• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Tumulus culture largely destroyed all local groups up to the Tisza. The question is whether the Tisza-Transtisza groups which formed Gava were I2 like those to the West, from which they were differentiated already before, or not. I say not, and that they had more E-V13, rather, but that's not completely proven yet.

However, all the groups up to the Tisza were R-L2 dominated and we know they just shifted to cremation under local, Eastern influence, of these Tisza-Transtisza people. Others were rather irrelevant for that and had left the scene by that time. Like the Encrusted Pottery remains ended up in the Central and Eastern Balkans. And the sample we got from there was high WHG and I2, just like the ones from Hungary and Croatia were high WHG and dominated be either I2 or G2, just like the other Danubian groups before Tumulus culture and the Urnfielders, respectively.
 
Riverman said:
The Tumulus culture largely destroyed all local groups up to the Tisza. The question is whether the Tisza-Transtisza groups which formed Gava were I2 like those to the West, from which they were differentiated already before, or not. I say not, and that they had more E-V13, rather, but that's not completely proven yet.

However, all the groups up to the Tisza were R-L2 dominated and we know they just shifted to cremation under local, Eastern influence, of these Tisza-Transtisza people. Others were rather irrelevant for that and had left the scene by that time. Like the Encrusted Pottery remains ended up in the Central and Eastern Balkans. And the sample we got from there was high WHG and I2, just like the ones from Hungary and Croatia were high WHG and dominated be either I2 or G2, just like the other Danubian groups before Tumulus culture and the Urnfielders, respectively.
Click to expand...

Either way Urnfield was like a counter to Tumulus, it pushed them back West + South and ultimately most of Tumulus region was conquered by Urnfield over time and converted to cremating. Urnfield wasnt a peaceful conversion like you suggest, it was responsible for the biggest wars in the bronze age, for example Tollense battle, Mycenae destruction, maybe Sea People's etc

I'm not sure if Gava was mostly i2 or v13 but it looks like the proto Urnfield elites were mostly i2
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
From the current samples we have majority of Urnfielders or proto Urnfield leaders/elite have turned out i2

I'm sure some r1b became Urnfielders too but it clearly started originally in central/north europe (Pannonia, Slovakia, Austria, Germany etc) and expanded westward (France, Italy etc) where majority was r1b at the time
Click to expand...

How can it be elite when technically the I2a Encrusted Pottery People were almost annihilated by R1b-L51 Tumulus highlanders from Alps. They put a huge fight in Pannonian plain, but they lost. You see in subsequent aDNA in Iron Age - LA, we don't see the I2a clades that we see in Kisapostag Culture nearby Balaton Lake during EBA-MBA, rarely.

Just because you are I2a, it's confirmation bias, it was multiple different Y-DNA's, many I2a clades were part of it which were assimilated into. And so far E-V13 is the one debatable whether it was South-Eastern Urnfielder a.k.a South/East Pannonian, or it was a Haemus highlander lineage who adopted the Urnfield ways while pushing north into Carpathians. There was always this confusion of the Aegean + Carpathian Urnfielder mix of culture in Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere, they could never figure out what was the right direction.
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
Either way Urnfield was like a counter to Tumulus, it pushed them back West + South and ultimately most of Tumulus region was conquered by Urnfield over time and converted to cremating. Urnfield wasnt a peaceful conversion like you suggest, it was responsible for the biggest wars in the bronze age, for example Tollense battle, Mycenae destruction, maybe Sea People's etc

I'm not sure if Gava was mostly i2 or v13 but it looks like the proto Urnfield elites were mostly i2
Click to expand...

The Eastern Carpathian groups became part of the later Urnfield complex and transferred their belief system because they were partially integrated into the Tumulus culture networks before. Like the Pre-Gáva groups had Tumulus culture influences.
The Tumulus culture people couldn't completely break them, so they made kind of a peace deal and began to trade and communicate with their Tisza-Transtisza neighbours. That way technology and ideas from both sides fused and the new way which emerged was the Urnfield culture.
To say that Urnfield pushed the Tumulus culture people back is therefore completely wrong, it was their next stage when they allied up with the Tisza people.

The I2 Encrusted Pottery people didn't play a big part, because up to the Tisza the Tumulus culture warriors just rolled over the Carpathian basin. Its just at the edge, in the Tisza zone, that we see really mixed and more local groups with just Tumulus culture influences, East of Egyek/Carpathian Tumulus culture. And those local East Carpathian/Transtisza groups with Tumulus culture influence, but being no TC people themselves, formed the base for Gáva/Channelled Ware which is the most likely vector for E-V13.

The survival of I2 dominated people was likely more to the North inside the Urnfield sphere, in the Lusatian group.
 
Hawk said:
How can it be elite when technically the I2a Encrusted Pottery People were almost annihilated by R1b-L51 Tumulus highlanders from Alps. They put a huge fight in Pannonian plain, but they lost. You see in subsequent aDNA in Iron Age - LA, we don't see the I2a clades that we see in Kisapostag Culture nearby Balaton Lake during EBA-MBA, rarely.

Just because you are I2a, it's confirmation bias, it was multiple different Y-DNA's, many I2a clades were part of it which were assimilated into. And so far E-V13 is the one debatable whether it was South-Eastern Urnfielder a.k.a South/East Pannonian, or it was a Haemus highlander lineage who adopted the Urnfield ways while pushing north into Carpathians. There was always this confusion of the Aegean + Carpathian Urnfielder mix of culture in Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere, they could never figure out what was the right direction.
Click to expand...

They werent completely annihilated, but became outnumbered up to a certain region, and from there created Urnfield and pushed the L51 back west. And the facts speak for themselves, all the studies so far point to Urnfield elites being i2 - nothing to do with bias, it is bias to claim otherwise without any proof
 
Last edited:
Riverman said:
The Eastern Carpathian groups became part of the later Urnfield complex and transferred their belief system because they were partially integrated into the Tumulus culture networks before. Like the Pre-Gáva groups had Tumulus culture influences.
The Tumulus culture people couldn't completely break them, so they made kind of a peace deal and began to trade and communicate with their Tisza-Transtisza neighbours. That way technology and ideas from both sides fused and the new way which emerged was the Urnfield culture.
To say that Urnfield pushed the Tumulus culture people back is therefore completely wrong, it was their next stage when they allied up with the Tisza people.

The I2 Encrusted Pottery people didn't play a big part, because up to the Tisza the Tumulus culture warriors just rolled over the Carpathian basin. Its just at the edge, in the Tisza zone, that we see really mixed and more local groups with just Tumulus culture influences, East of Egyek/Carpathian Tumulus culture. And those local East Carpathian/Transtisza groups with Tumulus culture influence, but being no TC people themselves, formed the base for Gáva/Channelled Ware which is the most likely vector for E-V13.

The survival of I2 dominated people was likely more to the North inside the Urnfield sphere, in the Lusatian group.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense for a huge region to change their burial rite for no reason, this is burial we are talking about not some pots and spoons being exchanged. The Urnfield culture emerged at a time when there are many huge wars recorded throughout most of Europe, it can't just be a coincidence and I doubt it was a mostly peaceful transition.

Vatya culture is the predecessor of proto Urnfield elites and they weren't really in the north but in central Europe - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatya_culture

They did however expand north during the Urnfield conquest - https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...lotree_Variant&searchfor=I-L1229&ybp=500000,0

Encrusted Pottery elites were also i2, zero v13 have been found and the r-z2103 were obviously assimilated from the southern tip -
"North and south groups of the Encrusted Pottery Culture also display differences in burial tradition. While the predominant rite in both groups is cremation, in the north they are frequently placed in urns, while in the south they are commonly un-urned deposits placed directly in the ground."
 
It's pretty simple how Urnfield emerged -

Nagyrev - (3000bc-2000bc), cremated and occasionally used urns, no ydna results yet but I bet ends up being mostly i2
>
Vatya - (2000bc-1400bc), cremated and used urns - i2
>
Urnfield - (1300bc-700bc), cremated and always used urns, elites mostly i2 and rare r1a

There is clear continuity from the cremating culture elites which eventually lead to the establishment of Urnfield

Meanwhile -
Vucedol (3000bc-2000bc), didn't cremate and didn't use urns - r-z2103 & g2a

Unetice -
Diverse individuals were tested from Únětice burial sites in 2021, so the Y-chromosome results were (not included two by low coverage): 1 G2a2b2a, 1 I2a1, 8 I2a2, 7 R1a-Z645, and 8 R1b-P312. The investigators found that: "The Y-chromosomal data suggest an even larger turnover. A decrease of Y-lineage R1b-P312 from 100% (in late Bell Beaker Culture) to 20% (in preclassical Únětice) implies a minimum 80% influx of new Y-lineages at the onset of the Early Bronze Age". The autosomal results even point to a migration from the northeast, which the authors can link with the arrival of R1a-Z645, previously found in the Baltic region.

Several individuals from two burial sites in Prague were tested in 2022 (both sites were used in different cultural periods), the male Y-DNA haplogroups from individuals assigned to the Únětice period were: two R1a1a1 (Z280), eight I2a2a (I6635), with an individual with the derived clade PF3885, a tested male was I2a-L38, and four males had the R1b-L2 haplogroup (another tested individual had the derived R1b-L20 clade); a male had the haplogroup R1b-Y153322, which is under DF27.
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
How can it be elite when technically the I2a Encrusted Pottery People were almost annihilated by R1b-L51 Tumulus highlanders from Alps. They put a huge fight in Pannonian plain, but they lost. You see in subsequent aDNA in Iron Age - LA, we don't see the I2a clades that we see in Kisapostag Culture nearby Balaton Lake during EBA-MBA, rarely.

Just because you are I2a, it's confirmation bias, it was multiple different Y-DNA's, many I2a clades were part of it which were assimilated into. And so far E-V13 is the one debatable whether it was South-Eastern Urnfielder a.k.a South/East Pannonian, or it was a Haemus highlander lineage who adopted the Urnfield ways while pushing north into Carpathians. There was always this confusion of the Aegean + Carpathian Urnfielder mix of culture in Balkan-Carpathian hemisphere, they could never figure out what was the right direction.
Click to expand...
Besides that, I2 or I2a are macrohaplogroup designations. The hgs. sampled in said context are not closely related at all to the ancestors of Slavic I-CTS10228.
PaleoRevenge said:
FYI I am sure I speak for others as well, we don't care about your beef in apricity. Why spam this thread with quarrels and private messages.
Click to expand...
I genuinely thought there was a new paper or something published with all the new posts.
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
They werent completely annihilated, but became outnumbered up to a certain region, and from there created Urnfield and pushed the L51 back west. And the facts speak for themselves, all the studies so far point to Urnfield elites being i2 - nothing to do with bias, it is bias to claim otherwise without any proof
Click to expand...

If you believe so, it's ok. When we get more samples for Iron Age Pannonia and Late Antiquity we shall see, but i have a feeling it will be moreso on the line of R1b-L51, J2b2-L283 and E-V13 in South/Eastern Pannonia.

As Riverman pointed, i expect I2a to have survived better among Lusatians, hence why they thrived more among Germanics and Slavs.
 
Hawk said:
If you believe so, it's ok. When we get more samples for Iron Age Pannonia and Late Antiquity we shall see, but i have a feeling it will be moreso on the line of R1b-L51, J2b2-L283 and E-V13 in South/Eastern Pannonia.

As Riverman pointed, i expect I2a to have survived better among Lusatians, hence why they thrived more among Germanics and Slavs.
Click to expand...

It's not about what I believe, right now the evidence points toward Urnfield being founded by i2 elites, until we get more samples this is what we have. I'm sure there will be other lines that became integrated like we have already seen with r1a. Some r1b and v13 likely became Urnfielders too but they didn't have much choice in the matter when Urnfield became a superpower in the late bronze age
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
It's not about what I believe, right now the evidence points toward Urnfield being founded by i2 elites, until we get more samples this is what we have. I'm sure there will be other lines that became integrated like we have already seen with r1a. Some r1b and v13 likely became Urnfielders too but they didn't have much choice in the matter when Urnfield became a superpower in the late bronze age
Click to expand...

Ok, they didn't have much choice. You were the elite. We got it.
 
Regardless of I2 or E-V13, Urnfield was founded by Tumulus culture groups in the Carpathian basin. Its just that the Eastern groups were locals which were first "part-Tumulised" to put it that way (like Piliny, Igrita etc.) and became part of the same network. So the influence between the Eastern Tumulus culture groups and the local Tisza-Transtisza people was reciprocal. That's how Urnfield emerged, that's why Tumulus culture people got converted. And we know they got converted, because in some cemeteries the transition was smooth and continuous.

On the other hand, there are areas in which the Urnfield cemeteries just appear with a full package in areas unrelated to its predecessors, then its likely migration (like in parts of Italy, Central Europe, but also Eastern and especially South Eastern Europe. That's the difference to keep in mind.

But we clearly deal with Tumulus culture people which adopted a religion from people they made peace with in the Eastern Carpathian basin.

Note that all the MBA groups, most of which were I2+G2 dominated, were gone before, because the Tumulus culture people crushed them:

The only group on this map which might have been really relevant is Eastern Otomani/Gyulavarsand in the East and Vatin in the South East. All others had to flee were gone. Even those two were gone eventually, but they could have contributed, even founded, part "Tumulised" new formation of the LBA. More Eastern groups (like Wietenberg) being missed on this map, that has to be considered as well.
 
Riverman said:
Regardless of I2 or E-V13, Urnfield was founded by Tumulus culture groups in the Carpathian basin. Its just that the Eastern groups were locals which were first "part-Tumulised" to put it that way (like Piliny, Igrita etc.) and became part of the same network. So the influence between the Eastern Tumulus culture groups and the local Tisza-Transtisza people was reciprocal. That's how Urnfield emerged, that's why Tumulus culture people got converted. And we know they got converted, because in some cemeteries the transition was smooth and continuous.

On the other hand, there are areas in which the Urnfield cemeteries just appear with a full package in areas unrelated to its predecessors, then its likely migration (like in parts of Italy, Central Europe, but also Eastern and especially South Eastern Europe. That's the difference to keep in mind.

But we clearly deal with Tumulus culture people which adopted a religion from people they made peace with in the Eastern Carpathian basin.

Note that all the MBA groups, most of which were I2+G2 dominated, were gone before, because the Tumulus culture people crushed them:

The only group on this map which might have been really relevant is Eastern Otomani/Gyulavarsand in the East and Vatin in the South East. All others had to flee were gone. Even those two were gone eventually, but they could have contributed, even founded, part "Tumulised" new formation of the LBA. More Eastern groups (like Wietenberg) being missed on this map, that has to be considered as well.
Click to expand...

Like I showed earlier Vatya was i2 and it was from there that Urnfield emerged
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
Like I showed earlier Vatya was i2 and it was from there that Urnfield emerged
Click to expand...
But that area was no longer inhabited by them, but by TC clans, which however were under the influence of the Tisza groups. Not the region is crucial, but the archaeological complex and background of it. There was some admixture by locals on TC, but very little and it didn't transform them. Its the longer term contacts with the Carpathian people which converted the TC clans to the new religion.

Koszider horizon = expansion of TC clans by and large.

Result:
At the beginning of the LBA the number of settlements
in all the above-mentioned regions is lower than in the pre-
vious phase. In southeast Hungary, according to the results
of the survey in Békés County, we have 13 sites with Tumu-
lus Grave and five with Hajdúbagos (Otomani IV/Cehăluţ)
type material, which indicates a strong population decrease
after the Koszider Period16.
Click to expand...

The TC people were clan based, tribal warriors:

In the Tumulus Grave Period, the new settlement patterns
without signs of long-term occupation seem to reflect a dif-
ferent social and economic organization, a different perspec-
tive on the landscape and probably a different legitimization
of power. Obvious major centres like tells and hilltop sites
disappear, and give way to a network of open settlements.
Some differences between their sizes do exist that may indi-
cate social differences as well. Generally we are faced with a
more decentralized network of polities, possibly without
high-ranking chiefs achieving large-scale political integra-
tion (Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen 2 oo 7).
Click to expand...

Füzesabony were invaded pastoralist warriors too (dominated by R-Z282), just like TC (dominated by R-L2). However in the East locals survived both:

During the Early and Middle Bronze Age among communi-
ties using the same ceramic styles, burial rites do seem to be
more or less uniform: cremation is characteristically associ-
ated with the distribution areas of the Vatya, Hatvan and
Transdanubian Encrusted Ware styles, while inhumation is
dominant in the areas associated with Füzesabony (Oto-
mani II) and Maros styles. However, it can be observed that
in certain periods and areas a larger variety of burial rites
occurs (e. g. Gyulavarsánd/Otomani II–III: inhumations,
urn graves and scattered cremation burials).
Click to expand...
The area of Guylavarsand and Wietenberg is crucial. There local cremating people survived the best, in the Tisza-Transtisza zone.

In the paper is also a map (fig. 7) which clearly shows where the high density TC influence runs out and only sporadically appears under different terms even. That's exactly East of the Tisza river, the area from which Suciu de Sus and Igrita emerge from locals, which later develop to Pre-Gáva/Lapus I.

There E-V13 was at home in my opinion and from there.


Note that you have just two primary groups: TC clans and "part Tumulised" East Carpathians (like Cehalut).
 
Last edited:
Riverman said:
But that area was no longer inhabited by them, but by TC clans, which however were under the influence of the Tisza groups. Not the region is crucial, but the archaeological complex and background of it. There was some admixture by locals on TC, but very little and it didn't transform them. Its the longer term contacts with the Carpathian people which converted the TC clans to the new religion.

Koszider horizon = expansion of TC clans by and large.

Result:


The TC people were clan based, tribal warriors:



Füzesabony were invaded pastoralist warriors too (dominated by R-Z282), just like TC (dominated by R-L2). However in the East locals survived both:


The area of Guylavarsand and Wietenberg is crucial. There local cremating people survived the best, in the Tisza-Transtisza zone.

In the paper is also a map (fig. 7) which clearly shows where the high density TC influence runs out and only sporadically appears under different terms even. That's exactly East of the Tisza river, the area from which Suciu de Sus and Igrita emerge from locals, which later develop to Pre-Gáva/Lapus I.

There E-V13 was at home in my opinion and from there.


Note that you have just two primary groups: TC clans and "part Tumulised" East Carpathians (like Cehalut).
Click to expand...

You are again ignoring the ancient data from Hungary, Vatya were i2 so how was it not inhabited by them? -

en.m.wikipedia.org

Vatya culture - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Then we see these i2 associated with the Urnfield expansion in Germany. Germany was mostly r1b from 4200-3200 ybp. i2 (with low frequency r1a) emerges in 3200 ybp with Tollense battle and Lichtenstein cave 400 years later which was definitely Urnfield related and again mostly i2 with low frequency of r1a. Please do not ignore the ancient data, when more data is released we can reassess -
 
Last edited:
But the premise is that cultures like Vatya are not mentioned archaeologically to have contributed much into latter Iron Age populations. Otherwise it's almost completely legit what you are saying except for, you are trying to pass as elite one particular group to a Europe-wide phenomenon which is incorrect.

Just couple of days ago i also read that Stamped-ware which E-V13 was found in, was not so specific to Iron Age Thracians, it was a widespread Hallstatt phenomenon but mostly encountered in South-East of Europe.

So, by Iron Age what we see is in Western Urnfield hemisphere more R1b-L51 and if correct in Eastern Urnfield hemisphere, or South/East E-V13. We didn't see I2a yet, but during Early-Middle Bronze Age, I2a was a huge factor in Carpathian Basin, no doubt.
 
Hawk said:
But the premise is that cultures like Vatya are not mentioned archaeologically to have contributed much into latter Iron Age populations. Otherwise it's almost completely legit what you are saying except for, you are trying to pass as elite one particular group to a Europe-wide phenomenon which is incorrect.

Just couple of days ago i also read that Stamped-ware which E-V13 was found in, was not so specific to Iron Age Thracians, it was a widespread Hallstatt phenomenon but mostly encountered in South-East of Europe.

So, by Iron Age what we see is in Western Urnfield hemisphere more R1b-L51 and if correct in Eastern Urnfield hemisphere, or South/East E-V13. We didn't see I2a yet, but during Early-Middle Bronze Age, I2a was a huge factor in Carpathian Basin, no doubt.
Click to expand...

The data is literally above - you haven't seen it because you aren't using the links or what? I2 has often been found in Urnfield elites, no v13 so far

We see i2 in bronze age Vatya/proto Urnfield, we see it in Tollense battle and then Lichtenstein cave. Proto Urnfielders/elites were heavy on i2 and as they expanded over vast lands obviously wouldn't have been i2 majority anymore (except for the core) as although they did a lot of damage they didn't just go out killing everyone in Western Europe and Southern Europe, they imposed their culture. Similar happened with all major empires, Romans, Avars, Ottoman etc
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
The data is literally above - you haven't seen it because you aren't using the links or what? I2 has often been found in Urnfield elites, no v13 so far

We see i2 in bronze age Vatya/proto Urnfield, we see it in Tollense battle and then iron age Lichtenstein cave. Proto Urnfielders/elites were heavy on i2 and as they expanded over vast lands obviously wouldn't have been i2 majority anymore (except for the core) as although they did a lot of damage they didn't just go out killing everyone in Western Europe and Southern Europe, they imposed their culture. Similar happened with all major empires, Romans, Avars, Ottoman etc
Click to expand...

We have seen it, even before you, so, finding I2 in Lichtenstein cave is automatically elite. Now, you sound childish. But, whatever you are on, go for it.
 
Hawk said:
We have seen it, even before you, so, finding I2 in Lichtenstein cave is automatically elite. Now, you sound childish. But, whatever you are on, go for it.
Click to expand...

You seem to have issues with the archeological findings and are behaving like a child -

"The Lichtenstein Cave, discovered in 1972, is an archaeological cave site near Dorste, Lower Saxony, Germany with a length of 115 m (377 ft). The skeletal remains of 21 female humans and 19 males, dated to the Bronze Age, about 3,000 years ago were discovered. In addition, around 100 bronze objects (ear rings, bracelets, and finger rings) and ceramic parts from the Urnfield Culture were found."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top