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

[Riverman]

Stamped-Pottery covered a bigger area than Channeled-Ware.

Not really, especially if you go for the typical cultural formations, not just single items. Like Channelled Ware cultures vs. Stamped Pottery cultures. Not where the pots pop up, but where dense settlement can be observed. If you go for the latter, Channelled Ware was wider spread. Because the Stamped Pottery in the narrower sense didn't cover much of the Northern sphere of Eastern Urnfield/Channelled Ware, but was concentrated in the Southern half.

Basically the Channelled Ware block was cut in half by the Cimmerian intrusion, with Mezocsat being the wedge in between - largely G?va derived, but a group of its own. North of them were Late G?va derived people, which were never completely turned by Stamped Pottery, just influenced, and South of the Mezocsat/Cimmerian wedge was Stamped Pottery.

It is pretty simple, Channelled Ware of the G?va-related kind was one huge block, ranging from Poland-Ukraine down to Anatolia-Greece, then came the Cimmerians and cut this block in half. Later came the Scythians and did the same thing (compare Mezocsat transitioning into Vekerzug). The Stamped Pottery group had way more Cimmerian and especially Greco-Anatolian influences than the Northern remains, the groups North of the Cimmerian wedge.

I wouldn't be surprised if E-V13 was there in Balkan mountain chains or so called Haemus-Rhodope mountains and expanding only in LBA/EIA up North meeting the expanding Channeled-Ware groups, and this amalgamation formed the historical Geto-Dacians and Thracians. Or call it Thracians in general.

They were overrun and there is no sign of any large flourishing population which persisted from the MBA into the EIA. It is not there. Again, the sheer size of the E-V13 population was huge, you can't squeeze it into a couple of mountains. And on what base should they began to dominate everything around them, all those newly arriving, more advanced groups from the Channelled Ware horizon? It is not there.

Now the question is, how different or whether the Channeled-Ware were different from Stamped-Ware by Y-DNA, or was E-V13 present there? I don't know.

The question with Channelled Ware is clearly not whether E-V13 was present in the Channelled Ware horizon, it must have been, the question is whether it was present in ALL of its provinces, or only specific ones. Like its possible, just possible, that I'm wrong about Suciu de Sus and a more Southern group around the Banat and Oltenia was the main core and spreader, under the assumption that Suciu de Sus/Lapus/Northern Pre-G?va did not replace them, but just gave them additional impulses.
I don't see that as a likely option, because we see the spread of fortifications and warrior burials in a more Northern style with the spread of G?va and Channelled Ware in general. This speaks for large numbers of warriors and whole tribes coming from the Upper Tisza region, in my opinion.

But this could be proven wrong, eventually, and the true centres of E-V13, the bulk of it at least, could have lived in the Southern groups of the Carpathian cremation block already before and spread from there, with the Northern groups being dominated by other haplogroups, and little if any E-V13. Again, I don't deem that likely, I think Suciu de Sus was the central early group for the spread of E-V13, but that's a possibility.

That the Channelled Ware horizon as a whole is unrelated to the LBA-EIA expansion of E-V13 is just extremely unlikely. The only even less likely scenario is that Basarabi was not full of E-V13. That's truly impossible.

As for the burial rite: This was clearly an adoption of Cimmerian/steppe rites by locals. We see that in Mezocsat in particular, where we have a continuation of G?va-like pottery, just of worse quality (less organised settlements, lack of experts and elites after the conquest, no longer as important for rituals etc.). Basically, in the East-South East, this same trend started earlier, with contacts to Belozerka in the area of Babadag. So this was simply an influence working on the Channelled Ware communities, first mainly from the steppe, later also from the Greco-Anatolian world.
That the genetic steppe-impact was overall rather low and this was rather a cultural influence can be seen in the Mezocsat locals (all females unfortunately), which score largely like I expect Northern G?va to be.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

The Transylvanian paper will make or break the Gava hypothesis. Personally I can't foresee this going wrong. It's going to be a crazy summer, so many papers poised to be published. I hope we get Greek samples too, I noticed from the previews in the biomuse paper, there are lots of samples from Greek Macedonia some near the Albanian border, it would be relevant to compare them to the upcoming Albanian samples.

 

[Riverman]

The Transylvanian paper will make or break the Gava hypothesis. Personally I can't foresee this going wrong.

Unfortunately they won't have actual G?va samples, nothing from Suciu de Sus either. In both cases its mainly because of cremation horizon, and they have gathered additional samples, which might be published later.

But taking these samples and the ones from Gomolava together, if they both get out this year, it should give us a much better idea of what was going on North of the Danube, in the Carpathian cremation block. The more samples the better.

 

[Southpaw]

The Transylvanian paper will make or break the Gava hypothesis. Personally I can't foresee this going wrong. It's going to be a crazy summer, so many papers poised to be published. I hope we get Greek samples too, I noticed from the previews in the biomuse paper, there are lots of samples from Greek Macedonia some near the Albanian border, it would be relevant to compare them to the upcoming Albanian samples.

I think that this website in Romanian, translated to English describes the so called Thracian Hallstatt in a very simple and effective way:

Within the Hallstatt era, three main periods are highlighted: early, middle and late. There are also other periods. The famous Austrian archaeologist P. Reinecke, referring to the periodization of Hallstatt in general, mentions four phases: A, B, C, D. Even more detailed is the periodization proposed by the famous German archaeologist G. Miiller-Karpe, specialist in chronology problems Hallstatt in Central Europe and the north of the Apennine Peninsula.

He revealed the following phases of the Hallstatt era: HaA1 - c. XII BC, HaA2 - c. XI BC, HaB1 - c. X BC, HaB2 - c. IX BC, HaB3 - c. VIII BC, HaC - century VII BC Thus, the phases HaA1-HaA2 and HaB1-HaB2 correspond to the early Hallstatt, to the middle - HaB3-HaC, and to the late - HaD. This periodization of the Hallstatt era is used by all specialists concerned with the era in question.

The historical importance of the Hallstatt era is very great. On a vast territory of the Old World, the process of transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age takes place. The Iron Age in the Carpatho-Dniester area begins as such in the century. VIII BC, when iron work tools and weapons replace bronze ones. Early Hallstatt corresponds to the final period of the Bronze Age, and Middle Hallstatt - to the early Iron Age.

The characteristic features of the early Hallstatt era, which distinguish it from the late Bronze Age, are: the peak of the development of bronze metallurgy, the small number of iron objects, the mixed economy - agriculture and cattle breeding, unlike the previous era, where animal breeding prevailed , the stable settlements and the emergence of settlements fortified with earth waves and ditches, polished black pottery, ornamented with grooves and with incisions and prints.

Within the early Hallstatt culture, two cultural complexes with characteristic features stand out: the northern one, with grooved pottery, and the southern one, with incised and printed pottery. in specialized literature, the northern cultural complex is also known as Thracian Hallstatt or grooved Hallstatt, and the southern one - Balkan-Danube Hallstatt. Within the Thracian or grooved Hallstatt, two cultural-historical communities are distinguished: Gava and Beleghis . The Gava or Gava-Holigrady type complexwas formed in the region of the Upper Tisza on the basis of the Ottoman culture from the Bronze Age. It is spread in the north-east of Hungary, the south-east of Slovakia, Transylvania, the Transcarpathian region and the surrounding Carpathian-Ukrainian region. In Moldova, in the Suceva Plateau, this complex is represented by the Grănicesti group .

The Beleghiş type complex , also called the Beleghiş II or Bobda II - Susani-Beleghiş II culture , was established in the Serbian and Romanian Banat on the basis of the Beleghiş and Cruceni Middle and Late Bronze Age cultures . It occupies the territories of North-Eastern Yugoslavia, the south-western part of Romania - Oltenia and Muntenia. In the eastern Carpathian area it is represented by the Chisinau-Corlăteni cultural group .

The appearance of the Thracian or grooved Hallstatt culture in the area around the Carpathians and in Moldova led to the change of archaeological cultures. The Late Bronze Age New Culture around the Carpathians is replaced by the cultural groups of the early Hallstatt of the Holigrady type , and in Moldova by those of the Chisinau-Corlăteni type . The Holigrady group appeared as a result of the migration of the tribes of the Gava culture over the Carpathian passes, and the Chisinau-Corlăteni group as a result of the movement of the bearers of the Beleghis II culture, in the eastern Carpathian space through the territory between the foothills of the Southern Carpathians and the left bank of the Danube. The local population - the bearers of the Noua culture - was assimilated. This process, according to the opinion of archaeologists, took place in the middle or in the second half of the century. 12th BC

The early Hallstatt complex with Insula Banului incised and printed ceramics was formed in the area of ​​the Iron Gates, based on the Zito-Brdo-Gârla Mare Bronze Age cultures . It was widespread in the southern Balkans (Psenicevo group), branching out to Asia Minor ( Troia ), Dobrogea ( Babadag culture ) and Moldova. In Moldova it is represented by two consecutive cultural groups: Holercani-Tămăoani and Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia. The Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia complex has a mixed character. It was formed by the autochthonous substratum and the Banului Island , Babadag and Psenicevo cultural groups. Through the Saharna-Solonceni groupthe early Hallstatt complex with incised and printed ceramics also influenced the synchronic cultures on the right bank of the Dnieper (the Cernoles culture ).

In this way, as a result of the influence and migrations of the Beleghis and Gava cultural communities in the Carpatho-Nistrian area, the early Hallstatt groups of the Chisinau-Corlăteni and Grănicesti type appeared, and among the Balkan-Danube cultural communities - the Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia group .

The presentation of the grooved Hallstatt in the eastern Carpathian area will be based on the Chişinău-Corlăteni group . The early Hallstatt complex with incised and printed ceramics in the area in question is elucidated through the Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia group , given the fact that the previous Holercani-Tămăoani group requires additional investigations.

Middle Hallstatt in the Carpatho-Dniester area is represented by the Soldanesti cultural group. Monuments of this type appeared as a result of the migration from the west of the tribes of the Bessarabi culture , whose area includes a large part of Romania, North-East Yugoslavia, the northern part of Bulgaria and part of Hungary. The influence of Bessarabi culture can be noted to the east as far as the Dnieper.


Therefore, the early and middle Hallstatt in the eastern Carpathian space is known through the Chisinau-Corlăteni , Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia and Soldăneşti-Basarabi cultural groups . These groups are assigned by Thracian ethnos specialists, the Chisinau-Corlăteni andSoldăneşti-Basarabi - at the branching of the northern Thracians, and the Saharna - at the branching of the southern Thracians.

Investigations in recent years have demonstrated once again how complicated the issue of the ethnicity of archaeological cultures is. The concretization of the problem regarding the ancestral homeland of the bearers of the Holigrady and Chisinau -Corlăteni fluted Hallstatt groups - the Upper Tisza basin for the first, respectively, the Middle Danube region (Serbian and Romanian Banat) - for the second, is carried out depending on the ethnic determinations of the Gava and Beleghis II cultures . As is known, the Beleghis type monuments they are found in the region formerly populated by Illyrians and that is why their pro-Illyrian affiliation is accepted. Many researchers are concerned with the ethnicity of the bearers of the Gava culture, some of them excluding their Thracian origin. Thus, the Thracian origin of the Holigrady and Chişinău-Corlăteni cultures can be doubted.

The chronological framework of the mentioned cultures is as follows: Chişinău-Corlăteni - the middle, the second half of the century. 12th - century 10th century BC, Saharna-Solonceni-Cozia - border X/IX - mid century 8th BC, Soldăneşti-Basarabi - c. VIII-VII BC

The above mentions regarding the appearance of the Hallstatt groups, the relationships between them, the ethnic origin of their bearers and the chronological limits constitute the considerations of the majority of specialists in the field of Hallstatt archaeology. However, there are other opinions.

https://nmuseum.blogspot.com/2013/05/epoca-fierului-in-colectiile-muzeului.html?m=1

 

[Riverman]

The Garla Mare culture was not the only/primary source of the Stamped Pottery, but just a contributing element, after from the Banat and Oltenia in particular Channelled Ware/G?va-related groups came down to the region. We already have samples from the Garla Mare-related groups, and they turned out like the others, high WHG (higher than Mezocsat Post-G?va) and dominated by I2 (G2 appears also in Northern Croatia among EP).

Therefore the above statement is wrong. Also consider that the two phenomenons are not synchronous, Channelled Ware came first, Stamped Pottery, which kept element sof Channelled/Knobbed Ware in its repertoire, second, and only after additional steppe (Belozerka, Cimmerian) and Greco-Anatolian influences.

Add to that, that Belegis II-G?va and G?va-Holigrady are closely related, even genetically, groups, not completely seperable from each other. How much of Belegis II-G?va can be directly derived from G?va from the Upper Tisza is under discussion, you can read different opinions on the issue.

In any case, you come back to one single complex in the core of Eastern Urnfield/Channelled Ware, which goes from the Upper to the Lower Tisza zone, from Transcarpathia (G?va) to the Banat (Belegis II-G?va).

And Insula Banului and Psenichevo kept a lot of these related formations, the latter of course also from Danubian Fluted Ware/Knobbed Ware. So they are not clearly distinct, not synchronous, but rather successors of each other.

 

[Southpaw]

Just to note and clarify: grooved is synonymous to Channeled/Kanellure and printed is synonymous to stamped. Both channeling and stamped are part of ornamented Hallstatt complex or in older literature it was known as Eastern Hallstatt. Now the question is, do these two zones share the same paternal ancestry? I guess we will find out.

 

[Riverman]

Just to note and clarify: grooved is synonymous to Channeled/Kanellure and printed is synonymous to stamped. Both channeling and stamped are part of ornamented Hallstatt complex or in older literature it was known as Eastern Hallstatt. Now the question is, do these two zones share the same paternal ancestry? I guess we will find out.

Incision were also used by the Carpathian groups (like Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg) and in the typical later form being also spread by steppe related groups from the Belozerka-Cimmerian sphere. For the prints we have little earlier widespread, specific affiliation at all. In the way it was used, it was more a novum. These two aspects (incisions and prints) being combined with flutes/channelling/grooves, knobs/protrusions, black burnishing and other aspects of earlier G?va-related Channelled Ware. So we mostly deal with a transition from one to the other in the Danubian and Southern Thracian area, from which the new cultural package moved up again.
But this is more a sequence than two different, genetically (in origin) different groups competing with each other.

So there can be no doubt that the paternal heritage of the Southern Channelled Ware groups was the same, by and large, as that of the later Stamped Pottery (main group: Basarabi). That the Danubian Fluted Ware group would have been completely different from Psenichevo is out of question. That they could have been different from Northern G?va is of course possible. These are two different aspects in the debate imho.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Investigations in recent years have demonstrated once again how complicated the issue of the ethnicity of archaeological cultures is. The concretization of the problem regarding the ancestral homeland of the bearers of the Holigrady and Chisinau -Corlăteni fluted Hallstatt groups - the Upper Tisza basin for the first, respectively, the Middle Danube region (Serbian and Romanian Banat) - for the second, is carried out depending on the ethnic determinations of the Gava and Beleghis II cultures . As is known, the Beleghis type monuments they are found in the region formerly populated by Illyrians and that is why their pro-Illyrian affiliation is accepted. Many researchers are concerned with the ethnicity of the bearers of the Gava culture, some of them excluding their Thracian origin. Thus, the Thracian origin of the Holigrady and Chişinău-Corlăteni cultures can be doubted.

I disagree with the last part. Belegis intruded in to western Serbia/eastern Bosnia, earlier called Vatin variant, now seen as mostly Belegis derived. The indeterminable category points to conglomerate of cultures from the plains of the north taking refuge in hilly regions further south. Illyrians were not in the plains of Pannonia and southern Hungary at this period, they were consolidating their hold in Bosnia and enjoying a big sea driven expansion. I see remnants of Vatin, and impulses coming from the pre-Gavians and proto-Celts, mixing in a frontier zone which would have included a branch of the Illyrians as well. But equating Illyrians with Belegis is plain non-sense, it was the opposite, Belegis intruding in a Illyrian periphery zone., Belegis itself is centered outside Illyria, with strong connections to Transylvania. The author ignored their own chronological detail with that ending statement.


It is interesting our little boy is pinning his hopes and dreams of a Illyrian E-V13 in western Serbia and eastern edges of Bosnia. A region first breached by Belegis I, and later by Triballi. Through his dishonesty he reveals that he knows where E-V13 comes from, his opposition stems from being a character defect, a weasel of a personality.

 

[Southpaw]

I disagree with the last part. Belegis intruded in to western Serbia/eastern Bosnia, earlier called Vatin variant, now seen as mostly Belegis derived. The indeterminable category points to conglomerate of cultures from the plains of the north taking refuge in hilly regions further south. Illyrians were not in the plains of Pannonia and southern Hungary at this period, they were consolidating their hold in Bosnia and enjoying a big sea driven expansion. I see remnants of Vatin, and impulses coming from the pre-Gavians and proto-Celts, mixing in a frontier zone which would have included a branch of the Illyrians as well. But equating Illyrians with Belegis is plain non-sense, it was the opposite, Belegis intruding in a Illyrian periphery zone., Belegis itself is centered outside Illyria, with strong connections to Transylvania. The author ignored their own chronological detail with that ending statement.


It is interesting our little boy is pinning his hopes and dreams of a Illyrian E-V13 in western Serbia and eastern edges of Bosnia. A region first breached by Belegis I, and later by Triballi. Through his dishonesty he reveals that he knows where E-V13 comes from, his opposition stems from being a character defect, a weasel of a personality.

I agree that Belegis II - Gava doesn't really fit with latter Illyrians. Material culture was different.

As for E-V13, i am considering Eastern Serbia-Western Bulgaria, or between the mountain chains from Haemus-Rhodope and Carpathian Basin. We shall see what the actual picture looks like.

My personal opinion is that Gava (R1a, E-V13) and Stamped-Ware (E-V13) originate from two different Bronze Age Culture, former more North Carpathian and latter North Aegean pushing north through the mountain chains meeting and interacting in South Carpathian/Orastie Mountains who during MBA-LBA consolidated and interacted heavily to form a unified Balkan-Carpathian Complex/Eastern Urnfield with ornamented pottery techniques (grooved/channeled, printed/stamped and incised techniques) in north/west channeling/grooved dominating and in south/east stamped-ware dominating and in the middle both elements being present like in case of Insula Banului and the Early Iron Age Bassarabi Culture where both channeling and stamped are there, and likely one of the main mediators of E-V13 during Early Iron Age.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Here is a comedy skit on E-V13:

E-V13, the most common European sub-clade of E1b1b1a (E-M78) represents about 1/3 of all Albanian men and peaks in Kosovo (~40%). The current distribution of this lineage might be the result of several demographic expansions from the Balkans, such as that associated with the Balkan Bronze Age, and more recently, during the Roman era with the so-called "rise of Illyrian soldiery".^{[197][198][199][200][201]} The peak of the haplogroup in Kosovo, however, has been attributed to genetic drift.<sup>[198]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians</sup>

I wonder who wrote that.

 

[Riverman]

Here is a comedy skit on E-V13:



I wonder who wrote that.

What an utter nonsense. "Balkan Bronze Age", what's that even supposed to be? There was no such thing, but just many different people and cultures at different times and none of them looks particularly E-V13 heavy at this point, with direct and indirect testing having taken place.

If sampling Berkesz-Demecser, Suciu de Sus-Lapus, Belegis, Wietenberg and Verbicoara, to name some of the main MBA-LBA groups in question, I consider it truly impossible that none of them is rich in E-V13. That's not even an option.

 

[Southpaw]

Came upon this website, and i actually like the chronology and for a lot of things i tend to agree.

Towards the end of the Bronze Age, there were movements among the Proto-Thracian tribes from the Middle Danube and their vicinity (south-west Romania, north-east Yugoslavia, south-east Hungary and in the north to the area of ​​the Upper Tisza). They were linked to the so-called "preliminaries" of the "great Aegean migration", which liquidated the Mycenaean civilization and the Hittite state at the end of the 12th century BC. The "sea peoples", who reached Egypt (where they were rejected in 1190 BC), seem to have represented an ethnocultural conglomerate composed of western and northwestern Thracian and Illyrian elements. In such circumstances, the bearers of the culture of the tumulus graves from the Middle Danube triggered pressure and disturbances on the block of Carpathian civilizations. At the same time, from the east, the bearers of the North-Pontic Sabotinovka culture pressed and infiltrated into the southeast of Moldova and the Romanian Plain. The reaction of the proto-Thracian communities in our area to the two directions of pressure (western and eastern) or the "counter-offensive of the Carpathian bloc" consisted in the initiation of the Hallstattization process, which produced a series of restructurings. Thus, against the background of cultures from the end of the Bronze Age, two cultural complexes were formed belonging to the early Hallstatt in the Carpatho-Danube area: one located in the west, north and northeast areas and characterized by fluted ceramics, and the other located in the southern and southeastern regions and individualized through printed ceramics. The cultures and cultural groups of Susani-Belegiş, Gava-Holihrade, Gava-Lăpuş II, Reci, Mediaş,

In the middle period of this era, the Basarabi culture was formed and spread over almost the entire Carpatho-Danubian territory, attributed to the northern Thracians (individualized by the southern ones) or the old Geto-Dacians. This culture and some external influences were directly at the basis of the constitution, in late Hallstatt, of the Geto-Dacian cultural groups Ferigile, Bârseşti, Balta Verde, Gogoşu, Vraţa, Dobrina-Varna, Ravna-Canlia, Vekerzug-Chotin, Sanislau, Cumbrud, Kustanovice-Kcruglic-Cernăuţi, Trestiana-Curteni, Stânceşti-Cotnari, etc.

In the area of ​​all Hallstattian cultures or cultural groups we find open settlements and fortified settlements. Some of the latter have large or very large dimensions and fortification elements more complex or stronger than those of the Bronze Age, being considered fortresses of refuge in case of danger for the communities in their vicinity. The presence of these fortresses and the frequency of weapons attest to the continuation or even the amplification of the warrior phenomenon in the life of the Thracian-Geto-Dacian population from the first Iron Age.

http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/?option=com_content&view=article&id=782%26Itemid=462

The archaeological links clearly refute what rafc proposes and actually what Riverman proposes as well, ironically it's in the middle of both ends what they propose. It states that the Proto-Thracian population should clearly be linked with the Hallstattization process of Carpathian and South/East Balkans. This phenomenon is divided between north aka Channeled-Ware and southern aka Stamped-Ware. And both Stamped-Ware and Channeled-Ware together form a cultural complex which share similar beliefs. For instance Insula Banului which is grouped with Psenicevo and Babadag overall, the only attested burial rite so far is cremation on urns.

 

[Riverman]

What does "individualisation" of the Southern groups mean? It just means that in the South and East, due to contacts with locals and neighbours, the Southern groups began a new phase, a development of their own.
But what was it, that connected them to the Northern groups? Northern groups first expanded into those areas, then began the regionalisation.
The developed Stamped pottery is basically Channelled Ware with new features, like steppe derived incisions and new types of prints.
The early layers are all Stamped Pottery.
First Channelled Ware was developed in the relative North, expanded South, split up, the newly emerging Southern groups with additional Innovations expanded themselves.

I agree with the text, but the quote needs to be put into context.

 

[Southpaw]

What does "individualisation" of the Southern groups mean? It just means that in the South and East, due to contacts with locals and neighbours, the Southern groups began a new phase, a development of their own.
But what was it, that connected them to the Northern groups? Northern groups first expanded into those areas, then began the regionalisation.
The developed Stamped pottery is basically Channelled Ware with new features, like steppe derived incisions and new types of prints.
The early layers are all Stamped Pottery.
First Channelled Ware was developed in the relative North, expanded South, split up, the newly emerging Southern groups with additional Innovations expanded themselves.

I agree with the text, but the quote needs to be put into context.

No, Channeled-Ware is also called Thracian Hallstatt or the Northern variant of the same complex, Stamped-Ware is called Earlier Hallstatt or Southern variant of the same complex. That's what archaeologists say. Both of them probably derive from a Southern-Pannonian Urnfield sub-group. My bet is on that.

Take it as it is, nothing will change my opinion unless i see hard facts pointing otherwise.

 

[Riverman]

No, Channeled-Ware is also called Thracian Hallstatt or the Northern variant of the same complex, Stamped-Ware is called Earlier Hallstatt or Southern variant of the same complex. That's what archaeologists say. Both of them probably derive from a Southern-Pannonian Urnfield sub-group. My bet is on that.

Take it as it is, nothing will change my opinion unless i see hard facts pointing otherwise.

There was not Stamped Pottery before Channelled Ware, that's the point. It didn't exist. You see a fusion of different styles and new innovations adding up to the later Southern block, which used Channelled Ware elements plus local, Eastern and Southern influences, to form a new group. But they weren't synchronous.

The area from which Stamped Pottery emerged was largely covered by Fluted/Knobbed Ware.

Take for example early Insula Banului and Ostrov group, which influences define it first and foremost? G?va-like Channelled Ware and Garla Mare (Encrusted Pottery) elements recombined!

What are the groups using stamped-incised pottery styles before Basarabi?

Gornea -Kalakača; Ostrov -Insula Banului; Babadag; P?eničevo, Cozia -Sacharna, Černoles.

Unlike the switch from pre-Channelled Ware to Channelled Ware in the Balkans, it was a rather smooth transition:

Basarabi pottery dates to the 8th and 7th c. BC and is therefore largely contemporary with the older Hallstatt (HaC) period in the west. If we look at central Transylvania as a comparatively well known case study area59, differences in cultural behaviour in comparison to Oltenia or the area around the Iron Gate can be observed. Here a specifi c burial custom of inhumations with a canonical set of grave goods for men and women is the norm60, where as in Transylvania an archaeologically recognisable burial custom is missing, thus refl ecting the behaviour of the people of its predecessor the G?va -culture, which can be located in the region between the 13th/12th to 9th c. BC61 . The signifi cant change in pottery decoration does not seem to be matched by a change in settlement structures. At least this impression is given by one of the few excavated sites so far, the hillfort of Teleac, Jud. Alba62. Next to the G?va fl uted ware, stamped pottery of Kalakača - and early Basarabi -style with best parallels in Serbian Vojvodina or the Banat -Iron Gate area is found here. A similar picture can be drawn for the Middle Dnister region which sees a change from the fl uted G?va to stamped ware pottery in several hill forts63

There was a South to North migration, but from the area of the Banat-Oltenia, from the former areas of Belegis II-G?va and Verbicoara/Vartop:

Following this results the stamped pottery of Gornea -Kalakača style in settlements of the Mureş Valley may be seen in three ways: fi rstly as an infl ux of migrating pastoralists from more southern areas like the Banat or the Iron Gate65 and secondly as traces of an exchange of goods stored in pottery or thirdly as a slow integration of a new and more appealing way of the decoration of luxurious pottery into the local repertoire by other exchange modes66. In any case this specifi c subsistence strategy offered amble opportunities for exchange of goods, ideas and people in both directions.

https://www.academia.edu/41968453/Migration_in_Bronze_and_Early_Iron_Age_Europe_full_text_

Channelled Ware came first, soaked some Encrusted Pottery and Eastern elements up, and from this, regionally, new fused group emerged which spread Stamped-Incised Pottery.

There is no older group of Stamped Pottery than let's say Belegis II-G?va. Belegis II-G?va came first, Stamped Pottery second. That's a chronological frame.

The Ostrov group is dated to the period
between the 10th-9th century BC', followed by Basarabi
with an initial date not earlier than the beginning of the 8'h
century The beginning of the Pshenichevo style is
not exactly defined, but it is obviously contemporary with
the Ostrov group.

https://www.academia.edu/41178766/T...ological_Evidence_and_Questions_of_Chronology

So the very idea of a two part early Thracian Hallstatt doesn't work out. Because at the time G?va was already expanding, in the South you only had as predecessors Encrusted Pottery (Garla Mare) and steppe derived groups (Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni). Stamped Pottery came up due to the interaction of incoming Channelled Ware groups with these locals and new Greco-Anatolian influences they picked up due to their invasion of and contacts to the Greeks and Anatolians.

There was no Stamped Pottery, when Channelled Ware warbands were already occupying Troy!

 

[Riverman]

Of course, the Knobbed Ware groups from the Channelled/Fluted Ware koine is a specific one to the South East. We can say for sure that Knobbed/Fluted/Channelled Ware (South Eastern group) was both Thracian and E-V13 dominated. The question is just whether the Western (Belegis II-G?va), North Western (G?va), and North Eastern (G?va-Holigrady, Chisinau-Corlateni) were as well.

The traditional view:

After this brief introduction let us return to the key question: can the ap-
pearance of ?Barbarian?and Knobbed ware in Troia be indicative of the ap-
pearance of new population groups? The methodological approach which
led to this deduction in previous research has been the following:
1. Both Knobbed and ?Barbarian? ware are technologically inferior to the
contemporary Troian pottery;
2. Both appear in large quantities in the two subsequent phases following
the VIIa destruction;
3. They could not be attractive commodities for the Troian market (too
ugly), nor could they be acquired through trade (quantities too large).
This prompted the conclusion that the wares were brought to Troia and
later produced locally by the migrating hoards of ?Barbarians? who set-
tled peacefully (sic!) among the Troians, but preserved the pottery tra-
ditions of their homeland. In other words: the appearance of Knobbed
ware is an indicator of the ethnic change in Troia in the VIIb2 period.

Beside its G?va-affinity, Knobbed Ware shows the greatest parallels with Noua-Coslogeni. Intrestingly the more Noua-Coslogeni like features appear first, the more typical Knobbed Ware with more G?va-like affinities second, like if there were two waves of migrants.

In Troy, we can clearly see it came from outside:

If the same procedure is applied to the group of Knobbed Ware then the
results are negative for all Troian clay sources reported by Knacke-Loy et
al. (1995b). This is illustrated in Fig. 4b,c, where the difference in the chem-
ical composition of Knobbed ware from Troia and the two major Troian
pottery and sediment signatures can be seen. This would suggest that the
Knobbed ware found at Troia was not made from local clays. This is a sur-
prising result, because so far it has been assumed by most scholars that the
amount of this ware found in Troia is too large to have been imported in
total.

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

And the origin of the Knobbed Ware, which came with other artefacts of Northern, Carpatho-Balkan origin, is definitely from the relative North.

In the end, we will find a domino effect situation with male dominated warbands taking one region after another, mixing and changing some customs on the way, but still bringing their patrilineages and cultural package to as far as they could get (like Greece and Anatolia), where they obviously mixed with the locals (mainly females).

Go into the PDF and look at the pottery, there was no such pottery South of the Danube before Fluted/Knobbed Ware expanded. And all the cultures for stamped pottery mentioned above used such flutings and knobs in their repertoire, grew on top of Knobbed Ware by and large.

Noua-Coslogeni is an interesting source for many innovations, but we know they were mainly a mix of incoming Sabatinovka (R-Z93 Srubna-like steppe pastoralists) and locals from Wietenberg, Monteoru and Tei.
Monteoru being tested, Tei is supposed to be like Monteoru, so what's being left is Wietenberg and Verbicoara-Vatin in the South, which are part of the Carpathian cremation block.

 

[Riverman]

Even more clearly, so that there can be no doubt about it, we deal with a chronological succession more than a geographical one:

The chronology of the Early Hallstatt from Oltenia has a first stage
characterized by the grooved ceramics; it might be dated, in the absolute
chronology, roughly, in the 12th ? 11th centuries B.C. The second stage, with
imprinted ceramics of Insula Banului ? Gornea ? Kalakača type is dated in the
10 th ?9 th centuries B.C.

https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/575240.pdf

 

[Johane Derite]

Of course, the Knobbed Ware groups from the Channelled/Fluted Ware koine is a specific one to the South East. We can say for sure that Knobbed/Fluted/Channelled Ware (South Eastern group) was both Thracian and E-V13 dominated. The question is just whether the Western (Belegis II-G�va), North Western (G�va), and North Eastern (G�va-Holigrady, Chisinau-Corlateni) were as well.

The traditional view:




Beside its G�va-affinity, Knobbed Ware shows the greatest parallels with Noua-Coslogeni. Intrestingly the more Noua-Coslogeni like features appear first, the more typical Knobbed Ware with more G�va-like affinities second, like if there were two waves of migrants.

In Troy, we can clearly see it came from outside:



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

And the origin of the Knobbed Ware, which came with other artefacts of Northern, Carpatho-Balkan origin, is definitely from the relative North.

In the end, we will find a domino effect situation with male dominated warbands taking one region after another, mixing and changing some customs on the way, but still bringing their patrilineages and cultural package to as far as they could get (like Greece and Anatolia), where they obviously mixed with the locals (mainly females).

Go into the PDF and look at the pottery, there was no such pottery South of the Danube before Fluted/Knobbed Ware expanded. And all the cultures for stamped pottery mentioned above used such flutings and knobs in their repertoire, grew on top of Knobbed Ware by and large.

Noua-Coslogeni is an interesting source for many innovations, but we know they were mainly a mix of incoming Sabatinovka (R-Z93 Srubna-like steppe pastoralists) and locals from Wietenberg, Monteoru and Tei.
Monteoru being tested, Tei is supposed to be like Monteoru, so what's being left is Wietenberg and Verbicoara-Vatin in the South, which are part of the Carpathian cremation block.

Just to add to you, stamped pottery also appears in Troy:



"c. The appearance in Troy of fragments of pottery with stamped decoration,56 characterizing the
Babadag II phase and the related cultural groups (Insula Banului, Psenicevo, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni),
indicates that the transition from the I to the II phase of the Babadag culture occurred most likely during
the Troy VII b 3 phase, being synchronized with the Protogeometric period and hence dated between the
middle (or second half) of the 11th century and the middle of the 10th century BC.

We note that the dating of the Babadag II phase and of the related cultural groups was possible, regardless of their Trojan
connections, in the 10th-9th centuries BC, due to their contacts with the Protogeometric Aegean.


These reasons support our previous conclusions on a gradual transition from the Late Bronze Age to
the Early Iron Age in the Lower Danube and the North-Eastern Balkans; in other words, the gradual

replacement of the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni culture by the new cultures of the “Early Hallstatt” (Ha
A-B) period, which makes it likely that a (partial) synchronism existed between the late Noua-Coslogeni
culture and the emerging Babadag culture, which were in contact in neighboring areas.

The occurrence in Troy first of the Barbarian Ware (in the VII b 1phase), and then also of the Knobbed Ware (in the VII
b 2 phase) would therefore not be the result of several strictly successive “waves” (of migration), as previously thought (see above), but the consequence of a
quasi continuous influx to the Aegean of certain population groups belonging to the above-mentioned cultural areas"

LINK: http://www.aegeussociety.org/images/uploads/publications/schliemann/Schliemann_2012_50-60_Laszlo.pdf

 

[Southpaw]

So, in the Adatepe site which is the same complex as Svilengrad and a flutted/stamped culture is to be found the first gold mining in Europe.

 

[Riverman]

Just to add to you, stamped pottery also appears in Troy:

Yes, once established, the connection didn't disappear and the Thracians stayed in Anatolia, as we know from the historically attested tribes of the Thyni/Bithyni in particular. I also think that along this network and connection towards Greece and Anatolia new Greco-Anatolian innovation and gene flow took place already in the Pre-Greek colonisation phase, but obviously massively increased during the Greek colonisation. All along the Black Sea, in Thracian territory, the Greeks founded new colonies which influence reached deep into the land.

The connection to the Northern groups was significantly reduced by the Cimmerian raids and Thraco-Cimmerian wedge, like Mezocsat pretty much separating the Northern block and the Southern one. The Southern one became immediately and completely dominated by the new Stamped Pottery, the Northern one only influenced on the longer run. That's the big difference and break, when Stamped Pottery emerged and spread from the Danube-Thracian zone, that the backflow was first reduced due to the Cimmerian wedge and some pretty isolated G?va communities lived to the North.

Mezocsat is in any case mostly post-G?va, so these females are the best G?va proxy we got and its just a shame that we have male sample from them. Mezocsat is the best chance to sample post-G?va males and there are many inhumation burials under the Cimmerian dominance. After Mezocsat-Basarabi, the Central and Northern groups all transition to cremation again...