search this blog

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

The Battle Axe people came from the steppe (Malmstrom et al. 2019)


It's been obvious for a while now that the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its Scandinavian variant, the Battle Axe culture (BAC), originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. However, Malmstrom et al. drive the point home in a new open access paper at Proceedings B [LINK]. From the paper, emphasis is mine:

The Neolithic period is characterized by major cultural transformations and human migrations, with lasting effects across Europe. To understand the population dynamics in Neolithic Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea area, we investigate the genomes of individuals associated with the Battle Axe Culture (BAC), a Middle Neolithic complex in Scandinavia resembling the continental Corded Ware Culture (CWC). We sequenced 11 individuals (dated to 3330–1665 calibrated before common era (cal BCE)) from modern-day Sweden, Estonia, and Poland to 0.26–3.24× coverage. Three of the individuals were from CWC contexts and two from the central-Swedish BAC burial ‘Bergsgraven’. By analysing these genomes together with the previously published data, we show that the BAC represents a group different from other Neolithic populations in Scandinavia, revealing stratification among cultural groups. Similar to continental CWC, the BAC-associated individuals display ancestry from the Pontic–Caspian steppe herders, as well as smaller components originating from hunter–gatherers and Early Neolithic farmers. Thus, the steppe ancestry seen in these Scandinavian BAC individuals can be explained only by migration into Scandinavia. Furthermore, we highlight the reuse of megalithic tombs of the earlier Funnel Beaker Culture (FBC) by people related to BAC. The BAC groups likely mixed with resident middle Neolithic farmers (e.g. FBC) without substantial contributions from Neolithic foragers.
...

By contrast, the CWC individuals from Obłaczkowo in Poland (poz44 and poz81) show an extremely high proportion of steppe ancestry (greater than 90%), which is different from the later CWC-associated individuals excavated in Pikutkowo (Poland) [23], but similar to some other CWC-associated individuals from Germany, Lithuania, and Latvia [2,8,31]. Interestingly, these individuals with a large fraction of steppe ancestry have typically been dated to more than 2600 BCE, making them among the earliest CWC individuals genetically investigated. This observation, i.e. early CWC individuals resembled (genetically) Yamnaya-associated individuals, while later CWC groups show higher levels of European Neolithic farmer ancestry (Pearson's correlation coefficient: −0.51, p = 0.006) (figure 2), suggests an initial dispersal that occurred rapidly.

See also...


751 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 751   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

@Matt "Even though the Hittites were an elite over the Hatti, they don't seem less likely to become that from being a small elite population from Anatolia that itself was intrusive to Anatolia, rather a population that was long since from Anatolia and had no elite or separate status within Anatolia (and neither do Anatolian speakers in general in Anatolia seem likely to have had this status)."

Absolutely impossible, the culture of the Hittites was anti-Hatti and anti-Anatolian and anti-Middle Eastern culture.


epoch said...

@Matt and zardos

Let's assume that PIE entered in the west from the Balkans. The first hint we have is Kumtepe 4. Low coverage, not good enough to settle debates. But it is all we have, and for the arguments sake let's assume its steppe is real.

In that case the entry and spread of PIE may be connected to city's and city states since, if I read it all correctly, Kumtepe is considered to be linked to the founding of Troy.

Anonymous said...

@zardos said...
"Yes, there is no direct relationship of BB and Sintashta, but both were influenced from the Carpathian region."

And the CWC also had great links with the Carpathians, the Subcarpathian Group of CWC.


Cpk said...

A"impossible, the culture of the Hittites was anti-Hatti and anti-Anatolian and anti-Middle Eastern culture."

What an idiot. Hittites adopted and worshiped Hattian Gods in Hattian langugage.

Anonymous said...

Cpk said...
" What an idiot."

You're an idiot. Culture is not a religion. Culture includes material things and traditions, otherwise it is necessary to accept that all Europeans from Israel.

It is precisely that they have accepted new foreign religious histories from Hatti with common Middle Eastern origins, because they had their own completely different.

zardos said...

Archi is right, the Hittites social and law system shows influences related to Europe and untypical for the Near East.

epoch said...

@zardos

"Archi is right, the Hittites social and law system shows influences related to Europe and untypical for the Near East."

Such as?

Matt said...

@zardos, OK, but there is nothing in current data (e.g. Iberia, France, North Italy Beakers) to support any of this sort of parallel society with different amounts of steppe related ancestry (though again, this perhaps does not preclude a parallel society where there was not).

Also, why would the Hittite social and law system be *typical* for the Middle East? What does it mean to be typical for the Middle East anyway? A carbon copy of the Assyrians / Sumerians / Egyptians?

Do specialists in Hittite believe their religious beliefs were somehow completely and obviously separate from contact until just on the cusp of the founding of the Hittite Empire, precluding potentially 1-2 thousand years of contact? It doesn't seem to show up in how neutral most Anatolian language specialists seem to be on the question, nor does anything I have seen on comparative mythology stress this (as in - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpE61mrs_oA - "Mary Bachvarova Lecture: The Chariot of the Sun-God").

zardos said...

@Matt@epoch:
Typical examples are the avoidance of death penalty and extreme cruelty, the possibility to pay off penalties, even of serious crimes, the tendency to try to reconcile parties among other things in the criminal law.
The tendency towards federal structures, a strong, rather independent aristocracy below the royal family. The lower importance of religion, sacrifices and priests in comparison to the free warriors etc.

But I got to this conclusion quite obviously by reading some scholars (can't quote them, long time ago) which stressed the difference they show in their general view on the world, this as well as the imagined other. Its true they got a lot from their non-IE Hatti predecessors and became probably more like them over time, but still the difference can be seen.

Vladimir said...

Archie. “Jatt_Scythian said...
" What other option is there than Sintashta beind derived from CW/Abashevo? Is it directly descended from Sredny Stog?"

It is impossible, because Sredniy Stog is the culture of the early Eneolithic, but Sintasht is (M)LBA, the difference between them is 2000 years»
This is not just possible, but is now the mainstream version among Russian scientists. Read Stavitsky's latest works. He has a complex scheme of synthesis of a number of cultures. The original source he sees in post Sredniy Stos cultures, such as Ekaterinovka. His concept of a long story, but in the final score line of development goes to the Sintashta. If arhie interestingly can revere Stavitsky. I'll expand a little concept Stavisky in relation to the subject of this topic. Another "fiction" that arhie can criticize. It seems to me that it was so. Culture Sredniy Stog II by the end of its existence ( 3500 BC) came close to Tripoli culture, which by this time also came to the final phase of its development (3200 BC). What is now called the late Trypillian cultures in fact Trypillian cultures were no longer. These were separate cultures that emerged from the synthesis of Sredniy Stog and Tripoli), and also Ustatovo or Sofia culture. That is, at their junction there were new cultures, the development of which occurred in the period 3500-3000 BC. e. and by 3000 BC. e. these cultures acquire familiar features. What cultures emerged at this turn? Let's start with the North. There is culture of St. Sophia circle, Volyn-gorodkovskiy gave North CWC, later disintegrated in the West (R1a-L664), and North (R1a-Z283). The Subcarpathian interaction zone gave the Cracow i.e. southern CWC (possibly R1b-L51). The Dnieper zone (Ekaterinovka) gave Volsk-Lbishchevo culture (R1a-Z93), which split into Abashevo culture and Babino culture. Usatovo also fits into this scheme, since it is also a culture that arose under the same scheme (post Sredniy Stos post Tripoli). Given the amazing similarity of the funeral rite of Babino and the BBC, the origins of the BBC need to look somewhere near the place of origin of Babino. At least that part of R1b which then became P-312, and here that R1b which became U-106 quite can be found out and around Moscow and around East Baltic as they apparently went together with R1a-Z283 to Scandinavia.

Simon_W said...

I'm getting the impression that academic geneticists like Joachim Burger are not aware of the highly important, interesting questions raised by archeology and lingustics about the central European Bronze Age, like: Where did the Tumulus culture come from and where the Urnfield culture? Were there associated demographic shifts or completely local phenomena? What spread of languages were they associated with? Instead they always focus on the same demographic topics like: Social inequality, exogamy and the like... Nothing really spectacular.

Simon_W said...

And Joachim Burger is obviously disappointed that there wasn't a multicultural army from Southern Europe in the Bronze Age Tollense Valley. Because that would have been fashionable. :D

zardos said...

@Simon: They were multicultural and there might have been an invasion, but it was not multiracial. That's actually quite a difference, because monocultural, from just one ethnicity in the classic sense of the meaning they were not.

Bob Floy said...

@Archi

"No one doubts about you. Linguists are fools, one Bob Floy is smart."

Do not carry crap.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "This is not just possible, but is now the mainstream version among Russian scientists."

This is bullshit, you're writing a complete lie. What Russian archaeologists think I know very well. None of them take out Sintasha of Sredniy Stog culture. So there's nothing to deceive me about. In ancient times there were different assumptions, Sintashta was taken out of the Yamnaya culture, which had already been taken out of the Sredniy Stog, from Catacomb, from Abashevo and a lot of others. Now one of its main components is considered to be Volsko-Lbischenskaya culture with the influence of Abashevo and through it of Catacomb cultures. Litvinenko made it clear that the main addition to Sintashta was the impulse of epi-Corded Ware cultures from Central Europe.

"These were separate cultures that emerged from the synthesis of Sredniy Stog and Tripoli), and also Ustatovo or Sofia culture."

Bullshit, Usatovo culture 3400-2800 BC, the Sofievskaya culture 2800-2700 BC were 1000 years after the end of the Sredniy Stog culture 4900-4200 BC. Sofievskaya culture cannot be erected to the steppe cultures in any way, there are suggestions that it dates back to the synthesis of Tripolye and Dnieper-Donets.

"Given the amazing similarity of the funeral rite of Babino and the BBC, the origins of the BBC need to look somewhere near the place of origin of Babino."

Nonsense, the BBC culture appeared about 2800 BC, the Babino culture 2200 BC, so the BBC could not appear near the place of origin of Babino culture. You have written a complete deception and fantasy, the traditions of Babino culture have nothing to do with and no commonality with the BBC, this is the tradition of (epi-)CWC. The Babinyans are not different from the Fatyanovyans anthropologically, and have nothing to do with the BB and the Catacombnyans.
So if you've noticed something there, you don't have to pass it off as someone else's opinion.

Your fantastic schemes are of no interest to anyone, because they are based not on science, but on your personal thoughts of a person who has just learned the names of cultures. Your speculations do not have any scientific basis.

Anonymous said...

@Simon_W Yeah, it's all tested unsystematically in cultural terms. The one system is that samples are taken from some territory.

Artmar said...

Please remember that Oblaczkowo sample was not R1b but R1a-CTS4385 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4385/)

Take a look at Y-SNP call list:

Sample POZ81 Obłaczkowo Poland CWC 2880–2630

R-CTS4385: Z2463/CTS4385/M9837/S2847+ Z2461/S2846+ Z2464/S2848+
R-FGC9988: FGC10009- FGC72572/Y133356x FGC10017- FGC10014x Y36358/FGC72571- YP6478- YP6477/FGC72573- FGC9997- FGC72574/Y36768- FGC10019- FGC10015- FGC10012- FGC10011- FGC10010- FGC10006- FGC10005- FGC10003- FGC10002- FGC10000- FGC9999- FGC9998- FGC9994- FGC9992- FGC9991- FGC9990- FGC9986- YP1268x YP1267- YP1264- YP1263- YP1262-
R-FGC9989: FGC9993- FGC10001- FGC10007-
R-Y95533: Y95533/FGC72569-
R-L664: Z2465/CTS12154- YP708/FGC19034- Z2459- Y2894- L664/S298/CTS7083- Z2460/S3469x
R-YP5527: YP5527- YP5528- YP5529- YP5530- YP5532- YP5533- YP5535- YP5536-
R-YP6497: YP6497- YP6498- YP6499- Y37298-
R-S3479: Z2034/CTS10927- FGC69447- S3467- CTS7381-
R-S3485: BY30508/FGC21100-
R-S3477: Y4997- Z2036/S4428- CTS4932/S3483- CTS8197/S3490- YP229- YP228/FGC21099- YP233/FGC21098- Y2893- YP230/S3477- YP232/S3484-
R-Z2035: Z2035- CTS11873/S3497- CTS11947/S3498- YP678- YP680-
R-S3473: CTS7514/S3487- S3499- YP679- YP681- YP4478/PH3128-
R-YP547: YP547- YP545-
R-YP543: YP543- Y4395- Y4393- YP551- YP568-
R-YP4468: YP4468-
R-YP4467: YP4467-
R-YP544: YP544-
R-YP550: YP550-
R-YP541: YP541- YP548- YP549- YP552-
R-YP1131: YP1131-
R-YP1129: YP1132- YP1133-
R-S2857: S2861- S2862- S2869- S2856- S2863-
R-YP943: YP5320- Y32228- YP949- YP948- YP945- YP944-
R-YP5317: YP5317- YP5319-
R-S2858: Y5753/FGC19036- S2858-
R-S2859: S2855- S2859- S2866- S2875-
R-YP621: YP621-
R-YP358: FGC19057- YP369/FGC19055- Y3760/FGC19056- FGC19054/Y5106- YP358/FGC19039-
R-FGC19040: FGC19040-
R-YP360: YP356- YP357- YP359- YP363- YP366- YP367- YP370- Y3661- Y5104- Y5105- Y5294- Y8496-
R-YP362: YP362- YP365-
R-Y71028: Y71028-
R-YP430: YP430-
R-YP5504: YP5504-
R-Y23256: Y23255- Y23256-
R-YP5006: YP5006-
R-S2894: YP286- S2881-
R-S2880: S2880x FT20688-
R-S2886: S2892- S2887- Y24733-
R-S2889: S2897- S2889- S2895-
R-YP4246: YP4247/PH2014-
R-YP5624: YP5627- YP5624x
R-YP5623: YP5626-
R-Y66726: BY84270- Y66726- Y71470-
R-YP431: YP433- YP434- YP436- YP437- YP438- YP440- YP6210-
R-YP4445: YP4445- YP4447-
R-YP4444: YP4446-
R-YP6211: YP6211- YP6212-
R-YP5515: YP5519- YP5515- YP5516- YP5518- YP5517-
R-YP6479: YP6483- YP6486- YP6485- YP6479- YP6480- Y36860- YP6487-
R-YP6488: YP6488-
R-YP6489: YP6492- YP6490-
R-YP285: FGC41404- Y4133- YP686- Y18502/FGC41412- YP285- YP287- YP291- FGC41419-
R-YP5599: BY30075- YP5599- Y163198- YP5601- YP5603- YP5604- YP5606- YP5607- YP5609- YP5610- Y65133/BY29731- BY29797-
R-YP282: YP1222/FGC34058- Y4134/FGC34060- Y4132/FGC34052- YP293- YP290- YP282- YP283-
R-YP5460: YP5460-
R-YP5455: CTS5768- YP5455- YP5457-
R-YP442: YP442-
R-YP4101: YP4101- YP4103-
R-YP4102: YP4102- YP5464- Y162024-
R-YP5461: YP5461- YP5462- YP5463- YP5465-
R-YP6286: Y27214- YP6305- BY21368/A14326- Y34262- Y34263- YP6286- YP6287- YP6288- YP6289-
R-BY30530: Y62290/BY30530- Y63941/BY30532- Y64191/BY30533- Y68396/BY30535- Y163698- Y70655/BY30536- Y71835/BY30537- Y73009/BY30538- Y78911/BY30541-
R-YP4535: YP4535/FGC34056- YP4536/FGC34059- YP4537/FGC34062-
R-Y81602: Y81602- Y88484- BY34234- BY35614-
R-Y85196: Y94932- Y96749- BY123943-
R-YP4519: YP4519- YP4520- YP4527- YP4528-
R-YP5287: YP5288- YP5289-
R-YP4515: YP4515-
R-YP6042: YP6042- YP6043-
R-YP5084: Y21463- YP5084- YP5083-
R-Y38820: BY148732- Y42659- Y38820- MF2187-
R-Y34265: Y34271- Y34265- Y34270- Y34268- Y34266-
R-YP1214: YP1214- YP1224-
R-YP1210: YP1211- YP1212- YP1216- YP1217- YP1218- YP1219- YP1225-
R-YP6501: BY25522/YP6501- BY62687- BY73964- BY75084+ BY91287- BY102580- BY106731- BY106847- BY207593/Y163701- BY207716/Y162907- BY138245- BY157012-
R-Y61291: Y72146- Y65534- Y65082- Y73018- Y75190/BY30528- Y70310/BY30527- Y61291- Y77009- Y64118-
R-YP4123: YP4123- YP4127- YP4125- YP4128- YP4129- Y16017- Y16065-

Anonymous said...

@Artmar Who wrote that it was an r1b?

Artmar said...

@Archi

I didn't read the discussion carefully but I have found few copy-pastes consistng outdated info on Oblaczkowo sample. I thought anyone should know a list of calls of Oblaczkowo, just in case.

Cre Atee said...

@Davidski

I wasn't necessarily claiming Anatolia as the PIE Urheimat, because geographic "regurgitation" is very common linguistically. That's what happened with Germanic languages. They made their from Central Europe into Northern Europe, formed there around the time of the Battle Axe Culture, and came back down again to Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland, etc... We're talking about thousands of years of difference between the arrival of Neolithic Farmers into Europe, and Hittite languages.

I was simply pointing out the possibility of the PIE Urheimat being Central Europe, where we know for a fact the nobility of the Steppe herders/Yamnaya-like people intermixed with EEF farmers, and then went back to form Sintashta/Andronovo/Afanasievo cultures which have clear EEF markers, lacking in Yamnaya cultures. Hittites could simply be a subset of this "intermingling" where proto-Hittites could have been EEF/WHG people with little-to-no steppe ancestry.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is just because Steppe ancestry is heavily linked with IE languages, it doesn't necessarily mean all IE languages were spread by people with Steppe genes exclusively. In fact, those Yamnaya markers get lower and lower the more south you go in the Balkans from Central Europe. Modern Albanians, Macedonians and Greeks are in the low 20s IIRC, and this is WITH all the genetic influx from Slavs and Goths during the Middle Ages.

Cre Atee said...

@Archi

I suggest you learn a bit more about languages. Regardless if PIE started with EEF speakers, there is no reason for it to keep agricultural terms if they were spread by a non-agricultural people. Languages lose/gain terms all the time.

Anonymous said...

@Cre Atee

"I suggest you learn a bit more about languages."

A person who doesn't know anything about languages offers me something I don't know. You don't know anything about languages, so you can't tell anyone.

"Steppe herders/Yamnaya-like people intermixed with EEF farmers, and then went back to form Afanasievo culture which have clear EEF markers, lacking in Yamnaya cultures."

A person who doesn't know anything about genetics and cultures offers us what we don't know. You don't know anything about genetics and cultures, so you can't tell anyone.

Davidski said...

@Cree Atee

Afanasievo is basically identical to Yamnaya.

Also, there's no reason to put the PIE homeland in Central Europe, considering that most of the relevant action is along the Black Sea coast.

Davidski said...

@zardos

What's the relationship between Usatovo and Maykop, if any?

Vladimir said...

Archie. You're behind the times. Your point of view is behind at least 30 years, and now it is removed from the Sintashta Sredniy Stog. Of course not all, there is no arguing, but the most talented output. Read more contemporary literature. Speaking of Litvinenko. He just writes about the similarity of Babino with the BBC, but not about the origin of Syntagta from the CWC. Generally, since as you left much has changed in including and opinion, that all culture Russia occurred from CWC. Now it is obvious that the Middle Dnieper culture had a layer 1A autochthonous not associated with migration from the West. It is also obvious that the Subcarpathian culture has an autochthonous layer 1A not associated with migration from the West. The autochthonous origin of the volscian culture is also evident. The fact of return migration reflected in the upper layers of the Middle Dnieper and Subcarpathian culture is obvious. The only remaining issue is the origin Fatyanovo.

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos "As for the debate about the original PPIE speakers: Dnepr-Donets related HG developing agro-pastoralism on the Pontic Caspian steppe, forming a regional culture when the Neolithics were pushed back, like Lower Don and expanding from there through the whole PC steppe until reaching the West, where, from SSC related groups, they split into Northern (CW) and Southern (Cernavoda-Usatovo) branches."

So you essentially think that PIE originated with an R1b, EHG-derived language, not unlike Pit Ware, Combed Ware Ceramic, Narva or some EHG in Lapps= Saami?

"There is no space, not an inch, for any of these people having spoken anything like a Neolithic farmer language, that's impossible. What's possible is CHG/Caucasian related, but that's highly unlikely too."

So PIE did not come with CHG, but with EHG instead, correct?


"The pre-steppe European landscape was, like Mammoth said, for sure not uniform any more. TRB and GAC were NO ANATOLIAN FARMER CULTURES in the classic sense. They are likely to have spoken Northern HG idioms and were becoming warlike agro-pastoralists similar to CW. The original farmer lineages (G2 and E) were long gone and in the South East we see new elements from the Levante, which however never made it up to the North in any significant way."

According to I've just quoted you as saying, the non-IE substrate mediated into modern IE languages via the CWC/BBC is not a farmer one but actually a forager-based one, because of your assertion that GAC and TRB spoke Euro HG tongues and not Anatolian ones?

Matt said...

@Davidski: Though there might be some differences in Afanasievo and Yamnaya populations, like Samara.

If we look at Wang's qpAdm on the Caucasus, Afanasievo takes pretty much no extra WHG, just Anatolian - https://i.imgur.com/NQNnRpr.png.

Implies can be modeled by three way combinations of AnatoliaN, CHG, EHG, or two way combinations of a populations which are composites of CHG+EHG, AnatoliaN+CHG, AnatoliaN+EHG.

That's not totally an isolated signature - in the ADMIXTURE results from Narasimhan, I did notice that Afanasievo takes about a third as much "WHG" component as Yamnaya Samara (In their ADMIXTURE YamS is modelled as about 5% of "WHG" component, while Afanasievo just gets 1.6%).

This is interesting because the argument in Wang (and elaborated by Anthony) is that considering the totality of Steppe_EMBA samples, the offset of WHG like ancestry in most of the Yamnaya groups relative to Piedmont_En would reflect that their Anatolian ancestry must have come from Europe, and is best fit by GAC as a single population, because it seems to be "accompanied" by WHG.

However that may be affected by Afanasievo being shotgun and the others being capture! The other bunch to show the same pattern in Wang's model are the Kalmykia Yamnaya, which is also shotgun.

Samples from Repino and if poss. Afanasievo which are capture would be interesting here - it may be that Afanasievo are a branch from Repin, before other Yamnaya groups acquired a bit of extra WHG related ancestry. Or it could be something different.

@Cre Atee - if basically seems to me like your notional model might be backwards and that Yamnaya cultures may have WHG/EEF markers which are possibly absent in Afanasievo and possibly in Repin (assuming Afanasievo as a branch from Repin, to be tested).

Davidski said...

@Matt

This is one of the best models that I've been able to come up with for the Afanasievo capture data.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tY3nRDrnoUsc2yJVbu6Xr8BdCFq0EXeM

zardos said...

@Andre: Correct, thats what I'm currently saying with two exceptions:
- I did not say that all HG spoke the same language or even related languages. Nobody wont ever be able to confirm anything like that.
Its just that it is the most likely that the main PPIE idiom was spoken by some DD related HG/transitional group and other cultures just influenced it later. CHG is much less likely and EEF almost impossible as the original founder idiom at the very root.
- I didnt say R1b, nobody can know the patrilineages by now. But R1, a or b, seem to be more likely than anything else.

Once we have the root culture, we might know for sure. Lower Don looks promising to me, I found no viable alternative, but probably there is a small culture out there I never heard of and little is known about it which is the real thing.
But if its not Lower Don culture,it should be very close in place, time and character.

@David: I don’t know of any closer relationship of Usatovo to Maykop, but again others might be more knowledgeable on the subject.
Metallurgy in particular is a field little talked about here for the BA.
Probably someone can step forward and bring in more on the subject. Though its unthankful because good technology spread at times fast beyond ethnicity (compare with chariots or iron) and even style associated with the early dispersal might be treacherous.

Davidski said...

@zardos

I asked about Usatovo and Maykop, because I'm wondering how Usatovo came about. It just sort of shows up out of nowhere on the western edge of the steppe with weapons and metallurgy reminiscent of cultures to the east, especially Maykop I guess.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "You're behind the times. Your point of view is behind at least 30 years, and now it is removed from the Sintashta Sredniy Stog."

you're imagining because you don't know anything, you're making up your own personal fantasies for someone else's opinion. You don't know anything about Sintashta or Babino or any other culture.

"Read more contemporary literature."
Don't imagine, you haven't read anything at all, I know everything that is being written now.


"Speaking of Litvinenko. He just writes about the similarity of Babino with the BBC, but not about the origin of Syntagta from the CWC."

You are lying, frankly and shamelessly. Litvinenko never wrote about the similarity of Babino with the BBC. I know all Litvinenko's works perfectly well, you have just learned this name.
Exactly what Litvinenko wrote about the origin of Babino from Central European epi-CWC, and you are just a liar.

Central European parallels to the Dnieper-Don centre of Babyno Culture. Lytvynenko R.O. 2013
"It is worthy of note that, the central European Late Corded-Ware – Epi-Corded-Ware eastward splash had, most probably, not one, but at least two directions. First of them, farther north, went across the eastern European forest belt towards the North- East-East: approximately from the Northern Pre-Carpathian area to the Upper Volga Region, farther on to the Middle Volga and, possibly, even farther to the Pre-Urals.
Probably, that impulse left its traces in the funeral ritual (the gender opposition)
and the material complex (bronze oculus-like pendants, jewellry made in the willow-leaf technique, etc.) of the cultures listed at the beginning of this article – the Balanovo, Fatyanovo, Middle Volga Abashevo and Volsk-Lbishcheno. The second
direction, farther south, was most clearly represented by DDBC. Meanwhile,
it had a rather different set of central European borrowings, which included items
unknown in the eastern European forest cultures: bronze torcs, spiral bracelets, tin
and spiral cylinders, bone buckles and archers’ stone plates. Instead, unlike the Epi-Corded-Ware groups of the eastern European forest zone, the DDBC jewellry sets
did not contain any wire objects made in the willow leaf technique, well-known
in cultures of the Pre-Carpathian Epi-Corded-Ware culture circle [Kadrow 2000].
Possibly, this difference can be explained by the fact that both Epi-Corded-Ware
impulses (the farther-north – forest and the farther-south – forest-steppe / steppe
ones) had somewhat different primary epi-centres. Which exactly and where exactly
in the Carpathian-Danube Region those primary epi-centres were located,
remains a matter of further investigation. However, the “Epi-Corded-Ware” nature
of those influences on eastern Europe causes practically no doubt."

Therefore, learn to stop fantasizing and writing falsehoods, to write your fictitious lies, if you don't know anything at all.

What's obvious to you there is your own personal fantasy delirium.

Everyone is sure that there is no such culture at all about the Middle Dnieper culture, but there is a set of several different cultures, but the fact that this area is so poorly researched and in general this "culture" has not been studied for many decades, that nobody can say anything, because these years, all the data were obtained many decades ago in very small volumes. For example, the anthropology of Middle Dnieper is not known at all, because so far not a single burial of Middle Dnieper has been introduced into the scientific circulation. This is the indicator that Middle Dnieper culture in Ukraine is the worst studied, and Ukrainian archaeology is the worst in Europe in general.

zardos said...

Usatovo is even more complicated because its a complex phenomenon in a complex cultural environment. But the little I know points to an origin in the sphere of SSC and KC. They had contacts to Maykop indeed, but afaik only trade and cultural communication.
The relationship seems to be not genetic by culture and ancestry. But contacts being proven, whether they were direct or indirect I dont know.
I would compare it to Hallstatt having very obvious influences from the Mediterranean, especially Greece, but no sign of migration or genetic impact of significance. But rather trade and cultural communication.
Simple put: They knew each other very well.

Its actually amazing how much Hallstatt copied Greek customs in the elite. Oftentimes 1:1. The problem is Hallstatt had metal objects like Situlas which prove it and were preserved. In the case of Usatovo we have some pots (imported) and other artefacts to interpret freely, but thats clearly not the same.

But thats why I was talking about metallurgy and technology transfer, could be interesting to investigate, but I don’t have the expertise on the matter.

Genetically the upper class should be in the range of KC-CW-BB originally, since they seem to have been a splinter from SSC/KC.
The mtDNA study points in that direction too with the related cultures in the Carparthian region.

But the final verdict can only come with autosomal testing.

Davidski said...

@zardos

You hit the nail on the head in regards to its genetic ancestry, I can tell you that much.

zardos said...

@Archi: "This is the indicator that Middle Dnieper culture in Ukraine is the worst studied, and Ukrainian archaeology is the worst in Europe in general."

The more I go into it, the more I have to agree with you. Its a real shame because after the first formation in Southern Russia most important developments were taking place in the Ukraine!

What do you have about the Lower Don culture and its neighbours? Anything you can quote or literature you can point to which provides deeper insights?
Would you agree with Lower Don being the best root culture candidate and if not why and which candidates you can think of instead.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Davidski

If you want to know about these cultures, read the experts, not the ramblings of a closet Yamnayist from Germany

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

I've read what Mazura has to say, and he seems to think Usatovo was basically Cucuteni–Tripolye moving into the steppe.

But that's not a very satisfying explanation, considering the obvious eastern links and steppe character of Usatovo.

M.H. _82 said...

From the region of CT; which was not a monomorphic block

CrM said...

I wonder if Yamnaya Ozera had anything to do with Usatovo.

Davidski said...

@AuckeS

I wonder if Yamnaya Ozera had anything to do with Usatovo.

Nope. Zardos got it right.

M.H. _82 said...

It seems that early cwc wasn’t even IE

zardos said...

I never have claimed to be an expert on the matter, but thanks again for your mature ad hominem Mammoth.

However, you might add something valuable yourself or point to some of the experts and their literature you had in mind?

Anyway, we have the Romanian experts which were consulted for the mtDNA paper, we have Telegin/Anthony and other authors on- and offline saying the same.

Besides there were archaeological experts claiming that CW in Germany was based on a peaceful development in situ and no large scale migrations at all.

So much to the immobilist and politically correct experts which at first shunned physical anthropological results if they were "racial" and later tried to ignore and play down the genetic results when they came in, until they had no choice but to accept it.

Even if some of the methodological approaches in the East were outdated by Western standards, they had a much better, objective point of view without the ideological distortion since the 1960s and some, like in Romania, could transition directly from physical anthropological results to genetic studies.
I think the Romanian and Ukrainian results make things fairly clear. They just need more resources and help especially for the genetic testing,but hopefully without getting spiled over with ideological nonsense a la Krause et al, who in turn does a good job getting data, to say something positive about him.

M.H. _82 said...

zardos
No idea what your going on about immobilism. I’m just saying your theories are just Yamnaya mark II. And that’s all they’ll ever be- theories for feeble minds

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

I guess something like a Norman model is possible, with kurgan people moving west of the Black Sea and adopting the languages of the local agropastoralists that they've invaded.

That would explain Corded Ware, Usatovo and the expansions of early Indo-European speakers with a heavily mixed farmer/steppe background.

I'm not inherently opposed to such a model, and it might be interesting to see how it's accepted by various groups of linguists and archeologists if it's ever presented formally.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: We had that idiotic debate already, didnt we?
At the end you came up with a genetic mixture of progress with SS. Mind to explain to me the big difference?

I was speaking exactly about SSC and KC being the cradle. You came up with nothing else and attack me personally for what again?

Come up with better explanations yourself if you have any. I doubt you do.

zardos said...

The steppe cultures component was much too dominant for that scenario to work out. When the daughter cultures began to mix more extensively with the farmers, they did so primarily from a dominant-male centered position and too late. I'm pretty sure the root cultures definitive split in discernible new units will predate the major mixture events with different (!) farmer cultures.
@Mammoth: You are saying CW early is not IE? But later it is? How and why did you come to this conclusion?

zardos said...

In SSC, KC, CWC we deal with a mass migration of steppe related people. In those groups the farmer side had no say but could just add pots, other material culture and crop farming methods among other things.

Now we have no numbers for Cotofeni, Cernavoda and Usatovo among others, but they too were more than a small group of conquerors going after the results we have. Especially if adding up, because we deal with successive waves from the Ukraine reaching what is now Romania and Bulgaria.
No way they were all assimilated by eg. TCC, were digested, spilled back to the steppe and followed as CW late to make the early ones IE.

That would postulate a resilience of these cultures we don’t see archaeologically, anthropologically nor will we see it genetically I suppose.

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Interesting. Drastic drop in France...

Ric Hern said...

Will be interesting to see if the Celtic migration into Iberia raised or Lowered the Steppe Ancestry in that area. This can then point to migration from Celtic Cultural Centres or Culturally Peripheral populations into Iberia.

zardos said...

@Juan: Very interesting. Dont know how big the samples are, but how about individual extremes in France for BB, especially with regard to social stratification.
Seems, in any case if representative, to show how some BB got heavily diluted while others might, especially in CW territory, probably even increased their steppe ancestry in all social groups.

Vladimir said...

Archi/You quoted only what you wanted, but his conclusion is omitted, and the conclusion is this: "It is worthy of note that the DDBC archaeological complex clearly displays traces of several constituents: (a) genetic heritage of the preceding Catacomb world (primarily the Donets-Don Catacomb Culture); (b) external innovations; © a complex of internal innovations, which are a result of self-development". Roman O. Lytvynenko CENTRAL EUROPEAN PARALLELS TO THE DNIEPER – DON CENTRE OF BABYNO CULTURE // THE INGUL-DONETS EARLY BRONZE CIVILIZATION AS SPRINGBOARD FOR TRANSMISSION OF PONTIC CULTURAL PATTERNS TO THE BALTIC DRAINAGE BASIN 3200 – 1750 BC, 2013. So don't mislead yourself and others.

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Thanks.

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

And this ?

Iberia_Central_CA_Stp: 35%
Iberia_Central_BA: 20.83%

Anonymous said...

@zardos Sredniy Stog from Don. It was mostly influenced by the Lower Don, but there were many migrations from the northern forest areas into south Volga-Don.

@Vladimir
It is not true. I just wrote the conclusion, and you wrote the preamble, that is, what is considered to be the initial postulate by which this culture is described.
You're just misleading everybody every time on purpose.

Vladimir said...

Davidski/ This model is only possible in two cases: 1. Significant numerical superiority of the conquered population, which is not in the situation with Tripoli. 2. The convergence of the cultures of the conquerors and the conquered. That's what I was talking about. Tripoli de facto ended by the middle of the 4th Millennium BC. All so-called late Trypillian cultures are symbiotic cultures of Trypillia and Sredniy Stog.

zardos said...

@Archi: "Sredniy Stog from Don. It was mostly influenced by the Lower Don, but there were many migrations from the northern forest areas in south Volga-Don."

What cultures or sites do you have in mind for the other influences from further North?
Or what cultural or anthropological signs would you interpret that way in SSC?

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Will be interesting to see the Iron Age samples for Iberia Central...

Vladimir said...

Archie/ "It is worthy of note that the DDBC archaeological complex clearly displays traces of several constituents: (a) genetic heritage of the preceding Catacomb world (primarily the Donets-Don Catacomb Culture); (b) external innovations; (c) acomplex of internal innovations, which are aresult of self-development (Litvynenko 2011a). This article will focus therefore on the second constituent of the Babyno culture complex, namely, the complex of external innovations".
He does not try in this article to refute his own statement made in the abstract , he only explains the second point of his abstract.

Ric Hern said...

@JuanRivera

And what happened here ?

Iberia_Northwest_CA_Stp: 30%
Iberia_Northeast_BA: 21.67%
Iberia_North_IA: 29.17%

Is North and Northeast samples from the same area ? Why is Northwest not significantly different from samples of the Iron Age North ?

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir You have a meaningless set of words, you don't know what you're writing.
What to refute, if it is clearly established that the Babino culture is a post-CWC/post-Catacomb culture, here is the first statement refers to the post-Catacomb substrate, and the second post-CWC to the main population, which it clarifies. He has made this clear in all his articles many times.

Last statement of the conclusion:
"In this connection, it is worth noting that the most recent studies have proved
that the Babyno culture’s anthropological type had been formed “on the basis of the population of eastern Corded-Ware cultures with the involvement of groups whose origin was connected with the territories of the Northern Caucasus and the Trans-Caucasus” [Kazarnitskiy 2013: 76]. The involvement of the Caucasian cultural phenomenon as the second external component of the Babyno cultural genesis
has been also clearly fixed in the archaeological material [Lytvynenko 2007;
2009; 2011; 2012], however, that is a topic for a separate study." ("Caucasus" here is the Lola culture.)

I have only written the truth, you are not the truth as always.

Anonymous said...

@JuanRivera
I'm sorry, but Iberia isn't the most interesting place, it's brutally over-tested. If there is one question, it is only the exact date of arrival of the BB R1b.
It is better to spend resources on testing other territories, there is a horror as lack of information.

Dita said...

@gaska @natsunoname

Clarification of some incorrect claims, so that we are not misled and go forward with accurate information:

1. Albanian is not close to Indo-Iranic branch linguistically. The closest language that the Messapic language is to is Albanian (see: Matzinger: Messapisch, 2019). This is significant, Messapic is more close to Albanian than it is Greek, or Italic. If you want to argue Albanian is "iranic" then you have to explain Messapic as being so also.

2. Albanian R1b is mostly Z2103, but we also have significant frequency and diversity of R1b-PF756. The highest in Europe to be precise. On this site you have a search bar to check all the clades from the project: http://www.gjenetika.com/rezultatet/?fbclid=IwAR0aJ0KHheTEyHCwQ6goKgOh85daiBO0RmltXSDSKI7Vqphv3wazlvruspU

3. Albanian vigesimal system has been preserved in Tosk (south) dialects more than Gheg (north). Ghegs say 1-zet(twenty) for 20, and 4-dhjetë(ten) for 40. Whereas Tosks say 2-zet for 40, and in even more southern dialects like Cham and Arvanite, we also have 3-zet for 60, 4-zet for 80, whereas these in other Alb dialects are all decimal and not vigesimal. Whether this is related to a substrate, or just southerners were more conservative in this respect preserving an old feature, i dont know. Albanian is the only Balkan langauge with vigesimal system. The fact that Ghegs also have 1-zet, makes me think that this is an archaic feature that was better conserved in Tosk, and not a foreign substrate. Also "zet" the root of Albanian vigesimal, seems to have an IE eytmology related to "dhjetë" (cognate with deca-). With respect to IE phenomena like phonology, morphology, Gheg was more conservative in some aspects, and Tosk more conservative in others, so there is no easy narative like one is more conservative than the other, and therefore a substrate can be demonstrated, etc.



Vladimir said...

Archie/ I can feel the replay. It malointeresna anyone. What the author wanted to say he said: "the genetic heritage of the previous catacomb world (primarily the Don-don catacomb culture); b) external innovations; C) a complex of internal innovations that are the result of self-development." No need to draw conclusions for the author. Anthropology has nothing to do with it. I think that the anthropology of northwestern cultures post sredniy stog is the same as the anthropology of CWC

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir Нou're making it up as an author, you've written your own fiction, posing it as Litvinenko's words. You just noodle stuff up everybody. I wrote Litvinenko's words exactly what he wrote in his papers. You are always wrong and not clever, cut it on your nose.

Anonymous said...

@ JuanRivera

RUS_Poltavka_o is most likely Volsk-Lbischenian. The Volsk-Lbischeno culture is a Late Corded Ware culture with roots in Central Europe which has invaded the Poltavka culture.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "I think that the anthropology of northwestern cultures post sredniy stog is the same as the anthropology of CWC "

You're a fantasist, "he thinks" wtf. Anthropology CWC and SS & Yamnaya are well known, and your thoughts do not roll.

Vladimir said...

Archie”RUS_Poltavka_o is most likely Volsk-Lbischenian. The Volsk-Lbischeno culture is a Late Corded Ware culture with roots in Central Europe which has invaded the Poltavka culture.”
These are your fantasies. Poltava is a post Ymnaiy. tThe Volsk-Lbischeno culture-this is Z93. In Europe, they were not. Formed in the area of the Dnieper-don

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir "These are your fantasies. Poltava is a post Ymnaiy. tThe Volsk-Lbischeno culture-this is Z93. In Europe, they were not. Formed in the area of the Dnieper-don "

It's not a fantasy, you're not a clever fool. These are the facts, Volsk-Lbischeno committed a military invasion onto the Poltavka culture. RUS_Poltavka_o is a Z94 like Srubnaya culture and with CWC genes like Srubnaya. The Poltavka culture has R1b-Z2013 with Yamnaya genes. Naturally, nothing but Volsk-Lbischeno existed in the period 2925-2491 calBCE.
Your personal inventions, where what was formed, nobody is interested in, you do not know anything, but only imagine. Roots is roots, forming is forming, it is different things.
Don't you dare lie about other people when you've been caught lying.


Vladimir said...

Apparently it was the late Sredniy Stog traditions that formed the basis for the formation of the volsko-lbischenskaya ceramic industry. The presence of a certain chronological gap between them suggests the indirect participation of the average population in the formation of volsko-lbischenskih monuments. Probably, between them there was an intermediate link to which materials of a number of verkhnesursky sites belong: Podlesnoe 4, Bessonov-ka, Grabovo 1, etc., combining late-gogovskie and early volsko-lbischenskiye signs»
Neolithic, Eneolithic and early bronze age of the Sur-Oka interfluve and Upper Prikhoperye: dynamics of interaction between North and South cultures in the forest-steppe zone
Year: 2005
Author of scientific work: Stavitsky, Vladimir Vyacheslavovich
Academic degree: doctor of historical Sciences

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir Hahahaha, your mumbling has not been understood by anyone, you cannot deceive anyone, because you do not understand a word of what you are reading, because you have no idea about the essence of what is written there.
Titles don't mean anything, they are in Russia for everyone who writes scientific papers. Only a completely ignorant subject can think that by giving some title it proves something, most all Russian scientific authors have this title.

In his manuscript for getting this title, which you quote, Stavitsky did not deal with Volsko-Libischeno culture at all, he only gave his personal suggestions on it in couple statements, without any justification. Stavitsky never studied Volsko-Libischeno culture, he just considers it as a source for other cultures, but he also clearly writes about its Сorded Ware character.
"A number of close parallels of Volsko-Lbishcheno ceramics, and especially metalware, are found in the settlement antiquities of the Middle Dnieper culture"

Vasiliev I.B. Volsk-Lbische is a new cultural group of the Middle Bronze Age in the Volga-Urals region. 2003
"The majority of metal jewelry of peculiar forms finds analogies in the Fatyanovo (Krainov D.A., 1972), Balanovo (Bader O.N., 1963; Bader O.N., Khalikov A.H.), 1987) and further west - Middle Dnieper (Berezanska S.S., 1971; Sveshnikov T.Yu., 1974; Movsha T.G., 1957; Artemenko I.I., 1987) and Unetice cultures, i.e. in the circle of Corded Ware pottery cultures. There are some differences in the dating of these cultures, but in general they date from the second half of the third to the first half of the second millennium BC.
Close analogies of copper products of Volsko-Lbishcheno monuments are not accidental in the materials of the Fatyanovo-Balanovo monuments and more western cultures of Corded Ware ceramics, primarily the Middle Dnieper ceramics. These are specific things - large, spectacular pendants (Alekseevsky burial ground, dunes "The Head of Man", the cave of the Greve Brothers), spiral pendants with an unfolded willow end, lunnits, flat plaques, etc. Such products are not typical for other cultures.
Previously, an assumption was made about the formation of the Volsko-Lbishcheno cultural type under the influence of western cultures of Corded Ware pottery (Vasiliev I.B., 1999)."

You shameful don't know anything about the topic at all, you've read all the names for the first time.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

“Come up with better explanations yourself if you have any. I doubt you do.”

As I said my scenario is done and dusted. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid and too full of shit to realise that. As I said - go die with dignity; armchair “indo-Europeanist”

zardos said...

Nothing, like expected. Armchair what? Did you dig at all? Study something of relevance to the subject? I know what's going on in practise in science and was on the field for excavations to work on it first hand. Whats your experience? No manners, no ideas, no experiences.
Better stfu little boy.

M.H. _82 said...


Your ignorance has no bounds. And clearly you are the little man here - hence the need to overcompensate with your myths

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

Abusing zardos is a pointless exercise. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are.

If what he's claiming is fundamentally flawed, like you claim, then what's the problem? If so, then sooner or later you'll be vindicated.

You know that a lot of new ancient DNA is about to drop, so this won't take long to sort out.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@ Davidski

Do you have a timeframe on when new DNA samples are going to come out? Thanks.

Davidski said...

@Jatt_Scythian

Many of these new samples will probably come out next year, hopefully early next year.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Anything from Central/South Asia or the Tarim?

zardos said...

@David: Since you seem to know what's Mammoths opinion is, can you point to what its about?

I'm not entitled to an opinion based on nothing, as speculative as some aspects might be. But he didn't really put an alternative forward. At least no clear cut one. He's just provocative in a row and whenever he's cornered he begins with ad hominem, not just against my person, but others as well. Whether its criticism is justified or not, but he just throws little things in here and there rather than standing his ground, if he has any at all.

M.H. _82 said...

Zardos - you haven’t “cornered” anything. You’re too basic. I’d just sit back and be quiet if I were you
You’re not getting any respect from me

Davidski said...

@zardos

It took me a long time to understand this, but the question of who the Proto-Indo-Europeans were genetically is a very sensitive topic and a personal one for a lot of people, especially since the advent of personal genomics.

In fact, so much so that you shouldn't be surprised if you're abused, called all sorts of things, and accused of racism and fascism if you try to push the classic view that the PIE people came from the steppes of Eastern Europe and basically subjugated everyone else.

So my advice at this point is to be less equivocal and direct when discussing this topic and leave some room for alternative views, even if just out of courtesy.

There's a lot of new stuff on the way. Your head will spin when you see it. Let's see what happens after everyone takes a look at it.

I don't expect that suddenly the opinions of many will shift 180 degrees, but consensuses will form fairly quickly about what certain things mean, and then you might have more space to present your case.

zardos said...

@David: There is no one which was not surprised about at least some of the revelations brought up so far.
But I think you are overly optimistic because some will never give up the 1960s point of view and still say thats "modern scientific thinking".

What Krause argued and concluded based on some recent proof for the demic diffusion is like a joke. Its not as much about his political message, even though thats a huge problem to me as well, but his flawed logic.

He said, seriously, asked about the BB invasion or other ancient migratio s could be abused to boost the fear of Europeans being replaced that we all are migrants from Africa. Ok, thats strange but depends on your perspective. But then he told a bomb: To replace the population of modern Europe, hundreds of millions, even billions of immigrants would be needed to replace e.g. the European British as Neolithics or steppe people did. the BB did with the Neolithics.

Seriously? That's your interpretation of the BB replacIng Neolithics? That they entered Britain in 10:1 at once and thats the reason why they replaced 90 percent? So migration will never result in a replacement like in the Neolithic or Copper Age if they dont come in, at once, 10:1 in numbers.

That's so bad, so flawed from any kind of perspective, but it came from an "expert" geneticist and was quoted in major newspapers.

You can do THAT with, in theory, unambigious results to misinterpretate any demographic rule.

Or others telling people Neolithic guys were considered "more attractive" by forager females, thats why the HG lineages first disappeared.
I guess the fashion changed later, thats why the girls in the MNE preferred foragers from the North and later steppe patriarchs from the East. Because they were so cute with their symbolic prestige weapons!

Its unbelievable what fairy tales some studied experts and editors publish and present as the correct interpretation of the data.
Its mind bending, its unreal. I cant keep my mouth shut in the face of such lies and incompetence.
If they would at least care for the facts and try to make it fit, but even that seems to be too much for many.

Be prepared for the worst, especially from the mass media.

But I for sure have no problem whatsoever with PIE coming from people X or Y. It just needs to explain what happened and needs to be based on solid data, then I'm happy regardless of where it will leads us to. I just demand decent and honest debates in a truly scientific spirit which means searchIng for the truth.

One of the main problems I see in online debates is that people have to be constantly reminded on the fact that any PIE homeland/original culture theory has to account for all IE branches and not just the one favoured or disfavoured personally.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: For Europe the center of attention was always CW. And as we now know, CW impact on the European genpool was huge. Now we will soon have similar ancestries moving into the Carparthians and Balkans, whereas what was going in the opposite direction in that crucial time?

For Europe its settled, for Anatolians not yet. But you need just prove some Cernavoda or the like moving South and forming a cultural unit in Anatolia, regardless of how mixed snd low the steppe ancestry when arriving there.

And yes, people won and they lost. No people were always winning.

Davidski said...

@All

For the record, I never said that Corded Ware had to be from Yamnaya. This is from back in 2017...

Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya

Ric Hern said...

Fearing fear is worse than fear itself...Heheheeh

Vladimir said...

Archie You're wishful thinking again. The presence of elements of one culture in another does not indicate the origin of one of the other, but rather testifies to their common basis, in this case post Sredniy Stog cultures, from which all the cultures of CWC, Volsk-Lbischevo and others originated, as Stavitsky writes

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

'' For Europe the center of attention was always CW. And as we now know, CW impact on the European genpool was huge. ''

I don't know how you can claim to be an archaeologist and make such a simplistic narrative.
To form your narrative, you seem to be collapsing 1500 years of history into one 'the Corded Ware migration'.
This is why I call you a mythologist - you have no grasp of facts.

''Now we will soon have similar ancestries moving into the Carparthians and Balkans,'
There's no C-W Culture in the Balkans. Unless you 'dug it up' but failed it publish.

Matt said...

@Davidski, re: Afanasievo model, I think there is a difficulty there of knowing from where is the "launching point". You can put Afanasievo on the axis between those two samples, but it does not necessariy have to be: https://www.imgur.com/a/21GBJT2

Looking at your wider set of models, does seem that they do reflect a higher cut of WHG related ancestry in Yamnaya Samara than Afanasievo (Yamnaya_S models with more HG rich Dereivka_I_I4110 and Afanasievo with less HG rich Sredny_Stog_II_I6561).

Repin will be better than having a set of fairly disperately positioned Piedmont and Khvalynsk Eneolithic samples, then kind of having to select one or the other and hope for the best.

Davidski said...

Zardos is correct.

Usatovo was very similar to Corded Ware, and it occupied the western coast of the Black Sea in the Balkans.

It was followed by Yamnaya incursions deep into the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin.

zardos said...

Like I proposed, the model I have in mind is:
Lower Don culture or very closely related groups expanding from Southern Russia into the Ukraine. They close up with local farmers, which influence them culturally, but their genetic influence is very low.

SSC being formed, splitting into different subunits and Khvalynsk coming up and close. The Western Ukrainian, already split SSC related groups moving out.
The Northern group which moved into the forest steppe and gets into closer contact with GAC becomes CW.
The Western group Cotofeni and the Southern Cernavoda.
Usatovo might be at least partly from KC.
When Yamnaya finally moves around the Carparthians, the whole region is already culturally and genetically "steppified".
They come too late for the party and even though they become a dominant force here and there, their lasting impact is much lower than the one of the more systematically settling Western agro-pastoralists.

Yamnaya is an early branch, CW the most important in the middle phase, but at the root is Lower Don and CW is ar the same branching point of the SSC related groups which moved into the Carparthians and Balkans.
But no, they are not the same.
Most important: The whole Carparthian macro-region becomes completely steppified with Yamnaya being the least effective end point of the development.

Davidski said...

@zardos

Usatovo is probably from SSC not KC. You're likely to see this confirmed by ancient DNA soon.

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

What was your explanation for Usatovo again? Foragers who married into it and ended up being buried in huge kurgans with bronze daggers and battle axes? :)

Is that the latest from the Balkan school? Can you elaborate for us here?

zardos said...

Yes, makes sense that Usatovo is related to SSC and Cernavoda. I just thought that, like with Yamnaya afterwards, some KC splinters might have been integrated.
So if at all, a shift, no replacement.

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

Weren't you arguing recently that Anthony was wrong about the guest/host relationship between Usatovo and Yamnaya, because they never met?

So what is it now? They did meet and had a rumble?

And, obviously, both Corded Ware and the steppe people who founded Usatovo eventually became EEF-rich. So I'm not seeing any contradiction there.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Davidski

''Weren't you arguing recently that Anthony was wrong about the guest/host relationship between Usatovo and Yamnaya, because they never met?

So what is it now? They did meet and had a rumble?''


Anthony's very central tenet is wrong, so whatever
What the data shows is that Usatavo was there, then they vacated and Yamnaya succeed over their layers. Push or pull, not sure.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: CW is so completely Yamnaya-like that your model would be "ok" if there werent the genetic results.
None of the mentioned groups gets around the root population, most likely Lower Don.
Whether the pre CW were an even earlier expansion which came under the influence of a later people which formed SSC doesnt change the fundamentals. Though I would say Dereivka looks good and what kind of earlier wave should we thinking about.
CW early shows no deviation from what we have from SSC, if, they might even more steppe than other SSC units.

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

Eventually, they became Indo-Europeanised by superior cultures, and moved into fallow land vacated post-Varna.

Right, the people in the kurgans had R1a while those from the flat cemeteries were Balkan locals.

Let's see what sort of consensus explanation emerges about that.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zzardos

''None of the mentioned groups gets around the root population, most likely Lower Don.''

Again, your claims have no basis. I2a2a1b isnpt from the Don, never was.
Again, thhis is your flavour of the month explanation. Your models are amateur

@ Davidski

''Right, the people in the kurgans had R1a while those from the flat cemeteries were Balkan locals.''

Balkans is a place, not a people.
Different groups lived there in different junctures and at different power relations at different times. No need to fool around with DIY history when you until yesterday you hadnt even heard of Usatavo.

zardos said...

Usatovo is like the Lombards. With the difference that the Lombards were on their own in a Roman environment.
The Usatovo were not, they were surrounded by steppe people, tribes and elites virtually in all directions. And there was no Roman administration, writing culture or Catholic church to give the locals an upper hand culturally.

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

I remember reading years ago that Usatovo was Proto-Germanic, or something like that.

But I never thought it was all that important by itself, because there's a whole cultural process that it was a part of, and I talked about that here last year.

A Corded Ware-related Proto-Greek from the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

Check out the awesome map at the bottom of that post.

M.H. _82 said...

Yes I know, I dont disagree with that. which what Ive been maintaining all along - the steppe admixture process into SEE & Anatolia was an intricate & complex affair involving bilateral cultural & demographic interaction. Simplistic explanations don't do justice
When varna collapsed, fresh steppe/ hunter-gatherer blood replenished the region. They werent marauders.
But note - that map refers to corded pottery - not ''Corded Ware Culture'' people.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: In all this groups the steppe ancestry was originally absolute dominant. There is no way around that. And all the more important groups were originally R1 so far.
If in later times local dynasties pop up, that doesnt change anything any more. We have now IE which are predominantly E-v13 or J, but that doesnt make this the original marker.
Besides, Yamnaya isnt really relevant anyway.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

''The Usatovo were not, they were surrounded by steppe people, tribes and elites virtually in all directions. And there was no Roman administration, writing culture or Catholic church to give the locals an upper hand culturally.'

Of course there was no writing or Catholic church, so what ? The Usatavo clans didn't go from forest dwellers to kurgan builders with astronomical knowledge if not by conversion. Maybe they came out trumps, but they were deeply affected. These ceremonial events connected otherwise disparate groups which probably spoke different clannish languages

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

''Mammoth: In all this groups the steppe ancestry was originally absolute dominant. There is no way around that. And all the more important groups were originally R1 so far.''

I don;t care about letters, im interested in processes. But you're incorrect, for the record.

zardos said...

Corded Ware style being the result of leather and later ceramic containers being transported over wider distances by a mobile people. Most likely because they tied the containers on an animal or a wagon. The early ceramics were quite tapering for the same reason. As soon as they settled down the practical design for long time local storage changed but the style was kept.
Anyway, its a clear steppe signal.

Mauri said...

Oll009 is I1a. There are also other Bronze Age Swedish samples in older studies belonging to I1*, I found that at least RISE175, RISE179, RISE207, RISE210, all from Swedish Scania. It looks like researcher have too vague methods to find out y chromosomal ancient alleles. Probably the reason is that multiallelic coding of samtools/bcftools tries to switch alleles assuming a diploid form, even though haploidy is defined. In Schiffels' tools the default is to find out haploid SNP's and it works better.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: "Of course there was no writing or Catholic church, so what ? The Usatavo clans didn't go from forest dwellers to kurgan builders with astronomical knowledge if not by conversion. Maybe they came out trumps, but they were deeply affected. These ceremonial events connected otherwise disparate groups which probably spoke different clannish languages "

Yes, we even see a revival of such traditions in Unetice and we have the adaptive Baden culture. But like I said before: You have to account for all branches and the long term perspective and the Neolithic farmers don’t do it.

Also, never underestimate the steppe people. Like David hinted to, they were coming in with wide ranging contacts with cultural developments and technology more advanced than CW. Already when they moved South.

zardos said...

Is any of these samples of I1a before the collapse of Unetice and the advent of the NBA?

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos
corded ware found earliest in Dereivka- which is forest steppe
The corded design is created from rope
It’s found in Balkans within local contacts as traded item or as part of broader processes leading to pastoralism on both sides of the Danube

Mauri said...

Oll009 should have described as I1a*. It is dated 1930-1750BCE. RISE179 is dated by 14C method to 3556BP and figured as Nordic Late Neolithic.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: Yes from Dereivka and marking a cultural snd demograohic change in the whole macro-region.
Other aspects of the steppe culture were copied like in Baden.
Seems the cultural hegemony of the farmer culture can be debated even for the mixed and contact regions.

@Myll: Thatsexactly the transitional time,sp even of confirmed it doesnt solve the issue.
Earlier eclusive samples in Unetice or Nordic Eneolithic would solve the quest for the root.
Btw, wasnt the proposed link Usatavo -> Germanic Unetice. I think so and its the only viable one isnt it?
If true it would be paternally mainly I1a bringing Proto-Germanic. If not, no such direct link from Unetice to the NBA and I 1a is local in earlier Neolithic times.
So I think the I1a question has quite some significance for Germanic and probably beyond.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir Some Stavitsky doesn't write that, Stavitsky nobody. I write what is written in all the works on Volsk-Lbische, you only have your own fantasy based on the misunderstood by you only one sentence of a certain Stavitsky with no authority. I can fill you with the texts where they write the same thing that I write, and even with the evidentiary facts, they are voluminous.
So don't wishful thinking when you're not smart and constantly lying.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos
“Other aspects of the steppe culture were copied like in Baden.
Seems the cultural hegemony of the farmer culture can be debated even for the mixed and contact regions”

Tiazapolgar; Baden etc were mixed economy; not farmers. They had pasotalism; agriculture ; hunting etc
Pastoralism was Brought from west; all flows went west to east initially.
Forest steppe also had mixed economy; whilst steppe was more monomorphic pastoralist due to paucity of natural resources
The earliest steppe pastoralists and kurgan builders were I2a .

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

The earliest steppe pastoralists and kurgan builders were I2a.

Which kurgans are these?

zardos said...

Like I said you have the Lower Don culture, where Northern HG came into contact with more developed CHG and EEF. They became effective and highly mobile pastoralists.
These spread West too and meeting even more developed farmer cultures from which they adopted a, relatively to the early phase and Yamnaya, a more sedentary way of life. SSC and especially Dereivka are decisive for that. Its not by chance they first produced typical Corded Ware. Their ancestors came in with leather and simple ceramic tied on animals and wagons.
When they transitioned to a more sedentary lifestyle and became effective agro-pastoralist colonists, the Corded Ware developed as a new ceramic style.
Bu their ancestry and ethnicity did not change significantly (enough), thats what we see from ancient DNA.

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos If indeed it turns out that PIE grew out of a Dnieper Donets, Bug Dniester or any other Eastern European HG Native group from the Lower Don region it would mean that PIE was formed not only in Eastern Europe, but by NATIVE groups whose origin was indigenous to Eastern Europe. That implies that unlike EEF whose origin ultimately lie in Western Asia (Anatolia) or groups with ANE ancestry whose origin was Siberia - PIE is a TRUE European language which not only arose ON the Pontic Steppes; its speakers’ ancestors were living in Eastern Europe after the LGM.

And that is HUGE!

A language for Europeans which developed in Europe by people who have ALWAYS lived in Europe! YES!!!

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

''Like I said you have the Lower Don culture, where Northern HG came into contact with more developed CHG and EEF. They became effective and highly mobile pastoralists.''

but thats not born by the evidence. CHG has nothing to do with it; Meshoko were pig farmers
Lower Don culture is too early & has no pastoralism. Pastoralism apears in in steppe in late 4th mill
CWC & western Yamnaya were cattle herders, cattle came from West.

zardos said...

Since I think its quite likely that the agro-pastoralists in the West were at that time, when the steppe expanded, speaking a forager language in the I2 dominated cultures too, it was sorted out by two European patrilineages. Both had overtaken the original farmer communities at that time, it was just whether the Eastern or the Western agro-pastoralists made it.
Apparently the East had the edge, but they were moving culturally and anthropologically in the same direction already. Thats why some even proposed such a close connection of GAC and CWC. But thanks to aDNA we bow know that the CW were a people apart which however did blend in after all.

Anonymous said...

Mammoth_Hunter "Pastoralism apears in in steppe in late 4th mill"

What do you think Sredniy Stog's been doing for 5th millenium? Did cultivated mushrooms? Every suggestion of nonsense.

M.H. _82 said...

GAC (north European quasi-pastoralists) are I2a2a1b2 and Balkan-Hungarian pastoralists (Cednavoda-> -> Yamnaya) are I2a2a1b1.
One went north, the other East.
GAC are more distinct because they were more separated, and more Megalithic influenced

Mauri said...

Oll009 and I1a* in my tests refers to the ISOGG 2019 classifications. Unfortunately, additionally to their rough methods, some researchers use old and inaccurate haplotree taxonomies.

Anonymous said...

Mammoth_Hunter "Balkan-Hungarian pastoralists (Cednavoda-> -> Yamnaya) are I2a2a1b1"

And this person is not ashamed to write one lie, lie always, write one shameful nonsense, dumbass. Disgustingly unbearable.

Cernavoda was not tested. Baden 3400-3000BC 7 G2a2, 4 I. Cernavoda > Yamnaya is nonsense.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: So you say the Lower Don culture had no cattle?
They had domesticated animals and farmers living nearby from which they seem to have adopted a lot, like Surskaja. Those Neolithics were on the retreat however and it was Lower Don which expanded instead. These were the Neolithic transmitters to the steppe people with EHG-CHG ancestry. Exposed border colonies from the West which didnt made it on the PC field but were immensely important as development helpers for the PPIE which adapted and proven to be more competitive on the steppe.

Whether you call them pastoralist or not, the later pastoralists came from those people of the Lower Don or a related nearby tribe. At least thats what I propose unless you can show me a better alternative.

As for CHG: They acquired that ancestry component in Southern Russia. You agree with that or want to question it too? Where else?

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archie

''Did cultivated mushrooms?''

One theory does suggest that Corded Ware pots were for halucinogens


''What do you think Sredniy Stog's been doing for 5th millenium?''
They were still mostly fisher-foragers. They did have some cattle, sheep, pigs, etc; but these were not a major part of the diet; and were probably goods and gifts exchanged from elsewhere.
This is beyond doubt, because we have isotopic analyses from humans from the neolithic to bronze age.

''The clearest trend to emerge from the Samara Valley stableisotope data is the marked difference between the Eneolithicand the Bronze Age. This is interpreted as indicating a
substantially greater contribution of freshwater fish and no detectable C4 input in the diet of most individuals inthe earlier population, in contrast to a lower contribution
of fish and a greater infuence of wild C4 plants, primarilyvia grazing stock, in the later population. The timing oft his shift can only be viewed in broad terms at this stage, pending a program of further AMS C14 dating. The earliest Bronze Age individual comes from the site of Lopatino I, dating to 3339 to 2918 cal BC'' (Stable isotope analysis of Neolithic to Late Bronze Age populations in the Samara Valley
A Bronze Age Landscape in the Russian Steppes: The Samara Valley Project, 2016)

Further west, more consistent evidence for domestic animals is from after 4000 BC, in Usatavo, Mayaki, Mikhailovka.

C.f. Pastoral diet is already seen in 4500 BC in Carpathian basin.


M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

'' So you say the Lower Don culture had no cattle?
''

Yep. There is at present no clear evidence they had domesticates
It's just old crap quality studies, without context or archaezoologists who knew what theyre doing (calling aurochs 'domestic cattle', etc)
See above.

Similar studies exist in Dnieper region essentially pointing to same as Samara valley.
Don region is next to be evaluated properly with modern methods.

Anonymous said...

"Mammoth_Hunter

What you wrote was completely untrue. Don't be ridiculous, Samara Valley has nothing to do with Sredniy Stog culture. You just put the data from a completely different time and completely different places and on their basis we will be brainwashed.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: Do you realise where Samara is relative to the Lower Don and Sredny Stog?
That's like me quoting something about the diet in Iberia for proving my point for the Netherlands.

Surely domesticated animals were no sole prestige good any more in the Southern PC region.

They did breed large animals systematically. Something like Dereivka doesnt come out of nowhere.
But even if Western influences would have been decisive: Genetic influence overall below 15 percent, yDNA between 0-10 percent.
Lets wait for more data but taken together with clear steppe traditions, which were carried on for centuries and deep into Western Europe, there is not much space left for an ethnic conversion.
When the steppe component came to the West they had domesticated animals already. Especially important: The horse. Or do you say this came also from the West?

M.H. _82 said...

Pfft. Dnieper rapids were still hunter-fishers until 4000 BC

M.H. _82 said...

Zardos
The issue of horse domestication hasn’t been solved . I think Dereivka is a good likelihood
But the question remains open

Anonymous said...

The Dnieper stretches for 2200 kilometers to the north.

M.H. _82 said...

“Samara Valley has nothing to do with Sredniy Stog culture.”

But that’s the very foundation of the beloved steppe hypothesis

zardos said...

@Mammoth: "Similar studies exist in Dnieper region essentially pointing to same as Samara valley. 
Don region is next to be evaluated properly with modern methods"

Now that would be the first really great input you made. I'm all for that and want to see real results for the Lower Don region.

Even better if this would bring someone from the geneticists to move their a** and get some human burials from LDC tested too.

Who does the job? Which team works on the animal bones? Is there a schedule for a publication?

We need it from those places close to Neolithic neighbours and time transects. Samara is for that time horizon completely uninteresting.

Anonymous said...

Mammoth_Hunter said...
"But that’s the very foundation of the beloved steppe hypothesis "

No, it doesn't matter at all.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: "C.f. Pastoral diet is already seen in 4500 BC in Carpathian basin."

Were the associated humans tested? Dont think so. But like the Romanian study proved: There was a break and New people from the steppe took over.
Cotofeni is not local.
Also, for a lot of places, unlike elsewhere, according to various sources, we have an actual destruction horizon for the Southern expansions from the SS related groups. A true invasion and conquest. Again and again we have the crucial time and all movements and conquests goIng from the steppe in all directions. There is no omnipresent Western component at all. Actually even in the West its too weak for too long.

Anonymous said...

@zardos Not a word of Mammoth_Hunter can be believed naturally, he never wrote the truth.

Mauri said...

@Zardos, all Northern and western Megalithic samples I have tested so far and show enough alleles belong to I2* (25 of which 21 I2*, 2 I* and 2 F*), even though they are not pure hunter gatherers by their autosomal dna, fifty-fifty WHG and farmers. If someone can help me and list candidate samples for earliest I1 from ENA archive BAM files, I will do it right now.

zardos said...

What we see in the Lower Don area is the adoption of first ceramic, then domesticated animals (goat, sheep, cattle) from neighbourIng Neolithic people presumably without a significant genetic impact.
I suggest cultural exchange and a low number of brides, how exactly is unknown.
The Lower Don shows single inhumations, differieren orientations and social and sex stratification among other characteristics.
There is a real transition from HG to a more and more agro-pastoralist way noticeable.
At the start they had a diet like Mammoth suggested, but like I said, we can observe the transition.
And we are talking about long before SSC.

Richard Rocca said...

David, in the map you posted, it says "Cultures with corded ware..." with corded ware in lower case. I am assuming that this means pottery with cord decorations and not "Corded Ware Culture" pottery, no?

Anonymous said...

@Richard Rocca
The full name of the CWC is the Corded Ware Pottery and Battle Axes Cultures. It's just a name. Naturally, corded ware pottery and battle axes appeared long before the emergence of this culture.

Richard Rocca said...

Archi, yes I know that and that was my point. Cord decorating cultures include many others and not just Corded Ware (ex. Bell Beaker, Vucedol etc.)

zardos said...

@Richard: It spread from the same SSC cradle southward, but its about related and not identical cultures. Like the mentioned Cotofeni, Cernavoda, Usatovo.

Anonymous said...

@Richard Rocca
That's not the case with them. Bell Beaker borrowed corded ware from the CWC, and in Vuchedol these are imports.

zardos said...

They all seem to share the same material root culture and ancestry from the Ukraine. Like David confirmed for Usatovo and the Romanian mtDNA study strongly suggests for Cotofeni.

Bob said...

Usatovo metalworking …..this is what I concluded about it in 2017:

"The Usatovo arsenical bronze metalworking is tied into the Carpatho-Balkan network and manufactured riveted daggers (Chernykh 1992, Anthony 1997)"

I was led heavily by the rivetted daggers discussed by Anthony 1997
Anthony, D. W. 1996. V. G. Childe's world system and the daggers of the early Bronze Age, in 1252 Wailes, B. (Ed). Craft specialization and social evolution: in memory of V. Gordon Childe 1253 University Museum monograph 93. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and 1254 Anthroplogy, Philadelphia.

The major work by Chernykh is a rarely available book that I had to pay a vast amount for - no e-copy available unless recently done.
Chernykh, 1992 E. N. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age. Cambridge 1291 University Press, UK.

zardos said...

@Bob Thanks, Chernykh is a good recommendation. Fortunately a large portion is available at Google books, but pages are missing.

Richard Rocca said...

Archi, that is the case, whether they were the originators or not. They are by definition a corded decoration using cultures.

Bob said...

@ Richard @ David
David, a while ago you asked about content of the new "Tracing the Indo-Europeans" volume.

Chapter 4 Einar Ostmo
A linking cord: Pottery ornamentation and language in the north c. 3600-2400BC

In a nutshell this chapter talks about (pre - Corded Ware Culture) corded pottery styles in Scandinavia - particularly TRB. He discusses links back to Sredny Stog via Usatovo.
He also talks about possible (pre Corded Ware) transfer of Indo European and refers to Anthony 2008 referring to Usatovo as possible origin / route for Germanic.

Obsevations:
I think Kristiansen has taken this on board in his apparent position that PIE could have preceeded Corded into Western Europe (if I understand his papers correctly).
HOWEVER, I think Anthony may have revised his own position between his 2008 paper and his 'Two IE phylogenies..." 2013 and "The Indo European Homeland...." Anthony and Ringe 2015

epoch said...

@M. Myllylä

GoyetQ2 was determined by Genetiker to have both I1 and I2 markers. To the best of my knowledge there is supposed to be an improved sample of GoyetQ2, but not sure.

Maybe you can take a look at that one?

Richard Rocca said...

Bob, thanks for that. To the chagrin of most that want to see every piece of material culture originating in the west, the use of v-perforated buttons also originates in the east (Narva Culture, Volosovo, GAC, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker). A good read on different cultural influences, including the buttons:

https://www.academia.edu/1378430/What_Lies_Behind_Import_and_Imitation_Case_Studies_from_the_European_Late_Neolithic

Mauri said...

@epoch, all samples I can find from ENA for Goyetq2 have very low quality and I barely can make things better than Genetiker. But if I find a solution I will make a blog update.

Davidski said...

@Richard

Yeah, this paper talks about influences in the Eneolithic Balkans from the steppe, particularly from Dereivka/Sredny Stog, rather than from the Corded Ware culture. It's just that the said influences from the steppe included Corded pottery, and obviously this is also where the Corded Ware culture got its Corded pottery.

Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change?

Davidski said...

@Bob & zardos

It's extremely unlikely that Usatovo was a Proto-Germanic culture. For one, the Y-DNA doesn't match (wrong subclades), and I just don't see how such a solution would fit with any Indo-European linguistic phylogeny.

Proto-Germanic obviously developed from post-Corded Ware populations in Northern Europe, with cultural influences from other parts of Europe, rather than from a direct migration from the steppe or nearby.

It seems to me that the main reason Anthony claimed that Usatovo was Proto-Germanic was the obvious social stratification in Usatovo burials which had parallels to those in Bronze Age Scandinavia.

That is, the elites were buried in mounds while the commoners in flat graves.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski @Richard

In this article, the influence of the Dereivka culture on the Balkans is considered only at the first stage, it is a consequence of exclusively trade operations change copper on steppe products. This stage is not associated with any spread of any IE people.

The second stage deals with the spread of the Usatovo culture up to the Ezero culture, which is associated with the Hittit-Luwians.

At the third stage, there are the spread of the Ljubljana group of Illyrians and the further spread of the Luwians of Usatovo/Ezero-related group.



M.H. _82 said...

@ Vladimir

Check out the most up-to-date chronological system from a collaborative international team (''Zwischen Donau und Kuban: Das nordpontische Steppengebiet im 5. Jt. v. Chr.), because as you know, some of the commentators here are living in La-La land.

Dnieper-Donets ends c. 4700 BC
Skelja 4700-> 4300 BC
Stog phase -> 3900 BC
Derivka, Kvitanja -> 3500 BC
Final Eneolithic/ pre-Yamnaya phase -> 3300 BC

The final phase is most interesting, with its the phase of late Tripolje groups, incl Usatavo; & Zhivotilovka-Volchansk

October 22, 2019 at 3:17 PM

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

''Were the associated humans tested? Dont think so''

Of course they were.
''5000 years of dietary variations of prehistoric farmers in the Great Hungarian Plain''
The same humans from Gamba at el.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's rubbish. The Dnieper-Donetsk culture ends very late, somewhere around 3000 BC.
It exists all the time of Sredniy Stog&Dereivka.
Sredniy Stog 5100-4250BC.
Dereivka is 4250—3750/3650BC.

See
Kotova. Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppe. 2008. https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe
Kotova. Dereivka culture and monuments of the Low Michajlovka type. 2013 https://www.academia.edu/17042157/Dereivka_culture_and_monuments_of_the_Low_Michajlovka_type
Г.И. Зайцева, О.В. Лозовская, А.А. Выборнов, А.Н. Мазуркевич. Радиоуглеродная хронология эпохи неолита Восточной Европы VII–III тысячелетия до н. э. 2016

Bob said...

@ David
Anthony based his links to TRB on pottery exchange (Anthony 2008 p39). But as I said, evidence and his views on proto Germanic have moved on since his 2008 paper.

Nevertheless the pottery links / exchange between the 'so called Tripolye C2' and TRB remains as a consideration - at least for Einar Ostmo.

You previously asked about possible Usatovo - Majkop links. Small contribution to this from Anthony 2008 p29/30:

"Only the central graves in kurgan cemetery I
contained daggers. Bronze daggers emerged as new symbols of
status here and in the graves of the Yamnaya horizon, but
Yamnaya daggers had long tangs for the handle, like North
Caucasian daggers and unlike the Usatovo and Sofievka
daggers with rivet holes for the handle. …………..
…. The central graves in kurgan cemetery I also contained fine
painted Tripolye pots, one imported late Maikop-
Novosvobodnaya vessel (kurgan 12), arsenical bronze awls, flat
axes, two Novosvobodnaya-style chisels,...."

I assumed there was only relatively minor trade/exchange links between Usatovo-Majkop with a stronger Usatovo-Balkan link...... but you may know more from unpublished aDNA?...….

Will be very interested to see aDNA from various "so called Tripolye C2" locations if it is on its way. Hope there is aDNA from both the Usatovo Kurgan 1 and Kurgan 2 cemeteries which are different in nature. Will be great to put some of this guesswork to bed and have real solid aDNA data to work from.

Vladimir said...

Mammoth-Hunter But agree that those cultures that are called "late Trypillya" type Usatovo or Zhivotilovka or Sofiyevka and there is still a lot of little-studied on the Dnieper, Dniester, bug, in the Carpathians, it is difficult to call Trypillya, this syncretic culture: Trypillya, SS II/Derievka and cultures pit comb ceramics, which, with a more detailed study, may well be the basis of CWC and other cultures, such as Volsk-lbische

epoch said...

@M. Myllylä

To elaborate on the "improved sample", it's from this study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331750232_Survival_of_Late_Pleistocene_Hunter-Gatherer_Ancestry_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula

"We furthermore improved the sequencing depth of one Upper Paleolithic individual from Troisie`me caverne of Goyet (Belgium) dated to ~15,000 years cal BP and associated with the Magdalenian culture"

I don't actually know what exactly they did, or how, or if the new data is readily available. However they also present an Azilian sample (12.000 BP) from the north of Spain that is pre-I1 and is roughly half Magdalenian.

zardos said...

@David: I never believed Usatovo being any kind of direct ancestor to Proto-Germanics, but since some people came up with the idea, I thought about how it could be possible that they had any influence.
And the only real thing is Unetice, because Unetice might have Carparthian-Balkan influences of significance. So I rather wanted to turn the focus on Unetice, which I think is still a candidate for Proto-Germanic, especially as long as the expansion of I1a is not revealed.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: But you realise the near replacement of the preceding populations during SSC and associated expansions.
Also, any chronology of that kind is very, very local. Because of course DD ended early in areas where it was succeeded, but its distribution was huge.
Like you have proven yourself, Samara and Lower Don are different worlds at that time and most of the early cultural influences go from the Lower Don/Mariupol related cultures up and not vice versa.
Now I dont know for the genetic side, thats why we need testing, but it seems very clear that we got the CHG ancestry and typical steppe proportions there and nowhere else.
And you see that kind of ancestry and cultural markers spreading first on te steppe and then beyond.

If Cotofeni was so clear from the material culture and mtDNA even, what do you think will come up there? The Carparthians themselves were under steppe control at the time of CW being born!

The only way to save anything would be if Cotofeni, Cernavoda and Usatovo would all (!) have adopted farmer languages while burning the local elites to the ground and even then you would have to prove the conversion of CW. Its over, realise it. When the first samples from the Cotofeni and Usatovo elite will come in, the best you can hope for is an Indo-Aryan scenario with some local elite allies being recruited, but thats not enough.

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca-"To the chagrin of most that want to see every piece of material culture originating in the west, the use of v-perforated buttons also originates in the east (Narva Culture, Volosovo, GAC, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker). A good read on different cultural influences, including the buttons:

Pathetic Richard, you know, because I have given you enough information, that absolutely all the elements of the so-called BB package are documented in Iberia in Pre-BB deposits, tanged copper daggers, textiles, v perforated buttons, boar's tusk, tanged and barbed arrowheads etc. The dates in both Spain and Portugal are before 2,700 BC, then you and your followers can continue to make a fool of yourself for how long you want. The more stubborn you show yourself, the more you will demonstrate your ignorance of the chalcolithic in Western Europe.

The joint effort that the Kurganist crowd is making to link the BBC with the CWC (even considering it an offshot) is also pathetic and regrettable - It seems more an effort to Indo-Europeanize R1a after the absolute failure of the Yamnaya culture than a true interest in finding the truth.

And the truth remains the same as 10 years ago - you will never find R1bP312 and its descendants in the steppes or in Eastern Europe. All this debate about Eastern cultures seems interesting but it will prove fruitless as long as you don't find R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 in any of those cultures. And believe that that is far from happening

My advice to you, Davidski and the Spanish archaeologists who say that L51 is in the north of Russia is to provide such evidence as soon as possible because if they let a lot of time go by, everything they say will be absolutely irrelevant-

Some friends in Anthrogenica have told me that you and your followers are still obsessed with me and that even some people are insulting me. Please remind them that everything we say in these blogs is recorded and that everyone will have to face their responsibilities. Meanwhile try to erase a bit of steppes from your brain so maybe you can see more clearly what is coming


Anonymous said...

@zardos Cotofeni and Kostolac and Usatovo are synonyms.
Dnieper-Donets culture has always existed north of Sredniy Stog and Dereivka, and who do you think lived there? So don't write to Mammoth_Hunter that he's right when he's wrong.


-----------


No archaeologist in the world has ever linked Sintashta to the Sredniy Stog, no one, and there were no versions. And especially Stavitsky, who had never been involved in Sintashta or Volsk-Lbishche or Sredniy Stog at all, he was involved in Mordva archaeology.

M.H. _82 said...

“Cotofeni and Kostolac and Usatovo are synonyms.”

Wow. Just when you think he couldn’t get any more ignorant

M.H. _82 said...

Zardos
Sorry I dint understand your questions or suggestions because they don’t make sense.
Can you rephrase ?

zardos said...

Chernykhs distinction of the Carpartho-Balkan and the Circumpontic metallurgy is very important, the transition meant:
"Finally, the third feature one should mention is that within this vast array of diverse cultures the steppe world began to play an extremely impor-
tant role, one absolutely different from what we observed for it during the CBMP Copper Age.
The distinctly marginal character of the steppe stockbreeding cultures of the Copper Age with respect not only to the central bloc of the CBMP
cultures, but also to the block of Tripol’ye communities fell into oblivion."

Its interesting to note that at the center of the early Circumpontic province is Maykop with its metallurgical innovations.

The early steppe people were between two early metallurgical centers, Carpartho-Balkan and Caucasian. They bred huge quantitaties of animal stock to trade it for little metal goods.

What we see is that they united in huge tribal alliances to get the mining and production in their own hands. First in the West, when Cotofeni-Cernavoda-Usatovo invaded the Carparthians and Balkans, secondly when Yamnaya destroyed Maykop.
Maykop in turn saw the threat and sought for allies to protect itself and secure the supply with livestock from the steppe. That's when steppe Maykop was formed. But for whatever reason they couldn’t hold their ground.

In the West two paths to the Western regions of Europe are possible from the steppe: Circumvent the Carparthians or going right through the mountain passes. The Northern CW, which were again largely cut off from the metal province went North. Sone might have stayed further South and kept contact (pre-BB?) and those making themselves the chiefs of their former masters took over the Carpartho-Balkans (Cernavoda, Cotofeni, Usatovo).

The Circumpontic province theory would also explain the Maykop contacts and influences on Usatovo. They were oriente East, Carpatho-Balkans became the enemy and was even a competitor for Maykop which at that point had no issues with the steppe people probably but they started as allies.

Anonymous said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

you're writing again mumbling, aren't you? The Usatovo culture and Coţofeni culture and Folteshti (correction) culture is simply the name of the same culture in different countries. Learn ignorant.

zardos said...

@Archi: There is reason to distinguish regional variants even if they are close. So Cotofeni and Usatovo is not synonymous, the labels name different regions. And as long as we don’t have samples which were analysed for yDNA and autosomal ancestry from both better be careful. We don’t know their exact relationship, just that they both seem to have been advanced steppe people from the Ukraine, related somehow to SSC.

Anonymous said...

There was no rivalry between the Caucasus and the Balkans. There was no competition at all. In the Copper Age, when the Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province existed, the Caucasus was still in Mesolithic/Neolithic. Copper was not extracted in the Caucasus. Then, in the Carpathian-Balkan Mountains, light copper ran out and CBMP collapsed. And only then people of the Bronze Age came to the Caucasus and began to mine bronze there, Maikop, so the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province began to be created. At the same time, there was no confrontation between the Caucasus and the Balkans, they were very far from each other, and the steppyans were simply bought with bronze there and there.

Rob said...

@ Archie

''Cotofeni and Kostolac and Usatovo are synonyms.”

They're all quite different. Usatavo is in the pit-grave tradition, Cotofeni is a non-pit grave cairn culture; probable a local Romanian quasi-pastoral gorup.
Kostolac is different still, in the tradition of Boleraz-Baden.

Anonymous said...

@zardos "So Cotofeni and Usatovo is not synonymous"

No. This is the same thing, because these national names are used for the territory of one culture, not for regional variants. These names of the whole culture, as well as Yamnaya in Russian and Yamna in the Ukrainian and Pit-Grave in English, are the names of the whole culture, not the names of regional variants. When you see the name Cotofeni, it means exactly the same thing as Usatovo, and not which is not a local variant, just this author uses the Romanian name, but not Russian.

Anonymous said...

Compare English Funnel Beaker culture/FBK and Deutch Trichterbecherkultur/TRB, they are full synonyms.

zardos said...

@Archi: That's right, they bought here and there, were dependent and had to pay high prizes until they were able to get their hands on the source itself.
However, the Carpatho-Balkans were hit in a time of weakness but it was the steppe alliance which brought it down and nothing else!
At the time of these events the steppe had close contacts to Maykop and Davids idea was right, Usatovo might have taken sone of its innovations directly from Maykop indeed.

@Rob: It seems Cotofeni took the Carparthians and became a center and role model for the whole region down to Pannonia and South, extended similar to the Hungarian kingdom.
The relationship to the Western regions was that of complex interaction.
The Cotofeni core group seem to have been just another tribe from the Western steppe, related to SSC, but the direct steppe influence decreased West, while the cultural impact was still strong.
So Cotofeni -> Kostolac -> Baden is eqivalent to decreasing to non-existent steppe ancestry. But in the center was Cotofeni and they should have significant steppe ancestry.
Again similar to Hungary later, just with a Transylvanian center instead of a Pannonian.
Cotofeni and Usatovo became competitors later and Usatavo won. So they were direct South of Proto-Unetice which they might have influenced. Interestingly the Wietenberg culture ended at the same time as Unetice!
Through Unetice the Usatovo might therefore have influenced Proto-Germanic. But at that time they were, like Hittites or Greeks, obviously no longer the same people.
Question is where I1a came into play as the most prominent factor.

zardos said...

@Archi: There were regional differences between Cotofeni and Usatovo. If looking at the later development, they seem to have been different tribes from a closely related root.
Since Cotofeni became mixed with locals and developed its own regional tradition, just use both terms and all are happy.

Anonymous said...

@zardos "However, the Carpatho-Balkans were hit in a time of weakness but it was the steppe alliance which brought it down and nothing else!
At the time of these events the steppe had close contacts to Maykop"

Look, CBMP died a few centuries before Maikop and CPMP appeared. The end of CBMP is about 4250BC, and Maikop appeared after 4000BC.

The Steppenians did not destroy CBMP at all, they depended on it, it was their only source of copper. It is known why CBMP died, its copper deposits simply ran out of copper.

"Cotofeni and Usatovo became competitors later and Usatavo won." They couldn't fight each other because it's the same thing.

Anonymous said...

@zardos I'm sorry, but now you're imagining. They were all mixed up there all the time and everywhere. I don't know how to prove it to you, but the idea came up - find "Usatovo culture" in English Wikipedia and "Коцофенская культура" in Russian Wikipedia.

zardos said...

@Archi: Fact is we still had a rich Carpartho-Balkan or and metal production. Usatovo might have had some techniques and style from the East, but the material and metallurgy came, according to Chernykh, mainly from SEE!

Regardless of how distinct Usatovo proper and Cotofeni were, Cotofeni is the name primarily used for the regional variant in the Carparthians and this center seems to have been overtaken by Usatovo proper further West/South.

So if nothing else, one tribe we might name after the region Cotofeni was overtaken by another one, regardless of Iron being from the same root culture.
If one La Tene Celtic tribe did conquer another, this was possible too of course. And there are regional variants of LTC. In the same sense we should make a regional distinction here and use Cotofeni and Usatovo respectively, since it seems to be justified.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

Im still not sure; its quite a complex process. BTW; Cotofeni featured cremation; which is a Carpathian trait. It also had inhumationm, but these were not quite matching those in Usatavo..
Cernavoda is still intriguing, because it has both steppe & Carpathian elements; so we need samples from its both flat & tumulus burials.

Anonymous said...


I don't know if I was in Cotofeni cremation, maybe I was. It is necessary to look at the time, cultures change with the stage of their development, so cremation could appear later and it was a local phenomenon. It is clear that when Yamnaya spread, Usatovo was gone out from the northeast, but it remained in the Carpathians/Balkans still.

zardos said...

@Rob: We definitely need Tests from all regional variants and it will be particularly interesting to see the relationship of the Carparthians to Unetice.
But for the steppe influence it seems to be done because I trust David for Usatovo from the East/South and Cotofeni was analysed for its material culture and mtDNA in Romania.

Cernavoda will be interesting too, agree very much.

@Rob @Archi: How do you explain the development and expansion of the Noua culture? Exact original center and relationship to Usatovo and derivatives in particular.

Anonymous said...

The Noua is not related to the Usatovo, this culture is from the east, and has a close relation to the Sabatinovka culture.

zardos said...

The Eastern influence was known to me, but I read they mostly blend into the already present networks to form Noua culture, so a lot is from the preceding cultures and their traditions.
You agree or rather see a replacement?
Do you see a later ethnicity like Thracian in the Noua culture?

Mauri said...

@epoch,

also this one behind your link is too vague. I use standard -q30 -Q30 quality check. I could lower it, but couldn't then guarantee same quality level with researchers. Genetiker's blog telling about "both I1 and I2" means that the result is I*. The difference between my results and study "Battle Axe people.. " is that they use SAMTOOLS in two steps: qualifying reads and calling SNPs, I use SAMTOOLS in qualifying but Schiffels' tools in callings SNPs. Schiffels' tools is a dedicated tool for searching SNPs from pseudodiploid data. Y chromosome can be understood as a pseudodiploid chromosome.

zardos said...

I'm asking because Thracian and Dacian seem to have been rather recent Eastern immigrants in my book and where described as socially stratified in a way with their "felt hat" elite and the commoners. This might have been linked to Noua newcomers with horse warrior traditions from the East and commoners from the preceding people in a simplified manner.

Vladimir said...

Eupedia says Rome as a genetic melting pot: Population dynamics over 12,000 years will be published next month. In it, ostensibly, on autosomal analysis Etruscan IA the most close modern Italian Bergamo. And on Y all R1b and only one sample managed dotypirovat until U152, the rest M269. There is still one I1. So the question of IE became even more acute. I think so. If linguists do not see similarities between the Etruscan language and Basque, then these are the languages of the local haplogroups I1 or I2, and R1b is just warriors who seized the territory, but because of the small number themselves switched to local languages. If Etruscan and Basque were close, it could be concluded that these are the languages of haplogroup R1b-P312.

zardos said...

@Vlad: Read what I have written about BB customs. If this is right, you get different speakers with R1b fairly easily and Northern Italy was never fully integrated in the BB networks, yet alone we don’t even know the BBs original language.
I1 would be interesting and rather coming from another people, related to Unetice/Urnfield, but so might be a lot of R1b,coming in later, long after the BB.
Autosomal analyses will be key once the data is out.

Orthogonal said...

@gaska

"We do not know what language BB culture spoke but of course in Iberia IE was never spoken until the arrival of the Romans"

You're laying into Davidski about his claims on the BBC after writing that??

Bob Floy mentioned the Celtic speaking Celtiberians but he didn't mention the Galacian tribes farther west and what were the Lusitanians speaking? Wu? Algonquin? Yeti?

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, how about we take these artifacts one at a time, and instead of providing opinions, we provide data? Were there any v-perforated buttons in Iberia that are dated older than the Narva Culture (5300-1750 BC) or the Volosovo Culture (4th–3rd millennium cal BC)?

Gaska said...

@Unknown

Iberian BBs never spoke IE

1- This culture is so old in Portugal and Spain that it is impossible for this language to reach the peninsula in such an early time

2- Iberian BBs migrated to other BB regions expanding their culture (Atlantic facade, western Mediterranean, northern Morocco, French Mediterranean coast, Rhone river basin, Liguria, Switzerland), in fact the Maritime style is the only one common throughout Europe and the Iberian dates are before 2,750 BC

3- There are cases of very early BBs burials in Portugal, Spain and France with maritime style (AOC) and ZERO steppe ancestry

4-BBC mixed in Central Europe with women from the CWC and they were the ones who transmitted that steppe signal. Exogamy is key to understanding that process. From Germany the BBC extended to the north (Holland, Denmark etc) and to the east reaching Silesia from Bohemia and Malopolska and Hungary from Moravia. That is what stopped the expansion of Indo-European cultures

5-I do not believe that any expert linguist knows the relationship between Basque and Etruscan, in any case, the two languages ​​are not IE and at least in the case of Basques the overwhelming majority of men were and are R1b-P312. We'll see what happens with the Etruscans.

6-P312 is a chalcolithic lineage (Formed-2,800-2,600 BC), you will never find it in earlier dates and of course never in the Neolithic

7-I don't know anything about Baskhir people but if they have P312 it has to be recent

@Orthogonal

1-I do not know what you mean

2-We know almost nothing about the Lusitanian language except that all the known inscriptions are written in the Latin alphabet. Unless you are a genius and have managed to date that language by C14, the truth is that we do not know when it originated or its territorial extension, so we do not even know when it entered the Iberian Peninsula -



Vladimir said...

Bashkirs have 10% of the population-R1b-M478. 25% of the population is R1b-Z2103. 10% - R1b-U152. They may well be descendants of the Volga Germans province that existed in the Russian Empire and was abolished by the Soviet power. 25% of the population is R1a-Z2124. 20% of the population is N1a.

Gaska said...

@Rocca

I think the only thing you do is try to raise doubts and hide the debate. I also believe that the Kurganists are desperate and now try to kidnap the BB culture. If you want to hear my opinion, I will tell you that Narva culture is super interesting not only because of the abundance of R1b-P297, but also because some features of its culture. I suppose that in addition to the buttons you will know that they used ochre in their burials since the Mesolithic. However, this means nothing because you will also know that this custom of using ochre was used in the largest part of Europe since the Paleolithic and very frequently in the Neolithic and Pre-BB chalcolithic (I guess a good Kurganist would have to say that this was an exclusive custom of Eastern cultures- Sredni Stog, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya, but it would be a big lie)-On the other hand, the Narva-buttons have nothing to do with BB culture neither by its form, nor by the materials used-

In Spain there are many Pre-BB deposits with V perforated bone and ivory buttons, so we do not need to explain their incorporation into the BB package using the Narva culture or the Volosovo culture. "They were already at home"

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos @Vlad “'m asking because Thracian and Dacian seem to have been rather recent Eastern immigrants in my book and where described as socially stratified in a way with their "felt hat" elite and the commoners. This might have been linked to Noua newcomers with horse warrior traditions from the East and commoners from the preceding people in a simplified manner.”

Aren’t Dacians and Thracians related to or derived from Cimmerians?

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, so you are above providing proof? Sorry, but you are full of shit. Just like I provided a metallurgy study done by metallurgists on actual Bell Beaker metal items and they showed them to be identical to Corded Ware. You on the other hand provided opinion snippets without proof. Now you can't provide a single piece of evidence on v-perforated buttons? You are a complete charlatan and now your bias is on full display for all to see.

Gaska said...

@Rocca

Again pathetic Richard-You can continue to be as rude as you want and continue to insult everyone, that only demonstrates your helplessness and frustration.

For me to debate with you about the European chalcolithic is like talking to a Martian, you understand absolutely nothing-Maybe you can talk to people with your same level of knowledge, that is to say your Anthrogenica friends (surely you all agree), but outside that forum your opinion is a joke.

zardos said...

@Andre: "Aren’t Dacians and Thracians related to or derived from Cimmerians?"

The problem is we know so little about the Cimmerians and the Thracians. But if we would associate them with the Noua culture and Srubnaya related respectively, they would be at least related. What is even more interesting is that I was often writing about Eastern horse warrior influences in Hallstatt, probably even on the elite. Well, some associate this with the Cimmerians. The Wikipedia article sums it up fairly well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

The "more systematic" and "anti-migrationist" stance in archaeology did play this down (in the politically correct 1960s fashion), but especially for Eastern Hallstatt, we even have depictions in art which show the Eastern Hallstatt warriors in a very different fashion which might be rather associated with another people, Thracians or else, but essentially more Eastern, recent steppe derived. And even for the Western Hallstatt elite, almost a caste, aristocracy, people apart, I thought of them being derived from the East and dethroned during the "La Tene revolution".
Its interesting because the East was more advanced on at least two levels:
1st Horsemanship
2nd Metallurgy (Iron!)

What I rather wanted to ask or suggest is, that Thracians - Cimmerians - Scythians are not one people, but rather a continuum on the steppe from a related cultural horizon. Though the relation of Thracian and Cimmerian might be actually closer to Baltoslavs than to Scythian imho, because the Iranian branch seems to be more a people apart.

But different people have different hypothesis on the subject and without new facts a lot of these questions cannot be solved. The best chance is ancient DNA. Because if the Hallstatt elite in the West shows Eastern influences the commoner do not or if the Western Hallstatt show a proto-Celtic, the Eastern a Thracian profile etc, this would be decisive and definitive. Other interpretations are open to debate.

Even more so since the more complex society became, the less clear material culture is associated to an ethnicity. In the case of Hallstatt the West and the East are different, also in their customs and material culture, but some people don't realise this. They might very well have completely different (e.g. Proto-Celtic and Thracian) people, even whether the upper class (Thraco-Cimmerian?) and commoners (Proto-Celtic) were the same or form different ethnicities in the West, who can tell? But with sufficient testing and solid analysis, there might be a definitive answer.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, sorry, I don't see anything about v-perforated buttons in your response.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Zardos

Davidski is partly correct- the “rumours” about Usatovo are not surprising Because -as we said- it’s a pit grave culture. The only confounder is that it sometimes considered a “post CT” group, mostly due to its ceramic attributes & CBMP traditions which it kept alive after Varna collapsed

However the overall narrative is a lot more complex than what’s being made out here. Cotofeni is also a post C-T group, however it is more linearly derived from the EEF component of C-T. So the link between Usatavo & Cotofeni isn’t there synonymity; but inherited CT features
There was no direct movement of Usatavo west of the carpathians; instead it fused with invading GAC groups to form Horodiştea–Erbiceni; and it is that group which migrated west; as the Glina-Sch. culture in the post-Cotofeni phase

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca said-"Gaska, sorry, I don't see anything about v-perforated buttons in your response"

Dear Richard, I see that you are going to continue insisting for a long time, so I will tell you that the oldest known V-perforated pieces were discovered in Pouligny Saint Pierre dating back to the Magdalenian. I guess you'll know that Magdalenian culture is quite older than Narva and Usatovo cultures, right? and that this site is in Western Europe right?

I'm sure you're going to be as successful relating V perforated buttons in the Baltic or in Usatovo with those of the BB culture as you've had finding L51 in Yamnaya. Do not lose hope, sure in other forums celebrate your genius

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, help me understand. So what you are saying is that L51 men in Central Europe learned how to make V-perforated buttons from a culture that had died off 7,500 years before their existence? Were there other cultures that immediately precede Corded Ware using these buttons?

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos I used to associate Strubnaya and Catacomb with Indo-Iranians, at least the deepest ancestry branch that eventually yielded these cultures. I'd like to know what happens in the end in regards to Strubnaya and Catacomb: did they end up being a dead end, or are there any modern people who at least partially descendant from them?

If Romanians have a Dacian substrate and the latter were related to Thracians then maybe they are offsrpings of the Strubnaya/Cimmerians. Somehow I suspect a deep pre-Slavic ancestry shared between Romanians and Albanians.

I wonder where the Illyrians fit in the puzzle, and their relationship to Phrygians, ancient Macedonians (Alexander the Great) and to Thracians.

A related query on a tangent here is what really happened to the C-T culture? Were they absorbed into any other Steppe-based culture like the GAC or did they mostly vanish like the Botai?

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos I used to read comments from people postulating that the Sredny Stog I were annihilated by the invading SSC II who allegedly came either from the North Caspian Volga area Khvalynsk or Samara horizon or who came from the Piedmont North Caucasus area like Vonyuchka or Progress. But in case that it's proven that Gimbutas was right in the sense that it was the Lower Don cultures of The Ukraine rather than the Southern Russian cultures who were the "first PIEs", then what happened to Sredny Stog I? All Wikipedia says is that there were two stages of the SSC: an early one and a later one but without mentioning any population replacement whatsoever.

Now, I would like to see the relationship between Combed Ware Ceramic, Bug-Dnieser and Dniester-Donets questions settled for good: can we agree that they were all mostly EHG cultures or was Bug-Dniester either a WHG one or a predominantly Anatolian one? I tend to agree with you and with Vladimir that Dnieper-Donets might be the putative PIE homeland, but then again its relationship to SSC needs to be sorted out.

I'm not sure whether it was you, Archi or Vlad who mentioned something re: PIE most likely originating among an EHG phylum and not an EEF or even a CHG one, although these cultures must've impacted the PIEs genetically and culturally albeit not linguistically. Do you agree with me, on the other hand, that PIE started out an a language isolate, unrelated to any other phylum because it seems that they had nothing in common with other EHG/ANE/WSHG groups like Narva or Combed Ware?

My other thoughts are that the strong possibility that Globular Amphora spoke a rather Northern Euro HG dialect and not a classical Anatolian language. In that case, since some linguists would insist about the considerable "non-IE" substrate in the Germanic languages - that words claimed by certain linguistics to be "non-IE" (allegedly) like "hand" or "finger" ultimately came from GAC/WHG sources and are therefore completely unrelated to the supposedly strong Anatolian EEF based substrate in Greek, to Basque or to Etruscan (the "Pelasgian"/"Lemnian"/"Tyressian" family)?

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 751   Newer› Newest»