Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 178

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

  1. #151
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,873
    Sex

    About the expansion of Belegis II-Gáva into the Southern and Eastern Balkans (Google translate):

    The presence of the new culture element in this region is detectable during
    the period SH III C, when pottery decorated with fluting appears there
    (in Kastanas and Axiochorion it was occupied in the destruction layer), which occasionally
    distant Central European connections can be recognized (Heurtley 1939, Fig. 409;
    Hansel 1981, 214; Hochstetter 1984, 188-194). With the advent of fluted vessels, a cultural upheaval in the Morava region was initiated. This type of pottery (before
    especially the forms in the style Belegiš II) represents a separate time phase there, in which the
    transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Grarašanin M. 1996, 213-216;
    Stojić 1996, 254-255; 2000, 28).
    Ceramics with shapes typical for finds in Serbia and Macedonia
    also comes from the area of Bulgaria (so-called Čerkovna group — Hansel 1976; Nikolov
    1978; Nikolov, Zekova 1982; Hochstetter 1984, 366-367). It may have spread further in connection with the events analyzed here
    East — the amphorae typical of the Balkan zone are among the leading forms
    who in the 12th century B.C. BC in the steppe region of the Black Sea area developed Belozerka culture (Vančugov 1996, Fig. 8:20).
    A different find inventory is characteristic of the find complexes from the area of Albania, but there, too, "foreign" forms of metal products with north-central European or Italic connections (Prendi 1982, 224) and fluted pottery (Bodinaku 1995 , 268) in appearance.
    p. 122-123
    https://rcin.org.pl/iae/Content/2786...SUDOSTEU_I.pdf

    One can see the different maps for the Bulgarian Late Bronze Age, made by the leading experts - showing how variable they are and how difficult the scarce Bulgarian material can be grouped at all! Look at page 322:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...o_the_Iron_Age

    What we get is basically Channelled Ware + Encrusted Pottery + Noua-Coslogeni as the main cultural contributors. Like always. There is no huge mystery population hiding in the backyard, surely none which could outcompete the J-L283 expansion in the West Balkans, but that's the ballpark for E-V13 in that time period, because they had at least the same size, likely a bigger one. That's mathematically impossible, just as the starting position for the radiation from that place is bad.

    Take Belegis or Gáva for comparison, they are together an excellent fit, Gáva on their own a very good fit, the Carpathian cremation block as a whole a more than enough one. But some mystery group which barely left traces in South Eastern Bulgaria won't cut it. Even more, the Greeks marched through and picked up East Carpathian, Danubian and Balkan elements, that's clear from the record we have by now. But no sufficient presence of E-V13! Autosomally, that EEF rich element was around the East Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian sphere, but for E-V13 that is definitely no more likely candidate than the Carpathian cremation block with the Channelled Ware expansion.

    From Eupedia, Hawk played around with some of the models from Aspar and they pick up Mezocsat/Late Gáva anyway, even more so with alternative EEF sources:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I have taken Aspar's model:

    Code:
    GRC_Mycenaean,0.107847,0.1563915,-0.008108,-0.0646808,0.0216962,-0.0271222,-0.0005288,-0.0021345,0.00542,0.047336,0.005521,0.0169352,-0.012785,-0.0006195,-0.0163882,-0.0098118,0.0210245,0.0036108,0.0123188,-0.0039705,-0.0058648,0.0001858,-0.0065935,0.0011448,-0.0007185
    HUN_LBA_Halva,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096, 0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008 018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
    ROU_Arman_BA,0.1252053,0.1472515,0.0463228,0.00581 4,0.0559592,-0.0036255,-0.0031335,0.0084998,0.0239633,0.0300992,-0.0018403,0.0049205,-0.0080028,-0.0009173,-0.0077815,0.0099442,0.0164718,-0.0016468,0.0010262,0.0066695,0.0059688,0.0090265,-0.0045397,-0.027293,0.0002795
    HUN_LBA,0.1295687,0.1465745,0.0582652,0.0313848,0. 0514455,0.0066005,0.0054835,0.0035767,0.0153053,0. 0163103,-0.0030583,-0.0003993,-0.0022547,0.0008715,-0.0022168,0.0081542,0.008714,0.0011192,0.0031423,0 .0030222,-0.0006862,0.0045958,-0.0040467,-0.0092982,-0.0029538
    SRB_BA,0.124921,0.1462362,0.0350722,0.0002422,0.03 76993,-0.0041835,0.0019975,0.00225,0.011811,0.0282922,0.0 010555,0.0034098,-0.0098488,0.0009978,-0.010281,-0.0025192,0.0072362,0.0010135,0.0054372,-0.0041583,-0.0004678,0.0017315,-0.0004005,-0.008435,-0.0041012
    SRB_IA,0.12862,0.138112,0.031301,-0.005814,0.025235,-0.000279,0.00564,0.002538,0.001841,0.011663,-0.001624,0.007044,-0.007136,-0.001239,-0.004207,-0.002652,0.002868,0,0.004399,-0.000625,0.002745,0.007048,0.012941,0.001928,-0.006227
    BGR_MLBA,0.125205,0.103584,0.050911,0.082688,0.002 77,0.031794,-0.00094,0.004846,-0.025361,-0.035718,-0.005846,-0.000599,-0.005203,-0.023671,0.029316,0.021082,0.009518,-0.001014,-0.001885,0.002501,-0.000749,-0.001607,0.005546,0.011086,0.000599
    MDA_Cimmerian,0.1001643,-0.0111707,0.042992,0.048127,-0.0266713,0.0068793,0.004465,0.0027693,-0.019975,-0.0287933,-0.007199,-0.0011993,-0.000545,-0.0191297,0.0218057,0.006983,-0.0022163,0.007137,-0.0010893,-0.0045857,-0.0117293,0.004287,-0.0002053,0.010363,-0.0017563
    MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA,0.1263435,0.108154,0.056568,0. 093347,-0.007386,0.0333275,0.00235,-0.0020765,-0.032417,-0.042643,0.0023545,0.001274,-0.000669,-0.018235,0.0278905,0.007425,-0.005476,-0.006271,0.0017595,0.00494,0.000437,0.004575,0.009 305,0.0042775,-0.001796
    MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA,0.126913,0.097491,0.0531 74,0.093993,-0.0007695,0.034164,-0.00141,0.005769,-0.0318035,-0.0475635,-0.005927,0,-0.003345,-0.017822,0.0277545,0.013524,-0.0063235,-0.007095,-0.003645,0.008942,-0.0016845,0.0001235,6.15e-05,0.0096395,0.0020955
    MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA,0.126344,0.110693,0.059962,0.0 85918,-0.004924,0.034861,0.00846,0.009,-0.025975,-0.04647,0.005196,-0.001798,-0.004608,-0.018717,0.025651,0.010872,-0.009909,-0.002027,0.005908,0.000125,0.004492,0.00136,-0.002342,0.013014,0.00012
    ROU_Trestiana_BA,0.124067,0.100537,0.047517,0.1062 68,0.009232,0.032351,0.00094,0.003461,-0.035792,-0.042825,0.001949,0.007943,0.00223,-0.027387,0.02918,0.018828,0.005085,-0.001394,-0.001006,0.02001,-0.006364,0.005193,0.001849,0.001807,-0.013532
    BGR_C,0.121411,0.1750097,0.007794,-0.0857027,0.045547,-0.0393237,-0.0033683,0.0023847,0.0329283,0.0727123,0.0012993, 0.013188,-0.022299,-0.0008257,-0.0297683,-0.013878,0.0076493,0.000929,0.008338,-0.0140483,-0.0114383,0.0042453,0.004314,-0.0021687,-0.0045503
    BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA,0.125205,0.144205,0.00301 7,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
    TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA,0.112685,0.171624,-0.018479,-0.080104,0.005847,-0.030399,0.002585,-0.006692,0.005318,0.041914,-0.002761,0.001649,-0.014717,0.001514,-0.02443,0.002784,0.011474,-0.002914,0.01433,-0.00963,-0.015098,-0.000371,0.001602,0.003133,-0.002634
    HUN_MBA_Fuzesabony,0.1252055,0.132019,0.064488,0.0 615315,0.030467,0.026913,0.0094,0.0089995,0.008181 ,-0.0120275,-0.002111,-0.0039715,0.0053515,0.004473,0.0090255,0.0088835,0 .000913,-0.0017735,0.0010055,0.008879,0.008111,0.0026585,0. 004683,-0.0074705,-0.002694
    HRV_Jag_MBA,0.1242297,0.143625,0.0679356,0.0359453 ,0.0617696,0.0105183,0.0032229,0.0108786,0.0213873 ,0.0144487,-0.0022271,-0.0040037,0.0050543,0.0107543,-0.0123894,-0.0005491,0.0063143,0.0037646,0.0043456,0.0046809, 0.008895,0.0020316,-0.0049476,-0.0252531,-0.0022069
    HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat,0.1274818,0.143596,0. 0500816,0.0178942,0.042777,0.0041274,0.0039012,0.0 025386,0.0114126,0.0141782,0.0027608,0.003417,-0.0051734,0.00011,-0.0040172,0.0001326,-0.0016688,0.0010642,0.0028658,-0.0011256,-0.0023708,0.001385,-0.0027116,-0.0100734,-0.0007424
    and run the Kapitan Andreevo samples:


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20186
    Distance: 2.4676% / 0.02467551
    46.0 BGR_C

    22.8 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    12.4 HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat

    10.4 GRC_Mycenaean

    4.8 MDA_Cimmerian

    3.6 SRB_IA


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20185
    Distance: 2.2813% / 0.02281291
    38.4 BGR_C

    35.4 GRC_Mycenaean

    17.4 SRB_BA

    8.6 SRB_IA

    0.2 HUN_LBA_Halva


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20184
    Distance: 2.5674% / 0.02567413
    54.6 BGR_C

    18.6 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA

    10.4 GRC_Mycenaean

    10.4 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    6.0 HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat

    They do lean to BGR_Chalcolithic but not a definite association, because the model works whatever you feed to it. And, if we add some slightly more western Neolithic group let's say like Hungarian Vinca:

    Code:
    Tisza_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA:I2395,0.127482,0.185842,0.035449,-0.069445,0.055087,-0.015618,-0.001645,0.004615,0.060744,0.079273,0.002923,0.019033,-0.011596,0.014175,-0.047638,-0.002254,0.021905,-0.001014,0.008925,-0.023886,-0.005116,0.009027,-0.008504,-0.016267,-0.000838
    Tisza_Neolithic:HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA:I2354,0.125205,0.174671,0.028284,-0.063308,0.064627,-0.038766,-0.006345,0.004615,0.052972,0.081642,0.014453,0.016635,-0.023786,0.000826,-0.023615,-0.012331,0.000652,0.008995,0.013701,-0.01038,-0.015223,0.004204,-0.001109,-0.007471,-0.000239
    Vinca:HUN_Vinca_MN:I1887,0.117238,0.182795,-0.003017,-0.094962,0.061242,-0.037371,0.002115,0.003231,0.042745,0.080002,0.012504,0.013938,-0.019029,-0.001651,-0.03773,-0.038318,0.002477,0.004561,0.011816,-0.013632,-0.009858,0.011376,0.001972,0.00012,-0.010538
    Vinca:HUN_Vinca_MN:I1889,0.127482,0.177718,0.006034,-0.091086,0.060319,-0.050479,-0.00705,-0.005307,0.044995,0.088931,0.013478,0.016785,-0.02884,0.001376,-0.040309,-0.018297,0.017863,0.003801,0.011564,-0.012381,-0.012353,0.005935,-0.006409,-0.003735,-0.012933
    Vinca:HUN_Vinca_MN:I1895,0.119514,0.166547,0.026776,-0.071383,0.058472,-0.039045,0.001645,-0.000462,0.052358,0.075992,0.007795,0.007194,-0.011001,0,-0.03298,0.009281,0.03051,0.001394,0.014958,0.004127,-0.008111,0.003215,-0.006409,-0.004097,-0.005748
    Vinca:HUN_Vinca_MN:I1896,0.118376,0.180764,0.005657,-0.088502,0.056626,-0.04267,-0.009165,-0.009923,0.036405,0.085469,-0.001786,0.016485,-0.023934,-0.009221,-0.043973,0.010077,0.040549,-0.00152,0.007793,-0.013757,-0.008735,0.007172,-0.005546,-0.002169,-0.014011
    we can clearly see they prefer the Vinca Neolithic more than Bulgarian Chalcolithic. Even distances fell.


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20186
    Distance: 2.2483% / 0.02248269
    39.2 Vinca

    36.2 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    14.6 HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat

    7.0 MDA_Cimmerian

    2.2 SRB_IA

    0.8 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20185
    Distance: 2.1443% / 0.02144335
    29.4 Vinca

    26.4 GRC_Mycenaean

    16.0 SRB_IA

    14.0 BGR_C

    6.8 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    5.8 ROU_Trestiana_BA

    1.6 MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20184
    Distance: 2.3760% / 0.02375962
    26.6 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    26.2 Vinca

    16.6 BGR_C

    9.0 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA

    8.8 Tisza_Neolithic

    5.8 GRC_Mycenaean

    4.8 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA

    2.2 MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20183
    Distance: 1.7602% / 0.01760169
    41.2 Vinca

    19.6 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    15.0 GRC_Mycenaean

    11.4 ROU_Trestiana_BA

    6.8 HUN_LBA_Halva

    4.4 SRB_IA

    1.2 Tisza_Neolithic

    0.4 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20181
    Distance: 2.7188% / 0.02718844
    39.6 Vinca

    28.0 GRC_Mycenaean

    10.4 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    9.6 BGR_MLBA

    8.6 ROU_Trestiana_BA

    3.8 HUN_LBA_Halva


    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA:I20180
    Distance: 2.1820% / 0.02181991
    38.0 Vinca

    33.8 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA

    23.0 HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat

    4.8 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA

    0.4 SRB_IA

    On general i don't think it's a good model anyway, but i wanted to see how it reacts to Bulgarian Chalcolithic vs a more Western Neolithic and it prefers the more Western variant, something Southern Pannonian one. I do think Gava was a result of more Southern colonizers coming from Southern Pannonia and not the other way around.

    So for me, the combination of archaeology and genetics is that those Iron Age E-V13 came from Oltenia, South-East Hungary, North-East Serbia, North-Western Bulgaria, or along the Danube. Descendands of Danubian Neolithics.
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post665288

    I posted some models with the BGR_IA samples before, and there is just no way to exclude a Mezocsat-like admixture on a lower level in them. No way. Nor is there a safe way to tell when and from which exact group they got their EEF from. Its simply not possible.
    Last edited by Riverman; Yesterday at 02:16 PM.

  2. #152
    Registered Users
    Posts
    125
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Yonder Cavian

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post



    They had Western steppe, Cernavoda-Usatovo influences and GAC ones. Their regional Copper Age background is strong, but they were already "post-steppe" people.
    It’s possible but I doubt it
    As I’ve suggested before, these groups are all distinctive - we cannot lump Usatavo, Cernavoda & Cotofeni into one
    Cernavoda itself has phases III & I, one might be low steppe / EEF
    I see very little Yamnaya influence in Cotofeni, until it was taken over and formed Levizile
    Same as Baden - no steppe admixture as late as 2700BC
    Last edited by Kunig; Yesterday at 05:09 PM.

  3. #153
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,873
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kunig View Post
    It’s possible but I doubt it
    As I’ve suggested before, these groups are all distinctive - we cannot lump Usatavo, Cernavoda & Cotofeni into one
    Cernavoda itself has phases III & I, one might be low steppe / EEF
    I see very little Yamnaya influence in Cotofeni, until it was taken over and formed Levizile
    Same as Baden - no steppe admixture as late as 2700BC
    Cotofeni had really Sredny Stog and no Yamnaya admixture of significance. We just don't know the proportions, but we hopefully get the first Cotofeni samples soon.

  4. #154
    Registered Users
    Posts
    125
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Yonder Cavian

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Cotofeni had really Sredny Stog and no Yamnaya admixture of significance. We just don't know the proportions, but we hopefully get the first Cotofeni samples soon.
    Sredni Stog (47-4000 bc) & Cotofeni (33-3000 BC) aren’t even synchronous
    But let’s put a friendly wager on it I’m going for near zero
    Last edited by Kunig; Yesterday at 07:33 PM.

  5. #155
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,873
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kunig View Post
    Sredni Stog (47-4000 bc) & Cotofeni (33-3000 BC) aren’t even synchronous
    But let’s put a friendly wager on it I’m going for near zero
    The point is that all those groups (Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni) have steppe ancestry from Western Sredny Stog, obviously from an earlier period, and not Yamnaya.

    An interesting observation is that the Besenstrich-technique was used in the Carpathian years for a prolonged period of time since post-Cotofeni:

    Zwischen den Gruppen der FBZ II und den Kulturen und Gruppen der Mittelbronzezeit (Corneşti-Crvenka, Verbicioara, Tei, Ciomortan, Wietenberg) liegt im Banat, in Oltenien, Westmuntenien und Siebenbürgen ein Fundhorizont, dessen einziges kennzeichnendes Merkmal die häufige Besenstrich-, Waben- und Textilabduckverzierung auf der Keramik ist (Cavruc 1997, 97).
    http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...strichhorizont

    We see it also in the various Carpathian cremation block groups, including Suciu de Sus and Lapus:
    https://www.academia.edu/41435198/C_...yov%C3%A1_2019

    There was a continuous development, in the Eastern Carpathian basin, from post-Cotofeni to Suciu de Sus:
    Starting from ceramic decoration elements (broom strokes, textile impressions,
    notched rims or protuberances), D. Popescu assigned levels 4 and 3 (oldest habitation levels) to
    the irst Otomani phase, which he placed in Stage A1 of Reinecke’s chronology (Popescu 1965c,
    333; Popescu1965d, 783; Popescu 1966a, 565). His opinion found solid ground among other
    researchers (Bader, Dumitraşcu 1970, 127; Banner, Bóna 1974, 75, Anm. 244). I. Ordentlich
    assigned the settlement to the beginning of the second Otomani phase (Ordentlich 1971, 29) while
    N. Chidioșan, supported also by Al. Vulpe (Vulpe 1975, 62), extended the functioning of the
    settlement to the irst two Otomani phases (Chidioşan 1968, 174; Chidioşan 1974a, 159). The
    oldest habitation level was dated by N. Borofka in the transition period between the irst and the
    second Otomani phase (Borofka 1994, 80). The Besenstrich type pottery decorations found in the
    first habitation levels clearly indicate the last stage of the Early Bronze Age as a starting point,
    while associations of Wietenberg II and Otomani III
    ceramics found in the uppermost level prove
    that the inal manifestations of the settlement occurred in the second phase of the Middle Bronze
    Age. Despite the fact that the relationship between the tell settlement and the urn cemetery on
    “Lukács Antal land” is still uncertain, it is clear that the latter belongs to the Otomani III phase / 
    Middle Bronze III.
    Only later these aspects of the habitation are
    clarified: the Sanislău type settlement continued to be inhabited throughout Otomani II phase,
    and probably Otomani III phase – the latter most likely in connection to Suciu de Sus elements
    (Németi, Molnár 2002, 105).
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...apoca-2014.pdf
    Last edited by Riverman; Yesterday at 08:28 PM.

  6. #156
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,204

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    About the expansion of Belegis II-Gáva into the Southern and Eastern Balkans (Google translate):



    p. 122-123
    https://rcin.org.pl/iae/Content/2786...SUDOSTEU_I.pdf

    One can see the different maps for the Bulgarian Late Bronze Age, made by the leading experts - showing how variable they are and how difficult the scarce Bulgarian material can be grouped at all! Look at page 322:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...o_the_Iron_Age

    What we get is basically Channelled Ware + Encrusted Pottery + Noua-Coslogeni as the main cultural contributors. Like always. There is no huge mystery population hiding in the backyard, surely none which could outcompete the J-L283 expansion in the West Balkans, but that's the ballpark for E-V13 in that time period, because they had at least the same size, likely a bigger one. That's mathematically impossible, just as the starting position for the radiation from that place is bad.

    Take Belegis or Gáva for comparison, they are together an excellent fit, Gáva on their own a very good fit, the Carpathian cremation block as a whole a more than enough one. But some mystery group which barely left traces in South Eastern Bulgaria won't cut it. Even more, the Greeks marched through and picked up East Carpathian, Danubian and Balkan elements, that's clear from the record we have by now. But no sufficient presence of E-V13! Autosomally, that EEF rich element was around the East Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian sphere, but for E-V13 that is definitely no more likely candidate than the Carpathian cremation block with the Channelled Ware expansion.

    From Eupedia, Hawk played around with some of the models from Aspar and they pick up Mezocsat/Late Gáva anyway, even more so with alternative EEF sources:



    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post665288

    I posted some models with the BGR_IA samples before, and there is just no way to exclude a Mezocsat-like admixture on a lower level in them. No way. Nor is there a safe way to tell when and from which exact group they got their EEF from. Its simply not possible.
    LOL,

    Why does he use individual samples and not averages?
    Just to make a point?

    His point is still not valid because this is what happens when modeling with averages:

    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA
    Distance: 1.1093% / 0.01109304
    24.0 BGR_C
    21.8 GRC_Mycenaean
    20.2 SRB_BA
    15.2 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
    12.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
    4.0 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA
    2.6 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA

    And no, Mesocstat isn't preferred, I don't know what kind of models you produced, post them here and let's see.
    But even if you swap SRB_BA with Mezocsat, that's very low admixture to account for such a frequency of E-V13 as in EIA Thrace.
    Not to mention that we are talking of a period interval of 500 years at most where your Gava phantom guys changed the yDna in EIA Thrace but they left around 20% auDna admixture?
    Really?

    And even if for example Vinca was the main component by some chance that still doesn't solve the main question, we still haven't sampled the population that attributed this strong EEF element to the IA Thracians.
    No matter you are painting it as a phantom population, it's real and it for sure wasn't nowhere near the rich WHG Carpathian Basin.
    And stop acting as if we have sampled all the Balkans till now.
    What's better sampled during the BA is only south Greece and Croatia, everything else is in darkness.
    You think several samples from two EBA Tell sites in Bulgaria have given us all the answers regarding the overall population there during the EBA?
    Last edited by Aspar; Yesterday at 08:44 PM.

  7. #157
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,873
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    LOL,

    Why does he use individual samples and not averages?
    Just to make a point?

    His point is still not valid because this is what happens when modeling with averages:

    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA
    Distance: 1.1093% / 0.01109304
    24.0 BGR_C
    21.8 GRC_Mycenaean
    20.2 SRB_BA
    15.2 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
    12.2 HUN_Vinca_MN
    4.0 MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA
    2.6 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA

    And no, Mesocstat isn't preferred, I don't know what kind of models you produced, post them here and let's see.
    I posted the Mezocsat models before, won't do it again, the fits were reasonable. Average are worthless in cases like Serbian BA, with completely different samples in one. Some are actually closer to HUN_LBA and Mezocsat than to the other locals...

    And even if for example Vinca was the main component by some chance that still doesn't solve the main question, we still haven't sampled the population that attributed this strong EEF element to the IA Thracians.
    We can assume that those moving down the Tisza mingled with locals and the more South they go, especially in the direction of the Morava valley and even Northern Greece, the more local ancestry they could have picked up. Its definitely not the local ancestry in Northern Bulgaria, because they won't be that much EEF. So we might even deal with not just one but multiple sources of the increased EEF, including more recent (IA) gene flow with Northern Greeks, Anatolian Thracians and Aegean-Anatolian related formations in general.
    By now that's the most likely explanation, rather than one single phantom population which outcompeted them all while being in the dark and leaving no traces.

    No matter you are painting it as a phantom population, it's real and it for sure wasn't nowhere near the rich WHG Carpathian Basin.
    Mezocsat, mixed Late Gáva samples show a population with somewhat less WHG and a better fit. Again, we have no samples from Gáva, from Eastern Gáva-Holigrady, from Belegis II-Gáva etc. to compare with. If the trend is HUN_LBA (western fringe) -> Mezocsat -> actual involved Gáva groups, the fit could be still improved, even though its good enough with Mezocsat anyway.

    You think several samples from two EBA Tell sites in Bulgaria have given us all the answers regarding the overall population there during the EBA?
    We have samples from the EBA, MBA, LBA and EIA, and all fit into, like they are supposed to. Also, it is not just Bulgaria itself, but also to their North (Monteoru, Noua-Sabatinovka) and South (Greeks, Anatolia). We see that the Greeks have a similar/same autosomal profile, before mixing with the more Iranian shifted people, but they too show no increased E-V13 presence, surely nothing which could point to the big, the huge population needed for the MBA-LBA expansion already, yet along the LBA-EIA transition. Any position in between would need a lot of special pleading, and its not like the Thracians weren't more Northern than the Greek average, they were, so they still need additional Northern ancestry, for which Mezocsat-like can be used, but we probably will get a better reference for that placeholder eventually and that reference will be E-V13 rich.
    South Eastern Thrace in those periods was more of a graveyard than a population centre. Nothing even remotely comparable to the growth in Suciu de Sus and the following expansion in the critical time frame. Meaning to search for the big E-V13, testified by the now plentiful modern DNA and phylogeny, founder event there is truly not reasonable.

    Keep in mind that even a small group of agro-pastoralist settlers and warriors from the Channelled Ware related horizon could have taken that region over, easily, because so little was there. In the following founder event for the whole population, even small numbers of locals and other Balkan and Aegean-Anatolian people, primarily females, could have shifted the autosomal profile of this population. No problem.
    But explaining the huge E-V13 expansion FROM THERE, from this NOTHING is a huge problem.
    Even if you could explain Basarabi from there, but you won't, it would be too late. The time frame doesn't fit. Just count the branch numbers for E-V13 already in the period of late Otomani into Suciu de Sus in the MBA-LBA. Most of Thrace was a graveyard in that time frame!

  8. #158
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,204

    Quote Originally Posted by Straboo View Post
    YES, obviously



    No, not necessarily. Late EBA Pre proto thracian Mierzanowice will have nothing to do with IA Thracians from Thrace, just like proto latins in 753bc will have nothing to with pre proto romanian vulgar latin speakers in Dacia Aureliana, despite speaking the same language

    And it remains to be seen what pre channeled ware migrants from wallachia/transylvania (Baley Orsay, Govora, Wietenberg etc) into west upper thrace, west thrace looked like, and if their profile survives in IA bulgaria



    Yes



    Haha, nice try!

    There is no Belegis III - Gava. You just made that up. What I said is that if there had to be Gava "infusion" with Belegis culture then it had to be, from a chronological perspective after Belegis II, so by default Belegis III. But I consider them two separate cultures so I'll stick with definition Belegis III for now. Infact there is no real "Belegis III". What it actually is is regional groups of Belegis II going their own way. Some of them like Susani an argument could be made for a "merger" with Gava culture subgroups. Others like Bistret, Vartop, Male Vrbica were the result of Belegis II migrants mixing with non Gava local late Garle Mare/Verbicoara groups. These are considered Belegis legacy cultures with a very strong local non Belegis substrat, so Belegis III could be also be named "Belegis legacy phase". Its this particular phase (1200-1000bc and location (middle danube/ west oltenia) that "Gava-istas" such as yourself and the other Gava fanatics such as Tasic, Alincai, Dietrich etc today want to appropiate for yourselves and the Gava culture (even though Gava culture never spread here) through the medium of "channeled ware", pottery = people, even though channeled ware was "invented" long before the transition phase and not in north Romania.



    Stop trying to make me look like a fool. You know damn well because I told you, that i tend to agree with those academics who place the peak of Gava culture towards the end, or after Belegis II Cruceni phase, which by default means I adhere to the Belegis I, II, III scheme




    Its definately Belegis II cruceni derived. Cruceni migrants may have brought channeled ware with them, but in general very specific things to that migrant group were found in particular places iirc in the north/east part of Belegis Cruceni territory alongside i think burned layers in settlements. So its more likely they were fleeing Gava attackers. That they have channeled ware could be the result of previous decades trading, intermarriage, religious influences, prestige trending styles etc even politcal vassalage to Gava groups before they made a run for it to the east

    And you have to factor in that a lot of Korlateni channeled ware could be coming from southern holihrady, Granicesti settlers overlapping with or intruding on Belegis II Cruceni settlers to the south of them



    Thats the thing. U seem to be under the impression that Hansca Holercani is "Gava derived". I am under the impression that it arrived from middle danube. It chronologically succeeds Kishinau Korlateni so the burden is on you to prove that it is the result if Holihrady/Granicesti migrants mixing into kishinau Korlateni because I could just say that Holercani is organic evolution of Belegis II Cruceni derived Koshinau Korlateni. Thats what I said earlier. Holercani is only "Gava derived" if you believe that Belegis II Cruceni is "Gava derived" (Its not). At best Belegis II Cruceni can only be mixed, and that means a clear survival of the LOCAL PRE GAVA people. Maybe you believe that as part of the Carpathian block they are already ev13 without gava. But nonetheless we have to prepare for the possibility that there may also be a lot of I2 and J2b floating around given middle danube given the connections to Vucedol culture, not to mention post Monteoro types being picked up along the way. An assimilation of I2 by Holihrady, not to mention Balto Slavic hgs in the Komarov territory they invade is also to be expected. The question is just to what degree because if Slavs later pick up I2 around the Carpathians then that means that Gava-Holihrady ev13 on steroids did not wipe out the preexisting population, unless it rebounded later, "ev13 style"...

    Alincai wants to do away with the definition of incised pottery altogether, i think effectively attributing the former "incised ware horizon" to channeled ware basically saying that the appearance of incised pottery is contemporary with channeled ware and should also be atrributed solely to Gava/channeledd ware expansions. Leaving only i think undecorated / plain ware pottery as a previous LBA layer.

    As Aspar said, this style of pottery remains popular in thrace in the LBA and earliest IE ( which in Thrace, according to Nekhroza can be pushed back to around 1200bc) Channeled ware is geographically relevant yes, but as Aspar also said its percentage appeareance in different particular sites over its whole time period is actually quite low. 10-20% (if even) in some sights is not high to my mind and perhaps better represents the temporary prestige of such styles brought in by a new invading foreign elites before the locals adopted the styles of their new rulers (similar to germanic names being adopted by non germanic locals in visigothic hispania or arabic/islam being adopted by eygptians) But that is not enough to claim total demographic replacement (of LBA thrace population, which itself may have partially replaced the "aegean-anatolian like EBA population, although even ev13 IA thracians are still being pulled towards mycenean greeks meaning that Aegean-Anatolian ancestry must of survived longer than we thought. That or later greek colonization into thrace was way more impactful then we thought), nor to say that ev13 cant or will not be discovered south of the danube.

    The "illyrian like" autosomal profile of nearly all pre 0ad ev13 (except eastern shifted ones) shows us that IA thracians and Illyrians are basically the same, or originate from the same source population, and maybe, just maybe Vucedol (and/or Cotofeni) would fulfill such an origin role.

    We cant overlook Brnjica, Paracin eitheir just yet (for ev13) as they both come from Bubanj Hum III which is a Vucedol offshoot and would fulfill the "Thraco-Ilyrian" autosomal profile that Bruzmi explained AND both Paracin and Brnjica peoples migrated into west thrace BEFORE channeled ware. But channeled ware (in this region) is presumably coming from Belegis II Cruceni or middle danube (NW Bulgaria). The predecessor to Belegis is Vatin. Vatin is strongly connected to Bubanj Hum IV (and its successor Paracin). Both I presume stem from Vatya, Bubanj hum III etc and these from vucedol. Not to mention that Vucedol spread to upper Tisza as awell which may be relevant to your "Carpathian block" theory if Belegis,Gava, Otomani, Vatin, Vatya etc all stem from the same source population relatively speaking

    Anyway, I need a break now. I ask that from now on you provide radiocarbon dates to prove your claims chronologically without any doubts, because in a region where we may not get any samples ever because of local customs, radiocarbon dating is THE next best thing to aDNA. I should attempt to do the same and hold myself accountable to the same standard. Basing our theories on old data thats not reliably dated yet can mislead us and trick us
    Great post!

    What's interesting is that both in Thrace and Troy we found this lower quantity of channels and knobs as decorative elements in the transitional period which leads me to think that your point about the elites is very probable.

    What's even more striking that's the time when the names of Dardanoi and Moesians appear in connection with the Troyan war.
    Priam and the ruling house of Troy at the time was of Dardanoi.

    So there might really be a connection.

    However in Europe the Dardanians lived in Serbia and Kosovo while the Moesi are either some subgroup of Dardanians or separate people that lived in eastern Serbia and northern Bulgaria as these territories were known as Moesia during Roman times.
    What a coincidence?

    And we know very good and very often from history that the elites didn't actually changed the male population on a given territory.
    It was never their interest to do so but to exploit the people and the territory they conquered.
    It happened with the Germanics during the Medieval, it happened with the Turkics as well hence why the Bulgarians of today carry a name of people they have very little in common in every possible sense.

    And honestly, I doubt these elites brought most of the E-V13 lineages in EIA Thrace if any.

    We should not see only black and white and think there isn't any possibility for grow of a local population if there is no absolute continuity in pottery or in elites.
    That's certainly not how this process happened many times through the history.

  9. #159
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,873
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    What's interesting is that both in Thrace and Troy we found this lower quantity of channels and knobs as decorative elements in the transitional period which leads me to think that your point about the elites is very probable.
    The common view is that they were clans on the march, rather than well-established elites like associated with the Lapus tumuli. That's also one of the reasons why we find so few Reutlingen/Naue II swords in Bulgaria.

    By the way, like mentioned we have no sufficient level of settlement excavations in Bulgaria, but there are a few, especially from the very important regions we were discussing. Let's look at one of them:

    All of the excavations carried out until now were concentrated on the fortified part on the highest peak at Dragoyna. There an area of about 450 sq.m. was uncovered. The site was inhabited, probably continuously, from the Late Bronze Age until the Early Hellenistic period. This area was first occupied at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (17th–16th century BC), as only few sherds belong to vessels with forms and decorations that are typical of the late phases of the Early Bronze Age cultures in Thrace.
    A large number of typical sherds of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) were recovered during the excavations, most of which were found in re-deposited/secondary contexts. The only structure that could be assigned to this period is the stone foundation of a building measuring 3 x 5 m in size. It is located on the highest part of the mountain top, among the high rocky cliffs that were used practically as walls. The walls are founded in a layer that contains homogeneous LBA material: local pottery and two sherds of wheel-made vessels, one of which is grey in color and probably originates from Anatolia. The local pottery is decorated with various geometric motifs, incised in the Furchenstich technique. The forms of the vessels are typical of the uniform LBA North Balkan complex, but closer to the regional peculiarities of the pottery of the Western Rhodopes. Other artifacts dated to this period are an ornate model of a wheel and likely some of the spindle whorls as well. About ten sherds found in different parts of the excavated area were identified as deriving from wheel-made vessels: two goblets and one rounded alabastron of Late Helladic III A1 style, probably of North Aegean origin. The center of the settlement area during the LBA was situated on the highest part of the mountain top. Although the function of the site is still not clear, judging from these early imports it was important at least as a regional center.
    The mountain top continued to be inhabited during the Early Iron Age (EIA), 11th–6th century BC. The number of artifacts found during the excavations and dated to this period is limited, and no further structures were revealed. The settled area probably shifted in location somewhat during this period. Similar to the LBA, EIA pottery from Dragoyna has closer parallels with the pottery in the Western Rhodopes. Channeled decoration prevails, whereas stamped designs are few, consisting mainly of circles. One sherd of a painted vessel of the Bird bowl style (7th century BC) indicates that the site was an important center during the last phases of this period.
    So we have here the dominance of channelled pottery and Anatolian influences.

    Results of the excavations at the Dragoyna site and field surveys in the region have developed the preliminary interpretation of the site as a settlement with complex functions, in combination with aspects of an economical, political and religious center in a region that was probably no larger in size than the territory of the present-day municipality. A comparable site to the one at Dragoyna and dated to the LBA and EIA period is the settlement at Nebet Tepe in Plovdiv. The use of mountain summits as place for settlement and not only for sanctuaries is confirmed by the results of recent excavations at a further mountain site in the Eastern Rhodopes: Kush kaya near the village of Valche pole. 6
    The early imports suggest that a travel route once ran near Dragoyna, which connected the northwest Aegean via the Western Rhodopes with the Hebros valley during the Late Bronze Age. The region maintained its importance as a Thracian political and trade center until the middle of the 3rd century BC. Although the name of the site is still unknown, the discovery in one of the aforementioned tumuli of a ring bearing a sign from a Thracian language 7 as well as a stilus found at the Dragoyna site raises hopes that future research will ultimately reveal it.
    http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net...ticle&id_art=1

  10. #160
    Registered Users
    Posts
    15
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Great post!

    What's interesting is that both in Thrace and Troy we found this lower quantity of channels and knobs as decorative elements in the transitional period which leads me to think that your point about the elites is very probable.

    What's even more striking that's the time when the names of Dardanoi and Moesians appear in connection with the Troyan war.
    Priam and the ruling house of Troy at the time was of Dardanoi.

    So there might really be a connection.

    However in Europe the Dardanians lived in Serbia and Kosovo while the Moesi are either some subgroup of Dardanians or separate people that lived in eastern Serbia and northern Bulgaria as these territories were known as Moesia during Roman times.
    What a coincidence?

    And we know very good and very often from history that the elites didn't actually changed the male population on a given territory.
    It was never their interest to do so but to exploit the people and the territory they conquered.
    It happened with the Germanics during the Medieval, it happened with the Turkics as well hence why the Bulgarians of today carry a name of people they have very little in common in every possible sense.

    And honestly, I doubt these elites brought most of the E-V13 lineages in EIA Thrace if any.

    We should not see only black and white and think there isn't any possibility for grow of a local population if there is no absolute continuity in pottery or in elites.
    That's certainly not how this process happened many times through the history.
    where do you think the dacians and getae fit in all these ? Some people say dacians are are related to thracians,some say it's actually dacians- moesians, even some says they are goths. Also getae where on both sides of Danube. In your opinion where do you think they fit in ?

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 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
  •