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 601 – 751 of 751@Mammoth:
"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 "
Well, the Romanian archaeologists showed the clearly intrusive steppe character of the Cotofeni culture, the mtDNA points to a strong maternal influence from the steppe and Chernykh saw similarities in Usatovo and Cotofeni, though he attributed this to Aegean-Anatolian influences and even assumed that craftsmen were coming in from the South to produce those tools for the Usatovo-Cotofeni people.
Its true both have assimilated CT traditions and Southern contacts, but the core groups were of steppe ancestry. I don't think the preliminary mtDNA results and material culture analyses will be completely off.
But ok, as long as we don't have the definite proof from aDNA, the debate might go on and on.
"There was no direct movement of Usatavo west of the carpathians; instead it fused with invading GAC groups"
Which invading GAC groups of importance do you mean? How far did they come and from where? Anything you can point to, source or details?
"to form Horodiştea–Erbiceni; and it is that group which migrated west; as the Glina-Sch. culture in the post-Cotofeni phase "
Glina-Schneckenberg is sometimes associated with Cernavoda isn't it? Wietenberg is even more clearly influenced from the South East than Glina? Besides aren't the relations still somewhat speculative? From what I read many regional cultures and their relations are not that clearly defined. More clearly are general breaks of traditions, like they appear with the steppe related, North Pontic cultures.
Talking about that and Cernavoda, Petre I. Roman, one of the great authors about the culture, considered it a phenomenon in which North Pontic steppe people spread Indoeuropean culture and language, forming a new hybrid culture in the Balkans. Your position?
@Andre: These are complicated issues which more DNA results might shed light on. Probably some can answer it better.
"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."
Romanians share more ancestry with Slavs due to direct Slavic settlement rather than deeper relations I'd say. Romanians had many influences from the Southern cultures, including real Roman one. What's left of the ancient Dacians and what profile upper, common and lower class Dacians had we might see eventually, when ancient DNA goes into a turbomode and analyses being done en masse. When it really becomes as usual as stratigraphic contextualization or at least like C14 dating for all archaeologists. What I would hope for.
Some older authors associated the Illyrians with Eastern Hallstatt (rather than Thracian, at least the commoners) and many do relate the Phrygians to Thraco-Dacians afaik. Just a tribe which shipped across the Bosporos.
@Gaska
Your strange comments about Yamnaya and Corded Ware are attracting attention from a mentally ill banned troll.
Note that the idea that Corded Ware wasn't necessarily derived from Yamnaya isn't a new one, nor is it Carlos' original thought. Please read this before commenting further on this issue...
Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya (Anthony 2017)
@Andrzejewski "I used to associate Strubnaya and Catacomb with Indo-Iranians ..."
The Srubnaya and the Catacomb cultures are not related cultures. The first one comes from the Potapovka and Abashevo and KMK ascending eventually to the CWC, the second one is a local culture developed on the Yamnaya basis.
"Thracians then maybe they are offsrpings of the Strubnaya/Cimmerians."
There is no reason to associate the Daco-Fracians with the Cimmerians. The first are local, the second are from the Tuva-related region, Srubnians was only a substrate for them.
"I wonder where the Illyrians fit in the puzzle, and their relationship to Phrygians, ancient Macedonians (Alexander the Great) and to Thracians."
The Illyrian languages belong to the western branch of their closest relatives are the Italo-Germanic languages, while the Thracians and the Albanian languages belong to the eastern branch, for the latter it has been established that their language is closest to the Balto-Slavic.
The Macedonian and the Phrygian languages are close related to Greek languages.
" I used to read comments from people postulating that the Sredny Stog I were annihilated by the invading SSC II
...."
Sredniy Stog I is simply the name of the Dnieper-Donets culture layer, not the name of the culture.
The Lower Don is located on the territory of Russia, as well as the culture.
The Eneolithic stages of the steppe were more, but the main two are the pre-corded Sredniy Stog culture and the corded Dereivka culture.
Dnieper-Donets culture has nothing to do with the PIE at all, especially genetically has nothing in common, there is nothing Indo-European in it from the point of view of archaeology and anthropology.
Vladimir carries one falsehood based on personal inventions.
Narva culture is a WHG.
@Archi
Germanic and Illyrian are not Western European languages by any means. They are much closer to Balto-Slavic and Albanian, than Italic or Celtic. Illyrian being classified as such, is a debunked theory, which was based on Venetic. Venetic hasn't been seen as being related to Illyrian for decades, because it is related to Italic.
I assume you're talking about Centum/Satem, which does not delineate kinship when the easternmost IE language, Tocharian belongs to Centum.
@Gaska
"@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 -"
1. You were talking about Davidski's claim of BBC coming from CW but had made that ridiculous claim that IE was not in Iberia before the Romans.
2. Nice fringe theory, most accept it as IE and it was in Iberia prior to the Romans, but if you want to go with minority postulations: Tartessian is Celtic https://www.historyireland.com/pre-history-archaeology/tartessian-europes-newest-and-oldest-celtic-language/
Oh look, there are translatians too. Hmmmm Using your level of proof you are wrong.
Archie/ Dnipro-Donetsk is the westernmost wing of the pit pottery cultures and in the East similar cultures reached the Urals, this culture gave 50% EHG in the standard steppe format 50% CHG and 50% EHG. Moreover, this culture, along with other pit-comb ceramic cultures, gave R1a to the CWC. Therefore, to state that Dnipro-Donetsk is not related to IE means that CWC is not related to IE. Moreover, even WHG and I2a in Derievka from Dnipro-Donetsk, as in its first stage it absorbed the local Surkaya and Bugo-Dniester cultures.
@ Zardos
''Well, the Romanian archaeologists showed the clearly intrusive steppe character of the Cotofeni culture, the mtDNA points to a strong maternal influence from the steppe and Chernykh saw similarities in Usatovo and Cotofeni, though he attributed this to Aegean-Anatolian influences and even assumed that craftsmen were coming in from the South to produce those tools for the Usatovo-Cotofeni people.''
The present views of ROmanian archaeologists have already been outlined above, they do not equate Cotofeni straightfoardly with Usatavo; although they are sometimes grouped into a broader umbrella e.g. ''Boleraz-Cotofeni-Usatavo'', etc. Detailed anlyses, however on the difference is as above. They might have had steppe ancestry & mtDNA, sure
''Which invading GAC groups of importance do you mean? How far did they come and from where? Anything you can point to, source or details?''
GAC 'invaded' Moldova & the forest steppe regions of Ukraine. These might, in fact, be the cause of decline of C-T. More speculatively, the C-T populace then sought protection or clientage from steppe/ forest-steppe elites.
''Glina-Schneckenberg is sometimes associated with Cernavoda isn't it? Wietenberg is even more clearly influenced from the South East than Glina? Besides aren't the relations still somewhat speculative? From what I read many regional cultures and their relations are not that clearly defined.''
The resolution & understanding is becoming very good now; it was pretty poor but 20 years ago.
Gl-Sch. doesnt have direct relation to Cernavoda; because the former dates after 3000 BC, whislt Cernavoda is from 3800-3400 BC.
''Thracian and Dacian seem to have been rather recent Eastern immigrants in my book''
The origins of Dacians is easy - the migrated from south to north in the pre-Roman Iron Age, expunging the Celts, as a sub-group of Thracians. This movement was the immediate ancestros of the Dacians of Burebista & Decebalus
The origin of broader Thraco-Dacian block is a lot more complex; but it relates to MLBA, and entailed several shifts and movements between. Theres a pretty big gap between Ezero & later BA groups.
@Rocca said-"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?"
Three times pathetic the same day, you will beat your own record-
1-Help me understand, so you are saying that L51/P312 men in Western Europe learned how to make V-perforated buttons from the CWC, where there other cultures that inmediately precede the BBC in Iberia using these buttons? And where do you think the CWC took out the ivory buttons, sailing to Africa?
2-One of the Kurganists' reference archaeologists to support his steppe theory is Volker Heyd, and he even recognizes that in the Portuguese Pre-BB Chalcolithic there was what he calls the BB Proto-Package- Among those objects are the V-perforated buttons known and used in Iberia since the Neolithic, then any attempt to relate those objects to the CWC or Narva culture does not make much sense
3- In any case, Heyd does not know the Iberian chalcolithic very well. that type of buttons has been found in many sites for example in +Casaseca de las Chanas (Zamora)- 3.000 BC- Jesús del Val-"The repertoire of bone materials is also varied, and a V-perforated ivory cylindrical button was also found"
4-Before it was the Yamnaya culture the chosen one, now that you have failed you will try it with the CWC, Ok everyone is free to think what they want but I recommend you try to find more solid evidence for your theories.
@Davidski
I don't know what strange comments or what banned troll you mean. Regarding Carlos Quiles, his theories are diametrically opposed to mine, but I respect him, in the same way that I respect everyone who doesn't think like me-
Regarding Yamnaya it is clear that it should never have been considered the origin of anything, time has proved us right- Now we are going to continue looking for L51 and remember that the eastern BBs come from the Central-European BBs and that the movement went from west to East and not vice versa.
@Rob: I know GAC came to the forest steppe, but how and where exactly are they supposed to fusion with Usatovo and create the cultural phenomenon Mammoth mentioned?
"The resolution & understanding is becoming very good now; it was pretty poor but 20 years ago.
Gl-Sch. doesnt have direct relation to Cernavoda; because the former dates after 3000 BC, whislt Cernavoda is from 3800-3400 BC."
Isn't Cernavoda III-Boleraz supposed to have a longer lasting influence on the whole region?
Also, which are the direct influences working on Glina-Schneckenberg? Really primarily Usatovo?
Glina-S. is largely a mystery to me, can you elaborate on its character or point to literature available online? I just read about the having peculiar settlements and the culture being fairly widespread relatively to a lot of the rather small scale Carparthian divisions.
Even the practical relationship to Cotofeni was not that obvious, just that it succeeded it in stages.
And how does Wietenberg relate to this?
Sure;
- 'Mounds and Mountains:Burial Rituals in Early Bronze Age Transylvania. Horia Ciugudean
- 'The beginning of the EBA in Southeast Transylvania..''. Zsolt SZÉKELY
Horodistea-Foltesti seems to be primarily Usatovo derived and I found no hints for GAC reaching Wallachia, from which Glina-Schneckenberg is common ly derived from a rather Usatovo/Cernavoda related background, which is the overtaking I imprecisely talked about (Cotoden - Usatovo related).
The burial customs being changed in all these cultures to rather North Pontic ways with little resemblance to the preceding TCC.
The dominant element in Horodistea-Foltesti seems to have been steppe derived in any case. Found nothing about GAC, but of course my research is superficial and I want to be corrected if the idea has a solid base.
For the general outline all this changes little because the steppe element is the dominant in all these development and the main direction for expansions and conquests is almost always from East to West.
@Rob: Thanks, will take a look if its available!
@Cre Atee said...
" Germanic and Illyrian are not Western European languages by any means"
No, I wrote exactly what all linguists write - read Porzig, etc. Here we are talking not only about the separation of Centum/Satem, but also about lexical closeness and morphological closeness. The influence of Balto-Slavic languages on German was later. Read Porzig and other linguists. See the trees of the languages that I brought in the beginning.
@Vladimir "Dnipro-Donetsk gave 50% EHG in the standard steppe format 50% CHG and 50% EHG. Moreover, this culture, along with other pit-comb ceramic cultures, gave R1a to the CWC. Therefore, to state that Dnipro-Donetsk is not related to IE means that CWC is not related to IE."
It's a total fantasy. Dnieper-Donets has R1b and I2a! But not R1a. It does not have CHG, and it is enhanced with WHG! Do not shred nonsense, Bugo-Dniester culture is not local, it was not there and was not. Etc.
Ok, even Roman verified the late GAC intrusion deep into Romania. Honestly, that was new to me and opens up new possibilities for a lot of things, including the reappearance of GAC related lineages and customs in Unetice probably. They might have running circles while evading the steppe competitors where they were stronger and allied up where necessary.
Fascinating. I will try to get more sources on the issue, because it has trans-regional importance. Every pieces of Information welcomed.
Also interesting that steppe related people built burial monuments on top of their defeated enemies destroyed houses. Well, thats something and makes clear that mounds were indeed marks in the landscape showing off a clan dynasty's power.
But on top of the ruined settlements of the foes, thats mean but a great symbolic gesture. Wonder how widespread the custom was.
The historiography of the world's archeologists' opinions about Sintashta is gigantic, each archeologist has his own opinion, but none of them connected Sintashta and Sredniy Stog II culture. Now there is some consensus among the majority that three components participated in the addition of Sintashta: Abashevo, Final Catacomb - which is probably by the KMK, and Volsk-Lbischeno in which some are include the North Birsk Cemetry (Bashkiria near to Sintashta) with its Unetic-like things.
Only every archeologist has his own opinion about the leading culture, someone draws attention to the rite of burial, he has roots in CWC, but was formed under the direct participation of Final Catacomb. Someone on the pottery, and they are the closest it has to Abashevo. Someone on the proto-city fortification system and weapons, and they are related to Volsk-Lbischeno. Everyone considers to be leading their culture - Final Catacomb or Abashevo. But nobody already considers Yamnaya-like cultures as ancestral to Sintashta now.
Archie. In "Genomic history of South-Eastern Europe". Ian Matheson ..."instance Vasilevka 3 i1819 / 6462 BC / Ukraine_hg with haplogroup R1a. Further read D. ya. Telegin" Dnieper-Donetsk cultural burial grounds and their historical place " considered a group of burial grounds of the Dnieper-Donetsk type, formed on the Dnieper river among the local Neolithic population. The beginning of this process should be attributed, apparently, to the end of the Mesolithic time (Vasilevka 3-upper burial), when the CRO-magnon tribes spread here." Farther. Ian Matheson instance I Deriivka 5876. 5960 BC Haplogroup R1a. Now we read Kotova NS "Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in the steppes of Eastern Europe" " in the interfluve of the Don and the Kalmius rivers, the destruction of the traditional way of life of the population of the Lower don and Sur culture served as the impetus for the creation of the culture of the Middle stack about 5300 BC."Next read L. S. Klein: "Mariupol culture (Dnieper-Donetsk, Azov-Dnieper) - the transition from the Neolithic to Eneolithic (subneolithic) culture, common between the Don and the Dnieper in the steppes and forest-steppes in the second half of the V Millennium BC, and according to some archaeologists (N. Kotov) - occupying the entire fifth Millennium and leaving a little in the sixth and beginning of the fourth. According to Telegin, the Dating is even wider: 6500-4000 years BC. " Thus, in Derievka instance i5876 refers to the Dnieper-Donetsk culture. Learn, Archie, or at least think logically.
@Vladimir
I5876 7040-6703 calBCE (7960±30 BP, PSUAMS-2811) is Mesolithic! It is not the Dnieper-Donets culture!
Vasilevka 3 I1819 8825-8561 calBCE (9420±50 BP, Poz-81128) is Mesolithic! It is not the Dnieper-Donets culture!
Learn the material part, and an ignorant, don't lie to anybody. You always give false quotes from the sources, where it is written exactly opposite to your statements, and you are not know of the modern knowledge, all that you are pulling it is from the sources of 30-50 years ago.
You can see that you don't know anything, all these names you've just found out, you haven't read anything from Kotova, which you don't know why you've mentioned, but you're imagining yourself to deceive other people with your fantasies that you're making on the go.
And do not fantasize, the Dnieper-Donets culture appeared later than 6000BC, these are scientific facts, not abstract assessments. This is the culture of the Middle Neolithic.
@Gaska, insult all you want. I know it is a defense mechanism because your sources have told you (and others have openly confirmed on this blog) that L51 has been found in Chalcolithic
NE Europe which is the extreme furthest distance from where you originally had it in Iberia and/or Basque speaking SW France. Try to at least guess a culture within the same time zone next time! Hahahahahahaha!
Archi With all due respect to you, but Telegin still a doctorate, in otochi from you. And if he says, that burial Vasilyevka 3 this Dnepr-Donetsk means so and there is. If Dr. Sciences Kotova says, that in 5100 in podneprovye, where and is Dereivka, still was Azov - Dnepr culture, and Dr. Sciences Maple says, that Azov-Dnepr culture this, too, most, that and Dnepr-Donetsk culture, then perishing sorry, doctors know better than you and I, naturally, believe them, not you
@Rocca
Congratulations, 4 times pathetic, you will have to change your name - Luckily no one
that truly understand archeology and genetics has paid attention to your absurd theories. L51 in Chalcolithic NE Europe? Now keep thinking that those rumors are true, you're going to take more surprises yet- Delenda est Yamnaya
@Vladimir Don't imagine it, Telegin's long dead, it's a very old scientist who wrote in the 60s and 70s. He did not say this, show where he attributes this burial as a Dnieper-Donetsk burial site? Vasilyevka 3 (9200-8000BC!) entirely belongs to the unknown Mesolithic culture, this is the data of all, including Telegin. So you can choke on your anger, but don't you dare lie.
Did you even realize yourself that you are referring to Kotova? You are talking some illogical mumbling. You need to see a doctor, you have a completely frustrated understanding of the logical apparatus. Nobody can understand you, because you do not understand what you are writing.
Another problem you have, Archie, is that you can't process information creatively. Telegin wrote that in a certain period new people came to the Dnieper, which had not been there before, they were CRO-magnons, they had other funeral rites, they brought with them pit ceramics, which had not been there before, and so on. One of the burials of these people is Vasilevka 3. Telegin was called the culture of this people - the Dnieper-Donetsk. Now geneticists have conducted a genetic study of the remains of this man and determined that they are from 8800 BC. What would a creative person do? He would propose to make the Dnieper-Donetsk culture more ancient. What does Archie do? He calls it Mesolithic. You would still be guided by geographical coordinates
@Vladimir Before you write your inventions deceiving other people and shame in front of everyone you should have at least an elementary archaeological basis, which you do not have, because you see all the names and names for the first time. To begin with, read a detailed multi-volume book "Археология СССР", not to know its is a shame, and do not pull out the articles in which you do not understand anything.
@Vladimir Fantasist Vladimir, you lied to Telegin and gave your fantasies for his opinion! It's disgusting. Vasilyevka 3 had nothing to do with the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, neither anthropologically, nor archaeologically, nor genetically. A creative cheater.
All scientists have long established that Dnipro-Donetsk people came to this region, but from where the outsiders exist many versions.
Well, this argument has lost its meaning. Much more interesting another. Pit ceramics came not only to the Dnieper, but also to the don. And here's what's interesting. It turns out that the migration of Repino culture was not the first from the Lower don . Before it, a few millennia earlier there was migration. "A. T. Sinyuk (1986. P. 176) in the development of middle don culture identifies three stages-early (I), middle (II) and late (III), which are called monastic, Cherkassy and dronikhinsky.
The first stage is characterized by straight-walled ostrodon pots with an admixture of grass or sand, ornamented almost exclusively with a sub-triangular-nakol-chaty pattern. Only such ceramics lies in the lower (8-5) layers Alakolskoy Ducts. It accounted for about 70% of the finds in the lower horizons of the University and Cherkasy sites, as well as the vast majority in the Monastery site.
The middle stage is characterized by the spread on the Middle don of collar Cherkasy and" lower don " ceramics, which appeared here under the influence of southern cultures - rakushechnoyarskaya (late stage), as well as probably seroglazovskaya, Samara and Nadporozhskaya.
The late stage of the middle don culture begins after the disappearance of the horizon of collar ceramics and the spread of materials with dronikhin ceramics. Based on the General historical situation on the don in the Neolithic period, it can be assumed that this time refers to the penetration of the don and Dolgov culture, which led to the emergence of the above-mentioned rybnoozerskaya pit-nakolchatoy ceramics.
Observations on the stratigraphy of the Yarlukov Bayou, University, Cherkassk and Rybnoozersky sites show that the middle don culture is replaced by middle don and early European monuments such as Repin Khutor".
@Gaska
"I respect everyone who doesn't think like me"
*calls Rocca "pathetic" four times for disagreeing with him*
When are you going to get it through your thick skull that no one but you cares about Yamnaya anymore? And that Corded Ware is so similar and geographically close that it dosen't really make much difference? L51 is coming west from Russia, whether you like it or not, and talking your precious DF-27 founder effect won't do you much good when it becomes apparent that the founders were guys with eastern European grandfathers, lol.
"L51 in Chalcolithic NE Europe? Now keep thinking that those rumors are true"
It's cool, I'm just looking forward to seeing how you try to spin things when it turns out to be true, you're going to have to tie yourself into a knot.
@Vladimir I hope you can read at least in any language. Because it says that Vasilievka 3 is a Mesolithic burial ground, that it does not belong to the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, that after it, according to Telegin (middle 60s), a new population of Cro-Magnoid type comes.
@Bob Floy
1º-Pathetic is to pretend that the V perforated buttons have their origin in Eastern Europe and that this is the origin of that custom on the BBC when you don't know Chalcolithic in Western Europe well enough to affirm such a thing.
2º-Pathetic is insulting and saying "you are full of shit" or "you are a complete charlatan"
3º-Pathetic is not recognizing that you have made a fool of yourself when it is proven that you are not right- Or do you think Mr Rocca knew that the V perforated buttons have been found in Magdalenian sites?
4º-Pathetic is to say that other people insult when the one you insulted has been you, and even more pathetic to think that you can hurt someone by saying L51 in chalcolithic NE Europe-
In any case, this is not new, many people have been having pathetic behaviors for years and nobody is shocked, so calm yourself down because you will continue to see this frequently-
Regarding you, what I am waiting for, is that you contribute some interesting archaeological or genetic knowledge to this conversation. So far you have just said that nobody cares about Yamnaya culture anymore, that my ancestors are from the east and about my behavior when L51 appears in Eastern Europe. Is that all you can say? you always presume to let yourself be carried away by the data, well, what I hope is that you continue to behave like this in the future
@Archi "@Vladimir I hope you can read at least in any language. Because it says that Vasilievka 3 is a Mesolithic burial ground, that it does not belong to the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, that after it, according to Telegin (middle 60s), a new population of Cro-Magnoid type comes."
Are you referring to the new population of Cro-Magnoid type Sredny Stog II?
I tend to associate Cro-Magnoid round faced brachocephalic types with HG populations, usually WHG.
@Andrzejewski What does Sredniy Stog II have to do with this? After the Mesolithic Vasilievka 3. It is about the Dnieper-Donets culture mainly.
@Gaska
"even more pathetic to think that you can hurt someone by saying L51 in chalcolithic NE Europe"
If you're referring to me, I'm not trying to hurt you, although it's kind of funny that you think that ;D
I just can't understand why you keep insisting that this is impossible, when you've been told that it's basically a certainty by both Davidski and your own inside sources. As a matter of fact, you said it first, as I recall. It's clear to everyone but you that you just don't want to believe it, and are in denial. It's this denial that I keep responding to, in case you haven't noticed.
"what I am waiting for, is that you contribute some interesting archaeological or genetic knowledge to this conversation"
I've explained why I think every single think I've argued for, in fact, but again, you seem to either not notice or just overwrite it in your brain as quickly as you can, so that you can keep saying things like this:
"you have just said that nobody cares about Yamnaya culture anymore, that my ancestors are from the east"
As far as me being "carried away" by the data, that's just not true.
It just so happens that these recent previews of things that have yet to be published happen to fit with some things that I've suspected for a long time. Also, for the record, I find Iberia and the Basque issue fascinating, if the PIE homeland turned out to be in the Pyrenees I'd be arguing for that. Just want to know the truth.
@Bob
If you allow me some advice I would not pay much attention to the rumors- In fact, if you remember when I commented on what they had told me, I said textually Northern Russia ????, simply because I have seen what we have seen in these years, I cannot believe anything if it is not absolutely proven. In any case, if it were true, R1b-l51 would be absolutely disconnected from IE and I don't think that's what supporters of the steppe theory are looking for.And believe me there are many people who are not interested in knowing the truth and have been demonstrating it for many years, they simply try to demonstrate previously preconceived theories. We Spaniards may be too proud, but nobody is going to explain our history or our prehistory, we are intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions, and that is simply what I am doing.
@Andrzejewsk. Archie just wanted to argue. Naturally you are right. Vasilevka 3 is a CRO-magnon. About this and writes Telegin, that in late Mesolithic on Dnepr came CRO-magnon tribes and Vasilyevka 3 is one of the first burials these people. To argue about whether this time can be attributed to the Dnieper Donetsk culture or to the Mesolithic preceding it is silly. Is that the point? Archaeological cultures are separated not by name, but by substance: by the new anthropology of new people, by new burials, by new ceramics, and so on.
@Vladimir "@Andrzejewsk Archie just wanted to argue. Naturally you are right."
Learn to read. Andre asked about the Sredniy Stog II and the Cro-Magnon type in it.
"Vasilevka 3 is a CRO-magnon"
In Vasilyevka 3 is not a Cro-Magnon type population, do not lie and fantasize. You just don't know anything, you've proved it to everyone, but you're delusional.
"About this and writes Telegin, that in late Mesolithic on Dnepr came CRO-magnon tribes and Vasilyevka 3 is one of the first burials these people."
You're lying again, you're a liar, you're a sneaky, honest liar. Telegin does not write that in Vasilievka-3 Cro-Magnon type of population, you are lying again on the text. He does not suppose that by the end of the existence of Vasilyevka 3 Cro-Magnon tribes began to spread, before they did not exist, literally according to the text!
What kind of ceramics is there in Mesolithic?
VladimirTarashkin, you're disgracing the "Russians". To such an extent to deceive, however, you probably do not understand the language.
Here's the translation of Telegin's text.
"In the Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eastern Europe, collective tombs are unknown - the group of Dnieper-Donets type burials was formed on the Dnieper River among the local Neolithic population. The beginning of this process should be attributed, apparently, to the end of the Mesolithic time (Vasilievka 3 - upper burials), when Cro-Magnon tribes spread here.
At the end of the Neolithic Age - the beginning of the Metal Age, the Dnieper-Donetsk type burial grounds are changed, the rite of collective burial places is quickly replaced by individual burial places, first stretched out, and then, in the early Pit Grave Time, curled on the back, the rite of accompanying the deceased with dishes appears. It is necessary to suppose that the cultural influence of tribes of southern origin, obviously Sredniy Stog, Tripolye others, for whom the features of the funeral ritual were common from ancient times, was of decisive importance in this."
In the next article of this magazine it is written just how much the Dnieper-Donets tribes differed from the Mesolithic population.
G. F. DEBEC THE PHYSICAL TYPE OF PEOPLE IN THE DNIEPER-DONETS CULTURE
"On average, people of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture do not have any significant facial flatness. On individual turtles and small series, of course, it can be marked due to normal variability. In addition, some elements of Siberian origin cannot be considered impossible to influence. In short, the skulls of the Donetsk-Donetsk culture cannot be considered as a grateful material for the discussion of the problem of the origin of the flatness of the facial skeleton in the peoples of Eastern Europe. Anyway, the Europeoid type of facial structure dominates.
Compared to their predecessors in the Mesolithic era, people of the Dnieper-Donets culture differed, as it has already been said, by a more massive structure of the skeleton. It's the same in the skull structure."
Clarifies the terminology - The population of Ukraine in the Neolithic and Early Eneolithic Era according to anthropological data. Potekhina I., 1999
"In the structure of skulls from the Neolithic burial grounds of Ukraine G. F. Debets saw a combination of features characteristic of the Caucasians of the northern zone and believed that this type of "practically does not differ from Cro-Magnon in a broad sense of this term." Being a kind of modern human race, Cro-Magnons were widespread in the late Paleolithic Europe and are nowhere to be found. In the area bounded by Lake Onega and the Middle Dnieper (Vovnigi, some skulls of Vasilievka II), they survived until the Neolithic period (Debets, 1960).
Specialists made attempts to define the type of neolithic population of the Dnieper-Priazovian region in greater detail. В. В. Bunak (1959), for example, noting the large size of these skulls and some flatness of their facial part, attributed them to a separate, "Vovnigian" type. It differs significantly from the "Voloshsky" type selected by this researcher on the basis of materials of Ukrainian Mesolithic burials Voloshskoye and Vasilievka I, III. The proto-European variant of the "Vovnigian" type is distinguished by the Neolithic population from the territory of Ukraine and G.Zinevich (1967.-S: 160).
A special place in the classification of synchronous and older series is given to skulls from the Neolithic burial grounds of the Nadporozhye-Priazovye I. Hoffmann, who dedicated a monographic study to the population of Ukraine in the Mesolithic and Neolithic Era. Based on the fact that such features of the proto-European type as massiveness and large width of the face have been significantly increased in the studied population even in comparison with the upper Paleolithic, I. Gokhman (1966. - S. 173-175) does not consider it possible to confine the Neolithic Nadporozhians to the proto-European type, which, in his opinion, "would be tantamount to abandoning the attempt to more specifically trace the formation of the ancient population in the territory under study". Not finding complete analogues to Neolithic skulls from Ukraine among the proto-European series of Eastern Europe and the south of Western Siberia, or among craniological variants of Western Europe, I. Gokhman singles them out as a special Nadporozhsko-Priazovskiy variant of the proto-European type.
Thus, in the special literature on the anthropological type of the Neolithic population of Ukraine different definitions were used. In terminology of В. Bunak this is a Vovnigian type, G. Debets Cro-Magnon in the broadest sense, I. Gokhman is a Nadporozhsko-Priazovsky."
It is unclear what here is written? translation of Telegin's text:
"In the Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eastern Europe, collective tombs are unknown - the group of Dnieper-Donets type burials was formed on the Dnieper River among the local Neolithic population. The beginning of this process should be attributed, apparently, to the end of the Mesolithic time (Vasilievka 3 - upper burials), when Cro-Magnon tribes spread here.
@Vladimir "It is unclear what here is written? translation of Telegin's text:"
Learn to read! Go to the first grade of primary school, then you will learn to read and understand.
Hey @Gaska! I am the "Unknown" whom you answered some time ago here. So you said the BB steppe signal is female mediated. Now I understand you a little better.
Regarding p312, where can we find their ancestor lineages in Neolithic or Mesolithic Iberia ( or near to it )?
Also, have you researched hemochromatosis c282 HFE gene mutation? It seems to be present at 10% of Basque ( and Irish ) population, matching BB culture map. I just found out I have this condition ( through Venetia and north Portuguese ancestry where it goes a little higher also ), amazing to know I am BB.
@Lvciano said-BB steppe signal is female mediated-
Largely yes
P312 is a chalcolithic marker (2-800-2.600 BC)
HFE gene mutations analysis in Basque hereditary haemochromatosis patients and controls.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11840200
@Archi: I read from various authors that they consider DDC to have different stages, of which the oldest are indeed quite old and essentially pre-Neolithic. There is also the Middle Don culture of related HG derived populations and there are other smaller groups.
PPIE being so special because it was between the 3 most important cultures of Europe at its time: From the West Balkan Neolithic, from the North sophisticated hunters and from the East the Caucasian Neolithic settlers which moved along the Black Sea coast it seems.
Do you say that the Northern forager component we see in the Lower Don culture was completely unrelated to DDC early stages? How is this even possible? What steppe HG culture would you have in mind instead and how did it separate from early DDC? The real development was that some HG mixed and adopted Neolithic Caucasian/Balkan achievements and adapted them in their own way (later DD did this), while others stayed behind.
Some Southern HG adopted Neolithic techniques, most likely by overtaking Caucasian heavy communities (like Rakushechny Yar settlement?), primarily the females and also, to a lesser degree, Balkan ones (like from Surskaya and possibly Bug-Dniestr culture). Both happened, cultural transfer through peaceful contacts and take-overs by force, especially at the time of drought when they had to move North from the Southern river valleys (according to Kotova). But in the end the HG derived lineages succeeded and formed their new steppe culture with the pieces they have incorporated form the Caucasian and Balkan Neolithics which expanded in the Lower Don region.
But I'm struggling to identify the exact HG components relations before it was acculturated by the Caucasian and Balkan Neolithics, especially if you deny a common root (!) with DD further North.
BTW: Was a site of the Grebeniki culture tested already? Do they cluster with the rest of the Ukrainian Neolithic?
From Kotova, Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppe, p. 107:
"Nowadays the oldest settlements of the Sredniy Stog culture have been
known in the Lower Don and Kalmius basins (Razdorskoe, Razdolnoe, fig.2). Here
the oldest Mariupol and Karataevo cemeteries also located, where the Eneolithic
burials situated near the Neolithic ones and had common types of adornments. On
the basis of these facts it is possible to assume that the Don-Kalmius
interfluve was the place of origin the Sredniy Stog culture. Probably, the long
coexistence of the population of Surskaja and Lower Don cultures has led to the
blending of traditions and formation a new culture on their basis."
On the point and she clearly argues for the origin of Sredniy Stog in the Lower Don Culture. I would argue that settlements like Rakushechny Yar (no tested remains yet AFAIK?!) were dominated by CHG, but a minority EHG element from the start, with EHG from the surrounding foragers constantly increasing, until they were able to take over the whole Lower Don region and integrate cultural elements form Surskaya. Obviously the early ANF related ancestry in the steppe people should be mostly Surskaya-related derived. I would assume a dominant position of the forager lineages, similar to TRB and GAC in Northern Europe in a similar situation at the fringes of the Neolithic colonisation.
@Archi @Vlad @zardos @JuanRivera Let's assume that what Zardos was saying made sense, then Gimbutas turned out to be right, after all! Because she specifically referred to a Lower Don Culture which domesticated the horse and had skilled metallurgy workers who used these advantages to "storm" allegedly "peaceful" Neolithic cultures. Can I interpret what you said as a Dnieper-Donets culture (EHG?)foragers who during later stages acculturated and interbred with both EEF (Bug Dniester) and CHG-rich populations (mainly females) to become the PIE?
Who were the Bug-Dniester people? Anatolians or WHG? Did they mainly have Y-DNA hap I2a?
Did agriculture in the Neolithic Ukraine arrive from the west with some EEF groups like GAC, C-T or TRB, or did they rise organically in Ukraine?
Who exactly were the "Cro-Magnon" broad-faced people in Ukraine Neolithic according to Archi? Were they some EHG people like Combed Ware who arrived from the East? An epi-paleolithic relic? Were these brachycephalic people those who brought a putative PPIE speech into Ukraine?
I'd also like to learn more about the near-complete annihilation and replacement which took place in Ukraine sometime between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Were the "Voloshsky" people exterminated by the "Vivnigian" Indo-Europeans? (I'd like to see a skeletal reconstruction of both types).
@Davidski once said that there were 2 stages of the Sredny Stog Culture, whereby the first culture was wiped out by the second one, the latter one being IE speaking. Is that true?
@zardos "I read from various authors that they consider DDC to have different stages, of which the oldest are indeed quite old and essentially pre-Neolithic."
The oldest dates of the Dnieper-Donets culture are about 5850 calBC.
"What steppe HG culture would you have in mind instead and how did it separate from early DDC?"
I have no idea what kind of steppe culture could come from the DDC. Why invent what wasn't there? It didn't give rise to any culture at all, it just existed for a very long time, in the Belarusian Polesye it was up to ~3000BC-2800BC.
@Archi "I have no idea what kind of steppe culture could come from the DDC. Why invent what wasn't there? It didn't give rise to any culture at all, it just existed for a very long time, in the Belarusian Polesye it was up to ~3000BC-2800BC."
2800BC coincides with the onset of the CWC era and archeological complex throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Let's presume that DDC was subsumed and assimilated into Corded Ware?
@Andrzejewski
"Who exactly were the "Cro-Magnon" broad-faced people in Ukraine Neolithic according to Archi? Were they some EHG people like Combed Ware who arrived from the East? An epi-paleolithic relic? Were these brachycephalic people those who brought a putative PPIE speech into Ukraine?"
It's the exact opposite, you have a strange understanding of the texts. DDC has a higher percentage of WHG than Mesolithic and Eneolithic. They could not have been the ancestors of Indo-Europeans either genetically or archeologically or especially anthropologically. It is a completely extinct population, they can be compared in appearance with Neanderthals.
The Mesolithic population was much more like modern humans than the DDC. There are no even hypotheses that DDC was spoken in Indo-European language.
"Were the "Voloshsky" people exterminated by the "Vivnigian" Indo-Europeans?"
Why would the Vovnigian type be Indo-Europeans? Such assumptions were not even made. Just the opposite is true.
@Andrzejewski
"2800BC coincides with the onset of the CWC era and archeological complex throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Let's presume that DDC was subsumed and assimilated into Corded Ware?"
These assumptions are groundless. There is nothing in common between the CWC and the DDC.
I have given a range of dates, because the exact date of the end of this culture is difficult to determine, it is such a bearish angle.
@Archi: But 5850 BC is sufficient overall for the transition I described. But please, if you don't agree with DD being the forager-transitional contributor of EHG, which group do you have in mind? A direct link from the older layers of local HG? That would mean basically the same people, just before the formation of DDC.
@Andre: This is a different timeline. I'm speaking about the formation of the Lower Don culture which is absolutely decisive. It was Lower Don -> Sredniy Stog -> SS/Dereivka -> Corded Ware.
Its about the later stages of Lower Don Culture, after that DD is largely of no interest any more, whether some groups of women and an ally here or there were assimilated or not.
The typical steppe ancestry was formed in the Lower Don culture and the vast majority can be derived from there. The Neolithic element came in with Surskaya primarily, Bug Dniestr secondarily, the Caucasian element settled down along the Black Sea region, exact origin still debatable, but it should have been present in Rakushechny Yar, most likely already in a mixed form with EHG.
But the exact group of hunters which set themselves on top of Rakushechny Yar are now my main quest. Though some might see problems with the general outline even, most alternatives are worse.
If DD is too late or even a seperate entity, I want to have alternatives from the region in question and arguments for why this is the best candidate.
@Zardos You just said earlier today that Lower Don founding tribes came from DDC. Quote: "Do you say that the Northern forager component we see in the Lower Don culture was completely unrelated to DDC early stages? How is this even possible? What steppe HG culture would you have in mind instead and how did it separate from early DDC? The real development was that some HG mixed and adopted Neolithic Caucasian/Balkan achievements and adapted them in their own way (later DD did this), while others stayed behind."
But now it seems as if you're contradicting yourself on that: "Its about the later stages of Lower Don Culture, after that DD is largely of no interest any more, whether some groups of women and an ally here or there were assimilated or not."
Maybe Rakushechny Yar was the source of CHG ancestry in Indo-Europeans.
@ zardos In any case, the Indo-European EHG from the east of the Don and north in Eneolithic, in the same Volga-Don region there was a mixture of EHG60%+CHG40%.
There are already many people who have been doing cultures guessing, but it does not make any sense now, as long as there is no genetic data they do not make sense.
@Archi: Well, in a lot of cases archaeological and anthropological studies of the past anticipated genetic results, like in the case of the Neolithic transition, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker culture or the expansion of Indoeuropeans to the Far East.
So I thought you might be able and willing to narrow it down on maximum 2 representative candidate sites or something like that :)
@Andre: 1st I realisted Archi might be right with his reservation, secondly:
"But now it seems as if you're contradicting yourself on that:"
This is no contradiction, because I always had a very specific regional subgroup of DD in mind which participated in the original formation (!) of the Lower Don culture.
Its like the Saxons which participated in the formation of the English, not the Goths or Lombards, even if they were Germanics too. Yet we don't even know a lot about DD, have just a few samples etc. Some even claim that there is not one DDC, but rather different cultures with some common characteristics, but they form no unity at all.
After the Lower Don culture was form, it was in any case done and over. What those in the DD tradition did from then on is not of interest. They were the hillybillies which had no say any more and were pushed aside by the new mixed group which had all the advantages.
"Maybe Rakushechny Yar was the source of CHG ancestry in Indo-Europeans."
I wouldnt say it like that because it was there already and Rakushechny Yar was the first step to the formation of PPIE together with the additional HG component with which they fusioned at some point. The real source is beyond Rakushechny Yar and came from deep in the Caucasus or even beyond, this too has to be further explored. But in Rakushechny Yar we will find with very high probability a higher percentage of this original component. They were the first to bring Neolithic innovations to the region and they were so early that later waves influencing the Caucasian region might be of no significance.
Other alternatives are thinkable, but, imho, simply less likely.
@zardos
The DDC did not participate in the formation of the Lower Don culture, you confuse it with the Mariupol community, it is a community that united the type of burials, some common views on the type of burials.
The Rakushechno Yar culture and the Lower Don culture is the name of the same culture.
@Zardos "I wouldnt say it like that because it was there already and Rakushechny Yar was the first step to the formation of PPIE together with the additional HG component with which they fusioned at some point. The real source is beyond Rakushechny Yar and came from deep in the Caucasus or even beyond, this too has to be further explored. But in Rakushechny Yar we will find with very high probability a higher percentage of this original component. They were the first to bring Neolithic innovations to the region and they were so early that later waves influencing the Caucasian region might be of no significance."
My take on your paragraph is this:
1. Rakushechny Yar was the first step to the formation of PPIE; but it was overwhelmingly CHG before being overrun by surrounding EHG groups. Ergo, PPIE must've been at its source a CHG language.
2. "came from deep in the Caucasus or even beyond," "Even beyond"? Do you mean that it may have come from Iran or anywhere past the Caucasus like Uruk (Sumerian?) expansion or some Anatolian population which arrived in the Caucasus around 6,000 years ago and mixed into the CHG natives?
@Andrzejewski "Rakushechny Yar was the first step to the formation of PPIE; but it was overwhelmingly CHG before being overrun by surrounding EHG groups. Ergo, PPIE must've been at its source a CHG language."
It is full nonsense.
@ Zardos
'' Rakushechny Yar was the first step to the formation of PPIE together''
This is sheer speculation. R. Yar is a Neolithic culture from c. 6000 BC
To claim you know it is PPIE seems non-sensical
@Archi "It is full nonsense."
I was just quoting something that @zardos had written earlier
@Archi: "The Rakushechno Yar culture and the Lower Don culture is the name of the same culture."
Rakushechno Yar is one special case because of the long habitation of the site on the Don island. There and on other sites which prove the development of the general Lower Don culture you can see the evolution. I simply assumed that from this early core group the later Lower Don Culture developed with a constantly increasing percentage of EHG related ancestry and dominance. I know, its very speculative, but it would explain the early presence of the mixture in the region imho.
@Rob: "This is sheer speculation. R. Yar is a Neolithic culture from c. 6000 BC"
Yes it is. But according to some scholars its rather Eastern-Caucasian influenced, rather than Western Balkan derived. E.g.:
Zu kaukasischen und vorderasiatischen Einfluessen
bei der Neolithisierung im unteren Donbecken. Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Cybrij und Viktor Cybrij. Quotation with autotranslate:
We believe that this
numerous analogies on cultural-historical relevant
Let events and connections be traced back.
Our comparative analysis has shown that at least
two regions strong links to
Neolithic of the Lower Dons show. It deals
around the northern Zagros Mountains and around the
Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. In the cultural group
M'lefatien in the north-central Zagros we can really
several cultural similarities with the
Observe Neolithic of the Lower Dons.
Now people could have adopted these techniques and styles by cultural transfer too, but I think this suffices as an argument to consider the option R. yar being originally a Caucasian foundation which developed under the influence of local hunter gatherers first and incoming Balkan farmers second.
I know there are other options for the spread of CHG-related ancestry on the steppe, Kotova mentioned Meshoko-Zamok-Svobodnoe and the Nalchik cemetery.
"...it is possible to assume, that the settlements of the Zamok-Svobodnoe
type already existed about 5100 BC."
But I was under the impression that it was already there in an earlier colonisation event during the earlist Neolithic period, represented in the very early layers of R. Yar.
Since we have no testing done on R. Yar, why are you so sure they are not Caucasian derived?
@ Zardos
''Yes it is. But according to some scholars its rather Eastern-Caucasian influenced, rather than Western Balkan derived. ''
Okay, but so what ?
''Since we have no testing done on R. Yar, why are you so sure they are not Caucasian derived?''
I made no comment about whether R. Yar is 'Caucasu-derived' or 'Balkan'derived', in either way, both would seem like simplistic abstractions
Rather I was asking what is the basis for you you (& Andrzejewski) suggesting that it is PPIE.
What is the basis for this ? It would be interesting for you to outline the anthropological, genomic & archaeological processes.
@Rob: "This is sheer speculation. R. Yar is a Neolithic culture from c. 6000 BC
To claim you know it is PPIE seems non-sensical"
I meant it was the first step (!) that these colonists landed there, because they were so influential for the following layers. This early settlements layers were highly influential for the formation of the Lower Don culture, which in turn I consider PPIE in its later stages at least - because of its direct genealogical relationship to Sredniy Stog. So without the early layer, no IE as we know it and unless there is break in the genealogy I'm missing, Lower Don is the ancestral culture.
I'm not talking about the language they used, because in fact I would assume there were a language shift from early to later stages.
I know its speculative, but I would like to know where exactly others see logical flaws.
@Rob: "I made no comment about whether R. Yar is 'Caucasu-derived' or 'Balkan'derived', in either way, both would seem like simplistic abstractions
Rather I was asking what is the basis for you you (& Andrzejewski) suggesting that it is PPIE.
What is the basis for this ? It would be interesting for you to outline the anthropological, genomic & archaeological processes."
By now I consider the LDC as essential for the whole PIE problem. But the LDC was a fairly highly developed, old culture in the region and the PPIE must have had CHG-related ancestry.
Now if R. yar is THE most influential colonisation event from the Caucasian region, which led to the spread of this component in all directions in the following stages and the Lower Don is, as most of the evidence seems to prove, THE root culture for all developed steppe cultures (SSC/Dereivka/Khvalynsk/Yamnaya) we deal with PPIE latest at the time the EHG-CHG fusion in the right proportions was finished.
So probably not at the early layers of the oldest Lower Don settlements, these are ancestral nevertheless (at least for the CHG component), but in the LLDC its PPIE already unless the chain to CWC can be broken, for which I see no argument any more.
“By now I consider the LDC as essential for the whole PIE problem. But the LDC was a fairly highly developed, old culture in the region and the PPIE must have had CHG-related ancestry.
Now if R. yar is THE most influential colonisation event from the Caucasian region, which led to the spread of this component in all directions in the following stages and the Lower Don is, as most of the evidence seems to prove, THE root culture for all developed steppe cultures (SSC/Dereivka/Khvalynsk/Yamnaya) we deal with PPIE latest at the time the EHG-CHG fusion in the right proportions was finished. 0
Ok I see. Let’s see how that theory holds up :)
This model would, btw, also allow additional CHG admixture events e.g. with Svobodnoe to have taken place, especially in the East, changing the proportions for Yamnaya. While in the West, an increase of Balkan farmer ancestry would have happened during the fusion with Azov-Dniepr and genflow from TCC. Khvalynsk could have mixed with HG and Eastern steppe people, reducing its original LDC proportions in comparison. Just speculating about the results we have so far...
@Rob: "Ok I see. Let’s see how that theory holds up :)"
Well, probably my approach will be ridiculed soon, but if not, it can be proven very easily by two new results:
1st The early R. yar shows high proportions of CHG-related ancestry which fits into the steppe ancestry model
2nd The later stages of LDC show the right proportions for a steppe root population (deviations of SSC/Dereivka : Khvalynsk : Yamnaya explained above) and the right paternal lineages.
If this is true, my model is correct, if not, I'm wrong. But then I would like to see a sound alternative model, will be difficult I guess :p
@Zardos "Now people could have adopted these techniques and styles by cultural transfer too, but I think this suffices as an argument to consider the option R. yar being originally a Caucasian foundation which developed under the influence of local hunter gatherers first and incoming Balkan farmers second."
You can't avoid concluding that PPIE grew out of a predominantly CHG culture of the Lower Don. Will you admit that the nucleus of the most primal PPPPPIE language was CHG-derived?
"I'm not talking about the language they used, because in fact I would assume there were a language shift from early to later stages."
OK. Why would you assume a language shift in the first place, and if so then where did it come from, and by whom?
@ Zardos
Lower Don group is just one of the “steppe Neolithic” cultures. It’s priamacy seems to be a / ?your recent invention
There is nothing magical about CHG; it was brought with geometric microlith using groups from Caucasus
They weren’t pastoralists; nor were they the creators of kurgan traditions. Indeed, there is a 2000 yr gap between the 2 phenomena
But there’s nothing to preclude you from having fun and speculating
@Juan: If true an earlier colonisation from the Caucasian region would be even more desperately needed and if Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Cybrij and Viktor Cybrij comparative study is solid, R. yar is the single best option we have, especially since its at the very root of the early stage LDC. If they are completely right, it might even explain why D. Reich et al. insisted occasionally on a Transcaucasian origin of the CHG component in "Yamnaya-related" cultures. Who knows whether some LDC sample was already tested. Of if there are no tests, his team might just follow the opinion of these experts, since there not too many around for the LDC.
English paper from the authors with the title "‘Neolithisation’ in the NE Sea of Azov region - one step forward, two steps back":
"Rakushechnyi Yar on the Lower Don,
thought its formation was a result of
interaction between various cultural
influences, such as the Dnepr-Donec
cultures in the West from the Sursk
side and the Samara und Agidel’ cultures
in the East from the steppe regions
as well as the Ural mountains
(Belanovskaya 1995.176). Under the
influences of the Caucasian traditions,
following Belanovskaya,"
"These similarities allow us to suppose
that there was some influence from the Middle East,
especially the Zagros, in the origin of Rakushechnyi
Yar. Of paramount significance is the existence of
a package with distinct cultural similarities, which is
emphasised to argue for direct links between these
two regions."
@Andre: "OK. Why would you assume a language shift in the first place, and if so then where did it come from, and by whom?"
Because of the genetic (patrilineages) and probably ideological (symbolic, social organisation, shift to pastoralism etc.) shift from the early to the late stages. I simply assume that the forager-transitional clans, like a subgroup from DD or the like, became the dominant force. Probably when the usual drought hit the region hard and they had to migrate North to evade starvation and collapse. Or probably in an even earlier phase, I can't tell. But in the end they were on top and the CHG side definitely not.
@Rob: "But there’s nothing to preclude you from having fun and speculating"
Which we all do, aren't we :)
But I'm not sure about that, because LDC appears to be a core expansion phenomenon so to say. Like I said, any alternative welcomes and any logical fallacy should be factually proven.
@ Zardos
“But I'm not sure about that, because LDC appears to be a core expansion phenomenon so to say. Like I said, any alternative welcomes and any logical fallacy should be factually proven.”
It would be easier to address your points if they were accompanied by facts, so there’s some sort of common ground
In any case ; whilst some questions remain; the case for kurgan pastoralism in the steppe should be obvious by now
Holy crap!
I just realized that I got the wrong town of Mayaki in this blog entry from last year about the Y-chromosomes of early domesticated horses.
The Mayaki in the paper that I linked to is actually in western Ukraine, and it's an Usatovo culture site dating to 3,600-3,100 BC. I've made the relevant change on my map...
Of horses and men
The horse remains from this site belong to Y-HT-4, which is the sister clade of the most common Y-hg in modern domesticated horses, Y-HT-1. This suggests that the earliest horse in the ancient DNA record belonging to the modern domesticated horse lineage was from an Usatovo culture burial.
@Rob: Well, the most important fact is the spread of Neolithic technology on the steppe. If the dating for R. yar is correct, we deal with a very early phase and the only more autochthonous highly developed culture which is at that time not directly derived from the Balkan Neolithics, which in turn can't be ancestral to the steppe herders.
So I consider a very early Neolithisation of the steppe by a people largely independent from the Balkan farmers, so that they have a high cultural level when they first meet them and keep up their very own Neolithic traditions, a very important fact for the whole case. Even more so if the population in question might have the right ancestral proportions and paternal lineages in the later LDC stage, which we haven't found so far any earlier, but they were present in cultrues which can be derived from it.
@ Zardos
It's very important to understand the basic (but often confusing) distinction between steppe & forest “Neolithic” in Eastern Europe (some pointed pottery, but still a fisher-hunter economy; as per Soviet historiographic tradition) and the productive Neolithic with cereals, cattle, sheep, etc; as defined by Western scholars.
At present, there is no proven data for domesticates in the steppe in 6000 BC; or even 5000 BC. In the Caucasus at this time, the Shuvaleri culture just emerged; but it was a cereal and wine culture; without any clear links to the Pontic Steppe.
The idea that pastoralists jumped from the Zagros to the lower Don in 6000 BC is unlikely to be supported by future data.
So where doest that leave us ? Looking to the west; we see plenty of domesticates, esp cattle n sheep; we see C-T spreading along the Dnieper forest-steppe; and the Dnieper rapids samples we see a westward genomic shift +/- EEF exactly c. 5000 BC; and surprise surprise also when the earliest cattle offerings appear.
So as I said; the answer seems pretty clear.
@ Davidski
So can we possibly connect the Salzmünde Tabiano Horse with Usatovo ?
@ Davidski
Does this mean that at least some R1b Traders reached far into Central Europe before the Corded Ware arrived there ?
@Ric
I don't know what sort of horses were present in Middle to Late Neolithic Germany. The only >2,200 BC Y-haplogroup sample that I'm aware of from northern Germany belongs to the Y-HT-2 Przewalski lineage.
So this may have been a Botai-related horse, but its relationship to Botai horses need not have been very close. It's possible that such horses lived across much of northern Eurasia until the expansion of the Usatovo/Sintashta breed during the Bronze Age.
And I don't know anything about pre-Corded Ware traders in Germany from the east who may have belonged to R1b.
@ Davidski
Okay. Thanks.
I'm specifically recalling the Tabiano Coloured horse dated to between 3300 and 3100 BCE. that was found at or near Salzmünde. Since Przewalski horses seems not to have or retained this colour pattern and some other Modern Horse Breeds did retain it, the Mayaki sample seems possibly relevant as a connection between Usatovo and Salzmünde predating the Corded Ware expansion by a couple hundred years or so...
Sredny STog, Khvalnsky, Usatovo, Yamnaya, Sintashta all had domesticated horse. Did Bell Beaker & Corded Ware?
@David @Ric
Heyd on Baalberg / Salzmunde horse remains in a wider 'Steppe influence' context:
Kossinna’s smile (2017). Heyd argues that there are 2000 years of interaction between Steppe based populations and more Western populations that are not adequately explained by current genetic based models, including:
• Throughout the fourth millennium BC, there is evidence north and south of the Carpathian arc for close interrelationships between pre-Yamnaya societies of the Steppe and “indigenous cultures”.
• Round barrows with individual burials in the Baalberge culture of eastern Germany from c. 3,700 BCE and early horse bones/skulls at the same period and from the slightly later Salzmunde culture.
• New flint and copper daggers and occasional hammer-axes in the West and the graves of men buried with such weapons – warriors.
The emergence of anthropomorphic Stelae throughout Europe, including France and Iberia in the late fourth / early third millennium BC.
• Burial practices at Valencina de la Concepcion at 2875 – 2700 cal BC reminiscent of Yamnaya / Corded Ware Culture (CWC) graves.
• Close inter-relationships between pre-Yamnaya societies of the steppe belt and the 'indigenous' cultures both north and south of the Carpathian arc.
• Close interactions between Yamnaya and the Globular amphora culture along the rivers Prut, Dniester, the two Bugs and the San (Szmyt 2013).
• Interaction between Europe and the Steppe goes back as far as the fifth millennium BC to the graves of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka tradition.
@Samuel Andrews
„Sredny STog, Khvalnsky, Usatovo, Yamnaya, Sintashta all had domesticated horse. Did Bell Beaker & Corded Ware?”
In Poland CWC and GAC had domesticated horses. GAC used small forest horses and CWC large steppe horses.
Considering the Ukrainian transect that we have, the shift of samples over time on West Eurasia PC1 (roughly West Eurasia North-South) and PC2 (roughly West Eurasia East West) looks like as follows:
Plots - https://imgur.com/a/cQeFEgN
There are very few samples in the interval 5000 BCE - 4000 BCE.
There is essentially the one Ukr_N outlier which looks to be essentially Anatolia_N, and then two subsequent Ukraine_Neolithic samples who like identical to the set from 7000-5000 BCE, bearing no essentially no indication of any genetic change, and no indication of EEF ancestry.
(There's nothing too unusual about these two from a y / mt perspective, though one does bear mt H1, which is not otherwise seen in the Ukraine_N procession of U5 and U4, with one T2. Edit: Actually, error, this was Ukr_N who had H1, so there's nothing unusual mtwise about the two post-5000 BCE Ukraine_N samples at all...).
There is no further burial information on Grave 102 for this sample for Ukr_N outlier (I3719) in their paper.
Anatolian ancestry is then later next found only in composite with CHG and EHG (or "Piedmont En"), never again near as high as Ukr_N outlier this far east.
So there is very little basis to understand genetically what happens in the 5000-4000 BCE in Ukraine, while the relatively small sample set shows no indication of shift toward EEF over time in that period.
@zardos Rakushechnyi Yar is not a derivative of the (pre-)Caucasus. It had some imports from the South of the Black Sea, but this does not make CHG as PIE.
On a slight tangent, not really sure why Ukr_Meso: I5876 and I5885 are classified by Mathieson's paper with Mesolithic rather than Neolithic.
Both time and genetic clustering place them within the larger Neolithic set, rather than with the Meso five: I1819, I1737, I1733, I1763, I1734
See: https://i.imgur.com/SwpkhYr.png
@Rob Assume that the Rakushechnyi Yar is a PIE is possible, in any case the Lower Don was the area of the first formation of the Sredniy Stog culture, where it is the oldest.
@ EastPole
"In Poland CWC and GAC had domesticated horses. GAC used small forest horses and CWC large steppe horses."
What kind of fantasies?
@Bob The Sredniy Stog culture had a lot of trading operations and factories, the Suvorovo group had quite distant factories, the northernmost is Csongrad. Unfortunately, it couldn't have influenced Baalberg without genetics, maybe it was a purely cultural influence, maybe it wasn't.
@Archi
„What kind of fantasies?”
Read books and stop trolling.
@ Matt
''So there is very little basis to understand genetically what happens in the 5000-4000 BCE in Ukraine, while the relatively small sample set shows no indication of shift toward EEF over time in that period.''
What was , in fact, outlined is - ''Dnieper rapids samples we see a westward genomic shift +/- EEF exactly c. 5000 BC''
And as per Mathieson ''The Ukrainian Neolithic population has significant differences in ancestry compared to the Ukrainian Mesolithic population., our larger sample shows the that ANE ancestry decreases and WHG ancestry increases – as shown by the statistics. Unexpectedly, one Neolithic individual from Dereivka (I3719), which we directly date to 4949-4799 BCE, has entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry''
Of course, several other lines of evidence point in that direction incl. the appearance of I2a2 in Neolithic Ukraine, productive economy, Copper. And this extened further East into Russia .
@ Archi
''Assume that the Rakushechnyi Yar is a PIE is possible, in any case the Lower Don was the area of the first formation of the Sredniy Stog culture, where it is the oldest''
Sure its possible, but Sredny-Stog is a network of genmically-varied people. We know that from aDNA too.
Rob, there are very limited samples post 5000-4000 BCE - 2 out of 3 show no westward WHG or EEF shift at all, while 1 is simply Anatolia_N, with no basis to understand whether this individual represented a population, or simply an outlier, or what.
Any shift between Ukraine Meso->Ukraine N in a more WHG composition which Mathieson discusses is complete by around 7000 BCE, and no 8th millennium shift has any relevance to anything happening in the 5th millennium BCE.
You can discuss the archaeological correlates with zardos if you want, but there is little to nothing to support a genetic shift something that can be accurately characterised as a a westward genetic shift (on the basis most charitably of one Anatolian-like outlier sample).
@EastPole said...
„What kind of fantasies?”
"Read books and stop trolling."
Read books, you haven't read any, stop fantasizing, you just fantasize, stop trolling, you just trolling.
@Rob
We don't know any samples the aDNA from the Sredniy Stog culture.
In Mesolithic Ukraine there was also an I2a, and the presence of I2a1 was recorded, and what was not yet known was too few samples, so it was impossible to claim that I2a2 was not available.
@Rob, yes, the median is clear because of where the samples cluster, but if you look at them in sequence, there is no difference in affinities on the West Eurasia PCA between samples close to this median or those around 7000BCE or 6000 BCE. No genetic shift at anything close to 5300 BCE.
@ Matt
''Rob, there are very limited samples post 5000-4000 BCE - 2 out of 3 show no westward WHG or EEF shift at all, while 1 is simply Anatolia_N, with no basis to understand whether this individual represented a population, or simply an outlier, or what.
Any shift between Ukraine Meso->Ukraine N in a more WHG composition which Mathieson discusses is complete by around 7000 BCE, a''
Matt, the Neolithic samples date predominantly to 5300 BC, median (- reservoir effect takes in c. 3-400 years as demonstrated by ongoing fihs diet in Dnieper rapids). aDNA gives a lot, not only genomics, but also other scientific data direct carbon dates & isotopc evidence. It polishes older typologies, dating & ..models
@ Archie
''In Mesolithic Ukraine there was also an I2a, and the presence of I2a1 was recorded, and what was not yet known was too few samples, so it was impossible to claim that I2a2 was not available.''
We can observe that the lineages of EHG are R1, Q1, J1 (with R1b being intermediate b/w EHG -WHG) because there are quite a few samples and more to come
The I2a so far in Ukraine Meso is I2a1a. But of course, as per above, its not solely Y lineages to base it on.
And yes more samples will clarify
@ Matt
'' there is no difference in affinities on the West Eurasia PCA between samples close to this median or those around 7000BCE or 6000 BCE. No genetic shift at anything close to 5300 BCE.''
There appears to be, otherwise it would not be stated. Most of the Mesolithic Samples date to 9000-8000 BC. We need more samples; and I understand your points, but this finding is not unexpected to those familiar with E.E. The guys here have been discussing it at length (although I have followed the details of the comments). Its perhaps no fluke that the sample set clusters around key periods of denser habitation, with population shifts, dietery shifts, etc. Again this has all previously been meticulously documented by Budd, Lillie, Potekina, etc
But Mathieson's not stating a shift happens at any particular time, what he states is only that it is shown in two sets of samples they have chosen to label.
There is a shift *between* the Meso and Neolithic *sets* and they do have different mean dates, but the Neolithic set spans from 7300 BCE onwards (and properly I think should probably include two more of the samples labelled Mesolithic, on the basis of dates), and shows really no apparent internal shifts in WHG affinity (even up to 4400 BCE!), so this can't be linked to any shift happening at anywhere near the median date of the Ukraine_N samples, but something which must have happened much earlier probably at the border of the 8th and 9th millennium.
@Rob: "At present, there is no proven data for domesticates in the steppe in 6000 BC; or even 5000 BC. In the Caucasus at this time, the Shuvaleri culture just emerged; but it was a cereal and wine culture; without any clear links to the Pontic Steppe.
The idea that pastoralists jumped from the Zagros to the lower Don in 6000 BC is unlikely to be supported by future data.
So where doest that leave us ? Looking to the west; we see plenty of domesticates, esp cattle n sheep; we see C-T spreading along the Dnieper forest-steppe; and the Dnieper rapids samples we see a westward genomic shift +/- EEF exactly c. 5000 BC; and surprise surprise also when the earliest cattle offerings appear. "
I know and understand that of course, but a lot will depend on exact datings and animal DNA too. Also, I did point to the Western influences of Bug-Dniestr/Surskaya, especially in Azov-Dniepr, but read the papers I quoted: Some Neolithic groups stayed foragers as long as they had plentiful resources to hunt and gather, but they started with animal husbandry as well on a low level and shifted to this economy when necessary. In any case we don't deal with foragers like in early DDC stages which had little knowledge about Neolithic techniques, but we deal with advanced colonists from the South East (Caucasus).
The Balkan influence was primarily cultural with little genetic impact, the Caucasus influence was cultural AND genetic, was responsible for the formation of PPIE in the Lower Don area - where else? Most of the later migratory and cultural impulses went from LDC upwards the river systems, NOT VICE VERSA.
LDC was the doorkeeper, West was the Balkan Neolithic, from which it took some innovations and a low number of females, but the whole North and East was dependent from it and the West never broke or fundamentally altered it. You have some rituals and funerary practises, style and techniques which persist with mostly domestic alterations from LDC over SSC to CWC.
@Matt:
"So there is very little basis to understand genetically what happens in the 5000-4000 BCE in Ukraine, while the relatively small sample set shows no indication of shift toward EEF over time in that period."
Exactly, the data is not there, all do speculate therefore, but the material cultures point to the LDC as the ultimate source imho. There is a possible increase of Balkan farmer ancestry, but then again that's coming from the small numbers of women mainly from Surskaya and Bug-Dniestr, later TCC which were integrated into the merging steppe cultures of the West in particular. Kotova sees evidence in altered pot designs during the TCC <-> SSC rather peaceful interaction phase.
@Archi: "@zardos Rakushechnyi Yar is not a derivative of the (pre-)Caucasus. It had some imports from the South of the Black Sea, but this does not make CHG as PIE."
R. yar is not completely Caucasian derived, but shows evidence for local adaptation, BUT the main influence is definitely Caucasian, no doubt about it. Such a high level culture and peculiar styles don't come up by chance and are unlikely to come from cultural transfer alone. I think there are good arguments to assume a recent Caucasian derived movement of settlers in R. yar. How big the local HG influence was we can only say once we have time transects from the settlement, but like I said, I expect CHG being dominant first, EHG rising second.
Do you know about anthropological analysis from the early and later LDC phases? Even high quality depictions of remains? I found none so far.
@ zardos
"R. yar is not completely Caucasian derived, but shows evidence for local adaptation, BUT the main influence is definitely Caucasian, no doubt about it. ..."
What do you write that for? What is the cultural influence of the Caucasus in the Neolithic/Eneolithic Steppes? At that time, the Caucasus was an absolutely backward region, which was in Mesolithic! The conditional Neolithic began there later than the Eneolithic began in the steppe! Actually, the North Caucasus passed to the Neolithic with Darkveti-Meshoko culture, and immediately jumped into the Bronze Age with the Maikop culture. Of course, they were all coming from the south, from Anatolia.
So there was no cultural influence on the Lower Don in the Neolithic region from the Caucasus. The Rakushechnyi Yar culture has no influence from the Caucasus, so there is no doubt about it at all.
@Archi: So what is your take on
Neolithisation in the NE Sea of Azov region>
one step forward, two steps back. Alexander Gorelik, Andrej Tsybrij and Viktor Tsybrij.
These are some of the most recent results available from the LDC archaeology and they argue for a direct link to Eastern Anatolia/Zagros Mountains and that a lot of the remains which would directly prove migration along the coast are now below sea level. So its not me saying that because I have a special interest, but some of the scientists working with the material from R. yar concluded it from the evidence. I just think it would solve a lot of problems we still have for the formation of the Southern steppe culture/later LDC.
@ zardos "So what is your take on"
We have no idea how merchants from the southern Black Sea coast did getting there through the sea itself or along the flooded coast, but the fact that Caucasian cultures had no influence on the Rukushechny Yar culture is a fact.
However, we have no idea where CHG was distributed in Mesolithic/Neolithic, and whether it appeared before Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk arrived to the North Caucasus.
@Archi: I think in the end the CHG had to come early on and R. yar fits the bill perfectly. Also, of course they used boats, but they might have hopped from one station to the next along the coast. They authors constantly stress:
"The assemblage of the Rakushechnyi Yar group is
especially familiar to us, due to the materials of the
extended M’lefatien cultural group (following S. Kozłowski)
(Kozłowski 1999.51–75) in the eastern wing
of the Fertile Crescent, except for the above-listed
features, and also exhibits a distinctive ensemble of
geometric microliths."
This means yes, geometric microliths like Rob mentioned, but new impulses from related groups coming in from the South East at the time of R. yar's foundation? Well, there might be different possible scenarios to explain this combination of features.
However, they also write, which is a quite reasonable approach, because material culture can always be transmitted with or without massive demic diffusion:
"So, the reconstruction of cultural impulses from the
regions of the northern Zagros Mountains, and to
some extent from the Caucasus to the Sea of Azov
region at the end of the 8th to the mid-7th millennium
cal BC has certain scientific arguments behind
itself. We can infer a possible migration of small
groups by the inland route or also by sea. Obviously,
this hypothesis needs to be supported by data obtained
by non-archaeological methods. In particular,
we rest our hopes on the paleogenetic analysis of
animals or human bones, which recently gained
great importance in the studying of migration of
people and animals."
So my hope is aDNA analyses are on the way and will prove/disprove the hypothesis. But I would most certainly bet on Caucasian impulses in the settlement which are specific, and which specifically influenced the main Southern steppe population root which resulted in LLDC and SSC etc.
This is a really big thing and talking about European prehistory and the emergence of the steppe cultures, this region and the different stages of the LDC culture needs to be tested. I predict there will be no viable, fact based solution whatsoever until these people, various settlements and stages, human and animal remains, were tested.
Its worth to mention that roughly at the same time we see M’lefatien/Zargos related expansions in Mesopotamia. So this would just mean, like the Indo-Aryans split and some moved to Mesopotamia, the others to India, we deal with a M’lefatien related colonisation with one branche moving South, the other reaching the Black Sea. Just speculating about the background of what they were saying the paper...
Is it possible to really distinguish CHG-related origins in the steppe populations if assuming a two wave model, one early Mesolithic from the Caucasus, a second one from the Zagros/Eastern Anatolian later, reaching the region at the time of the foundatio nof R. yar?
@zardos “However, they also write, which is a quite reasonable approach, because material culture can always be transmitted with or without massive demic diffusion:
"So, the reconstruction of cultural impulses from the
regions of the northern Zagros Mountains, and to
some extent from the Caucasus to the Sea of Azov
region at the end of the 8th to the mid-7th millennium
cal BC has certain scientific arguments behind
itself. We can infer a possible migration of small
groups by the inland route or also by sea. Obviously,
this hypothesis needs to be supported by data obtained
by non-archaeological methods. In particular,
we rest our hopes on the paleogenetic analysis of
animals or human bones, which recently gained
great importance in the studying of migration of...”
I don’t particularly agree with @Archi here, but I could hear David Reich speaking out of your mouth about the South Caspian/North Zagros and so on. Do you think that PPIE was an implant from the Middle East? Did they come from Iran_Chl rather than from the Caucasus proper? According to you PPIE was definitely a CHG language, which I tend to strongly agree with as of late. I’m just not in favor of all this “South Caspian” drivel originating since 2018 by BROAD and others.
@Archi
V Interested in the CHG origins into the Steppe (above) - dating / location / spread will be very important for our understanding.
Also, re: Baalberge (above), is there any autosomal analysis since Haak 2015 - as the samples for comparison were very limited. Would similar analysis today show anything new?
Archi, David,
To be more explicit, can we (with today's more extensive sample database) rule out a Neolithic Steppe (no/pre-CHG) input to Baalberge?
@Archi
„Read books, you haven't read any, stop fantasizing, you just fantasize, stop trolling, you just trolling.”
Witold Hencel „Polska Starożytna” pages 123-124:
https://i.postimg.cc/wBWBxPRL/ko-stepowy-ceramika-sznurowa.png
The presence of steppe horses in CWC is an important argument for their origin from the steppe.
Horse bones were also found in GAC grave, and it is interpreted that horse was domesticated because only domesticated animals bones were put in the grave.
Now you show me your books and prove that you are not a troll.
@Andre: I think PIE might have been a composite language with a dominant EHG component on top of a CHG/Near Eastern substrate. So strictly speaking, IE should be EHG derived, like I assume the same for TRB/GAC being from forager lineages which took over farmer communities, primarily women. In the Lower Don the situation might have been even more complicated, because R. yar is a strongly Neolithic Caucasian derived community, while others seem to be less extreme and probably "more local" (?).
In the end, even though IE survived, we might never know. Because how do you want to prove from which side a language came if 2 elements participated in its formation, but we don't have any knowledge about what either side actually spoke? Its like it is with Basque and Etruscan. We know they must have survived the BB expansion and even later cultures and people's expansion, but how can anyone tell from which earlier layer, before BB, Basque is derived from?
You will find arguments in favour of this or that scenario, but a definitive proof? Hardly. In the case of PIE you can at least narrow down to the two most important elements involved, EHG and Caucasian Neolithics.
And considering the mixed and uneven distribution of traits in the early LDC, you might even have had, at the very beginning, neighbouring communities speaking this or that language (assuming my hypothesis is right), depending who got the upper hand at which time.
Yet if CHG lineages won't be dominant or even significant IN ANY OF THESE SETTLEMENTS from the early stages of the LDC and the Don is indeed the PIE cradle, we can exclude the Caucasian side being the language giver.
On the other hand if the early ones were e.g. J and strongly CHG, this means little, because the communities might have been taken over in a later stage by neighbouring EHG forager tribes. In this case we might never know for sure.
@Archi: Horses were present in CWC and BBC, that's actually common knowledge.
@David & @Juan & @all: May I repeat my question from before: How about a two wave immigration from Caucasus/Transcaucasus to the North-Eastern Black Sea region, one from the Mesolithic, the second with Neolithic immigrants related to the Zagros region (in the widest sense). Can this be proven/disproven by the currently available samples? I would guess not, but probably someone can elaborate.
zardos said...
" @Archi: Horses were present in CWC and BBC, that's actually common knowledge."
What's that got to do with it? There is no question of any horse's domestication in the GAC(!), it's just somebody's nonsense. I don't care what the fantasy is.
It don't know about any steppe(!) breeds of horses in CWC, it's just someone's fantasy. And I don't care what some fantasist wrote in some children's book.
zardos said...
"because R. yar is a strongly Neolithic Caucasian derived community"
It is not true. It is strongly anti-true.
So you think e.g. the clay buildings and figurines were an exclusively local phenomenon? According to the paper I referred to, these traits, including the local pottery of R. yar, might be from the Caucasian region or even Transcaucasia as far as Zagros mt. Geometric microliths in the Lower Don region too, like Rob said already, point to a Caucasian/Transcaucasian origin, as do other lithic technologies.
Even some animal breeds might be deduced from the same movement of people.
Can you bring up some arguments why the paper is flawed?
@zardos s Because there was no pottery in the Caucasus, no statues. Yes, there are connections of the Lower Don with the Fertile Crescent (Zagros, etc.), but not with the Caucasus. Caucasus is not Transcaucasian. Exactly, that there are connections with the Fertile Crescent, not with the Caucasus.
The Neolithic Age in the Caucasus, especially in the western part of it, is an abstraction at all, in the western part of the Caucasus it did not exist at all.
Ok, understood and agreed. But they had to come there, so which route did they take? Rather not through the Black see from one end to the other, but rather along the Black Sea coast, probably along a coastline which no longer exists. So they at least had to touch the Caucasian mt. sphere while moving through it, because an Eastern route around the Caspian seems to be even less likely imho.
Or do you propose an Eastern route, rather than a Southern via Caucasus/Anatolia?
@zardos No one knows, even unambiguously can not interpret it, but the eastern route along the Black Sea looks more plausible, see A. F. Gorelik, A. V. Tsybriy, V. V. Tsybriy What did the Skull of Aurochs, an Axe and Female Statuettes Tell Us about? (On the problem of the initial neolithisation on the Lower Don)
@Juan: But R. yar is too much, its like being transplanted I'd say. That is more than cultural transfer by single individuals moving around, but was more like a planned colonisation/settlement.
@JuanRivera Shulaveri-Shomu has nothing to do with it at all - it is a late culture, and here we are talking about the hypothetical links between the lower Don and the Fertile Crescent in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic 7500-6500calBC, but the lower Don still remained Mesolithic, it took pottery from the Elshanskaya culture. Then they interrupted and did not play a role in the life of the Lower Don culture.
@zardos No, archeologists reject migration categorically, on the lower Don as lived hunter-gatherers, so remain hunter-gatherers who have no idea about the Neolithic any, it is simply some connection not connected with the Neolithic, namely, some similarities of technology, which, as they write, may still be related to the Mesolithic time.
The connection is insignificant and weakest, hardly distinguishable and hypothetical.It could have been some Lower Don "merchants" who came to "trade" in the Fertile Crescent and left a piece of EHG there.
At R. yar you have the most advanced set of Neolithic artefacts, including pottery. Also, the features I mentioned above are hard to explain without a significant migration imho. But like they say, only aDNA (of humans and animals) can solve that. In many sites, that's like it is with horses in general, the wild, bred and domestic animals are hard to differentiate. But in this case, you can prove whether some of the animals were imported or not and if so from where.
Yes, of course, but its not just about the pottery, but the architecture, use of clay and style of art and the tools. I'm not saying I'm sure, we will see. But so far and at that time, such a technology transfer without demic diffusion seems to be exceptional imho. That doesn't mean it can't have happened or via a transmitter I overlooked.
@zardos The pottery of the Lower Don has nothing to do with the Middle East, it is from the Elshanskaya culture, and that is what archaeologists point out. At this time, the Middle East is still in Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
" clay and style of art and the tools" negligible and small, they are not Neolithic, and just have similarities.
@ Zardos
Unfortunately, you don't really understand what your writing. You seem to be making stuff up consistently, without bothering to fact check.
Your central tenet is that LDC is the source of pastoralism - well look at the paper you mentioned - ''
As the layer 4 in Rakushechnyi Yar is already related to the Copper Age (Belanovskaya
1995), it is most likely that the transition to farming in the north-east of the Sea of Azov region happened at this time, and not earlier, as it had been previously hypothesised. A find of one clay figurine in layer 4, which is analogous to the settlements of
the Early Tripol’e as Bernovo Luka, Luka Vrublevetska, Lenkovtsy, Soloncheny 1, Golerkany (Belanovskaya 1995.26–27), could indicate one possible direction of influences for the introduction of agriculture in the Lower Don region ''
The Balkan influence was primarily cultural with little genetic impact, the Caucasus influence was cultural AND genetic, was responsible for the formation of PPIE in the Lower Don area - where else? Most of the later migratory and cultural impulses went from LDC upwards the river systems, NOT VICE VERSA.''''
As per above, you don't seem to grasp the what the archaeology nor genomics actually represent. Leave it to people who do..
'' think PIE might have been a composite language with a dominant EHG component on top of a CHG/Near Eastern substrate. ''
I guess you will all be despondant to learn that it might have instead been WHG/ MNE ;)
@Rob: My central argument was that LDC was the cultural foundation of the later productive steppe culture with characteristics and ancestry different from the Balkan derived Neolithic-Eneolithic Western cultures.
I constantly repeated the importance of the cultural influence from Bug-Dniester and Surskaya culture for the early and TCC for the later steppe cultures stages. But they kept their tradition and very own cultural path which root is the LDC.
But the non-material background of this culture, which is what the paper states just some paragraphs after the one you quoted, are essential for its character and the later transition to a pastoralist and rather mobile way of life.
Where is the important genetic influence from the West (WHG/MNE as you put it) in Dereivka, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya? Not even in early CW! No single farmer lineage rose to importance in the early steppe cultures.
If you understand the genetics so well, why don't you aknowledge that no significant such influence was proven anywhere where it really matters. So far at least - and form where should it come, if we have the same pattern for most succeeding cultures?
But you seem to be knowledgeable enough to be better than me on a lot of Eastern European archaeological disputes, so I'm ready to be instructed by you if you can point to the alternative you have in mind, so that I and others can inspect and compare it.
"I guess you will all be despondant to learn that it might have instead been WHG/ MNE"
Actually no. For the greater scheme of things it will still be about people with steppe ancestry and cultural traits (in the mix) which did the job of spreading IE culture, this or that way. That the Western farmer side was of great importance to the further and higher development of these cultures is no surprise and beyond doubt. However, that the Western lineages brought the languages will be hard to prove.
I have no personal investment whatsoever, because I always look for connections and explanations and care before anything else for the results of processes. It would be a pleasure to learn that the results I consider important came up a different way than originally thought. I personally have Neolithic lineages btw, so not even on this level I have a personal investment in whether it was the West or East :)
As soon as another explanation seems to be the logical consequence of new facts, I'm happy to embrace it. So far I'm just not convinced and if you tell me I don't know the stuff, right, but point to what you know and fits better in the greater scheme of things.
@Rob: To elaborate somewhat more on that: If I'm right you will see, as soon as samples being tested, that the typical steppe ancestry came up in the Lower Don region and spread from there. You will also see, that there will be a relatively sharp borderline between the cultures of the Balkan Neolithic and those derived from the LDC, even when they move West. The WHG/EEF ancestry will rise, but in no way to levels of significance, because if they would, how do you explain the genetic results from daughter cultures of Dereivka, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya we have so far?
@ Zardos
Khvalynsk is not hugely relevant but apparently there’s western I2a2 there;: Dereivka has plenty of EEF. I2a2 + EEF is Found all the way in Swat valley . Did you know this ?
So it seems that CHG “hitched for the ride”
But that’s not even the point. I’m looking at a processual methodology, not simplistic notions of “EHG” languages & “EEF” languages.
I have read your views and found them interesting although often verging on science fiction.
Naturally it would be great if you move with the evidence; but if you don’t then that’s okay because the data will keep rolling in
@Rob: Khvalynsk is not that important, Yamnaya mildly so, but Dereivka and CW is. I mentioned all presumable daughter cultures of LDC because none (!) has significant enough (!) farmer ancestry, let alone any dominant patrilineages. We have proof for the development and expansion of the steppe ancestry, most likely derived from LDC over SSC.
When farmer lineages re-appear regionally on a significant level (Unetice, Greeks etc.), it seems to be too late. Too late for making a real difference for all branches in the network created by steppe derived cultures.
Whereas we have more and more proofs for steppe related ancestry and cultural influences moving not just up, to the North, but also directly West through or around the Carpathians (Cotofeni, Yamnaya) and to the South (Cernavoda, Usatovo).
Any model which puts Balkan farmers in the center of attention must be unusually complex to make up for the mounting evidence in favour of the steppe. So what's your favourite?
Rob It's not that Dereivka, that's the Dereivka I you're talking about, it's simply that Dereivka Culture is Dereivka II. These Dereivka culture are completely different. More than one example of Dereivka culture has not yet been tested.
"Khvalynsk is not hugely relevant but apparently there’s western I2a2 there;: Dereivka has plenty of EEF. I2a2 + EEF is Found all the way in Swat valley . Did you know this ?"
Yes I did. The percentages are very low though and I wonder why it almost completely disappeared in not just some, but most IE.
Concerning Dereivka/SSC, the most interesting and important samples are those which can be ancestral to the expansion cultures with steppe features, like CW and Usatovo primarily.
If the elite in cultures like Cernavoda, Cotofeni and Usatovo is predominantely steppe and the early CW exclusively so, how is this supposed to work out? Just asking, thanks for the answers btw.
" I’m looking at a processual methodology, not simplistic notions of “EHG” languages & “EEF” languages."
Me too, but probably with a different focus. Language is to me more interesting for evaluating its expressive character and intellectual capacity, as well as ideological connotations. Besides we probably will never know for sure who spoke the "trunk language" which led to PIE. You can't reconstruct dead languages in the absence of evidence.
Concerning Dereivka: Indeed and this single sample (I6561) which was appropriate looked similar to CW and had no big EEF input and was R1a instead. More samples will clear things up.
@ Zardos
''Concerning Dereivka/SSC, the most interesting and important samples are those which can be ancestral to the expansion cultures with steppe features, like CW and Usatovo primarily.
If the elite in cultures like Cernavoda, Cotofeni and Usatovo is predominantely steppe and the early CW exclusively so, how is this supposed to work out? Just asking, thanks for the answers btw.''
We don't exactly know yet.
And here I might diverge from the general feeling here, that Usatavo and CWC might be different. If Usatavo is R1a-Z93, it might be 40% EEF, and then decrease as it moved East. CWC (R1a-417 xZ93) is, as we know, far more similar to Yamnaya-Samara autosomally, so it could in fact have originated further north(east). So, R1a-Z645 was already diverging by 3500 BC.
''besides we probably will never know for sure who spoke the "trunk language" which led to PIE. ''
Exactly. And its not that I disagree that PIE could have been from the Lower Don, but it could be from the western groups which trickled in during the Mariupol phase (all the more given we don't yet have Lower Don data). But, this is less important. What is important is that these divergent groups seem to have come together in the western steppe/ foreest-steppe, then expanded (mostly) from there back outward.
''Indeed and this single sample (I6561) which was appropriate looked similar to CW and had no big EEF input ''
Seems like a pretty hefty amount of EEF, all the way out in Alexandria. Very significant IMO
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En:I6561
"RUS_Progress_En" 52.65
"UKR_Trypillia" 34.7
"UKR_N" 12.65
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN" 0
@ Archi
''Rob It's not that Dereivka, that's the Dereivka I you're talking about, it's simply that Dereivka Culture is Dereivka II. These Dereivka culture are completely different. More than one example of Dereivka culture has not yet been tested.''
Could you please elaborate ? Thanks.
BTW I6561 from Alexandria, c. 4000 BC.
From the Supple. of Mathieson ''An Eneolithic cemetery of the Sredny Stog II culture was excavated by D. Telegin in 1955- 1957 near the village of Alexandria, Kupyansk district, Kharkov region on the left bank of the river Oskol.105A total of 33 individuals were Recovered. Based on craniometric analysis (I.Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were not homogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and early farmers, possibly Trypillian groups''
Seems like she nailed it. But what ''cultural attribution'' is this guy ? Kvitanya ?
@Rob
Just because Z93 and Z282 probably diverged during the Eneolithic doesn't mean that the Usatovo and Corded Ware populations didn't come from the same Early Bronze Age ancestral group on the steppe.
All that may have happened, and probably did, are founder effects in the ancestors of the Usatovo and Corded Ware males as they expanded west from somewhere north of the Black Sea.
That is, you can't track the separation of the Usatovo and Corded Ware populations with the Z93 and Z282 mutations.
If you apply the same logic to Corded Ware groups, then you might conclude that the Bavarian and Baltic Corded Ware populations separated even before Usatovo and Corded Ware, because the Bavarian males belong to R1a-L664(xZ645).
@ Davidski
By definition; that’s exactly the case
The steppe (proto-)Bronze Age is often considered to be synonymous with Yamnaya period
So if Usatavo is R1a; then the split already occurred by 3500 or even before
Moreover; usatavo will have significant EEF, which explains why Sintashta packs EEF. This certainly makes more sense than the clumsy idea that Z93 emerged (mysteriously) from Yamnaya went to Central Europe; then turning back
It also explains why Sintashta was so advanced
@Rob
Both Usatovo and Corded Ware probably derive from early Pit-Grave populations around the east coast of the Black Sea. As Archi kindly informed us, in Russia that's Yamnaya, but in the west Yamnaya begins almost 1,000 years later.
So I reckon that as Usatovo moved west, it absorbed western admixture from Trypillian and Balkan groups, and so did Corded Ware, except its western admixture mostly came from TRB and Globular Amphora.
Sintashta is still a mystery, because even though it shares Z93 with Usatovo, and shows architectural influences from Trypilla, its western admixture looks very Globular Amphora-like.
So it's possible that Sintashta represents an Usatovo offshoot that moved east via Corded Ware /Globular Amphora territory.
But I honestly don't know at this stage.
@ Davidski
'' but in the west Yamnaya begins almost 1,000 years''
Yamnaya begins almost at the same time everywhere in its range, its not earlier in the Caspian steppe than Black Sea steppe. In fact, the pit-grave tradition began in the west, c. 4750 cal BC.
''So I reckon that as Usatovo moved west, it absorbed western admixture from Trypillian and Balkan groups, and so did Corded Ware, except its western admixture mostly came from TRB and Globular Amphora.''
My contention is that R1a-M417 was already near the Dnieper c. 4000 BC and had considerable EEF due to interaction with C-T in the forested-steppe.
I am tempted to think that proto-CWC M417 somehow 'lost' this EEF ancestry, perhaps due to preferential marriage to Khvalynsk-Caucasus brides in the post 3000 period, then moved to the East Baltic.
@Rob
I really meant to say that in the west, as in according to western academia, Yamnaya begins around 3,000 BCE, while in Russia around 4,000 BCE, with the Repin culture already regarded as being early Yamnaya.
But I don't really know yet how to explain those very Yamnaya-like Corded Ware samples. They might be migrants from almost the North Caucasus, or, yes, perhaps just the result of mixture between Corded Ware and Yamnaya groups in western Ukraine.
@Rob
The Dereivka I is the Neolithic cemetery of the Mariupol community: the Dnieper-Donets culture (Kievan-Cherkassk), the Azov-Dnieper culture.
The Dereivka II is the Middle Eneolithic cemetery of the Dereivka culture. No one sample of the Dereivka culture has not yet been tested.
The Alexandria sample I6561 is an unknown culture for which I believe a wrong radiocarbon dating was made, I'm pretty sure it wasn't taken in account the high marine reservoir effect.
The Alexandria cemetery contains burials of many cultures, from the Neolithic Dnieper-Donetsk of Sukhoi group, to the Eneolithic Sredniy Stog, Dereivka, Konstantinovka, and bronze age burials, and many burials have no cultural attributes.
@Archi
I6561 is Sredny Stog II. Other samples from this culture have been sequenced and they're coming soon.
@Davidski
"I6561 is Sredny Stog II."
No, it has no cultural attribution, it belongs to an unknown culture, because it has no things that could define culture. This sample was immediately without culture, and only when the radiocarbon dating was done, for some reason did everybody write that it was Sredny Stog II without any grounds, because Sredny Stog II ended up >4200BC, and at that time there was spread Dereivka and even Konstantinovka could be, and could be another neighboring culture.
@Davidski
“Sintashta is still a mystery, because even though it shares Z93 with Usatovo, and shows architectural influences from Trypilla, its western admixture looks very Globular Amphora-like.
So it's possible that Sintashta represents an Usatovo offshoot that moved east via Corded Ware /Globular Amphora territory.
But I honestly don't know at this stage.”
Maybe something like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/VksSQqGD/usatovo-GAC.png
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311273975_Exchange_of_People_Ideas_and_Things_between_Cucuteni-Trypillian_Complex_and_Areas_of_South-Eastern_Poland
David, I missed that info about Z93 in Usatovo. Where does it come from?
Hmm... I didn't know I6561 was dated without material culture. Seems dodgy, as you don't have any grave goods as independent corroboration of the radiocarbon date. Raises even more importance for further samples for corroboration.
@Davidski
How do you know Usatovo has a Z93? There is no such information.
Most archaeologists do not consider Repino culture part of the Yamnaya culture, the fact that they coexist for some time in parallel and at the same time.
The Yamnaya culture starts much earlier than 3000BC.
@Rob
Nobody thinks that the Pit-Grave culture started in 4750BC, this mistake has long been outdated. Yes, and it was not in fact, it was such a metaphor for the concept of continuity of steppe cultures.
@East Pole
David, I missed that info about Z93 in Usatovo. Where does it come from?
It's from a database of about to be published samples, and I've gone out of my way to confirm it. It's legit.
@Rob: Kotova argues for the Western tribes having - quite obviously - the most contact to TCC, even in the rather peaceful phase, in which bride exchange might have taken place. In any case it seems the Western SS related groups took in TCC women, which would explain why Usatovo was closer to TCC and had more farmer ancestry than CW.
This would be a much more parsimonious explanation than the idea of intensive bride exchange with a Yamnaya population imho.
Usatovo was just the more advanced, more Neolithic influenced Western group, but still just a branch from the Southern steppe like CW. CW early seems to have been more isolated form the West genetically, more than anything else.
Like Mammoth and you were pointing me to GAC reaching even Walachia and Transylvania (thanks again), this would easily explain the post-Cotofeni mixture of Usatovo-GAC-Cotofeni in this highly important region. So GAC lineages could have re-appeared in some Northern cultures, including Unetice, not just because of local persistence, but also because they came in from the Carpatho-Balkan region in mixture with IE groups like Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni, Ezero-local Yamnaya.
What all this points to is that the Balkan-Danubian early Bronze Age complex was highly mixed (locals, GAC, diverse groups of steppe people) but dominated by the steppe culture. The only exception which might be more local derived with little other influences was probably Baden, where steppe-pastoralist cultural influences were taken up by locals primarily.
Since these cultural expansions reached even Western Anatolia, its vital to explain the Indoeuropean Anatolians.
@ Davidski It's from a database of about to be published samples
Is there any more detailed information you can give us? Place, time, ...
Yeah, I've got a lot of details, but I probably shouldn't post them here. They'll be out soon anyway.
Isn't that a Mayaki, by any chance? It's already testing there for a long time.
It's just a very interesting place and time that they found the Z93, and you don't have to report anything else, because this magical "soooooooooooooon" lasts for years, I'm afraid to get old and die before it's over)))
When is soon? And Usatovo? Does that mean there is minor R1a in Yamnaya?
Usatovo isn't Yamnaya. It's a Yamnaya-related steppe group.
I don't think that there will be any R1a in Yamnaya samples properly dated to the classic Yamnaya period (~3,000-2,500 BCE), but it's quite likely to be in earlier Yamnaya-related groups like those associated with the Repin culture.
@ Archi
''Nobody thinks that the Pit-Grave culture started in 4750BC, this mistake has long been outdate''
Skelja - Suvorovo then, its sometimes lost in translation the terminology.
@ Davidski
''I really meant to say that in the west, as in according to western academia, Yamnaya begins around 3,000 BCE, while in Russia around 4,000 BCE, with the Repin culture already regarded as being early Yamnaya.''
Only by some Russian scholars, e.g. Morgunova. Most other people dont accept her scheme, because Repin is not Yamnaya proprie dictii. It is simply her view that Yamnaya represents an uninterrupted evolution from Repin. but this is probably only partly true, as all the i2a2a1b, nor various of the burial poses, in western Yamnaya are not likely to be from Repin
So what "Yamnaya'' represents is a fusion of various pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic groups, some of which were completely marginalised, some very successful.
I can't find a map of Usatovo from one of Anthony's books. Just Eupedia maps.
Also are the other Sredny Stog samples R1a or R1b?
For anyone interested on the origins of the Ochre grave horizon:
“Three basic temporal horizons of ocher grave materi-als are isolated.
The earliest horizon (4600–4300 B.C.;Horizon I, Vorzepter-Periode) is only found in the north-ern Pontic (“Faza Ia”/Giurgiules¸ti i Ib/Čapli-Cainari) andnorthwest Pontic regions (Pre-Cucuteni III/Cucuteni A1–A2).
The middle horizon (ca. 4350–4250 B.C.; HorizonII, Zepterkeule Periode) is the transitional period with ochergraves from the Carpathians (Cucuteni A2/A3) to thenorthern Caucasus (Decea and Mariupol variants).
The latest horizon (ca. 4300/4250–4000 B.C.; Horizon III,Zepter/Axt-Periode) is the period when the spatial distribution reaches its widest extent, and shows strong regional characteristics. It ranges from the Carpathians (CucuteniA3–A4), through the northwest and western Pontic region (Suvorovo group), northern Pontus (Novodanilovkagroup), and into the northern Caucasus (Volga group)”
Summary from review of Govedarica’s monograph
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285409763_Review_of_Zeptertrager_Herrscher_der_Steppen_Die_fruhen_Ockergraber_des_alteren_Aneolithikums_im_karpatenbalkanischen_Gebiet_und_in_Steppenraum_Sudost-und_Osteuropas
Post a Comment