PDA

View Full Version : Map of ancient E samples



Pages : 1 [2]

Huban
04-05-2021, 02:42 PM
I would wait for attesting any result without ancient DNA. There were also rumors saying R-PF7562 can not be Illyrian ( I dont remember who was very convinced about it), until the leaks from Albania appeared and said the opposite.

Well we have already some aDNA results so we better use them, otherwise one might forget about all this and return in 10 years, most should be known at that point.. It was me who was "convinced" of that, and I still am.
R-PF7562 find from EBA Albania doesn't say much. At that time Illyrians did not exist, and if some pre proto-Illyrians did they didn't reside on the Balkan peninsula. R-PF7562 by its age, spread looks certainly to be a proto-Anatolian marker. Similarly that hypothetic PF7562 was in all likelihood speaker of an Anatolian language residing on the territory of the modern Albania. Either that or he was assimilated by some Yamnaya group.

So he is as Illyrian as an EBA Yamnaya find is Indo-Iranian. Ofc his descendants 1000, 2000 years down the line were Illyrians, but it is very unlikely he brought the proto-Ilylrian language.


Why should Pannonia be ruled out as option?

There are already very good reasons that clearly suggest E-V13 has absolutely nothing to do with Pannonia. These include multiple aDNA finds without E-V13. And also autosomally Pannonians were light years away from the autosomal profile E-V13 already has some connection to (Getae from Moldova, and indirectly Dobruja Thraco-Cimmerian find too). The indigenous population of Pannonia in EIA was way, way, more Northern than Thracians or Illyrians (especially the former).

Also judging by archeological evidence we can say Pannonians became Illyrian speakers because in Middle Iron Age, Glasinac Illyrians from the south expanded into their areas and presumably "Illirianised" them.
So likely historical Pannonian Illyrians were a mixture of these Austrian-East-German like natives (rich in R1b P312) and North Italian-like Glasinac Illyrians (rich in J-L283 and also carrying some E-V13 branches).

Proto-Albanians (without Slavic admixture) were Central-Southern Italian/maybe even modern Greek islander like on the other hand.

Also to note most Hungarian E-V13, especially CTS9320, and especially those who seem native to that region are from Eastern Hungary, from historical Dacian and not Illyrian lands.

Also Illyrian were only the Southern Pannonian groups, modern day Croatia and Southernmost Hungary, to the North were some Pannonian groups that followed some other paths.

Huban
04-05-2021, 02:55 PM
So I think that Belegiš II is key, but its origins may lie in a new input from the relative North, from what was the centre of Gáva-Holigrady. The break between Belegiš and Belegiš II-Gava might be it for the Southern Danubian zone. This is all no earlier than 1.300 BC, which is when E-V13 should drastically increase in the Serbian-Bulgarian sphere.

I might also quote from another paper:


http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2003/0350-02410454023T.pdf

What I found particularly interesting is that at the end of the Bronze Age, similar stylistic elements, all coming from the Gáva-Holigrady core zone, appear from Eastern Germany (Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt), to Southern Poland, in the Western Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, down to Bulgaria and Greece, even with offshoots into Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean. They cover the whole one of early E-V13 spread possible and there is so far no concentrated appearance of E-V13 anywhere before the channeled pottery.
I don't think Vatin and Belegiš (I) will be E-V13 at all, there is lot which speaks against it, though I can't exclude it without more tests. But more likely is a big push with the transition into Belegiš II-Gava, not before and this means E-V13 was indeed sitting not further South but Slovakia-very Northern Romania for a long time.

Belegiš II might be the key but for completely different reasons.

It seems we already have Gáva-Holigrady aDNA finds, in Y-DNA and autosomally. These finds demonstratively disqualify vast majority of E-V13 clades from having spread with the Gáva-Holigrady. And that, bar these younger expansive groups, E-V13 has nothing to do whatsoever with any sort of Urnfield culture. It seems E-CTS9320 and E-FCG11451 were involved with Gava in a secondary role, and it seems indeed Belegiš II is one of the keys. This is where genetically extremely Northern Gava presumably made contact with some Geto-Thracian like Southerners who then proceeded to spread some Gava ways (including the Thracian language quite possibly) and that includes the culture where we have already three E-V13 finds.

Due to this I believe we can now put the sign of equality between the Vatina, Verbicioara, Paraćin, Tei, Monteoru, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Mediana, Brnjica, secondarily Girla Mare-Dubovac cultures and the SNP E-BY3880.

Original home is Adriatic Neolithic element and subsequently proto-Cetina culture (whose remnants are E-Y37092).

Riverman
04-05-2021, 03:11 PM
Belegiš II might be the key but for completely different reasons.

I wouldn't say completely different reasons even if you are right, because they profited from the cultural input from Gáva-Holigrady and being the main spreaders, just like suggested by me. The question is indeed from which people they got it from themselves.


It seems we already have Gáva-Holigrady aDNA finds, in Y-DNA and autosomally.

Which study? Where? Most remains were cremated too, so where did they got representative samples from?


These finds demonstratively disqualify vast majority of E-V13 clades from having spread with the Gáva-Holigrady. And that, bar these younger expansive groups, E-V13 has nothing to do whatsoever with any sort of Urnfield culture. It seems E-CTS9320 and E-FCG11451 were involved with Gava in a secondary role, and it seems indeed Belegiš II is one of the keys. This is where genetically extremely Northern Gava presumably made contact with some Geto-Thracian like Southerners who then proceeded to spread some Gava ways (including the Thracian language quite possibly) and that includes the culture where we have already three E-V13 finds.

That's possible.


Due to this I believe we can now put the sign of equality between the Vatina, Verbicioara, Paraćin, Tei, Monteoru, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Mediana, Brnjica, secondarily Girla Mare-Dubovac cultures and the SNP E-BY3880.

I think some of these groups are possible to likely to have been involved, but none of these quality as a big spreader and some being highly questionable based on the currently available results. But its a game of exclusion, falsifying options by testing actual remains.


Original home is Adriatic Neolithic element and subsequently proto-Cetina culture (whose remnants are E-Y37092).

Again, where are the results? Did I miss something.

Huban
04-05-2021, 03:28 PM
Which study? Where? Most remains were cremated too, so where did they got representative samples from?


Those Hungarian Scythians, they all descend of Gava culture! Even though they were politically Scythian great many of them were still cremated simultaneously. Gava urns were found at both archeological sites of those Hungarian Scythians and Gava urns were not all that common at that time in the region! I had to dig deep for this information but these people are some locals who surely are genetic and cultural descendants of Gava people, and presence of so many cremations there has also been explained by the authors as the indigenous Urnfield element rather than real Scythians.



I wouldn't say completely different reasons even if you are right, because they profited from the cultural input from Gáva-Holigrady and being the main spreaders, just like suggested by me. The question is indeed from which people they got it from themselves.

One of these, DA197, is R1a-Z280>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2)
Most are very Northern, and we can see they carry R-YP340 which might be the explanation for the Baltic links of the Thracian. From some details I know it almost appears as if Thracian is an old dialect of Baltic.
Modern YP340 seem to have spread with the Slavs though. This is some extinct linage it seems.
DA198 is G-PF3378. He is the one who is South-eastern autosomally, similar to Thraco-Cimmerian find, Getae.

I suspect DA198 represents some (pre-Gava) Belegiš-like people, there at Belegiš II mingling occurred and even farther at Gornea-Kalakača which has links to Insula Banului which is where Pšeničevo culture (with 3 E-V13 finds) comes from.

It doesn't look this Northern Urnfield autosomal profile left some significant genetic imprint on the Balkans, otherwise Geto-Thracians would have looked totally differently. But it seems this is where some E-V13 just took over their traditions and I strongly suspect the language.



Again, where are the results? Did I miss something.

That's my own conclusion, as I don't see any other option as a possibility. No finds from there yet.

Riverman
04-05-2021, 03:40 PM
Those Hungarian Scythians, they all descend of Gava culture! Even though they were politically Scythian great many of them were still cremated simultaneously. Gava urns were found at both archeological sites of those Hungarian Scythians and Gava urns were not all that common at that time in the region! I had to dig deep for this information but these people are some locals who surely are genetic and cultural descendants of Gava people, and presence of so many cremations there has also been explained by the authors as the indigenous Urnfield element rather than real Scythians.




One of these, DA197, is R1a-Z280>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2)
Most are very Northern, and we can see they carry R-YP340 which might be the explanation for the Baltic links of the Thracian. From some details I know it almost appears as if Thracian is an old dialect of Baltic.
Modern YP340 seem to have spread with the Slavs though. This is some extinct linage it seems.
DA198 is G-PF3378. He is the one who is South-eastern autosomally, similar to Thraco-Cimmerian find, Getae.

I suspect DA198 represents some (pre-Gava) Belegiš-like people, there at Belegiš II mingling occurred and even farther at Gornea-Kalakača which has links to Insula Banului which is where Pšeničevo culture (with 3 E-V13 finds) comes from.

It doesn't look this Northern Urnfield autosomal profile left some significant genetic imprint on the Balkans, otherwise Geto-Thracians would have looked totally differently. But it seems this is where some E-V13 just took over their traditions and I strongly suspect the language.

That's my own conclusion, as I don't see any other option as a possibility. No finds from there yet.

Ok, so its all speculation on your part, just like I'm speculating about what Gava might be. I have one big issue with your deduction of Gava-haplogroups from Pannonian Scythians: There are different steps in between. To begin with, Gava was pushed big time from the East by successive waves of steppe people, including Cimmerians and Scythians, with which they mixed, which even contributed to Daco-Thracians. That's one of the big reasons why E-V13 was thinned out in its North Eastern area after the LBA, because they got pushed from the North and the East.
I can't say whether you are right or wrong with your interpretation, but the final decision will come with actual data from a safe context. Just like with Anatolian speakers and their origins, we can't conclude from remains not specific enough.

Huban
04-05-2021, 03:42 PM
I think some of these groups are possible to likely to have been involved, but none of these quality as a big spreader and some being highly questionable based on the currently available results. But its a game of exclusion, falsifying options by testing actual remains.


All of these cultures were genetically related to each other, and yes that includes the people per archeological consensus. They cover the vast area as does the E-V13. And We also have Late Antiquity finds from some of these areas with plenty of E-V13. the outliers are actually Vatina, which had strong Maros influence in its genesis (where there was no E-V13), and Girla-Mare which descends of Sout-Western Pannonia ultimately.

Vatina variant from Western Serbia represent originally Vatina people who were strongly influenced by Glasinac-Illyrians, I guess some older Albanian clades V13 stem from those too. Such as those under E-Y145455. When we figure that this clade is very diverse in Bulgaria-Romania too (with MBA links), the only plausible explanation is this entire MBA complex.

Bane
04-05-2021, 04:06 PM
Maybe you could consider moving the current discussion to some other thread? :)

Aspar
04-05-2021, 06:53 PM
The issue with Pannonia is that its the bridge between the Northern Danubian-Carpathian and the Southern Danubian-Balkan sphere. It is absolutely decisive that we have no E-V13 at all, for sure not in significant numbers, in Pannonia in the crucial time. This means to me that Vatin is out.
What we both might agree is that the Channelled/Fluted Wares are the cultural formations which spread E-V13 primarily and that Belegis II-Gava is probably not just any but THE most important spreader for E-V13 by and large. There is, to me, absolutely no way that Belegis II is not packed with E-V13 and responsible for the spread of not all (!), but a lot of the modern, surviving E-V13. Probably the single most important for the Balkans with very high certainty. I posted links to maps showing its spread along the Danube and down to Greece.
The question however is, where was Belegis II-Gava coming from and who brought it to them? Because most of the areas in which it spread, where, going by the results we have by now, not E-V13 at all before. And that question, especially considering the Pannonian study and its preliminary results, leads us further to the North, not more Southern than Slovakia.

And I read some interesting interpretations concerning Belegis II, which some considered to be more independent from Gáva-Holigrady, but I don't agree with that. Concerning the timing, to me if somebody says 2000-1000, I can't just count the last 300 years of that period primarily. So yes, by 1.300, I expect E-V13 to move into modern Serbia, especially the Northern parts, but 2.000-1.300 BC, that's the majority of the time for this period. So in this period, between 2.000-1.000 BC, E-V13 descended down the Danube, through Pannonia and along the Carpathians on both sides, that is something we can again agree with. But for most of the time, 700 years of this 1.000 year period, I expect them to be North, not more Southern than the Northern Carpathians, probably with the exceptions of individuals and small clans here and there, we can never exclude that. But the bulk was sitting North, coming down, as a conquering and colonising group, later.

Coming back to Belegis II, I found especially that quotation to be decisive:


http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf2.pdf

So the authors assume a break, a real turning point in the archaeological record at the transition of the older forms, Belegiš II is a new complex under the influence of the Gáva-Holigrady source. The timing is ideal, it fits with the final split of Northern and Southern subclades of E-V13, which fall mostly in the LBA-EIA time frame.

The exact same thing happened in Bulgaria with the Fluted Ware Horizon! The same influence, the same impact, on both sides of the Carpathians and from the original centre of Gáva-Holigrady. However, in the West the transition to the fully developed Iron Age was less continuous in my opinion, which leaves the option of Belegiš-Gava being Thracian, but later assimilated.

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41123&d=1605226594
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41123&d=1605226594

More arguments in this post:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=719409&viewfull=1#post719409

So I think that Belegiš II is key, but its origins may lie in a new input from the relative North, from what was the centre of Gáva-Holigrady. The break between Belegiš and Belegiš II-Gava might be it for the Southern Danubian zone. This is all no earlier than 1.300 BC, which is when E-V13 should drastically increase in the Serbian-Bulgarian sphere.

I might also quote from another paper:


http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2003/0350-02410454023T.pdf

What I found particularly interesting is that at the end of the Bronze Age, similar stylistic elements, all coming from the Gáva-Holigrady core zone, appear from Eastern Germany (Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt), to Southern Poland, in the Western Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, down to Bulgaria and Greece, even with offshoots into Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean. They cover the whole one of early E-V13 spread possible and there is so far no concentrated appearance of E-V13 anywhere before the channeled pottery.
I don't think Vatin and Belegiš (I) will be E-V13 at all, there is lot which speaks against it, though I can't exclude it without more tests. But more likely is a big push with the transition into Belegiš II-Gava, not before and this means E-V13 was indeed sitting not further South but Slovakia-very Northern Romania for a long time.

Well we were speaking about the time period between 2000 - 1000 BCE and I rightly pointed out that during that period the region around Romania, Serbia, Moldova would have been filled up E-V13 people, much more than that blue region you've pointed out on the map, whether this was in 1300 BCE or 1100 BCE doesn't really matter.

As for Gava, I already said, it certainly had E-V13 but was E-V13 almost restricted to it? Certainly not. The Carpathians are the key here. They provided protection for E-V13 and it's descendants and they weren't locked up like some cyclops in the Slovakian Carpathians waiting to be released only during the LBA and to overflood the region south of them. Now to understand better this situation we should look immediately before the Gava phenomenon.

First, we should answer the following questions:
1. What caused the formation of the Gava phenomenon?
2. Was the spark and the causer a foreign influence and import or simply a local transformation?

If you haven't read then I recommend to read this ]article (file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/jas/The_spread_of_channeled_ware_in_LBA_Transylvania.p df) about the spread of the channeled ware.


Introduction
From its Beginning in the Late Bronze Age and intensifying in the Early Iron Age a new ceramic style spread throughout large areas of Southeast Europe, roughly from the Hungarian Plain and Slavonia to the Dniester and the Danube. Said style is characterized by channeled ornamentations which were mainly realized on hard-baked black (outside) and red/orange (inside) pottery with polished surfaces. Scattered elements of this complex appear between Poland, the Ukraine and Troy. Pare (1998, 406-407) has called this horizon aptly a ‘koiné’, which he sees as the local expression of the eastern Urnfield complex integrated into a large communication network. To put it succinctly, not only this particular means of decorating pottery, but also its combination with a special fine ware and its distribution over a vast area characterize the Carpathian region at this time. However, Vulpe (1995, 393-394) recognized the emergence of channeled ware as part of a large-scale homogenization process; a cultural syncretism at the threshold of the first millennium BC which was also perceivable via other material investigations, including large metal hoards and the occurrence of enormous fortifications.

https://i.postimg.cc/fT8BdLj2/Channeled-ware.png (https://postimages.org/)


Generally an autochthonous origin of channelled ware is presumed (specifically within the area of northeastern Hungary, northwestern Romania and the trans-Carpathian regions of the Ukraine and eastern Slovakia). A chronology based on independent absolute dates is still absent, nevertheless dispersion from these areas into Transylvania and Moldavia is assumed.

Before channelled ware: the Middle and the Late Bronze Age


Middle and Late Bronze Age societies of the Carpathian Basin are defined by certain pottery styles (i.e. pottery fine wares) attributed to particular distribution areas. In the area later ‘taken over’ by channelled ware, the so-called ‘Otomani Culture’ (found in northeastern Transylvania, eastern Hungary and southern Slovakia), the ‘Suciu de Sus Culture’ (found in northeastern Hungary, northwestern Transylvania and the adjacent parts of Ukraine), the ‘Wietenberg Culture’ (located in Transylvania) and the ‘Noua Culture’ (found in Moldavia, and some parts of Transylvania) are particularly relevant.

Exactly in what would later become the core area of the ‘Gáva Culture’, Otomani pottery styles initially held sway, where they were subdivided into four phases by
Bader (1978, 42-57). Characteristic for phases I-III is a multitude of ceramic forms ranging from smaller or larger bowls and plates to jars, askoi and the so-called ‘fish
pans’. Most characteristic for all phases were the cups; in the fourth phase fineware was limited to them (as well as larger bowls and amphorae). Generally, all pottery forms
were richly decorated with arrangements of incisions ranging from geometrical motifs (like chevrons, rhombi and triangles) to spirals. Known in all phases (but especially
common in the last) was channelled ornamentation (Bader 1978, 42-57, pl. 15-36).


Of special interest is the Wietenberg style pottery, whose complex spiral decoration was sometimes thought to show connections with Mycenae, but is more likely to have been of local origin (in detail Dietrich and Dietrich 2011). The spectrum of forms and decorations was extensively treated by Boroffka (1994). It is characterized by a wide range
of forms from small and large pots and bowls to beakers, jars, amphorae and cups (Boroffka 1994, Typentafeln 1-4). As stratigraphies are largely missing, the multi-stratified
settlement of Rotbav in southeastern Transylvania is particularly important. At the site, three distinct phases could be distinguished: an early horizon with channelled and incised static geometrical motifs, followed by incised dynamical motifs based on the lying S-hook realized in white incrustation and a later phase with dynamic motifs based on Z-hooks.


The third pre-Gáva pottery style is the ‘Suciu de Sus Culture’, which is less well-known than the previous two, but surely reached into the LBA (Kacsó 2001, 231). There is
some evidence for settlement types similar to those with Otomani pottery (Bader 1978, 68-70); whether the spatial relationships of the settlements were similar to those described above must remain the subject of future studies. In the especially rich pottery inventory, cups, bowls and amphorae prevail; ornaments were made by low or deep
incisions and chip carving (Kacsó 1975, 2001). Different meanings have been attributed to the metope-like motifs, ranging from floral and sun ornaments (Vulpe 1975) to
vegetation goddesses (Teržan 2005). In any case, it can be assumed that they were also closely and deeply related to the world view of their producers. Due to its decoration,
the Suciu de Sus pottery has often been linked to the Wietenberg pottery (Vulpe 1975). It is followed by the Lăpuş Group (which in its second phase already made use of
channelled ware).


The last pre-Gáva phenomenon of interest here is the Noua Culture whose main distribution area lay in Moldavia (Florescu 1964) and whose appearance in parts of Transylvania has often been understood as a migration which ended or displaced the Wietenberg Culture (e.g. Boroffka 1994, 287-288). A development out of local milieus has
also been presumed by some (Vulpe 1995).

The main characteristic of the sites in which Noua pottery appears are that they are settlements accompanied by so-called ‘ash mounds’, round heaps (diameters ranging from 25-30m) formed of grayish sediments. They are believed to have been burnt houses, barns, waste dumps or ritual burning places (Sava 2005).


How the world began to change


In the time immediately before the appearance of Gáva pottery, the Late Bronze Age scenery of Transylvania seems to have been populated by a large number of pottery styles which are supposed to have both chronological significance and distinct distribution areas. In the center and southwest of Transylvania, for example, the Uioara de
Jos and Band-Cugir groups (Ciugudean 1994; 2004; 2010; 2011) should be mentioned, in northeastern Hungary and northwestern Transylvania, one must speak of the Cehăluţ
or Hajdúbagos/Pişcolt-Cehăluţ Group (Kacsó 1990; Németi 2009), for the west the Igrița (Chidioşan and Emödi 1982) and then, lastly, do the same for the northwest of Transylvania and the Lăpuş Group (Kacsó 1975), to name just a few.

The Igriţa Group, for example, is mostly known from cave finds (Chidioşan and Emödi 1982), frequently in the form of hoards of secondarily burned and broken pottery
vessels. Some vessel types (like round-bodied bowls) are reminiscent of the Otomani, Wietenberg, Piliny and Suciu pottery styles, while others (like amphorae and cups) show
characteristics of the channelled ware of the Banat or of the Gáva pottery (analogies, Chidioşan and Emödi 1982). The ornamentation consists mainly of fluting and shows
similar regional affinities. This phenomenon (which may be defined as a special class of finds more than as a pottery style in and of itself) appears in the contact zone between
the Wietenberg, Otomani and Suciu de Sus distribution areas (cf. Chidioşan and Emödi 1982, fig. 10).

The Lăpuş Group (Kacsó 1975) can also be defined by a class of special finds; the settlements ascribed to it are rare (Marta 2010). As was stated above, in the first phase at Lăpuş saw pottery decorated via the chip carving technique, while the second phase represented actual channelled ware.

Thus, immediately before the appearance of Gáva pottery, there are find complexes in which channelled ware was used in special contexts. In large ’buried’ buildings or caves, large quantities of amphorae, small and large bowls, cups and pyraunoi were intentionally destroyed; sometimes they even bear the marks of secondary burning and were deposited in the form of densely-packed plasters. Such find complexes are not only known from Transylvania but also appear in the Banat (Stratan and Vulpe 1977), along the lower Danube (Lazăr 2005; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2001) and maybe also in Moldavia (Laszló 1994, 58-61).

It is possible the Late Bronze Age custom of depositing vessels was practiced all over Transylvania, as some finds of the ‘Band-Cugir Group’ (Ciugudean 1994; 2011) could be interpreted in a similar fashion. At Band, several cups were found together in a pit (Ciugudean 1994, 62). In the settlement of Vişinelu, four cups made up the inventory of what was presumed to have been a grave (Lazăr 1997). The famous bronze and gold objects from the hoard from Cugir were found in several pottery vessels, one of which was made of channelled ware (Ciugudean 1994, 62, Fig. 6).

To sum up, the dispersal of channelled ware was preceded by several groups which have deposition of ceramic sets related to eating and drinking at special places but also inside settlements in common. The pottery involved bore channelled decoration and the forms anticipated those of later Gáva finewares: the trio of amphora, cup and bowl. In spite of extensive research into the chronology of these phenomena (Ciugudean 2010; 2011), archaeologists are still unsure as to whether they represent a unitary chronological horizon, as stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon data are missing. It may be presumed that those new aspects emerged from Middle Bronze Age societies slowly and at different points in time (and were perhaps only later generalized). Initially, a slow transformation of the fineware seems discernable (which does not imply any population changes). Evidence for this slow process of change comes from several Middle Bronze Age settlements with intact stratigraphies, in which channelled ware replaced Otomani and Wietenberg type pottery step by step: e.g. at Crasna (northwestern Transylvania; Bejinariu and Lakó 2000; Bejinariu 2010) and at Ţichindeal (southern Transylvania; Popa and Boroffka 1996). In the settlement at Rotbav (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotbav_Archaeological_Site), the first channelled ware elements appeared in the earlier strata with Noua pottery (settlement phase 4) and were observed alongside the typical kantharoi in the later Noua settlement phase 5 and replaced the latter in phase 6. Coarse ware, by contrast, seems to have stayed the same regarding both vessel forms and ornamentation. Similar processes have been described for the Lower Danube and in Moldavia (Hänsel 1976, 88-118).

It has been shown that channelled ware first appeared in special contexts like cult buildings, caves and hoards and then took over settlements, before emerging as the ‘guiding fossil’ of a new era at the end of drastic transformation processes. The question which remains is why and how these transformations first started.

A new world order


To appreciate the intensity of this slow transformation of the Bronze Age world, the social roles of Middle Bronze Age fine wares should to be taken into account once again. It is not vessel shapes or capacities that matter, but rather ornamentation. As argued above, the depictions were presumably part of symbolic expressions of their makers’
perceptions of the world. This pottery appeared in small quantities in houses, but was also used in burials and at cult places. Otherwise, the Middle Bronze Age world is rather aniconic (with the exception of the decoration on prestige items, which would presumably have had other denotations than pottery ornamentation; Dietrich and Dietrich 2011). Complex meaning can be assumed to lie behind the Wietenberg style just as would have been the case for the Suciu de Sus and Lăpuş pottery decorations (Vulpe 1975). Less obvious is the change which occurred within Otomani pottery, which in its fourth phase was already predominantly decorated with fluting.

With the arrival of channelled ware, a unitarily decorated pottery (which was perhaps polished to imitate metal vessels; Vulpe 1995, 395), replaced this multitude of expressions. It showed no complicated motifs. In most cases, the fluting was executed vertically, horizontally or in the form of festoons or stars. Thus, the emergence of channelled ware was not only a technical change; it was a complete change of the social role of Bronze Age fine ware, which lost its role as a carrier of images. The functional role of the pottery as container and the contents of the vessels seem to have gained in importance. A special set of standardized eating and drinking vessels (amphorae, cups and bowls) appeared over a vast area. A similar process of equalization was proposed by Vulpe (1996, 520-522) regarding the change from depositions of elaborately-crafted and -decorated high prestige metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age to the large scrap metal hoards of the Late Bronze Age. He called this a ‘process of laicism’; it was not the decorated and elaborate single object that was the carrier of sacral meaning, but rather the mass of bronze being offered.

Conclusion: modes and ways of dispersal for a new ideology


The mode of the spread of this phenomenon can be deduced to some degree from the contexts in which the earlier examples of the unitary Late Bronze Age eating and drinking sets appeared. They often seem to have been intentionally destroyed and deposited as offerings at the end of their use-lives (sometimes in special places). However,
they were also identified as the remains of feasting and have been linked to the production and consumption of alcoholic beverages which may have taken place at special sites like Lăpuş (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010; MetznerNebelsick 2013). Taken together, large-scale feasting seems to have been an important aspect of Late Bronze Age society, while another is represented by large fortified central places as nodal points in supra-regional networks of communication and exchange. Large hoard finds (like Uioara de Sus, Şpălnaca or Guşterița) may hint at central sanctuaries as other focal points in this network which would be comparable to the Greek supra-regional sanctuaries where votives were deposited in bothroi after a period of display (Hansen 1994, 386-387).

Feasting as an act of social display and ritual consumption (Vandkilde 2007, 160) would have been a motor and a corollary of these processes. Pottery hoards would, thus, have been the archaeologically visible traces of the last step in feasting: the offering and/or deposition of the leftovers. The appearance of a pottery “feasting package” was accompanied by the contemporaneous inclusion of bronze drinking vessels in hoards (Soroceanu 2008, 265- 270). Metzner-Nebelsick (2003) has shown how golden vessels worked as signs and symbols of power; it could be presumed that with its metallic shine, channelled ware substituted for metal vessels in feasting and certain rituals or was attached to other segments of society.

From this is obvious that the channeled ware is a local phenomenon or autohtonous. The channeled ware and technic was present in the Carpathian and Transylvanian cultures of Ottomany and Wietenberg before the appeareance of the Gava Culture. This Transylvanian complex combined channeling with incision, stamps and impressions and encrustation in it's pottery. In some LBA/IA cultures the incisions and encrustations prevailed such as Verbicoara and Girla Mare. In others such as Insula Banului and Pshenichevo-Babadag the stamped one prevailed. While in Gava the channeling prevailed. These were all but regional characteristics of seemingly interconnected cultures. It seems Gava has more to do with the Ottomany Culture where the channeling was widely present in it's last phase. But nonetheless, going by TMRCA of E-V13(2900 BCE) there is no reason to believe that E-V13 was not present in the wider Transylvanian and Carpathian complex. That's clear by the fact that Gava can't explain most of E-V13 in Greece and the southern Balkans because the geometric and incised pottery of Wietenberg and Girla-Mare spread in Greece and Macedonia. This influence was directly responsible for the Geometric period in Greece 900-700 BCE. While the kantharos as a cup used for wine in ancient Greece is a direct influence of the Carpathian cultures.
Stamped ornaments of Babadag-Pshenichevo were found in Troy and this culture itself had the greatest influence in Thrace, lot bigger than Gava. And we already know by upcoming papers that E-V13 was quite big in IA Thrace.

The expansion of Gava is probably related with some E-V13 related lineages but NOT all! Now what led to this expansion is a different question but I believe it's related with the penetration of the Noua Culture. This steppe culture is very unlikely to have brought E-V13 in the region but it seems to have sparked violence and large scale migrations much alike the Avars almost 2000 years later who would have sparked large scale Slavic migrations.

Riverman
04-05-2021, 07:39 PM
Unfortunately your link doesn't work.

I can only emphasize this quotation:

Generally an autochthonous origin of channelled ware is presumed (specifically within the area of northeastern Hungary, northwestern Romania and the trans-Carpathian regions of the Ukraine and eastern Slovakia). A chronology based on independent absolute dates is still absent, nevertheless dispersion from these areas into Transylvania and Moldavia is assumed.

Indeed, that's the core zone.


The last pre-Gáva phenomenon of interest here is the Noua Culture whose main distribution area lay in Moldavia (Florescu 1964) and whose appearance in parts of Transylvania has often been understood as a migration which ended or displaced the Wietenberg Culture (e.g. Boroffka 1994, 287-288). A development out of local milieus has
also been presumed by some (Vulpe 1995).

The main characteristic of the sites in which Noua pottery appears are that they are settlements accompanied by so-called ‘ash mounds’, round heaps (diameters ranging from 25-30m) formed of grayish sediments. They are believed to have been burnt houses, barns, waste dumps or ritual burning places (Sava 2005).

Noua is rather a pastoralist herder group which indeed displaced Wietenberg. I don't think they really played a big role in the Gava-formation and are unrelated to E-V13. I would expect them to be rather R1a inclined, possibly R1b and I2 too.


The expansion of Gava is probably related with some E-V13 related lineages but NOT all! Now what led to this expansion is a different question but I believe it's related with the penetration of the Noua Culture. This steppe culture is very unlikely to have brought E-V13 in the region but it seems to have sparked violence and large scale migrations much alike the Avars almost 2000 years later who would have sparked large scale Slavic migrations.

I wrote the above comment before reading yours. Totally agree. I think there were push and pull factors involved. Simple put, the Channeled Ware complex pushed into the soft parts after being under pressure itself, while at the same time having produced innovations which made it totally superiour militarily. I also think that a main factor for the expansion was internal growth and conflicts. I just have to keep coming back to Teleac, such a big fortification and important Early Iron Age centre, which being attacked more than once and finally destroyed. These were, for their time, very big and epic sieges and battles taking place, large armies of well equipped, for their time, "high tech warriors" with the newest iron swords.

My initial idea was also that the true source group is Otomani, but let's see. However, I'm sure Gava was like the high edge centre of a sphere of communication, I'm not saying that Gava in the narrow sense was the only expanding group, not at all. Its rather that all the other formation of channeled/fluted ware seem to be interconnected and inspired by it. How much direct gene flow and patrilinear dominance of Gava clans was involved, that's up to debate and this can only be answered by ancient DNA being tested. Like if looking at Belegiš II-Gava, probably the most important expansion group of the channeled ware complex for the whole Danubian and Balkan sphere, surely an important spreader of E-V13, I wouldn't exclude direct Gava groups being involved in its formation. But that needs to be proven...

And I totally agree with the comparison with Slavs, which I used myself before, its just the same process, the same pathways, the same soft spots used by a people under pressure themselves, also by their own demographic success, with advantages at hand.

capsian
04-05-2021, 07:46 PM
I've sent them an email with all the details about both KNT001 and ALN008.

I don't see any reason for them not to be added as IMHO, they added aDNA with worse coverage, but maybe they will be extra hesitant to add ancient E samples to the tree due to the age calculation issue for the whole haplogroup.

will it be uploaded to yfull

Aspar
04-05-2021, 07:55 PM
Unfortunately your link doesn't work.

I can only emphasize this quotation:


Indeed, that's the core zone.



Noua is rather a pastoralist herder group which indeed displaced Wietenberg. I don't think they really played a big role in the Gava-formation and are unrelated to E-V13. I would expect them to be rather R1a inclined, possibly R1b and I2 too.



I wrote the above comment before reading yours. Totally agree. I think there were push and pull factors involved. Simple put, the Channeled Ware complex pushed into the soft parts after being under pressure itself, while at the same time having produced innovations which made it totally superiour militarily. I also think that a main factor for the expansion was internal growth and conflicts. I just have to keep coming back to Teleac, such a big fortification and important Early Iron Age centre, which being attacked more than once and finally destroyed. These were, for their time, very big and epic sieges and battles taking place, large armies of well equipped, for their time, "high tech warriors" with the newest iron swords.

My initial idea was also that the true source group is Otomani, but let's see. However, I'm sure Gava was like the high edge centre of a sphere of communication, I'm not saying that Gava in the narrow sense was the only expanding group, not at all. Its rather that all the other formation of channeled/fluted ware seem to be interconnected and inspired by it. How much direct gene flow and patrilinear dominance of Gava clans was involved, that's up to debate and this can only be answered by ancient DNA being tested. Like if looking at Belegiš II-Gava, probably the most important expansion group of the channeled ware complex for the whole Danubian and Balkan sphere, surely an important spreader of E-V13, I wouldn't exclude direct Gava groups being involved in its formation. But that needs to be proven...

And I totally agree with the comparison with Slavs, which I used myself before, its just the same process, the same pathways, the same soft spots used by a people under pressure themselves, also by their own demographic success, with advantages at hand.

Sorry for the link.
This link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333264464_A_new_world_order_the_spread_of_channell ed_ware_in_Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_Tran sylvania) should be much better now.
I think it's a great read...

Riverman
04-05-2021, 08:08 PM
Sorry for the link.
This link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333264464_A_new_world_order_the_spread_of_channell ed_ware_in_Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_Tran sylvania) should be much better now.
I think it's a great read...

Thank you. By the way, what is your opinion on the deeper origin of the Otomani culture? As you know there are a lot of opinions about that too...

Aspar
04-05-2021, 09:24 PM
Thank you. By the way, what is your opinion on the deeper origin of the Otomani culture? As you know there are a lot of opinions about that too...

Not really sure TBH...
I believe it was an Indo-European culture that preserved great deal of the old Neolithic traditions and accordingly one which was more EEF influenced.
Some of its pottery elements involved spirals and other geometric symbols which were incised on the pottery. This was typical for the old LBK Culture.
Other elements such as the knobbed ornaments make me think that Ottomany Culture was influenced by the Schneckenberg Culture as well.

What do you think?

Riverman
04-05-2021, 11:12 PM
Not really sure TBH...
I believe it was an Indo-European culture that preserved great deal of the old Neolithic traditions and accordingly one which was more EEF influenced.
Some of its pottery elements involved spirals and other geometric symbols which were incised on the pottery. This was typical for the old LBK Culture.
Other elements such as the knobbed ornaments make me think that Ottomany Culture was influenced by the Schneckenberg Culture as well.

What do you think?

I'm not qualified to answer that, but let's put it that way, I focus currently on the Epi-Corded context of Eastern Slovakia and I think that especially the Košťany culture is also interesting to look at. There are many unknowns, not even the continuity of Otomani is for sure. However, going by the Pannonian study, it will be very important which dates their samples will have, because like shown in this paper:

In the first time-block
(2200–2000 BC) there is a distribution of components
with moderate probability in Eastern
Slovakian Plain, Košice and Hornád basin.
Analysed locations might be seen as hotspots
for further expansion of the OFCC settlements
in the following time-periods. Between
2000–1800 BC, the settlements spread further
towards the periphery of studied territory.
During this time, the OFCC activity expands
to southern Slovakia.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339630956_Settlement_organisation_of_the_Otomani-Fuzesabony_Cultural_Complex_in_Slovakia_A_spatio-temporal_modelling_study

Otomani expanded to Southern Slovakia over time, at its height. If they have picked up samples from about the time of the expansion and when Otomani was at its peak, we will see which people constituted their population. However, if so, they won't be E-V13, because the only sample was rather further to the West, among Nitra individuals with R1a. This would actually mean that Otomani might be out too, if they sampled it.

I just want to get that data published and more details, could change a lot.

Interesting for what we talked about, the mobility and movement of Otomani:

In this context it
is interesting to observe the evidence of ceramic and also other artefacts of Otomany Culture
in Southwest Slovakia occurring on the settlements of late Maďarovce Culture. It is unclear
whether Otomany Culture bearers movement toward the West was the natural consequence
of contacts between two neighbouring cultures, or rather the result of pressure from Eastern
European cultures. It is worth mentioning that all fortified settlements of Otomany Culture
in East Slovakia met a sudden fiery end. On the other side, almost all settlements of Maďarovce
Culture in Southwest Slovakia were intentionally and gradually deserted.

https://www.academia.edu/44749198/4_Mitteldeutscher_Arch%C3%A4ologentag_1600_Kulture ller_Umbruch_im_Schatten_des_Thera_Ausbruchs_4th_A rchaeological_Conference_of_Central_Germany_1600_C ultural_Change_in_the_shadow_of_the_Thera_eruption

We can never automatically assume continuity. Never. Its always possible, under the given circumstances, that new people came in from a region we don't have on the radar. What's clear however is, that there was no movement from South of significance after the MBA, which makes the Pannonian study so important. We have plenty of movements from the Northern Danubian and Carpathian sphere down, but little to nothing in the opposite direction.

Farroukh
04-17-2021, 04:41 AM
LIB11, pre-Slavic E-L241 sample from Břeclav, Moravia, 5th century.

Read more... (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-bacho-kiro-surprise-hajdinjak-et-al.html?showComment=1618475184686&m=1#c48850481384735462)

Results storage (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)

capsian
04-17-2021, 01:07 PM
LIB11, pre-Slavic E-L241 sample from Břeclav, Moravia, 5th century.

Read more... (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-bacho-kiro-surprise-hajdinjak-et-al.html?showComment=1618475184686&m=1#c48850481384735462)

Results storage (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)

Can be uploaded to yfull

Passa
04-19-2021, 11:42 AM
Added three individuals from 15th-century Ellwangen, South Germany (source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154-0/)). Added one Migration Period individual from what is now Moravia (source (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)).

Riverman
04-19-2021, 12:02 PM
Added three individuals from 15th-century Ellwangen, South Germany (source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154-0/)). Added one Migration Period individual from what is now Moravia (source (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)).

Interesting, Ellwangen:

E-M5172 (515-373 ybp)
E-PF2211 (515-373 ybp)
E-FGC18986(xPF2440) (515-373 ybp)

Bane
04-19-2021, 02:24 PM
Added one Migration Period individual from what is now Moravia (source (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)).

Thank you Passa!
Is it official that the Moravian sample is from the 5th century? Some people wrote it could be from the 9th/10th century like the Pohansko samples.

capsian
04-19-2021, 03:02 PM
Interesting, Ellwangen:

WOW found e-pf2431

capsian
04-19-2021, 03:05 PM
Added three individuals from 15th-century Ellwangen, South Germany (source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154-0/)). Added one Migration Period individual from what is now Moravia (source (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)).

hi passa do you have file ENA browser this remains E-PF2431

Imesmouden
04-19-2021, 03:41 PM
Interesting, Ellwangen:

from where you get these haplogroups please?

Riverman
04-19-2021, 03:43 PM
from where you get these haplogroups please?

From the site the thread is about:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=22.13949123543067%2C20.946124999999995&z=3

Imesmouden
04-19-2021, 03:57 PM
Added three individuals from 15th-century Ellwangen, South Germany (source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12154-0/)). Added one Migration Period individual from what is now Moravia (source (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997)).

Please how could you know these samples haplogroups?

E-M5172 (515-373 ybp)
E-PF2211 (515-373 ybp)
E-FGC18986(xPF2440) (515-373 ybp)

Passa
04-19-2021, 04:36 PM
Please how could you know these samples haplogroups?

E-M5172 (515-373 ybp)
E-PF2211 (515-373 ybp)
E-FGC18986(xPF2440) (515-373 ybp)

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-bacho-kiro-surprise-hajdinjak-et-al.html?showComment=1618062252674&m=1#c7797816359561546433

Passa
04-19-2021, 04:38 PM
Thank you Passa!
Is it official that the Moravian sample is from the 5th century? Some people wrote it could be from the 9th/10th century like the Pohansko samples.

Not official. But a quick Google query seems to indeed point at the site as being a Migration Period one. Anyway, when we will have official info, I will update the map entry accordingly.

Farroukh
04-21-2021, 04:23 AM
LIB11, pre-Slavic E-L241 is at Yfull:
https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-L241/

capsian
04-21-2021, 12:08 PM
LIB11, pre-Slavic E-L241 is at Yfull:
https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-L241/

frpm where this remains

Riverman
04-21-2021, 12:39 PM
frpm where this remains

You see it on the map, Břeclav-Libivá:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=46.424940645991676%2C21.998575096653887&z=6

That's pretty much between Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria, in that triangle.

There will come many more Moravian samples out, sooner or later, from Slavic times:


DNA test traces direct descendants of Great Moravian noblemen

https://english.radio.cz/dna-test-traces-direct-descendants-great-moravian-noblemen-8135728

I think some will turn out to be E-V13 and the haplogroup will be very old in the region, because I think it reached it if not with Epi-Corded people, with Gáva-Holigrady culture, Eastern Urnfield splinters, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Eastern Hallstatt (Illyrian-related), being present in local tribes, including local Celts - and even with later Romans, Germanics and Slavs.

The question which remains now is, which people brought which subclades and to which group of people did LIB11 paternal lineage belong to. Top candidates might be Eastern Celts, Germanic, unknown Thraco-Illyrian/Lusatian related people, or Proto-Slavic.

Riverman
04-21-2021, 11:33 PM
This might be the oldest proven E-V13 carrier after the Indoeuropean transformation (to this date, April 2021):

SEEurope5 - Kapitan Andreevo

https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Bulgaria

This sample after the LBA-EIA expansion (in my opinion of Channeled Ware/Gava people to name it that way) in Thracia being mentioned as E-V13 on various sites.

@Passa: You included the other E-samples from the same site (most likely most would be E-V13 at higher resolution) but not this one? Is there a particular reason?

Passa
04-28-2021, 11:18 AM
Added four D-M55 individuals from the Earliest Jomon period in Kyūshū. Source (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/129/1/129_2012132/_article/-char/ja).

capsian
04-29-2021, 08:42 PM
Hi Passa add new remains from poland on Y DNA Mas_23 PCA0110 124AD-257AD M M CTS6229,CTS3287,CTS12527 E1b1b1a1b1 https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/
https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/2021/04/wielbark-culture-y-dna.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR3atp2gW27v9K6dD1xy2sMJUUPaAlAS4fl0xOYqW 3Owek2TxKcj_YuW3EU

Passa
04-29-2021, 09:12 PM
Hi Passa add new remains from poland on Y DNA Mas_23 PCA0110 124AD-257AD M M CTS6229,CTS3287,CTS12527 E1b1b1a1b1 https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/
https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/2021/04/wielbark-culture-y-dna.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR3atp2gW27v9K6dD1xy2sMJUUPaAlAS4fl0xOYqW 3Owek2TxKcj_YuW3EU

Sorry capsian, but I can't update the map with this individual until we get a more credible source than a blog which was created yesterday and which does not link to any peer-reviewed paper.

capsian
04-29-2021, 09:20 PM
Sorry capsian, but I can't update the map with this individual until we get a more credible source than a blog which was created yesterday and which does not link to any peer-reviewed paper.

OK THANKS YOU PASSA

capsian
04-30-2021, 06:09 PM
Sorry capsian, but I can't update the map with this individual until we get a more credible source than a blog which was created yesterday and which does not link to any peer-reviewed paper.

hi passa found here
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mjv4y7zaloy1zfs/AAArJ631EQvFnL5exiSk1R_La?dl=0

Riccardo
08-24-2021, 11:48 AM
Farroukh, so do we know which egyptian mummy from the Pushkin Museum carries E-Y32576 ?

Riccardo
08-25-2021, 02:32 PM
It seems the mummy carrying E-Y32576 is Lady Tashet.

Passa
09-01-2021, 05:22 PM
Map updated with a wealth of new Roman Age samples from what is now Serbia. Source (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1).

Passa
09-16-2021, 01:59 PM
Map updated with the results of the "Segorbe Giant" of Al-Andalus. Source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95996-3).

capsian
09-16-2021, 08:32 PM
Map updated with the results of the "Segorbe Giant" of Al-Andalus. Source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95996-3).

do u have G25 this remain

capsian
09-16-2021, 08:33 PM
Map updated with the results of the "Segorbe Giant" of Al-Andalus. Source (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95996-3).

why u did it s negative branch M81 so it is possible under PF2431

bce
09-20-2021, 11:45 AM
Here it is - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zr7itbDHGgvM.kHmbTTiPAdtQ

It will be updated as new samples get published.

Here's a table with info on samples - 7859

According to uMap (https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#6/51.000/2.000), the Moldovan Scythians aren't from Hlinaia in northern Moldova, but from a place of the same name in Transnistria:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hlinaia,_Slobozia,_Transnistria

Passa
09-27-2021, 12:47 PM
Added 3 new D1b Jomon samples. Source (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abh2419).

capsian
09-27-2021, 03:22 PM
Added 3 new D1b Jomon samples. Source (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abh2419).

you forget result from italy on Hg E-L618 600-500 AD

Passa
10-11-2021, 08:30 AM
Added medieval individual from continental Southern Italy. Source (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673).