search this blog

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Interesting times ahead


The map below made a big impression on me. Can't wait to see all of these ancient samples online. More details here.


See also...

Is Yamnaya overrated?

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

Getting the most out of the Global25

192 comments:

JuanRivera said...

Glad to see a lot of areas of the steppe sampled. Though there are some notorious gaps, such as in Crimea and the Ural River valley. But the composition of those can be extrapolated from those samples, if the authors aren't already working to sample those areas (along with other areas of Eurasia). Judging by the map, the dot area would extend to perhaps the Pacific Ocean coast.

JuanRivera said...

There are samples from Anatolia, so we can check if there was steppe ancestry in the Hittite period. There are no samples from the Tarim, so no leads on the Tocharian question.

Davidski said...

Seems like those M269 hunter-gatherer samples from north-central European Russia are on that map.

Gabriel said...

You know, all the crap we put up with research papers claiming that Transcaucasia was the IE homeland, and the claims that Yamnaya was as well, though it’s much closer to the truth. So hopefully these samples will end that.

Do you think they will still push these theories anyway, even if the samples completely prove them wrong?

Davidski said...

Do you think they will still push these theories anyway, even if the samples completely prove them wrong?

Well no, that wouldn't be very smart.

But there are some issues currently with the interpretation of fine scale genetic structure, and this might cause confusion in regards to this issue, at least for a while.

Note, for instance, that the Max Planck team can't or don't want to differentiate between Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya. To them they're part of the same steppe cluster, so if they prove that Steppe Maykop has ancestry from, say, Mesopotamia, they might go ahead and claim that Yamnaya also has ancestry from there.

A lot of people, including archeologists and linguists, won't question such a conclusion, because if geneticists from Max Planck say it's true than basically it must be true, and we might see some hilariously wrong archeological and linguistic models derived from it.

Eventually, though, it'll be exposed for what it is, but that might take some time.

Samuel Andrews said...

The Harvard ancient DNA lab is much better at interpreting the data than Max Planck I guess. But They still do call Yamnaya's CHG-related ancestry Iranian-related. Plus, they stil think Neolithic farmers from the Middle East gave yamnaya this ancestry. Now, ancient DNA shows this is not true. Let's hope they change their stance accordingly.

But, overall I'm happy they are heading ancient DNA studies on Indo European languages because they have proven to be good at interpreting the data.

John Thomas said...

I'm sorry, but I am really perplexed at this map - it's all about HIV resistance, apparently - and its relevance to the IE question.

Can someone please elaborate?

epoch said...

A lot of samples from around Istanbul, which might prove to be interesting!

Also interesting is that the oldest occurrence of CCR5-Δ32 seems to be from the Khvalynsk Culture, despite a lot of samples from the Pontic Steppe. Now, CCR5-Δ32 appears to be involved in resistance against Plague and Smallpox, so it may have been selected for. But maybe this gene may function as tracer die to show that Khvalynsk contributed ancestry to the later PIE peoples.

Davidski said...

@epoch

What's the correlation between CCR5-Δ32 and Indo-European languages?

Gaska said...


Dr Reich words are basically the same as always, we still don't know what "Yamnaya" or "steppe", or "Yamnaya related" or "steppe related" ancestry is, and the reason why uniparental markers tell us a totally different story-Many researchers in Spain think that we are making a fool of ourselves by letting this man interpret our prehistory partially and without sufficient knowledge- Some universities and museums that keep thousands of ancient skeletons are developing independent programs that will help to understand this process-

I suppose the hunter gatherers of Northern Russia that Davidski and my friends from Spain are talking about should be considered EHG+WHG (I imagine it will be easy to model them for their supposed antiquity), according to my reasoning their geographical situation (far North) and the lack of genetic continuity with the cultures that supposedly spread the IE language would leave R1b-M269/L51/P312 out of the game. Because it is clear that this lineage has not appeared either in Khavlynsk, or in Sredni Sotg, or in DD, or in Yamnaya or in the Catacombs, or in Maykop or Cucuteni etc. They still need to demonstrate a movement of R1b-M269 towards mainland Europe when it is most likely that a movement in the opposite direction would occur-In addition it is also obvious that he did not participate in the movement towards Asia-Am I wrong?

Regarding his words about the Basques and Spain and the influence of the Levantine Neolithic farmers in European genetics, it is obvious that he undervalues ​​the importance of WHGs in the current genetic composition - The female uniparental markers H/H1/H3/H6 and U5b are still majority in Spain, and even in other regions of Europe and they do not come from the Middle East, from Anatolia or from the steppes but from the western European hunter-gatherers

A final complaint-The Basques, Iberians, Etruscans, Hungarians, etc. etc, we are also Europeans and yet 99.99% of the researchers' effort is focused on finding out the origin of IE ignoring other realities. It will be fun to see in the future how they change their mind about it-Dr Reich is going to become the hero of the leftists in my country

Davidski said...

@Gaska

How many WHG samples belong to mtDNA H clades? Can you list them?

EastPole said...

It looks like they are reading this blog and know which interesting (for me)areas not to sample.

https://i.postimg.cc/rFm1vD4C/Unsampled.jpg

https://postimg.cc/1gfRR44G

https://postimg.cc/nCbKDnhv

Without properly testing important areas and researching important languages and cultures nothing certain will be known about IE question and that post-NSDAP-science babble will continue.

BTW at 6:13 there is a new IE language tree:

https://i.postimg.cc/vBCpVJ5c/screenshot-31.png

a said...

CCR-Delta32 is a specific mutation that can be found in Sweden, Baltisch/Russian/Uyguir. Maybe it has something to do with the evolution of the specific Steppe Yersinia Pestis bacteria plague. Yersinia Pestis Steppe differs from the sample found in ancient Sweden. Yersinia Pestis Steppe is found in R1b and R1a among Yamnaya/Afansievo/Corded Ware/Vucedol/Bell Beaker samples.

epoch said...

@Davidski

There obviously is no direct correlation between PIE and CCR5. However, as we seek the PIE homeland in the steppe area and we see that CCR5 pops up in Eneolithic Khvalynsk and pops up later in the same area in which we have seen PIE related groups this might be a clue that Khvalynsk was part of the ancestry that formed the groups that actually spread PIE languages.

It is not watertight proof, I admit. But apparently we have a lot of samples and Khvalynsk is the only Eneolithic group to have it.

Davidski said...

@epoch

This Mittnik/Akbari map sort of reminds me of my PIE expansion map from a couple of years ago...

So far so good for the Kurgan hypothesis

But the total lack of CCR5 in Iberia, the Aegean region and South Asia looks peculiar if we are to suppose that its spread was associated with early Indo-European dispersals.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Vestonice14-South Moravia-(26.640-25.570 BC)-H7a1 Vestonice42-Mit-Hap-H
El Miron Cave (NOT the Red Lady)-Magdalenian (13.000 BC)- Mit Hap H, probably H1
El Pirulejo Cave (Córdoba)-Magdalenian 2PI-Mit-Hap-HV
La Pasiega Cave (Cantabria)- Magdalenian (16,200-15.740 BC)-Mit Hap-H
Sado Stuary (Portugal)- (8.500 BC)- Mit Haps- H (2), H1b(1), H7 (1)
La Chora Cave (Cantabria)-(6.360 BC)- Mit Hap H6
Linatzeta Cave (Lastur, Guipuzcoa, Basque Country)-(6.230-6.100 BC)- Mit Hap-H

None of these samples has been taken into consideration to establish the autosomal composition og the WHGs and it is a fundamental lineage to know the European genetics Do not you think that much is missing, to be able to make such resounding statements regarding the autosomal composition of Europeans before the arrival of Neolithic farmers? Doesn't it seem normal to you that Spanish researchers naturally assume that all cases of H in Iberia during the Neolithic are related to the cases found in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic rather than with Anatolian farmers?

For us the importance of MitHap H has been ignored for too long because evidently the subclades that appear from the steppes in the chalcolithic have nothing to do with the western subclades that have their origin in the Paleolithic (France, Spain and Italy)

In view of what lies ahead, do you have any opinion about the relationship of R1b-M269 and its descendants with the IE language and its expansion west and east?

Davidski said...

@John Thomas

Just look at the number of samples and their locations. You don't think they'll be useful in trying to figure out the PIE homeland question?

Archi said...



EYE OF THE VOID

https://ibb.co/xzD3Bwj


a said...

Mittnik did not find any of the global basal phylogeny 0.PE2 Caspian Sea strain (found in Yamnaya) Yersinia Pestis that the German Bell Beakers had. It will be interesting to compare the chronological distribution of CCR5 Delta 32 compared to the distribution of 0.PE2 (Steppe/Yamnaya Yersinia Pestis), and the chronological archeological evidence from Anthony's Khvalynsk samples.

a said...

Above edit -Iberian void of 0.PE2.

zardos said...

I think we have to distinguish between two aspects of Transcaucasian influence:

1st The idea PPIE came directly from Transcaucasia and one branch never left, moved directly to Western Anatolia, is to me totally out of question by now. Anatolians descend from the Balkan-Danubian Complex, people influenced by Cernavoda and Usatovo. Samples from around Troy will finally prove/disprove this proposition. But even TCC and GAC look like better (still worse) candidates for anything important than a direct continuity in Eastern Anatolia/Southern Caucasus.

2nd The hypothesis that some Transcaucasian PPN people (e.g. related to M'lefatien) came, pure or in solution, to the North Pontic area (like R. yar) and were involved in the formation of the local Lower Don Culture.
This is an open question from many perspective since we lacks samples. This too will be finally proven/disproven by samples from the Transcaucasian cultures which are really critical as a potential source and early LDC.

un said...

Dolni Vestonice [14] mtdna U5
El Mirón Cave, Cantabria [Red Lady of El Mirón; ElMiron] U5b

First mtdna H (H13) in Europe from Ostrovul Corbului Romania [I4081] 7580-7190 calBCE

https://web.archive.org/web/20170917024854/http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml

Gaska said...

@un

Obviously you don't know the papers published in Spain where H is a typical Magdalenian lineage- Ostrovul's sample is one more proof of what I am saying because it have nothing to do with the steppes where there is no Mit Hap-H until the chalcolithic

+ Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe- Montserrat Hervella, Neskuts Izagirre (2.012)- Five samples associated with a hunteregatherer way of life were collected in 5 archaeological sites from the Cantabrian fringe-La Chora (Gonzalez-Echegaray et al., 1963), La Pasiega (Gonzalez-Echegaray and Ripoll, 1952), and El Mirón (Straus and González Morales, 2012) in Cantabria; Erralla in the Basque Country (de la Rúa, 1985) and Aizpea in Navarre (de la Rúa et al., 2001).

+ El ADN mitocondrial de los cazadores-recolectores de la región cantábrica: Nueva evidencia de la cueva de El Mirón (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, España)-M Hervella, N Izaguirre (2.014)

+ The mitochondrial DNA of the hunter-gatherers of the Cantabrian region: New evidence from the cave of El Mirón (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, Spain) -M Hervella, N Izaguirre (2014)

un said...

Mtdna H13 a little earlier in Georgia than Romania
Non mtdna H before neolithic in Iberia
Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (2014) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105105

The maternal genetic make-up of the Iberian Peninsula between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15480-9


Salden said...

Does that map show we're finally getting Upper Egyptian and Eastern Mesopotamian Ancient DNA?

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“Just look at the number of samples and their locations. You don't think they'll be useful in trying to figure out the PIE homeland question?”

What if R1a-Z645 and PIE started to grow and expand from the unsampled area i.e. forest-steppe?
For example:

https://i.postimg.cc/1RrnqrqB/Unsampled2.jpg

Davidski said...

@EastPole

They can't test samples that don't exist and apparently there are very few human samples from that part of Eastern Europe.

And if that is the PIE homeland, which I doubt, then samples from nearby locations will be informative about that.

Archi said...

"samples that don't exist and apparently there are very few human samples from that part of Eastern Europe."

It's not that.

Davidski said...

I don't even care if there are any samples from that area.

Corded Ware and Z645 obviously came from somewhere around the Sea of Azov.

I mean, if you still don't know that, then it's time to do something else with your time.

Archi said...

The argument that something doesn't matter, itself doesn't matter. It is the most important biggest region of Eastern Europe, in the understanding of the development of R1a/R1b and EHG, it is ignored, therefore, all conclusions by definition are not complete, and hence the (E)Neolithic PPIE originate from the Forest/Forest-Steppe zone. There is evidence of this from linguists and anthropologists, and the known examples of aDNA also confirm this.

You cannot refute this because you do not have samples to prove your denial.

Slumbery said...

@Salden

Does that map show we're finally getting Upper Egyptian and Eastern Mesopotamian Ancient DNA?

I could not catch some of the words of Reich with the crappy speaker of the laptop I am using now, but it sounded like he said "here is the ancient samples we have" for the next picture that contains much less (black) dots and none of them in Eastern Mesopotamia. Maybe the blue dots are modern and relatively recent (not ancient) samples.

Archi said...

There are very strong hypotheses about the origin of the Dnieper-Donets culture from the territory of Belarus, the north of Russia, from the east from the Urals. There is like the Neman culture which can be R1b, and from which Beakers can come, which could move along the Vistula and Oder or along the Baltic coast.
And to understand the emergence of the Yamnaya component it is necessary to test the northern (Volga-)Don region.
Etc.
All this is not checked until this region is tested.

Gaska said...

@un said-"Non mtdna H before neolithic in Iberia"

You may not have read the links that I have sent you or you may not understand what those papers say, in the first case it is a problem of laziness, in the second case a problem of ignorance and lack of understanding. It is not worth continuing to debate with you if you are unable to understand what they tell you. In other words, H is a marker of Paleolithic origin typical of WHGs and there is no one who can prove the opposite- It is amazing that Harvard researchers have never considered it. There are half a dozen doctoral theses that treat the subject in an interesting way, what happens is that I think they are not translated into English-This shows that the alleged knowledge that Reich presumes is simply the result of his lack of knowledge in the matter

Regarding the origin of IE I do not have dog in that fight but I think that everything will depend on Anatolia in one way or another (Origin of the Hittites and the Anatolian languages ​​of the Indo-European branch) -

JuanRivera said...

Actually, there are some studies that detected CCR5-Δ32 in Iberia, Greece and Southern Asia. For Iberia there is "Influence of CCR5-Δ32 genotype in Spanish population with multiple sclerosis", for Greece there is "HIV-1 co-receptor CCR5 and CCR2 mutations among Greeks", and for South Asia there is "The latitude wise prevalence of the CCR5-Delta 32-HIV resistance allele in India". For all three plus a lot of other countries, there is "Frequencies of gene variant CCR5-Δ32 in 87 countries based on next-generation sequencing of 1.3 million individuals sampled from 3 national DKMS donor centers".

zardos said...

I agree with Archi in that the ultimate origin of the lineages and EHG component, the "Northern forager part" could be from further North. This would, however, predate the formation of even PPIE lineages. Its about the ultimate origin of the HG lineages before they became "the steppe people" proper. As far as I can tell we have little information about the EXACT origin of the EHG and CHG involved. We don't know for sure where they met and how they met, whether the combination came up more than once etc.

If we get more from 7.000-5.000 from the North Pontic area, especially the Lower Don/Sea of Azov region, we will probably know more and I agree with David that this in turn might help to deduce something for the Northern forest steppe region even without proper sampling having been done.
Funnily the least important, percentage wise, ancestral component is so far the best explored. The EEF from the West, clearly associated with specific cultural groups from Bug-Dniester - Surskaya - TCC. Still even from this side a lot is to be deserved.



JuanRivera said...

For we can see from the last study of these, in Iberia and South Asia the allele is linked to steppe ancestry (although ancestries aren't mentioned in the study), as both are higher in Spain and Pakistan than in Portugal and India respectively. In South Asia, Bangladesh has the lowest proportion of the allele and also the lowest proportion of steppe ancestry in the north of the Indian Subcontinent.

Matt said...

Note this map possibly does not include non-Reich group samples. Nothing in Ireland, yet there should be, from Cassidy's thesis and prior work.

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“I don't even care if there are any samples from that area.

Corded Ware and Z645 obviously came from somewhere around the Sea of Azov.”

Was Corded Ware and Z645 coming from the Sea of Azov IE? How do we know this?

There are still many things I don’t understand.
Z645 was not a very common and successful lineage. Its descendent Z283 and Z93 were very common and successful.
So the area where Z645 split into Z283 and Z93 which separately started to grow and expand is very important.
PIE language was very complex, PIE nouns are declined for eight or nine cases, etc. It was a language that was developed for religion and poetry. It happened in my opinion after mixing with Tripolye and developing agriculture, mead and beer production, etc.
I used to think that it happened in this area:

https://i.postimg.cc/J7H0p52z/Unsampled3.jpg

But if there is some new data and a new explanation of what is known I would be happy to learn.

zardos said...

@Eastpole: Languages can get more complex over time and while the speakers culture develops and incorporates new elements.

But like Anthony correctly stressed: IE is no creole language!

So whatever happened, at 5.000 BC one group of people spoke PIE or PPIE and anything else was just added to the vocabulary and complexity of an already existing language.

Now we might never know for sure, but everything considered, the dominant male lineages should point in the right direction and these are CC/DD/MD-related foragers most likely.

Any other scenario is possible, but less likely.

Romulus said...

PLaying Devil's Advocate here, how does a gene that fights against HIV have an evolutionary impact considering HIV had only been around since the 1920s.

I would be more interested to see a comprehensive blood group study on aDNA considering the rhesus negative peak in Basques.

Slumbery said...

@Romulus

...,how does a gene that fights against HIV have an evolutionary impact considering HIV had only been around since the 1920s.

A lot of alleles have multiple or broader effects. This allele is useful against HIV, but that does not mean that being useful against HIV is its only effect. A gene that effects the operation if the immune system can be a subject of very strong selection.

KVN said...

Prof. Reich speaks about brain evolution, Neanderthals and ageing at the end of the speech. He is collaborating with Horvath, who thinks that DNA methylation is a correlated well with ageing, possibly better than telomere length. I do not know which of these is better preserved in ancient DNA. Reich’s interest in ageing might tie into the interest in brain evolution because length of childhood might increase with need to take advantage of increased brain structure. Reich also mentioned comparisons to Neanderthals, which may tie in to brain evolution and ageing. I have read opposing positions on the idea that Neanderthal’s had a longer childhood/adolescence to make use of bigger brains. This is from memory and I do not have references. I am an amateur.

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

Maybe the blue dots are modern and relatively recent (not ancient) samples.

That would be very strange, since the blue dots don't show up in many areas that are covered by Harvard's Human Origins dataset of modern samples, but do show up in areas which are only covered by datasets of ancient samples.

The black dots certainly are ancient samples, but they're specifically those that could be tested for the CCR5-Δ32 mutation and were negative for it.

Bob Floy said...

Why is Reich saying that Yamnaya were the first to use wheeled vehicles?

Rob said...

Quite honestly; who cares about forest foragers. Let’s see the Mycenaeans and Bronze Age west Anatolia ; so Zardos & Archie shut up

Archi said...

Rob said... "Let’s see the Mycenaeans and Bronze Age west Anatolia ; so Zardos & Archie shut up"

You're still trolling. What to look at if there is nothing! There are no Achaeans or Hittite-Luwians! There are no samples yet!
By the way, the Hittites cremated, as in the Cotofeni parts of Usatovo, that they got passing through the Balkans.

zardos said...

@Rob: That was undeserved since I said myself which importance Western Anatolia and Troy in particular have.

Yet the deeper history of the well known R1-lineages might very well have been right up in the forest steppe.

Actually that are two different but closely related issues. Even if the Indo-European proto-language would have not come up in those foragers, it was about those lineages getting out most of it.

Davidski said...

@Bob Floy

Why is Reich saying that Yamnaya were the first to use wheeled vehicles?

He probably meant to say that the earliest wagons were used on the Bronze Age steppe (because they're first found in Steppe Maykop burials).

It happens.

Archi said...

@zardos Even if the Indo-European proto-language would have not come up in those foragers

All the people were once upon time hunter-gatheres. Therefore, all languages have deep roots in the spread of HG.
The question is in time slice only.

Gaska said...

The Bronocice pot, discovered in a village in Gmina Działoszyce, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, near Nidzica River, Poland, is a ceramic vase incised with the earliest known image of a wheeled vehicle. It was dated by the radiocarbon method to 3635–3370 BC, and is attributed to the Funnelbeaker culture.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

There's an actual wagon from a Steppe Maykop burial radiocarbon dated to 3336-3105 calBCE (Sharakhalsun 6, kurgan 2, grave 18).

So it's hard to say who first used wagons, but it's likely that they were first widely used on the Early Bronze Age steppe.

Gaska said...


I suppose that for any Kurganist fan it is unimaginable that a Polish Neolithic farmer would be able to design or build a wheeled vehicle, or that a farmer from the French megalithic culture would be able to tame a horse or even worse than a Basque farmer R1b-P312 would be able to speak a non IE language-

Sooner or later we will all have to accept that metallurgy, the wheel, the deadliest weapons, ceramics, the ability to conquer and dominate other peoples, courage, blond hair, music, language, urbanization of cities, writing, religion, social hierarchy, and all the progress of humanity are the result of the genetic superiority of the steppe riders. Luckily at least my people and I belong to that superior race.

And in the meantime we will continue to discuss what percentage of EHG or CHG or WHG is enough to have the ability to speak IE, or which of the steppe cultures was the first to speak IE or Pre-IE or Pre Pre IE or PPPPPIE. And finally when we discover that the language has an African origin we will all put our hands to our heads and begin to think that maybe we are all doing the ridiculous.

Gaska said...


I could accept all that, but I hope you don't try to convince us that the men of the Yamnaya or Khvalynsk or Usatovo or CWC taught the Basques to sail or fish for whales. Although thinking about it, maybe we learned to sail on the Volga River

Davidski said...

@Gaska

It's rather unlikely that the Steppe Maykop people were Indo-European speakers.

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

Nevertheless, they obviously did know a thing or two about wagons, and probably earlier than anyone else. Just saying.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

That is a very exciting map. Not much going on around Tunisia, but with luck maybe a couple of those samples are Carthaginians. Good representation in Egypt and Mesopotamia, which is long overdue. Looks like there are also some North Arabian and Omani samples. We have nothing ancient from Arabia at present so those would be terrific to have.

And of course I'm stoked for the Greek samples.

Gaska said...


I am very, very, very far from knowing what language each culture spoke in Prehistory and of course far from knowing the origin of the IE language and how it expanded to Europe and Asia. I only know how other languages ​​of his family came to America, Australia, Africa and the Philippines. The rest for me is a mystery, and I publicly acknowledge my inability to find a solution that can be seriously discussed. However I have heard in these years gigantic stupidities about massive migrations of the steppes, about certain haplogroups and even autosomal ancestors inextricably linked to a certain language. I do not doubt that one day some genius will find the solution but for now I am content to try to find out if the Basques learned to fish for whales in the Volga or to build megaliths in the steppes.

Regarding the Maykop culture, I don't know if they spoke IE or not, but I suppose they would be smart enough to build a wheeled vehicle. What is strange to me is that they were able to do it being from the South Caucasus.

Sorry for the irony, but there comes a time when my brain gets intoxicated with the steppes and I start to say nonsense-I think I'm going to take a break

Mike said...

Apparently they got samples from lower Don and lower volga. I hope some are from eneolithic and neolithic.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, About wheels and Wagons.

Also, didn't Corded Ware & Bell Beaker not have any wagons or wheels? If, so that changes understanding of early Indo Europeans. The idea David Anthony had in his 2007 book is they were by definition a culture obsessed with wheels and wagons. But, most IE languages in Europe derive from people who didn't use wheels/wagons..that doesn't work.

Samuel Andrews said...

Maybe, Corded Ware & Bell Beaker's ancestors used horses and wheels in Eastern Eurpean Steps. But, stopped using them when they migrated west.

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

Why didn't CWC have a wheel and wagon?

Bob Floy said...

@David

"He probably meant to say that the earliest wagons were used on the Bronze Age steppe (because they're first found in Steppe Maykop burials)."

I just hope he's not conflating Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya.

Archi said...

In the Yamnaya culture, wagons date back to the same dates.

Matt said...

@Sam, I don't know why you'd think that Corded Ware and Beaker, or tons of EEF groups for probably at least about a 1000-800 years before they arrived in Europe didn't know or use wagons and the wheel?

We only know that wagons were definitely present in steppe as used in burials on the steppe - and so leave an impression. But it is quite likely that they were known by several cultures that did not include them in burial, such as the Funnelbeaker (GASKA has already mention Bronocice). It is likely that Late/Middle Neolithic farmers did and the evidence has simply decomposed (except whereas there are lucky finds like the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel) without leaving a trace, as they had no reason to include wagons in their burial contexts.

There is no much evidence for anyone stopping using a wagon, nor of Yamnaya having wagons which were not also present in many other places. Other cultures simply did not put them in burial (and this is something which was inspired possibly by Steppe Maykop).

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Corded Ware people definitely used wagons, and late on in the east probably also chariots (Abashevo culture).

However, the big difference between them and their steppe relatives was that, as far as I know, they never buried their dead with wagons.

Bell Beakers probably also had wagons, but it seems to me that they preferred to use boats to get around.

Archi said...

@Matt "ther cultures simply did not put them in burial (and this is something which was inspired possibly by Steppe Maykop)."

The Steppe Maykop did not bury with wagons. This under the kurgan burial belonging to the Novosvobodnaya phase of the Maykop culture have obvious steppe components, they are just random strangers that arrived in the Steppe Maykop and died there, so were buried with a wheel. This burial is synchronous with other similar burials with elements of wagons in the Yamnaya culture dating back to the same centuries (radiocarbon dating). Only strangers were buried with wagons/wagon elements that came to other people's lands and died there, so they were buried with wagon details, usually it was travelers were women and children, the wagon was their property, over these strangers even barrows were not erected.

Rob said...

@ Archie

“This burial is synchronous with other similar burials with elements of wagons in the Yamnaya cult””

That’s no possible because Yamnaya is later than Majkop . Is there evidence of wagons in Repin ? Don’t think so

Davidski said...

@Archi

Can you point us to a reliably dated Yamnaya wagon as old as the one in the Sharakhalsun 6 burial (3336-3105 calBCE)?

Archi said...

No, the beginning of Yamnaya culture dates back to 3400-3300BC. The Novosvobodnaya phase of the Maykop culture is synchronous to the beginning of the Yamnaya culture.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Show us something tangible, like what I just asked for.

a said...

Upper estimate of Afansievo culture is around 3300. It is not unreasonable to think that an additional 100 or 200 years were needed to make a wagon sturdy enough to travel great distances and or for use in pastoralism and harvesting the steppe for calories.

Rob said...

Well maybe Majkopams got wagons from Europeans

zardos said...

Interesting quotation:
"The fact that the sceptre bearers did not cause an interruption in the
long-standing nomad ideology, but rather re-enforced
them, is just as signifi cant. Thus, the formation
and rapid expansion of new social conditions,
that is, hierarchical division, as refl ected
in the distribution of sceptre bearers in the
steppes from the Danube to the Volga rivers and
to the North Caucasus, cannot be seen as the result
of some purported conquests, but rather as
the social cultural chain reaction of like-minded
groups that was initiated in this borderland."

From: B. Govedarica. Conflict or Coexistence: Steppe and Agricultural Societies
in the Early Copper Age of the Northwest Black Sea Area.

This comment as well as the general impression from many papers is just, that the steppe was at the crucial time culturally influenced by the Western EEF cultures, some gene flow took place, but the core culture, so surely the language too, was the traditional one of these people.

What I find also quite interesting is the constant reference for all North Pontic region to the huge impact the rise of the sea level had and that many remains of importance are now under the water. How about underwater archaeology projects for the North-Western and North Eastern/Eastern Pontic coastal regions respectively? E.g. the former mouth of the Don and Bug.

Bob Floy said...

@Gaska

"I suppose that for any Kurganist fan it is unimaginable that a Polish Neolithic farmer would be able to design or build a wheeled vehicle, or that a farmer from the French megalithic culture would be able to tame a horse or even worse than a Basque farmer R1b-P312 would be able to speak a non IE language"

Uh, no. If an actual wagon was discovered in an unambiguous neolithic context, predating anything on the steppe, the vast majority of us would have no problem accepting it, but you'd still be hurling epithets like "kurganist" at anyone who didn't agree with every word you say. See, this stuff:

"Sooner or later we will all have to accept that metallurgy, the wheel, the deadliest weapons, ceramics, the ability to conquer and dominate other peoples, courage, blond hair, music, language, urbanization of cities, writing, religion, social hierarchy, and all the progress of humanity are the result of the genetic superiority of the steppe riders"

Do you really believe this shit? This is insane. Literally no one thinks that steppe people or IE speakers invented writing or are responsible for urbanization. No one. Do you check under your bed for "kurganists" at night? Is the boogey man a "kurganist"?

"Superior race"

See, you give yourself away with crap like this^.
You're the one who's obsessed with the idea of "superior" "races", and you see it everywhere you look. People like you keep this topic in the mud, seriously. Get over yourself.

Archi said...

Davidski said...
" Can you point us to a reliably dated Yamnaya wagon as old as the one in the Sharakhalsun 6"

Balki, g.57 3170+-120 calBC

Only no Sharakhalsun exists, the village is called Starokorsunskaya.

bellbeakerblogger said...

I'd be willing to bet that CCR5 Δ32 is directly related to (or at least born of the same environmental pressure) as 7q31.2 chromosome 7 (CFTR)(ΔF508 deletion) which causes the most common form of cystic fibrosis.

Not only are their coalescence ages very close, but their underlying diversity points to the North Pontic area. (Novembre, Galvani, Slatkin, 2005)

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030339

Both expanded very rapidly and continued toward selection in Northwestern Europe, so plague resistance seems plausible, at least in cooler regions with less sunlight.

https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2018/09/beakerfolk-and-cystic-fibrosis-farrell.html

An interesting fact is some cystic fibrosis treatments mimic aids, at least in the drug's design.

bellbeakerblogger said...

I meant HIV, not AIDS

Rob said...

BBB

“An interesting fact is some cystic fibrosis treatments mimic aids, at least in the drug's design.”

Which ones ?

bellbeakerblogger said...

There's more than two, but I don't know enough about what's out on the street versus what's being developed.
https://www.futurity.org/to-treat-cystic-fibrosis-drug-mimics-hiv/
Another is a hybrid of ebola and hiv. (this is how the zombie apocalypse begins probably)

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, Matt

I based on suspecion they didn't have wagons because they don't appear in burials. Thanks for the answer. It's fundmental they used wagons. What about horses? Did Bell Beaker, Corded Ware ride horses?

Davidski said...

@Archi

Balki, g.57 3170+-120 calBC

Source?

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Did Bell Beaker, Corded Ware ride horses?

They probably did, but it's generally agreed that hose riding wasn't widespread anywhere until the Late Bronze Age on the steppe.

Rob said...

@ BBB
That’s just the delivery formulation formantibiotics ; which can get into cells “like HIV virus”
HIV & CF otherwise have no relation in origin or treatment

a said...

How about comparing dated horse,wagon, or metal burials.

Davidski said...

Oldest bronze daggers on the steppe are in Usatovo kurgans. Oldest horses are in Sintashta burials.

Samuel Andrews said...

You mean oldest chariots are in SIntashta burials.

Davidski said...

So where are the oldest horses in human burials? Not Sintashta?

We're talking about human burials here, not horse remains in random pits.

Samuel Andrews said...

Sounded like you were talking about the oldest domesticated horses in general.....not the oldest horses in burials.

A said...

Flintbek, northern Germany, Funnelbeaker culture:

cart tracks preserved under a barrow, radiocarbon dated to 3420–3385 cal BC

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a3f/9f8e3c890c732af1b60bd6270abccd341b69.pdf?_ga=2.1725681.1711493352.1572841181-555685536.1572467829

Samuel Andrews said...

@A, Thanks for the link.

Davidski said...

@A

No one really knows what those tracks represent. It was probably some sort of contraption on wheels, but beyond that...

Bob Floy said...

I personally suspect that wheeled vehicles were probably existed in neolithic Europe prior to the Steppe Maykop find, but, for now the archeological record says what it says.

Rob said...

For wheels/: wagons ; the concept of “diffusion of ideas” seems valid

Bob Floy said...

@Rob

Yeah, I highly doubt that one particular culture is 100% responsible for inventing it, and had a patent, lol. It's a simple enough idea that it may well have arisen independently in several different places.

Salden said...

Are the samples in Egypt and Mesopotamia and Arabia really "ancient ones"?

Davidski said...

@Salden

Are the samples in Egypt and Mesopotamia and Arabia really "ancient ones"?

They must be because the modern Egyptian samples that are available are from one location, all from Cairo as far as I know.

Matt said...

@Sam, no problem. Apologies if the tone was sharper than needed.

To be honest "First archaeological evidence of wheel = first wheel using culture" rather than actually "First archaeological evidence of wheel = first culture that treated wheels in a way archaeologists can find and have looked for" is a pretty common thing to confuse. It is likely that with wheels, or any innovation or practice, inclusion in prominent burials can make a certain culture look as if it had a certain practice and others did not, but in reality the tool or practice was simply stored or used somewhere else that has become archaeologically invisible**.

Anything extreme like wheels were about for thousands of years before this evidence or anything is it still not likely (there's just too much parallel evidence that seems to crop up simultaneously around this time) but wheels seem like they may possibly predate the earliest evidence by a bit (which is about in different places in the form of direct burials, chance preservation, depictions on pots and in models).

Re; horseriding, eesh, wide variation of opinion. Again, this is one where some folks would argue against it being likely that horses were ridden as there is not much clear specific technological evidence, and no depictions of it on pots* etc. And some Beaker / CW sites didn't have horses or few bones, pointing to not much importance always, in all environments.

On the other hand, certainly some sites for these cultures do have horses (from bones) and it is difficult to me to think about why they would want to keep horses and bring them in if not to ride them in some capacity. Oxen seem more useful to drive wagons and ploughs. Unlike on the steppe, horses don't really have an advantage in Western Europe in breaking winter snow-cover to pasture over winter as much (which is part of David Anthony's argument for why horses to his mind should have been domesticated initially for meat most likely on the steppes).

Essentially: Why are horses kept and there horses bones present at all if not for riding? Just for ritual sacrifices? Just as a meat or traction animal? Seems unlikely. And you don't really *need* any specific technology to ride a horse, even if stirrups, etc. make it so you do it much better.

Whether horses were useful at this time for raiding and so on, or just too small and flighty to be more than a liability in these circumstances (as some argue), I don't really know.

*I'm not sure if the "No depictions, so no evidence it happened" argument is weakened by evidence from the Near East archaeologically showing donkey riding about a full millennium before "the Middle Bronze Age, (when) there is a variety of sources that demonstrate that asses were being ridden" - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196335.

**For some practices, there are other ways we can evidence this. For instance, cereal grains are not found in Andronovo/Sintashta archaeology, so argued that cultivation was absent, but then there is an argument that of course they would not be as these as Andronovo/Sintashta sites almost always burials, not settlements. But by looking at isotope ratio and consumption over time on the stepeps you can tell that this isn't just an absence of evidence but a real absence from diet - e.g. https://www.shh.mpg.de/1336565/steppe-pastoralist-diets. Which has consequences for arguments that proto-Indo-Iranians did or did not retain cereal vocabulary from a common Indo-European source (and to tldr Mallory thinks they did, some others think they did not). But in other cases we are not so lucky as this.

a said...

It will be interesting to see samples of copper+bronze,and various woods(used in weapons-tools-wagons chariots) are from the steppe and local sources or imports. Also tracing horse (domesticated animals in general) remains will also prove interesting to see any connecting cultures. Metal for example, copper from Khvalynsk burials (6000 +/-) derive from Balkan sources. I'm looking forward to N. Shishlina paper in Yamnaya/Catacomb culture wagons and copper/ bronze metallurgy involved.

zardos said...

Of course horses were ridden, the whole debate reminds me on the reluctance to accept demic diffusion until it was proven 100 percent and without any possibility to argue with sophistry and ideology against it.
Yes, we cant be 100 percent sure right now, but it is fairly obvious horseback riding was a common activity of most steppe derived people from the start.
They used for a fast transport and for keeping larger herds together.
This might relate to the complex picture in CW: More hunting, smaller herds or an unsuitable environment = less horse use.

A completely different question is whether to could ride into battle with full equipment or doing any kind of charge on horseback.
It seems that can be doubted or reasonably questioned.

One of the earliest actual proofs comes from Tollense. How some can still question the evidence from that site even is beyond me.
But they want to be really sure and prove whether some of the dead killed or where killed while fighting from horseback. Some wounds are typical for later times in a proven context.

The main issue on all these military debates is, how often are you lucky enough to find something like Tollense?

Even the remains of some major recent battles are no more complete!

So people can deny obvious things all to often, just because it doesnt jump in their face.

Gaska said...

The horse has always been a symbol of social status and therefore of hierarchical societies, and such societies exist in Iberia since the beginning of the chalcolithic. The large fortified towns of Vilanova, Zambujal, Leceia, Valencina and Los Millares traded with Asia and Africa, controlled the navigation routes in the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic façade and, more importantly, controlled the production of copper and salt. However, in these societies there is no evidence of an equestrian aristocracy that only appears with the culture of El Argar (2,200-1,700 BC) with skeletons of leaders who have obvious symptoms of riding. However, the horse was not fundamental in the BB culture because many skeletons analyzed among them the oldest R1b-P312 in Spain (2,434 BC) have obvious signs of wear on the Achilles heel, unequivocal signal of having made large marches walking on mountainous terrain

Only the excess of agricultural production and the accumulation of wealth allows the establishment of a hierarchical and militarized society and of course neither the CWC nor the BBC approached that possibility. The BBs archers and the CWC axmen were not riders, nor were they able to muster enough forces to face their supposed enemies militarily. At least in Iberia, hundreds of years had to pass before the richest of those R1b-P312 rode on horseback to scare or repress their rebel subjects.

However, there are Neolithic cave paintings with men taming horses, and evidence in many sites of domestication of horses both for meat consumption and for use as a traction force. Neolithic farmers raised horses and ate them when they were old and did not work, but did not use them to fight.

Intelligence, survival instinct and greed is not restricted to a race and less to a certain lineage, so, the great ancient inventions of mankind occurred in several places at once. Metallurgy in Iberia is absolutely native with more primitive production techniques than those of the Balkans, the German and Polish Neolithic farmers of the Funnelbeaker culture built wheeled vehicles at the same time as the nomads of the Majkop culture, in many places From Europe, men of any culture, tamed horses from the Neolithic and no Anatolian farmer taught the Native Americans to grow corn. Besides, there was no need for Internet, because if there were exclusive technological revolutions, they would spread quickly because the great distances were never an obstacle to the transmission of knowledge

Our ancestors knew where to exchange women to avoid consanguinity and where to exchange products to get luxury items.

Archi said...

@Davidsky Telegin 1977; Kulbaka, Kachur 2000

Archi said...

The wheel was invented once, only once. His invention required very specific conditions, mankind did not need a wheel as such, it only needed for one very specific purpose - to drag the sled in the summer.

The wagon come into being from a sled harnessed by animals. Back in Mesolithic in Siberia, people harnessed dogs into sleds to move around, people in the north of Russia in Mesolithic did the same in the same way, skids and sleds were found there. There is even a version that people tamed dogs were to move sleds. In the north of Russia people have also experimented with other animals - harnessing moose, but rather for sports. In Russia and to the south, skates and ice-skates were often made of bone. In the steppe and forest-steppe, people in sleds began to harness bulls, models of such sleds are in Tripolye since the BII stage. Scrapers used in the summer, but it was not practical, and here as a result of long sufferings to someone in the steppe came to mind how to facilitate the dragging of animals wagons (PIE *weg'h- to drag) - invented the wheel.

The wheel was invented for a reason, such as - let's invent the wheel! No. This was suffered from a desperate situation - how to carry sleds in the summer.

The following conditions were necessary for his invention:

1. Acquaintance with the concept of riding animals - dogs - it was only in Siberia and northern Russia.
2. Acquaintance with sleds, skids, and scrapers and using it.
3. having winters.
4. Knowledge that you can harness other animals in a sled - it was only in northern Russia.
5. Needs to travel long distances.
6. A desperate situation that it was necessary to move in a sled in the summer.

un said...

Site: Malnaș Băi Location: Covasna, Romania Associated culture/phase: Ariușd-Cucuteni A
Find type: wheel model Date (date method): 4600-3900 BC (stratigraphy)
Description: clay model of wagon wheels of burnt clay

http://homeland.ku.dk/?fbclid=IwAR0HZIZ5kuoFqkbXrB2_tLVQDodCzhAY7b7phRHNIF1AJuVG0giVBzsGQJU

Gaska said...

So Funnelbeaker culture and Cucuteni, we should not belittle Neolithic farmers

a said...

@Romulus. The mutation for Rh- was found in highest numbers amongst steppe people. Even higher than Iberian and Basques.

zardos said...

Farmers were culturally ahead, but their nutrition, social structure and military potential among other things was not. Thats where innovations from the steppe made the difference.
Yet the fusion was superiour to both originals and thats the reason for Yamnaya, as the originally strongest and "more pure" genetic and cultural steppe people, becoming the marginalised branch.

You see it in the Balkans and later even with CW, first steps in Dereivka already: The result of the steppe conquest was a fusion.

Ric Hern said...

My guess is that horses were used to pull sleds and poledrags. The poledrag or travois is very efficient in muddy terrain that is why it was used in Ireland till the 1800s..Sandy and Muddy soil are nightmares for wheels... What was first ? The potterswheel or the wagonwheel ?

Gaska said...


Even this mutation comes from the steppes. It's like a curse, in the end all of you are going to be right and the Basques are only steppe nomads who got lost in the Pyrenees-

I think that the percentage in Caucasian whites is 16% and among the Basques 25%. In other continents it is almost non-existent. At least in Spain it is not a problem when you have to do blood transfusions because it is relatively common. I think the Irish and Scots also have high percentages.

Ric Hern said...

Apparently RH- people are more susceptible to some diseases that Cats carry. So my guess is that RH- originated far from Cats....

Rob said...

I think that’s too simplistic, & even academics seem to make it. “Farmers” weren’t homogeneous. Some steppe groups were obviously more advanced than some farmer areas.
What / where did steppe groups conquer? Some places it was; others more a colonisation others integration .

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

Yes I am RH- and my ancestors apparently originated from Ireland...

Archi said...

@Ric Hern "Sandy and Muddy soil are nightmares for wheels..."


Therefore, the wheel was invented in an area with a flat, hard surface (like steppe).
Initially in sledges and in wagons harnessed any animals - from dogs to bulls, donkeys, etc., in general whom could harness.

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

Yes. Agreed.

zardos said...

@Rob: What happened regionally only aDNA can prove, because what makes the difference are patrilineages. In general frequency and sorted by social status.
If the non-steppe lineages survive in high proportions, even in the upper class, different scenarios are thinkable and alliances, peaceful integration possible or even likely.

Something like CW or BB has a more genocidal character of a strict clan expansion. Other males were rarely tolerated, with regional exceptions.

In the Balkans all kind of scenarios will appear, depending on the exact conditions. I'm very curious about Cernavoda, absolutely not sure about what will come up.
Usatovo more like an elite, like we said at times in solution with GAC. Relation to locals unsolved too.

zardos said...

Also though simplified: That was the long term outcome even after a lot of forward and backward. And culturally more advanced were the two developmental centers TCC and Maykop.

Rp4848rp48 said...

Regarding tge actual CCR5 variant. “Chemokines and chemokine receptors play a crucial role in the trafficking of leukocyte populations across the body, and are involved in the development of a large variety of human diseases. CCR5 is the main coreceptor used by macrophage (M)-tropic strains of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2, which are responsible for viral transmission. CCR5 therefore plays an essential role in HIV pathogenesis.”
Variants arise all the time and many confer no functional changes. This one being on macrophages, a primary immune cell type, could alter responses to many types of infections. In the case of HIV or any other case where the virus or bacteria use this to bind to and enter macrophages, it needs to be homozygous to confer resistance. So it’s less likely that is a reason for this variant to persist. More likely it alters responses to common diseases or even epidemics in a heterozygous state.

Mike said...

They got a lot samples from northern central Russia and Only Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture could match to it , since skeletons from subneolithic are scarce. If they found R1b-L21 in there will really be a blast.

Ric Hern said...

Interesting also is the distribution map of the European Wildcat....Looks like they do not prefer the Steppe, Forest Steppe and most parts of Continental Northern Europe...So I think RH- blood maybe originated somewhere in that blank areas...

Mike said...

It is worth noting that Fatyanovo tribes were engaged in fierce fighting with the Volosovites.

Salden said...

Oh! In that case, good news!

epoch said...

@Mike

"It is worth noting that Fatyanovo tribes were engaged in fierce fighting with the Volosovites."

How do we know? Would you mind elaborating on this?

capra internetensis said...

@Archi

Nice Just-So-Story. Let me try:

The wheel was clearly invented for a specific purpose - to move heavy loads by draught animal rather than human labour.

So it needed to be in a case where the need and prior technology existed. To begin with, harnessing large animals - that is, plough agriculture. You could also use the ox to drag a travois, but this is not the most efficient. Need to move heavy objects that can't be separated into packs - such as large stone blocks or timbers for monumental and urban building. Technique of dragging large blocks and such over rollers - wheel is just a permanently attached roller. Technology of shaping and mounting wheels - the potter's wheel.

So from all this we can clearly see it must have been invented in a civilized area with long-standing use of ox-drawn plough, wheel-thrown pottery, and large stone structures, such as the Middle East.

Archi said...

@capra internetensis

Your assumptions are completely wrong. The wheel was not invented to drag and drop loads, but to carry sleds with a man in them in the summer. Exactly what no one in the Near East needed for the transportation of human beings, because from the Neolithic Age, pack animals, donkeys, bulls, cows, etc. were used everywhere for the transportation of goods. Pack animals were used throughout Eurasia and America. Therefore, the wheel could not and was not invented in any Near East, fundamental, the early civilizations did not know the wheels.

Gaska said...

Archi you scare me

zardos said...

Nothing must have in this respect, the wheel could have been invented both on Eastern Europe or the Near East.

But Archi is right that it could have been a natural evolution from heavy, animal drawn sleds. He is not the only one claiming that origin and it seems reasonable to me.
However, to postulate others "could not" have invented the wheel under different circumstances is not viable.
It was just easier and a more natural development in the North.

Who was first or whether it came up in different parts of the World independently, only hard evidence can make us more sure. But not absolutely so, because like with horseback riding, the best evidence we need was rotten.

Archi said...

There are no prerequisites for the invention of wagon wheels in the Near East, where from ancient times they used pack animals and did not know the traction animals of goods.

The wheel was invented once in one place and only in Eastern Europe we can trace the entire evolution that led to this invention.

Wagons are originally a means of transporting people, just as northern peoples do with dog sledding, and so they did do more than 10,000 years ago.

JuanRivera said...

Maybe this would help with the Uralic homeland question: "Radiocarbon Chronology of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Aeneolithic, and Bronze Age Sites in the Trans-Urals (Russia): A General Framework". This also could have relevance: "Chronology of the Uralian Neolithic".

Matt said...

Understanding of wheels as a mechanism must have been "invented" at least twice, since we see wheeled toys in Mesoamerica (generally the hottest and driest part of the Americas) with no known connection to the Old World.

Of course, that came to nothing as far as transport goes as they had no animals to pull large scaled wheels, but the same thought in a region where animals were routinely yoked to the plough seems fairly unlikely *not* to come to something.

Matt said...

That is not to say that I back that in West Eurasia wheels came from Mesopotamia or any such place rather than Central Europe or Russia or any other such place, just that evidence suggests the understanding of the mechanism obviously can occur anywhere and is mostly just traction limited.

Archi said...

America didn't invent the wheels, it didn't know the wagons. She knew pack animals, invented them independently, but did not think to harness them. Toys were probably simply depicting a moving deer, but they were just toys, not models of practical construction.

Matt said...

Not really. Llamas and alpacas are known in mountainous regions where wheeled transport would have limited utility and were not traded out of those regions, wheeled toys are known in Mesoamerica where llamas and alpacas were unknown. There is no opportunity for these ideas to come together.

Not that I really am too interested in trying to prove this to anyone who is extremely dogmatically wedded into the idea that carts are inconceivable for anyone who has not known of a dogsled if they have only known a plough (to me it seems wrong), this is simply for the interest of anyone else following this thread who is not dogmatic about this idea.

Archi said...

Thousands of years animals have been pulling a plow, but it didn't lead to the invention of the wheel. No, not one person would ever have thought of a wagon from a plough. Wagons were never needed anywhere, they were only needed by people who were sitting on them. They were sitting in vehicles only in the north since Mesolithic times. This is exactly and exclusively a means of transportation for people.
I will compare it with cars - they were invented not as trucks, but only as individual vehicles for transporting people, and in no other way could they have been invented.

Matt said...

People used carts and wagons extensively and widely across the entire Near East and probably Central Europe to transport goods and farm materials almost as soon as the earliest dated evidence for them but they "had no need of them" because they had pack animals. OK....

Matt said...

The wagon and cart are immediate and central motifs in Sumerian mythology as soon as we see it, but they "had no need" of the wheel? OK....

Strandloper said...

@Archi

Its not possible to know how the wheel was utilized in the americas since most pre contact knowledge was lost.

They understood the connection between the rolling wheel and movement so they may have found all sorts of ways to use wheels.

we dont know if they had human drawn carts.
they cetainly had no problem using people to accomplish things thru intense labour

Archi said...

Any wagon is always a personal transport of a person, exactly a person, a wagon without a person being it is not possible. Well, he goes there alone or with his family or with the cargo, it is the service moment of the load-carrying capacity of this wagon.

Archi said...

To harness a man in a wagon is a crazy house, the wagons were made of solid pieces of wood and drag them to a man on the off-road was just crazy.


There was no central motif of the wheel and wagons in Sumerian mythology. The Sumerians had wagons at all after they had rebuilt their cities, and it was absolutely impossible to move in them on the wagon. The Sumerians were a civilization that had borrowed wagons to the 2600BC, but hadn't known them before and hadn't adapted to them.

Gaska said...

The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is a wooden wheel that was found in the Ljubljana Marshes some 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, in 2002. Radiocarbon dating, performed in the VERA laboratory (Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator) in Vienna, showed that it is approximately 5,150 years old, which makes it the oldest wooden wheel yet discovered. It was discovered by a team of Slovene archeologists from the Ljubljana Institute of Archaeology, a part of the Research Center at the Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences, under the guidance of Anton Velušček.

Archi said...

"approximately 5,150 years old, which makes it the oldest wooden wheel yet discovered."

It doesn't make him the oldest, there's an older one.

Ric Hern said...

A tree is chopped. A tree falls. A tree needs to be pulled. A person needs to rest his legs and sits on the fallen tree while it is pulled. And there we have a sled. A person see that it is less effort to pull a tree by picking up one side, therefore reducing the area of friction on the ground. And there we have the travois...

Rob said...

@Zardos

“ What happened regionally only aDNA can prove, because what makes the difference are patriineges”

We have plenty of DNA in Europe and settlement evidence; so we can come up with some understanding
not counting the sub- Mesolithic Baltic areas; it was only BB which caused mass demographic an cultural replacement in the Atlantic region ; something not understood by the autosomaist statisticians, because of the general accretion of EEF; and misrepresentation of CWC migration by Haak 2015.
On the other hand; the steppe impact in Central Europe was one of an admigration -an immigrant group arriving in a landscape.
In Balkans it was mostly marrying into societies; preceded by colonisation of some empty land by cernavoda & Boleraz
Naturally; these would have had rather different results

A said...

Eastern Europe might also have the earliest evidence of potter's wheels:

“The earliest evidence for a device whose function corresponds to that of a potter’s wheel form part of the archaeological record of a workshop in Moldova, Varvarovka, dated to around 4000 BC (Gimbutas 1991). Evidence for the use of the potter’s wheel in Mesopotamia is slightly younger (Nissen 1988).

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PNduBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=%22varvarovka%22+pottery+wheel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2q6bNz53gAhXsSBUIHcZfABoQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


“Through examining the changes in the ceramic technology of Pre-Cucuteni-Tripolye (Neolithic) through Chalcolithic Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, Ellis is able to show the beginings of ranked society. In the Neolithic pottery is made by individuals or individual households. With the Chalcolithic pottery begins to be painted and the designs and shapes become more standardized through time. As up-draught kilns are used, ceramics can be consistently fired at high temperatures with a slow cool down creating stronger ceramics. Chalcolithic vessels also show evidence of being created on potter's wheels and often in separate pottery workshops.”

https://ehrafarchaeology.yale.edu/ehrafa/citation.do?method=citation&forward=browseAuthorsFullContext&id=e075-004

Romulus said...

Blogger a said...
@Romulus. The mutation for Rh- was found in highest numbers amongst steppe people. Even higher than Iberian and Basques.

November 4, 2019 at 3:30 AM


I didn't know this existed! http://mathii.github.io/2017/09/21/blood-groups-in-ancient-europe
Thanks!

The rhesus factor has huge implications.

Romulus said...

@Samuel

I felt the same way about the connection between BBC and the wheel. I can't find any evidence of wheels being used by Beakers in the British Isles.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/12163234/First-complete-Bronze-Age-wheel-ever-found-in-Britain.html

1100-800 B.C. is very late for a wheel if they were being used by British Beakers. Respective to how often and earlier they pop up in the archeological record of other cultures.

Rob said...

@ Dave


In a profound way

Haak et al claim ''our study shows that a later major turnover did occur, and that steppe migrants replaced 75% of the ancestry of central Europeans''

They base this on the notion that, on average, CWC can be modelled as ~ 75% Yamnaya-like ancestry

But the error lies in the fact that their calculation is only valid for the CWC people themselves (and thats before the aoutliers became sampled). It does not speak for Central Europe as a whole because there other groups still there, who were of MNE ancestry.
Essentially, Haak/ Reich have misrepresented the data.
If they wanted to calculate the overall impact of steppe migrations in central Europe, they'd need to analyse the product of their subsequent fusion (Unetice, bronze age Europe, etc); not the immigrants themselves
This same error has been repeated, most recently by Schroeder et al.

Romulus said...

Saying that CWC is 75% Yamnaya related is like saying Canadians are 75% Australian related.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Romulus, No it isn't. It's like saying Austrilians are 100% Dutch-related. That's accurate. Because British & Dutch are closely related like how Yamnaya and CWC's Kurgan ancestor were.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob, You're right people ignore farmers survived in Central Europe after CWC. Thanks for the emphasizing. But none the less, CWC dominated the region. That's the main point people make and they're right.

"If they wanted to calculate the overall impact of steppe migrations in central Europe, they'd need to analyse the product of their subsequent fusion (Unetice, bronze age Europe, etc); not the immigrants themselves"

Overall Unetice is about 56% Kurgan, 44% Farmer. But, they can fit as 80% CWC Germany/Czech, 20% Farmer.

zardos said...

@Rob: Two problems with your assertion: In general you are right, but it depends not just on sampled CW in general, but also the region in question. And a rise in EEF ancestry can be because of them staying and mixing in later, or because they evaded CW and came from another direction. Even the very same people, like GAC, could have been largley annihilated in one area, but mixed in heavily and successfully in another.
So its not just about Haak et al. being wrong, but we don't have the full picture yet.
But generally speaking, you might be right for many regions, Northern Europe and Scandinavia in particular. Yet you can already see that in some regions it went forward and backward with Steppe ancestry, depending on the direction from which the newcomers came in. Simple put, there is no general rule, but the pattern is clear and that is a steppe conquest. How else do you call a replacement of paternal lineages of that magnitude combined with autosomal change around 50 percent and additional complete cultural transformation - presumably language shift too.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

“How else do you call a replacement of paternal lineages of that magnitude combined with autosomal change around 50 percent and additional complete cultural transformation - presumably language shift too.”

As per above- that’s only the case for BB

Please make attempts to work with facts

zardos said...

Most of Northern and Eastern Europe was more than 50 percent, plus patrilineage replacement.
BB were in sone regions less steppe and actually reduced this ancestry component from CW.
In a similar way some IEised Balkan groups might have spread EEF ancestry.

Romans and Greeks might serve as historical examples which reduced steppe ancestry in some places and increased it in others,depending on the conquered people and their own population structure at the given time.

Even of I1 and E1b became dominant in some regions with a probable non-IE origin, they most likely did so from within the IE world and the resulting population was not like the one before.

The IE conquest was a game changer on so many levels. The preceding systems survived, if they did, only in a heavily transformed way.

AWood said...

Might be pointing out the obvious here but it looks female mediated to me, as I am sure many of these resistance type things are. While impossible to determine, it looks like it could have been a female that belonged to one of the uncommon types of mtDNA, such as mtDNA I.

Romulus said...

This completely explains sex bias in the steppe migration. It also explains how I2 ,WHG in origin, came to supplant G2a in EEF societies by the MN/LN. In 2 societies practicing female exogamy one receives a wife who is, for them, infertile. Also completely explains why there is so much more Farmer mtDNA than female Steppe, and rise in farmer ancestry over time.

https://i.imgur.com/iuJEblA.png

Fanty said...

@Zardos:

"Farmers were culturally ahead, but their nutrition, social structure and military potential among other things was not."

Also size. I dont know for the actual body sizes, but the steppe people had been taller "genetically" (means, they would grow larger at the same envoirement conditions)

If I recall it correctly it was like this:

European HG: genetically tall
Original Farmers: genetically short
European HG/farmer mix: genetically middle sized.
Steppe Herders: genetically tall.
British iron age Celts: genetically tall
Anglo Saxons: genetically tall

So HG or Steppe DNA makes people tall. Beeing tall, is often seen as an advantage is a fight. At least its intimidating. The israelites whined about how unbelievable tall the Phillistians are. The Romans claim that Germanics stand 1 head taller than Romans and medieval people claimed, Vikings are extremely supersized warriors.

If steppe herders are taller than farmers if getting identical nutrition (for genetical reasons) they are intimidating. And thats half the fight.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

''Most of Northern and Eastern Europe was more than 50 percent, plus patrilineage replacement.
BB were in sone regions less steppe and actually reduced this ancestry component from CW.''

Most of eastern Europe/ sub-balticum had no farming societies; so it was R1a expanding over other R1 lineages + minority I2, Q1

''The IE conquest was a game changer on so many levels. The preceding systems survived, if they did, only in a heavily transformed way.''

And so did the pre-IE steppe communities change drastically. Most did not survive either.


'' Two problems with your assertion: In general you are right, but it depends not just on sampled CW in general, but also the region in question''

Huh ? That's my very contention against the claims in the perceived metanarrative. Science normally requires those making the bolder claims to present detailed evidence.

Matt said...

@Romulus, there are always going to be archaeological gaps. Do we even have wheels in the Corded Ware context, or that of cultures which postdate them? Unless a culture drew them or modelled them in more durable materials (metal, clay), or specifically buried them, or there is a chance preservation, we are simply without evidence. But this is the case for many archaeological objects.

Davidski said...

Yes, apparently we do have parts of wagons in the Corded Ware context from Single Grave and Battle Axe burials.

This book discusses the likely presence of wagons in Battle Axe burials in Sweden.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Neolithic_of_South_Sweden.html?id=jlOBAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

zardos said...

@Rob: But Northern and Central Europe was colonised by CW too and 50 percent is the Lower estimate for overall ancestry and patrilineages.

If you make the typical Corded the already farmer admixed samples from the East, numbers are even higher. So this was a conquest without a doubt. Regionally you can go into details of course, but the big picture is that the preceding cultures didnt survive and especially the spirit of the new fusion was more steppe derived, so was the language most likely. Lets see.

The pre-IE survived in a transformed way too, but their lineages were not lost but expanded. Take as an example single burials. This became the dominant form for most of Europe and in this particular fashion it goes back to North Pontic foragers.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

'' But Northern and Central Europe was colonised by CW too and 50 percent is the Lower estimate for overall ancestry and patrilineages.
So this was a conquest without a doubt. Regionally you can go into details of course, ''

It was more of a 1,000 year process of transformation, competition and population shifts, beginning with GAC, then CWC, then BB then Unetice.

''in this particular fashion it goes back to North Pontic foragers.'

Single burials aren't specific to north Pontic region; but I get what you mean


“especially the spirit of the new fusion was more steppe derived, so was the language most likely. Let”
I was not arguing against that; in fact I didn’t mention language . The first task is to understand population history properly

zardos said...

Yes, it was a long process, but all the dominant cultures in Central Europe after the CW expansion were more than half descendents of the same ancestral group.

CW, BB, Unetice, TC, Urnfield...
There was a slow increase of EEF with regional differences, but no comeback of the local pre-steppe people.
Even if Unetice would have had a GAC or other EEF elite, it wouldnt have turned numbers. After CW the change was lasting.

Rob said...

@ Zardos
It’s no longer about “turning numbers”, EEF/ steppe %, etc
But for sure, CWC was the start of a cultural development in Northern Europe; but with differement phases and groups within it.
Central Europe is a slightly different issue. Balkans different still. So forth

Matt said...

@Davidski, OK but even if so that underlines the point that this is just in part of that Corded Ware horizon due to an unusual inclusion again in burials, and it wouldn't make sense to infer that the wheel was not present in other parts of that horizon that have not shown that (and in fact, show no wheel evidence), and supports the general point that archaeological evidence of a wheel can be biased towards unusual burial/preservation/depiction of the wheel, even when this is not connected with use.

Angantyr said...

@Davidski

"Yes, apparently we do have parts of wagons in the Corded Ware context from Single Grave and Battle Axe burials.

This book discusses the likely presence of wagons in Battle Axe burials in Sweden.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Neolithic_of_South_Sweden.html?id=jlOBAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y"

The paragraph in question, from chapter 4.6.1 "Offerings in water and wetlands":

"In the bog of Slättaröds Mosse (Börringe par.), Skåne, wooden remains were found, interpreted as parts of a wagon, and slightly deeper down a concave-edged flint axe. The find has been dated by pollen analysis to the transition between MN and LN (Karsten 1994, p. 75). Also belonging to the same period are a series of finds of wagon wheels and shafts from Denmark and North-West Europe with C-14 dates (Rostholm 1977; Rech 1979, p. 56; Schovsbo 1983). Wagons and parts of wagons were thus probably, like battle axes, in the category of sacrificed status objects."

So it's a single likely wagon, from a probable bog sacrifice rather than a burial.

Karsten 1994 is a doctoral thesis (in Swedish) which can be found here: https://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/21514133/Diss_Per_Karsten.pdf

The relevant chapter is 6.13, "Finds of wooden wagon details". Quick and dirty translation:

"From Börringe parish at Slättaröd (K. 482) a find has been recorded, that according to the description should consist of to two probable side pieces from a four wheeled wagon, made of oak and beech (?) respectively. The find was made in connection with peat harvesting in 1905 at a depth of between 0.5 to 1.5 meters. Beneath these wooden objects a polished, thick-necked, concave edged flint axe was found. According to a pollen analysis, the wooden pieces could be dated to the transition between the Middle and Late Neolithic periods. This find is unique for Swedish conditions. The Danish material, on the other hand, is relatively well-equipped with Neolithic wagon finds. Usually, these consist of naturally-grown fork-shaped wooden beams that formed the undercarriages to the wagons. Finds of wheels are also not uncommon. Datings of Northwest European Neolithic wagon finds from bogs give a fairly uniform picture. The bulk is grouped from the end of the third millennium, around 2100 BCE, and into the Late Neolithic period."

Note that the transition from the Middle to the Late Neolithic, which marks the end of the Battle Axe period, is nowadays dated to ~2350 BCE.

TLT said...

@Fanty
What kind of European HGs are you talking about? Aurignacians? Gravettians? WHG? or EHG? In general, pre-LGm European HGs (Aurignacians and Gravettians) were overall taller than post-LGM WHGs (Magdalenians and Epigravettians) but had a similar sitting height. A reduction in leg length perhaps to cope with the LGM. However HGs were after 9,000 BC were shorter than the HGs from before 9,000 BC. Pre-9000 BC males were 177.1 cm on average (probably boosted by Aurignacian and Gravettian heights) and post 9,000 BC males were 172.5 cm on average based on Angel 1984. I assume that the last one is EHG + WHG. EHG males were around 175 cm on average if I am not mistaken, so shouldn't the average be even lower thanks to the 165 cm average of WHG males? Or are there just many more known EHG skeletons than WHG skeletons?
On the side note Ertebolle males were 166 cm on average.
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm

aeolius said...

May I suggest that in order to ride a horse you have to have a horse which is willing to be ridden. And that implies that there was already a fair degree of domestication. So one has to look at where horses were domesticated. Since horses were being kept for meat and maybe milk, I would think that domestication was spotty and fairly local. I would guess that horseback riding started when a kid jumped on the horses back and the horse let him stay there.
In North America there were no native horses. But the Spanish lost some horses and they prospered. When they reach the Great Plains horse riding transformed the Indian culture in 150 years. The difference was the horses that the Spanish lost were already domesticated. By the way the Indians rode their horses pretty much bareback. And initially used a piece of rope as a simple bridal.

aeolius said...

to Ric at 12:06 yesterday.
Take a log. kick it watch it roll downhill. Cut into slices and you have a wheel. Mesoamericans had pull toys for kids with wheels. No big deal.
To want to make a wheeled vehicle you first need to have a place where they could roll. Second men carts are pretty useless compared to travois or sleds. Only after draft animal power was available would carts make sense.
What makes a round shape into a wheel is the axle. Finding a wheel(s)on an axle is a more significant find.

Ric Hern said...

@ Aeolius

Yes indeed. Men pulling carts only started to make sense when the spoked wheel came into the picture...and that is why I think the Potterswheel was the forerunner of wheels and axles.

Ric Hern said...

@ Aeolius

Could it be that women grinding grain on a grindstone sparked the developement of the wheel especially if the stone needed to be moved often ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Aeolius

Quernstone...

Ric Hern said...

Some quernstones were relatively round and some had depressions and hollows in the middle. I can imagine a woman struggling to lift the side of the quernstone and harnessing a pole for leverage to turn it on its side by inserting the pole into the semihole for rolling....

zardos said...

Aeolius: Feral domesticated animals fall back to the wild form rather quickly. The Indians too had some work to do with the Mustang.
Its interesting that the Indians first considered the horses sacred in a way while using their meat.
Riding started later even though the role model, better breed and the need was there.

So looking at Eastern Europe from that perspective, the transition from meat use to riding could have been fairly fluent.
If they bred horses for meat and milk, a certain amount of domestication would have been the result even without purposeful breeding for riding.
But horseback riding would come up in an almost "natural" manner. The best adapted horses were used to keep the herd together.

Archi said...

Horseback riding requires not only domesticated horses, but also special breeding of breeds with the selection by hooves and back of the horse.


Domestication of animals began with domestication of dogs in the east and north no later than the beginning of the Mesolithic period, but in fact in Paleolithic times.
Burials with a couple of dogs in the Steppe and in northern Russia are burials with sled dogs as a symbol of transport to the afterlife (>dogs of Yuma>Cerberus). Relatively recently in Russia, the dead were transported on sleds even in the summer, such was the tradition.


Archi said...



Studies show that the wagon and sled have always been harnessed by no less than a couple of animals, the fact that the same thing happened when harnessing dogs into sleds (>two dogs of Yuma>two/three heads of Cerberus). One dog couldn't pull a sled with a man, so at least two dogs were used. The same way they initially harnessed the bulls into wagons and horses into chariots, no less than two.
In the south, only one animal always pulled the plough.


zardos said...

How do you breed already tamed horses for riding? Yes, by starting to ride them!
They did breed for colors or milk production, sone aesthetic features, but the rest was trial and error and no purposeful breeding towards a race standard for horses.
They bred those which were able and willing to carry a men longer. If the horse was unfit, less capable, it became the next lunch whereas the more tamed and fit ones were bred.
So they reached a better breed from a practical perspective. The better knowledge and more intensified breeding was more the business of royal stables, though I would never underestimate the original horse culture from the steppe.

Archi said...


Horses were originally tamed as draught animals (Sintashta) and only with the transition in the Andronovo culture to a nomadic way of life there, the shepherds started to use the horse for a riding, initially only for the purpose of shepherdhood. It took hundreds of years of breeding to adapt the tame horse to riding, which was carried out only to the beginning of the Iron Age.

zardos said...

That's one possible scenario, but rather unlikely. Sintashta used horses big time for war chariots.
Fully equipped warriors on horseback are unsure and fighting from it unlikely.
That's why chariots came first as an effective and intimidating platform for war.

But that horses were not ridden at all at this time is an absurd idea.

In Tollense we see actual proof for cavalry. This is late but less than 400 years after the first appearance of chariots in Central Europe, possibly due to an invasion related to the collapse of Unetice and BB related cultures in Southern Germany.

Obviously they did work on it, until fully equipped warriors could ride a horse effectively. They did ride much earlier, just not as effective.

Archi said...

@zardos "That's one possible scenario, but rather unlikely."

No, it's the only scientific scenario.

"In Tollense we see actual proof for cavalry"

No, There is no sign of a cavalry in the Tollense Battle.


zardos said...

There were horses and they did ride. Also, you can see wounds which were inflicted from above or below in a manner which suggests that riders hit or were hit while being on horseback.
They just want to be absolutely sure, which why they test any other possibility. And some citics will prefer any other explanation. Reminds me on the pre-Clovis idiocy. As if any honest scholar could have believed the "nothing before Clovis" dogma.

But seriously, thats too much of a coincidence. There was cavalry on the battlefield.

Of course you can reject the idea until they find a burial with the rider buried on the horseback...

Archi said...

@zardos "There were horses and they did ride. There was cavalry on the battlefield."

That's not true. At the time, nothing but chariots were used. Nobody could hit anyone from above, the horses had no saddles and stepladders, even the first cavalry was used exclusively by archers, because it was impossible to remain sitting on the horse when hitting it.

The first cavalry in Europe appeared only with the Cimmerians, this innovation was brought only by them, so you will not find anything, and no one has to believe your faith.

zardos said...

Well, I hope they have the courage to question that dogma and publish all the material from Tollense with the bold but correct interpretation the facts show.
Until then you stay where you deem it right. Sooner or later the mounting evidence might change your mind, because to start with late Cimmerians is ridiculous. They had a full fledged cavalry with metal gear.
Do you really think that popped up out of a sudden without intermediate stages?

Wagons cant come up other than from dogma sledges, but a highly specialised cavalry just pops up. Think about it.

Archi said...

There is no alternative interpretation in Tollense, the battle was on the bridge and the top-down blows could only be from those standing on the bridge who were under the bridge. Chariots were definitely used in the battle.


The Cimmerians had centuries of pre-existing cavalry development in the steppe. By the time the Cimmerians arrived, almost no one had used chariots in the steppe practically.

zardos said...

I'm not talking about a full fledged cavalry with metal gear! Its obvious they used cheek pieces and bites from organic materials and they rode horses long before.

Also the bridge was not the only explanation and we have arrowheads which hit the body in a completely different angle than what you see before.
But for you only a horse with gear will be sufficient and thats hard to get with so few horse burials and organic materials.

Wait for new papers on Tollense, afaik they work on it.

Archi said...

No fantastic angles. Chariots are higher and they were used by archers to shoot at almost point-blank range, as well as to strike from top to bottom.

So there is no fantasy to wait for.

zardos said...

Where is the proof for chariots at Tollense?

Archi said...

In those times, everyone used chariots, and an army without chariots was impossible.
But the cavalry of such fantasies does not even exist, because it is proven that it was not.

zardos said...

The consensus of the archaeologists afaik is that at Tollense were riders with high probability. What they think about and make Experiments fir is whether there sufficient evidence to Annonce it officially in the upcoming paper or prefer to be cautious.

For chariots there is no proof and the terrain must be suitable for chariots. Chariots were in Central Europe mostly important in some places.

Rob said...

It seems equestrian gear was brought by Cimmerians; who were benevolent steppe people
who trades with Urnfield etc
The early Scythians were unfriendly; burnt down a lot of forts And disrupted the trade networks

Archi said...

@zardos "The consensus of the archaeologists afaik is that at Tollense were riders with high probability."

There's no such consensus, and I know for a fact that archaeologists deny what you imagine. The use of cavalry at the time in the Battle of Tollenz is impossible, as archaeologists write.

Chariots have been used everywhere, it's a fact. The Sea Peoples used chariots.

zardos said...

@Archi: Ok, but where is the proof for chariots at Tollense? Riders can be imagined by the evidence we have, but chariots? No.

@Rob: The so called "Thraco-Cimmerian" horizon shows a lot of destruction and raids too. They might have, however, helped to create Hallstatt and contributed especially to the Eastern sphere of the culture.

Archi said...

@zardos There is no evidence that the riders were there, and it is categorically impossible to imagine that they were there. Riders are impossible and this is proven.
It is a fact.

zardos said...

@Archi: Quality German newspaper wrote another story. Translated by Google:
"This was matched by another observation. Several of the killed were apparently horsemen, as typical changes in their joints show. This could mean that on the Tollense also warriors fought on horses whose presence is evidenced by bones. Sword-bearers and riders on the battlefield - obviously, organized armies, whose hierarchy suggests correspondingly structured societies, met each other."

https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article171024374/Fernhandel-provozierte-groesste-Schlacht-der-Bronzezeit.html

As another article proves, the interpretation comes from Detlev Jantzen who works on Tollense battle:

"The arrow," explains Jantzen, "hit the upper arm from behind and diagonally below. The victim was possibly a rider. "

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/archaeologie-sie-schlugen-sich-mit-holzkeulen-die-koepfe-ein/1593152.html

In the most recent interviews they are still undecided as to whether the horses were just pack animals or used as cavalry. Chariots are out of question and they still work on the issue to be 100 percent sure. First bone analyses make the use for riding more likely.

Also look at this documentary:
https://www.daserste.de/information/wissen-kultur/w-wie-wissen/videos/csi-tollense-die-erste-schlacht-mitteleuropas-100.html

In the catalogue to the exhibition I visited, the archaeologists write that they are not completely sure, but they assume they were riders and categorise them as such provisionally so to say. So the evidence is more in favour of riders at Tollense than not, but its disputed and they try to be more sure with additional research, new findings under water and palaeomechanic experiments.

By the way, most of the fighting was not at the bridge, because they tried to evade it.

Archi said...

They got arrows from downstairs, just the ones standing on the bridge or in chariots. About bone changes is aberration if there were no Cimmerians there. The battle for the bridge was just because it was the only thing chariots could pass through.

Ric Hern said...

There were different size horses from early on...Large pony breeds like the Highland, Bosnian Horse etc. are capable of carrying a man...Remember most men were Not Overweight back then. Heheheeh...