The weaponry of the pastoral societies in the context of the weaponry of the steppe/forest-steppe communities: 5000-2350 BCSee also...
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Warlike herders and their weapons
Who had the best gear? The Yamnaya guys? And if it came down to it, who would've won an all out rumble? Let me know your thoughts after reading this paper...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239@ Archi
GAC & CWC spread in different directions, occupied different niches.
Its lineages are very prominent throughout northern Europe
Unetice has nothing to do with it. If you want to engage in debate, draw on detailed references & genomics, not your personal ''fantasies'' haha
@ Matt
''Which would be a poor basis for overturning any archaeological models, for'ex''
But what may we ask are those models ?
You're not dividing it right, you don't divide it north-south, you divide it west-east. R1b were in the (south-)west: Narva, Neolithic Dnieper-Donets, Balkans, Botai; R1a were in the (north-)east: Onega lake, Mesolithic Dnieper, Khvalynsk, Alexandria, Baikal. And the forest did not play a role in relation to R1b, Narva in the forest, Dnieper-Donets in the forest steppe. The initial distribution was as follows: R1b more southwestern, R1a(EHG) more northeastern.
Rob said...
" GAC & CWC spread in different directions, occupied different niches."
It is Full nonsense. See maps.
@Archi
Before Corded Ware, R1b outnumbers R1a in the forest and forest steppe by at least 3:1 in the old and new data combined.
The ratio is higher in the northeast, around Samara and the Urals, than closer to the Baltic in the northwest.
And there's no sign of M417 anywhere before Alexandria and Usatovo. In and around Samara M417 turns up late, at least 500 years after Usatovo.
Haha.
Rob said... "So please stop trolling with your misinformation."
Stop your trolling, please. CWC and GAC were not distributing simultaneously! Even the earliest branch of the CWC Zlota placed in the GAC territory.
@Davidski "Before Corded Ware, R1b outnumbers R1a in the forest and forest steppe by at least 3:1 in the old and new data combined."
The ratio is even worse, 6:1 now. Aberration of search under the lantern. This is not a consequence of the actual distribution, but a consequence of the survey of the territories. The actual distribution is determined by the boundaries of the samples found, rather than by how densely the area is surveyed.
Judging by yourself, the territory between the Urals, Samara, Estonia, Karelia is not examined at all = zero! Even the only R1a in Neolithic was found in Estonia, where Narva previously located, precisely because Estonia was tested.
L23+ is the intermediate snp between M269. Yamnaya I0443 was found to be L23+(z2105-,Y4331-)(L51-,CTS10373-)
Well that's great, but there are potential cases of L51 in upcoming samples from Corded Ware, Ukraine Eneolithic and the forest zone in Russia.
I've asked around and apparently it's not found in any new Yamnaya samples.
@Rob: "Yes the slab- grave culture was concentrated in eastern Transylvania; so we would see the site at Sarrata Monteoru as the southernmost outpost rather than the main vector. So the GAC expansion was rather huge. BA samples from Romania are very interesting "
From what I read the GAC expansion proper didn't reach much further, but influences, possibly clans and in any case individuals, could have marched much further South after GAC proper did end in the region. They were able to influence other cultures in the region like Glina/Monteoru, Usatovo (not just in Transylvania) and Baden. So I guess it could have spread in most of the Balkan-Danubian conplex in solution. But that's something for genetic samples once again. Monteoru itself marched South, possibly with GAC influences, to evade the Noua invasion.
@davidski
Do you know anything regarding neolithic ancient dna from northern Mesopotamia? As far as I know there is no published data on it yet.
@Sarah
I haven't seen anything specifically from northern Mesopotamia, but there are some new samples from Bronze Age to Neolithic eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus, and it's basically all as expected from the already published data.
That is, it has nothing to do with Yamnaya or Khvalynsk.
Looks like the Warlike Herders of South-Africa (R1b, E1b1a, E1b1b, R1a and I2a) kicked some but....Heheheeh.
"Do you know anything regarding neolithic ancient dna from northern Mesopotamia? As far as I know there is no published data on it yet."
That's what I'm asking myself too. It also matters for the R. yar/Zagros debate in context of the LDC, because some even connect the M'lefatien, which was proposed by the excavation team and authors of the reports on the LDC as a potential source, with a spread in Northern Mesopotamia and even the rise of Sumerian. This would be a highly interesting connection to think about, though its completely speculative.
But the Sumerian story is in any case of high importance and there is little known so far, isn't it?
@Davidski
“And there's no sign of M417 anywhere before Alexandria and Usatovo. In and around Samara M417 turns up late, at least 500 years after Usatovo.”
“Well that's great, but there are potential cases of L51 in upcoming samples from Corded Ware, Ukraine Eneolithic and the forest zone in Russia.
I've asked around and apparently it's not found in any new Yamnaya samples.”
So Yamnaya, Caucasus, Anatolia, forest zone in Russia are definitely out of the picture.
PIE homeland should be searched for in the area of the interaction of Sredny Stog II and Tripolye.
We got our religion, like the sun and fire worship, ritual mead and beer drinking, etc. most likely from Tripolye, horses and war culture from Sredny Stog, so both influenced our language I suppose. Before that interaction 4500-3500 BC probably there was no PIE.
But there was the steppe ancestral clans, the steppe ancestry component. So even if they adopted cultural innovations the whole time, what they did, the ancestry and language, at least for the most part, was complete already.
Yamnaya is probably IE, just no important branch.
Lower Don culture late is probably the main issue, SSC2 seems to have been the main NW branch from this root.
Whether and how much of ancestry they took up on the way is still unclear, but the people living there in Western Ukraine before the expansion of LDC seem to have been not related.
@davidski
In terms of already published data, to which cultures are these Bronze Age to Neolithic eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus samples close?
Autosomally? Are they close to Anatolia_N, Anatolia_Chl, Levant_N, Levant_Chl, Iran_Chl? And they dont have any Steppe ancestry, and also no Steppe paternal markers, right?
And what about their paternal markers?
@eastpole
yes PIE from the cultural continuum CT-Sredni Stog so PIE from Dneper/Danube- Vistula region.
@Lars Ulthes-“Has that ATP3 sample been radiocarbon dated?-I remember that many analysis by amateurs noticed that it was very eastern.
3.389 BC Late Neolithic-It has a percentage of North Eastern Europe
@Davidski- “ATP3 is a garbage sample-There's not enough markers to work anything out.”
@Richard Rocca-“ATP3 is so low quality that it was not used in subsequent studies that included the other Atapuerca samples. That should tell you all you need to know about the sample. Furthermore, every single ancient DNA sample has calls for R1b SNPs, including samples that belong to completely unrelated haplogroups like E, I, J” etc.
Of course there are enough markers to work, researchers have shown that the sample is positive for GHIJK, KM9, negative for the T and the L equivalent SNPs, positive for R1b-M478, R1b-L389-P297 and only 1 SNP in the M269 level-Then not only is it not garbage but it is important to understand the Spanish Neolithic-In any case it is not the time to reopen the debate because at least in Spain it is a closed case
Regarding the recent euphoria about R1b in the CWC, the LBK and its heiress cultures are much more important to understand the Central-Europan chalcolithic. The CWc it was a super heterogeneous culture with several different funeral practices depending on the different regions. However, the famous tradition of differentiated burials according to gender, most people do not know that the customs of the CWC in Central Europe are identical to those of the LBK
However, the customs of the BBC in that region(crouched position, lying on their right side and facing East) derive from the Rossen culture- In other words, the Kurganists' obsession with bringing everything from the steppes has prevented them from analyzing the supposed influences of German Neolithic cultures (LBK, Rossen, Baalberge etc.) in both the BB culture and the CWC. Then it is not surprising that in Germany or the Czech Republic cases of R1b may appear in the CWC-
Regarding R1b it is an absolutely proven fact that it is a typical WHgs lineage, there is no doubt about it, those more oriental hunter-gatherers mixed with the EHG (Latvia, etc.) therefore it is not surprising that it appears even more to the East. I have already said that the interesting thing would be to study the deposits, dating and autosomal composition. In spite of what this may seem, it will turn out to be the definitive end of the steppe theory as it has been interpreted in recent years.
@Gaska "the customs of the CWC in Central Europe are identical to those of the LBK"
That's not true.
@Archi
Thinking Gender Differently: New Approaches to Identity-Difference in Central European Neolithic-
LBK- Linear Pottery Culture (5.500-4.500 BC)-The ‘standard’ burial rite
Males-Flexed position, Right-crouched oriented east-west-
Females- Flexed position left-crouched, oriented east–west-
I do not know if you have read this work, it is interesting because it not only demonstrates the practice of individual burials in the German Neolithic, but also the type of grave goods and their gender differences and of course the position and orientation of the buried Obviously not there was a direct transmission of customs between the LBK and the CWC, so we must also study the Rossen culture and the TRB
I believe these are the defining traits of Kurgan burial custom.....Correct me if I'm wrong
Every individual has their own burial pit. No pits are burials for multiple people. Often wooden beams or stone walls are on the borders of the burial pit. The Dead are laid flat on their back (supine position) with their legs bent up. Their head is bent facing east or west or north or south. often, an artificial mound was put on top of a single burial or multiple burials.
This was practise by Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Bell BEaker, Andronovo. Also, the earliest Bell Beaker samples in Spain with Kurgan ancestry have these kinds of burials while earlier Bell Beaker samples in Spain do not. So, if you are looking for Kurgan people in archaeology look for these kinds of burials.
@Gaska The fact that you have written means nothing, in a bent position many people buried everywhere, it is from ancient times a common custom. Even in the Eastern European Mesolithic Age, the burials on the Dnieper River, or in the Eneolithic, for example, in the same Mariupol burial ground, were buried in a bent position.
@Samuel Andrews "The Dead are laid flat on their back (supine position) with their legs bent up."
You're wrong, that way only buried in the Yamnaya culture.
@ Zardos
''From what I read the GAC expansion proper didn't reach much further, but influences, possibly clans and in any case individuals, could have marched much further South after GAC proper did end in the region. They were able to influence other cultures in the region like Glina/Monteoru, Usatovo (not just in Transylvania) and Baden. ''
If Glina-Schl (3000-25000 BC) is GAC derived, which I think genomics will prove correct then it was direct migration. Usatavo influence in Transylvania is mild
'' to evade the Noua invasion.''
Noua might have been locally relevant, but overall they don't seem to be a particularly important group. Sort of poor shepherds from Russia
''Whether and how much of ancestry they took up on the way is still unclear, but the people living there in Western Ukraine before the expansion of LDC seem to have been not related.''
LDC is ~ 25% important, max
Noua is a important culture, it participated in the Zero World War of the Bronze Age Catastrophe. Its population was part of the march of the Sea Peoples, and they were actually Thracians.
But the GAC is a unimportant culture in global whose influence is exaggerated, they did not become anything.
Noua was definitely important, but especially in the Carpartho-Balkans things are very complicated as to who was able to keep the upper hand after the initial clash.
Samples will help, especially from elite burials.
@Archi, Rob
There is Y DNA I2a2a1b2 in Late Neolithic Spain like in Globular Amphora. But it is really rare. It is overshadowed by I2a2a2a. This doesn't look like a strong connection.
One of the Funnel Beaker genomes from Poland looks like an ancestor of Globular Amphora. If you add some Central European Hg to it it looks like Globular Amphora. So, it makes GAC originated in Poland than expanded east and west.
But, I'd say Globular Amphora was whipped out/assimilated by Corded Ware. Once Corded Ware starts then GAC is no longer a big player. I2a2a1b2 may have been common in some Bronze age groups. But overall, it was whipped out by R1a and R1b.
@Samuel: To me it looks like GAC evaded CW in a lot of places, but at the same time, they did expand into different places and didn't disappear. So the whole situation is quite complicated, so is when lineages appear, disappear or reappear. A lot of holes have to be closed first before we can be sure.
After all, Neolithic ancestry was on the rise and haplogroup I reappeared in a lot of places. SEE shows that a lot of mixtures and alliances could have been created there.
It seems they brought in a new, unifying ethnicity and ruling class to the region, while making a lot of the preceding structures collapse or fusion with them. But then again, that's just the impression I got from reading some sources. Its another example for that we don't know its total impact before proper, wide scale testing I guess.
The CWC did not invade Europe, it simply adopted many local customs, as is the case with the types of burial. Regarding its genetic composition, even some of its uniparental markers have no steppe origin - This is an example- I2a1a1b-S21825-Y4213- (Padina-Serbia-8.500 BC Zvejnieki; Latvia-5.550 BC/ Blatterhohle-MN Germany-3.789 BC/ Velké Žernoseky; Czech Republic; CWC-2.625 BC/Jinonice, Czech Republic- BBC-1.950 BC)
This is an example of how uniparental markers do not belong exclusively to a certain culture or a particular language and how the CWC was a specialist in recruiting local lineages, the same could happen with P312
Regarding I2a2a1b2-It is true that it is typical of the GAC, but it also exists in the western Megalithic culture (Dolmen de la Mina) from where it passed to the BBC (Humanejos)-Many Neolithic cultures in Europe shared uniparental markers, this demonstrates the difficulty of determining with certainty the origin of the autosomal components of both the CWC and the BBC
@Sam
https://i.imgur.com/7vgVx9e.png
I got that from here:
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/3819/1/BPS8.pdf
The GAC people migrated into the forest Steppe. They showed up there 2950-2350 BC., before the CWC Steppe migration. They had a big influence on all of the Steppe groups apparently. Interesting read.
@ Zardos
“Zardos
''It seems they brought in a new, unifying ethnicity and ruling class to the region''
Noua culture is modest pastoralists moving around during an arid phase
''But, I'd say Globular Amphora was whipped out/assimilated by Corded Ware.''
Not quite. GAC ended in 2400 BC, That's coincident with the Bell Beaker period & subsequent incipient Bronze Age.
In any case; I2a2a1b2 seems to be a major lineage in ‘Ancient Germanic’ groups of the north European plain, even more so than R1a-M417.
@Rob
Samuel made the "whipped" comment, not zardos.
Apart from that, some local founder effects in space and time notwithstanding, Y-chromosome lineages of steppe origin are and have been a significant and probably overall major part of the Germanic paternal gene pool.
Isolating R1a-M417 doesn't make much sense if both R1a-M417 and R1b-U106 are of steppe (or forest steppe) origin in Germanics.
GAC lineages may have been very important in certain Germanic groups at certain times, but overall it appears that they made up a minority of the Germanic paternal gene pool.
EYE OF THE VOID
https://ibb.co/pPMH01d
@Archi
There are very few archeological sites and human remains available from that area.
But all of the relevant Y-haplogroups are found elsewhere anyway so it's irrelevant.
"There are very few archeological sites and human remains available from that area."
There are many archeological excavations in this area and many human remains.
"But all of the relevant Y-haplogroups are found elsewhere anyway so it's irrelevant."
This is an unsubstantiated statement. This is an important biggest region, because there is a zone of distribution of the most ancient R1a and EHG, as well as such cultures as Fatyanovo/Abashevo.
And in general, it's all about the Forest/Forest-Steppe Zone, where supposedly only R1b, although the Forest zone itself is not tested.
The forest zone has been tested. There's R1b-P297, R1b-M269 and R1a(xM417) up there.
As well as some I2a and Q1a.
@Davidski
Name the places, please.
@ Davidski
Thanks.
Post a Comment