PaleoRevenge
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 1,339
- Points
- 113
Will there be any samples from Babadag, is it underway?
-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
- Status
Not that I know of. But the upcoming Western Romanian samples are highly important and even older.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
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/T...ONZE_AGE_CENTRAL_BALKANS_IN_LIGHT_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).
LINK: https://www.academia.edu/67870376/T...ONZE_AGE_CENTRAL_BALKANS_IN_LIGHT_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
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
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/T...ONZE_AGE_CENTRAL_BALKANS_IN_LIGHT_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).
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
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
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/T...ONZE_AGE_CENTRAL_BALKANS_IN_LIGHT_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).
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
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 1,339
- Points
- 113
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.
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.
Can I say I'm surprised? Clearly not.
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".Bruzmi said:
Interesting, so the BA-IA samples from Dalmatia according to him are not Dalmatians but BA samples from Bosnia
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?
Southpaw
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,618
- Reaction score
- 1,424
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13
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).
Last edited:
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
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/T...ONZE_AGE_CENTRAL_BALKANS_IN_LIGHT_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).
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-G?va 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-G?va -> 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-G?va) 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
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 1,339
- Points
- 113
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:
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.
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:
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
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,205
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Points
- 113
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- T - L131
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:
https://www.academia.edu/1057691/The_unknown_Paeonian_world
https://www.academia.edu/1337289/The_Coinage_of_the_Paeonian_Kings_Leon_and_Dropion
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.
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
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
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
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Also, important to point out that the Central Balkan cultures were in contact with the North Aegean and south Carpathian.
Southpaw
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,618
- Reaction score
- 1,424
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Southpaw
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,618
- Reaction score
- 1,424
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13
PaleoRevenge
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 1,339
- Points
- 113
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.
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.
- Status