Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 273

Thread: Why a large portion of E-V13 in the Iron Age might have been Dacian

  1. #101
    Registered Users
    Posts
    435
    Sex
    Location
    Europe
    Ethnicity
    Roman
    Nationality
    Irish

    Quote Originally Posted by slavomir View Post
    I doubt it, it's just a vague autosomal overlap on a PCA.
    Those Serbia BA samples are probably the Mokrin/Maros samples who were a mix of Yamnaya, (R1b-Z2103), and pre-IE I2 rich groups , while Illyians come from the Cetina culture and were J2b2 dominated
    And Cetina comes from Vucedol...

    Bruzmi has Srb Morkrin EBA down as J L283. Makes sense it is part of the range of Vucedol culture

  2. #102
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,966
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Straboo View Post
    But the ev13 samples still are quite southern overlapping almost entirely with LBA/IA illyrians and then aegeans. So it appears thrace IA were more shifted towards illyrians before they expanded over an aegean like pop in thrace. Logically they would have had to enter thrace from the NW if wallachia is supposedly (as per monteoro samples) I1 dominated. NW of thrace is the Bubanj Hum III area, a culture (and its descendants) related to pre proto illyrian vucedol culture. Its also the hypotetised location of proto romanian per the immigration theory, which as we know romanian and albanian share many similarities possibly pointing to a common geographic origin based on "illyric" material cultures. (E.g. proto romanian might not even be "thracian derived") ,but rather from an illyrian or para illyrian substrat that assimilated thracianisms east of Beli timok and north of the danube.
    Vucedol might not have been that dissimilar or distant from Cotofeni. Also you confuse I1 and I2. I2 and G2 dominated the Danubian block, we know it for sure for Encrusted Pottery, Monteoru and some EBA-MBA Bulgarian samples. About the Carpathian cremation block and groups like Piliny, Suciu de Sus, Igrita, Wietenberg, Vatin, Verbicoara etc. we don't know know anything at this point. We don't know their uniparentals nor their autosomal profile, how different or similar they were etc.

    Monteoro is not foreign to SE Transylvania, Wietenberg is. Monteoro elements on both sides of the curve of the carpathians continues a long tradition of similarites between wallachian groups, such as earlier Glina culture with upper Olt/SE Transylvania groups like Jagodtin, Sh..
    The reason Monteoru is out being that they were tested and are so similar to Encrusted Pottery and don't belong to the Carpathian cremation block culturally.

    We don't know from which group the Thracian language came from originally, but the top candidates are, like mentioned before:
    - Cotofeni
    - Srubna -> Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni
    - Mierzanowice -> Kostany -> Füzesabony-Otomani

    and the same argument could be made proto illyrians picking their ev13 along their way into the balkans so i dont understand the obsession linking ev13 with thracians because it completly ignores the entire history of bronze age thracian speakers and judging by the age of other neighbouring IE languages and i am willling to bet that Thracian is equaly as old, going back at least 2000bc. Thats nearly 800-1000 years before thracian enters "Thrace". Wtf was non ev13 thracian language all that time? And why did non ev13 thracian speakers from the bronze age stop speaking it or "dissapear".
    All of these three groups had a massive influence on the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. During Cotofeni possibly only one single E-V13 male survived! It might have been several brothers or cousins too, but you get the point: E-V13 was at the brink of extinction during the steppe invasion and the formation of Cotofeni. Only one single lineage, possibly out of many other local lineages, probably hundreds or thousands, E-V13 and others (like G2, I2, J2 etc.) did survive and do well into the EBA. It is a similar story to I-M253. For I-M253 we can say too that it might have been originally non-IE and we don't know who the earliest Pre-Germanic Indoeuropeans were, but at some point I-M253 became one of the, if not the most important Proto-Germanic lineages.
    And the same happened, even more radically if following the phylogeny with Thracians: The single surviving lineage was assimilated and then grew rapidly within the Carpathian sphere, until it became the dominant Eastern Carpathian basin lineage, within the cremation block, spreading with specific customs and cultures which radically expanded.

    Cotofeni dominated in Oltenia, and these Cotofeni were susbstrat to the Glina culture. Why are these Cotofeni-Glina less worthy? If Cotofeni was pre proto thracian it goes back to what i said earlier that Gava/channelled ware is irrelevant linguistically because then all post Cotofeni cultures, including Glina and Ottomani? would be thracian speakers. So the MBA migrations of Verbicoara, Tei, Monteoro, Wietenberg, Zimnicea etc could have brought thracian to thrace BEFORE channeled ware horizon.
    The main reason why some of these groups are out is that they being tested and/or connected to tested groups, which are all not closer to the Carpathian cremation block than each other. Before Monteoru got tested, I had no strong opinion on Monteoru and wouldn't have wondered if it would have yielded E-V13, but they were already deviating culturally in some ways from the cremating inner Carpathian and East of Danube groups. Now that we have their samples, they make no better autosomal fit, had no E-V13 and blend in the Danubian block of Encrusted Pottery, rather. So they are out, while e.g. Eastern Otomani, Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg is not.
    It is entirely possible that pre-Channelled Ware groups spoke Thracian and spread it further before, but they would be genetically related, if that's the case. And the main contenders for such a scenario would be Vatin, Verbicoara and Wietenberg respectively. All cremating, all having contact to Eastern Otomani-Suciu de Sus Inner Carpathian groups. Wietenberg in particular was the second group of locals, beside Monteoru, which influenced the local Srubna/Sabatinovka fusion of Noua-Coslogeni, which was an integral part or better substrate to later Knobbed Ware and Babadag-Psenichevo evolution.

    Right well if thracian is related to balto slavic, and currently thats the leading scholarly opinion if we had to pick a relative, then we can just dump the Cotefeni theories vis a vis pre proto thracians, unless you say that Corded Ware, Epi Corded Ware made it to Transylvania?
    I just wrote more mixed than Corded Ware, we don't know how Thracian came up.

    For the rest, Epi-Corded Ware had two major influences. One on the Cotofeni derived Makó group, which was also important, the other the mentioned Kostany into Füzesabony-Otomani, which were R-Z282 dominated and influenced the local Hatvan-Nyirseg and more Vatin-Wietenberg related population which cremated, unlike the Kostany derived clans. This could have led to the cremating Suciu de Sus clans taking up the language of the Mierzanowice-Kostany people from the North.

    I already pointed out to you that your entire theory rest on 1 simple but crucial detail. That is the assumption that Belegis II Gava even exists. I am inclined to agree with those scholars who says it does not.
    Many scholars say Belegis II-Gáva being just a descendant, a mutation of Gáva, with local substrate influence, and I agree. Did you care to look at the product? I did and if you compare what Belegis II-Gáva produced with what was there before, I have no doubt that a massive Gáva migration took place. But even if not, it would be just the Southern relatives of Suciu de Sus within the Carpathian cremation block. Because look at Igrita, look at Susani, look at Cehalut and Bobda, these are all related groups of mixed Tumulus culture and local cremating people which contributed to Gáva/Channelled Ware.

    Also, don't forget that there is either a scheme with Belegis I and Belegis II-Gáva (most) or the minority of Belegis I, II and III-Gáva, so the difference is not whether there is a Gáva-related phase, but whether there is a II phase of Belegis in between, in which Belegis already developed in the direction, but the Gáva influences being still not as dominant.

    This a local Vatin derived culture with encrusted/tumulus influences that has a solid and stable existence for hundreds of years until about 1000bc (Belegis I, Belegis II Cruceteni, Belegis III) when it gradually splinters into smaller regional groups that merge with neighbouring culture sub groups (Garle Mare, Verbicoara) to form the likes of Male Vrbica, Vartop plopsor, Bobda etc. Male Vrbica being the ancestor of stamped pottery Insula Banalui.
    This is the reason they are out, because Encrusted Pottery was dominated by I2+G2, being central to the Danubian block, and having a worse autosomal profile with even higher WHG than Kyjatice, way higher than mixed (Kyjatice) Late Gáva from Mezocsat!

    So any migration from Belegis II Cruceteni to Kishinau Korlateni begins before any hypothetical Gava "take over" of Banat.
    The map above is the usual consensus, for which Belegis II = Belegis II-Gáva. You can't switch between chronological positions like you want, either you take the I+II scheme or the alternative I+II+III scheme.

    Does Holihrady expand south into Kishinau Korlateni area? Or are Tamoani Hansca and Cosia-Saharna cultures direct descendants of Kishinau Korlateni? Well an argument can be made for Cosia Sarharna being stamped pottery derived from Bulgaria, so really is Tamoani Hansca derived from Kishinau Korlateni or another migration?
    I posted many things about those questions. Chișinău-Corlăteni is clearly Gáva-/Belegis II-Gáva derived and related. Cozia-Saharna being younger (!) and the Tămăoani-Holercani-Balta cultural complex has clear Eastern connections:

    Based on parallels, the
    horizon with incised pottery from the Middle Dniester River region can be dated from the end of the 12th century to the beginning of
    the 11th - 10th centuries BC. However, the presence of the bronze hairpin, an article typical for the Noua culture, allows us to suggest
    an earlier date the settlements were established, at least the mid-12th century BC.
    Also look at the ceramic, they use small knobs as a decorative element too, by the way. This was common in the Carpathian cremation block cultures.

    https://www.academia.edu/31224192/Th...r_River_region

    Its been speculated that influences came from the East, from the Belozerka Cimmerian steppe groups on top of Noua-Coslogeni. So here we have the three main influences combining again for the Early Iron Age, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Thracian Hallstatt, like described before:
    - Gáva/Channelled Ware
    - Noua-Coslogeni substrate
    - Cimmerian influence from the steppe

  3. #103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    171
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    southwest Slav
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-M67

    Quote Originally Posted by Straboo View Post
    And Cetina comes from Vucedol...

    Bruzmi has Srb Morkrin EBA down as J L283. Makes sense it is part of the range of Vucedol culture
    it really doesn't look so, the Vucedol samples we have are R1b, G2a and I2, all 3 are lacking in Cetina samples.

    Maybe Cetina people originate from the adriatic subgroup of Vucedol, it's unclear, but it would still mean there was a large bottleneck event where most of Vucedol dissapeared.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to slavomir For This Useful Post:

     Karagjoz (01-24-2023),  Pribislav (01-24-2023),  Riverman (01-24-2023)

  5. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    171
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    southwest Slav
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-M67

    Vucedol samples:

    POP17 2775 BC Croatia_Pop_CA R-L23 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L389>P297>M269>L23
    I3499 2768 BC Croatia_LateC_EBA_Vucedol R-M12149 R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L389>P297>M269>L23>Z2103>M1214 9
    I2792 2726 BC Croatia_Vucedol G-Z6484 G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>PF3146>PF3148>PF3177>FGC22 63>L91>S19852>Z6488
    M6-116.8 2700 BC Vucedol Hungary R1b R-M207>M173>M343
    M6-116.10 2695 BC Vucedol Hungary I-M436 I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P214
    I14689 2505 BC ALB_Çinamak_EBA R-M269 R1b1a1b (possibly R-PF7562)

    Cetina:

    I11843 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-Z597 J2b2a1
    I19029 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-Z600 J2b2a1
    I19025 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-L283 J2b2a1
    I18747 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-Y15058 J2b2a1a1a1b~
    I19032 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-Y15058 J2b2a1a1a1b~
    I18746 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-PH1602 J2b2a1a1a1b2~
    I19026 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-M102 J2
    I19031 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-M102 J2
    I18088 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA J-M241 J2b2a
    I18752 1750 BC HRV_Cetina_BA R-Z2118 R1b1a1b1a
    I8471 1745 BC ALB_MBA J-Z597 J2b2a1
    I18748 1700 BC HRV_BA J-Y15058 J2b2a1a1a1b~
    I5080 1631 BC HRV_BA J-Z38240 J2b2a1a1a1b~
    I18712 1600 BC HRV_BA J-PH1602 J2b2a1a1a1b2~
    I5073 1573 BC HRV_BA J-PH1602 J2b2a1a1a1b2~
    I4331 1569 BC HRV_BA J-Z38240 J-M304>M172>M102>Z529>Z1827>Z593>M241>L283>Z622>Z600 >Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>CTS3617>Z38240

    the Cetina R1b sample is in the western/BBC subclade of R1b unlike the Vucedol ones

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to slavomir For This Useful Post:

     Karagjoz (01-24-2023)

  7. #105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    171
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    southwest Slav
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-M67

    Basically, before 2000 BC, the Balkans (minus Greece, plus Romania and Hungary) were mostly Yamnaya/Catacomb/R1b-Z2103 + local EEF/WHG groups (mostly I2)

    Then J2b2/Cetina/Illyrians pushed in all directions from their core in Dalmatia, in Pannonia there were multiple waves of R1b-L51 (Italo-Celtic), sometime later E-V13 starts expanding from southeast Thrace as well.

    A refugium of R1b-Z2103 were the central Balkans (Serbia and Macedonia) and also Romania/Moldova. Speakers of proto Albanian were somewhere in here as well.

    A push of E-V13 into these regions probably happened with the Basarabi culture, mixing with the local R1b-Z2103 people and creating the historical Dacians and Moesians.

    That's my view of things, at least.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to slavomir For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (01-24-2023)

  9. #106
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,966
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by slavomir View Post
    Basically, before 2000 BC, the Balkans (minus Greece, plus Romania and Hungary) were mostly Yamnaya/Catacomb/R1b-Z2103 + local EEF/WHG groups (mostly I2)

    Then J2b2/Cetina/Illyrians pushed in all directions from their core in Dalmatia, in Pannonia there were multiple waves of R1b-L51 (Italo-Celtic), sometime later E-V13 starts expanding from southeast Thrace as well.

    A refugium of R1b-Z2103 were the central Balkans (Serbia and Macedonia) and also Romania/Moldova. Speakers of proto Albanian were somewhere in here as well.

    A push of E-V13 into these regions probably happened with the Basarabi culture, mixing with the local R1b-Z2103 people and creating the historical Dacians and Moesians.

    That's my view of things, at least.

    R-L51 was mostly R-L2 in Pannonia and it came from Tumulus culture. These Tumulus culture groups influenced the local Carpathian groups of Füzesabony-Otomani (R-Z282 dominated) and the Eastern Otomani (Gyulavarsand, pre-Suciu de Sus) and Wietenberg.

    Its from the later which were the cremating locals along the Tisza and Körös primarily, but down to the Danube, that the Channelled Ware groups and Thracians emerged. E-V13 did start to expand earlier and accelerate together with R-L2 in Urnfield. The association is pretty straightforward, which brings us to groups like Piliny, but especially Suciu de Sus-Lapus, Igrita, Susani, Bobda, Cehalut etc.

    A start from South East Thrace makes no sense, because what was there to begin with? The main elements came from the incised decorating groups of the Tămăoani-Holercani-Balta cultural complex, the Gáva-related Channelled Ware (see Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon) and Aegean-Anatolian influences, which came back from the Southern fringe and from around Troy-West Anatolia. There is no expanding group in South East Thrace which started in the MBA and persisted into the EIA.

    Basarabi started from Southern Romania, for the most part, which was, before uniting the above mentioned influences, completely covered by Gáva groups. They expanded North, that's true, but I consider this being a back migration which didn't replace all the Gáva-related people anyway, and we know these, which were not replaced, were part of the Thracian Hallstatt and later Daco-Thracian sphere as well, like in Northern Moldova-North Romania-Transcarpathia etc., leading up to Eastern Vekerzug (Sanislau group) and Kustanovice.
    Therefore Basarabi was a shift within the established sphere of the E-V13 dominated Thracians, it was not the shift towards E-V13 and Thracians, which done already.

    But let's assume Basarabi was replacing Late Gáva groups which were not E-V13 dominated, probably not even Thracians, makes no sense, is not very likely, but its possible, so we can assume that for a moment: They would still have to come from around Southern Romania-Moldova, from Eastern Gáva groups, Wietenberg and in any case the Carpathian cremation block and not from South Eastern Thrace.

    Therefore I would distinguish the following options:
    Origin of E-V13 in the Carpathian cremation block which is nearly certain. This includes groups like Eastern Otomani-Suciu de Sus, Igrita, Vatin, Belegis, Verbicoara etc. They all show some interconnectedness dating back to the MBA already, to before the invasion of Kostany-Füzesabony and the Tumulus culture people, and they all being influenced, directly or indirectly, by these invasions. The strongest fusion and most innovative group being without a doubt Suciu de Sus, which is the primary Pre-Gáva factor genetically.
    But since Gáva was an event in which some of these groups might have transitioned more fluently, a homogenised horizon, its possible that one province of it was dominated by lineages of a preceding people and this province became more dominant than others. The timing doesn't fit, because E-V13 started to expand earlier and with the start of Gáva became explosive, but I won't exclude it completely, so its an option, within the Carpathian cremation block.

    An origin outside of the Carpathian cremation block is, giving the current sampling done, the predictable distribution and relationships of the remaining cultures, very, very unlikely. I see no realistic option at all. Basically the boundary for most of the important groups is around the Danube and Knobbed Ware is THE crucial phenomenon in the Eastern Balkans, clearly starting around Moldova-Lower Danube, not in South Eastern Thrace. So even if a local group would have joined the Channelled Ware movement and dominate Knobbed Ware, it would have been one related to Gáva and Noua-Coslogeni, not a group from the South East. The main local contributors were Monteoru and Wietenberg, which can just mean Wietenberg.
    Last edited by Riverman; 01-24-2023 at 01:36 PM.

  10. #107
    Registered Users
    Posts
    171
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    southwest Slav
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-M67

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    R-L51 was mostly R-L2 in Pannonia and it came from Tumulus culture. These Tumulus culture groups influenced the local Carpathian groups of Füzesabony-Otomani (R-Z282 dominated) and the Eastern Otomani (Gyulavarsand, pre-Suciu de Sus) and Wietenberg.

    Its from the later which were the cremating locals along the Tisza and Körös primarily, but down to the Danube, that the Channelled Ware groups and Thracians emerged. E-V13 did start to expand earlier and accelerate together with R-L2 in Urnfield. The association is pretty straightforward, which brings us to groups like Piliny, but especially Suciu de Sus-Lapus, Igrita, Susani, Bobda, Cehalut etc.
    Each of the big west European / R1b-L51 / "Celtoid" cultures pushed into Hungary, proven by ancient DNA. BBC, Tumulus, Urnfield, Hallstat, La Tene. By the late Iron age entire Hungary was dominated by R1b-L51.
    R1a-Z80 had short appearances in Pannonia and quickly got replaced without leaving much ancestry. For example, the Vinkovci/Somogyvar culutre (R1a-Z280) which was quickly replaced by incrusted pottery (I2-M223)

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    A start from South East Thrace makes no sense, because what was there to begin with? The main elements came from the incised decorating groups of the Tămăoani-Holercani-Balta cultural complex, the Gáva-related Channelled Ware (see Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon) and Aegean-Anatolian influences, which came back from the Southern fringe and from around Troy-West Anatolia. There is no expanding group in South East Thrace which started in the MBA and persisted into the EIA.

    Basarabi started from Southern Romania, for the most part, which was, before uniting the above mentioned influences, completely covered by Gáva groups. They expanded North, that's true, but I consider this being a back migration which didn't replace all the Gáva-related people anyway, and we know these, which were not replaced, were part of the Thracian Hallstatt and later Daco-Thracian sphere as well, like in Northern Moldova-North Romania-Transcarpathia etc., leading up to Eastern Vekerzug (Sanislau group) and Kustanovice.
    Therefore Basarabi was a shift within the established sphere of the E-V13 dominated Thracians, it was not the shift towards E-V13 and Thracians, which done already.

    But let's assume Basarabi was replacing Late Gáva groups which were not E-V13 dominated, probably not even Thracians, makes no sense, is not very likely, but its possible, so we can assume that for a moment: They would still have to come from around Southern Romania-Moldova, from Eastern Gáva groups, Wietenberg and in any case the Carpathian cremation block and not from South Eastern Thrace.
    Archaeology can sometimes be wrong (like BBC coming from North Africa or Iberia). Let's wait for more samples. But for now, samples which look ancestral to IA Thracians are lacking in the Gava core regions.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to slavomir For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (01-24-2023)

  12. #108
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,214

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    A start from South East Thrace makes no sense, because what was there to begin with? The main elements came from the incised decorating groups of the Tămăoani-Holercani-Balta cultural complex, the Gáva-related Channelled Ware (see Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon) and Aegean-Anatolian influences, which came back from the Southern fringe and from around Troy-West Anatolia. There is no expanding group in South East Thrace which started in the MBA and persisted into the EIA.

    Basarabi started from Southern Romania, for the most part, which was, before uniting the above mentioned influences, completely covered by Gáva groups. They expanded North, that's true, but I consider this being a back migration which didn't replace all the Gáva-related people anyway, and we know these, which were not replaced, were part of the Thracian Hallstatt and later Daco-Thracian sphere as well, like in Northern Moldova-North Romania-Transcarpathia etc., leading up to Eastern Vekerzug (Sanislau group) and Kustanovice.
    Therefore Basarabi was a shift within the established sphere of the E-V13 dominated Thracians, it was not the shift towards E-V13 and Thracians, which done already.
    What makes no sense is you completely ignoring what I posted earlier.

    There was no main element that came from Gava.
    This just gets mote and more repetitive.
    But I will go again, as posted above, there isn't Channelled Ware horizon in Thrace and the Eastern Rhodopes unlike North - Western Bulgaria albeit you would have a dificult time proving Gava had influences there because the Channelled Ware start spreading in North Westetn Bulgaria before even Gava spread to Southern Transylvania.
    Good example is the Bistet-Isalnita group which predates Gava's expansion to Southern Transylvania and Banat and where there is already a Channelled Ware related pottery.
    Bistret-Isalnita comes immediately after Garla-Mare IV, Verbicioara V and Tei V layers. And to east there was the. Coslogeni complex.
    So unless these Gava people had mastered the ability for teleportation I don't see how they could bypass such a vast territory and time in order to appear in Oltenia even before the earliest layer of Teleac.
    But as Straboo said, it seems Belegis II Cruceteni is a better candidate from which direction the Channelled Ware spread in North Western Bulgaria or as many other archaeologists believe it spread on a vast territory and in such a short time rather rejects the possibility that significant migration event was responsible for it's spread.



    Something you decided to ignore and prescribe it to opinion when it's the opposite, the most recent archaeological material which makes it a fact, not an opinion and which is especially important for the Eastern Rhodopes where the vast majority of the E-V13 comes in the IA and which is very EEF shifted:

    These examples show that at the end of the LBA and the beginning
    of the EIA a common tendency for changes in pottery production,
    mainly with undecorated vessels, can be demonstrated for a rather
    wide area. Obviously, we are dealing with a widespread phenomenon,
    with an economic and social origin, which found material expression
    in these changes in the pottery style.
    These observations show that the term “fluted ware horizon”,
    defined for the transitional LBA-EIA period in north-west Bulgaria
    (Shalganova 1994), is not appropriate, and should not be applied for
    the pottery complexes from the LBA-EIA period in south Thrace, as
    used elsewhere in publications (Гоцев 1994, 138; Georgieva 2001, 88;
    Nikov 2001, 71; Bozhinova 2012, 62, fig. 6).

    Indeed, the statistical analysis of AT II/GK II shows that in the
    layers before the appearance of stamped motifs, fluted decoration
    prevailed, but it should be considered that this high percentage is
    due to the fact that most of the pottery (over 90%) is undecorated

    (table 2). Compared to the total number of fragments, fluted decoration is actually much less common in this period than in the following periods.
    The presence of fluted pottery in LBA or LBA-EIA layers is also at-
    tested in other regions, including Macedonia, north Bulgaria and the
    Nestos valley (Митревски 1997, 51-53, Сл. 13/1-5, 8; Alexandrov et al.
    1998, 17, Pl. 10/1-3; Alexandrov 2002, 74, 79, fig. 16/5-7). It is necessary to point out that in the layers associated with the transitional period, the quantity of fluted pottery is relatively low (Wardle 1997, 444-446).
    In Kastanas, fluted pottery appears for first time in layer 13, although it is very limited. In subsequent layers, its percentage increases
    to reach one peak in layer 10, but even then, it does not exceed 4 %.
    According to the absolute chronology of the site, these layers belong to
    the period from the beginning of the 12th to the end of the 10th century
    BC (Hochstetter 1984, 188-194, Abb. 50).
    Fluted pottery is accepted as a new phenomenon in the first EIA
    phase on Thassos, where the pottery shapes indicated continuity with
    traditions from the previous epoch. However, Koukouli-Chrysantaki
    does not accept the model of a common cultural and chronological
    horizon of fluted pottery in Macedonia, Aegean Thrace and Thassos
    (Koukouli-Chrysantaki 1982, 135-143).
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_South_Thrace

    Who is Georgi Nekhrizov:
    https://naim.academia.edu/GeorgiNekhrizov

    Now, what's important to understand is that there was never a 'Channelled Ware' in the Eastern Rhodopes in the same sense as there was in north-western Bulgaria and north of it.

    The pottery that appears in the transitional period it's not of the 'Gava' type and its undecorated mostly.
    Only 10% of it is decorated with flutes.
    Immediately afterwards the stamps appear as another form of decoration and even though the percentage of flutes increase they never manage to overtake the stamping as a main decorative element.

    Now, something else.
    The burnishing and polishing of the pottery was known also from the LBA and much of the vessels with incised decoration were burnished or polished.
    Incrustation with white paste was also known from the LBA and these were used in the decoration of the EIA pottery.
    There is no any indication that Gava had a stronghold in the Eastern Rhodopes, none, nada.
    The cremation as ritual for treating the deceased was also known from the LBA but what's important to note is that the specific burial in a biconical urns covered with another vessel is lacking in Thrace.
    There is only one example which is likely from influences arriving from north-western Bulgaria.

    And the so called Naue II swords, these were actually found lot more in other parts of the Balkans than in Thrace and much of it came from the Mycenaean south through trade.

    So no, E-V13 coming from Thrace makes perfect sense because that's where the Stamped Ware horizon started spreading from.
    And it influenced Babadag II, Insula-Banului and Saharna group in Moldova.
    Surprise surprise rather not, the Stamped Ware horizon didn't spread in the core Gava territory and there was a perfect border that divided the Stamped Ware horizon from the Channelled Ware to the north and west of it.

    Basarabi it's mostly derived from Insula Banului and as such was more influenced by the Hallstat groups unlike the Thracian groups in Bulgaria.
    Nevertheless the main horizon behind the spread of the Thracian ethnicity is the Stamped Ware and it's perfectly clear where was it's core, Thrace, northern Bulgaria, Dobrugia, Moldova, Oltenia.
    It's only after the Stamped Ware horizon, it's descendant the Basarabi group spread in Transylvania and elsewhere.

    So no, you are wrong.

  13. #109
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,966
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by slavomir View Post
    Archaeology can sometimes be wrong (like BBC coming from North Africa or Iberia). Let's wait for more samples. But for now, samples which look ancestral to IA Thracians are lacking in the Gava core regions.
    Since we have no Gáva samples, that's just a desideratum, but can't be used as an argument against at this point.

    As for the Gáva expansion, from a German book, I use Google translate:

    The handmade fluted pottery, like them in Kastanas and in contemporaneous settlements in Macedonia, can neither be traced back to local predecessors nor does it have analogies in immediately adjacent regions (Hochstetter
    1984, 309 f. Fig. 58). In particular B. Hansel and J. Bouzek have already in the 1980s on the
    general, but nevertheless obvious typological similarities between the fluted pottery of Kastanas and the black-polished wares of the Urnfield Period groups in the
    Carpathians-Danube area (Hänsel 1981,215 f.; Bouzek 1980, 271 f. Fig. 4; 1985, 190 f.), like the Gáva Group in the eastern Carpathian Basin (Kemenczei 1984, 64 f.), the Belegiš II Group in the central Danube region (Forenbaher 1988, 23 f.; 34 Map 1; Della Casa 1996, 167 f.; Falkenstein 1998, 46 f.) and the Vîrtop Facies in Oltenia (Hänsel 1976, 101 f. Map 3) and also the groups producing fluted ceramics on the Lower Danube (Gumă 1995, 100 f. Table 16). Most of these eastern urnfield groups lead like this so-called turban edge cups, "twisted" handles, hemispherical cups with raised handles, Pitchers with sloping or horizontal shoulder flutes, as well as egg-shaped coarse-ceramic pots
    Shoulder ridges (Fig. 7).

    All of these typological elements occur similarly in Kastanas from layer 13 onwards. Layer 13 can therefore be correlated with the Hallstatt A stage of the Urnfield period according to Reinecke in the Carpathian-Danube region, even if the phase boundaries cannot be exactly synchronized.
    This time estimate is supported by contact finds from Bronzes in the Aegean and in the temperate European regions are equally confirmed (Bouzek 1996, 68 f.).
    The culture groups spread from their area of origin in the Carpathian Basin
    with fluted ceramics during the Hallstatt A stage southwards across the Danube to the
    foothills of the northern Balkans.
    Included their distribution in the first phase largely left out the mountainous zone (Falkenstein 1997,
    554 f. Fig. 2). The cultural groups along the Great Morava river valley in the Central Balkans, on the other hand, are exceptional. pottery
    with fluting occurs simultaneously and just as suddenly as in Kastanas in the Brnjica Group (phase Brnjica II) on the southern upper reaches of the
    Great Morava on and in the neighboring Mediana Group (Phase Mediana II; Stefanović 1971,
    151 f.; Garašanin 1996, 201 f.; 213 f.; 217; Stojic
    2000, 22 f.; 27 f.). The typological similarities between the pottery vessels of the Brnjica group and the Serbian-Croatian Danube region
    are so obvious that M. Stojić (ibid. 28) Symbiosis and integration of this group with the Carriers of the Belegiš-Gava type pottery postulated. Appearance of domestic ceramics from the eastern urnfield culture in the settlement
    von Kastanas is largely isolated within Macedonia. However, as the dynamic spread of urn field groups in south-eastern Europe in the
    12th century BC Chr. can be seen is the appearance of Urnfield pottery in Kastanas embedded in a supra-regional event (Przybyła 2006, 123 f.).
    B. Hänsel (2002, 23 f.) evaluates the ceramic
    Findings certainly applicable as an important indication of the immigration of foreign groups from the Carpathian Danube region to Macedonia and their settlement in close proximity to the native population.
    From p. 515
    https://www.academia.edu/5438192/Kul...rdgriechenland

    The Northern migrants spread among other things millet and spelt to the Balkans:

    With the spelled (Triticum spelta) was in layer
    13 introduced a whole new kind of wheat after Kastanas. The detection of spelt in Kastanas and in
    the nearby settlement of Assiros is of particular importance because of the archaeological sites associated with it
    represent an isolated area of cultivation of this cereal in the Balkan-Aegean zone. The closest contemporaneous finds of Triticum spelta are
    known from settlements of the Noua culture in the Dnestr-Prut region (Kroll 1983, 37 f.; 117 f.; 120). In addition, in the layers 14 a and 13 a
    a clear increase in other weed species was found, which contaminated the crops of millet and other crops and thus reduced the food quality (Kroll 1983, 124 Fig. 22;
    145 f. Fig. 28).
    From p. 516
    https://www.academia.edu/5438192/Kul...rdgriechenland

    Note that millet and millet fed pork spread from the East Carpathian regions to the West with Lusastians and Kyjatice, to the South with Gáva and before already from Noua-Coslogeni. So the three Eastern Urnfielders didn't just spread the slashing Naue II/Reutlingen sword and a typcial ceramic, cremation and belief system, but also new crops and houses etc.

    How close the relations between the Carpathian cremation block cultures are, can be seen in the debate about Gáva vs. Belegis II-Gáva, because essentially, there are people arguing for Belegis having influenced Gáva, while Belegis II-Gáva is clearly a largely Gáva derived! So they kind of playing the ball forth and backwards, here is an example:


    A radical change occurred in the Tisza region at the transition from SB II and SB III
    of the cultural image. The traditional neckplate axes and bronze jewelry were preserved
    by the products related to the North and East Alpine metallurgical centers superseded. The occupancy of the urn burial grounds in the Tisza region and the easternmost advanced burial places of the Piliny culture came to an end. In their place came settlements with fluted pottery, typical of the early phase of the Gáva culture.
    In a discussion of the origin of this grouping, the role becomes either the local substrate, in particular the cultural tradition of the Samos and Crasna regions (László 1973, 608; Kacsó 1990a, 49; Boroffka 1999,121-124) or the impact or outright migration from the distribution area of the Belegiš II culture (Kemenczei 1975). ,46-47; 1984,31,39,61,86; Kossack 1996,307-308).
    Until now but we have no convincing evidence for either hypothesis.
    The disappearance of burial sites with urn graves on the Tisza in level SB III
    coincides with the appearance of the earliest such burials in the distribution area of the Tarnobrzeg group in the San region and with the new ceramic forms that appeared there, which are linked to the finds from the Carpathian Basin.
    This phenomenon allows the assumption that for the transition from SB II and SB III with
    a seepage of populations across the Carpathian mountain passes
    should be expected. Probably before the end of stage SB III, the Gáva culture spread to Transylvania (Zacharia 1965; Székely 1966; Horedt 1981; Vasiliev, Aldea,
    Ciugudean 1991; Pankau 2004) and beyond the Carpathians into the central Dnestr area
    and to northern Moldova (Smirnova 1969; 1974; Kemenczei 1984, 60, 62; Krušelnic'ka, Maleev 1990; Bandrivskij et al. 1993, 56-122; László 1994, 186-197), where they
    earlier settlement of the Noua culture replaced.
    p. 121
    https://rcin.org.pl/iae/Content/2786...SUDOSTEU_I.pdf

    "The local substrate" being clearly Suciu de Sus, and since they had all the innovations, they were likely the spreader and source, not the sink. But that some people even consider that option (Belegis -> Gáva) shows how close they are related, fundamentally. And that's also what you see, if you consider both cremated, both have an orgin in the Carpathian Tell horizon and both share many similarities in the style of their pottery, being influenced by the Mycenaean-Aegean sphere in the MBA, having close contacts and even migrants there etc.

    What's also highly important: Even if Southern lineages would have entered the Tisza region in the MBA-LBA to create Gáva in the first place, there is a very low chance Gáva was E-V13 free and not involved in its spread.

    Belegis II-Gáva and Gáva are so similar, that its hard to determine which daughter group descends from whom - this is the main problem for the Chișinău-Corlăteni and Knobbed Ware formations: Not whether they descend from a Gáva-related group, but from which one exactly! This author is not always on the point with his interpretations, but his confusion is symptomatic, since he's definitely not the only one:

    A second style of pottery decorated with fluting developed in the milieu of the Belegiš II culture (Fig. 2 A). It spread north only slightly
    and north-east (Csorva Group and the finds from the Maros area: cf. above; Fig.2 . Traces of his radiation can be found among the cave finds from northern Transylvania, in which elements of different cultural units
    interconnected (Kacsó 1995a, 110-111). The individual finds of vessels of this type are also documented for the middle of the Tisza region (Kovács 1967, Taf. 12:1; Hellebrandt
    1990, figs. 2:2-3; 1991, Fig. 5:3; 6; Szabó 2004, 99-100, Fig. 3-7; 8:2-11; 11). After how however, there is no clear evidence that the Belegiš II style influenced the formation of the Gáva culture (see above). It focused on the similarities in the type of decoration of vessels of the early phase of this culture grouping with pottery of the stages SB I—II from central Transylvania (Boroffka 1999)-
    In the 12th century B.C. BC in this area due to the small number of finds that can be dated to this period, the decline in settlements is likely to be related to the emergence of ceramics from the Gáva culture in the central Tisza region.
    The first of the main currents of the Belegiš II style, directed south, ran across the Morava Valley (Fig. 2:F), where the emergence of this style clearly coincides with the developmental disruption of local cultural groups (see above). The second
    Flow spread along both banks of the Danube via the Iron Gate to the Wallachian Plain (see above, Fig. 2). The individual inventories with such pottery
    also appeared in East Bulgaria at that time
    (Fig. 2:G; Čičkova 1974, 74, Fig. 13; Tončeva
    1980, 29-31, plate 2; Šalganova 1994,189). However, scarce finds from these areas do not allow us to determine whether there was a settlement connected with the production of ceramics in the Belegiš II style. An enclave of this style
    undoubtedly formed (entirely detached from the local culture substrate) in the Moldavian and Besarabian plateaus (Kišinev-Corlăteni group: see above; Fig. 2:E).
    From these areas, the ceramic style in question may well have evolved into its
    small enclave in western Lesser Poland (Fig. 2:K; Bazielch 1984;
    1986; Przybyła 2005). The individual finds from the Transcarpathian region (Gedl 1998, Fig.
    35; Plate 47:1-2; Ursulescu, Şadurschi 2004) may provide confirmation for
    the relationships between these regions. An alternative way of spreading the Belegiš II style to the Vistula area could be via the Tisza area (starting area of the Gáva culture) and the mountain passes of the Carpathians. The above-mentioned finds from the central Theiss area and the
    Single vessels in the Belegiš Ii style from Mukačevo in Carpathian Ukraine speak (fig. 2:1;
    Zatlukál, Zatlukál 1937, Fig. 21). North of western Lesser Poland, the burial complexes with ceramics of the style discussed are only sporadically attested (Zajezierze in
    western part of the Masurian Lake District — Urbanek 1941, 34-35 and Zschornewitz in
    Saxony-Anhalt — Fig. 2:H; Kossack 1996).
    The third spread of the Belegiš style went west.
    So far, there are no intermediate stages in the spread of such finds in the direction of the
    Adriatic sea. On the other hand, the end result of this process in the form of finds from the urn burial grounds, which in the
    proto-Villanova stage on the Po (e.g. Foltiny 1968; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa
    1995,41-42). It should be emphasized that the pottery style in question is primarily associated with finds from the
    earliest occupancy phases of these burial places (Fig. 2:C; e.g. MüllerKarpe 1959, Taf. 90:11-12; Salzani 1978; Pare 1999, Fig. 8:8,17; 11:1,8). In later time
    The stylistics characteristic of this region developed on the basis of these models.
    p. 126-127
    https://rcin.org.pl/iae/Content/2786...SUDOSTEU_I.pdf

    He doesn't get the chronology right, because clearly Gáva and related pre-Gáva pottery appears to be rather older in the Somes region, in Lapus, than in Belegis II-Gáva territory. That's his main mistake, so he puts everything upside down. Nevertheless, we deal with related cultures anyway, because even if looking at Belegis I, the differences are not as fundamental as e.g. between Gáva and the pre-Channelled Ware Bulgarian prestige pottery.

    Here are some examples from Belegis I and Paracin I and II, Brnjica p. 177-179, just follow the link:

    At the end of the Early Bronze Age and for the greater
    part of the Middle Bronze Age the Vatin culture was a domi-
    nant cultural phenomenon in the Central Balkans. Towards
    the end of the Middle Bronze Age various groups emerged
    in this area, partly bound to the Vatin tradition, but contain-
    ing new elements, too: The Belegiš group in South Vojvodi-
    na and North Serbia, the Paraćin group in the middle Middle
    Morava valley and the Brnjica group in the South. All these
    groups practised cremation as the main burial ritual. The
    end of the Bronze Age marks the end of the development of
    these cultures, the appearance of the Kalakača horizon and
    the prevalence of inhumation. In some parts of this area,
    however, cremation remained in use.
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debf3.pdf

    Therefore these Vatin-related groups are connected to the pre-Gáva cultures of the North, Suciu de Sus, Berkesz-Demecser and Igrita in particular. Here is a map with all the relevant groups:



    From this publication from Eugen Rung (2011):
    https://www.academia.edu/2409522/E_R...%C3%A1va_Stil_

    Kristian Kristiansen at least referred to that theory as well in one of his older books:
    https://books.google.de/books?id=zAY...page&q&f=false

    p. 388, note group and migration from "C":


    Also, the Daco-Thracian sphere (Carpathian-Lower Danube), later covered first by Channelled Ware, then Psenichevo-Basarabi in the early Hallstatt phase, p. 64 (note that the Danube bent is the borderline to the West, to the R-L2 dominated Tumulus culture/Middle Danubian Urnfielders):


    Later Illyrian territories being affected early on, but there was a gap in the record, allowing new Illyrian groups to take their place or mingle with those Middle Danubian and Gáva derived Urnfielders (R-L2 and E-V13 presumably) - compare with the image above and the map for the groups ("Zagreb group"):

    Both in Herzegovina as in Bosnia, the beginning of its most recent phase, currently dated to the 12th-10th c. century B.C. Chr.
    is determined by the horizon of the fluted pottery linked to the find material of the Zagreb group
    (see above Benac 1959; Marić 1961, 170-171; Deila Casa
    1996, 153-156). In northern Bosnia, similar finds come from the cremation cemeteries laid out at that time (Čović 1958; Marić 1964, 80). Most of the evidence about the
    The beginnings of the Late Bronze Age in this part of the Balkans are provided by the burial mounds of the Glasinac plateau (Benac, Čovic 1956; Govedarica 1978; Vasić 2003) and the corresponding find sites east of the Drina (Kosorić, Krstić 1988). In the newer ones chronological studies suggest that the most recent Bronze Age Finds in this zone are to be placed at the latest at the transition from the BzD/HA levels.
    The next reliably dated phase is already represented by the first find complexes with iron objects, which go back to the 10th or 9th century B.C. at the earliest. (Čovic 1981, 111-129; Della Casa 1996, 161-162; Della Casa, Fischer 1997, 218; Pare 1999, 333). Consideration should therefore be given to an extensive reduction in population or
    even a settlement hiatus in this region towards the end of the 12th and 11th century BC. (Čović
    1981, 123, 127-128).
    p. 121-122
    https://rcin.org.pl/iae/Content/2786...SUDOSTEU_I.pdf

    Because of this interferences, already early Illyrians in those areas could have had R-L2 and E-V13 lineages, too, from the early Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Thracian Channelled Ware groups.

  14. #110
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,966
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    What makes no sense is you completely ignoring what I posted earlier.
    Not really, but may I ask which MBA culture you have in mind to have survived, persisted and expanded throughout the MBA-LBA in South Eastern Bulgaria to then expand rapidly and take over much of Channelled Ware territory? The E-V13 phylogeny doesn't fit, the archaeological record doesn't fit, but you should have an idea, because that's what you are proposing.

    But I will go again, as posted above, there isn't Channelled Ware horizon in Thrace and the Eastern Rhodopes unlike North - Western Bulgaria albeit you would have a dificult time proving Gava had influences there because the Channelled Ware start spreading in North Westetn Bulgaria before even Gava spread to Southern Transylvania.
    All of Bulgaria was covered by the Fluted Ware/Knobbed Ware horizon, all significant groups got into contact with it.

    Good example is the Bistet-Isalnita group which predates Gava's expansion to Southern Transylvania and Banat and where there is already a Channelled Ware related pottery.
    Bistret-Isalnita comes immediately after Garla-Mare IV, Verbicioara V and Tei V layers. And to east there was the. Coslogeni complex.
    So unless these Gava people had mastered the ability for teleportation I don't see how they could bypass such a vast territory and time in order to appear in Oltenia even before the earliest layer of Teleac.
    But as Straboo said, it seems Belegis II Cruceteni is a better candidate from which direction the Channelled Ware spread in North Western Bulgaria or as many other archaeologists believe it spread on a vast territory and in such a short time rather rejects the possibility that significant migration event was responsible for it's spread.
    Belegis-Cruceni is an option, as I wrote before reading your post and quoting an author. It is in fact the only viable other option, but wouldn't disconnect things from Gáva, just enlarge the scope and connect indeed the whole Carpathian cremation block.

    I wrote about Bistret-Işalniţa and Vartop before:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post902344

    Susani is just pre-Gáva/Gáva. That's like Suciu de Sus-Lapus and Igrita. Gáva is just the final homogenisation of these groups, a final stage they reach with all their core groups interconnected and expanding.

    Something you decided to ignore and prescribe it to opinion when it's the opposite, the most recent archaeological material which makes it a fact, not an opinion and which is especially important for the Eastern Rhodopes where the vast majority of the E-V13 comes in the IA and which is very EEF shifted:

    Now, what's important to understand is that there was never a 'Channelled Ware' in the Eastern Rhodopes in the same sense as there was in north-western Bulgaria and north of it.

    The pottery that appears in the transitional period it's not of the 'Gava' type and its undecorated mostly.
    Only 10% of it is decorated with flutes.
    Immediately afterwards the stamps appear as another form of decoration and even though the percentage of flutes increase they never manage to overtake the stamping as a main decorative element.
    The Psenichevo and Babadag pottery show the biggest parallels, and I posted some examples - nobody in a clear state of mind can put those prestige products in any pre-Channelled Ware context from Bulgaria! Never!

    Put them side by side with Gáva, Lapus II-Gáva and Belegis II-Gáva, and they fit in.

    Knobbed Ware distribution - completely covered Bulgaria:


    From: https://d-nb.info/976420309/34

    Basarabi it's mostly derived from Insula Banului and as such was more influenced by the Hallstat groups unlike the Thracian groups in Bulgaria.
    Nevertheless the main horizon behind the spread of the Thracian ethnicity is the Stamped Ware and it's perfectly clear where was it's core, Thrace, northern Bulgaria, Dobrugia, Moldova, Oltenia.
    It's only after the Stamped Ware horizon, it's descendant the Basarabi group spread in Transylvania and elsewhere.
    The stamps are a later introduced variation to the established canon we know from Babadag and Channelled Ware, which established itself in Psenichevo. Look at the early pottery of Psenichevo and nobody can deny the Gáva influence. They are directly evolving from the Babadag and Fluted Ware horizon at the Lower Danube.

    I posted it once, I post it again - pieces from Bulgaria and Troy:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIl30RMX...jpg&name=large

    That is Babadag and Psenichevo prestige pottery with channelling and knobs:


    From Elena Bozhinova, p. 70 and 71:
    https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thr...ures_in_Thrace

    Compare with Lapus II-Gáva:


    Metzner-Nebelsick page 77:
    https://www.academia.edu/3195938/Cha...ogical_aspects


    What culture in Bulgaria did produce that before the invasions from the Carpathian cremation block? Which one?
    Which did persist Noua-Coslogeni and Channelled Ware? Even Incised Pottery came from the Danube, from groups which combined Noua-Coslogeni, Belozerka and Gáva-related elements. The exact origin of the addition of stamps is unclear and it was just added to the canon anyway.
    In the end Basarabi became dominant, which was, like you said yourself, from a much more Gáva/Belegis II-Gáva influenced region.

    Bulgaria was covered by Fluted Ware:


    From Elena Bozhinova, p. 70 and 71:
    https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thr...ures_in_Thrace

    And what phenomenon is in the end crucial for Bulgaria, what are we talking about? Psenichevo and Basarabi. So its just about how those two came up and both show strong relations with the Thracian Hallstatt sphere and just look at the early Psenichevo prestige pottery, just look at it! Any researcher which claims that this is not related to Gáva, Lapus II-Gáva and Belegis II-Gáva is just in denial, that's just living in denial! There is nothing like that in Bulgaria and again, its not just the pottery, its many other things as well, like the complete metal production and repertoire shifts towards the Carpatho-Balkan groups.

    Why do you think the Stamped Pottery spread so easily? Because it could rely upon already established networks created by Channelled Ware, its the same regions affected, only those North of the Cimmerian/Mezocsat wedge are not initially!

    Fluting/cannelure being never abandoned in Psenichevo, just stamps added:
    The upper Early Iron Age layers at Malkoto kale and Ada Tepe II, and the lower layers at Cala and Psenicevo itself belong to the second stage, which marks the apogee of geometric ornamentation.53 Most used are the stamped motifs, among which the S-ornaments are generally preferred. Combinations of stamped decoration and flutes are often seen.
    I would rather question Babadag, because it has more Noua and Belozerka influences, than Psenichevo, which is just a continuation of Fluted/Knobbed Ware variation with new Babadag/Belozerka and Aegean/Anatolian motifs added.

    But what is local and from which local group? Mind to tell me? I really want to know what you have in mind, that's a honest question, because I want to check it!
    Last edited by Riverman; 01-24-2023 at 03:46 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Karagjoz (01-24-2023)

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dacian/Getae dna from any period?
    By SecretExplorer in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-16-2021, 01:31 PM
  2. Looking at Iron age Nordic and Iron age England
    By firemonkey in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2020, 09:55 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-27-2018, 11:18 AM
  4. Cheaper bulk Full y DNA testing
    By Pallama in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 11:50 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2015, 04:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •