a zone close to contacts to Lengyel), Lengyel (Middle Danube) and Tripolye-Cucuteni (around Moldova). This is the waterway connections we see later used in Basarabi-Hallstatt, Danube, Tisza, Pruth-Dniester. So it seems they were settlers along the big rivers and spread with one of these three (likely Lengyel or Tripolye-Cucuteni) or a closely related cultural formation of the Carpatho-Balkan macro-region. 
It is also worth to note, that later both Suciu de Sus and Gva spread along waterways as well, which is however not that extraordinarily, because many people did so.

These are most of the candidate cultures with the exception of Late/Epi-Lengyel, which was to the West:

----------


## Bergin

> We have E-L618 form three more Central European cultures: Michelsberg (close to the Rhine, in a zone close to contacts to Lengyel), Lengyel (Middle Danube) and Tripolye-Cucuteni (around Moldova). This is the waterway connections we see later used in Basarabi-Hallstatt, Danube, Tisza, Pruth-Dniester. So it seems they were settlers along the big rivers and spread with one of these three (likely Lengyel or Tripolye-Cucuteni) or a closely related cultural formation of the Carpatho-Balkan macro-region. 
> It is also worth to note, that later both Suciu de Sus and G�va spread along waterways as well, which is however not that extraordinarily, because many people did so.
> 
> These are most of the candidate cultures with the exception of Late/Epi-Lengyel, which was to the West:


if I remeber correctly, the E L618's that you are mentioning do come later chronologocally from croatia and spain in epicaridial. that passage i dont understand.

----------


## Riverman

> if I remeber correctly, the E L618's that you are mentioning do come later chronologocally from croatia and spain in epicaridial. that passage i dont understand.


Yes, they come later than Epi-Cardial, from what we might term successor cultures to some degree (Sopot, Lengyel, Michelsberg).

----------


## Bergin

in my amatourish ignorance, I thought those cultures you mentioned are LBK derived, which is the parallel inland branch to the coastal Cardium.

----------


## Hawk

I have used one model made by Riverman, the Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA can be also reinterpreted as Pannonian LBA_EIA.



```
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213,0.127482,0.149283,0.0445,0.01615,0.040931,0.004183,0.002585,-0.002538,0.01084,0.018041,-0.000974,0.008243,-0.004014,0.002202,-0.007193,-0.00769,-0.013951,0.005701,0.007165,-0.006753,-0.003868,0.000618,-0.008997,-0.014701,0.005748
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239,0.12862,0.14319,0.049026,-0.001938,0.047701,0,0.004465,0.000462,0.01309,0.018953,0.006171,0.007493,-0.007582,-0.00234,-0.007057,0.001989,0.007693,0.00114,-0.004274,-5e-04,0.001622,0.004328,-0.005793,-0.010001,0.003952
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245,0.133173,0.149283,0.05506,0.026486,0.044931,0.006972,0.011986,0.009,0.01268,0.006743,0.001949,-0.000749,-0.003865,0.003165,-0.004207,0.006099,0.005607,0.002534,0.002137,-0.001126,0.002246,-0.004451,0.000986,-0.005181,-0.010897
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246,0.119514,0.149283,0.056945,0.013243,0.047393,0.005578,0.001175,0.003231,0.01309,0.014397,0.002761,0.002398,-0.004906,0.006744,-0.005836,-0.004243,-0.001304,-0.007095,0.005656,-0.000375,-0.009234,0.009521,0.003574,-0.013616,0.003233
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20749,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096,0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I1504,0.125205,0.15436,0.060716,0.033592,0.061242,0.008646,0.00423,0.007615,0.014317,0.007836,-0.004547,-0.006594,0.001041,0.007432,-0.002579,-0.001591,0.010952,-0.002027,0.008547,0.004752,0.004617,0.005317,0.003081,-0.013134,0.000239
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20751,0.126344,0.142174,0.059962,0.032946,0.051394,0.009482,0.00517,0.003461,0.016157,0.020046,-0.007307,-0.000599,-0.001784,-0.003303,-0.006786,0.018297,0.014603,0.006968,0.004274,0.002626,-0.001497,0.001484,-0.004437,-0.00012,-0.002515
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20771,0.133173,0.135065,0.061094,0.046512,0.050779,0.016455,0.002585,0.003461,0.010226,0.007472,-0.00065,-0.01109,-0.002676,0.001651,-0.007736,0.017237,0.024773,-0.009755,-0.005154,0.013256,0.00549,0.001237,0.000246,-0.014098,-0.005149
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I20773,0.132035,0.146236,0.064488,0.035207,0.056318,0.01004,0.013631,0.001154,0.018203,0.018953,0.00406,-0.002997,0.003122,-0.003991,0.00285,0.024264,0.004694,0.010515,-0.002765,-0.000875,-0.01984,0.007419,-0.014543,-0.012291,-0.002994
Channelled Ware_LBA_EIA:HUN_LBA:I25505,0.130897,0.147252,0.064488,0.033592,0.045855,-0.000279,0.003995,0.004154,0.015544,0.01057,-0.007145,0.01169,-0.00223,0.005367,0.001764,-0.012066,-0.008996,0.005828,0.010307,-0.005253,0.004617,0.008285,0.002465,-0.015062,-0.004071
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134,0.1161,0.054839,0.037335,0.057817,-0.033852,0.031236,0.00846,0.000231,-0.037223,-0.043554,0.001786,-0.005245,0.000149,-0.026974,0.02348,0.004508,-0.014473,-0.002154,-0.004777,-0.001126,-0.008859,0.01422,0.003697,0.008314,0.005029
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA136,0.113823,0.039606,0.039221,0.061047,-0.028005,0.020638,-0.007755,0.002077,-0.023111,-0.033349,-0.005521,0.006145,-0.004906,-0.03358,0.021308,0.030496,-0.002738,0.003927,-0.007793,0.009379,-0.010232,0.019166,-0.008011,0.003133,0.003592
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA139,0.104717,0.051792,0.02753,0.047481,-0.021235,0.015897,0.00094,-0.009461,-0.032724,-0.03262,-0.002111,-0.003597,-0.009217,-0.017478,0.015879,0.009149,0.01343,-0.012669,-0.003897,0.007754,-0.012728,-0.004699,-0.005546,0.009519,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA141,0.112685,0.039606,0.033564,0.073967,-0.031083,0.031236,0.00658,0.005538,-0.032928,-0.030616,-0.003085,-0.005245,-0.010406,-0.026974,0.018322,0.020021,0.000652,0.000507,-0.001383,-0.005878,-0.003369,0.000866,0.009367,0.014098,-0.000718
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA143,0.112685,0.054839,0.039598,0.07429,-0.033852,0.030678,0.00094,0.007384,-0.021066,-0.039545,-0.002761,-0.000899,-0.006838,-0.021056,0.019815,0.008221,-0.011735,-0.004814,-0.011187,5e-04,-0.005116,0.000866,0.002711,-0.005302,-0.000239
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA144,0.10927,0.043668,0.032432,0.076874,-0.022158,0.030678,-0.00893,0.000231,-0.032724,-0.03991,-0.011367,-0.009591,0.010704,-0.02491,0.019679,0.004641,-0.001434,0.001014,0.00088,-0.000375,-0.023583,-0.001113,-0.001356,0.010122,0.011376
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16099,0.126344,0.145221,0.064111,0.021641,0.044931,0.010319,0.001175,0.003692,0.015544,0.015855,-0.00341,0.009292,-0.017393,-0.007982,0.00095,0.023999,0.002347,0.005954,-0.001508,0,0.005615,0.004946,-0.008874,-0.01699,-0.005389
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16100,0.129758,0.133034,0.061094,0.050065,0.046778,0.016733,0,0.005077,0.008385,-0.002187,-0.005359,0.001798,-0.007284,-0.005505,0.004343,-0.002784,0.002738,-0.003674,-0.001508,-0.005503,0.008735,0.005935,-0.002342,-0.007953,0.002036
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16111,0.126344,0.145221,0.053551,0.033269,0.045547,0.01004,0.007755,0.006,0.001227,0.018953,0.005846,0.004196,-0.008176,-0.004266,0.006107,-0.013657,-0.02725,-0.001394,-0.001885,-0.001,0.000125,-0.001607,-0.012078,-0.002048,-0.005987
CZE_MBA_Tumulus:I16112,0.130897,0.142174,0.054305,0.022287,0.047393,0.009203,-0.00047,0.007154,0.002045,0.019499,-0.006008,0.001948,-0.018731,-0.014863,-0.005157,0.001591,-0.005737,-0.000887,-0.000126,-0.001126,-0.003619,-0.005688,-0.005423,-0.007591,-0.002994
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0.0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561,0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Dai,0.0156507,-0.438709,-0.046763,-0.0609662,0.1201762,0.0622622,0.00047,-0.0073845,-0.0189698,-0.013121,0.0109208,0.0020232,-0.000446,-0.006193,0.0012895,0.0045742,0.0061282,-0.0009502,-0.0043368,-0.011662,0.0121972,0.0090268,0.0149438,0.002892,0.007095
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-0.0024966,-0.003735,0.001109,-0.0091576,-0.0038398,0.0161643,-0.0008352,-0.0133511,0.0032684,0.0041354,0.0040271,0.0060019,0.0037342,-0.0007273,0.011146,-0.0004429
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_North_IA:VK418,0.125205,0.132019,0.070144,0.064277,0.040315,0.019522,0.00423,0.013846,0.007567,-0.007107,-0.001786,-0.002847,-0.011001,-0.001514,0.031487,-0.005967,-0.029858,-0.0019,0.00352,0.003001,0.010606,0.000371,0,0.003012,-0.000838
Germanic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK391,0.12862,0.141159,0.080327,0.062662,0.047701,0.022311,0.012691,0.011076,-0.003068,-0.015672,-0.012666,-0.004496,-0.002081,-0.007707,0.019679,0.0118,0.004303,0.003547,-0.006159,0.001,0.006988,-0.002597,-0.010723,0.014098,0.011017
CZE_Early_Slav,0.12862,0.129988,0.068259,0.046835,0.02739,0.013387,0.007285,0.014076,-0.001841,-0.018406,-0.000812,-0.004346,0.003717,0.007156,-0.010993,-0.003182,0.011604,-0.002027,-0.002388,-0.004752,0.005615,0.000618,0.001725,-0.000964,-0.006706
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany,0.12862,0.1376045,0.0705215,0.034238,0.0481625,0.004044,0.0019975,0.001385,0.018509,0.019955,-0.012017,-0.0052455,-0.00944,0.0006195,0.0095685,-0.0013255,-0.005998,0.001774,0.0048395,0.0080665,0.001061,0.0019785,-0.0006165,-0.005422,-0.0034725
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I24342,0.127482,0.138112,0.041483,0.009367,0.038776,-0.006414,-0.002115,0.001385,0.015544,0.023144,0.004384,0.012289,-0.018285,-0.011285,0.0095,0.001724,-0.001043,0.002154,0.001383,0,0.006738,0.005193,-0.00493,-0.001807,-0.001557
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26726,0.121791,0.144205,0.032432,-0.012274,0.026466,-0.000279,-0.006815,-0.001154,0.005931,0.030069,0.008444,0.006145,-0.029137,0.001789,-0.000814,-0.017634,-0.01369,-0.000633,0.014078,-0.010505,-0.004617,0.004575,0.002342,0.004458,-0.001317
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26773,0.122929,0.144205,0.045254,0.004199,0.023697,-0.006414,-0.006815,-0.005538,0.006136,0.026242,0.002273,0.01169,-0.021853,-0.015414,0.005836,-0.001458,0.007041,0.009375,0.004274,-0.006128,-0.012228,0.003091,-0.00419,0.005543,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26774,0.12862,0.149283,0.039221,0.002907,0.033852,0.000279,-0.00282,0.008538,0.008385,0.026242,-0.000812,0.01094,-0.016353,-0.000826,0.001764,-0.006364,-0.002086,0.00076,0.007668,-0.004502,0.000374,0.011994,-0.003821,0.004097,-0.003952
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I26893,0.129758,0.149283,0.041106,0.013889,0.02739,0.002789,0.00188,0.002077,0.004909,0.023144,-0.007957,0.010491,-0.024975,-0.014588,0.001764,0.005569,0.021383,0.001394,0.006536,0.001876,-0.002995,0.004946,0.002465,0.005302,-0.006347
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4331,0.12862,0.151314,0.028284,-0.007429,0.038776,-0.006972,-0.00705,-0.006,0.003681,0.028064,0.006171,0.010341,-0.017542,-0.003578,-0.0076,0.006497,0.008084,-0.003041,0.006159,-0.011631,-0.005865,-0.001113,-0.00037,0.003856,-0.001197
Proto_Illyrian:HRV_MBA:I4332,0.120652,0.147252,0.034318,-0.012274,0.038469,0.002231,-0.00423,0.001154,0.009613,0.032074,-0.006008,0.01094,-0.012487,-0.014726,-0.005972,0.01074,0.02047,-0.00114,0.000754,-0.011005,-0.001248,0.008656,-0.00419,0.002048,-0.002395
South_Thrace_local:BGR_IA:I5769,0.126344,0.157407,0.007165,-0.051034,0.029852,-0.02259,0.00423,-0.001385,0.007772,0.032074,-0.001461,0.005695,-0.013974,-0.003028,-0.015065,-0.001458,0.01369,0.006968,0.006285,-0.014757,-0.006239,0.004699,-0.007888,0.003494,-0.008861
GRC_Mycenaean:I9006,0.119514,0.160454,-0.006788,-0.068476,0.014464,-0.03514,-0.003055,-0.006923,-0.002863,0.050115,0.004384,0.015137,-0.009366,0.00289,-0.019815,-0.005304,0.024643,0.007601,0.020992,-0.000375,-0.007487,-0.012365,-0.010969,-0.000602,-0.001796
GRC_Mycenaean:I9010,0.110408,0.160454,-0.015462,-0.071383,0.029544,-0.038487,-0.003525,0.004154,0.013499,0.056129,0.018025,0.017235,-0.00223,-0.00234,-0.023208,-0.005038,0.031553,0.003421,0.005908,-0.004002,-0.006613,0.003215,-0.016145,-0.007109,-0.003113
GRC_Mycenaean:I9033,0.091058,0.150298,-0.004148,-0.050388,0.022773,-0.013387,0.007285,-0.006692,0.003068,0.041003,-0.003573,0.019333,-0.020218,0.005505,-0.006515,-0.026518,0.00678,-0.003167,0.012193,-0.008629,-0.002995,-0.006306,-0.000616,0.005904,0.006945
GRC_Mycenaean:I9041,0.110408,0.15436,-0.006034,-0.068476,0.020004,-0.021475,-0.00282,0.000923,0.007976,0.042097,0.003248,0.016036,-0.019326,-0.008533,-0.016015,-0.002387,0.021122,0.006588,0.010182,-0.002876,-0.006364,0.016199,0.001356,0.006386,-0.00491
Levant_LBN_Roman,0.0887823,0.1447132,-0.0554368,-0.085595,-0.0116175,-0.0282378,-0.0074612,-0.0076152,0.0076698,0.0121642,0.0031262,-0.01139,0.0130822,-0.0017893,-0.0105862,0.0093475,0.002673,-0.0006652,0.0025138,0.0022512,0.000655,0.0059042,-0.0035742,0.0001205,-0.005299
Berber_Tunisia_Chen,-0.0279499,0.1390711,-0.0080871,-0.0764792,0.0277316,-0.0352023,-0.0313867,0.0052818,0.0684246,0.0297957,0.0040057,-0.0043877,0.0196314,-0.0161248,0.0140923,-0.0169052,0.0001521,-0.0232896,-0.0467247,0.0078579,-0.0168314,-0.0404275,0.0281347,-0.0044517,0.0063666
TUR_Ottoman,0.079107,-0.0741335,0.01829,-0.0075905,-0.043085,-0.0133865,0.0029375,0.000808,-0.010124,-0.012119,-0.00885,-0.0063695,-0.0057235,-0.0088075,0.0052255,0,0.007758,0.000887,-0.0018855,-0.000375,-0.0089845,-0.0004325,-0.0096135,-0.001747,0.0003595
ITA_Rome_Imperial,0.1039821,0.1495156,-0.0235307,-0.0574065,0.0045265,-0.0204055,-0.0011946,-0.0051488,0.0006604,0.0196549,0.0034575,0.0025539,-0.0040602,-0.0014737,-0.0081715,-0.0014474,0.0035992,0.000454,0.0012178,-0.0032854,-0.0025579,0.0020454,-0.0006985,-0.0004845,0.0004141
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA,0.0970122,0.1472908,-0.0604988,-0.090117,-0.0156477,-0.0341748,0.0015728,-0.0050412,-0.00306,0.0125111,0.006408,-0.0047555,0.0086109,0.004912,-0.0113588,0.0070272,-0.0005767,0.0018711,0.0047668,-0.002535,0.0021548,0.0038048,-0.0040007,-0.0040968,0.0005988
```


Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10950
Distance: 1.9362% / 0.01936230

43.0
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



32.8
GRC_Mycenaean



20.0
Proto_Illyrian



3.0
South_Thrace_local



1.2
Dai





Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10946
Distance: 2.4119% / 0.02411918

50.4
Proto_Illyrian



38.4
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



11.2
GRC_Mycenaean




In comparison with Alb Cinamak


Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16256
Distance: 2.9190% / 0.02919031

64.0
Proto_Illyrian



18.4
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



8.6
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA



4.4
GRC_Mycenaean



2.2
South_Thrace_local



2.0
Levant_LBN_Roman



0.4
Yoruba





Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16254
Distance: 3.7480% / 0.03748032

45.2
Proto_Illyrian



24.2
South_Thrace_local



16.0
Germanic



13.8
GRC_Mycenaean



0.4
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



0.4
Yoruba





Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16253
Distance: 2.2664% / 0.02266419

69.0
Proto_Illyrian



11.4
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



10.0
GRC_Mycenaean



9.6
South_Thrace_local





Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I16251
Distance: 1.8572% / 0.01857245

32.4
CZE_MBA_Tumulus



31.2
South_Thrace_local



20.6
GRC_Mycenaean



8.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe



4.6
Proto_Illyrian



2.6
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA





Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I14692
Distance: 2.1350% / 0.02135015

69.0
Proto_Illyrian



21.0
GRC_Mycenaean



7.2
CZE_Early_Slav



2.8
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe





Target: ALB_Cinamak_Anc:I14690
Distance: 1.4668% / 0.01466779

39.0
Proto_Illyrian



28.2
CZE_MBA_Tumulus



10.8
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



10.2
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA



5.2
GRC_Mycenaean



4.6
South_Thrace_local



2.0
CZE_Early_Slav

----------


## Hawk

Then i tried also with:


Target: MKD_Anc
Distance: 1.0236% / 0.01023553

49.6
Proto_Illyrian



21.6
South_Thrace_local



18.0
GRC_Mycenaean



7.4
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



1.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe



1.0
CZE_Early_Slav



0.8
CZE_MBA_Tumulus





Target: MNE_LBA
Distance: 1.0002% / 0.01000249

66.0
Proto_Illyrian



14.8
GRC_Mycenaean



5.2
South_Thrace_local



4.6
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



3.6
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe



3.0
CZE_Early_Slav



2.8
CZE_MBA_Tumulus





Target: HRV_IA
Distance: 0.3834% / 0.00383375

31.8
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



24.6
Proto_Illyrian



11.2
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA



10.2
GRC_Mycenaean



6.8
CZE_MBA_Tumulus



5.2
South_Thrace_local



4.2
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany



3.8
Germanic



2.2
Berber_Tunisia_Chen





Target: HRV_EIA
Distance: 0.6802% / 0.00680221

42.2
Proto_Illyrian



19.6
ChannelledWare_LBA_EIA



10.6
GRC_Mycenaean



8.4
South_Thrace_local



8.2
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA



6.6
CZE_MBA_Tumulus



4.2
Germanic



0.2
Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe





From what i can deduce, is that those two samples are not Dacian or Thracian, but neither fully Proto-Illyrian. I10950 seems to be half-way Pannonian/Southern-Balkans-Greek mixed, while I10946 moreso like Illyrians but not quite identical to them.

----------


## Riverman

We'll see how they turn out, I just hope the Hungarian, Serbian and Romanian samples get published soon, they are absolutely crticial for the Transitional Period and the E-V13 debate. Even if they won't solve everything, they can give us new hints, like e.g. how Pre-Gva and Wietenberg profiles looked like, whether there was some population continuity from Cotofeni onwards in the Inner Carpathians etc.

----------


## Riverman

Since even for Bulgaria the situation with incoming elite warriors and near complete shift of the culture and connections towards the Gva 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, 152153). 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
> ...



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 PeteaCsengersimaVamă, 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. Almssy 
> (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.
> ...






Continuity from Suciu de Sus -> Gva -> 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. 34) 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 PeteaCsengersima 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 Nyrmada,
> the presence of an almost complete beaker and the fragments of the big pot with NS 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 goats horn,
> could be related with the fragmentation of the human skull. This kind of manifestation are often brought
> ...





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




> In Hgel 22, mit einem Urnengrab, kamen auch Gefe vor, die jnger als die Lăpuş II-Keramik
> sind. Das bedeutet, dass die Nekropole auch eine dritte Entwicklungsetappe hatte. Ebenfalls hier wurde
> ein Schssel entdeckt, der mit in Ritz- und Kerbschnitttehnik ausgefhrten 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 jngeren Etappen neben der Technik der Kanneluren.


https://www.academia.edu/1037965/Ber...8%99_Mega_2011

----------


## Riverman

The North Thracian or Proto-Dacian Kutanovice culture was dominated by local Late Gva 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-Krs region. They regularly cremated their dead, and still used a similar ceramic as in Gva. 

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




> Es sei erwhnt, 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 Gva-Kultur der frhen Hallstattzeit finden wir fast immer Brandgrber, z.B. in der Ungarischen Tiefebene die von Bodrogkeresztur, Baj, Csorva u.a.m. Auch in Siebenbrgen kennen wir die in diese Kultur einzureihenden Gefsse aus Brandgrbern. Bei der Bearbeitung der Gefsse aus der Periode HB sagt Bernjakowitsch, dass in diesem Gebiet die Siette der Brandbestattung bis zur La Tne Zeit und auch noch in der frhslawischen Zeit weiterlebt. Mithin herrschte diese Siette whrend dreier Jahrtausende.


From: 
https://www.academia.edu/15675832/IR...OVICE_CULTURE_

Basically in this core region of Gva 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 Gva, 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 7th6th centuries
> BC (Vasiliev 2005, 7576). There are several cemeteries as well as isolated graves currently known from
> north-western Romania: CurtuiușeniDmbul Ars, GhenciMovila Spnzurătorii, SanislăuNisipărie,
> CareiAtelier vechi FIUT, Livada de Bihor, OradeaSalca, Valea lui MihaiViile comunale, Porţi-Zalău.
> *These are cremation graves and there is only one situation in SanislăuNisipărie when an inhumation
> grave has been found.* *These findings have been classified in the NyrsgSanislău group of the Alfldtype Scythian culture. We consider that the carriers of the NyrsgSanislău group with traditional Gva
> ...


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



> The Alfld 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 HortobgyArkus, MuhiKocsmadomb or NyregyhzaKzvghd.*


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 whos 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 (DietrichDietrich 2006; Berecki 2006, 5456). e Celtic cremation was
> attributed to local inuences, especially of the Vekerzug culture SanislăuNir 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, Săvrșin) the Carpathian Arch. *In fact, over 90% of all 5th2nd centuries
> Thracian graves north of the Danube were of urn cremation* (Srbu 1993, 4142).


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 510% of all graves discovered so far (Berecki 2006, 5456): 7% at Pișcolt, 20% at Ciumești, 3% at FntneleLa Gţa 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 5th4th 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/Ber...8%99_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/Mi...riod_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
> ...





> 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:
> 142144). 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: 142144). However, some houses were destroyed by fire during and
> at the end of Troia VIIb 1 (Mountjoy 1999b: 321324, 332334).





> 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: 3032; cf.
> ...





> 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
> ...


And these groups can clearly be connected with Gva-Holigrady over Moldova into Dobruja and from Belegis II-Gva down the Danube. Even the non-Gva 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
> ...


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_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 Gva 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
> ...


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 Gva-Holigrady (Eastern Gva) and those come from the central Gva regions and Lăpuş II-Gva. 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 Gva-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 Gva -> Belegis II-Gva in the West and Lăpuş II-Gva - Gva-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/10.1...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/10.1...09.26.509582v1


Seem to be the same samples like here: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nonia?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/...=20077&page=67 or https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post878236

----------


## mount123

> Seem to be the same samples like here: 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nonia?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. 
> ...


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 Gva-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_...up&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"  :Lol:  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"  :Wink: , that you don't belong to, and you've let me know this via private messages  :Wink:  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_...up&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 Gva 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.

----------


## Riverman

Brnjica was in close contact with the other Central-North Balkan cremating groups and did receive a strong push from Belegis II-Gva later, which was part of the reason they migrated South and East, just like Encrusted Pottery, which were pushed by Tumulus culture and Gva too. These groups were, unlike the earlier or more Western and Southern groups, all interrelated, through contacts of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, so not fundamentally different from Gva culturally. Between them and Gva, a huge difference seems to have been especially technology, with Gva having more advanced metallurgy, improved weaponry and tactics. They were the primary military innovators at that time, the others just copied from them and the Proto-Villanovan/Central Mediterranean related groups which came by sea (Sea Peoples), which had practically the same package as Gva. But in the more inland region, it was primarily Gva-related groups which spread it (Naue II-slashing swords, casted spearheads of a specific type, larger shields and new tactics, new warrior ideology and ethics, cremation burials in urns, black burnished outside, red inside ceramic with channels and knobs, sacrifices of animals and sometimes humans in pits, sacrificial hoards, fire & sun symbolism, millet based diet or millet fed pork diet etc.).

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Brnjica was in close contact with the other Central-North Balkan cremating groups and did receive a strong push from Belegis II-G�va later, which was part of the reason they migrated South and East, just like Encrusted Pottery, which were pushed by Tumulus culture and G�va too. These groups were, unlike the earlier or more Western and Southern groups, all interrelated, through contacts of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, so not fundamentally different from G�va culturally. Between them and G�va, a huge difference seems to have been especially technology, with G�va having more advanced metallurgy, improved weaponry and tactics. They were the primary military innovators at that time, the others just copied from them and the Proto-Villanovan/Central Mediterranean related groups which came by sea (Sea Peoples), which had practically the same package as G�va. But in the more inland region, it was primarily G�va-related groups which spread it (Naue II-slashing swords, casted spearheads of a specific type, larger shields and new tactics, new warrior ideology and ethics, cremation burials in urns, black burnished outside, red inside ceramic with channels and knobs, sacrifices of animals and sometimes humans in pits, sacrificial hoards, fire & sun symbolism, millet based diet or millet fed pork diet etc.).



What group do you think Benjica represents? I am making the association with the Paeoni and Dardanii based on it's distribution in Strumica valley and the Vardar valley.

----------


## Hawk

> What group do you think Benjica represents? I am making the association with the Paeoni and Dardanii based on it's distribution in Strumica valley and the Vardar valley.


It's interesting how Vatin is supposed to influence both Gava to the North and Brnjica to the South.

One might wonder what Y-DNA did Vatin people carry? Was it some R1b subclade or E-V13 or whatever.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> It's interesting how Vatin is supposed to influence both Gava to the North and Brnjica to the South.
> 
> One might wonder what Y-DNA did Vatin people carry? Was it some R1b subclade or E-V13 or whatever.


I am clueless here, based on its territory, I'd say R1b subclade, because from it's location during BA collapse, it would have been pushed primarily south but also a few to the Danubian Delta. I can only envision the Cimmerian MJ 12 to have ended up where it did by fleeing east, like the Triballi did a thousand years later.

----------


## Hawk

> I am clueless here, based on its territory, I'd say R1b subclade, because from it's location during BA collapse, it would have been pushed primarily south but also a few to the Danubian Delta. I can only envision the Cimmerian MJ 12 to have ended up where it did by fleeing east, like the Triballi did a thousand years later.


I don't think so, MJ12 is different story, and Triballi were just pushed slightly to the east on and beyond Nish after several weakening wars with Thracian Odrysians and Macedonians. Then again, after Roman invasion they were pushed further east probably to avoid Roman rule, to which Dardanians took advantage and expanded to Naissus.

Vatin was de-facto part of Balkan-Carpathian complex and had relationship with Dubovac Zuto Brdo from which it's supposed the Insula Banului and Psenicevo-Babad to be related.

----------


## mount123

> It's interesting how Vatin is supposed to influence both Gava to the North and Brnjica to the South.
> 
> One might wonder what Y-DNA did Vatin people carry? Was it some R1b subclade or E-V13 or whatever.


Influence does not have to be reflected in parental lines per se, but if for instance the MBA Ulanci group who apparently had Brnjica parallels and Paracin derivations, archeologically speaking, and paternally do in fact show such a North to South migratory continuum/refugium, maybe Vatin were heterogenous (Eastern Tumulus, Z2103+ and Pannonian Neolithics derived lineages too?).

IA Kosovo and Dardania in its totality will be quite telling here, especially since Brnjica as an archeological complex pretty much covers Kosovo almost completely. Brnjica and Vatin can perhaps also be parentally different from one another. I am leaning more towards Oroku Saki's proposal for the correlation of Ulanci MBA (Brnjica, Paracin) with the spread of Z2103+ in the South Central Balkans but if it is because of the first or the second or both needs to be seen.

----------


## Riverman

Vatin is an unknown, but it was replaced by Gva/Belegis II-Gva: 




> It seems that the Vatin culture settlement reached the beginning of the Late Bronze Age without any major changes. *It is not clear in which relation stands the fluted pottery*, attributed to the second phase of the Belegi culture. It is important to emphasize that neither the traces of settling of the uto Brdo culture nor the Belegi I culture have been found at idovar. The end of the Vatin culture at the site idovar should be considered disintegration rather than abrupt and violent cease. In lack of reliable radio-carbon data, the inal stage of life of the Vatin culture settlement could be roughly placed at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, with its end presumably prior to potential settling by the Belegi II culture.


https://www.academia.edu/8203728/THE...F_%C5%BDIDOVAR

In Bulgaria some of the main influences being: 
- Mycenaean-Aegean
- Brnjica
- Coslogeni from the Noua-Wietenberg/Noua-Sabatinovka, steppe/Srubna related complex
- Encrusted Pottery migrants which fled TC and UF
- Knobbed Ware/Channelled Ware, which shows closest affinities to Thracian Hallstatt/Gva-related groups and Coslogeni, which is a unified horizon and decisive for the later development
- on top of those came later steppe (Cimmerian, Scythian) and Aegean (Greek, Anatolian) influences to the region. 




> Speaking about the vertical stratigraphy of the Bronze Age settlements at idovar, it is characterized by the absence of any trace of the Dubovac-uto Brdo culture with incrusted pottery. The same counts for the Belegi I culture.





> The position of the latest phase of development of the Vatin culture on the territory of Southern Banat can be discussed only with great delicacy. Archaeological excavations of the south-eastern part of Banat (Dubovac-Kudelite, Vatin-Bela Bara, Vrac-At and Vrac-Ludo, Liubcova-Ţiglărie), which revealed signiicant mixing of the material characteristic for the cultures Dubovac-uto Brdo and Belegi, suggested a zone of their confrontation in the phase I of the Belegi culture. The same zone was later occupied by the communities of the Belegi II (Szentmiklosi 2006, 247-248, with references). The idovar site was obviously outside the zone of overlapping and confrontation, although being in the immediate vicinity.





> When the core territory of the Vatin culture  southern Banat  is in question, disintegration of the culture is far from being clear. Southern Banat is the zone of intrusion the Bijelo Brdo-Dalj culture with incrusted pottery, and later the zone of overlapping spheres of interest of the cultures Dubovac-uto Brdo and Belegi.


https://www.academia.edu/8203728/THE...F_%C5%BDIDOVAR

The final blow to what remained of Vatin came from Gva/Belegis II-Gva. Encrusted Pottery groups influenced later Stamped Pottery, but were not the dominant part. It is really, from my point of view, Noua-Wietenberg/Noua-Coslogeni vs. Gva/Lapus II-Gva talking about the Thracians.

----------


## Riverman

How Encrusted Pottery groups came to the Balkans: 




> As a consequence of the pressure exercised by the communities of the
> Tumular Culture (Hgelgrberkultur), warrior populations coming from
> Central Europe, to which the hiding of the bronze hoards from Koszider2
> horizon are hypothetically related, communities of the northern-Pannonian
> inlayed ceramics culture (Esztergom group) leave Transdanubia and they
> withdraw to the south along the valley of the Si river, occupying the area
> between the Danube and the Tisza3. The movement to the south of the
> communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics stimulated, but at
> a reduced extent, elements from the southern area of Transdanubia, too.
> ...





> The discoveries typical of the Szeremle group are concentrated along
> the Danube, between the river mouth of the Si and that of the Tisza. The
> eastern limit was the last narrow path of the Danube, at least to Liubcova,
> unless even to Ostrovu Corbului8. The short evolution of this cultural
> group played a very important role in the genesis of some new ethnical-
> cultuUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV 2QH RI WKHP ZDV WKH XWR %UGR-GrlaMare
> culture, which developped from the Szeremle communities, that were
> coming down to the neighbouring of the western side of the Carpathians9.
> The Szeremle cultural group is considered, in the same time, one of the
> ...


The end for Zuto-Brdo/Grla Mare cultures comes with the Bistret-Isalnita group, which is a transitional formation with strong Channelled Ware influences (the text has copy & paste issues, because of diacritic symbols, but you get it): 




> The influences exerted by the Cruceni-Belegi communities in the
> DUHDRIWKHXWR%UGR-Grla Mare culture, the final phase, determined the
> DSSHDUDQFH RI %LVWUH-, ̧DOQL D FXOWXUDO JURXS 7KDW ZDV D GLVWLQFW FXOWXUDO
> groupthatdeveloppedinparallelwiththephaseIIoftheCruceni-
> Belegi134culture. This matter is proved by the bowls discovered at Dalj-
> Livadiceand Hrtkovci-Gomolava(level IVc), similar to identity with those of
> S34 and S35 types from the repertory of shapes characteristic of the cultural
> JURXS%LVWUH-, ̧DOQL D135



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...a_Mare_Culture

The point is the Encrusted Pottery-related groups contributed to the ceramic of Stamped Pottery, but to a lesser degree first and they being tested in Pannonia, having been dominated by I2 and G2, as well as being autosomally a rather worse fit than the Western fringe Pre-Gva samples we got or the Late Gva/mixed locals from Mezocsat.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I don't think so, MJ12 is different story, and Triballi were just pushed slightly to the east on and beyond Nish after several weakening wars with Thracian Odrysians and Macedonians. Then again, after Roman invasion they were pushed further east probably to avoid Roman rule, to which Dardanians took advantage and expanded to Naissus.





> Vatin was de-facto part of Balkan-Carpathian complex and had relationship with Dubovac Zuto Brdo from which it's supposed the Insula Banului and Psenicevo-Babad to be related.



I am going entirely based on geography. I do not understand the material culture. The Triballi at one point took refuge at Peuce island, that seems to be the natural flow when invaded from the north and and your western exit is blocked. You can only go south or east.


The other read I am making is from the HRV BA samples, which are very diverse, sometimes they show partial ancestry to MJ12. So MJ12 had to have been an immediate member to BA Illyrians, living in modern day Serbia(exchanging females), if Vatin was E-V13, than E-V13 related profile should show in some of the HRV BA samples, but Thracians appear to be radically different, that points to them not having been immediate neighbors to early Illyrians in BA.

----------


## Hawk

An article from German archaeologist from Berlin Dr Nicholaus Boroffka. Needs to be google translated.




> PROBLEME DER JUNGBRONZEZEilUCHEN KERAMIK INOSTUNGARN UND WES1RUMĂNIEN1
> 
> In der vorliege:nden Arbeit werden einige der Gefa.Be aus dem Grllberfeld von Bobda(Abb. 1) veroffentlicht2. Hier werden zwei Tassen mit o.berrandstllndigem Henkel vorgelegt,von denen eine ~t punktgesllumten Dellen und Schrllgkannelur verziert (Abb. 1, I) und dieandere mit geritzter Girlande und Winkelband versehen ist (Abb. 1, 2). Eine Schale ist mitSchrllgkanneluren, Knubben und geritzter Girlande ornamentiert (Abb. 1, 4 ). Ein Krug(Abb. 1, 3) trllgt am Hals unter horizontalen Bllndern eine dreifache Girlande, alles kanneliert,und am Hauch schrâge Kanneluren und geriefte Knubben. Ein krugartiger Topf mitschulterstllndigem Henkel trllgt am Hals ebenfalls Horizontalkanneluren und darunter eineGirlande. Ein tweihenkliger, offener Topf ist am Hals und in Bodennlihe mit horizontalenKanneluren und auf der Schulter mit kannelierter Girlande und geriefter Knubbe versehen.Der letzte hier vorgelegte Topf entspricht in der Form den Umen vom Belegis II Typ, BanatVariante, nach Forenbaher3. Sie tragen ebenfalls Kannelurverzierung, darunter auch dieGirlande am Hals.
> 
> Um die Sto.cke chronologisch einzuordnen, beschăftigen wir uns hauptsllchlich mit zweiZierelementen der Keramik .. Davon ist eines, die punktgesllumte Delle, unserer Meinung nachfar die Mittel- und Splltbronzezeit und das andere, die Kannelurgirlande am Gefa.Bhals, ftlrdie spllteste Bronze- und fro.heste Eisenzeit charakteristisch. Bei der Suche nach Analogienbeschrânken wir uns rllumlich auf Ostungam, die So.dostslowakei und Westruma.nien. Es istuns klar, dal3 das Verbreitungsgebiet der beiden Elemente nach Westen damit nicht v6lligerschopft ist. Aufierdem ist zu betonen, dal3 nicht versucht werden soll, einen vollstllndigenKatalog der Vorkommen zu erstellen. Vielmehr wird an Hand von einigen gut dokumentiertenKomplexen gezeigt, dal3 diese beiden Elemente jeweils nur eine beschrlinkte Zeit in Gebrauch ·waren und qaher far eine chronologische Einordnung von Keramik genutzt werden kOnnen.Um die allgemeine Verbreitung der Motive aufzuzeigen, sto.tzen wir uns auf einige, wenigezusammenfassende Werke und mehr.ere Einzelarbeiten.
> 
> Das llltere Ziermotiv, mit dem wir uns hier beschăftigen wollen, ist die einstichgesllumteDelle. In Bobda erscheint sie auf einer Henkeltasse (Abb. I, 1). An anderen Fundorten wirdsie auf verschiedenen Gefa.Bformen angebracht und kann einzeln oder in Gruppen von 2-3(Abb. 2) vorkommen. Seltener Ist sie in flăchigere Ornamente eingebunden. Dazugerechnetwerden hier auch kleine Knubben mit umlaufender Kreiskannelur und Einstichsaum (Abb.2F). Nicht bero.cksichtigt werden dagegen die verschiedenen Formen von Buckeln mithalbkreisformigen Kanneluren, die auch von Einstichen begleitet sein konnen und Dellen oderKreiskanneluren ohne Einstichsaum.
> 
> Die slldlichste Verbreitung der punktgesăumten Dellen scheint im Bereich der spatenVatina-Kultur zu liegen4• Răumlich nach Norden anschlieJ3end ist das Motiv vertreten in der letzten Phase der Mureş-Kultur5, d~ entwickelten Balta Sărata Gruppe6, selten unter den Fundenvon Susani7, der HngelgrAber-Kultur8, der entwickelten und spAten Otomani-Kultur9, demfrohen Abschnitt des lgriţa-Komplexes 10 , der Piliny-Kultur11 und der Suciu de Sus-Kultur derSlowakei12• In diesem n~rdlichen Bereich kommt clas Motiv weiter westlich noch hAufig in derfro.hen Kyjatice-Kultur vor13• Die Nord-, Snd- und Ostgrenzen des Motives dnrften damitumrissen sein.
> ...

----------


## Hawk

In previous page i shared this article in German: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post662076

Possible source for E-V13 appearance in North-Eastern Croatia?!


TIIE "BELEGIS II" GROUP IN EASTERN SLA VONIA from _Staso Forenbaher_




> In this communication I shall present a number of Late Bronze Age sites and fmds fromeastem Slavonia (Croatia). They belong to a group for which different authors have proposedmany alternate names, such as "Belegi§-Ilandfa"1, "Surcin-Belcgis"2, "Belegis-Bobda"3,"Belegis- Cruceni"4, or "Pecska-Belegi§"~. For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term "Relegi§IJ"6.
> 
> 
> The definition of the Belegis II group is mainly based upon the stylistic traits of its blackburnished, fluted pottery. The most characteristic and readily recognizable pottery type is thelarge carinated vessel with horizontally fluted neck and everted rim, sometimes refercd to as"Pseudo-Protovillanova urn"7. Tbe core area of this group is the Banat, Backa aild Srijem, butit also encompasses the Iron Gates, the lower Morava valley, the southem banlc of the Danubearound Belgrade, and - as will be sbown - eastern Slavonia. Archaeological remains throughoutthe area are fairly homogeneous, although some regional variation is discernable primarily indetails of shape and decoration of pottery. Most of the representative finds come from largeincineration cemeteries, a number ofwhicb have been extensively excavated since the beginningof the century. In contrast to that, settlements bave been less systematically studied. Severalboards ofbronze artefacts which were contained within cbaracteristic pottery vessels, as well asbronze finds fr9111 cemeteries and - less often - from settlements, allow the relative chronologicalposition ofthis group tobe determined as roughly contemporaneous to the Br. D and Ha. Alphases of the Central European Late Bronze Age8.
> 
> In order to avoid possible misunderstandings, the relation between the Belegis II and the. Gii.va groups bas to be shortly discussed. At a time when neither group was properly defined,Amalia Mozsolics used the term "Gii.va" in a reference to the typical Belegis II "urn" whichcontained the Pecica hoard9. A number of se ho I ars accepted this rather uncritically, widening thisterm's meaning until "Gii.va" eventually encompassed a wide variety ofblack-bumished, flutedpottery ofBr. D - Ha. A borizon from al! over the eastem part of the Middle Danube Basin. Sincethen, bowever, the Gii.va group bas been comprehensively studied in its core area on the upperTisza river, and its pottery assemblage is now well defined10• It is clearly distinct from thc BelegisII assemblage, in spite of general similarities in shape, decoration and firing technology. Tbecharacteristic Gava "urn" can be easily distinguisbed from its Belegi§ counterpart by its bigh,hollow, concentrically fluted "boms" protruding from the upper side ofthe belly whicb are.neveraccompanied by a handle undemeath (Fig. I /I). In contrast, the smaller pointed nipples ofBelegisII "urns" are always massive and as a rule appear paired with a handle or opposing nippleundemeath (Fig. 1/2). As to my knowledge, nota single typical fragment of thus defined Gava"urn" has been found in the Belegis II area south of the Maros river; reciprocally, no typicalfragment of Belegi§ II "um" bas been publisbed from the Gii.va area north of the Koros river.
> 
> Therefore, if the definition of regional groups is to be based mainly on stylistic traits of pottery- which is still the most common approach in this particular period and area - then Gava and BelegisII should be considered to be'i"oughly contemporary and related but clearly distinct groups, eachoccupying iţs own well defined area within the Middle Danube Basin. What would be the sociocultural correlates ofthus defined groups is a different question, the discussion ofwhich surpasses.the objectives <_>f this short communication.
> 
> ...

----------


## Hawk

Now an article regarding the high occurrence of E-V13 during Early Iron Age in South-East Bulgaria, an article by Alexey Gotzev, translated by Darina Valceva.

*DECORATION OF THE EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTH-EAST BULGARIA.
*



> The profound interest in the problems of the Early lron Age in the Bulgarian lam;is, inthe last 20 years resultş in elucidating some im.portant ăspects of the cUlt,iral development ofthe Thracian tribes during the ,time of their consolidation. Two trends can be distinguished inthe writings concerning this significant period. In the first case the attention is concentratedupon a certain kind of archaeological monuments, their origin "and their development in alarge area or in the Thracian diaspora in general are studiai. The problcms of the Early lronAge adornments and armament, for instance, are treated in suc4 a way1• Thl! othcr trend isconnected with the attempts to clear thc features and the rhythm of the cultural p'rocesses ina narrower region and to compare them with those in the neighboring territories. An examplcillustrating this tendency is the monograph on tbe Early Iron Age in present NE Bulgaria2.
> 
> This paper is to be an ex1ended attempt to combine the two trends. Thc subject ofanalysis bere is just one kind of archaeological material - .the pottery (1ts decoration specially)from SE Bulgaria, dating from the Early Iron Age. The studied region is limited to the Nm1hby the Balkan Mountains. To the West it reaches the gorge Mpmina K.lisura and to the East -the Black Sea coast. Because of their radically different character the Rodopes are net included (except for some of their Eastem parts). In south-eastem dircction the restriction isrelative and coincides with the state boundary of Bulgaria (fig. I").
> 
> Most of ihe archaeologists divide the Early Iron Age into two periods dating its beginning in the 11-th century B.C. and its end - in the 6-th century B.C. The transition betwecnthe two periods is determined in the g-th centuiy or alittle earlier1.
> 
> The archaeological situation in SE Bulgaria known up to now does riot pn:scnt anydata reliable enough to allow a. definition of the above mentioned chronological sohemc moreaccurately._ That is why the offered dates must be accepted and the running processes in thecourse of the two periods of the Early Iron Age may betraced.
> 
> The pottery is the most abundant Early lron Age archaeological material discoveredin the discussed region. A small number of metal objects have been fc;iund in complcxes andthis turns the ceramics into a first-class archaeologic:al source for the chronological and regional division, and partly for cultural characteristics of the period too. There exist severa!reasons why this paper is dealing with the decoration of the. clay vessels only, avoiding themodern approach of a complex treatment of the problems of the ceramics industry. A great?-ffiOUDt of decorated pottery sherds comes from the SE-Bulgaria, while the whele vessels areless in number. This fact hinders the attempt to compare the analysis of tbe sherds and thevessels, and to reach some general conclusions for the ceramics productions. Too ·scanty isthe data for thţ technology of making clay poţs although some observations on this aspectare available in the !atest publications4• The w~ll documented "closed complexes" i.e. complexes of different things that were being used probably at one and the same tirne, includingdecorated pottery in SE Bulgaria are just a few. That minirnizes the opportunities to draw theline between the tirne of use for different patterns and fonns.
> ...


marked paragraph




> _Another characteristic element of the Stamped Early lron Age decoration is the S-shapedspiral. As it is not familiar for the,Late Bro~e Age pottery from SE Bulgaria, one can presumethat the model has been "iinported" from anoţher region. The discused pattern (table III, 2)is ·used in the decoration of the pots of the so .câlled Balley-Orsoya culture or-the "incrustedpottery cui ture", spread in the course of the last centuries of the Bronze Age in what ts nowadays North-West Bulgaria and the neighboring areas of Romania and Yugoslavia76. The EarlyIron Age Insula Banului (or Ostrov) culture is localized in this region. To the most of thescholars, this culture has an intermediate position between the Late Bronz Age "incrustedpottery culture" aild the _Basarabi culture and is connected to the first (or to both)7.7. The Sshaped spiral ornament is widespread l\IDÎdst the ceramics from the Insula BaI).uh~i. One cansuggest that this element infiltrated in SE Bulgaria niimely from the territories of this culture.The time of its appearance follow~ the penetration of some ft'.atures _of the pottery complexfrom_ the Danube valley, such as knobbed amphoras or the concentric circles connected by tangents, for insta.nce. The S-shaped ·spiral decoration is not available in some sites datingfrom the begi.nning of the evolution of the classical stamp~ adornmţnt, as it is in Tr-0y Vll'b/8. Another reason for the relatively late datmg ~f the S-shaped stamped spirals is the position of Insula Banului group immediately before the Basarabi culture, according to :;;ome autliors, and what is more - the base for the parallels between them is the discussed stamp itself79. If the hypothesis is correct we shall have to accept the lorig duration of the contactsbetween the population of the North-West Thrace and present day SE Bulgaria. They are upto now documented by the infiltration of some eleme11ts of Gava pottery and by the appearance of the S-shaped spiral pattern in the region south of the Balkan Mountains. Those processes refer to the beginning ·and to the- end of the frrst phase of the Early Jron Age ._


IMO, Incrusted is not the source but neither Gava, it's rather the Vatin, Hatvan, Nagyrev, it might be there was a cultural complex in Southern Pannonia, South-Western Carpathian, to be more clear E-V13 was probably present among Gava but Gava was not the source of E-V13 further down, E-V13 in Gava was probably foreign and intrusive from more Southern elements, Vatin colonizers likely. It's still a mystery from where did the Balkan-Carpathian complex come from, but they have similarity with Bubanj-Hum from further South, they might have been a particular Balkan Neolithic people from long time ago. Just moving around.

----------


## Riverman

This Southern influence you speak about was present as early as earliest Otomani layers, before the bigger spread of the Kostany/Fzesabony-Otomani clans. Therefore what followed, Eastern Otomani/Gyualvarsand and Suciu de Sus, or to their East Wietenberg, already got those Southern influences anyway. 
And its from this base from which Gva developed! 

Therefore you can rather ask which Carpatho-Balkan group had E-V13 in the EBA. I think the brother groups Hatvan-Nyirseg, coming from Mak and possibly, ultimately, from Cotofeni. If they come from a more Southern group, which I deem less likely, we deal with a first North (EBA) and later back (LBA-EIA) migration with Gva-related Channelled Ware. Because those Southern groups had much less growth and impact later. 

About the huge Encrusted Pottery-related block, from Western Hungary to Southern Romania/Bulgaria, they have no better cultural or autosomal fit and fairly larger samples from two important sites brought up I2 and G2 groups. But, different clans/dominance in different areas. So there could have been other areas which were E-V13 dominated, theoretically. But I don't think so, because the E-V13 growth started earlier and it can't be a small regional group which harboured the bulk of it at the time of the late Encrusted Pottery groups - which got tested.

----------


## mount123

> 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.


Bërnica e Poshtme actually harbours a Bërnica culture necropolis. There hasn't been much effort for genetic testing by local academics. The main problem is the archeologists since most of them as usual lack affinity towards natural sciences e. g. genetics. Regarding Thracians and V13 there has been one low coverage E1b-L618 sample from Marvinci, N. Macedonia I think (perhaps that is what what you meant). The general archeological link between "Dardania" and Paeonia is Bërnica Culture. Paeonians themselves are turning out to be a pre-Slavic Balkan population which solidly can be considered one of the more patrilineal successors of Yamnaya (next to Hurro-Urartians/Proto-Armenians). They are mainly R1b-Z2103 (especially >CTS1450) with a R1b-PF7562 minority.

I think that Dardania will have more signals of Thracian patrilineage, in comparison, but also Illyrians that pushed from the West as early as EBA Cetina/Dinaric and as lately as IA Glasinac-Mati, Autariatae come to my mind.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Bërnica e Poshtme actually harbours a Bërnica culture necropolis. There hasn't been much effort for genetic testing by local academics. The main problem is the archeologists since most of them as usual lack affinity towards natural sciences e. g. genetics. Regarding Thracians and V13 there has been one low coverage E1b-L618 sample from Marvinci, N. Macedonia I think (perhaps that is what what you meant). The general archeological link between "Dardania" and Paeonia is Bërnica Culture. Paeonians themselves are turning out to be a pre-Slavic Balkan population which solidly can be considered one of the more patrilineal successors of Yamnaya (next to Hurro-Urartians/Proto-Armenians). They are mainly R1b-Z2103 (especially >CTS1450) with a R1b-PF7562 minority.
> 
> I think that Dardania will have more signals of Thracian patrilineage, in comparison, but also Illyrians that pushed from the West as early as EBA Cetina/Dinaric and as lately as IA Glasinac-Mati, Autariatae come to my mind.


I meant the link between the original Dardanii (non-Thracian, non-Illyrian) and the Paeoni, the spill over of Brnjica south of into MKD and Bulgaria matches Paeoni tribal distribution. And yes you are right about the Yamnaya, what I am calling Dardani cluster in G25, is Yamnaya derived IE group. Even the individuals that I labeled as west Dardanii (Illyrian mixed), show partial Yamnaya ancestry. And among Albanians, the regions where R1b is the leading haplogroup, Yamnaya ancestry wins. Thracians and Illyrians are Corded derived, so are the Slavs, so for this to occur with Albanian averages points to the Yamnaya derived group playing a big role in the formation of modern Albanians.




And this will be validated once the Serbian study (Roman Frontier) is published (it does seem to be held back because of the valuable data it contains). There is a lot of Thracian(green) and Dardanii(blue) profiles in their PCA plot, and in betweens.





The Bosnian poster that has gone MIA wrote in Anthrogenica that the R-CTS1450 (in the Balkan IA cluster) in this study is the one that protrudes toward among Balkan Slavs (outlier east of the Albanian cluster) and is almost central European in profile, he thinks there might be a Scythian mixture causing it. I think there is a good chance he is a pure distilled Dardanii profile, sure there might some foreign admixture, but he is clearly on the Dardani/Yamnaya cline.

The other samples are all E-V13, I am guessing the 3 J2bs are the ones near the Croatian Illyrian cluster. And it is clear, a lot of E-V13 in eastern Serbia had a partial Dardanii profile, as we see with the Hun I18832(E-V13) individual who is a almost half south Thracian, half Dardanii (Yamnaya derived).

----------


## Riverman

Brnjica did assimilate some Belegis II-Gva elements possibly, unless the Paeonian clans annihilated those Channelled Ware groups when regaining predomiance in their sphere. That's the same like it is with Greeks, that we don't know how much of the Channelled Ware groups were assimilated vs. pushed back/annihilated after initial pushes into regions they couldn't fully hold on the longer term.

----------


## mount123

> I meant the link between the original Dardanii (non-Thracian, non-Illyrian) and the Paeoni, the spill over of Brnjica south of into MKD and Bulgaria matches Paeoni tribal distribution. And yes you are right about the Yamnaya, what I am calling Dardani cluster in G25, is Yamnaya derived IE group. Even the individuals that I labeled as west Dardanii (Illyrian mixed), show partial Yamnaya ancestry. And among Albanians, the regions where R1b is the leading haplogroup, Yamnaya ancestry wins. Thracians and Illyrians are Corded derived, so are the Slavs, so for this to occur with Albanian averages points to the Yamnaya derived group playing a big role in the formation of modern Albanians.
> 
> And this will be validated once the Serbian study (Roman Frontier) is published (it does seem to be held back because of the valuable data it contains). There is a lot of Thracian(green) and Dardanii(blue) profiles in their PCA plot, and in betweens.


I see. Well, not exactly sure with Kannellure in Dardania or just generally early Thracian presence in comparison to Bërnica culture in order to conclude wether the former or latter form the original Dardanian substratum. Dardania just generally seems to have gotten more from the Thracian sphere in comparison to Paeonia and that is what I meant to say. Mainly in regards to what can be expected from hopefully future studies from Kosovo and beyond. 



> The Bosnian poster that has gone MIA wrote in Anthrogenica that the R-CTS1450 (in the Balkan IA cluster) in this study is the one that protrudes toward among Balkan Slavs (outlier east of the Albanian cluster) and is almost central European in profile, he thinks there might be a Scythian mixture causing it. I think there is a good chance he is a pure distilled Dardanii profile, sure there might some foreign admixture, but he is clearly on the Dardani/Yamnaya cline.


We also had an E1b-V13 in Naissus with a Central European profile (think it was Naissus in the STP structure paper, gosh that name just got to be a poor attempt at sarcasm), so just because it is a pre-Slavic Paleo-Balkan lineage doesn't mean it automatically needs to be the same for the auDNA. That of course does not change the ultimate origin of the parental lineage of the ancient individual tested.



> The other samples are all E-V13, *I am guessing the 3 J2b-L283s are the ones near the Croatian Illyrian cluster*. And it is clear, a lot of E-V13 in eastern Serbia had a partial Dardanii profile, as we see with the Hun I18832(E-V13) individual who is a almost half south Thracian, half Dardanii (Yamnaya derived).


Exactly. They are the result of either eastern EBA Cetina/Dinaric or lately IA Eastern Glasinac Mati expansion, or just generally Illyrian soldiers displaced from their original Illyrian habitat during the imperial Roman era.

One of them is Z1043+, just a comparison with other Z1043+ during CE SE Europe:

ID I15548 ~395 CE Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, Serbia J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>*Z1043+
*
ID R3481 211-320.5 CE Doclea, Montenegro J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>*Z1043+*
ID R3544 ~575 CE Gardun (Tilurium), Croatia J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z631>*Z1043*>FGC55778>FT212328

There is also one in a preprint about CE cemeteries in Pannonia who is Z8421+, so could potentially be >Z631>Z1043+ too.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Visually based on the pre-print of the paper and the information provided by the Bosnian poster who seems to have contacted the research team, the R-CTS1450 would plot somewhere here:



Either he is a pure Paeoni profile with no Thracian admixture, or partially Scythian. The Nassius sample does not plot central European, it is between Cinamak and South Thracian, however it is on the same cline as Himera I10950, and their components are quite similar. Himera I10950 is a good candidate for a south Dacian or Geto-Scythian(Getae) profile, they pull parallel to the Dardanian cline because they have BA Baltic like admixture, while the Dardanii cluster behaves that way because it is Yamnaya derived. Both Nassius and Himera E-V13 also have a Dardanii mixture in them, so there is also a component overlap with the Dardanii cluster as well, which in turn have a South Thracian admixture. A lot of two way overlap, but they are not the same.

And this is the Paeoni tribal distribution, can't help but notice the distribution is similar to the Brnjica culture spillage.

----------


## mount123

> Visually based on the pre-print of the paper and the information provided by the Bosnian poster who seems to have contacted the research team, the R-CTS1450 would plot somewhere here:
> 
> Either he is a pure Paeoni profile with no Thracian admixture, or partially Scythian. *The Nassius sample does not plot central European, it is between Cinamak and South Thracian, however it is on the same cline as Himera I10950, and their components are quite similar.* Himera I10950 is a good candidate for a south Dacian or Geto-Scythian(Getae) profile, they pull parallel to the Dardanian cline because they have BA Baltic like admixture, while the Dardanii cluster behaves that way because it is Yamnaya derived. Both Nassius and Himera E-V13 also have a Dardanii mixture in them, so there is also a component overlap with the Dardanii cluster as well, which in turn have a South Thracian admixture. A lot of two way overlap, but they are not the same.


My bad. For some reason I had that in mind perhaps it was a different site or none at all lol? Yes, interesting auDNA he plots South of the Paeonian Ulanci/Illyrian mish mash of Cinamak, so between that and the SE Thracian samples. 



> *And this is the Paeoni tribal distribution, can't help but notice the distribution is similar to the Brnjica culture spillage.*


Agreed. This all makes future aDNA from "Dardania" very predictable.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

A lot will be answered by the Roman Frontier paper, the plots on the pre-print PCA graph look like a gold mine, what I have identified as Dardanii cluster is for now based on indirect evidence, most direct link is the Skopje I10379 profile.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Riverman, today I had the idea of creating Neolithic averages by countries, I checked the individuals for IE mixture, and only kept neolithic profiles that lacked IE mixture. I ignored WHG because that is irrelevant, that is the characteristic that sets them apart regionally. 

Very interesting patterns, but also I'd like to hear your opinion on what I call the Dardani cluster, because if this reads are correct, they once lived in north-western Hungary.

Two versions:



With ROU_N_outlier1:I7126



Personally I don't like excluding ROU_N_outlier1:I7126, because the Romanian Neolithic sample is small, and Romania is a big country, the outlier has about 20% WHG, which is not atypical in neighboring regions like Serbia.

Anyhow, here is some interesting patterns:

1) Himera's E-V13s are clearly not Illyrians. Their neolithic component is based in Romania or/and Hungary. I10946 association with Hungary makes sense, you would recall that was my original appraisal on it's location. In this chart I10950 looks Dacian, just as it did using IA proxies.

2) The Dardanian cluster (MJ12, I18832, I10379 and the partial Dardanis) is a surprise. This calc supports a northern origin to R1b-Z2103 (neolithic component preferred is Czech). I am clueless on the archeological knowledge and context here. Is there anything that supports such a scenario? A Yamnaya branch in western Hungary getting progressively pushed down by Corded derived groups until it ends up in the southern Balkans (Brnica and Babadag culture)? I kind of brushed aside the fact that Paeonia resembles the name Pannonia. There might a chronological connection behind the name.

3) Thracian has a strong Romanian neolithic.

4) Illyrians pick up Italian neolithic, supporting you and Torzio claims (they were getting genetic feedback from Italian Beakers and later Italics and Celts). 

I probably should have spent an additional 30 minutes and added Alpine and German Neolithic averages, so eastern Celtic groups could be tested out too, but I am Balkan centric in my approaches. 



```
BGR_N:Avg,0.1211077,0.1806626,0.0114268,-0.0889219,0.0541641,-0.045515,-0.000188,-0.0028151,0.0397187,0.0845575,0.0116594,0.0139526,-0.022864,-0.0011148,-0.0366987,-0.0141739,0.0211353,0.0055363,0.0081705,-0.0132563,-0.0116794,0.0063558,-0.0049793,-0.0041089,-0.0098674
BGR_Krepost_N:I0679_d,0.1161,0.152329,-0.024513,-0.071383,0.020311,-0.042112,-0.003525,-0.012461,0.005113,0.047746,-0.006333,0.009292,-0.014866,-0.013625,-0.029451,-0.014187,0.019297,0.002027,0.006536,-0.00963,-0.012977,-0.001113,-0.006162,0.000964,-0.001676
CZE_EE:Avg,0.127237964285714,0.17097175,0.0509921071428571,-0.0404442142857143,0.0819822142857143,-0.0237257142857143,-0.000654642857142857,0.00443392857142857,0.0550607857142857,0.0779645357142857,0.000144928571428572,0.0109027857142857,-0.022315,-0.00614885714285714,-0.0161603214285714,0.000895,0.0154737142857143,0.004122,0.00753732142857143,-0.00224225,0.00953217857142857,0.006483,-0.01290575,-0.0280934285714286,0.000440464285714286
CZE_EN_LBK:I15818,0.124067,0.18178,0.005657,-0.091086,0.056934,-0.044901,-0.009165,-0.004154,0.038655,0.08146,0.005196,0.018284,-0.030178,-0.007156,-0.039902,-0.001458,0.034161,-0.002534,0.01345,-0.004752,-0.014599,0.011376,-0.008011,0.006266,0.000958
CZE_ME:Avg,0.124392285714286,0.169956214285714,0.0544939285714286,-0.0342841428571429,0.0824109285714286,-0.0206178571428571,0.000419714285714286,0.00456571428571428,0.0517447142857143,0.0746646428571428,0.00145,0.00639064285714286,-0.0203134285714286,-0.00460057142857143,-0.0150649285714286,-0.0001135,0.0111852142857143,0.00594535714285714,0.00472271428571429,-0.00364464285714286,0.00912671428571428,0.00552028571428571,-0.0128618571428571,-0.0287389285714286,0.000350714285714286
CZE_N:Avg,0.125611857142857,0.1793135,0.0332404285714286,-0.0636540714285714,0.0725628571428572,-0.0344431428571429,-0.00334035714285714,0.000164857142857143,0.049933,0.0792597142857143,0.00394357142857143,0.0102338571428571,-0.0220018571428571,0.000186785714285714,-0.0274639285714286,-0.0030685,0.0150593571428571,0.00213557142857143,0.010442,-0.00544014285714286,-0.000641785714285715,0.00774578571428571,-0.0089355,-0.0144768571428571,-0.00251485714285714
GRC_N:Avg,0.119134833333333,0.177548333333333,-0.00691383333333333,-0.0980306666666667,0.043649,-0.043228,-0.00207583333333333,-0.00492283333333333,0.0276108333333333,0.0755976666666667,0.00617066666666667,0.0126888333333333,-0.0233148333333333,-0.00190383333333333,-0.0372553333333333,-0.00791116666666667,0.0221435,0.00109783333333333,0.0093435,-0.0137983333333333,-0.0171988333333333,0.002947,-0.0035125,-0.000361666666666667,-0.00469016666666667
HRV_N:Avg,0.120146555555556,0.181140333333333,0.0140232962962963,-0.0905238518518519,0.0603644814814815,-0.0414411111111111,-0.003203,-0.00304266666666667,0.0446619259259259,0.0861436666666667,0.00674807407407407,0.0135491111111111,-0.0230973703703704,-0.0010142962962963,-0.0379764814814815,-0.0122081111111111,0.0167615185185185,0.000957222222222222,0.0104841481481481,-0.00956937037037037,-0.0106200740740741,0.00504222222222222,-0.00389837037037037,-0.005516,-0.00431981481481481
HUN_N:Avg,0.124784739130435,0.178203304347826,0.0188970434782609,-0.0799004347826087,0.0640452826086957,-0.0407058913043478,-0.00309084782608696,-0.00157517391304348,0.0441993913043478,0.0816893260869565,0.00725458695652174,0.0111063913043478,-0.0200174782608696,0.00247717391304348,-0.0374912391304348,-0.011832152173913,0.0149771739130435,0.00276236956521739,0.0115942173913044,-0.0110135,-0.00967047826086956,0.00731163043478261,-0.00604180434782609,-0.00889589130434782,-0.0042849347826087
ITA_N:Avg,0.1237256,0.1804595,0.0142173,-0.0789412,0.0601651,-0.0393792,-0.0045356,-0.0041076,0.0448929,0.0854687,0.0034102,0.014537,-0.0250643,-0.0053535,-0.0301435,-0.0051974,0.0187754,0.0022805,0.0079819,-0.0086792,-0.0063386,0.0032891,-0.0049669,-0.0119414,-0.0007425
ITA_Sardinia_N:Avg,0.126217166666667,0.178564,0.0427822777777778,-0.0560763888888889,0.0788693888888889,-0.0303680555555556,-0.00400816666666667,-0.000282,0.0600732222222222,0.0990455,0.00119977777777778,0.0165268888888889,-0.0346132222222222,-0.0150925555555556,-0.0187669444444444,-0.00144377777777778,0.0134731111111111,0.00211144444444444,0.00486027777777778,-0.0112137222222222,0.00167055555555556,0.00280272222222222,-0.0120851111111111,-0.0285113333333333,0.00118427777777778
ITA_Sicily_MN:Avg,0.1186605,0.17555975,0.0204115,-0.07275575,0.065704375,-0.0393935,-0.0073145,-0.00432675,0.04542975,0.0848535,0.00379575,0.00962875,-0.020459375,-0.004042625,-0.031538,-0.0044085,0.01962275,0.003484,0.008484625,-0.0115525,-0.00430475,0.006677375,-0.00756425,-0.01322475,-0.003802
MKD_N:I0676,0.122929,0.182795,-0.000754,-0.103037,0.063704,-0.046296,-0.00376,-0.001385,0.046222,0.090571,0.01153,0.014837,-0.031516,0.003303,-0.042073,-0.011535,0.024251,0.005448,0.013701,-0.012006,-0.016346,0.011623,0.001109,0.00494,-0.007664
ROU_N:Avg,0.1246365,0.18406475,0.0118795,-0.0973845,0.061396,-0.04894525,-0.00475875,-0.0047305,0.04637575,0.092075,0.006861,0.01442475,-0.0239715,0.0036815,-0.0477395,-0.01431975,0.019199,0.008203,0.01461225,-0.00912925,-0.01553525,0.006059,-0.00714825,0.0038255,-0.00874175
SRB_N:Avg,0.129378666666667,0.183134,0.011188,-0.097869,0.0588826666666667,-0.0449943333333333,-0.00156666666666667,-0.00707666666666667,0.0407686666666667,0.0896603333333333,0.00319366666666667,0.015586,-0.0223486666666667,4.60000000000003E-05,-0.0417566666666667,-0.015513,0.0200356666666667,0.000253666666666667,0.0111033333333333,-0.0124643333333333,-0.00540733333333333,0.004328,-0.00772366666666667,0.00453866666666667,0.000279333333333333
POL_BKG_N:Avg,0.121600833333333,0.171793666666667,0.0336266666666667,-0.0614238333333333,0.0693461666666667,-0.0323976666666667,0.000391666666666667,-0.000230833333333333,0.0459496666666667,0.0785738333333333,0.0023545,0.009391,-0.0177153333333333,0.00309666666666667,-0.0301073333333333,-0.00556883333333333,0.0116476666666667,0.00287166666666667,0.0128631666666667,-0.0093795,-0.0042425,0.00748116666666667,-0.00796983333333333,-0.0190388333333333,-0.00347283333333333
POL_Globular_Amphora:Avg,0.128294857142857,0.170101357142857,0.0588578571428571,-0.0259092142857143,0.0830045,-0.0214147857142857,0.00129257142857143,0.00702164285714286,0.0525772142857143,0.0728814285714286,0.000464,0.0100946428571429,-0.0171702142857143,-0.0066255,-0.0132132142857143,0.000606142857142857,0.00724564285714286,0.00614428571428571,0.00683264285714286,-5.35714285714284E-05,0.00962578571428572,0.00711878571428571,-0.0137949285714286,-0.0258728571428571,0.000213928571428572
WHG:SRB_Iron_Gates_Avg,0.13046975,0.11805525,0.1794505,0.174532,0.1301396875,0.05351209375,0.01399796875,0.0320540625,0.06475096875,-0.00843409375,-0.00892628125,-0.0168138125,0.02473340625,-4.21874999999999E-06,0.032080875,0.04726409375,0.00466528125,0.0055781875,-0.006768,0.04741340625,0.07336275,0.01101284375,-0.03336925,-0.12037075,0.01111040625
WHG:ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_TepeHissar_C:Avg,0.0780204545454546,0.0983218181818182,-0.120918545454545,-0.0128612727272727,-0.0963815454545454,0.0127782727272727,0.0129470909090909,-0.00505581818181818,-0.0701888181818182,-0.0367123636363636,-0.00394154545454545,-0.00129436363636364,-0.00114881818181818,-0.00295263636363636,0.0196547272727273,0.0289646363636364,-0.00679172727272727,0.00532090909090909,0.00764481818181818,-0.0237274545454545,0.00626190909090909,-0.0142986363636364,-0.00521,-0.0225331818181818,0.0140867272727273
Yamnaya_Avg:,0.120715777777778,0.0878996666666667,0.0439556111111111,0.113661111111111,-0.0293728888888889,0.0448704444444444,0.00420394444444444,-0.00333322222222222,-0.0553464444444444,-0.0740585555555556,0.000496055555555556,0.000366388888888889,-0.00175922222222222,-0.0232582222222222,0.0337866666666667,0.0136272222222222,-0.000992444444444444,-0.00304055555555556,-0.00233938888888889,0.0107411666666667,-0.00358394444444444,0.000583888888888889,0.0101952777777778,0.0198688333333333,-0.0037055
Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER),0.1253507,0.10915866,0.056808809,0.089148191,0.0044132128,0.033087128,0.0037300426,0.00056465957,-0.028402702,-0.041441191,-0.0014857447,0.00009887234,-0.0056111064,-0.014620191,0.026595404,0.0083559362,-0.0093626809,0.0014421702,-0.0005696383,0.0058938085,0.0016965106,0.0034095532,0.0045051064,0.015449404,-0.0021528511
TUR_SE_Mardin_PPN:I8432,0.071709,0.131003,-0.084098,-0.097223,-0.052625,-0.032909,-0.009165,-0.011307,-0.020861,-0.009841,0.026469,-0.007044,0.009812,0.014175,-0.005836,0.000663,-0.002217,0.006081,-0.000377,0.002876,-0.000749,0.012984,-0.001849,-0.023618,0.008861
Levant_PPNB,0.0725625,0.1650235,-0.0309238,-0.1380835,0.0323138,-0.062541,-0.012103,-0.0141338,0.0735775,0.0367207,0.0194055,-0.0170098,0.036459,-0.000241,-0.021342,0.0067288,0.0089638,-0.0013935,-0.0054052,0.0192277,-0.0037435,0.007852,-0.0014175,-0.0062658,-0.0047002
Uralic(RUS_HG),0.10471733,-0.068040567,0.095076233,0.1915759,-0.082477,0.043630767,-0.0425109,-0.048331333,-0.032042,-0.088526,0.022084667,-0.0095581,0.026246767,-0.071105233,0.024595433,0.017958433,-0.012908,-0.0047716667,-0.00019543333,0.0012226667,-0.031680433,0.013217333,0.023992333,0.0063325667,-0.0095001
```

----------


## mount123

From the other forum:



> As R-PF7563 is found among southern Illyrians and it will be confirmed among Iapygians in Italy, who themselves are descendants of Cetina migrations, I believe that it is quite likely that the R-PF7563 in southern Peloponnese in the 11th century BCE reached the region with Cetina movements, several hundred years prior to this era.


I find it funny how Maleschreiber lumps different eras and archeological complexes together. He blatantly blends out the Balkan Yamnayan R1b that is negative for L23 and very likely R1b-PF7562 and tries to connect the Pylos samples with EBA Cetina movements into Greece when this lineage is completely absent in Cetina.

The steppe movements into ancient Greece are overwhelmingly Yamnaya related and that is the reason for the occurrence of this rather rare haplogroup there.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> From the other forum:
> 
> I find it funny how Maleschreiber lumps different eras and archeological complexes together. He blatantly blends out the Balkan Yamnayan R1b that is negative for L23 and very likely R1b-PF7562 and tries to connect the Pylos samples with EBA Cetina movements into Greece when this lineage is completely absent in Cetina.
> 
> The steppe movements into ancient Greece are overwhelmingly Yamnaya related and that is the reason for the occurrence of this rather rare haplogroup there.


R1b-PF7562 has shown itself to be normal in IA Albania, the Cinamak fellow and the miss-dated mdv fellow from Korca are both R1b-PF7562-3 . However, giving it a Illyrian association is a long stretch, they likely represent a pre-Illyrian layer. Speculating it came with Illyrian ships to Greece is comedy, they always want to own everything. The more reasonable explanation is either some Greek groups had it, or it joined them when they migrated south from the vicinity of Albania/Macedonia. 

He thinks it will be found among Messapi, that will likely be true, but I think with the actual Messapi, not the Dauni and Peuceti north of them. Until evidence proves otherwise, I'm of the opinion Messapi is not Illyrian derived, while the other two tribes north of it are.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

I updated yesterday's model, removed single individuals, Czech LBK, MKD N, Rou N outlier, are single individuals and it is a unknown if they truly represented the norm. I also broke up the Hungarian Neolithic by cultures (Hungary neolithic is a huge collection).






Thracian Neolithic is entirely northern derived. The Dardanians have a portion of neolithic ancestry from southern Hungary, to me this is a possible association for the Vatin group being R1b-Z2103. The Himera's E-V13 are also form the Hungarian-Romanian zone. Even the Uralic signal (which was prevalent in Ukranian neolithic) hints at this association.

----------


## Hawk

> I updated yesterday's model, removed single individuals, Czech LBK, MKD N, Rou N outlier, are single individuals and it is a unknown if they truly represented the norm. I also broke up the Hungarian Neolithic by cultures (Hungary neolithic is a huge collection).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thracian Neolithic is entirely northern derived. The Dardanians have a portion of neolithic ancestry from southern Hungary, to me this is a possible association for the Vatin group being R1b-Z2103. The Himera's E-V13 are also form the Hungarian-Romanian zone. Even the Uralic signal (which was prevalent in Ukranian neolithic) hints at this association.


Perhaps you are right and Vatin might end up R1b-Z2103, even J2b2-L283 on the western hemisphere which was sort of separate entity from core Vatin. But i also have the feeling E-V13 played a role in Vatin. Vatin is part of greater Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere which also includes Gava in North-East. Unfortunately they were extensive cremation users during Bronze Age and it's hard to get samples from them. Though there is still dispute regarding their exact definition, but some archaeologists consider as a quite important Central Balkan cultural group, progenitor of many Paleo-Balkan Iron Age tribes.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Perhaps you are right and Vatin might end up R1b-Z2103, even J2b2-L283 on the western hemisphere which was sort of separate entity from core Vatin. But i also have the feeling E-V13 played a role in Vatin. Vatin is part of greater Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere which also includes Gava in North-East. Unfortunately they were extensive cremation users during Bronze Age and it's hard to get samples from them. Though there is still dispute regarding their exact definition, but some archaeologists consider as a quite important Central Balkan cultural group, progenitor of many Paleo-Balkan Iron Age tribes.



Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA. 
I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.

The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To me, it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region. 

And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.

----------


## Hawk

> Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA. 
> I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.
> 
> The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region. 
> 
> And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.


I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.


Bulgarian Yamnaya average on G25 tests comes of as Corded not Yamnaya, and it's position near the steppe, gives it exposure to invasions. Time will tell, to me it's looking like Yamnaya aDNA was holding out in the central Balkans, near the Danube, until it lost it's core region and was forced southward. 

Greek groups do not seem to be homogenous, and it was likely different competing IE groups entered Greece and because of geography had to standardize/blend into one. Later Dorians are described as the sons of "can't recall" taking revenge on the sons of "another name I can't recall", so basically two different IE groups that had rivalry going back to a habitat that was not Greece.

----------


## mount123

> I would be careful in case of R1b-Z2103. During Early Bronze Age, it was a widespread Balkan Yamnaya Y-DNA. The only strange thing is still not showing up among Myceneans, and Anatolian IE. That would wrap nicely and tie everything together.


Whilst it is true for so far missing Z2103, on the other side R1b-PF7562 which itself is a rare haplogroup has been shown to have spread with Yamnaya into Greece. The L23- sample from Cinamak is proof of that, although low coverage one can assume that it is highly likely PF7562, not to forget the EBA Russian sample (not sure what the archeological affiliation was for that one).

Doesn't of course change the fact that Yamnaya were overwhelmingly by a large margin Z2103 (bite some minority hg. e.g. I-M223+ or the aforementioned rare hg. etc.). Point is we will very certainly see it in Bronze Age Greece. If I'm not mistaken some people were alluding the Armenochori group to supposedly yield Z2103. So we will see.

----------


## mount123

> Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA. 
> I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.
> 
> Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.


Why would anyone associate Jagodnjak with the "original Illyrian profile"? They literally have nothing to do with Cetina in terms of auDNA and uniparentals. Cetina is a EBA culture that expanded through out the whole Mediterranean and that is a whole different scale. Medieval Venetians weren't even a thing back then.

The auDNA is Cetina-like not the other way around. This type of autosomal ancestry is something that Italian Beakers did not even have. There is no proof of a shift of Cetina towards Beakers in archaeogenetic records. The EBA-MBA Cetina/Dinaric cluster shows the normal variance within a population group. The whole argument of that non existent shift is to take Yamnaya meets Baden Culture *cough* HRV_Popova Zemlja *cough* as an ancestral population. But guess what those aren't ancestral and have nothing to do with EBA Cetina, *at all*.

As for it being an independent entity prior to its IE migrations into the Balkans too, I agree.

----------


## torzio

> Looking at the neolithic mixture, and I made another update yesterday by including chalcolithic averages, it looks like Illyrians truly emerge as unique by getting Italian Beaker (Sardinian neolithic) feedback, and later direct Italic and finally Celtic IA. 
> I am basing this on pre-IE components reads. Jag MBA was not very Illyrian like but west Hungarian Baden pre-IE layer, strong WHG and IE. If that was the real original J2b Illyrian profile, it began to shift toward Italics.
> 
> The question that lingers is why what seems to be the R1b-Z2103 profile carries Hungarian and Romanian neolithic (plus a south Balkan neolithic too). Being ignorant on archeological detail and to be able to tell if this is feasible. To it's looking like our R1b-Z2103 hails from Vucedol, and gradually lost ground to the expanding Corded groups. Vatin was possibly it's last holdout in it's original core region. 
> 
> And E-V13 and J2b, both emerged in frontier zones where Yamnaya and Corded groups were duking it out. Both seem to have allied themselves with the local Corded groups and piled on the Yamnaya block. By the time of BA collapse, both E-V13 and J2b-L283 have become their own independent entity. Cetina culture seems to have risen to a Venetian like sea empire.



cetina was on land on both sides of the adriatic

----------


## mount123

> cetina was on land on both sides of the adriatic


That map was made by Quiles, an internet blogger. I always advice to read scientific sources when it comes to EBA Cetina and their migrations.

Some good insights on Early Bronze Age Cetina culture:

*https://www.academia.edu/36936788/Th...h_perspectives*

*https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/fakultae...etina-project/*

*https://www.academia.edu/42625481/Sp...tic_prehistory** (Cetina from page 124)* 

*http://aegeobalkanprehistory.net/ind...icle&id_art=13*

*https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.771683/full* *(Cetina pottery in the Aegean, Italy, Malta)*

----------


## torzio

maybe this 2022 paper will help

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...88754322001501

----------


## Riverman

> That map was made by Quiles, an internet blogger.


No, the map is from a paper, he just posted it too and its easier to access, find on Google than the original. Actually, Carlos posted the link to the source: 
https://www.academia.edu/1249546/_20...A8ge_p._91-107

----------


## mount123

Thanks for the link to the paper I absolutely did not like as it lacks good quality research in comparison to other sources I have posted. Wasn't sure if the map was self made by Quiles or from that paper but given the general bad quality either would have been possible.

Post scriptum: good to see how archeology has evolved since then in regards to exploring and deciphering SE European centered cultures.

----------


## mount123

Excellent post from the other forum (reply to Bruzmi/Wikipedia Maleschreiber's unrealistic claims):





> MJ12 was from western Ukraine on the Romanian border and not too far from Moldova. She didnt have minor local ancestry, it is rather the opposite in that she had mostly local ancestry with minor intrusive ancestry. Scytho-Siberians werent the local inhabitants of that region of Ukraine. *I'd also add that your claim/suggestion that this sample and others from Glinoe were from the western Balkans just isn't all that realistic in my eyes, I think it is far more likely that this is just the local profile of the area rather than a constant appearance of western balkan samples near the Black Sea* despite a limited amount of samples from the region.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Why would anyone associate Jagodnjak with the "original Illyrian profile"? They literally have nothing to do with Cetina in terms of auDNA and uniparentals. Cetina is a EBA culture that expanded through out the whole Mediterranean and that is a whole different scale. Medieval Venetians weren't even a thing back then.
> 
> The auDNA is Cetina-like not the other way around. This type of autosomal ancestry is something that Italian Beakers did not even have. There is no proof of a shift of Cetina towards Beakers in archaeogenetic records. The EBA-MBA Cetina/Dinaric cluster shows the normal variance within a population group. The whole argument of that non existent shift is to take Yamnaya meets Baden Culture *cough* HRV_Popova Zemlja *cough* as an ancestral population. But guess what those aren't ancestral and have nothing to do with EBA Cetina, *at all*.
> 
> As for it being an independent entity prior to its IE migrations into the Balkans too, I agree.



I am new to a lot of these, I have no idea if people consider Jagodnjak Illyrian related, or what the consensus is. Cetina shows some Sardanian Neolithic, which was in Italian Beakers. The HRV IA Illyrians show Polish Neolithic, which was present in eastern La Tene Celts. There is noticeable shift and change in the neolithic component with time. 

Beakers were also quite a large culture block, form a geopolitical point of view, it would have been unwise to have been hostile to them and be shunned from their extensive trade network. It's looking like Illyrians were western oriented, in trade and wife exchange. Even in modern age, Croatia and Slovenia are western leaning despite being Slavic countries. This geographical location always leans towards Italy and Austria-Hungary historically.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Excellent post from the other forum (reply to Bruzmi/Wikipedia Maleschreiber's unrealistic claims):


Not surprised at his nonsense claims. 

BTW MJ12 cannot be Cimmerian because of her age. 880 BC is way too early for steppe nomads, at that time they had just mastered horse riding and were fighting the old Andronovo derived cultures at the edges of the Altai. Through gradual attrition warfare they made sedentary life impossible and the steppe became theirs. They show up in Ukraine around 700 BC.

----------


## Riverman

> I am new to a lot of these, I have no idea if people consider Jagodnjak Illyrian related, or what the consensus is


Those samples are (if you mean the same as I do) Encrusted Pottery people and these are completely different people with more WHG and less Bell Beaker-like ancestry. They are closer related to Western Hungarian, Southern Romanian, Bulgarian Bronze Age samples which are all pretty similar (high I2, high G2, high WHG, lower Yamnaya/no Bell Beaker). Those were the people in between the Cetina people/Pre-Illyrians and Bell Beakers on the one hand and the East Carpathian and Epi-Corded groups or steppe on the other. They being largely replaced by Tumulus culture (Bell Beaker-derived largely) and Gva-related Channelled Ware. 
We don't know how they relate exactly to other people and what kind of language they might have spoken. It seems they didn't survive as a population and ethnicity of their own, but rather got replaced and assimilated. They did contribute to the Middle Danubian and Carpathian Tumulus culture a bit, possibly, and even more to a variety of Balkan groups, Stamped Pottery in particular. But neither their exact autosomal profile nor their patrilineages seem to have been particularly successful as far as we can tell as of yet, with two samples, one being I2 dominated in Hungary, the other G2 from Northern Croatia.

----------


## torzio

> I am new to a lot of these, I have no idea if people consider Jagodnjak Illyrian related, or what the consensus is. Cetina shows some Sardanian Neolithic, which was in Italian Beakers. The HRV IA Illyrians show Polish Neolithic, which was present in eastern La Tene Celts. There is noticeable shift and change in the neolithic component with time. 
> 
> Beakers were also quite a large culture block, form a geopolitical point of view, it would have been unwise to have been hostile to them and be shunned from their extensive trade network. It's looking like Illyrians were western oriented, in trade and wife exchange. Even in modern age, Croatia and Slovenia are western leaning despite being Slavic countries. This geographical location always leans towards Italy and Austria-Hungary historically.



all its history Croatia and Slovenia uses a Latin based text .............Serbia uses Cyrillic , which is Slavic based

Is this your western leaning ?

----------


## mount123

With archaeogenetic evidence showing the complete opposite, Paleo, I think we can agree to disagree on this. Also, modern Slavs in the Balkans are off topic to the Bronze/Iron Age discussion.

----------


## mount123

> Not surprised at his nonsense claims.


I mean they are repetitive to the point one could call them one of his character traits.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> all its history Croatia and Slovenia uses a Latin based text .............Serbia uses Cyrillic , which is Slavic based
> Is this your western leaning ?


I meant it historically, Venice dominating the coast, Hungary the Sava river basin, Slovenia with Austria, Charlemaine vs Byzantine, etc... And even now as independent countries, they like to see themselves as different from the rest of Yugoslavs. Culturally you see Croats imitating western 80s rock music, as if wanting to differentiate themselves from the Serbs, consciously they don't want to be seen as Balkan. History has a habit of being circular.

----------


## torzio

> I meant it historically, Venice dominating the coast, Hungary the Sava river basin, Slovenia with Austria, Charlemaine vs Byzantine, etc... And even now as independent countries, they like to see themselves as different from the rest of Yugoslavs. Culturally you see Croats imitating western 80s rock music, as if wanting to differentiate themselves from the Serbs, consciously they don't want to be seen as Balkan. History has a habit of being circular.


 Venice owned half of Istria from 900 AD to 1797
owned Liburnia, Dalmatia and coastal montenegro from 1435 to 1797

owned corfu from 1205-1797 

and very many greek islands as well

in Albaina...not very long..Butrint for 1 year and Durres 1392-1501

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Those samples are (if you mean the same as I do) Encrusted Pottery people and these are completely different people with more WHG and less Bell Beaker-like ancestry. They are closer related to Western Hungarian, Southern Romanian, Bulgarian Bronze Age samples which are all pretty similar (high I2, high G2, high WHG, lower Yamnaya/no Bell Beaker). Those were the people in between the Cetina people/Pre-Illyrians and Bell Beakers on the one hand and the East Carpathian and Epi-Corded groups or steppe on the other. They being largely replaced by Tumulus culture (Bell Beaker-derived largely) and G�va-related Channelled Ware. 
> We don't know how they relate exactly to other people and what kind of language they might have spoken. It seems they didn't survive as a population and ethnicity of their own, but rather got replaced and assimilated. They did contribute to the Middle Danubian and Carpathian Tumulus culture a bit, possibly, and even more to a variety of Balkan groups, Stamped Pottery in particular. But neither their exact autosomal profile nor their patrilineages seem to have been particularly successful as far as we can tell as of yet, with two samples, one being I2 dominated in Hungary, the other G2 from Northern Croatia.


G25 is in agreement.






```
DEU_MN:Avg,0.12662825,0.1675625,0.05911375,-0.023902,0.0880165,-0.02412425,-0.00411275,0.00830725,0.06263525,0.07694925,-0.00105575,0.01097775,-0.020478,-0.00481675,-0.01370775,0.01219825,0.015483,0.00541575,0.0055935,0.0024075,0.01260275,0.00491525,-0.018672,-0.03533625,-0.00269425
AUT_LBK_N:Avg,0.122075375,0.183937875,0.015792,-0.088542375,0.064242625,-0.04280975,-0.002320625,-0.003778875,0.04499525,0.086038125,0.00793675,0.010509375,-0.020403625,0.002528875,-0.038205375,-0.012960625,0.0148475,0.0011245,0.014643625,-0.00964525,-0.006738,0.009830375,-0.00585425,-0.006491875,-0.00585275
ITA_N:Avg,0.1237256,0.1804595,0.0142173,-0.0789412,0.0601651,-0.0393792,-0.0045356,-0.0041076,0.0448929,0.0854687,0.0034102,0.014537,-0.0250643,-0.0053535,-0.0301435,-0.0051974,0.0187754,0.0022805,0.0079819,-0.0086792,-0.0063386,0.0032891,-0.0049669,-0.0119414,-0.0007425
ITA_Sardinia_N:Avg,0.126217166666667,0.178564,0.0427822777777778,-0.0560763888888889,0.0788693888888889,-0.0303680555555556,-0.00400816666666667,-0.000282,0.0600732222222222,0.0990455,0.00119977777777778,0.0165268888888889,-0.0346132222222222,-0.0150925555555556,-0.0187669444444444,-0.00144377777777778,0.0134731111111111,0.00211144444444444,0.00486027777777778,-0.0112137222222222,0.00167055555555556,0.00280272222222222,-0.0120851111111111,-0.0285113333333333,0.00118427777777778
ITA_Sicily_MN:Avg,0.1186605,0.17555975,0.0204115,-0.07275575,0.065704375,-0.0393935,-0.0073145,-0.00432675,0.04542975,0.0848535,0.00379575,0.00962875,-0.020459375,-0.004042625,-0.031538,-0.0044085,0.01962275,0.003484,0.008484625,-0.0115525,-0.00430475,0.006677375,-0.00756425,-0.01322475,-0.003802
ITA_CA:Avg,0.124067285714286,0.179603857142857,0.0323248571428571,-0.0631234285714286,0.0695074285714286,-0.0337458571428571,-0.00419642857142857,-0.00286814285714286,0.0490857142857143,0.0880982857142857,0.00183257142857143,0.0137662857142857,-0.0266104285714286,-0.00241814285714286,-0.0206488571428571,-0.00505728571428571,0.0129078571428571,-0.000343857142857143,0.00585414285714286,-0.006789,-0.00262028571428571,0.0106341428571429,-0.0100887142857143,-0.0191248571428571,-0.000616
ITA_Sardinia_CA:Avg,0.128269846153846,0.179905,0.0428467692307692,-0.0568728461538461,0.0794230769230769,-0.0307423076923077,-0.00287430769230769,-0.000816461538461539,0.0587141538461538,0.100173923076923,0.000312153846153846,0.016589,-0.0345236153846154,-0.0154242307692308,-0.0181028461538462,-0.000173461538461539,0.0137606153846154,0.00343030769230769,0.00431238461538461,-0.011621,0.000873384615384615,0.00211146153846154,-0.0112913846153846,-0.0284284615384615,0.000902846153846154
POL_BKG_N:Avg,0.121600833333333,0.171793666666667,0.0336266666666667,-0.0614238333333333,0.0693461666666667,-0.0323976666666667,0.000391666666666667,-0.000230833333333333,0.0459496666666667,0.0785738333333333,0.0023545,0.009391,-0.0177153333333333,0.00309666666666667,-0.0301073333333333,-0.00556883333333333,0.0116476666666667,0.00287166666666667,0.0128631666666667,-0.0093795,-0.0042425,0.00748116666666667,-0.00796983333333333,-0.0190388333333333,-0.00347283333333333
POL_Globular_Amphora:Avg,0.128294857142857,0.170101357142857,0.0588578571428571,-0.0259092142857143,0.0830045,-0.0214147857142857,0.00129257142857143,0.00702164285714286,0.0525772142857143,0.0728814285714286,0.000464,0.0100946428571429,-0.0171702142857143,-0.0066255,-0.0132132142857143,0.000606142857142857,0.00724564285714286,0.00614428571428571,0.00683264285714286,-5.35714285714284E-05,0.00962578571428572,0.00711878571428571,-0.0137949285714286,-0.0258728571428571,0.000213928571428572
CZE_EE:Avg,0.127237964285714,0.17097175,0.0509921071428571,-0.0404442142857143,0.0819822142857143,-0.0237257142857143,-0.000654642857142857,0.00443392857142857,0.0550607857142857,0.0779645357142857,0.000144928571428572,0.0109027857142857,-0.022315,-0.00614885714285714,-0.0161603214285714,0.000895,0.0154737142857143,0.004122,0.00753732142857143,-0.00224225,0.00953217857142857,0.006483,-0.01290575,-0.0280934285714286,0.000440464285714286
CZE_ME:Avg,0.124392285714286,0.169956214285714,0.0544939285714286,-0.0342841428571429,0.0824109285714286,-0.0206178571428571,0.000419714285714286,0.00456571428571428,0.0517447142857143,0.0746646428571428,0.00145,0.00639064285714286,-0.0203134285714286,-0.00460057142857143,-0.0150649285714286,-0.0001135,0.0111852142857143,0.00594535714285714,0.00472271428571429,-0.00364464285714286,0.00912671428571428,0.00552028571428571,-0.0128618571428571,-0.0287389285714286,0.000350714285714286
CZE_N:Avg,0.125611857142857,0.1793135,0.0332404285714286,-0.0636540714285714,0.0725628571428572,-0.0344431428571429,-0.00334035714285714,0.000164857142857143,0.049933,0.0792597142857143,0.00394357142857143,0.0102338571428571,-0.0220018571428571,0.000186785714285714,-0.0274639285714286,-0.0030685,0.0150593571428571,0.00213557142857143,0.010442,-0.00544014285714286,-0.000641785714285715,0.00774578571428571,-0.0089355,-0.0144768571428571,-0.00251485714285714
HRV_N:Avg,0.120146555555556,0.181140333333333,0.0140232962962963,-0.0905238518518519,0.0603644814814815,-0.0414411111111111,-0.003203,-0.00304266666666667,0.0446619259259259,0.0861436666666667,0.00674807407407407,0.0135491111111111,-0.0230973703703704,-0.0010142962962963,-0.0379764814814815,-0.0122081111111111,0.0167615185185185,0.000957222222222222,0.0104841481481481,-0.00956937037037037,-0.0106200740740741,0.00504222222222222,-0.00389837037037037,-0.005516,-0.00431981481481481
HRV_C:Avg,0.124855230769231,0.178420846153846,0.0197553846153846,-0.0804518461538462,0.0630176923076923,-0.0398383846153846,-0.00392269230769231,-0.00186384615384615,0.0435477692307692,0.0813753846153846,0.00635815384615385,0.0118281538461538,-0.0211212307692308,0.000889153846153846,-0.0356735384615385,-0.00687430769230769,0.0181736153846154,0.00319646153846154,0.0108293076923077,-0.00932169230769231,-0.00618146153846154,0.00513646153846154,-0.00841876923076923,-0.00939876923076923,-0.00648484615384615
HUN_ALP:Avg,0.1273395625,0.1750518125,0.0256206875,-0.0697074375,0.06933975,-0.0359594375,-0.00188,0.0002163125,0.0450975625,0.0796599375,0.0051050625,0.00957275,-0.0190470625,0.0032943125,-0.0369668125,-0.0100436875,0.013291125,0.00484575,0.010951375,-0.0091841875,-0.00535775,0.0079833125,-0.007911,-0.015243,-0.0041686875
HUN_Koros_N:Avg,0.11922975,0.176702,0.01687625,-0.08648375,0.0583185,-0.04629575,-0.0029375,-0.00092275,0.04223425,0.08309975,0.00864725,0.012364,-0.019846,0.00271825,-0.0356265,-0.00792225,0.02366475,0.00288225,0.0120355,-0.009692,-0.01179175,0.00921225,-0.005207,-0.00680825,-0.00191575
HUN_LBK_MN:Avg,0.12463625,0.181526,0.01301075,-0.09310475,0.0572415,-0.04141525,-0.0029375,-0.0027115,0.04013775,0.085013,0.008769,0.012439,-0.02107275,0.0002065,-0.04200525,-0.0136565,0.011702,0.00031675,0.01313525,-0.015445,-0.013445,0.00961375,-0.0090895,-0.002621,-0.0017065
HUN_Lengyel_LN:Avg,0.126485875,0.175432625,0.019751625,-0.07840825,0.064242625,-0.040718,-0.004083375,-0.002538375,0.04473975,0.08134575,0.00929675,0.012607375,-0.020496625,0.000550375,-0.03695,-0.009115375,0.020568125,0.00229625,0.011281375,-0.0095985,-0.01388175,0.004096,-0.006778625,-0.007019,-0.00308375
HUN_Vinca_MN:Avg,0.1206525,0.176956,0.0088625,-0.08648325,0.05916475,-0.04239125,-0.00311375,-0.00311525,0.04412575,0.0825985,0.00799775,0.0136005,-0.020701,-0.002374,-0.038748,-0.00931425,0.02284975,0.002059,0.01153275,-0.00891075,-0.00976425,0.0069245,-0.004098,-0.00247025,-0.0108075
HUN_Tisza_LN:Avg,0.125964333333333,0.181779666666667,0.0267753333333333,-0.0669686666666667,0.065858,-0.038394,-0.00728533333333333,0.002846,0.0411773333333333,0.0775716666666667,0.006604,0.00694366666666667,-0.0178393333333333,0.00389933333333333,-0.0346086666666667,-0.012861,0.00438933333333333,-0.001478,0.009637,-0.010088,-0.00424266666666667,0.00214333333333333,-0.00776466666666667,-0.00819366666666667,-0.00307366666666667
HUN_Starcevo_N:Avg,0.121790666666667,0.1882115,0.00766816666666667,-0.0975461666666667,0.0612421666666667,-0.050154,-0.0038385,-0.00646116666666667,0.0453701666666667,0.0869571666666667,0.007443,0.0121141666666667,-0.0226213333333333,0.00568816666666667,-0.0386576666666667,-0.0207505,0.010322,0.001478,0.0113965,-0.0176335,-0.0132683333333333,0.0101808333333333,-0.000410666666666667,-0.00532183333333333,-0.00526883333333333
HUN_Baden_LCA:Avg,0.128999555555556,0.175348111111111,0.0307144444444444,-0.063308,0.0698933333333333,-0.0328781111111111,-0.00310733333333333,0.000102444444444445,0.0452223333333333,0.0802445555555556,0.00461922222222222,0.0135713333333333,-0.0224972222222222,0.000841111111111111,-0.0289986666666667,-0.004788,0.0137481111111111,0.003139,0.0125138888888889,-0.00775366666666667,-0.004714,0.00607288888888889,-0.00540911111111111,-0.0166152222222222,0.000359111111111111
HUN_LCA:Avg,0.121790666666667,0.168578,0.02753,-0.0580323333333333,0.0702693333333333,-0.0269596666666667,-0.00203666666666667,-0.00161533333333333,0.040973,0.07988,0.001624,0.00959133333333333,-0.019772,0.00133033333333333,-0.029587,0.0122866666666667,0.0246423333333333,0.00540533333333333,0.00905,-0.00650333333333333,-0.00486633333333333,0.00865566666666667,-0.006286,-0.0130943333333333,-0.000359333333333333
HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:Avg,0.127861333333333,0.177040666666667,0.0252673333333333,-0.0708446666666667,0.072321,-0.028726,-0.006502,0.000384666666666667,0.0489493333333333,0.080184,0.004276,0.007943,-0.0158076666666667,0.00477066666666667,-0.035785,-0.0132146666666667,0.00982233333333333,0.000126666666666667,0.0106006666666667,-0.00712866666666667,-0.00561533333333333,0.00255566666666667,-0.002917,-0.00887666666666667,-0.00303366666666667
HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA:Avg,0.12719725,0.17720975,0.02686975,-0.07146375,0.064858,-0.0347915,-0.0038775,0.001096,0.051489,0.079455,0.008566,0.013001,-0.02192775,0.0047135,-0.03325125,-0.00971225,0.01603725,0.0024705,0.00980475,-0.01250575,-0.009296,0.006399,-0.0082575,-0.0144295,0.00014975
SRB_N:Avg,0.129378666666667,0.183134,0.011188,-0.097869,0.0588826666666667,-0.0449943333333333,-0.00156666666666667,-0.00707666666666667,0.0407686666666667,0.0896603333333333,0.00319366666666667,0.015586,-0.0223486666666667,4.60000000000003E-05,-0.0417566666666667,-0.015513,0.0200356666666667,0.000253666666666667,0.0111033333333333,-0.0124643333333333,-0.00540733333333333,0.004328,-0.00772366666666667,0.00453866666666667,0.000279333333333333
SRB_CBA:Avg,0.1257745,0.1777175,0.02621,-0.071706,0.065243,-0.0355585,-0.0015275,-0.002308,0.0466315,0.0789995,0.003004,0.015436,-0.023414,0.004748,-0.0310125,-0.0127285,0.0215135,0.007728,0.007416,-0.004502,-0.006426,0.0057495,-0.0110305,-0.0181955,-0.0083225
ROU_N:Avg,0.1246365,0.18406475,0.0118795,-0.0973845,0.061396,-0.04894525,-0.00475875,-0.0047305,0.04637575,0.092075,0.006861,0.01442475,-0.0239715,0.0036815,-0.0477395,-0.01431975,0.019199,0.008203,0.01461225,-0.00912925,-0.01553525,0.006059,-0.00714825,0.0038255,-0.00874175
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C:Avg,0.125117807692308,0.178303538461538,0.0271961923076923,-0.0701655384615385,0.0668288846153846,-0.0362665,-0.00272057692307692,-0.00151765384615385,0.0419824230769231,0.0785858076923077,0.00334776923076923,0.00955719230769231,-0.0189141923076923,-0.000158884615384616,-0.0332671538461538,-0.00517096153846154,0.0183942307692308,0.00189546153846154,0.00946603846153846,-0.00597884615384615,-0.00552869230769231,0.00722415384615385,-0.00926253846153846,-0.0141354230769231,-0.00385030769230769
ROU_C:Avg,0.12548975,0.17060875,0.02413575,-0.063308,0.06578125,-0.03311825,0,-0.00080775,0.0411605,0.0726665,0.0031665,0.00966625,-0.0185455,-3.44999999999998E-05,-0.0303675,-0.0063975,0.0158415,0.00047525,0.013167,-0.00703475,-0.0031195,0.005348,-0.006686,-0.0146705,-0.0035925
ALB_NC:Avg,0.124067,0.1848265,0.0041485,-0.101745,0.045239,-0.047272,-0.0034075,-0.003,0.037837,0.0807305,0.00885,0.0114645,-0.0235625,0.000826,-0.0399695,-0.017303,0.007823,0.00057,0.0088615,-0.0184465,-0.0104815,0.0059355,-0.0032045,-0.0006625,-0.0079035
GRC_N:Avg,0.119134833333333,0.177548333333333,-0.00691383333333333,-0.0980306666666667,0.043649,-0.043228,-0.00207583333333333,-0.00492283333333333,0.0276108333333333,0.0755976666666667,0.00617066666666667,0.0126888333333333,-0.0233148333333333,-0.00190383333333333,-0.0372553333333333,-0.00791116666666667,0.0221435,0.00109783333333333,0.0093435,-0.0137983333333333,-0.0171988333333333,0.002947,-0.0035125,-0.000361666666666667,-0.00469016666666667
BGR_N:Avg,0.1211077,0.1806626,0.0114268,-0.0889219,0.0541641,-0.045515,-0.000188,-0.0028151,0.0397187,0.0845575,0.0116594,0.0139526,-0.022864,-0.0011148,-0.0366987,-0.0141739,0.0211353,0.0055363,0.0081705,-0.0132563,-0.0116794,0.0063558,-0.0049793,-0.0041089,-0.0098674
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
TUR_Catalhoyuk_N_Ceramic:Avg,0.0967496666666667,0.177717666666667,-0.00842233333333333,-0.119295666666667,0.0318003333333333,-0.0573583333333333,-0.00148833333333333,-0.0179993333333333,0.0212023333333333,0.0619603333333333,0.0145606666666667,0.00419633333333333,-0.016551,0.00775266666666667,-0.0313966666666667,-0.027932,0.003955,0.00114033333333333,0.0198183333333333,-0.0136733333333333,-0.011563,0.008738,-0.00435466666666667,0.00622566666666667,-0.00746433333333333
IRN_TepeHissar_C:Avg,0.0780204545454546,0.0983218181818182,-0.120918545454545,-0.0128612727272727,-0.0963815454545454,0.0127782727272727,0.0129470909090909,-0.00505581818181818,-0.0701888181818182,-0.0367123636363636,-0.00394154545454545,-0.00129436363636364,-0.00114881818181818,-0.00295263636363636,0.0196547272727273,0.0289646363636364,-0.00679172727272727,0.00532090909090909,0.00764481818181818,-0.0237274545454545,0.00626190909090909,-0.0142986363636364,-0.00521,-0.0225331818181818,0.0140867272727273
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:Avg,0.13046975,0.11805525,0.1794505,0.174532,0.1301396875,0.05351209375,0.01399796875,0.0320540625,0.06475096875,-0.00843409375,-0.00892628125,-0.0168138125,0.02473340625,-4.21874999999999E-06,0.032080875,0.04726409375,0.00466528125,0.0055781875,-0.006768,0.04741340625,0.07336275,0.01101284375,-0.03336925,-0.12037075,0.01111040625
WHG:ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
Yamnaya_Avg:,0.120715777777778,0.0878996666666667,0.0439556111111111,0.113661111111111,-0.0293728888888889,0.0448704444444444,0.00420394444444444,-0.00333322222222222,-0.0553464444444444,-0.0740585555555556,0.000496055555555556,0.000366388888888889,-0.00175922222222222,-0.0232582222222222,0.0337866666666667,0.0136272222222222,-0.000992444444444444,-0.00304055555555556,-0.00233938888888889,0.0107411666666667,-0.00358394444444444,0.000583888888888889,0.0101952777777778,0.0198688333333333,-0.0037055
Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER),0.1253507,0.10915866,0.056808809,0.089148191,0.0044132128,0.033087128,0.0037300426,0.00056465957,-0.028402702,-0.041441191,-0.0014857447,0.00009887234,-0.0056111064,-0.014620191,0.026595404,0.0083559362,-0.0093626809,0.0014421702,-0.0005696383,0.0058938085,0.0016965106,0.0034095532,0.0045051064,0.015449404,-0.0021528511
Uralic(RUS_HG),0.10471733,-0.068040567,0.095076233,0.1915759,-0.082477,0.043630767,-0.0425109,-0.048331333,-0.032042,-0.088526,0.022084667,-0.0095581,0.026246767,-0.071105233,0.024595433,0.017958433,-0.012908,-0.0047716667,-0.00019543333,0.0012226667,-0.031680433,0.013217333,0.023992333,0.0063325667,-0.0095001
TUR_SE_Mardin_PPN:I8432,0.071709,0.131003,-0.084098,-0.097223,-0.052625,-0.032909,-0.009165,-0.011307,-0.020861,-0.009841,0.026469,-0.007044,0.009812,0.014175,-0.005836,0.000663,-0.002217,0.006081,-0.000377,0.002876,-0.000749,0.012984,-0.001849,-0.023618,0.008861
Levant_PPNB,0.0725625,0.1650235,-0.0309238,-0.1380835,0.0323138,-0.062541,-0.012103,-0.0141338,0.0735775,0.0367207,0.0194055,-0.0170098,0.036459,-0.000241,-0.021342,0.0067288,0.0089638,-0.0013935,-0.0054052,0.0192277,-0.0037435,0.007852,-0.0014175,-0.0062658,-0.0047002
```

----------


## torzio

> I meant it historically, Venice dominating the coast, Hungary the Sava river basin, Slovenia with Austria, Charlemaine vs Byzantine, etc... And even now as independent countries, they like to see themselves as different from the rest of Yugoslavs. Culturally you see Croats imitating western 80s rock music, as if wanting to differentiate themselves from the Serbs, consciously they don't want to be seen as Balkan. History has a habit of being circular.



Dalmatia still seeks autonomy from Croatia even today ...........my family go there on holidays as it is cheaper than Italy, they always talk to locals who want autonomy

----------


## torzio

> G25 is in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> DEU_MN:Avg,0.12662825,0.1675625,0.05911375,-0.023902,0.0880165,-0.02412425,-0.00411275,0.00830725,0.06263525,0.07694925,-0.00105575,0.01097775,-0.020478,-0.00481675,-0.01370775,0.01219825,0.015483,0.00541575,0.0055935,0.0024075,0.01260275,0.00491525,-0.018672,-0.03533625,-0.00269425
> ...



Distance to:	Veritus_scaled
0.10972295	POL_Globular_Amphora:Avg
0.11188982	CZE_ME:Avg
0.11330802	ROU_C:Avg
0.11709975	POL_BKG_N:Avg
0.11768397	HUN_LCA:Avg
0.11851747	CZE_EE:Avg
0.12000560	HUN_Tisza_LN:Avg
0.12073917	HUN_Baden_LCA:Avg
0.12361938	CZE_N:Avg
0.12447406	ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C:Avg
0.12480686	HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:Avg
0.12521245	HUN_ALP:Avg
0.12542051	DEU_MN:Avg
0.12665125	ITA_CA:Avg
0.12725682	HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA:Avg
0.12822759	SRB_CBA:Avg
0.13063134	ITA_Sicily_MN:Avg
0.13309983	HRV_C:Avg
0.13325750	HUN_Lengyel_LN:Avg
0.13465782	ITA_N:Avg
0.13935397	HUN_Koros_N:Avg
0.14005894	Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER)
0.14036978	HUN_Vinca_MN:Avg
0.14053432	ITA_Sardinia_N:Avg
0.14170919	ITA_Sardinia_CA:Avg


Target: Veritus_scaled
Distance: 0.0226% / 0.02255604
43.2	Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER)
28.1	HUN_Tisza_LN
17.3	HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
6.9	TUR_Catalhoyuk_N_Ceramic
4.4	IRN_TepeHissar_C
0.1	SRB_Iron_Gates_HG




.................................................. .....


Target: LiburnianG25
Distance: 0.0084% / 0.00839433
43.5	Corded_Ware_Early(POL_CZE_BALTIC_GER)
33.9	HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA
11.0	ALB_NC
4.9	POL_Globular_Amphora
3.8	IRN_TepeHissar_C
2.1	HUN_Starcevo_N
0.8	GEO_CHG

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Venice owned half of Istria from 900 AD to 1797
> owned Liburnia, Dalmatia and coastal montenegro from 1435 to 1797
> owned corfu from 1205-1797 
> and very many greek islands as well
> in Albaina...not very long..Butrint for 1 year and Durres 1392-1501



Butrint exchanged hands quite often. Sometime in the 1600s the Ottomans gained full control. Because of this, the plains north of Butrint were not densely settled. When the Ottomans got full control the local Albanian Muslims laid claim to all the good land and brought Greeks from the mountains as tenants. East of Saranda is full of Greek villages, its probably the most Greek area in Albania. If Venice was there for only a year, there would not be a Greek ethnic wedge between Chams and Labs.

----------


## torzio

> Butrint exchanged hands quite often. Sometime in the 1600s the Ottomans gained full control. Because of this, the plains north of Butrint were not densely settled. When the Ottomans got full control the local Albanian Muslims laid claim to all the good land and brought Greeks from the mountains as tenants. East of Saranda is full of Greek villages, its probably the most Greek area in Albania. If Venice was there for only a year, there would not be a Greek ethnic wedge between Chams and Labs.



I might be wrong about Butrint

Venetian contol in map below...click the town for more info

https://www.romeartlover.it/Venezia.html

The Venetian possession of Butrinto was not without interruptions, but in 1718 the Peace of Passarowitz formally certified that the site including the lake belonged to the Republic. 

says Venice bought it from Naples in 1401 ...but does not say how long they controlled it for

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I might be wrong about Butrint
> Venetian contol in map below...click the town for more info
> https://www.romeartlover.it/Venezia.html
> The Venetian possession of Butrinto was not without interruptions, but in 1718 the Peace of Passarowitz formally certified that the site including the lake belonged to the Republic. 
> says Venice bought it from Naples in 1401 ...but does not say how long they controlled it for



It exchanged hands many tmies, but Venice would counter and reclaim it quickly. After the 1600s, Venice active wars with the Ottoman wane down, and the local leading Muslim families begin to take over the former frontier lands and establish cifliks(serfdom estates).

----------


## Hawk

If we can deduce somehow if not by aDNA directly, IMO there is a chance Vatin represents as a culture an admixture between the three Albanian Y-DNA's. A cultural complex where they met, E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103. An educated guess.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> If we can deduce somehow if not by aDNA directly, IMO there is a chance Vatin represents as a culture an admixture between the three Albanian Y-DNA's. A cultural complex where they met, E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103. An educated guess.


A good chance.

From aDNA we have individual Illyrians that deviate toward the Cimm-MJ12 & Skopje I10379 profile, though never the same. And we have the same situation with E-V13 individuals that are both Cimm-MJ12/Skopje I10379 profile and Thracian like. From this we can deduct that between the Thracians and Illyrians lived a 3rd block. If Thracians and Illyrians lived side by side in BA, we would detect this contact in some of the Illyrian aDNA BA samples, but we we never find such admixed individuals among Illyrians. 

We are simplifying things here, because in the BA Balkans also lived Greeks, MKD Ohrid might represent partially a northern Hellenic profile before they migrated south. Even R1b-PF7562-3 during the BA might have represented its own cluster. By Iron Age these groups had become minor players and irrelevant.

Reading up on Vatin, they don't seem to have been uniform. Though the authors don't state it (they never offer clear opinions), it looks like Vatin was being intruded by competing groups, and multiple groups/traditions are represented in it's material culture, it's not a coherent culture. Any remains from there would likely turn out R1b-Z2103, the incoming E-V13 would likely cremate and be invisible in samples.

The Serb archeologists also suggest Vatin might played a role on the formation of Brnjica culture though they don't go into any detail of how. They were likely related to begin with, and a portion of the Vatin original population would have taken refuge in the south to escape the pressure from the north. 
Brnjica's culture distribution seems impossible not to be associated with R1b-Z2103, it is the only candidate that satisfies the geographic criteria and the timeline.

----------


## Riverman

> If we can deduce somehow if not by aDNA directly, IMO there is a chance Vatin represents as a culture an admixture between the three Albanian Y-DNA's. A cultural complex where they met, E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103. An educated guess.


There is another issue though, because Vatin is right at the route from Encrusted Pottery in Western Pannonia to Monteoru and Bulgarian BA samples, which are all high in I2+G2 and higher in WHG. So I see practically no way they could be completely without I2+G2 and a similar component as well, because this seems to have been the "Danubian combo", from the Middle to the Lower Danube, in the EBA-MBA. Vatin might be syncretistic with influences going many ways, but it would be odd if this central part of the puzzle along the Danubian route would be so different from the rest left and right alike. 

That's a major part of my argument that we need a large block, and this fairly huge block which later largely dissolved being very clearly dominated by I2+G2/increased WHG/contacts to Encrusted Pottery-related groups. The Monteoru and BA Bulgarian samples are more like Encrusted Pottery from Western Pannonia along the Danube than the Kyjatice-Western fringe Gva related (HUN_LBA) and even more different from the Proto-Illyrian, more Bell Beaker-like Cetina/J-L283 people. 
So I'm really envisioning three major blocks in this MBA-LBA period, and Vatin looks like being part of the middle block which got kind of squeezed to death by the combined efforts of Gva-related Channelled Ware from the North, steppe groups from the East (Noua-Sabatinovka, then Cimmerians and Scythians), Proto-Illyrians from the West and Mycenaeans/Aegeo-Anatolian pushes from the South. 
In this model I don't see this middle block doing well or expanding in the right time frame at all, but being largely replaced especially by the Gva-related/steppe related (Noua+Cimmerian) combo group, which resulted in the Thracians.

----------


## Hawk

> There is another issue though, because Vatin is right at the route from Encrusted Pottery in Western Pannonia to Monteoru and Bulgarian BA samples, which are all high in I2+G2 and higher in WHG. So I see practically no way they could be completely without I2+G2 and a similar component as well, because this seems to have been the "Danubian combo", from the Middle to the Lower Danube, in the EBA-MBA. Vatin might be syncretistic with influences going many ways, but it would be odd if this central part of the puzzle along the Danubian route would be so different from the rest left and right alike. 
> 
> That's a major part of my argument that we need a large block, and this fairly huge block which later largely dissolved being very clearly dominated by I2+G2/increased WHG/contacts to Encrusted Pottery-related groups. The Monteoru and BA Bulgarian samples are more like Encrusted Pottery from Western Pannonia along the Danube than the Kyjatice-Western fringe G�va related (HUN_LBA) and even more different from the Proto-Illyrian, more Bell Beaker-like Cetina/J-L283 people. 
> So I'm really envisioning three major blocks in this MBA-LBA period, and Vatin looks like being part of the middle block which got kind of squeezed to death by the combined efforts of G�va-related Channelled Ware from the North, steppe groups from the East (Noua-Sabatinovka, then Cimmerians and Scythians), Proto-Illyrians from the West and Mycenaeans/Aegeo-Anatolian pushes from the South. 
> In this model I don't see this middle block doing well or expanding in the right time frame at all, but being largely replaced especially by the G�va-related/steppe related (Noua+Cimmerian) combo group, which resulted in the Thracians.


First and foremost there was no Mycenean/Aegeo-Anatolian push from South, neither Proto-Illyrian from West to Vatin. Secondly Vatin is not Encrusted Pottery Culture, it's considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex and perhaps there is a chance they were migrants from further South, Bubanj-Hum.

If you consider Vatin as I2+G2 block, then why shouldn't Gava be even more I2+G2 considering it's further north? Think about it. Iron Age Psenicevo full with E-V13, if you reverse engineer the archaeological records, it has a relationship with Insula Banului and Insula Banului is descended from Dubovac Zuto Brdo/Grla-Mara. And the so called Cruceni-Belegis which is essentially mixed Vatin+Encrusted Pottery is related to Garla Mara probably mixed Verbicoara + Encrusted Pottery. If we exclude Encrusted Pottery as E-V13 origin, what we are left is with the original Balkan-Carpathian elements: Verbicoara, Vatin and likely to some degree Hatvan and Ottomany/Gava eventually, and in these two cultural complexes Southern colonizers going up north.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...a_Mare_Culture

----------


## Riverman

> First and foremost there was no Mycenean/Aegeo-Anatolian push from South, neither Proto-Illyrian from West to Vatin. Secondly Vatin is not Encrusted Pottery Culture, it's considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex and perhaps there is a chance they were migrants from further South, Bubanj-Hum.


I didn't say they were like Encrusted Pottery, but I said they likely got contacts/admixture/uniparentals also from these neighbours to their left and right. 




> If you consider Vatin as I2+G2 block, then why shouldn't Gava be even more I2+G2 considering it's further north?


Because they have a different genetic profile. We already see it when comparing the HUN_LBA (without outliers) and Late Gva derived Mezocsat locals to Monteoru and Encrusted Pottery. The ratio of EEF : WHG : Steppe is different. The difference is already visible in the early Western Pre-Gva and fringe samples, but its even more pronounced in the Late Gva Mezocsat ones: 


Note that from Encrusted Pottery to Monteoru only the EEF/Aegean part increases, otherwise the WHG : steppe ratio is pretty much the same as in Encrusted Pottery. So are the uniparentals (I2 and G2) and I don't think that we find the same pattern in BA Bulgaria is pure chance. 

And I also don't think that Vatin must have been the same, but they were in between, between these two related groups along the Danube. 


Higher steppe and lower WHG in comparison to the block which was running from Western Pannnonia to the Lower Danube (Bulgaria-Southern Romania) is typical for Mezocsat - with the outlier exception, so the extremely high WHG group was still around, as we know and I'm struggling how it fits into the greater scheme of things. 




> Think about it. Iron Age Psenicevo full with E-V13, if you reverse engineer the archaeological records, it has a relationship with Insula Banului and Insula Banului is descended from Dubovac Zuto Brdo/Grla-Mara. And the so called Cruceni-Belegis which is essentially mixed Vatin+Encrusted Pottery is related to Garla Mara probably mixed Verbicoara + Encrusted Pottery. If we exclude Encrusted Pottery as E-V13 origin, what we are left is with the original Balkan-Carpathian elements: Verbicoara, Vatin and likely to some degree Hatvan and Ottomany/Gava eventually, and in these two cultural complexes Southern colonizers going up north.


The question is how Vatin relates to the others, but then again, the groups you mentioned being largely succeeded by Encrusted Pottery and Gva-related Channelled Ware groups with the rest coming from Noua-Coslogeni/Noua-Wietenberg. Going by the archaeological record, Vatin was just running out and being replaced by Gva-related groups. 

So it might have played an unknown role before, we don't know it, but by the LBA-EIA transition it couldn't have been the major player we are searching for. And what makes me really sceptical is this Danubian block I'm talking about, which was characterised by a specific Steppe:WHG ratio and dominance of I2-G2 in particular. Looking at similar finds from Western Pannonia to Southern Romania-Bulgaria makes me wonder about that. Its no evidence for how exactly every Central Balkan group looked of course, but its a good reason to suspicious imho and searching somewhere else first.

The so far made, potentially Gva related finds have in the early Western fringe region a ratio of 2:1 for steppe:WHG and later in Mezocsat approaching 3:1. The Encrusted Pottery/I2-G2 dominated groups have usually 1:1 to 1,5:1 as their ratio. Even some of the early Bronze Age Buglarian samples we got have a more even steppe:WHG ratio interestingly, with the exception of the clearly Yamnaya/steppe invader derived samples. 

Just hints and indications without more samples. But the Danube was no barrier, but a connection instead. So if to the left and right we got a specific profile, chances are we had at least a similar influence in between as well.

----------


## Hawk

I don't see any breakthrough pattern there. I still maintain my opinion. It's about the odds, and my hypothesis have better odds. Of course, i might change my opinion if new facts contradict my current belief.

----------


## Riverman

> I don't see any breakthrough pattern there. I still maintain my opinion. It's about the odds, and my hypothesis have better odds. Of course, i might change my opinion if new facts contradict my current belief.


It doesn't prove anything with certainty, but again, its an indication that we deal with a continuous population living along the Danube at some point and my guess is that E-V13 was not directly related to them but came from the Transylvanian-Moldovan block North of it.

----------


## Hawk

> It doesn't prove anything with certainty, but again, its an indication that we deal with a continuous population living along the Danube at some point and my guess is that E-V13 was not directly related to them but came from the Transylvanian-Moldovan block North of it.


Both of us know that Transylvanian-Moldovan block doesn't work for various reasons. It's too east IMO.

----------


## Riverman

> Both of us know that Transylvanian-Moldovan block doesn't work for various reasons. It's too east IMO.


I don't think so. If you read up on Berkesz-Demecser and Gva, you see that the source was rather to the East and not to the West. We have to look for Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg, as well as more Eastern groups. The MBA is completely unknown in this respect, but by the LBA that's imho pretty sure as of yet. Eastern Otomani/Gyulavarsand into Suciu de Sus and Lapus II-Gva is what I would concentrate primarily. 

Everything West of that zone was largely dominated by Tumulus culture groups (R-L51/R-L2 dominated) and the Fzesabony-Otomani (Kostany-Mierzanowice derived and R-Z282 dominated) anyway, Encrusted Pottery-related groups (the very block I was talking about) to the South along the Danube and steppe groups to the East which were R-Z93 dominated (Noua-Sabatinovka, Srubna derived). Basically the main remaining block, and the most important in the crucial LBA-EIA transition is just Gva-related Channelled Ware on top of the rest. 
The main independent groups of importance being Suciu de Sus into Berkesz-Demecser and Lapus I into Gva and Wietenberg into Noua-Wietenberg and Coslogeni, being largely soaked up by Channelled Ware as well. 
Remind you on the size of E-V13 and its radical demographic expansion in the LBA. Downward going regional groups can't account for that, even less if being largely replaced subsequently. 

A key question is how Suciu de Sus emerged from the wider Eastern Otomani sphere in the first place. 




https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoca_...in_Romania.jpg

The Central Balkan area around Vatin is an unknown indeed, but then again, they being connected along the Danube to the West and East with groups which had this specific ratio of steppe:WHG and were I2+G2 dominated, both in Hungary and Southern Romania-Bulgaria. Its a perfect fit that Channelled Ware largely replaced all these groups in the Central and Eastern Balkans in the Transitional Period.

That doesn't mean that Vatin couldn't have had E-V13 as well, but it won't be the important LBA source.

----------


## Hawk

Look how nicely the map represent Verbicoara, Vatin and up to north some influences probably were present in Mures, Lapus and Suciu de Sus. These are just small cultures which are known under the ombrella of Balkan-Carpathian complex. I would summarize it like that for now. Eastern-Urnfielder/Balkan-Carpathian, more specifically how, and which one was the source, beyond Middle Bronze Age is speculation IMO.

----------


## mount123

> If we can deduce somehow if not by aDNA directly, IMO there is a chance Vatin represents as a culture an admixture between the three Albanian Y-DNA's. A cultural complex where they met, E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103. An educated guess.


Could be. With Brnjica, Glasinac Mati and Channeled Ware Dardania still is the best option for such a scenario.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> From the other forum:
> 
> I find it funny how Maleschreiber lumps different eras and archeological complexes together. He blatantly blends out the Balkan Yamnayan R1b that is negative for L23 and very likely R1b-PF7562 and tries to connect the Pylos samples with EBA Cetina movements into Greece when this lineage is completely absent in Cetina.
> 
> The steppe movements into ancient Greece are overwhelmingly Yamnaya related and that is the reason for the occurrence of this rather rare haplogroup there.



Hawk and the Bosnian are correct, Brumi can see the haplogroups in upcoming papers. So the Messapii will yield R1b-PF7562/3.

----------


## mount123

> Hawk and the Bosnian are correct, Brumi can see the haplogroups in upcoming papers. So the Messapii will yield R1b-PF7562/3.


Which "Bosnian"? Anyways I don't care, point was that rare haplogroup PF7562 absolutely did not spread to Greece with EBA Cetina as it has nothing to do with Cetina whatsoever and its initial spread can be attributed to Yamnaya (see Balkan Yamnayan Cinamak L23- sample) where it accounted for a tiny percentage. If later on South Central Balkan Brnjica-like groups, absolutely fundamental to the Paeonian/Phrygian ethnos, perhaps have joined Cetina expansions in miniscule percentages is a whole nother topic. Sea peoples who most likely are the alliance of certain European and Mediterranean cultures can also be a possibilty. There is also of course Greeks and a whole bunch of other possible groups.

Matzinger did actually suggest the former scenario if I'm not wrong.

Also, Maleschreiber doesn't "see the results" unless he is involved in the peer review process of certain papers which given his poor intellect I very much doubt. Otherwise there wouldn't be misinformation posts of his in the past. He gets these news from posters in contact with geneticists, archeologists who are direct authors of the papers in question or involved in the peer review of certain papers.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Which "Bosnian"? Anyways I don't care, point was that rare haplogroup PF7562 absolutely did not spread to Greece with EBA Cetina as it has nothing to do with Cetina whatsoever and its initial spread can be attributed to Yamnaya (see Balkan Yamnayan Cinamak L23- sample) where it accounted for a tiny percentage. If later on South Central Balkan Brnjica-like groups, absolutely fundamental to the Paeonian/Phrygian ethnos, perhaps have joined Cetina expansions in miniscule percentages is a whole nother topic. Sea peoples who most likely are the alliance of certain European and Mediterranean cultures can also be a possibilty. There is also of course Greeks and a whole bunch of other possible groups.
> 
> Matzinger did actually suggest the former scenario if I'm not wrong.
> 
> Also, Maleschreiber doesn't "see the results" unless he is involved in the peer review process of certain papers which given his poor intellect I very much doubt. Otherwise there wouldn't be misinformation posts of his in the past. He gets these news from posters in contact with geneticists, archeologists who are direct authors of the papers in question or involved in the peer review of certain papers.


Osaka Omaha guy, E-V13 Bosnian from Sandzak. 

You are making the assumption that people to be in such positions have to be qualified, non-biased or distinguished in intellect. You will be surprised how the real world works, when you land a job in your profession you will learn.

Brumi likely played a role in the date forgery of the Korca PF7562 sample. And if he is involved in peer review, by himself or through his benefactors in the field he is holding up the Danubian frontier from getting published, delaying it as much as he can. I wonder, under whose genius we wasted a 3rd of the Albanian samples on magical medieval mound burials(chasing unicorns) that turned up to be gypsies. Who is responsible for that blunder?

----------


## mount123

> Osaka Omaha guy, E-V13 Bosnian from Sandzak. 
> 
> You are making the assumption that people to be in such positions have to be qualified, non-biased or distinguished in intellect. You will be surprised how the real world works, when you land a job in your profession you will learn.
> 
> Brumi likely played a role in the date forgery of the Korca PF7562 sample. And if he is involved in peer review, by himself or through his benefactors in the field he is holding up the Danubian frontier from getting published, delaying it as much as he can. I wonder, under whose genius we wasted a 3rd of the Albanian samples on magical medieval mound burials(chasing unicorns) that turned up to be gypsies. Who is responsible for that blunder?


Interesting. Where did that guy post?

Oh I am very well aware of the occasional bad ethics in the archaeogenetic world. We had more than one such occasion where non radiocarbon dated Slavic samples have made it through "peer review" twice. 

But hasn't the Korca sample been radiocarbon dated if I remember correctly? If so the dating is reliable if not then that is a different situation. You are thinking too much of that internet persona, I feel like.

Yeah, the medieval burials site selection for Albania has been comedic indeed  :Lol:

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Interesting. Where did that guy post?
> 
> Oh I am very well aware of the occasional bad ethics in the archaeogenetic world. We had more than one such occasion where non radiocarbon dated Slavic samples have made it through "peer review" twice. 
> 
> But hasn't the Korca sample been radiocarbon dated if I remember correctly? If so the dating is reliable if not then that is a different situation. You are thinking too much of that internet persona, I feel like.
> 
> Yeah, the medieval burials site selection for Albania has been comedic indeed


This Bosnian. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Hatvan-culture

The question is what got tested for radiocarbon vs what was tested for genes. It can't be the same sample, and personally, I think a bad character is involved.

The issue with I13834 is not singular, it is everything.
1) Zero Slavic admixture in the plain of Korca at 1400 AD. Barc is right next to the two Slavic villages of Drenove and Boboshtice, which were Slavic speaking until 50 years ago. If you go to Boboshtice, at least one of the restaurants has it's menu in Slavic Cyrillic. 
2) Kukes 850 AD, and Shtike 990 AD both show noticeable Slavic mixture in G25. Shtike is on the foot of mount Grammos, highest mountain in southern Albania. Kukes is also in the mountains of northern Albania. To put it in perspective, samples from mountain zones in Albania, 500-600 earlier have Slavic mixture, while a person 500-600 years later in the plain of Korca, one of the most Slavic admixed areas of Albania, if not the most, shows zero Slavic.
3) Both Kukes and Shtike show Roman imperial MENA admixture, the Korca sample magically skipped 600 years of Roman rule and was untouched by this ME mixture. 
4) The bones come of a ancient timulus burial mound.
5) The aDNA profile is almost identical to MKD Ohrid group, which are basically IA samples from the opposite of lake Ohrid. What are the odds that the sample has the same profile as the IA samples from a adjacent area?


There is a clear pattern and trail here. When you tally the abnormal reads, the 1400 AD date is impossible. Someone acted in bad faith and if they did, they also likely engage in online forums doing the similar types of forgery like making up fake G25 values and shifting them toward Illyrians.





> Yeah, the medieval burials site selection for Albania has been comedic indeed


I agree, but now we probably have to wait 5 years until new samples from Albania are tested and released to the public.

----------


## Excine

> The issue with I13834 is not singular, it is everything.


The sample is radio-carbon dated and if you knew anything about radio-carbon dating you would understand that it's not a simple procedure that can just "go wrong". The end result is produced after many tests. Not only is the result correct, but the same result was obtained for other samples: 

• I13836/1237; Tumulus 2, grave 8, 7 (petrous bone), genetically female, adult.
Her age is estimated to be over 40 years old. The skeleton only preserves the skull. The skeleton derives from Tumulus 2, grave 8. The grave was oriented north-south. The skeleton was well-preserved, in a supine extended position, with the right hand on the abdomen and the left by the side. No grave goods were found in the grave. Radiocarbon date obtained from this individual is: 1452-1619 calCE (385±15 BP, PSUAMS-8300).

• I13834/1235; Tumulus 2 , grave 1? (petrous bone), genetically male, adult.
His age is estimated to be over 40 years old. The skeleton is well presented.
The skeleton most likely derives from Tumulus 2, grave 1. The grave was oriented NE-SW, with the inhumation in a supine extended position. The radiocarbon date obtained from this individual was 1402-1439 calCE (515±20 BP, PSUAMS-5942).

So what you're saying is that radio-carbon dating produced the same wrong result for two different samples in a series of many tests. It's laughable. Do yourself a favor and try to read how such matters work. 

Tumuli in Albania were re-used during the middle ages and there's nothing "weird" about finding a medieval profile which is close to IA profiles from the same region. It just means that a part of the Albanian population didn't have much admixture with other groups even in the middle ages. We've got plenty of modern samples which have very small amounts of other admixtures and this explains why this sample is actually close to modern Albanians, but has even less admixture from other sources:

Distance to: ALB_MA:I13834
0.02996863 Greek_Thessaly
0.03053380 Italian_Tuscany
0.03247228 Italian_Emilia
0.03272630 Italian_Piedmont
0.03307333 Albanian
0.03360127 Italian_Lombardy
0.03569227 Swiss_Italian
0.03570263 Italian_Umbria
0.03579009 Greek_Macedonia
0.03590673 Greek_Argolis

There's no problem, it's just that you don't like the results . It's utterly irrelevant if the Slavs of Boboshtica have menus in Cyrillic. Have as many Cyrillic menus as you want, it won't change the fact that in the same region the local profile was retained throughout the ages up to the modern day for at least a part of the population.

PS 1
Your idea that internet fora members, Lazaridis, the Reich Lab and the Albanian government are all conspiring to make IA samples look modern is beyond laughable...but seriously you're not doing yourself a favor by posting crazy conspiracy theories just because you don't like the fact that they show that Albanians lived in the early medieval Korca plain and the Slavs of Boboshtica just came in the middle ages and were later slowly pushed out by the local Albanians and other Albanians who came from other areas. Just deal with it.


PS 2
This is not going to be forgotten:




PS 3
Add to the list of groups who are "conspiring" FTDNA. They uploaded the sample exactly for what it is: a medieval man from the early 15th century. Cheers.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-PF7563/tree

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> The sample is radio-carbon dated and if you knew anything about radio-carbon dating you would understand that it's not a simple procedure that can just "go wrong". The end result is produced after many tests. Not only is the result correct, but the same result was obtained for other samples


It can easily go wrong if the people involved chose to engage in fraud. And with people like you and Brumi, it's not hard to imagine how that can happen. 




> So what you're saying is that radio-carbon dating produced the same wrong result for two different samples in a series of many tests. It's laughable. Do yourself a favor and try to read how such matters work.


It has the same date as the gypsies, but a IA or LBA profile. This only gives more insight how the idiot that pulled this off managed it. A gypsy was used for the date and an ancient for the aDNA.




> Tumuli in Albania were re-used during the middle ages and there's nothing "weird" about finding a medieval profile which is close to IA profiles from the same region.


My grandparents were not buried in tumulis, thanks for the laugh though. Maybe your ancestors were gypsies and like to play "we were kangz" games. 




> It just means that a part of the Albanian population didn't have much admixture with other groups even in the middle ages. We've got plenty of modern samples which have very small amounts of other admixtures and this explains why this sample is actually close to modern Albanians, but has even less admixture from other sources:


LOL Big assumptions made on a fraudulent date. Where are these Albanians that score BA genetics? Do you have a special G25 collection that you're hiding?









> There's no problem, it's just that you don't like the results . It's utterly irrelevant if the Slavs of Boboshtica have menus in Cyrillic. Have as many Cyrillic menus as you want, it won't change the fact that in the same region the local profile was retained throughout the ages up to the modern day for at least a part of the population.


I showed you the results, if I didn't like them, I would bury my head in the sand like you. Korca region is the most Slavic in Albania. Genetic and cultural facts. Cope with it.




> Your idea that internet fora members, Lazaridis, the Reich Lab and the Albanian government are all conspiring to make IA samples look modern is beyond laughable...but seriously you're not doing yourself a favor by posting crazy conspiracy theories just because you don't like the fact that they show that Albanians lived in the early medieval Korca plain and the Slavs of Boboshtica just came in the middle ages and were later slowly pushed out by the local Albanians and other Albanians who came from other areas. Just deal with it.


They don't have to conspire for this to occur, shady behavior by the Alb team is enough to make it happen.





> PS 2
> This is not going to be forgotten:


What are you going to do about it?




> PS 3
> Add to the list of groups who are "conspiring" FTDNA. They uploaded the sample exactly for what it is: a medieval man from the early 15th century. Cheers.
> https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-PF7563/tree


Wow, God has spoken. I am humbled.

----------


## Hawk

It's remarkable if we dig deep, and as a starting point we just start with the almost 100% E-V13 samples in Svilengrad. They were newcomers in South-East Bulgaria. The question is from where? The answer is South-Western Carpathians if we do "reverse engineering" from archaeological studies. They were descended from cultures closely related to Tei, Verbicoara (Insula Banului, Babadag, Psenicevo). Another remarkable feature of these cultures is that they completely lack burials, or very likely their burial rite is still unknown from archaeological studies. What they do say is that they were truly related to Gava in North just as Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony stated, Romanian archaeologists totally agree with him. And their related cultural people up north cremated their dead and instead of putting the ashes in urns they scattered around.

At this point, to me, i'll bet that Tei, Verbicoara, Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo, and extremely likely Gava and Vatin are the core zones of all E-V13. If E-V13 is to be found in Central/Western Balkans then the likely proxy is Vatin and/or Belegis-Gava II.

----------


## Riverman

> It's remarkable if we dig deep, and as a starting point we just start with the almost 100% E-V13 samples in Svilengrad. They were newcomers in South-East Bulgaria. The question is from where? The answer is South-Western Carpathians if we do "reverse engineering" from archaeological studies. They were descended from cultures closely related to Tei, Verbicoara (Insula Banului, Babadag, Psenicevo). Another remarkable feature of these cultures is that they completely lack burials, or very likely their burial rite is still unknown from archaeological studies. What they do say is that they were truly related to Gava in North just as Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony stated, Romanian archaeologists totally agree with him. And their related cultural people up north cremated their dead and instead of putting the ashes in urns they scattered around.
> 
> At this point, to me, i'll bet that Tei, Verbicoara, Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo, and extremely likely Gava and Vatin are the core zones of all E-V13. If E-V13 is to be found in Central/Western Balkans then the likely proxy is Vatin and/or Belegis-Gava II.


Agreed, Belegis II-Gva is a highly likely bet, Vatin is likely mixed but might have had it too (in the mix).

----------


## Hawk

> Agreed, Belegis II-G�va is a highly likely bet, Vatin is likely mixed but might have had it too (in the mix).


I digged in Romanian archaeology. You might take a look in Romanian and then google translate. It's absolutely true that Psenicevo, Babadag and Insula Banului consist a complex. And they were either directly descended or related to Tei and Verbicoara but also Grla-Mara or in Serbia called Dubovac-Zuto Brdo. And they do state that they have quite of similarities with Gava up north (same thing stated by Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony). They don't mention Vatin, but from other sources there is potentially a relationship with Vatin as well.

Tei, Verbicoara and especially the cousin culture of E-V13 Psenicevo Insula Banului almost completely lack burials, the only known Insula Banului burial is a cremation burial. But the whole material package is definitely cousin culture of Svilengrad-Psenicevo EIA.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

This is not my expertise, but Babadag did not cremate, I understand that as being distinct from the cremation groups.

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/12687

----------


## Hawk

> This is not my expertise, but Babadag did not cremate, I understand that as being distinct from the cremation groups.
> 
> https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/12687


Babadag and Psenicevo were evolved Early Iron Age groups, so i expect changes to have happened for example from flutes/channeling or also called grooves to stamping pottery and slight change of burial rite like using pits, mogilla/tumuli. Both Babadag and Psenicevo are related with Insula Banului or also called Ostrov group, these are complexes, they are supposed to descend or be related to Tei, Verbicoara who have no burials at all known to archaeologists and Grla-Mara/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo, a culture which practiced cremation on urns.

The Insula Banului which is related to Psenicevo-Babadag has no burials known to Romanian archaeologists, only 1 which is cremation. That's how i understood.




> ... Research concerning Early Iron Age cultural manifestations in Southeastern Europe has often been based on typological and stylistic characteristics of pottery in an attempt to identify archaeological cultures. Thus, drawing on observations made during excavations at Babadag and Insula Banului, Sebastian Morintz determined the existence of a great cultural complex, including several groups, characterised by pottery decorated with similar stamped motifs (Morintz and Roman 1969), to which later other cultural groups were added: Cozia (László 1972;Hänsel 1976;Iconomu 1996); Saharna-Solonceni (between the Carpathians and Dniestr) (Мелюкова 1958;1961;1979;Kашуба 2000;Niculiţă et al. 2008;Niculiţă et al. 2016;Niculiţă and Nicic 2014); Pšenicevo (Bulgaria) (Чичикова 1968;Čičikova 1971;Stoyanov and Nikov 1997;Heхризов 2006a;Heхризов and Цветкова 2008). As a result, an immense area between the Rhodopi Mountains, Middle Dniestr and along the Danube, from the Iron Gates to the river's mouth, belongs to the same cultural complex (Fig. 1). ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Despite this fact, it must be emphasised that, at present, there are differences in the degree of research on the cultural groups that are usually attributed to the stamped pottery horizon. While in the case of the groups Babadag, Saharna or Pšeničevo there are important data resulting from large-scale excavations in archaeological sites such as Babadag (Morintz 1964;Jugănaru 2005;Jugănaru and Ailincăi 2003;Ailincăi et al. 2005Ailincăi et al. -2006, Jijila (Sîrbu et al. 2008), Niculiţel (Topoleanu and Jugănaru 1995;Ailincăi and Topoleanu 2003;Ailincăi 2008;Ailincăi et al. 2016;, Enisala Ailincăi et al. 2013;Ailincăi and Constantinescu 2015), Revărsarea (Ailincăi 2013a), the Saharna area (Niculiţă and Nicic 2014;Niculiţă et al. 2008;Niculiţă et al. 2016), Svilengrad (Hиколов et al. 2006;Hиколов et al. 2008), Malkoto Kale (Domaradski et al. 1986Домарадски et al. 1992) or Rogozinovo (Stoyanov and Nikov 1997), the cultural groups Insula Banului or Cozia remain less known. ...
> 
> ...


Very few graves have been found from Tei, Verbicoara, and those few are mainly cremations in urns.

One more thing:




> Descoperirile arheologice din nordul Olteniei din epoca
> hallstattului ne-au dus la formularea unor concluzii. Se poate
> considera că în secolul XII - XI în. d. Chr. fenomenul de
> hallstattizare, privind din punctul de vedere al culturii materiale, era
> încheiat, iar tracii erau definitiv formaţi la nivelul culturilor Gava -
> Holihrady şi Babadag - Insula Banului - Cozia - Psenicevo.





> The archaeological discoveries in northern Oltenia from the era
> Hallstatt led us to formulate some conclusions. May
> considered that in the 12th - 11th century d. Chr. the phenomenon of
> Hallstattization, looking from the point of view of material culture, was
> ended, and the Thracians were definitively formed at the level of the Gava cultures -
> Holihrady and Babadag - Banului Island - Cozia - Psenicevo.


PRIMA EPOCĂ A FIERULUIÎN NORDUL OLTENIEIRezumatul tezei de doctorat - dr. Gheorghe Calotoiu

A similar paper to Calatoiu by Dr. Marian Gumă helds the same position, supported by Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Babadag might have been partially composed of a substrate population that was not Thracian (which would explain MJ12) and practiced inhumation. 




> The form of disposal can be classified into: simple disposal, when the deceased are
> notsubjecttofurtherinterventions (primary inhumation/burial,aquaticdisposal,surface
> disposal); and compound disposal, which implies a series of actions leading to the reduction
> process (burial/later disinterment, exposure to air, fermentation in pots, exposure to animals,
> mechanical defleshing, cremation, chemical decomposition)98
> 
> http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-con...ai-et-alii.pdf


And from reading, it looks like Babadag and Dacians practiced sacrifice burials (just plain body dumbs). It is possible to find E-V13 of rival Daco-Thracian tribes through this manner. 


As I understand it, the core Thracian zones were almost exclusively cremated, we are lucky the southern Thracian aristocracy adopted Greek style burials as a prestige symbol, which gives us a trail. Roman samples provide the next step in the trail, when locals stop cremating, and E-V13 samples sprout like mushrooms. 


Also of note, Babadag came to a violent end during the Cimmerian/Thracian invasions and later the Greeks colonized the area.
https://antikmuseet.au.dk/fileadmin/...4_04_Avram.pdf

----------


## Riverman

> This is not my expertise, but Babadag did not cremate, I understand that as being distinct from the cremation groups.
> 
> https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/12687


Babadag did cremate in the early stages, when Channelled Ware came in, but they had irregular burials of inhumation, especially sacrificial pits. Something Gva had already, even Suciu de Sus, but more of it. They began then to transition to inhumation over time. The main influences working on Babadag are in my opinion Lapus II-Gva/Gva-Holigrady (East), Coslogeni (fusion of local Carpathians, probably Wietenberg-related and Noua-Sabatinovka, probably Iranian-related Srubna groups or they were the original Thracian speakers, unresolved...) and newly arriving steppe groups which might be considered the beginning of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon (source in Koban). 

Most Gva/Channelled Ware-related groups did primarily transition to inhumation because of these Noua-Coslogeni and Cimmerian/Koban influences. Psenichevo itself was already a later stage, at that point some Eastern Gva-groups being already under pressure and the larger network, which was in my opinion pretty much a unity, began to break up under steppe influence/attacks. 

The most continuity was in Northern Gva, in and around Transcarpathia, in the area which was later the Sanislau Vekerzug group and Kustanovice, which some consider Proto-Dacian. 

As for the Danubian groups, I consider them more Encrusted Pottery related with this WHG-rich and I2-G2 dominated block running from Western Hungary (Encrusted Pottery proper) to EBA Bulgaria/South Romanian Monteoru. 

The cremating pre-Channelled Ware groups were partially in between, but mostly to their North, North East of the Tisza-Danube borderline, with the centre being very clearly Suciu de Sus into Lapus/Berkesz-Demecser into Gva.

The decisive influence for inhumation came mostly from the steppe, not the Greeks. We see that in late Babadag-Psenichevo as well as in Mezocsat in the Tisza area and Babadag later too. Its the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon which spread plus the Noua-Sabatinovka influences which altered their customs imho.

----------


## Hawk

Psenicevo-Babadag, it's true they don't contain cremation burials, yet their material culture totally correlates them with the people who were known as the world's biggest cremation users.

Their Bronze Age predecessors don't even contain burials, just as their third brother culture Insula Banului. The burials of Insula Banului (if i am not wrong) are still contested in Romanian archaeology, there is only 1 or very few burials and those are cremation.

Psenicevo-Babadag pit burials were considered as an exception burials or sacrificial pits, but recent archaeologists have questioned and doubt this, because there is no sign of fatal injuries on the bones to conclude sacrifice. If they are exceptions then where are the main burials? The burials are extremely weird to be honest. Moreover, one Psenicevo-Svilengrad individual in the pit was of high status based on how carefully he was buried.

Personally i would say after Late Bronze Age the cultures or people of Psenicevo and Babadag switched to pit inhumations because cremation was an expensive ritual, and they could no longer afford it maybe because after LBA collapse the many cultures saw dark ages. But, who knows.

----------


## Hawk

I probably have to also slightly correct myself, by lacking burial it meant that they still didn't discover them fully because there is a lot of urn burials in the region.




> Besides some discoveries with pottery similar with the Vârtop type,apparently isolated (see above Căzăneşti – “Săveasca”, Vâlcea County), to thebeginning period of the First Iron Age was attributed a series of sites identified inthe Râmnicu Vâlcea area, from which is distinguished the urn cremation necropolisfrom Râureni. On the tall bank of the river Olt had been dug, by Emil Moscalu, twonecropolises, one of urn cremation attributed to the Early Hallstatt and another,tumular, that belongs to the Ferigile group from the Late Hallstatt. The cremationnecropolis (Râureni I) included 100 individual (urn) tombs, disposed along theriver Olt, each urn containing a great quantity of burned bones. This so-called“urns field” is partially superposed by the tumular necropolis mentioned before.The author of the dig considered that there were two different necropolises:Râureni I, from the beginning of the Iron Age and Râureni II, from the Ferigile period,without an evolutive organic connection between them. About these two necropoliseswere published only short preliminary reports, along with few illustrations. No data areavailable about the exact number of tombs, neither details about their type or theconnection between the earlier tombs and the Ferigile tumuli13.
> 
> https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god4...%20Kapuran.pdf


I also guess biritualism was used on the region depending on the influences, for instance Monterou practiced mostly inhumation burials while the subsequent Dacians unlike Southern Thracians used mostly cremation on tumuli.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

The good news here is Babadag did not fully cremate, plus there is a good chance they practiced sacrificial inhumation. There is a lot of potential in the remains, because even if it was not a fully Thracian derived culture and people, it was essentially under siege by the Thracian horizon. And the samples are bound to have E-V13 and aDNA profiles which would correctly narrow down the original north Thracian profile.

My only question is, are there any DNA samples down the pipeline from this culture waiting to be published?

----------


## Hawk

Babadag is fully Thracian derived, it's the closest culture of those E-V13 we saw in Svilengrad along with Insula Banului the predeccessor culture of so called Bosut-Bassarabi.

Thracians were known to use both cremation and inhumation per records.




> Other historical records, concerning heroic burials of dead people from the Thracian _élite,_ also exist. Herodotus29 wrote that the deceased Thracian nobles were buried by cremation or inhumation in tumuli, after three days of _prothesis_ during which numerous sacrifices were made and funeral feasts were arranged; different contests, including single combats, followed the piling of the tumuli. Later information by Xenophon30 could be added to this description: in 399 B.C., after a battle in Bithynia, the Thracian Odrysae buried their dead comrades, drank a lot of wine and arranged horse-racing in memory of the deceased. In an earlier period – over the late 6th century B.C., in a similar way the inhabitants of the Thracian Chersonesos, following the custom, made sacrifices and arranged horse-races and other athletic games in memory of the Athenian aristocrat Miltiades the elder, who established his rule in the region, being _tyrannos_ of both Athenian colonists and Thracian Dolonkoi31. The tomb-temple of the heroized mythical Greek military leader Protesileos, who died in the Troyan war, was also located in the Thracian Chersonesos – at Elaious; the _adyton_ was surrounded by _témenos,_ while impressive gold and silver phialae, plus other rich offerings, were placed there32. The tomb of Protesileos was even respected with sacrifice by Alexander the Great33 and later it was known as a significant temple34. Another Greek, who received heroic status in Thrace was the Spartan general Brasidas. He died in 422 B.C. and was buried near the agora of Amphipolis, while his tomb was surrounded by a wall and the citizens celebrated Brasidas as a _heros_ and founder through annual sacrifices and contests35. Actually, this particular piece of evidence is not surprizing in the context of the already mentioned records about the tomb of the heroized mythical king Rhesos, located in the region of Amphipolis, and probably some interrelation in these cult practices could be supposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://books.openedition.org/pulg/792?lang=en


To my understanding the Dacians, Mysians used more extensively cremation burials while Southern Thracians were more bi-ritual.

----------


## Riverman

> Babadag is fully Thracian derived, it's the closest culture of those E-V13 we saw in Svilengrad along with Insula Banului the predeccessor culture of so called Bosut-Bassarabi.
> 
> Thracians were known to use both cremation and inhumation per records.
> 
> 
> 
> To my understanding the Dacians, Mysians used more extensively cremation burials while Southern Thracians were more bi-ritual.


Agreed and again I would just add that Babadag shows the transition, from the exclusive cremation burials in Gva-Holigrady to the bi-ritual and more inhumation oriented customs of some Lower Danube and Basarabi groups. The decisive factor seem to be local and especially steppe influences in my opinion, but we also see the internal shift probably. 

In any case, the real question is which group was dominant in Babadag, the Gva-Holigrady people, the Noua-Wietenberg and Coslogeni people, or some unknown factor/group.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Will there be any samples from Babadag, is it underway?

----------


## Riverman

> Will there be any samples from Babadag, is it underway?


Not that I know of. But the upcoming Western Romanian samples are highly important and even older.

----------


## Johane Derite

A recent paper with new findings concerning Brnjica culture and Belegis II Gava pottery that have a lot of relevance to many questions:

LINK: https://www.academia.edu/67870376/TH...HT_OF_NEW_DATA

Pottery and absolute chronology


From the 12th century (possibly as early as the late 13th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.


This new style of pottery derived from the tradition of channel-decorated pottery of the Pannonian Plain, commonly called Belegiš II (or part of the Gava complex in Hungarian literature). 

The development of this style after ca. 1200 BC is called Belegiš II–Gava, to account for minor, but chronologically relevant, developments in identifying features. Belegiš II–Gava is typified by channel decoration, and it is used on biconical urns, bowls with inverted rims, small juglets, carinated cups and other shapes.

...
Importing pottery styles from another region when new settlements are being established in new locations could be explained at a purely local level as rejection of old social systems in
favour of new ones.


However, it appears more likely that migration played a key role. 

Ruppenstein’s “general and rough” principles for archaeological recognition of migration in this same context are salient as they require
1) introduction of a set of cultural novelties,
2) their rapid and widespread appearance, and
3) a clear area of origin where there was older use of the
object types (Ruppenstein 2020: 107). 

In this case, it is clear that cultural conventions from the Pannonian Plain that had been used since ca. 1400 BC were adopted in the Južna 
Morava area at a time of substantial change in both areas around 1200 BC. As archaeology becomes more comfortable with exploring
tangible markers for migration91, the argument that people moved at increased rates within existing networks at times of social stress is a compelling model
in this case for the introduction of Belegiš II–Gava styles.


....

A final note with respect to the distribution of Pannonian channel-decorated pottery is that the *Belegiš II–Gava type also reached the Troy VIIb2 settlement in Anatolia*.

....



Why do we consider the migration model to have been an understandable paradigm? 

Because during a brief window of time, common elements in the pottery styles of these four to five areas emerge. This is not prestige, high-value pottery that
may be considered a trade item, but rather mundane and basic domestic pottery, material which was consumed at a household/family unit level. 

At the same time, we witness changes in settlement patterns with evidence for increased defensibility in some cases and site destructions in others around this same horizon.
Contemporaneous to this, we can also document the spread of burial practices in a north-south direction with flat cremation cemeteries using urns reaching the
north Aegean.

While we do not argue for a mass-migration model, we also cannot consider these particular and deeply embedded changes to be the result of passive diffusion.

It is also clear that we cannot identify any form of core-periphery or high to low culture kind of emulation framework that might justify the adoption of the Belegiš II–Gava and Brnjica styles
beyond the areas in which they were originally developed. 

Change occurred at variable paces and intensities at different settlements and cemeteries, indicating the presence of regular networks of interaction that expanded over time towards the south. Migration may well have driven this expansion, but the cultural impact emerged through the continuance of networks established in this way. 

As a consequence, new ideas/ styles became embedded alongside existing ones for a period, either increasing (Morava) or decreasing (Northern Greece) in prevalence and fidelity (with respect to ‘original’ forms) between 1200 and 1000 BC.

It is plausible to us that pressures arising from theoutward movement of people from the PannonianPlain led to a domino effect of small-scale movementsand associated tensions and conflicts. 

*This may haveextended as far as Troy, where some channel-decorated pottery users settled in the 12th century BC.* 

Thesesame micro-scale pressures and knock-on effects wereargued to be part of the process that pushed groupsfrom the Velika Morava and Južna Morava or the Vardar/Axios basin farther south to the North Aegean(seen in pottery) or even beyond, in smaller numbers(seen in the metalwork).

----------


## Johane Derite

> A recent paper with new findings concerning Brnjica culture and Belegis II Gava pottery that have a lot of relevance to many questions:
> 
> LINK: https://www.academia.edu/67870376/TH...HT_OF_NEW_DATA
> 
> Pottery and absolute chronology
> 
> 
> From the 12th century (possibly as early as the late 13th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
> settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.
> ...


So one possible takeaway is that the Belegis Gava II went south and reached all the way to Troy. On their way they pushed Brnjica south, where those Brnjica people either became proto-Paeonians or proto-Macedonians, while the Belegis Gava II were the Dardani.

----------


## Johane Derite

> A recent paper with new findings concerning Brnjica culture and Belegis II Gava pottery that have a lot of relevance to many questions:
> 
> LINK: https://www.academia.edu/67870376/TH...HT_OF_NEW_DATA
> 
> Pottery and absolute chronology
> 
> 
> From the 12th century (possibly as early as the late 13th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
> settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.
> ...


Also, important reminder that the crook bruzmi really tried to claim that the massive brnjica culture documented in this paper didn't exist. Never let him get away with his lies.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

The Dardanii question is for now still obscure. I'm fairly confident we have identified/isolated the likeness of it's profile, but it needs to be validated. 

I am looking forward to the upcoming Italian paper of 500 samples. I want to see the additional IA Latini profiles. If the single IA Roman Latini sample is a prelude to the others, the Roman Dardanii ancestral myth might carry some kernel of truth. I won't make judgement on a single sample, but the only Roman Latini profile so far shares half of it's components with the Dardanii shifted Illyrians. Theoretically, even the Messapii should show partial Dardanii ancestry. We will see.

----------


## mount123

> Also, important reminder that the crook bruzmi really tried to claim that the massive brnjica culture documented in this paper didn't exist. Never let him get away with his lies.


Can I say I'm surprised? Clearly not.




> the ancestors of the Delmatae weren't in Dalmatia during the BA but in Bosnia (no samples) and the Japodes are likely represented by some of the HRV_EIA J-L283.


Considering the abundance of 87 aDNA J2b-L283 samples of it the overwhelming majority clearly being Bronze and Iron Age samples this statement is just plain stupid. Only "likely some of the J2b-L283" samples because if all J2b-L283 samples then that, according to Maleschreiber, would mean "male fetishization".

Interesting, so the BA-IA samples from Dalmatia according to him are not Dalmatians but BA samples from Bosnia  :Lol:  One clearly notices the stupidity of this statement but what about the double standard in argumentation when it comes to BA-IA transition in Bulgaria?

----------


## Hawk

> So one possible takeaway is that the Belegis Gava II went south and reached all the way to Troy. On their way they pushed Brnjica south, where those Brnjica people either became proto-Paeonians or proto-Macedonians, while the Belegis Gava II were the Dardani.


I think it's reasonable to asume so, even though we must be careful. The Dardanii appearing both in Central Balkans and Anatolia (though they do appear slightly before LBA collapse, since Dardany are mentioned as allies of Hittite Empire against Egyptian Empire at the Battle of Kadesh).

P.S Interesting to note that one of the most prominent Yugoslav archaeologists Milutin Garasanin who wrote quite a lot about Balkan prehistory and laid ground for further research was likely paternally Albanian from Bjelopavlici (From my understanding Garasanin are Bjelopavlici, and Bjelopavlici is uniformly agreed by both Serbs and Albanians that they had an Albanian paternal ancestor from somewhere in Western Kosovo where he fled the region after it fell to Ottomans).

----------


## Johane Derite

> A recent paper with new findings concerning Brnjica culture and Belegis II Gava pottery that have a lot of relevance to many questions:
> 
> LINK: https://www.academia.edu/67870376/TH...HT_OF_NEW_DATA
> 
> Pottery and absolute chronology
> 
> 
> From the 12th century (possibly as early as the late 13th century), a new style of pottery appeared at
> settlements alongside pottery of the Brnjica group.
> ...


Another possible takeaway from this is that some Brnjica survived in its original territory, although becoming a minority to the channeled ware Belegeis Gava II (Thracians proper?), while some other Brnjica moved south into Paeonia and Macedonia pushed by Belegis. In the paper it mentions that the pre-channeled ware Brnjica was in contact with North Agean and Carpathian basin, but not western serbia (and hence western balkans) (this was determined by the type of tin present). This could mean that the Dardani were in Anatolia already at this pre-channeled ware time, and that they have a more recent common brnjica origin with the Paeonians (or macedonians?).

----------


## Riverman

> Another possible takeaway from this is that some Brnjica survived in its original territory, although becoming a minority to the channeled ware Belegeis Gava II (Thracians proper?), while some other Brnjica moved south into Paeonia and Macedonia pushed by Belegis. In the paper it mentions that the pre-channeled ware Brnjica was in contact with North Agean and Carpathian basin, but not western serbia (and hence western balkans) (this was determined by the type of tin present). This could mean that the Dardani were in Anatolia already at this pre-channeled ware time, and that they have a more recent common brnjica origin with the Paeonians (or macedonians?).


I quoted the paper before I think, and while the others are all splitters, this one is more a lumper. The main issue I have with this is not that I don't see the migration obviously, but I rather consider it a two-way pincer movement, one from the West, with the centre of Belegis II-Gva down the Morava and Vardar valleys. Whether they went down the Danube is another issue, but the Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon of Southern Romania-Bulgaria and down to Troy could as well seen as an Eastern migration along Lapus II-Gva -> Holigrady/Babadag and downwards. This would also explain why they differ in the same direction as Babadag with more sacrificial and general inhumation pits and a bi-ritual to inhumation trend on the long run. 
The evidence for a large scale replacement in the West (Belegis II-Gva) is all the more obvious, also because of the sudden large numbers of clearly Carpathian items and weapons. In the East, it is not as well documented, but this may be in part because of a lack of systematic research actually, because especially the cremation burials of the Transitional phase are not as well researched imho.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> The Dardanii question is for now still obscure. I'm fairly confident we have identified/isolated the likeness of it's profile, but it needs to be validated. 
> 
> I am looking forward to the upcoming Italian paper of 500 samples. I want to see the additional IA Latini profiles. If the single IA Roman Latini sample is a prelude to the others, the Roman Dardanii ancestral myth might carry some kernel of truth. I won't make judgement on a single sample, but the only Roman Latini profile so far shares half of it's components with the Dardanii shifted Illyrians. Theoretically, even the Messapii should show partial Dardanii ancestry. We will see.


R. Rocca wrote this in Anthrogenica:



> I strongly suspect that R-Z2103 got to southern Italy via the Balkans and not the Alps. The data points are few, but we have a Daunian sample SGR002, dated to 750-415 calBC which is R-Z2103. As you know, there are several Daunians that are also J2b. Then, *we have only one Iron Age Latin sample with R-Z2103 and no Iron Age Etruscan samples that are R-Z2103*. The Etruscans of course, were more northern than the Latins. Even further north, the only Terramare Culture sample we have is R-L51 > PF7589 and the only Late Bronze Age male we have from Veneto is R-L2. So, I don't think that it is a coincidence that the areas where Bell Beaker is known (Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto) are R-L51 and that R-Z2103 only shows up in areas where Bell Beaker was totally or practically non-existent. This is pretty much the same pattern as the rest of Europe.


The single Roman Latini in G25 happens to be R-Z2103, will be interesting to see if the pattern holds for other EIA Roman samples. But what are the odds that Romans have myth of being partially decent from Dardani of Troy and a R-Z2103 shows up in the only sample, even the aDNA hints a possible link.

----------


## Excine

A "Brnjica culture" as a distinct culture phenomenon really doesn't exist, but don't let that stop anyone (especially fringe conspiracy theorists) from fantasizing about imaginary Macedonians from the central Balkans. If it did, it would be the first culture which is named after a site in Kosova which doesn't even distinctly belong to just this culture. Arianit Buqinca, a Kosovan archaeologist who has written the most extensive work about the Dardanians writes that Bërnicë is simply the expression of the urnfield culture locally and that the roots of this cultural phenomenon should be sought ("l’origine est à chercher au nord plus qu’à l’est"). Macedonians didn't come from the central Balkans, they came from Thessaly and were probably close to Mycenaeans and they spoke Greek as their native language. How Macedonians could speak ancient Greek akin to Mycenaeans but come from the central Balkans obviously doesn't concern some people on eupedia fora.

The "Paeonian question" should include the question "did the Paeonians exist?" For Katicic, they spoke a language close to Illyrian



This would explain why they're close to Illyrians autosomally. Some samples are close to southeast Thracian, so this might indicate that they were a mixed Illyrian-Thracian group. 

People who are complaining about the Delmatae should (for once) do some reading. The Delmatae aren't related to any of the Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia because they weren't anywhere near the coast in the Bronze Age. 

John Wilkes, The Illyrians:

----------


## torzio

> A "Brnjica culture" as a distinct culture phenomenon really doesn't exist, but don't let that stop anyone (especially fringe conspiracy theorists) from fantasizing about imaginary Macedonians from the central Balkans. If it did, it would be the first culture which is named after a site in Kosova which doesn't even distinctly belong to just this culture. Arianit Buqinca, a Kosovan archaeologist who has written the most extensive work about the Dardanians writes that Bërnicë is simply the expression of the urnfield culture locally and that the roots of this cultural phenomenon should be sought ("l’origine est à chercher au nord plus qu’à l’est"). Macedonians didn't come from the central Balkans, they came from Thessaly and were probably close to Mycenaeans and they spoke Greek as their native language. How Macedonians could speak ancient Greek akin to Mycenaeans but come from the central Balkans obviously doesn't concern some people on eupedia fora.
> 
> The "Paeonian question" should include the question "did the Paeonians exist?" For Katicic, they spoke a language close to Illyrian
> 
> 
> 
> This would explain why they're close to Illyrians autosomally. Some samples are close to southeast Thracian, so this might indicate that they were a mixed Illyrian-Thracian group. 
> 
> People who are complaining about the Delmatae should (for once) do some reading. The Delmatae aren't related to any of the Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia because they weren't anywhere near the coast in the Bronze Age. 
> ...



https://www.academia.edu/1057691/The...Paeonian_world


https://www.academia.edu/1337289/The...on_and_Dropion

----------


## mount123

> A "Brnjica culture" as a distinct culture phenomenon really doesn't exist


Scientific papers (recent ones too) have been quoted and shared. Brnjica culture is an archeologically attested culture. Refusing scientific data is another issue in itself.



> People who are complaining about the Delmatae should (for once) do some reading. The Delmatae aren't related to any of the Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia because they weren't anywhere near the coast in the Bronze Age.


We don't just have Bronze Age samples from Dalmatia but also Iron Age samples. The continuity is very much mapped out. Considering the abundance of so far Proto-Illyrian and Illyrian samples the archaeogenetic picture is very clear.

----------


## Johane Derite

> A "Brnjica culture" as a distinct culture phenomenon really doesn't exist, but don't let that stop anyone (especially fringe conspiracy theorists)


Here comes the brain dead zombie bruzmi boot licker and worshipper doubling down. 

This is entirely false, and you have full papers by archaeologists, not fringe conspiracy theorists, that are about this culture. 

From the paper linked above:


"The basin of the Južna Morava, as well as the area west of it, was inhabited in the late Bronze Age by people who made and used a *characteristic pottery style termed the Brnjica group*.

The pottery considered characteristic for this group is *well-defined*, and so we can be *confident in the attribution of the finds to this group.*

Accepting that use of a pottery style was a choice and does not equate to intrinsic identity, that very choice demands that we recognise this *use as participation in a cultural norm*."



Likewise, Brnjica was also not interacting with even Western Serbia, let alone the Western Balkans, and had different use of metals, different mortuary traditions, different pottery traditions, etc:


"A final comment can be made with respect to areas to the west of the Juzna Morava Valley. Pottery of the *Brnjica group has very little in common* with ceramicstyles used at this same time in *western Serbia*. *This indicates a dearth of cultural transmission between these two areas*. These differences are also seen in
mortuary traditions. 

In western Serbia, tumuli with inhumations, cremations or a combination of both can be found at this time. Interestingly, the Sn isotopic signatures of metal finds from western Serbia indicate
that a different source of tin was used there, potentially from the southern slopes of Cer Mountain.77

This difference may further *emphasise the reported low levels of interaction or cultural exchange between groups on the western margin of the valley and those*
*within it.* 

Taking account of the pottery and metalwork together, the evidence indicates that there were clear links already in place connecting societies in the 
*Central Balkans with those in the northern Aegean and the southern Carpathian Basin* during the 15th to 13th centuries BC."



Any honest person can see here that you and Bruzmi are trying to do propaganda, but that you are forced to attempt to say the Brnjica culture doesn't exist shows how desperate you are.

When Brnjica has countless settlements that have been documented, characteristic culture, characteristic use of metal, mortuary traditions, etc. 

You only expose yourselves as the cheap liars that you are. Imagine someone claiming that the Glasinac-Mati culture doesn't exist. 

This also demonstrates clearly that you are not to be trusted, and will be willing to manipulate data and misrepresenting to push a narrative, going so far as to claim a distinct culture that is well established and being studied by archaeologists in the academic literature, doesn't exist... 

Major cope

----------


## Johane Derite

> Here comes the brain dead zombie bruzmi boot licker and worshipper doubling down. 
> 
> This is entirely false, and you have full papers by archaeologists, not fringe conspiracy theorists, that are about this culture. 
> 
> From the paper linked above:
> 
> 
> "The basin of the Južna Morava, as well as the area west of it, was inhabited in the late Bronze Age by people who made and used a *characteristic pottery style termed the Brnjica group*.
> 
> ...


Also, important to point out that the Central Balkan cultures were in contact with the North Aegean and south Carpathian.

----------


## Hawk

Yeah lol, the Official Archaeological Guide of Kosovo fully acknowledges Brnjica Culture, despite that, they call the Brnjica in and around Prishtina as Lower Brnjica Culture, a variant of Brnjica Culture.



https://issuu.com/haemus/docs/archeokosovo


If you have complaints, you might as well address it to the chief archaeologists who probably compiled the lists/guide: Kemajl Luci, Enver Rexha, Luan Gashi, Premtim Alaj, Shafi Gashi.

In and around Hisar, part of Brnjica Culture it's supposed to be the sight of one if not the world's first iron working metallurgy paralleling if not preceding the Hittite iron working metallurgy.

----------


## mount123

> Bërnica e Poshtme actually harbours a Bërnica culture necropolis. There hasn't been much effort for genetic testing by local academics. The main problem is the archeologists since most of them as usual lack affinity towards natural sciences e. g. genetics. Regarding Thracians and V13 there has been one low coverage E1b-L618 sample from Marvinci, N. Macedonia I think (perhaps that is what what you meant). The general archeological link between "Dardania" and Paeonia is Bërnica Culture. Paeonians themselves are turning out to be a pre-Slavic Balkan population which solidly can be considered one of the more patrilineal successors of Yamnaya (next to Hurro-Urartians/Proto-Armenians). They are mainly R1b-Z2103 (especially >CTS1450) with a R1b-PF7562 minority.
> 
> I think that Dardania will have more signals of Thracian patrilineage, in comparison, but also Illyrians that pushed from the West as early as EBA Cetina/Dinaric and as lately as IA Glasinac-Mati, Autariatae come to my mind.


I would like to emphasize and add to my older post here that I-L701 which was found in both Yamnaya and Balkan Yamnaya has now also been found in Bronze Age Northern Mainland Greece. 

See: ID G23, Theopetra (North West Thessaly), Greece, 2335-2140 BC, I-L701>Y5606 
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982222018243

I expect this lineage to be also (perhaps) found in highly likely >CTS1450 dominated Bërnica Culture.

----------


## Hawk

Some insights:




> Until recently, our knowledge of the Brnjica
> cultural group (or cultural group Donja Brnjica
> – Gornja Stra`ava) was based on the research
> results from fifteen or so sites, mainly necropolises.1
> There were no data on settlements and habitations.2
> The total archaeological collection of the Brnjica com-
> munity amounted to less than three hundred objects,
> mostly ceramic vessels.3This cultural group was cha-
> racterized as the final phase, »… of a long evolution to be
> ...





> _The information acquired led to the conclusion
> that the Hisar site represents the entire development of
> the Brnjica cultural group in the Ju`na Morava basin
> and that the basis out of which the Brnjica cultural
> group developed were the cultural elements from the last
> phase of the Vatin cultural group (Mojsinje–Dobra~a
> horizon)–(for instance: goblets and cups with trian-
> gular rim broadening, cannelured bowls and S-profiled
> goblets and one or double handled goblets very similar
> ...


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...cultural_group

----------


## PaleoRevenge

So there is a basis to the Vatin connection to Brnjica that was only hinted, but not explained in the 2021 paper. This makes Vatin a good candidate for R-Z2103, but I do think R-Z2103 was present in the pre-Brnjica urn cultures to begin with. This is more of Vatin retreating toward it's kindred folk and reforming their culture. 

I am assuming Paracin was also related to the two. I envision Begelis decimating Paracin and driving it's remnants to the Danube Delta where they are incorporated into Babadag. If MJ 12 is not a immigrant but a normal aDNA profile, than this is the logical explanation. How else can Skopje I10379 and MJ 12 be so alike while not being Thracian derived in aDNA.

----------


## Excine

@Hawk

You should read what you're posting because nothing justifies your wild claims especially the stuff about the "expansion" of the "Brnjica culture" or the Macedonians from the Central Balkans or the ludicrous "Macedonians and/or Dorians from Brnjica" that Derite was propagating on anthrogenica before the got banned . Alaj published most of the actual excavations in 2019. The Bërnicë site wasn't even properly surveyed until then.

The term "propaganda" applies to the banned people who claim ludicrous theories about Macedonians and Dorians from the central Balkans.

The necropolis (Bërnicë) and the site Trudë date to the transitional era (11th-9th centuries BC until the 7th century BC) No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme. This is what Alaj published about the site.

The supposed "Brnjica pottery" is really just a regional style which was popular at one point during the end of the LBA in the nearby regions and then was just abandoned. It didn't expand with any "invasion" like some here like to fantasize. The most ridiculous thing about is that most "local" finds of this type of pottery are found north and east of Kosova, but not in Kosova itself. 

The motifs of this style belong to the older Middle Bronze Age traditions of the central Balkans in this group of sites (note the term "group" not "culture"; get an archaeology textbook and learn the difference between the two terms in archaeology) 

The source is older than the latest excavations. I'm posting it as an argument for chronology:

The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age pp855:

https://i.ibb.co/4pnLgxJ/strazavagroup.png

So, if someone just said that some sites in the central Balkans continued some traditions which already existed in the MBA without claiming some expansive "culture" which doesn't exist or some connection to Macedonians and Dorians who invaded the south (lol), it would be another argument for local Balkan continuity for any population which lived there. 

The problem starts when people copy fringe Yugoslav nationalist ideas and try to sell them as something else (Macedonians, Dorians, the "non-Illyrian component in the Dardani", "Brnjica invasion" etc etc) 

For all effects and purposes, it would even be reasonable to say that Logkas is an earlier extension of the IE groups of the central Balkans and that maybe the people who lived in the region of Hisar were similar to this group. This is an entirely different argument and context which is debatable, but it's unrelated to everything else which is spammed to death pointlessly.

----------


## Hawk

> @Hawk
> 
> You should read what you're posting because nothing justifies your wild claims especially the stuff about the "expansion" of the "Brnjica culture" or the Macedonians from the Central Balkans or the ludicrous "Macedonians and/or Dorians from Brnjica" that Derite was propagating on anthrogenica before the got banned . Alaj published most of the actual excavations in 2019. The Bërnicë site wasn't even properly surveyed until then.
> 
> The term "propaganda" applies to the banned people who claim ludicrous theories about Macedonians and Dorians from the central Balkans.
> 
> The necropolis (Bërnicë) and the site Trudë date to the transitional era (11th-9th centuries BC until the 7th century BC) No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme. This is what Alaj published about the site.
> 
> The supposed "Brnjica pottery" is really just a regional style which was popular at one point during the end of the LBA in the nearby regions and then was just abandoned. It didn't expand with any "invasion" like some here like to fantasize. The most ridiculous thing about is that most "local" finds of this type of pottery are found north and east of Kosova, but not in Kosova itself. 
> ...


I said there was a Brnjica Culture, not implying anything else. It existed and it's officially supported by both Yugoslav and Albanian archaeologists. 

Funny you say that, the "Yugoslav" guy who laid ground for studies of all these cultures had an Albanian paternal ancestor and similar Z5017 subclade as you.

----------


## Excine

> I said there was a Brnjica Culture, not implying anything else. It existed and it's officially supported by both Yugoslav and Albanian archaeologists. 
> 
> Funny you say that, the "Yugoslav" guy who laid ground for studies of all these cultures had an Albanian paternal ancestor and similar Z5017 subclade as you.



Most of this ancestors were I-Y3120 Serbs, that's not an Albanian despite the parental haplogroup and the ethnicity of his ancestor hundreds of years ago. Besides, it doesn't even matter for research. He could be haplogroup Q and have something useful to provide.

I didn't connect you to the crazy stuff about Macedonians etc. Only Derite and his 7-8 banned socks. I told you why you shouldn't think that this is a culture which expanded etc and why it's not even helpful for someone to support such a thing. It's not even explaining anything as a theory. It's pointless to mention it as related to R-Z2103 because it doesn't require any central Balkan location as it's present in Daunians, southern Illyrians, northern Croatia (EBA), Maros culture (EBA), Northern Macedonia (LBA-IA) and basically everywhere in our parts of the Balkans. So if it's already been found in all of these other groups, it'll be probably be found just north and east of Kosova too.

----------


## mount123

It is remarkable how one can straight up neglect and refuse scientific data on which archeologists over the time have worked and paved the way for present and future research. 

Such an argumentation in which one lumps together archeological complexes, one is not even able to name, would be strongly refuted by any serious academic. Here and there, sure, but what is the archeological context of that "here" and "there". What is the statistics of the occurrence of certain data, what are the implications genetic data provide for already mapped out archeological data etc. 

The problem here lies within the addressee that obviously lacks the archeological foreknowledge and additionally has a bias based on which he makes self confident false statements.

----------


## Johane Derite

> It is remarkable how one can straight up neglect and refuse scientific data on which archeologists over the time have worked and paved the way for present and future research. 
> 
> Such an argumentation in which one lumps together archeological complexes, one is not even able to name, would be strongly refuted by any serious academic. Here and there, sure, but what is the archeological context of that "here" and "there". What is the statistics of the occurrence of certain data, what are the implications genetic data provide for already mapped out archeological data etc. 
> 
> The problem here lies within the addressee that obviously lacks the archeological foreknowledge and additionally has a bias based on which he makes self confident false statements.


It truly is remarkable. 

He is some irrelevant nobody trying to claim the authors of these papers (Barry Molloy is an Irish archaeologist of the Aegean from the University of Dublin, for example) know less than him and are "fringe" as opposed to him (?), and that this culture they are writing about doesn't in fact exist  :Embarassed: . The desperation...

Here are 49 Brnjica sites just in the Morava Basin:




He is trying to downplay the very codified and specific pottery characteristic of this culture, but it is useless, since it's already been established that this was a tight network trading and interacting with each other, with characteristic metalwork, etc.

----------


## Riverman

Brnjica is definitely real and not just recognised by Serbian, but also by e.g. Greek and Bulgarian archaeologists. They seem to have survived and being Northern influenced themselves, but probably they are more related to the later Paeonians than to the E-V13 rich Thracians.

Compare also with e.g. this map: 

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/An...ORE_PHILIP.gif

----------


## mount123

> Brnjica is definitely real and not just recognised by Serbian, but also by e.g. Greek and Bulgarian archaeologists. They seem to have survived and being Northern influenced themselves, but probably they are more related to the later Paeonians than to the E-V13 rich Thracians.
> 
> Compare also with e.g. this map: 
> 
> http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/An...ORE_PHILIP.gif


Yes. Whilst the map of Paleo-Balkan languages, according to which I think was Duridanov, also has some errors I think it is more accurate then the map you've posted in regards to Paeonian presence as they are more widespread then in the map you've linked.

----------


## Riverman

> Yes. Whilst the map of Paleo-Balkan languages, according to which I think was Duridanov, also has some errors I think it is more accurate then the map you've posted in regards to Paeonian presence as they are more widespread then in the map you've linked.


I know its not particularly accurate and represents the period of the their retreat anyway, but nevertheless, you see the strong overlap of the remaining Paeonian core with the Brnjica distribution, and clearly not that of Thracians or Greeks. They might have incorporated some Channelled Ware/Gva-related elements in the process of the LBA-EIA transition, but that's up to debate.

----------


## torzio

> Brnjica is definitely real and not just recognised by Serbian, but also by e.g. Greek and Bulgarian archaeologists. They seem to have survived and being Northern influenced themselves, but probably they are more related to the later Paeonians than to the E-V13 rich Thracians.
> 
> Compare also with e.g. this map: 
> 
> http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/An...ORE_PHILIP.gif



another fake map

we know epirus went from the entrance of the gulf of Corinth in NW Greece to Durres ............confirmed by the Taulantii king who reigned at Lezhe and north of it and Phyrhus of Epirus 

*Lezhë[a] (Albanian: [ˈlɛˈʒə], definite Albanian form: Lezha) is a city in the Republic of Albania and seat of Lezhë County and Lezhë Municipality.

One of the main strongholds of the Labeatai,[2] the earliest of the fortification walls of Lezhë are of typical Illyrian construction and are dated to the late 4th century BC.[3] Lezhë was one of the main centres of the Illyrian kingdom.[4] During the conflicts with Macedon, it was captured by Philip V becoming the Macedonian outlet to the Adriatic Sea.[5] The city was later recovered by the Illyrians. It was subjected to Rome after the Roman-Illyrian wars and the fall of Gentius' realm.[4]*


I do not know why people try to undermine the history of the Epirote all the time....the Greeks and Albanians are both to blame for this

----------


## Hawk

The E-L618 sample from LBA Crete

Distance to:
XAN016

0.02826289
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518

0.03426551
GRC_Mycenaean:I9041

0.03511743
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I7219

0.03519584
GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I15582

0.03566543
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I7221

0.03654680
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20230

0.03661083
GRC_Kastrouli_Anc:I17962

0.03674387
Levant_Ashkelon_IA1:ASH068

0.03691274
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215

0.03717932
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20257

0.03727606
HUN_early_Avar:SZK102

0.03786410
GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA:Kou03

0.03789753
HUN_Avar_Early_Tisza:I18185

0.03851302
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I10945

0.03988562
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19366

0.04051008
HUN_Avar_Early_KÃ¶vegy:I16750

0.04051249
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I7218

0.04079250
GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I15571

0.04081910
BGR_Krepost_N:I0679_d

0.04136443
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b

0.04148442
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I10948

0.04193270
BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20185

0.04259366
ITA_Sicily_Himera_409BCE:I17866

0.04281118
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20233

0.04287054
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20226

0.04299962
MKD_Anc:I7233

0.04316438
GRC_Mycenaean:I9006

0.04375690
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13514

0.04437619
GRC_Mycenaean:I9010

0.04448002
HUN_middlelate_Avar:KK1245

0.04497805
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR137

0.04552189
TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA:I5737

0.04553622
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13506

0.04561191
GRC_Minoan_Lassithi:I0071

0.04592217
BGR_Anc:I19500

0.04603831
BGR_IA:I5769

0.04605006
ITA_Isola_Sacra:R11109

0.04606837
HRV_Zadar_Poliklinika:R3746

0.04616087
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20232

0.04618294
ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1:I7217

0.04624465
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920

0.04632050
SRB_Viminacium:R6756

0.04644224
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20227

0.04686309
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR43

0.04716964
TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc:I20229

0.04722906
BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20184

0.04763457
BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20186

0.04785218
HUN_middle_Avar:ALT224

0.04786554
GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577

0.04792241
ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C:I15623





Target: XAN016
Distance: 2.0311% / 0.02031137

34.8
TUR_Marmara_Mentese_N



14.6
BGR_Yabalkovo_N



14.2
TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_N



13.2
ARM_Aknashen_N



12.0
Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya



5.2
ARM_Masis_Blur_N



2.4
Mazandaran_Golestan_10KYA



1.2
MNE_Vrbicka_N



1.2
West_Africa_10KYA



0.6
South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA



0.4
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N



0.2
Sahul_Continent_10KYA





Target: XAN016
Distance: 1.9565% / 0.01956492

61.0
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N



14.8
Poland



10.2
Steppe



10.0
GEO_CHG



2.6
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N



1.4
ZAF_400BP





Using this model:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post655670


He prefers Aegean Neolithic over Carpathian, Bulgarian, West Balkans.


Target: XAN016
Distance: 2.5655% / 0.02565534

59.8
Aegean_Neolithic



27.4
West_Asian



8.8
Yamnaya



4.0
Baltic




Worth noting that he is of a parallel E-L618 branch not ancestral to E-V13. This assuming if the SNP calls are correct and the reading was done correctly.

----------


## Hawk

Well, i jumped into conclusions, it looks like XAN040, XAN17 and the E-L618 XAN016 prefer HUN_Neolithic over others. No traces of ALB, SRB, MKD Neolithic.

It's like these three samples are mostly HUN_Neolithic + West Asian + Yamnaya and other in smaller percentages unlike the other samples which have elevated GRC_Neolithic, MNE and ALB and BGR Neolithic.

Would be good to see the XAN040 Y-DNA, since this is the sample with the most leaning toward HUN_Neolithic, it's like 50% HUN_Neolithic while E-L618 is approximately ~40% HUN_Neolithic-like. Percentages from G25 shouldn't be taken too literal, it's just general leaning. They shouldn't be interpreted literally.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

I would wait until we get real G25 values, sims are sims.

----------


## Hawk

> I would wait until we get real G25 values, sims are sims.


These don't look like sim to me?!

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post899823

Perhaps you can play around with the coordinates as well.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Awesome, Xan030 is as I expected, an actual BA collapse Dorian invader. 100% match with the MKD Ohrid Group.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> These don't look like sim to me?!
> 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post899823
> 
> Perhaps you can play around with the coordinates as well.


Xan-16 is looking Thracian(half Thracian, half Aegean).

IA model vs BA model, notice the better fit with IA.

----------


## Hawk

Yeah, also notice the HUN Bronze Age, i don't think it's coincidence. Eastern Hungary, Northern Serbia and Western Romania triangle looks more and more probable.

----------


## Hawk

Yeah, also notice the HUN Bronze Age, i don't think it's coincidence. Eastern Hungary, Northern Serbia and Western Romania triangle looks more and more probable.

Also, what is the label X_ME?

----------


## mount123

@Riverman @PaleoRevenge

Very correct.

Yamnaya - Balkan Yamnaya - EBA Theopetra like (Balkan Yamnaya derived) - Helladic MBA Logkas like - Mycenaean Era

The pathway of Proto-Greek R1b-PF7562 and I-L701 in Greece can be attributed to the aforementioned cultural complexes and their respective time frames and, as I said before, refusing scientific data is another issue in itself. There is some other "R1b" to be analyzed in this recent paper that is highly likely to be PF7562 too!

ID I14689
2663-2472 BCE 
Balkan Yamnaya_EBA, Çinamak, Albania
R1b-PF7562?
L23-

ID G23 
2335–2140 BCE
EBA_Theopetra, North West Thessaly Greece
I-L701



ID I13518
1200-1070 BCE
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA, Pylos, Greece
R1b-PF7562>PF7563



ID I13506
1200-1070 BCE
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA, Pylos, Greece
R1b-PF7562>PF7563


ID I19364
1200-1070 BCE
GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA, Pylos, Greece
R1b-PF7562?
L23-

ID I10377
700-500 BCE
MKD_Anc, Post Brnjica, Bucinci-Skopje, North Macedonia
R1b-PF7562?
L23-

ID I14688
450 BCE
ALB_Çinamak_Anc, Post Brnjica, Çinamak, Albania
R1b-PF7562>PF7563





Disclaimer: not 100% sure on the L23- read for the Bucinci sample.




> If he had a profile similar to Mycenaeans, it would be very plausible to consider this R-PF7562* as descended from Proto-Greeks
> ...
> I don't think that he's the descendant of Proto-Greeks but that he rather came quite recently from somewhere in the Balkans.


This is a false statement as the Mycenaean R1b-PF7562 samples from Pylos have a very classic Mycenaean auDNA profile and there is absolutely nothing foreign about it. Just as there is nothing „foreign“ or unusual about XAN030 being derived from EBA Theopetra like Proto-Greeks. He plots *east* of the Mygdalia samples and South East of North Western positioned EBA Cetina.

*Distance to:*
*XAN030*

3.22450734
74.00% G23_Theopetra_Aegean_2335–2140_calBCE + 26.00%GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13531 

3.39644892
68.40% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 31.60% GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13531 

3.61728891
67.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 32.40% GRC_Anc_lc:I17960 

3.69196122
72.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 27.40% APO043

3.73885255
72.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 27.40% APO037

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Yeah, also notice the HUN Bronze Age, i don't think it's coincidence. Eastern Hungary, Northern Serbia and Western Romania triangle looks more and more probable.
> 
> Also, what is the label X_ME?


I've created a really good list of what I labeled ME ancestry, with zero Yamnaya/Corded mixture. Some people would not like it as they want to treat East Med as a real profile, but really it is just transitional. What this does, it prevents the calc from picking the most ME shifted group(Thracians, Myceneans) as ancestry component as a shortcut, but will actually combine various IE groups with ME groups to get to point A.

----------


## kingjohn

*XAN016* was uploaded to theytree
https://www.theytree.com/sample/5bff...f7bd5c4ae.html

----------


## Riverman

> *XAN016* was uploaded to theytree
> https://www.theytree.com/sample/5bff...f7bd5c4ae.html


He is average/above average steppe for the Chania sample, but has also average Iranian ancestry: 


On theytree he forms his own branch E-BY6578, which they gave a TMRCA which is practically the same as for E-V13, 4.900 BP. 

That kind of makes it a much less successful brother clade of E-V13.

----------


## kingjohn

He is derived from parellel branch to e-v13
E-CTS10912
https://www.theytree.com/tree/E-CTS10912
*
That also include BAS025
Bas025 is la- bastida bronze age southeast iberia* 
This branch is cool  :Cool V: 
So now do you think *XAN016* was a *minoan* ?

----------


## PaleoRevenge

I don't think he is related to Thracians. Too bad we don't have the dates yet.

----------


## Riverman

> He is derived from parellel branch to e-v13
> E-CTS10912
> https://www.theytree.com/tree/E-CTS10912
> *
> That also include BAS025
> Bas025 is la- bastida bronze age southeast iberia* 
> This branch is cool 
> So now do you think *XAN016* was a *minoan* ?


While its possible, I rather think it came down with Mycenaean Greeks/Carpatho-Balkan people from around Romania-Moldova-Ukraine-Bulgaria. Basically the area of Tripolye-Cucuteni/Carpatho-Danubian sphere. There are indeed a couple of C carriers as well which might represent some local elements from around that, which came with the R1b core for Proto-Greeks, from the steppe-Neolithic transitional zone. Would be my guess at the moment.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> @Riverman @PaleoRevenge
> 
> Very correct.
> 
> Yamnaya - Balkan Yamnaya - EBA Theopetra like (Balkan Yamnaya derived) - Helladic MBA Logkas like - Mycenaean Era
> 
> The pathway of Proto-Greek R1b-PF7562 and I-L701 in Greece can be attributed to the aforementioned cultural complexes and their respective time frames and, as I said before, refusing scientific data is another issue in itself. There is some other "R1b" to be analyzed in this recent paper that is highly likely to be PF7562 too!
> 
> ID I14689
> ...



It's becoming clear that much of Albania was initially populated by northern Greek groups and Phrygians. I can't imagine Epirot samples to be much different from MKD Ohrid and the alleged mdv sample from Albania.




Same model, but without MENA proxies in the model, the Xan sample is half northerner and half Mycenean derived. Xan051, looks 1/3 Illyrian.




And, there is also R1b-Z2103 with it's own profile, and represents it's own group(Kosovo through Belgrade), which I think it is best represented by Cimmerian MJ12 (the most neutral profile of it's kind we have for now). Notice that the Shkreli sample is largely in aDNA of this profile. Later Illyrians never show such high admixture, even BA Illyrians are not prone to having this mixture, but individuals in BA that do have it, have it in a higher ratio than the IA samples. BA relations were more relaxed in LBA than in IA which seem more hostile.





Two very interesting samples that don't look it right away is Viminacium R3931, he is actually two thirds Germanic-east Euro mix, notice his Balkan IA portion is entirely Cimmerian MJ 12.
The other fellow is Naisius R6769, he is actually half Middle Eastern and half local. Again pay attention to his Balkan half. Yes E-V13 seems most represented in this profile, but I still think it is the aDNA of the central Balkan group. Otherwise, how else do you explain the Alb MBA fellow and some of the Daunians varrying a portion of this ancestery.

----------


## mount123

You are putting too much definite trust in overfitting percentages. MBA_Shkrel plots to the North West of aforementioned non-Illyrian sample. Though "picking up" or "aquiring" auDNA from before present or/and neighbouring pops, generally mobility leading to more diversity in e.g. BA-IA transition and further is something not off the charts of course.

As for ancient "Epirotes" probably being very similar to Paeonians/Phrygians and G23_Theopetra/MiddleHelladic-like Proto-Greeks, I agree. Such results in aDNA records would not surprise me and seem rather likely.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Over fitting it would be if it was picking all sorts of combinations. I am overfeeding its ME options(though respecting the timeline).

This pattern is also detectable using the Neolithic model. This Dardanii mixture was around in LBA, and if Matzinger is correct, they had intruded in the area south of Shkodra (he argues Buna river is Messapii origin). The Shkreli sample is the only Illyrian that scores so high in MJ 12, and it points to this group living near it, at the time. We know that overtime, Cetina derived groups bullied this group away, a fate shared by the nearby R-PF7562 Greeks.

----------


## mount123

> Besides the Mygdalia series, there are 3 other individuals that are autosomally Illyrian derived, though pretty much all have admixed with the locals.


I moved your post to this more appropriate thread. I stand by what I have written before. XAN051 for instance doesn’t seem like differing too much from autosomally close XAN030. These plot *east* of the mixed heritage Mygdalia samples. A G23_Theopetra/MBA_Helladic source is the more plausible scenario. MYG004 at best has some minor admix and this can be also seen by his mostly "local" auDNA and parental markers.

*Distance to:*
*XAN051_K12b_33.58%coverage*

3.49477328
65.40% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 34.60% Helladic_Manika_EBA:Mik15:Clemente_2021

3.74279307
50.00% GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA + 50.00% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021

4.00919140
40.80% Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017 + 59.20% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021


*Distance to:*
*XAN030_K12b*

3.22450734
74.00% G23_Theopetra_Aegean_2335–2140_calBCE + 26.00% GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13531

3.39644892
68.40% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 31.60% GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13531

3.61728891
67.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 32.40% GRC_Anc_lc:I17960

3.69196122
72.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 27.40% APO043_17.92%cov

3.73885255
72.60% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 27.40% APO037_16.02%cov



Could of course also be something like BA MKD Paeonian/Phrygian derived groups.

----------


## Hawk

I still don't get it how R1b-PF7562 keeps showing up more frequently than R1b-Z2103 in ancient Greece.

----------


## Riverman

> I still don't get it how R1b-PF7562 keeps showing up more frequently than R1b-Z2103 in ancient Greece.


They discuss the exact position of the sample, but yeah, still. It will make more sense, most likely, once we see the actual Proto-Greek population somewhere around Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova most likely. I guess the Proto-Greeks were pretty much in the same position as the later Southern Thracians and autosomally both received from the MBA-LBA locals a strong input, which pulled them South.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I still don't get it how R1b-PF7562 keeps showing up more frequently than R1b-Z2103 in ancient Greece.


In LBA it probably had a more northern and central Balkan position/concentration than PF7562. R1b-PF7562/3 is showing connection with Albania as their base camp. The miss-dated mdv sample from Korca, the EBA sample, the lone Cinamak and the Chania sample showing origins from lake Ohrid area. 

And this inscription from Pylos where R1b-PF7562/3 has been found with Myceneans.





> http://www.peiraeuspubliclibrary.com...mycenaean.html
> *Enkhelyawon* -- Possibly the name of wanax or king of Pylos 
> 
> That could point to either
> 1) an Illyrian related element among the (or some) Mycenaeans
> 2) a Mycenean related origin of at least some Illyrians or just the Enchelei in particular
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41957-Who-were-the-people-of-Trebeniste-Culture?p=633839&viewfull=1#post633839



The Trebeniste pyre custom. It's all pointing to R1b-PF7562/3 being part of ancient Greeks and Phrygians. It is a pre-Illyrian layer.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I moved your post to this more appropriate thread. I stand by what I have written before. XAN051 for instance doesn’t seem like differing too much from autosomally close XAN030. These plot *east* of the mixed heritage Mygdalia samples. A G23_Theopetra/MBA_Helladic source is the more plausible scenario. MYG004 at best has some minor admix and this can be also seen by his mostly "local" auDNA and parental markers.
> 
> *Distance to:*
> *XAN051_K12b_33.58%coverage*
> 
> 3.49477328
> 65.40% Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021 + 34.60% Helladic_Manika_EBA:Mik15:Clemente_2021
> 
> 3.74279307
> ...


The model is consistent in picking up a Illyrian component for XAN051. Here is the IA version. I think he is half Illyrian, half local. His Illyrian side might be through his maternal aDNA, if that' the case he should be LBA, if he is BA collapse, than he is a invader.

I kept Cetina and MNE LBA to make a point. Because normally samples prefer newer averages vs older. The fact that BA averages work so well for I13834 and XAN051 is because they are older than IA and their northern admixture is first generational, not 2nd or 3rd, 4th.... etc...

----------


## Hawk

I disagree with the opinion that E-V13 and Thracians were local Chalcolithic/Neolithic survivors from Bulgaria. I am not completely taking off this option, it might be right but i just don't see it how E-V13 was there down and just popping out among Thracians out of nowhere.

Archaeological records are very clear, Bulgarian archaeological chronology is a bit too confusing, but Hungarian and Romanian ones are a bit more coincise and bold on their statements. Svilengrad samples were Balkan-Carpathian/Balkan-Danubian migrants. From where exactly it's up to debate. If these specific people as we believe the material culture of subsequent Iron Age cultures indicate, unfortunately practiced cremation to a high degree and skews our certainty.

I don't know if Gava and Gava-related cousin cultures from Southern Carpathians (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului), their rise in prominence during LBA and LBA rise of E-V13 is too good to be true, but it does have a correlation at this point.

----------


## Riverman

> I disagree with the opinion that E-V13 and Thracians were local Chalcolithic/Neolithic survivors from Bulgaria. I am not completely taking off this option, it might be right but i just don't see it how E-V13 was there down and just popping out among Thracians out of nowhere.
> 
> Archaeological records are very clear, Bulgarian archaeological chronology is a bit too confusing, but Hungarian and Romanian ones are a bit more coincise and bold on their statements. Svilengrad samples were Balkan-Carpathian/Balkan-Danubian migrants. From where exactly it's up to debate. If these specific people as we believe the material culture of subsequent Iron Age cultures indicate, unfortunately practiced cremation to a high degree and skews our certainty.
> 
> I don't know if Gava and Gava-related cousin cultures from Southern Carpathians (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului), their rise in prominence during LBA and LBA rise of E-V13 is too good to be true, but it does have a correlation at this point.


Yes. And the main contender is Noua-Coslogeni, which fused with Wietenberg, Monteoru and related groups, giving the second part, after Gva-related Channelled Ware, to early Babadag and Psenichevo. So the contender is the direct Western neighbour of Suciu de Sus into Gva, and still not a group to the South in very South Eastern Bulgaria. And lineages barely surviving, and more can't be expected from that part of the world in that turbulent times, can't expand and multiply that radically in the MBA-LBA. Like J-L283 was likely significantly smaller in that time frame, yet look how much territory they covered. As did other major Bronze Age European haplogroups. But E-V13 should be squeezed into some small area of the Central or very South Eastern Balkans, which got hit again and again by foreign invasions? That just doesn't work out. You would have to stockpile them in some valleys for making that happen...

----------


## mount123

> I kept Cetina and MNE LBA to make a point. Because normally samples prefer newer averages vs older. The fact that BA averages work so well for I13834 and XAN051 is because they are older than IA and their northern admixture is first generational, not 2nd or 3rd, 4th.... etc...


As I said, I disagree as he plots way to the east. As for the (Proto-)Illyrians MNE_LBA and ALB_MBA_Shkrel having very likely acquired autosomal admixture from a BA-IA non-Illyrian, probably Catacomb and later Paeonian_IA/MKD_Anc_Ulanci(Paracin, Brnjica) derived groups, I surely agree.

What is rather interesting to note is that the archeological time frame of Montenegro Late Bronze Age can be both considered Dinaric (in itself late phase Cetina) and very late Dinaric *but also very importantly early Glasinac-Mati*.

I am seeing a lot of misinformation spam like posts on the other forum made by that Wikipedia Maleschreiber hence I wanted to add this to my post. Imagine the effort it takes writing such long misinformation mishmash, must have a lot of free time on his hands.

----------


## mount123

> I disagree with the opinion that E-V13 and Thracians were local Chalcolithic/Neolithic survivors from Bulgaria. *I am not completely taking off this option, it might be right but i just don't see it how E-V13 was there down and just popping out among Thracians out of nowhere.*
> 
> Archaeological records are very clear, Bulgarian archaeological chronology is a bit too confusing, but Hungarian and Romanian ones are a bit more coincise and bold on their statements. *Svilengrad samples were Balkan-Carpathian/Balkan-Danubian migrants. From where exactly it's up to debate.* If these specific people as we believe the material culture of subsequent Iron Age cultures indicate, unfortunately practiced cremation to a high degree and skews our certainty.
> 
> *I don't know if Gava and Gava-related cousin cultures from Southern Carpathians (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului), their rise in prominence during LBA and LBA rise of E-V13 is too good to be true, but it does have a correlation at this point.*


Agreed. Are there enough origin location proposals that would make a consensus or forming a likelihood possible or is it still some sort of "enigma" similar to the (pre-)EBA Cetina situation?

----------


## Hawk

> Agreed. Are there enough origin location proposals that would make a consensus or forming a likelihood possible or is it still some sort of "enigma" similar to the (pre-)EBA Cetina situation?


From MBA-LBA it's that horizon in between Balkan and Carpathians and Lower Danube/Danubian Delta, prior to that, completely unknown. Perhaps always around there. I might take a guess Vinca-Turdas, Lengyel-Sopot or Starcevo. or even the so called Karanovo Culture.

Before, EBA, in archaeological context it gets harder to pinpoint origins for any culture. More unknown variables involved.

----------


## Riverman

> From MBA-LBA it's that horizon in between Balkan and Carpathians and Lower Danube/Danubian Delta, prior to that, completely unknown. Perhaps always around there. I might take a guess Vinca-Turdas, Lengyel-Sopot or Starcevo. or even the so called Karanovo Culture.
> 
> Before, EBA, in archaeological context it gets harder to pinpoint origins for any culture. More unknown variables involved.


Crucial for many of these groups, from Suciu de Sus down to Verbicoara-Tei is the EBA Cotofeni horizon, which then evolved into Mak and Nyirseg, as well as other related groups of the Carpathian basin. E-V13 starts basically around the time of Cotofeni, before that we have the gap from the first E-V13 to the modern main clade and all its subclades. At the time of Cotofeni we're really talking about one lineage, possibly even just one individual. So even if E-L618, early E-V13 was just a tiny, tiny minority, one individual could have been enough. 
After that we see a steady growth and sudden increase around the MBA, with an enormous peak in the LBA-EIA transition (1.300-800 BC/especially 1.200-1.100 BC). That's the Gva/Channelled Ware timing.

----------


## Hawk

> Crucial for many of these groups, from Suciu de Sus down to Verbicoara-Tei is the EBA Cotofeni horizon, which then evolved into Mak� and Nyirseg, as well as other related groups of the Carpathian basin. E-V13 starts basically around the time of Cotofeni, before that we have the gap from the first E-V13 to the modern main clade and all its subclades. At the time of Cotofeni we're really talking about one lineage, possibly even just one individual. So even if E-L618, early E-V13 was just a tiny, tiny minority, one individual could have been enough. 
> After that we see a steady growth and sudden increase around the MBA, with an enormous peak in the LBA-EIA transition (1.300-800 BC/especially 1.200-1.100 BC). That's the G�va/Channelled Ware timing.


Happy New 2023 to you and others in the thread.

The problem with you Riverman is that you are focused with Gava solely. Gava is very likely to show E-V13, but that wasn't the vector of all E-V13. As Gabor Vekony states the trio (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului) are the Southern Carpathian cousin cultures of Gava not descended from them. I cannot pinpoint what was involved on the creation of these cultures, but i am assuming Tei and Verbicoara(?) and subsequently Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Vatin-like minus Encrusted Pottery people who likely left little to none mark on them genetically.

----------


## Riverman

> Happy New 2023 to you and others in the thread.
> 
> The problem with you Riverman is that you are focused with Gava solely. Gava is very likely to show E-V13, but that wasn't the vector of all E-V13. As Gabor Vekony states the trio (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului) are the Southern Carpathian cousin cultures of Gava not descended from them. I cannot pinpoint what was involved on the creation of these cultures, but i am assuming Tei and Verbicoara(?) and subsequently Grla-Mara/Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Vatin-like minus Encrusted Pottery people who likely left little to none mark on them genetically.


Happy New Year!

Verbicoara is possible, a lot is possible, but some rhings are impossible, because of the phylogeny we can deduce from moderns.
Like the vast majority, the more important clades lived together up to the LBA-EIA transition and were therefore united in one population and culture.
So I can't say it for all of E-V13, but the bulk must be sought in one particular group for which Suciu de Sus-Lapus into Gva is just the prime candidate.
Only a direct neighbour which fused early with the prime group can be considered and earlier branching events which make up a minority of the modern survivors.

Therefore if Gava wouldn't be it, another in the MBA-LBA radically expanding group must be identified in correct position which was the source of Channelled Ware into Stamped pottery.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Alright, I am going to start the new year with a summary of my current understanding, with a special focus on the central Balkan group. I think this year will be massive in terms of data releases. I read something interesting on AG, posted almost two years ago(March 2021), by some rrenjet board member.




> Due to being correct with the people working on these project cant say much more. We will help them latter do a proper comparison with our database at Rrenjet.com as is the largest for albanians and as many of our samples are not in Yfull.
> *but the current batch was north. PF7562 EBA and J2b mid to late bronze.*
> *The second batch will be more from south albania and will have a range of 1,400-700 BC.*
> *Next year will be even more samples. close to 100 may be. It will take some time as covid has slowed things down.*
> I truly hope the second batch will show at least some E-V13 Iron Age so we can give some more structure to this E-v13 debate by having a clearer timeline of their presence in west balkans.
> At the moment I tend to agree with the overall logic presented by Riverman a few posts above. Of course we should keep an open mind if ancient dna provides new windows of interpretations.
> As i said earlier just a bit more patience. Albania is completely empty now from ancient dna so filling even some of this space should have a significant effect in understanding the path of some these haplos and specifically for E-V13 that seems to still have wide points of view.
> 
> 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=757415&viewfull=1#post757415


This is how I am understanding and reconstructing the events described. 
1) The first batch, which the Southern Arc team was comparing with rrenjet database was clearly the BA batch (Shkreli I8471 and Cinamak I14689), (this event occurred two years ago).
2) The 2nd batch was supposed to be from 1,400 - 700 B.C. (Cinamak and Barc) but it turned out the Korca samples were mostly contaminated with gypsies (they wuz da real kangs). We did get one LBA sample that will be one day redated and it turned out to be PF7563 (this batch was not yet evaluated with rrenjet as of March 2021)
3) He claims there is more down the pipeline, 100 additional Alb samples, which I'm going to assume will be part of the next southern Arc series and were likely evaluated in 2022.

If E-V13 was found with this later larger batch, I think we would have heard some bragging and nagging by now from the moles and their fan girls.

This is a summary of my current understanding of the LBA-IA Balkans.

1) Illyrians are a west Balkan group dominated by J2b. They are associated Cetina, and later with Glasinac culture and their derivatives. In BA they had not properly expanded into Mat valley, even if there were some Cetina colonies in central Albania.
2) South Albania in LBA was dominated by matt-painted culture, and the leading haplogroup was PF5762-3 and perhaps Z2103 as well. In what way they were related to northern Greek(Doric) groups is yet to be revealed, because we have zero samples from northern Greece. Matt-painted will show relation with Messapii, which some scholars believe were different from Peucuti and Dauni. 
3) The so called Messapii will have their own regional characteristics, with the actual Messappi being high on PF5763 and Z2103, and the northern zone having J2b-L283 inclinations. Messappi are linked with matt-painted culture which is not Cetina or Cetina derived. There are Cetina sites in the area of Dauni. I also believe post LBA, Illyrian domination, expansion and gene-flow would have continued into the IA, until the Greeks broke their naval hegemony. 
4) I think Vatin group is the parent group of Albanian Z2103. Initially this was only a intuition when Hawk asked me of my opinion, but now I see Serbian archeologists think it played a leading role in the formation of Brnjica culture. Vatin was overcome by Urnfield culture and it fled south where it's elements formed Bernjica culture (and possibly Paracin, though there is not much info on this culture, an assumption on my part). 
-Elements of Vatin also flee into southern Albania and merge with the local matt-painted culture, perhaps it this through this impulse that the matt-painted Messapi are linked to modern Albanian.
-Another branch of Vatin found itself in eastern Bosnia where it fused with the early inland Illyrians, whether this is a dead-end branch or not, remains to be seen if Z2103 emerges with north-eastern Illyrians.
-Brnjica flourished and grew fat before BA collapse, however the channel ware folks invade and devastate Brnjica. Many of it's member's flee south and form the Paeoni tribes. How much did these Paeoni mix with the previous natives, and the channel ware people remains to be seen.
-Brnjica is not entirely eliminated, elements of it survive in it's historical region and they reemerge in IA, though under heavy influence and cultural ties with the Daco-Thracian world. It does look like the pre-Glasinac Dardani where a hybrid people of E-V13 and Z2103.
-Glasinac expands east in the 8th-7th century BC. Their expansion meets stiff resistence and fails to penetrate beyond Ibar-Metohija line.
-Some Serbian archeologists have coined a term for non-Glasinac Dardani, Balevac group. I do not know if the Dardani mentioned by Greeks as a kingdom, includes both the Glasinac and Brnjica-channel ware dervied groups or it is a tribal designation solely based on one of the groups.
- Johane brought up the low tumuli dented ware. There is not much info on this group, other than they came from the east and Danubian region. Without knowing anything about this culture, they sound like Scytho-Thracians or Thraco-Cimmerians based on the timeline. If so, they were a flash flood kind of event, and would have dissolved into the locals pretty fast.
5) North of the Dardani is a massive channel ware derived series of cultures that belong to the Daco-Thracian zone (Zlot group and Bosut group). They too might carry some Vatin-Brnjica substrate, but the core of this genetic legacy remains with Brnjica derived groups. 
6) Trebenishte group represents the western most group of the Macedonian tribes and so far have yielded J2a.

----------


## Riverman

I share most of what you have expressed and am just waiting for the confirmation by ancient DNA.
There could be some deviation in reality, but it won't change the big picture in the Iron Age.

----------


## Hawk

Considering Vatin-s affiliations i find it hard to believe it was R1b-Z2103 solely. But, i am still open to any interpretation.

Brnjica was not descended from Vatin, there was some Vatin influences, and the funny thing is it was via the channeling decorations specific to Vatin which was noticed in Brnjica. Even Gava is supposed to have been influenced by some Vatin colonizers from south. But, they are to the level of speculations.

----------


## mount123

A Happy New Year from me too to you all. Ju uroj një vit të mbarë!

2023 aDNA from the Balkans better finally yield prolific J2b-L283>Y21045. My guess still would be during BA a more widespread area, probably Herzegovina, South West Serbia, Northern Montenegro and Kosovo, parts of Northern Albania (possible if those J2b-L283>Z1297>Z1295 did not own whole Malësia  :Lol: ). Then onwards probably rapid expansion into further Central Balkans and Kosovo. Autariatae & Ardiaei would nicely fit the bill.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Considering Vatin-s affiliations i find it hard to believe it was R1b-Z2103 solely. But, i am still open to any interpretation.
> 
> Brnjica was not descended from Vatin, there was some Vatin influences, and the funny thing is it was via the channeling decorations specific to Vatin which was noticed in Brnjica. Even Gava is supposed to have been influenced by some Vatin colonizers from south. But, they are to the level of speculations.


Hawk can you confirm the summary of this paper? The main content is in Serbian Cyrillic, I tried through google translate. The author seems quite confident that Vatin played a big role in Brnjica, Paracin and even partially contributed (though not a leading role) to north Aegean groups like matt-painted.




> This paper deals with the appearance and development of particular ceramic forms that were prevalent on the wider territory from the lower Danube to the northern shores of the Aegean sea during the middle and Late Bronze Age. These forms relate to globular beakers, pear shaped vessels with everted rims with arch shaped handles, cups with handles with plastic applications on their upper surface, etc. Particular attention is devoted to the phenomenon of globular beakers of the LBA in the valleys of Varder, Mesta and Struma rivers.* All information collected primarily through analysis of stylistic-typological characteristics of ceramics of the middle and Late Bronze Age - that took into account ritual burials, layout of settlements, trade routes and climactic conditions during that period - points to population movements from the north to the south already by the LBA, i.e. in 15th century BC. These movements contributed to the creation of particular cultural groups in the LBA in the central Balkans, such as the Brnjica cultural group.* However, these movements cannot be clearly linked to the so-called Aegean Migration, and for this reason their character and chronology are subject to debate. Ultimately it can be concluded that beakers of the Zimnicea -Cherkovna-Plovdiv type appeared in the late Bronze Age in the Vlasine depression and the Danube valley through the evolution of beaker forms of cultural groups of earlier periods. Almost contemporaneously, during LBA, a variant of this ceramic form, richly ornamented (mostly with spirals) and similar in manner to the cultural group Dubovac-Žuto Brdo-Grla Mare- Krna, appeared in the LBA culture in northern Greece. Clearly this stylistic mannerism, with spirals as characteristic elements, spread relatively quickly through successive migrations in the period of 15th-14th century BC, toward the south of the Balkan Peninsula, thus covering the wider territory from the southern tip of the Carpathian mountains down to the northern shores of the Aegean Sea. *Participants in those migrations are in fact representatives of cultural groups that were created in the northern Balkan Peninsula during the 16th and 15th centuries BC through the breakdown of Vatic culture. As the result of pressures from the north and north-west they headed south, contributing to the creation and development of cultural groups on the territory of the central Balkans.* The final destination of the migrations were the valleys of the Mesta, Struma and Vardar rivers where, starting in the 15th century BC, a noticeable foreign cultural influence can be felt that became most pronounced during 14th century BC. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 177020: Arheologija Srbije: kulturni idenitet, integracioni faktori, tehnološki procesi i uloga centralnog Balkana u razvoju evropske praistorije]
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ate_bronze_age
> 
> https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/920...d1432990fb6cho



BTW keep in mind, R-Z2103 was quite common in EBA Mokrin culture. I see Vatin as a consolidated version of this subgroup(R-Z2103) that carved out it's own habitat for a time, until it was pushed southward. Vatin also occupied one of the best real estate in Europe, and must have had a good population density. The man power was there, to have the ability to overcome the regions south of it once it was dislodged from northern Serbia.

I am focusing on the leading haplogroup for each culture block. It's a impossible task to figure out what minor haplgroups were also participants in a given group, ancient samples can reveal that.

This year it is known that we will see the Italian pre-Roman samples(about 500) released. Maybe the west Romanian as well. And hopefully the Danubian frontier study. I hope we also see the Greek study as well, we badly need IA Greek samples, the BA and neolithic samples are becoming redundant.
I don't think the 3rd Alb batch is for 2023, but for 2024. I do think the samples have already been processed, but the results are still being digested and the literature is still being typed and not yet in peer review.

----------


## torzio

> Alright, I am going to start the new year with a summary of my current understanding, with a special focus on the central Balkan group. I think this year will be massive in terms of data releases. I read something interesting on AG, posted almost two years ago(March 2021), by some rrenjet board member.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Illyrians are a west Balkan group dominated by J2b. They are associated Cetina, and later with Glasinac culture and their derivatives. In BA they had not properly expanded into Mat valley, even if there were some Cetina colonies in central Albania.
> 2) South Albania in LBA was dominated by matt-painted culture, and the leading haplogroup was PF5762-3 and perhaps Z2103 as well. In what way they were related to northern Greek(Doric) groups is yet to be revealed, because we have zero samples from northern Greece. Matt-painted will show relation with Messapii, which some scholars believe were different from Peucuti and Dauni. 
> 3) The so called Messapii will have their own regional characteristics, with the actual Messappi being high on PF5763 and Z2103, and the northern zone having J2b-L283 inclinations. Messappi are linked with matt-painted culture which is not Cetina or Cetina derived. There are Cetina sites in the area of Dauni. I also believe post LBA, Illyrian domination, expansion and gene-flow would have continued into the IA, until the Greeks broke their naval hegemony.



I know Z2103 is R1b ydna ................but what is PF5762 and PF5763 ?

I have PF5762 as being part of L2-L595 ydna

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> I know Z2103 is R1b ydna ................but what is PF5762 and PF5763 ?
> 
> I have PF5762 as being part of L2-L595 ydna


R1b, a downstream of M269

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-PF7563/tree

----------


## Hawk

> Hawk can you confirm the summary of this paper? The main content is in Serbian Cyrillic, I tried through google translate. The author seems quite confident that Vatin played a big role in Brnjica, Paracin and even partially contributed (though not a leading role) to north Aegean groups like matt-painted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW keep in mind, R-Z2103 was quite common in EBA Mokrin culture. I see Vatin as a consolidated version of this subgroup(R-Z2103) that carved out it's own habitat for a time, until it was pushed southward. Vatin also occupied one of the best real estate in Europe, and must have had a good population density. The man power was there, to have the ability to overcome the regions south of it once it was dislodged from northern Serbia.
> 
> I am focusing on the leading haplogroup for each culture block. It's a impossible task to figure out what minor haplgroups were also participants in a given group, ancient samples can reveal that.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but EBA Mokrin has nothing to do with Vatin archaeologically. Subsequently in MBA where Mokrin was it was overran by ancestral cultures of E-V13 affiliated cultures, ancestral of (Psenicevo, Babadag, Insula Banului).

What Y-DNA did Vatin carry, whether R1b-Z2103, I2a, G2a, J2b2-L283 or E-V13 is hard to guess at this point.

To my understanding Brnjica's existence started in MBA as well, they could just have some influences from further north from Vatin which is still quite speculative. The whole problem is that core Vatin region is considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian spheres because it shared similar burial rite as latter Eastern Urnfielders, hence they were extensive users of cremation and it's hard to know, in addition as part of material culture the use of channeling, knobs. Definitely it was part of the Balkan-Carpathian horizon something which cannot be said about Mokrin/Maros.

----------


## Excine

> We did get one LBA sample that will be one day redated and it turned out to be PF7563.


The sample is a medieval Albanian, please don't start your argument with a premise which is wrong. The settlements in southern Albania during the LBA come from the western Balkans. 

The Messapii are the same people as the Dauni and the Peuceti. The Daunians don't come from a different source and in fact the few samples that exist are J-L283 and R-Z2103. I hope that within 2023 we get more Iapygian samples, but R-Z2103/R-PF7563 will in all likelihood be found in all 3 Iapygian groups. R-Z2103 has already been found in the northernmost.




> I think Vatin group is the parent group of Albanian Z2103.


The Vatin group may be another Vucedol group but it's not related to Albanians as an ancestral culture. This was a Danubian group which probably carried high WHG ancestry. This excludes it from any links to Albanians. It is also important that this is not considered a viable ancestral area for Albanians, wherever they may have lived between Albania, Montenegro, Dardania, west Macedonia in the Iron Age. All the groups which are linked to Albanians in this area came from somewhere in the Illyrian western Balkans. R-Z2103 has already been found among Daunians in Iron Age Italy, so it was near the coastline much earlier




> Another branch of Vatin found itself in eastern Bosnia where it fused with the early inland Illyrians, whether this is a dead-end branch or not, remains to be seen if Z2103 emerges with north-eastern Illyrians.


"Eastern Bosnia" is Glasinac-Mati which formed from the Proto-Illyrian Belotic-Bela Crkva and Cetina. It should have R-Z2103 as it should have R-PF7563 and obviously J-L283. This the biggest Illyrian movement. What remains to be seen is where E-V13 fits in the discussion.




> It does look like the pre-Glasinac Dardani where a hybrid people of E-V13 and Z2103.


There's no such thing as "pre-Glasinac Dardani". The R1b Illyrian lineages were Z2103 and PF7563 and we'll see these lineages in Dardania with J-L283 because the first Proto-Illyrian culture in Dardania is Belotic-Bela Crkva which brought them there before Glasinac-Mati. Like in Albania, they will be shown to have been there with previous Proto-Illyrian movements.




> Trebenishte group represents the western most group of the Macedonian tribes and so far have yielded J2a.


There aren't any "Macedonian tribes" on Lake Ohrid. This group isn't Macedonian, but very similar to Illyrians.



About E-V13, I will just say that E-V13 can't have been the main haplogroup of any Danubian group. They all had very high Iron Gates HG ancestry and this is incompatible with what we see in most E-V13 samples: they have almost no additional WHG ancestry.

----------


## torzio

> The sample is a medieval Albanian, please don't start your argument with a premise which is wrong. The settlements in southern Albania during the LBA come from the western Balkans. 
> 
> The Messapii are the same people as the Dauni and the Peuceti. The Daunians don't come from a different source and in fact the few samples that exist are J-L283 and R-Z2103. I hope that within 2023 we get more Iapygian samples, but R-Z2103/R-PF7563 will in all likelihood be found in all 3 Iapygian groups. R-Z2103 has already been found in the northernmost.
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatin group may be another Vucedol group but it's not related to Albanians as an ancestral culture. This was a Danubian group which probably carried high WHG ancestry. This excludes it from any links to Albanians. It is also important that this is not considered a viable ancestral area for Albanians, wherever they may have lived between Albania, Montenegro, Dardania, west Macedonia in the Iron Age. All the groups which are linked to Albanians in this area came from somewhere in the Illyrian western Balkans. R-Z2103 has already been found among Daunians in Iron Age Italy, so it was near the coastline much earlier
> 
> 
> ...



the oldest R-Z2103 in from northern Germany/Demark from this paper

*Genomic Steppe ancestry in skeletons from the Neolithic Single Grave Culture in Denmark*

Anne Friis-Holm Egfjord,
Ashot Margaryan,
Anders Fischer,
Karl-Göran Sjögren,
T. Douglas Price,
Niels N. Johannsen,
Poul Otto Nielsen,
Lasse Sørensen,
Eske Willerslev,
Rune Iversen,
Martin Sikora,
Kristian Kristiansen ,
Morten E. Allentoft

PLOS

Published: January 14, 2021


if you think it is Illyrian.......then again, the illyrian migrated from central europe way down the western balkans over time

----------


## Hawk

> About E-V13, I will just say that E-V13 can't have been the main haplogroup of any Danubian group. They all had very high Iron Gates HG ancestry and this is incompatible with what we see in most E-V13 samples: they have almost no additional WHG ancestry.


Who says that, the gypsie-torbesh committee with members like Borat Sagdiyev heading and coordinating Albanian DNA matters?

You have two E-V13 samples in Sicily which were far northern than Psenicevo groups and they were more northern than your Illyrians, you have 1 E-V13 there which was fully Caucasus-like. Here, we deal with mainly paternal expansion. At this stage the Danube Basin remains the main candidate for E-V13.

In addition, there was no Belotic-Bela Crkva in Dardania, that was a group of Western Serbia/Eastern Bosnia.

+ quote me any author which says Vatin descends from Vucedol because what i see is you lump anything within Vucedol a culture which so far has mainly G2a with only one R1b-Z2103.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Who says that, the gypsie-torbesh committee with members like Borat Sagdiyev heading and coordinating Albanian DNA matters?
> 
> You have two E-V13 samples in Sicily which were far northern than Psenicevo groups and they were more northern than your Illyrians, you have 1 E-V13 there which was fully Caucasus-like. Here, we deal with mainly paternal expansion. At this stage the Danube Basin remains the main candidate for E-V13.
> 
> In addition, there was no Belotic-Bela Crkva in Dardania, that was a group of Western Serbia/Eastern Bosnia.
> 
> + quote me any author which says Vatin descends from Vucedol because what i see is you lump anything within Vucedol a culture which so far has mainly G2a with only one R1b-Z2103.


I'm quite confident Bruzmi = Excine.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> The sample is a medieval Albanian, please don't start your argument with a premise which is wrong. The settlements in southern Albania during the LBA come from the western Balkans.


Future samples from northern Greece and southern Albania will prove me correct. In AG it's only you and your other account (Bruzmi) that throws a fit over this. Even Mariopoulos admitted I13834_R-PF7563 is likely to be misdated. 

Cetina and Glasinac get zero mentions in this great paper. Svojan(Kuc i zi) group shows similarity with Greek Macedonia since Bronze Age.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...IX_2016_91-135




> The Messapii are the same people as the Dauni and the Peuceti. The Daunians don't come from a different source and in fact the few samples that exist are J-L283 and R-Z2103. I hope that within 2023 we get more Iapygian samples, but R-Z2103/R-PF7563 will in all likelihood be found in all 3 Iapygian groups. R-Z2103 has already been found in the northernmost.


The so called Messapii are speculated to have involved Chaeonians, Dardani and Japyges, these are not the same people in the IA Balkans. If they mixed in Apulia it is another matter, but their initial settlements across the pond will show them having their own specific concentrations, as does linguistic evidence.



This is from a website you edit.




> *However, some scholars have argued that the term 'Iapygian languages' should be preferred for referring to the group of languages spoken in Apulia, with the term 'Messapic' being reserved to the inscriptions found in the Salento peninsula, where the specific tribe of the Messapians had been living in the pre-Roman era*.[4]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapic_language





> The Vatin group may be another Vucedol group but it's not related to Albanians as an ancestral culture. This was a Danubian group which probably carried high WHG ancestry. This excludes it from any links to Albanians. It is also important that this is not considered a viable ancestral area for Albanians, wherever they may have lived between Albania, Montenegro, Dardania, west Macedonia in the Iron Age. All the groups which are linked to Albanians in this area came from somewhere in the Illyrian western Balkans. R-Z2103 has already been found among Daunians in Iron Age Italy, so it was near the coastline much earlier


LOL, Brumi, Vucedol, Vucedol, everything hatched out of Vucedol, everything is Illyrian.




> "Eastern Bosnia" is Glasinac-Mati which formed from the Proto-Illyrian Belotic-Bela Crkva and Cetina. It should have R-Z2103 as it should have R-PF7563 and obviously J-L283. This the biggest Illyrian movement. What remains to be seen is where E-V13 fits in the discussion.


No you nincompoop, chronologically Vatin predates Glasinac. A branch of Vatin ends up in eastern Bosnia where it's pots remain mostly the same but their burial rites become Illyrian. This suggests an assimilation, which means potentially the lineages survived with Illyrians in eastern Bosnia.





> There's no such thing as "pre-Glasinac Dardani". The R1b Illyrian lineages were Z2103 and PF7563 and we'll see these lineages in Dardania with J-L283 because the first Proto-Illyrian culture in Dardania is Belotic-Bela Crkva which brought them there before Glasinac-Mati. Like in Albania, they will be shown to have been there with previous Proto-Illyrian movements.


Delusional idiot, Glasinac is the last culture to intrude into Dardani space, and it was firmly stopped, it made no headway beyond western Kosovo. 

Belotic-Bela Crkva has no relatinship to Kosovo, it did not even encompass Sandzak. You can't construct a coherent theory without basic chronology or geography being in contradiction with one another, you want to lecture people?
https://sr-m-wikipedia-org.translate...n&_x_tr_pto=sc




> The R1b Illyrian lineages were Z2103 and PF7563


 :Laughing:  





> There aren't any "Macedonian tribes" on Lake Ohrid. This group isn't Macedonian, but very similar to Illyrians.


Even your boys piled up on you in AG and smashed a nice humble pie on your face.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post900598

but but everything is Illyrian. Nope.





> About E-V13, I will just say that E-V13 can't have been the main haplogroup of any Danubian group. They all had very high Iron Gates HG ancestry and this is incompatible with what we see in most E-V13 samples: they have almost no additional WHG ancestry.


You are the least qualified person in here to be lecturing anyone. Just like in AG, your reputation is tanking real fast.

----------


## Excine

> Who says that, the gypsie-torbesh committee with members like Borat Sagdiyev heading and coordinating Albanian DNA matters?
> 
> You have two E-V13 samples in Sicily which were far northern than Psenicevo groups and they were more northern than your Illyrians, you have 1 E-V13 there which was fully Caucasus-like. Here, we deal with mainly paternal expansion. At this stage the Danube Basin remains the main candidate for E-V13.
> 
> In addition, there was no Belotic-Bela Crkva in Dardania, that was a group of Western Serbia/Eastern Bosnia.
> 
> + quote me any author which says Vatin descends from Vucedol because what i see is you lump anything within Vucedol a culture which so far has mainly G2a with only one R1b-Z2103.



The 2 Himera samples are not more northern than the northern Illyrians. They have a bit less additional WHG ancestry than the northernmost Illyrians and Illyrians also weren't a Danubian people. 



The Caucasian profile is irrelevant because it's very low coverage but it also doesn't have any additional WHG origins: 

Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_5:I10951
Distance: 2.8441% / 0.02844100
49.6 GEO_CHG
23.8 TUR_Barcin_N
18.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.2 Israel_Natufian
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

The G2a sample is pre-Vucedol, there is just one sample from Croatia and he's R-Z2103. There are two possibly Vucedol related samples in Croatia, one R1b-M343+ with no further designation and another I-M223 but this may not even be from Vucedol culture but from groups related to EPC. 


https://www.academia.edu/6024027/Som..._Morava_valley

On the other hand, now it is doubtless thatthe northern part of the West Morava valley within the Čačak region makes a border zone between two bigger cultural manifestations of the Early Bronze Age in the Central Balkans -Belotić– 
Bela Crkva and Bubanj Hum III.During the Middle Bronze Age it appears that the West Morava valley and itssurroundings played the same role. As it was indicated by the analyzed material from Mojsinje, Miločaj and Dobrača necropolises, it was possible to establish a certain zone withmixed material, characteristic for the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin cultureon the one side (western Serbia) and the Paraćin I culture on the other (central, eastern and southern Serbia).The Late Bronze Age represents a period with not as many investigated sites as the previous ones, but even operating with smaller numbers, there was a possibility to establish a basic picture. A strong influence from the Danube cultural circle (Urnfield complex) isnotable on the material. It is most obvious in use of the fluted ornament and polishing of the pottery. As in the previous phases, it is the strong cultural influence on the autochthonous base, which strongly kept its funerary models. It means that even during the Late BronzeAge, the same part of the West Morava valley can be marked as transitional, having various characteristics in the material reflecting strong influences from nearby cultural centers.

It is obvious that the West Morava valley downstream from the Ovčar -Kablar gorge to the Kraljevo narrowing represents indeed transitional territory between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider territory of Serbia to thesouth of the rivers Sava and Danube. It can be comprehended as a contact zone betweencultural groups during the entire development of the Bronze Age. Particular significance ofthis region lasts even during the next millennia. Regarding burial customs, the same role ofthis region is noticed during the Iron Age (Dmitrović and Ljuština 2008). After D. (Срејовић 1979, p.83), the funerary customs were the basis for determining the border between Palaeo-Balkanic tribes Dardanians and Triballoi along the line Western– SouthernMorava. This concept is generally followed in the recent works by R. Vasić (cf. Vasić 2004a;Vasić 2004b), at least to the extent of shaping territorial spread of the mentioned Palaeo-Balkanic ethnic groups.




https://exarc.net/issue-2019-1/mm/cr...-vatin-pottery

The Bronze Age Vatin culture has been known in archaeology as a cultural phenomenon distinguished by a specific material culture which existed between c. 2200 to 1600 B.C. in the region of the southern part of the Panonnian Plain and the area along the lower Sava river and south of the Danube river. The Vatin culture followed Early Bronze Age cultures in the region, indicating stabilization in this area after the disintegration of the Aeneolithic Vučedol culture by tribes from Russian steppe (Garašanin 1979, p. 504; cf. Ljuština 2012, pp.148 – 157; Gogâltan 2017, p.32, Fig. 3).

Vatin is the product of the Yamnaya migrations which created IE Vucedol. It's the same group. Maybe it'll have more WHG origins like Mokrin or maybe it's very similar to the ancestry of Vucedol. 

@Paleo-Revenge Don't you get tired with posting conspiracy theories every few weeks? This will not be forgotten: 



You have a political agenda and it's been exposed countless times. It's better if you stop wasting everyone's time with your cheap propaganda which is plain for everyone to see and it's the reason why you post such stuff. Learn more about your own language and culture (Macedonian/Bulgarian) and stop spreading propaganda about a culture with which you have nothing in common with (Albanian).

----------


## Excine

Paleo-Revenge's posts are becoming so ludicrous that he posted a "map" which shows Daunian settlements to claim that a "different language" was spoken by Messapians. The map shows Messapic inscriptions in Daunian sites because the language is called Messapic and the people who spoke it are the Iapygians which formed several tribes.

They are the same exact people and they're not considered to belong to different people. Nobody claims so, not even Matzinger who considers the Messapic-speakers to be the fusion between Proto-Messapians of the Proto-Messapic-Albanian grouping + Cetina culture in Dalmatia from where they emigrated to Italy. 

The ridiculous idea that Messapians are a different people from Daunians was revitalized by one banned person here on eupedia because he didn't like the idea that Daunians are J-L283 and R-Z2103.

The rest of his post belongs to the fantasy world of the Yugoslav nationalist Paleo-Revenge. It's a case study that he can't understand a single thing about what is going around him, but I guess that's one of the reasons why he's confined to writing ramblings on eupedia.

"Glasinac is the last culture to intrude into Dardani space, and it was firmly stopped, it made no headway beyond western Kosovo." 

Keep dreaming and seek help for your anti-Albanianism.

----------


## Hawk

> I'm quite confident Bruzmi = Excine.


I don't know about this, but i am quite confident there is some sock puppet accounts roaming around. Just look at Straboo over there, an Irish person heavily involved in Balkan archaeology? Glasinac, Cetina, Bubanj-Hum, Psenicevo, Babadag. What are the odds one random Irishman would give a damn shit about Balkan Bronze Age and would constitute 99% of his writing? 

Excine seems to be far more butthurt and creates imaginary scenarios that people didn't want J2b2-L283 to be part of Cetina Early Bronze Age, but meantime Excine doesn't want E-V13 to be part of any major Bronze Age Culture. They play this game several years hence why he is so butthurt E-V13 to be associated with Thracians. He wants for E-V13 to remain anonymous, insignificant "gypsies" which rose to number during Roman age.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> The 2 Himera samples are not more northern than the northern Illyrians. They have a bit less additional WHG ancestry than the northernmost Illyrians and Illyrians also weren't a Danubian people.


Hawk probably meant geography wise. 

And they are not Illyrians. Even the only E-V13 among "Illyrians" shows affinities with Slovenian IA and Hungarian IA, which are all in tune with Riverman's proposal. Which begs the question, is the HRV IA E-V13 guy even a Illyrian or some La Tene/ east Alp Celt?









> On the other hand, now it is doubtless thatthe northern part of the West Morava valley within the Čačak region makes a border zone between two bigger cultural manifestations of the Early Bronze Age in the Central Balkans -Belotić– 
> Bela Crkva and Bubanj Hum III.During the Middle Bronze Age it appears that the West Morava valley and itssurroundings played the same role. As it was indicated by the analyzed material from Mojsinje, Miločaj and Dobrača necropolises, it was possible to establish a certain zone withmixed material, characteristic for the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin cultureon the one side (western Serbia) and the Paraćin I culture on the other (central, eastern and southern Serbia).The Late Bronze Age represents a period with not as many investigated sites as the previous ones, but even operating with smaller numbers, there was a possibility to establish a basic picture. A strong influence from the Danube cultural circle (Urnfield complex) isnotable on the material. It is most obvious in use of the fluted ornament and polishing of the pottery. As in the previous phases, it is the strong cultural influence on the autochthonous base, which strongly kept its funerary models. It means that even during the Late BronzeAge, the same part of the West Morava valley can be marked as transitional, having various characteristics in the material reflecting strong influences from nearby cultural centers.
> 
> It is obvious that the West Morava valley downstream from the Ovčar -Kablar gorge to the Kraljevo narrowing represents indeed transitional territory between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider territory of Serbia to thesouth of the rivers Sava and Danube. It can be comprehended as a contact zone betweencultural groups during the entire development of the Bronze Age. Particular significance ofthis region lasts even during the next millennia. Regarding burial customs, the same role ofthis region is noticed during the Iron Age (Dmitrović and Ljuština 2008). After D. (Срејовић 1979, p.83), the funerary customs were the basis for determining the border between Palaeo-Balkanic tribes Dardanians and Triballoi along the line Western– SouthernMorava. This concept is generally followed in the recent works by R. Vasić (cf. Vasić 2004a;Vasić 2004b), at least to the extent of shaping territorial spread of the mentioned Palaeo-Balkanic ethnic groups.


The paper links Bela Crkva with a western variant of Vatin. The trail goes cold with this group as it fuses with Illyrians. And this group has nothing to do with Dardani, the author do not even suggest it but how do you explain that to a donkey that can't even look up the Bela Crkva sites on a map.

And I am certain this why you are tripping up and getting carried away. The author makes a point that the eastern border of this culture is reminiscent of the Glasinac vs Zlot Grop and Glasinac vs Brnjica demarcation line in the Iron Age. While in a way that is correct, how the border ended up in the IA relates to different events and turn overs of cultures. The author is not in any way making a link between Bela Crkva and Dardani, that's some low IQ interpretation, the suggestion is not even hinted.






> https://exarc.net/issue-2019-1/mm/cr...-vatin-pottery
> 
> The Bronze Age Vatin culture has been known in archaeology as a cultural phenomenon distinguished by a specific material culture which existed between c. 2200 to 1600 B.C. in the region of the southern part of the Panonnian Plain and the area along the lower Sava river and south of the Danube river. The Vatin culture followed Early Bronze Age cultures in the region, indicating stabilization in this area after the disintegration of the Aeneolithic Vučedol culture by tribes from Russian steppe (Garašanin 1979, p. 504; cf. Ljuština 2012, pp.148 – 157; Gogâltan 2017, p.32, Fig. 3).
> 
> Vatin is the product of the Yamnaya migrations which created IE Vucedol. It's the same group. Maybe it'll have more WHG origins like Mokrin or maybe it's very similar to the ancestry of Vucedol.


The same or not, Vatin is not Illyrian. Nor is Vucedol the golden key that just makes absurd incoherent theories work, because Vucedol. For starters, Vatin cremated. Illyrians did not.




> @Paleo-Revenge Don't you get tired with posting conspiracy theories every few weeks? This will not be forgotten:


What conspiracies you inbred from Martinovici? You and Brumi are one and the same.





> You have a political agenda and it's been exposed countless times. It's better if you stop wasting everyone's time with your cheap propaganda which is plain for everyone to see and it's the reason why you post such stuff. Learn more about your own language and culture (Macedonian/Bulgarian) and stop spreading propaganda about a culture with which you have nothing in common with (Albanian).


Hey dummy, I exposed your phony G25s. Why don't you and your alter ego dare to post them again on AG? Delusional inbred, exposing you as a fraud and a crook, in what world do you get the impression that makes me look bad? 
Every time you collide with me, I wipe my as$ with your face.

----------


## torzio

> I'm quite confident Bruzmi = Excine.


the intelligence levels between the 2 people behind the names are very different ................so I will say......I do not think so

----------


## Hawk

> The 2 Himera samples are not more northern than the northern Illyrians. They have a bit less additional WHG ancestry than the northernmost Illyrians and Illyrians also weren't a Danubian people. 
> 
> 
> 
> The Caucasian profile is irrelevant because it's very low coverage but it also doesn't have any additional WHG origins: 
> 
> Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_5:I10951
> Distance: 2.8441% / 0.02844100
> 49.6 GEO_CHG
> ...


Why would you split SRB_Iron Gates HG from WHG, it's basically the same. So, there you have it, 2 samples with WHG, then again leaning more toward Serbian Iron Gates WHG than general Western European WHG, which means leaning toward Danube.

----------


## torzio

> I don't know about this, but i am quite confident there is some sock puppet accounts roaming around. Just look at Straboo over there, an Irish person heavily involved in Balkan archaeology? Glasinac, Cetina, Bubanj-Hum, Psenicevo, Babadag. What are the odds one random Irishman would give a damn shit about Balkan Bronze Age and would constitute 99% of his writing? 
> 
> Excine seems to be far more butthurt and creates imaginary scenarios that people didn't want J2b2-L283 to be part of Cetina Early Bronze Age, but meantime Excine doesn't want E-V13 to be part of any major Bronze Age Culture. They play this game several years hence why he is so butthurt E-V13 to be associated with Thracians. He wants for E-V13 to remain anonymous, insignificant "gypsies" which rose to number during Roman age.



I thought his mother was croatian

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Paleo-Revenge's posts are becoming so ludicrous that he posted a "map" which shows Daunian settlements to claim that a "different language" was spoken by Messapians. The map shows Messapic inscriptions in Daunian sites because the language is called Messapic and the people who spoke it are the Iapygians which formed several tribes.
> 
> They are the same exact people and they're not considered to belong to different people. Nobody claims so, not even Matzinger who considers the Messapic-speakers to be the fusion between Proto-Messapians of the Proto-Messapic-Albanian grouping + Cetina culture in Dalmatia from where they emigrated to Italy. 
> 
> The ridiculous idea that Messapians are a different people from Daunians was revitalized by one banned person here on eupedia because he didn't like the idea that Daunians are J-L283 and R-Z2103.
> 
> The rest of his post belongs to the fantasy world of the Yugoslav nationalist Paleo-Revenge. It's a case study that he can't understand a single thing about what is going around him, but I guess that's one of the reasons why he's confined to writing ramblings on eupedia.
> 
> "Glasinac is the last culture to intrude into Dardani space, and it was firmly stopped, it made no headway beyond western Kosovo." 
> ...


Look at the concentration of Messapi inscriptions there is a clear pattern. Chaones, Dardani and Iapodes are not the same people in the Balkans. So they can't be the same in Apulia even if there was some admixture between each other in the "new world" by late Iron Age. Nor can that diaspora event be turned around and be presented as proof for the Balkans peoples, because in the Balkans these groups did not mix. Iapodians in Croatia are not PF5762-3, probably will not be Z2103 either. Chaones will not be J2b-L283, but PF5763.

----------


## Excine

> I don't know about this, but i am quite confident there is some sock puppet accounts roaming around. Just look at Straboo over there, an Irish person heavily involved in Balkan archaeology? Glasinac, Cetina, Bubanj-Hum, Psenicevo, Babadag. What are the odds one random Irishman would give a damn shit about Balkan Bronze Age and would constitute 99% of his writing? 
> 
> Excine seems to be far more butthurt and creates imaginary scenarios that people didn't want J2b2-L283 to be part of Cetina Early Bronze Age, but meantime Excine doesn't want E-V13 to be part of any major Bronze Age Culture. They play this game several years hence why he is so butthurt E-V13 to be associated with Thracians. He wants for E-V13 to remain anonymous, insignificant "gypsies" which rose to number during Roman age.


Yes, Straboo is a sock. That's the only reason why someone would care enough for the Bronze Age Balkans. Or he just cares about the subject. It's not an "inferior" subject to any other one.

How is that I don't want it to be related to any Bronze Age culture just because I disagree with Riverman's Gava stuff? Most people have rejected it on anthrogenica since you stopped being active there. All Bronze Age groups of the central Balkans which weren't concentrated along the Danube are good candidates. How does anyone even draw the conclusion that I want E-V13 to remain "anonymous, insignificant gypsies which rose to number during Roman age"? 

You don't understand that the people who have the worst agenda in this debate are the people who support Riverman's ideas. 

PS We have one northern Illyrian E-V13, wait and see how Paleo-Revenge will react when we find southern Illyrian E-V13

----------


## Excine

> Hawk probably meant geography wise. 
> 
> And they are not Illyrians. Even the only E-V13 among "Illyrians" shows affinities with Slovenian IA and Hungarian IA, which are all in tune with Riverman's proposal. Which begs the question, is the HRV IA E-V13 guy even a Illyrian or some La Tene/ east Alp Celt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Take your pills and keep creating crazy theories. Maybe next week I'm someone else. You live in such a delusional place that you can't even grasp basic concepts.

How did I say that Vatin is Illyrian? I said that Vatin probably is related to Vucedol and as such may have the same lineages aka R-Z2103. If you can't reply to what I claimed, then don't reply at all.

If you can't understand the article and the connections between Belotic-Bela Crkva and all cultures west of the Morava around the Naissus area after it, then it's your problem. The bottom line is that R-Z2103, J-L283, R-PF7563 will all be found before Glasinac-Mati in Dardania and Glasinac-Mati will just move there other subclades. 

Wilkes about Belotic Bela Crkva:
In the western Balkans there are few remains to connect with these bronze-using 'proto-lllyrians', except in western Serbia and eastern Bosnia. Moreover, with the notable exception of Pod near Bugojno in the upper valley of the Vrbas, nothing is known of their settlements. Some hill settlements have been identified in western Serbia but the main evidence comes from cemeteries, consisting usually of a small number of burial mounds (tumuli). In eastern Bosnia at the cemeteries of Belotic and Bela Crkva the rites of inhumation and cremation are found, with skeletons in stone cists and cremations in urns. 

The E-V13 in IA Croatia is a northern Illyrian, like it or not. Post more of your ridiculous "models" as if you're showing anything useful. Nobody is taking you seriously not even the people who upvote you on eupedia.

Distance to: HRV_IA:I5724
0.02495436 HRV_EIA
0.02498865 HRV_IA
0.02584341 SRB_BA
0.02596427 CZE_LBA_Knoviz_o3
0.02848025 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean

Some people expected that we won't find any E-V13 in Croatia, but unfortunately for them and you things didn't work out as you hoped




> Look at the concentration of Messapi inscriptions there is a clear pattern. Chaones, Dardani and Iapodes are not the same people in the Balkans. So they can't be the same in Apulia even if there was some admixture between each other in the "new world" by late Iron Age. Nor can that diaspora event be turned around and be presented as proof for the Balkans peoples, because in the Balkans these groups did not mix. Iapodians in Croatia are not PF5762-3, probably will not be Z2103 either. Chaones will not be J2b-L283, but PF5763.



You don't even understand what you're looking at. These are the only inscriptions which exist from Iapygians and the sites on this map are site from all three groups meaning that they didn't speak different languages.

You're posting your own made up theories now. The Iapygians don't come from "Chaones, Dardani, Iapodes". This doesn't exist even as a suggestion in literature or even as a theory. You're mixing totally unrelated tribes from different eras. It's so ludicrous that it's not even worth having a discussion with you

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> PS We have one northern Illyrian E-V13, wait and see how Paleo-Revenge will react when we find southern Illyrian E-V13


You have zero E-V13 Illyrians, the fellow is from Slavonia and shares eastern Celt components.

What southern Illyrian E-V13? If any are found, they will be an extreme minority and remnants of the channel ware intrusion. But if they were even found, I have good feeling we would have heard about it. Almost 100 samples from a 3rd batched have been processed, not a single peep has been heard.




> Take your pills and keep creating crazy theories. Maybe next week I'm someone else. You live in such a delusional place that you can't even grasp basic concepts.


I don't have socket accounts, or spend my days editing wikipedia, save the pills for yourself. 




> How did I say that Vatin is Illyrian? I said that Vatin probably is related to Vucedol and as such may have the same lineages aka R-Z2103. If you can't reply to what I claimed, then don't reply at all.


This is a first, Vucedol is your answer to everything, the holly water that makes everything Illyrian. Backing out of your prior claims?




> If you can't understand the article and the connections between Belotic-Bela Crkva and all cultures west of the Morava around the Naissus area after it, then it's your problem. The bottom line is that R-Z2103, J-L283, R-PF7563 will all be found before Glasinac-Mati in Dardania and Glasinac-Mati will just move there other subclades.


Moron, the article is clearly referring to west Morava, a tributary river from western Serbia, not the actual Morava river valley. I'm not from your neck of the woods, and I understand geography better than you. If you insist, I will post every single site related to Belotic-Bela Crkva, which are all in western Serbia, bordering Bosnia.




> Wilkes about Belotic Bela Crkva:
> In the western Balkans there are few remains to connect with these bronze-using 'proto-lllyrians', except in *western Serbia and eastern Bosnia*. Moreover, with the notable exception of Pod near Bugojno in the upper valley of the Vrbas(*western Bosnia!!!!!!!*), nothing is known of their settlements. Some hill settlements have been identified in western Serbia but the main evidence comes from cemeteries, consisting usually of a small number of burial mounds (tumuli). In eastern Bosnia at the cemeteries of Belotic and Bela Crkva the rites of inhumation and cremation are found, with skeletons in stone cists and cremations in urns.


This is all Bosnia and the western edges of Serbia. What do you think you are proving here? That you are illiterate? Do you know how to google locations?





> The E-V13 in IA Croatia is a northern Illyrian, like it or not. Post more of your ridiculous "models" as if you're showing anything useful. Nobody is taking you seriously not even the people who upvote you on eupedia.


He is eastern Celt. Nice try.







> Some people expected that we won't find any E-V13 in Croatia, but unfortunately for them and you things didn't work out as you hoped


Unfortunately for us, *the only* E-V13, was found on the Celtic ethnic border, north of Sava river, near Zagreb, even more unfortunately it picks up SVN and Hun La Tene profile, not Illyrian. Totally owned. :Laughing: 






> You don't even understand what you're looking at. These are the only inscriptions which exist from Iapygians and the sites on this map are site from all three groups meaning that they didn't speak different languages.
> 
> You're posting your own made up theories now. The Iapygians don't come from "Chaones, Dardani, Iapodes". This doesn't exist even as a suggestion in literature or even as a theory. You're mixing totally unrelated tribes from different eras. It's so ludicrous that it's not even worth having a discussion with you



The inscriptions are heavily concentrated in a region that used to be called Calabria. This means Messapii are related to Dardanii(Galabri), which cannot have any connection with Iapygians/Iapydes (north Illyrians), who stem from an entirely different cultural sphere. 
PF5763 will show up with Chaones, Moliossians, maybe even with Macedonians but not with Dalmatians(we already have plenty of samples to rule it out), this will make your sloppy and absurd connections become incoherent and unfeasible. Even R-Z2103 makes only one rare appearance with Cetina and never shows up again in Dalmatia. Your theories rest on wishful thinking and just plain appropriation of foreign peoples into "muh Illyrians". At this rate you'd be forced to claim the entire Balkans as Illyrian.

----------


## Hawk

> Yes, Straboo is a sock. That's the only reason why someone would care enough for the Bronze Age Balkans. Or he just cares about the subject. It's not an "inferior" subject to any other one.
> 
> How is that I don't want it to be related to any Bronze Age culture just because I disagree with Riverman's Gava stuff? Most people have rejected it on anthrogenica since you stopped being active there. All Bronze Age groups of the central Balkans which weren't concentrated along the Danube are good candidates. How does anyone even draw the conclusion that I want E-V13 to remain "anonymous, insignificant gypsies which rose to number during Roman age"? 
> 
> You don't understand that the people who have the worst agenda in this debate are the people who support Riverman's ideas. 
> 
> PS We have one northern Illyrian E-V13, wait and see how Paleo-Revenge will react when we find southern Illyrian E-V13


You and your group are what we call "pidh mashkull".

----------


## Riverman

And those from the coast-islands are likely from the Veneti-Histrian-Liburnian group which did largely cremate and had more Urnfield/Channelled Ware contacts than Illyrians proper. 

By the way, Bruzmi made a great post on the Encrusted Pottery derived uto Brdo-Grla Mare group finds: 
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post902439

Note that this is the major second component contributing to the formation of Stamped Pottery, and just like early Channelled Ware will, they had a strictly Pannonian (Western Pannonian, Danubian block) genetic profile. Their cultural heritage lived on, probably even their patrilineage as a small minority (recent Romanian tester), but their autosomal profile shifted in the Aegean-Anatolian influenced South East. Same will be shown for earliest Babadag I and Channelled/Knobbed Ware finds, if they come up. Probably less deviating actually, because they already mixed on the road before.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Hawk, Belotic-Bela Crkva is also called Vatin variant. There seems some dispute, as some see it as Vatin derived, some as partially Vatin and some as not Vatin at all. I doubt a people unrelated to Vatin would adopt their ware traditions for no reason. What is interesting is, there are inhumation among this group, I think inhumation is the majority practice. If what I am proposing is correct, than it can be proved or disproved via DNA samples, R-Z2103 should show up among this group, and their aDNA profile should share a portion of ancestry with Cimmerian MJ12 like component. 
I see this group as ultimately dissolving among north-eastern Illyrians, they were already partially assimilated in LBA, and the IA eastern Pannonian Illyrians most likely carried a R-Z2103 substrate, this would only hold if Vatin does indeed = R-Z2103.

And just for fun, the link Exince posted even has a map of this culture, Belotic-Bela Crkva sites are west of Cacak. The other sites(east of Cacak) are Paracin culture. Why would one post a study without fully reading it, is beyond me. His interpretations are very low IQ. West Morava = Nis = Belotic-Bela Crkva and Dardani as one.

----------


## Riverman

R-Z2103 was also found in Encrusted Pottery, Maros etc. I think we can be pretty sure that R-Z2103 was living in the Bronze Age not far from the Danube. Formations like Vatin and Brnjica are highly likely for R-Z2103, whether it was dominant or not. It seems to have been later between J-L283 Illyrians, E-V13 Thracians and J2a dominated Aegeans/Greeks. Kind of squeezed in between, because of the MBA-EIA expansions of those people.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

R-Z2103 was both in Maros and Mokrin, both northern edges of Serbia bordering Romania. And the single IE sample in Vucedol being R-Z2103, it's not hard to imagine a possible enclave for this people nearby, with the culture that fits the habitat criteria being Vatin.

I found the English translation of this Serbian article. Very informative.
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0...412171061B.pdf

Gava/Belegis II really wrecked havoc, they pretty much chocked Brnjica out. I have not found an answer to what extend Brnjica survived or recovered. But what I do find interesting is that, Belegis II reached the north Aegean in good strength, yet from MKD samples E-V13 only shows up in the far east of that region.

If E-V13 did not survive in large numbers in the Vardar and northern Greece which were the main lucrative targets for their invasions and raids. What survival chance does the much smaller group that went through Albanian have? Not a very good one.
If E-V13 shows up in Albania during IA, it will have a very faint presence and at the far edges of Illyrian world. Personally, I don't think it has been found, there would have been a leak. 100 ancient samples and no noise.


PS Riverman how do you understand this quote?




> Relatively numerous sites in which ceramics of
> Brnjica type were found in the Vardar basin as well as
> in the north of Greece up to Thessaly, point to popu-
> lation movements from the central Balkans towards
> the Mycenaean territory at the time when the Brnjica
> community flourished, reached its peak and, like others,
> developed ferrous metallurgy, but neglected the pro-
> tection of the northern regions of its territory. Under
> such conditions, the cultural group from the Iron Age I b
> ...


What is interesting is that Brnjica was already expanding into Macedonia before BA collapse occurred. The invasion from Belegis II shattered them and caused more Brnjica to migrate south. What I find confusing is the closing paragraph. The way it is quoted, the ratio of Belegis II(Iron Age I) vs Brnjica material starts at 10 to 1, 5 to 1, than it reverses to 1 to 4. It looks like there was a Brnjica recovery, but I am not certain this what the author meant to say and might have meant the opposite, with Belegis II eventually chocking out Brnjica. Any thoughts?

----------


## Riverman

It is known that Brnjica and Greek groups first retreated, kind of "run to the hills" when Gva came, but they survived. Later they had intensified contacts and in some areas of Brnjica and Greece in general the locals gained the upper hand. The Channelled Ware groups being either assimilated, moved out or being annihilated. It is from this time onwards we have a clear demarcation of Gva derived/Basarabi groups being Thracian and the others not. 
The run to the hills has to be taken literally, as the Brnjica and other local groups built hilltop fortifications and moved to areas easily defensible at that time, a very different settlement pattern to the situation before. I would compare it with the situation fo Slavs coming and what Vlachs and Albanians did, or others. Moved to strongpoints, fortification, changed the habitat for areas less favoured by the newcomers. 
It is pretty much the same with the Gva-related groups in the Morava-Vardar zone and downwards.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

FYI, I discovered this yesterday. Belotic-Bela Crkva is used very loosely. 

The true Belotic-Bela Crkva existed in EBA western Serbia. In MBA Belotic-Bela Crkva refers to the Vatin variant, which some of the archeologist prefer not to acknowledge, thus they use the term of the preceding culture(Belotic-Bela Crkva) for the new phase as well. It gets confusing when reading papers from other regions that mention Belotic-Bela Crkva material being found in some of the sites, you have to take the time period into account, to figure out if this is the old Belotic-Bela Crkva, or the Vatin variant.

----------


## Hawk

I failed to see any citation from authors that state Vatin derives from Belotic-Bela Crkva. In fact their burial rite differ from each other, the most fundamental material culture, pottery, etc, etc.

----------


## mount123

@Johane Derite

So since not just one but others, also fellow J2b-L283 members, have brought to my attention the pseudo scientific "Sumerian" misinformation post you have made on twitter @AlbHistory, I will just have to say, with all respect for the valuable posts you make, which I upvote quite often, I find it extremely ethically inappropriate. I am not just talking about putting such non sense out there but also intentionally leaving it still there.

I honestly thought you would have deleted it but seeing it in the top three of images put out by the world's most favorite search engine Google, it is extremely misleading and straight up misinformation propagandist garbage. I can only imagine the confusion people who have tested with the aforementioned haplogroup must feel when they see that or even worse believe it.

Not to mention people who share such stuff. The audacity is insane and I am sure you would know better (maybe not).

----------


## PaleoRevenge

Vatin does not derive from Belotic-Bela Crkva, and the authors never made this proposal. The old school believed that Vatin branched out into western Serbia and formed the "Vatin variant", they used this term because this new culture seemed like a blend of two cultures, their main reason was the burial rites are not Vatin, even when cremated, they are still buried in a tumuli, they correctly saw it as a partially Vatin culture. The current hipsters prefer to treat this as no Vatin people involved, thus not a Vatin culture, have dropped the term Vatin variant, and continue to use the the label for the previous culture Belotic-Bela Crkva for the period that corresponds to Vatin variant.

I agree with the older school, Vatin variant is a hybrid culture which implies a fusion of two groups people/cultures.

----------


## Riverman

I found this Hungarian piece today: 
https://mek.oszk.hu/15200/15244/pdf/15244.pdf

It has samples from many major groups we are talking about. I want to highlight page 21 in particular. Compare e.g. Monteoru and Wietenberg pieces, it is very clear that Wietenberg is closer to the Channelled Ware, especially the one found in Babadag and Psenichevo than Monteoru.

The author says something very interesting the Noua group, something which I have repeatedly said in this thread (everything quoted is Google translate): 



> The people of the Noua culture in the north to the middle course of the Szamos, in the west to the Ore Mountains
> expands. Along the Szamos, some of their groups reach the Eastern Great Plain, where they mingle
> with the already mixed local population (BerkeszDemecser group).
> We hardly know the settlements of this cattle- and sheep-herding people, in Moldavia their light wooden structures
> stood, these must have been in Transylvania as well. In the cemeteries (Brass-Christian Village,
> Hermny, Tvis, etc.) their dead are resting on their sides with their legs up, or just
> their ashes are buried. A large part of their simple rib-decorated pots and two-handled mugs are a
> It originates from the assimilated groups of the Monteoru culture. Their three-edged bone arrowheads,
> the three-holed bone side part of their horse's bridle, the bronze pins with cammed necks, hooked handles
> ...


That is why we find R-Z93 in Thracians, because they picked up what remained from the Sabatinovka (Srubna) newcomers in the Noua-Coslogeni mix. He goes on, note that Felsőszőcs = Suciu de Sus! So we have the connection of *Wietenberg with Noua and of both with Suciu de Sus and Berkesz-Demecser.* 




> It is peculiar that the typical metal objects of the new inhabitants of Transylvania are not in large quantities
> they are found in the area inhabited by them, but outside it, within the boundaries *of the Felsőszőcs culture*. THE
> the weapons and tools of conquerors - it seems - the population of the Late Bronze Age, the *Wietenberg culture*
> made by the descendants of his people. The relationship between the two peoples is sometimes a special symbiosis
> resulted: in the kurgans of Olhlpos, the Felsőszőcs and Noua memories of the peoples of cultures.
> Sometime at the beginning of the 1st millennium, the inhabitants of Transylvania and the Szamos-Tisza region hid it
> are forced to use their accumulated treasures (Felőr, Domahida, plyi). However, their property
> rather, only the people of the Felsőszőcs culture dug deep into the earth, as on Felőr and Domahida.
> *The great majority of the people of the Noua culture fled to the east*, just to avoid becoming slaves


That's when Gva came to the scene, the united force of the West Romanian cremation block, because Gva is merely a homogenised horizon of these people with Suciu de Sus (secondarily Igrita etc.) in its centre, what's especially noticeable is the richness and quality of both pottery and bronzes, *weapons in particular*: 




> *The new conquerors, the communities of the people of the Gva culture*, take over Kkllő one by one
> Ment (Medgyes), the Olt valley (Rty), the Mezősg and the Szamos region (Olhlpos).
> There are also fortified ones among their settlements, their dwellings are stilt or harrow houses, or oval
> rectangular huts sunk into the ground, in the center of which stood a taped stove. Mainly
> they keep cattle and have a significant herd of horses. Despite the large number of bronze sickles
> farming was of minor importance, most of the meat was obtained by hunting.
> After their settlement, bronze art in the area of the Ore Mountains flourished again.
> Almost all tools, tools, weapons and jewelry are made of bronze: axes, sickles, swords,
> spears, belts, needles, and cauldrons are found almost innumerably in the storage finds dug into the ground,
> ...


https://mek.oszk.hu/15200/15244/pdf/15244.pdf

I found this piece just today and even if you might argue it is no new professional work (like those inventing new terms for Channelled Ware and ignoring outstanding characteristics like large protuding knobs), it is very interesting that other people came, completely independently, to basically the same conclusions, as did most classical authors, by the way, before the splitters and "pots not people" fraction got the upper hand. Quite refreshing. I don't care what else he wrote, and don't even know, but these remarks and the many illustrations are just spot on.

----------


## Hawk

I still think the story of E-V13 should be sought here: https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-021-09155-7



The corridor and the horizont, the so called Balkan-Carpathian is to be sought. I don't see it how North Carpathians or even South Balkans makes sense, it's in the between vertically which needs to be sought. I think E-V13 from there expanded both North and South, they were a people keeping on their own hence why some of them show high EEF, something between Hungary EEF - Vinca and Bulgarian Chalcolithic and Yamnaya.

South-East Bulgaria was likely prone to CHG migrations, even much more than Greece considering the land route was easier than the sea.

----------


## Riverman

I don't think so, and it gets less likely every day, because e.g. Encrusted Pottery definitely marched along the Danube South: 



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_303587774

The other samples from around those areas, though mostly earlier or somewhat more North or South, look also more like an I2+G2 dominated areas imho, with R-Z2103 in between and no large reservoir of E-V13. But surprises are of course always possible, even though the phylogeny and demography of E-V13 in the Bronze Age suggests imho a different pattern. There could be complex migration patterns though before the LBA.

Cotofeni is an interesting phenomenon to look at and it survived pretty well around the Apuseni mountains and Carpathians. Nyirseg is really interesting in this respect, even more so since Suciu de Sus has elements which look like revived Nyirseg traditions. But Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg had themselves Southern influences from later periods, which might just have survived better.

----------


## Hawk

Well, things get quite weird because those I2 (non Slavic subclades) and G2 lineages are mostly inexistent today, where are they then? Archaeologically these people pushed and participated in the so called Aegean migrations. So far archaeological movements no matter how small were recorded and mirrored in genetics and viceversa. This can be like the only exception known.

----------


## Riverman

> Well, things get quite weird because those I2 (non Slavic subclades) and G2 lineages are mostly inexistent today, where are they then? Archaeologically these people pushed and participated in the so called Aegean migrations. So far archaeological movements no matter how small were recorded and mirrored in genetics and viceversa. This can be like the only exception known.


We know they were there shortly before the LBA-EIA migrations, so the most likely conclusion is that they were hit particularly hard by Tumulus culture-Middle Danubian Urnfield R-L2 expansion, Gva expansions and Noua-Coslogeni (E-V13 and R-Z93 respectively). It is also possible we find them among Paeonians, Greeks and Phrygians, as well as Thracians, their remains.

----------


## Hawk

> We know they were there shortly before the LBA-EIA migrations, so the most likely conclusion is that they were hit particularly hard by Tumulus culture-Middle Danubian Urnfield R-L2 expansion, G�va expansions and Noua-Coslogeni (E-V13 and R-Z93 respectively). It is also possible we find them among Paeonians, Greeks and Phrygians, as well as Thracians, their remains.


I read somewhere that Maros met their end on the hand of Tumulus expansion initially on MBA. Encrusted Pottery Culture had quite the conflicts with them as well. The shepherd-warriors from Bavaria in the form of Hugelgraber were quite the menace.

----------


## Riverman

> I read somewhere that Maros met their end on the hand of Tumulus expansion initially on MBA. Encrusted Pottery Culture had quite the conflicts with them as well. The shepherd-warriors from Bavaria in the form of Hugelgraber were quite the menace.


Their role for E-V13 might have been quite interesting though, because they might have played a similar role as Germanics and Avars for Slavs, like paving the way. Because if you think about it, before Tumulus culture, Encrusted Pottery (I2+G2) and Fzesabony (R-Z282) did control much of the Carpathian basin to the West, but Tumulus culture ended the rule of Fzesabony by and large. The fused Tumulus culture-Otomani groups produced the very range which led to Gva and Channelled Ware, based mostly on the Eastern locals. 
From the East Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni did also largely push and annihilate, or fuse with all the local Eastern groups. 
In the end the only larger, stronger local group remaining was the pre-Gva core with Suciu de Sus (and regional relatives, mixed groups like Berkesz-Demecser, Igrita, Cehalut etc.). 

Initially I thought that R-L2 and Tumulus culture was only negative, but recently I reconsidered a potential double peak of R-L2 and E-V13 together, in the LBA-EIA transition, with the Urnfield expansion. This would align pretty well with the fact that there were many TC-East Carpathian mixed groups involved in Eastern Urnfield and Gva-Kyjatice. Kyjatice was clearly more TC influenced than Gva, but both were to some degree. 

That means its pretty interesting how this all works, because what we see is that in large territories, which were very different before, after the transition only R-L2 and E-V13 remain as the dominant haplogroups, and these are clearly related to the Urnfield-Channelled Ware phenomenon, with the Danube-Tisza area being communication zone and everything East of the Tisza - so my expectation - should be E-V13 dominated from these local clans. 
If you want so, Tumulus culture removed the Fzesabony dominance. We see very little of these Kostany-Fzesabony clans later, which were clearly R1a dominated - and probably closer related to the Baltoslavs. They might even have been the original Thracian speakers, we don't know, but fact is they were succeeded by other lineages after Tumulus culture, especially E-V13.

So there were two big winners, R-L2 from Tumulus culture, E-V13 (? from East Carpathians into Gva?) and a longer list of "losers" of these events (Tumulus culture expansion and Urnfield expansion): 
- I2 + G2 of the Danubian block
- R-Z282 from the Kostany-Fzesabony
- R-Z93 from the Sabatinovka (Srubna, Iranian) expansion

R-Z93 came later back with Scythians and Sarmatians, and it survived in Thracians. R-Z282 came obviously back with the Slavic expansion. But up to the Avar period, we find among the local Tisza (non-newcomers) population mostly R-L2 and E-V13.

A correction in the data brought R-L2 and E-V13 in a synchronous peak in the LBA. The same being shown on FTDNA, just scroll down: 
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L2/tree

A lot of major new branches pop up before 1.000 BC. 

Data from May 2022 from YFULL: 


The highest peak for both R-L2 and E-V13 is about 1.200-1.100 BC. This just looks like an ideal Urnfield peak. And its too early for the expansion of Stamped Pottery, by the way. Those seem to expand, from a more southerly base, the most with Basarabi, which is to be expected as well, because Basarabi was a big phenomenon too - not as big as Channelled Ware, but covering a lot of its territory from Hungary to Bulgaria.

----------


## Poxy

> The Dardanii question is for now still obscure. I'm fairly confident we have identified/isolated the likeness of it's profile, but it needs to be validated. 
> 
> I am looking forward to the upcoming Italian paper of 500 samples. I want to see the additional IA Latini profiles. If the single IA Roman Latini sample is a prelude to the others, the Roman Dardanii ancestral myth might carry some kernel of truth. I won't make judgement on a single sample, but the only Roman Latini profile so far shares half of it's components with the Dardanii shifted Illyrians. Theoretically, even the Messapii should show partial Dardanii ancestry. We will see.


Upcoming Italian paper of 500 samples? May I know which paper it is?

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Upcoming Italian paper of 500 samples? May I know which paper it is?



https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post661338

----------


## Riverman

With more data coming from FTDNA, we can now say for sure that E-V13 reached Northern Italy-Sardinia, at least in part, between *500 BC and 100 AD (maximal range probably 600 BC to 200 AD)*. A lot parallel branches moved to Germany and Britain. That's by now a pretty straightforward conclusion based on both the ancient and modern DNA evidence. The ancient DNA references come often from the Avar era Hungarian samples. So it looks likely that around that time, before the branching, the source population lived at least close to Eastern Hungary-Western Romania-Northern Serbia. There are a couple of movements in this period, but the most important being quite clearly related to Vekerzug, La Tene Celtic backflow and early Roman contacts. 
I think that's insofar interesting, as this largely excludes, at least for some branches, a much earlier (like Bronze Age) or later (like later Imperial Roman to migration period) movements. 

An interesting example which might suggest a rather Vekerzug into La Tene Celtic backflow scenario is E-BY193951. 

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y...-BY193951/tree

We have Avar era East Hungarian samples, a lot of West European (German and British) samples, and the Sardinian branch can be roughly dated to around 200 AD. It could have moved to Sardinia much earlier, but unlikely before 500 BC, if the datings are roughly about right. I went through the tree on FTDNA, and there a couple of such examples, in different main branches of E-V13, usually involving Italian-Sardinian and German-British branches. The time frame is clearly between later Hallstatt and very early Rome, with the best fit for a Vekerzug-West into Hallstatt to La Tene backflow scenario. Since it involves a lot of branches, it seems to have been no small event for the E-V13 haplogroup as a whole.

For most of these branches there is no overlap with Balkan branches in this time frame. So this split and expansion seems to largel postdate the earlier North <-> South split.

----------


## Riverman

The new tool at FTDNA is very helpful for checking all the public earliest ancestors for the different subclades: 



> There's a new tool at FTDNA - Group Time Tree. Roberta Estes discusses it on her blog here - Sneak Preview: Introducing the FamilyTreeDNA Group Time Tree
> 
> There's a link to the tool in her blog or you can use this link for the R1b Group Tree and then use search to get to your project(s). Group Time Tree: R R1b ALL Subclades


For E-V13: https://discover.familytreedna.com/groups/e-v13/tree

Just select branches. Or all branches.

----------

