search this blog

Saturday, June 13, 2020

The Abashevo axe did it (Mednikova et al. 2020)


Open access at the Journal of Imaging over at this LINK. From the paper, emphasis is mine:

A massive bronze battle axe from the Abashevo archaeological culture was studied using neutron tomography and manufacturing modeling from production molds. Detailed structural data were acquired to simulate and model possible injuries and wounds caused by this battle axe. We report the results of neutron tomography experiments on the bronze battle axe, as well as manufactured plastic and virtual models of the traumas obtained at different strike angles from this axe. The reconstructed 3D models of the battle axe, plastic imprint model, and real wound and trauma traces on the bones of the ancient peoples of the Abashevo archaeological culture were obtained. Skulls with traces of injuries originate from archaeological excavations of the Pepkino burial mound of the Abashevo culture in the Volga region. The reconstruction and identification of the injuries and type of weapon on the restored skulls were performed. The complementary use of 3D visualization methods allowed us to make some assumptions on the cause of death of the people of the Abashevo culture and possible intra-tribal conflict in this cultural society. The obtained structural and anthropological data can be used to develop new concepts and methods for the archaeology of conflict.

...

Human skeletal remains from excavations of the Pepkino burial mound bear many traumatic wounds on the skulls and postcranial bones (Figure 4). The primary hypothesis is that young men of the Abashevo culture fell at the hands of enemies, which were the representatives of another tribe or culture [14,16]. After their discovery in the XX century, the skulls of killed people of the Abashevo culture were restored using anthropological paste, including beeswax.

...

A simple explanation for obtaining such injuries is the conclusion that the victim stood face to face with their assaulter and tried to back away from the battle axe, but fell and received other lethal wounds. The superficial trauma by the battle axe as well as serious damage to a bone structure and deep cracks in the skull are visible in the upper part of the model.

...

The comparison of the real bronze axe with the model obtained from molds indicates their complete identity and the belonging of these axes from different archaeological sites of the Abashevo culture to the same cultural group. This conclusion may indicate intra-cultural conflict among the Abashevo people. As a final note, the presented results of quite diverse imaging methods indicate a new direction in the archaeology of conflicts and the applicability of 3D modeling methods to identify both weapons technologies and the specifics of the use of these weapons to injure humans.



Citation...

Mednikova et al., The Reconstruction of a Bronze Battle Axe and Comparison of Inflicted Damage Injuries Using Neutron Tomography, Manufacturing Modeling, and X-ray Microtomography Data, J. Imaging 2020, 6(6), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging6060045

See also...

54 comments:

rozenblatt said...

Ah, Pepkino kurgan, that's a famous archaeological site. I've recently listened to interview given by one of the authors. It would be nice to get some ancient DNA from the remains of people there, 27 individuals, all males.

Davidski said...

I've heard it's already been done.

Expect Sintashta-like.

Sofia Aurora said...

https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/prhz/95/1/article-p17.xml

Vladimir said...

Interesting. Previously, it was believed that the burial of Abashev's soldiers in the Pepkinsky burial ground was the result of their battles with Seymino-Turbino. As for weapons, the Seymino-Turbino could have them, since in Western Siberia they and the Andronov tribes even had a syncretic Samus culture.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“The chances that Fatyanovo-Balanovo was Proto-Balto-Slavic are zero.

Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a are found much further west, around Slovakia.”


When looking at the picture or migrations from 1. to 7., I have to admit that I don’t know what languages were spoken in each culture between points 1. and 7.: were they more related to Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian or something in between:

1.CWC Poland--> 2. Middle Dnieper --> 3. Fatyanovo-Balanovo --> 4. Abashevo --> 5 Sintashta --> 6. Andronovo --> 7.India/Iran


https://i.postimg.cc/2jvFZrMY/BS-II.png


Where do you get your 100% certainty from?

Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

recently i made an interesting find on ftdna. The YP413<M12280 clade today most frequent among Pashtuns and Gedrosians but absent among any Saka, Hun, Tatar or Wusun-like groups was found among ethnic Russians from Central Russia and ethnic Germans from Germany. This clade also formed according to Yfull around 4300 ybp but based on how often Yfull underestimates this dates around 2000-3000 B.C sounds more realistic. So it is quite possible that YP413+ was born in one of this Fatyanovo/Abashevo groups, but i think that Fatyanovo/Abashevo had beside of Z93<Z2124, Z93<Y3/L657, Z93<Y40 and L51 a lot of basal Z93, Z645 and even some basal Z283 clades (rather related to Srubnaya and Central/West Asian Z283*).

I really hope the Fatyanovo/Abashevo samples will be of good quality and ideally from different sites/periods, so that we dont just get some M417* or Z93* because of bad quality or just few specific Z93 clades because of sampling just few clans.

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

So if this info confirms Sintashta is from Corded Ware, what does that mean for the early CWC-like samples with Z93 in the Balkans and Ukraine?

Davidski said...

@Gabriel

There's definitely R1a in the Eneolithic Balkans and western Ukraine, but we'll have to wait and see if it really turns out to be Z93.

Archi said...


There is nothing surprising in it, active combat operations there have been conducted since the times of Volsko-Lbyshche and Poltavka cultures. Every third Poltavkians died as a result of the Volsko-Lbyshche axe strike.
Only with the advent of the Srubnaya culture any violence stopped here.

Axes of Abashevo ascend to Fatyanovsky, but direct origin from Fatyanovo is not seen.

The Abashevo people themselves should be different from the Fatyanovans and Sintashtians, but not much, they are something in between.

https://i.ibb.co/MMmJXH0/image.png
1-Abashevo, 3-Fatyanovo, 9 - Babino, 27-28 - Alakul, 28 - Sintashta cultures

One thing we can say is that we see a very large heterogeneity in Abashevo, as they were very different even inside the Pepkin burial place. It seems that people from the different CWC territory were represented in the Abashevo burials.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@coldmountains

How much Z283+ is there in Central/West Asia (non recent origin of course)?

Zulfiqar said...

What's the best ancient group to model western-Iranian speakers, given both the historical context but also the quality & size of the samples available to us? Abashevo, Sintashta, or Srubnaya?

How much % do we see, and how to avoid inflation from unrelated steppe sources, like Yamnaya incursions, etc?

Coldmountains said...

@Jatt_Scythian

very rare but exists. There is for example on Yfull a sample from Baluchistan belonging to a basal Z283 clade. It could be of recent West Asian origin but Z93- was also found among Tajiks and some Pashtuns afaik. Extremely rare but exists just like I2a, which is also very rare (only Hazara seem to have significant amounts of it) but exists among Tajiks, Pashtuns and NW South Asians.

Coldmountains said...

@Zulfiqar
The direct steppe ancestors of West Iranics were likely Turkmenistan_IA-like but with a shift towards Karasuk/Botai.

Archi said...

@Coldmountains

"There is for example on Yfull a sample from Baluchistan belonging to a basal Z283 clade."

This is not basal, but R-YP4858, most likely Proto-Armenians.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archi

''This is not basal, but R-YP4858, most likely Proto-Armenians.''

Baluchistan is quite distant Armenia, with completely different prehistoric trajectories
According to aDNA evidence, putative proto-Armenian markers are R1b-Z2013 and I2c.

Archi said...

@M.H. _82
"Baluchistan is quite distant Armenia, with completely different prehistoric trajectories"

As it was, Armenia was part of the Persian Empire. Trading and wars.

"According to aDNA evidence, putative proto-Armenian markers are R1b-Z2013 and I2c."

There is no "According to aDNA evidence".

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archi

''As it was, Armenia was part of the Persian Empire. Trading and wars.''

Do you mean to suggst the supposedly proto-Armenian Z283 moved from the southern Caucasus to Iran via Achaemenid slave trade, then virtually disappeared from Armenia. ? Curious logic


''There is no "According to aDNA evidence".''

In fact there is - published in peer-reviewed aDNA journals (Damgaard 2018; Lazaridis 2017)
Both markers are also found in modern Armenians too.

If you are new to this and need direction, just ask someone for help, because it's ideal to follow data instead of personal preconvictions

Jatt_Scythian said...

@coldmountains

Thanks. I believe there was a study by Mahal indicating 1% ydna I in Eastern Jatts (which would amount to 400,000 men). Interesting that the Hazara have it. On a related note it seems there is a lot of western ys among Ladakhis and Baltis. Not sure if anyone knows anything about that.

The Z283+ or at least Z93- is interesting. Might ibe related to the Tarim R1a.

Do you know anything about other steppe markers like Q1a and Z2103 among Tajiks, Pashtuns and NW South Asians?

Also what do you think was in South Siberia, Kazakh steppe and Tarim basin before Indo-Iranians and Tocharians expanded there? Mostly WSHG?

Jatt_Scythian said...

Also given how much ENA there is rumored to be in Iran_N, WSHG, EHG plus actual ENA and AASI and basal eurasian and such should Iranians, Tajiks and Pashtuns and NW South Asians be considered predominantly West Eurasian peoples? I'm not sure anymore.

Archi said...

@M.H. _82
"Curious logic"

It's your curious logic, this subclade infiltrated Pakistan only a thousand years ago. And in Turkey, Levante and Greece, it's much older.

R-Y50543 BY75011 * Y50299 * Y50504+3 SNPs formed 1700 ybp, TMRCA 1200 ybp
id:YF66272UAE [AE-DU]
id:YF04155PAK [PK-BA]

R-FGC64133 FGC64133 * FGC86403 formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 2900 ybp
R-FGC64132 FGC64132 * FGC64139 * FGC64140+5 SNPs formed 2900 ybp, TMRCA 2000 ybp
R-FGC64132*
id:YF11543TUR [TR-44]
R-Y101009 FGC64131 * FGC64149 * FGC64156+1 SNPs formed 2000 ybp, TMRCA 1200 ybp
id:YF67834LBN [LB-JL]
id:YF08660SYR [SY-SU]

R-YP5820 YP5820 formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 3800 ybp
R-YP5820*
id:YF72346 GRC

"In fact there is"
There are no facts, there is no need to refer to what there is. It's not IE Armenian.

Copper Kura-Araxes Armenia Kalavan [I1635 / KA1/12] 2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP) M R1b1-M415 (xM269)
Bronze Middle Bronze Age Armenia Nerquin Getashen [RISE413] 1906-1698 calBCE (3493±34 BP, UBA-28941) M R1b

Neolithic Turkey Barcın [I1096 / BAR26 / M10-76] 6500-6200 BC M I2c




M.H. _82 said...

@ Archi

''It's your curious logic, this subclade infiltrated Pakistan only a thousand years ago. And in Turkey, Levante and Greece, it's much older.

R-Y50543 BY75011 * Y50299 * Y50504+3 SNPs formed 1700 ybp, TMRCA 1200 ybp
id:YF66272UAE [AE-DU]
id:YF04155PAK [PK-BA]
....''


Blue, green, yellow !
See, I just posted a whole bunch of random things too


''There are no facts, there is no need to refer to what there is. It's not IE Armenian.

Copper Kura-Araxes Armenia Kalavan [I1635 / KA1/12] 2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP) M R1b1-M415 (xM269)
Bronze Middle Bronze Age Armenia Nerquin Getashen [RISE413] 1906-1698 calBCE (3493±34 BP, UBA-28941) M R1b

Neolithic Turkey Barcın [I1096 / BAR26 / M10-76] 6500-6200 BC M I2c
''

Oh right, you just know that R1b-Z2103 can't be linked to IE -Armenian.
Gotcha
Well, get your spade out and dig up some R1a-Z283

Archi said...

@M.H. _82 s

Except for the general cries, you said nothing.

"you just know that R1b-Z2103 can't be linked to IE -Armenian."

I did not write it, although it is more likely that they are Anatolians. You claim that the peoples are monohaplogroups.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archi

'' You claim that the peoples are monohaplogroups.

Not at all.
In fact, it is yourself who would reduce the entire expansion of Indo-European to a monolineage.


''I did not write it, although it is more likely that they are Anatolian''

Not really sure what you are attempting to communicate, but according to the record from ancient and modern DNA, lineages which link Armenians with Europeans are R1b-Z2103 and I2c.

Randomly citing irrelevant or extinct aDNA samples, or modern samples whose history you have no idea of doesn't speak of someone who understands the data in any meaningful way.

Archi said...

M.H. _82 said...
"Not at all.
In fact, it is yourself who would reduce the entire expansion of Indo-European to a monolineage."

This is a connection with the haplogroup R1a, but there are no claims that only this haplogroup was in IE and that they are monohaplogroup, as you can see in many peoples different subgclades of R1a. You assert that Armenians had only R1b-Z2103 and I2c, and by the reference to the ancient DNA which you do not have.


"Not really sure what you are attempting to communicate, but according to the record from ancient DNA, lineages which link Armenians with Europeans are R1b-Z2103 and I2c.

Randomly citing irrelevant or extinct aDNA samples, or modern samples whose history you have no idea of doesn't speak of someone who understands the data in any meaningful way."

So it's you who don't know, it's you who started to quote by chance that some haplogroups and only they are connected with Armenians, not understanding to say that aDNA supposedly proves it, though not a single proof of your words. You haven't brought a single ancient DNA Armenian and they just don't exist, and your statement is just not true, here is the data on modern Armenians from FTDNA

M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858>YP5820* Setrak Avdoyan (né Yeranossian)
M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858>YP5820-A-x Kurmanj Dersimían, Pílvenkan tríbe. Pértage
M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858>FGC64133>FGC64132* Çerkes Alhan, 1702 Malatya Turkey

Archi said...

M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858-x Unclustered Oskian Kaspar, Sepastia, Turkey

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archie

What modest amount you (claim to) know about Russian archaeology is greatly overshadowned by the fact that, as people have stated, you're a sociopath

Archi said...

@M.H. _82
as people have stated, you're a sociopath

You're a cheeky troll and a cheater, so everyone says. You've been caught lying, so you squeal embarrassed.

M.H. _82 said...

Archie- truth is you have no clue about those project members you just listed. You have no idea about their genelogical or migratory history, and no aDNA to back up your claims.
The only person squeeling here is you (what odd language you use)

Archi said...

@ M.H. _82

All your claims are false, you're caught that you know nothing at all. You just write lies and your personal fictions without relying on anything. That's why you started to insult you and switched to personality like a true troll, which you are and this is a fact.
You wrote zero information, I made a lot of arguments.

The story of no man is known for any haplogroup at all.

Archi said...

@ M.H. _82 Mamoth_Hunter Rob How many nicknames do you have?

My migration concepts are based on scientific data, and all are true because I know exactly what I am writing and I am not making anything up, unlike you.

R. O. Lytvynenko CENTRAL EUROPEAN PARALLELS TO THE DNIEPER–DON CENTRE OF BABYNO CULTURE // BALTIC-PONTIC STUDIES Poznań 2013

Early Babino with Central European influence https://i.ibb.co/26zt4QV/image.png

Full Babino https://i.ibb.co/RTbBW0G/image.png

M.H. _82 said...

Archi -
can you highlight here any relevant words or sentences from that article which support your ''scientific'' claims ?

Copper Axe said...

@Archi thanks for sharing some of the stuff on the KMK. Whether they are Proto-Greeks or not, it is a pretty interesting material culture!

M.H. _82 said...

@ CopperAxe
If his intention to share the article was to generally inform, then it would of course be well received. But Archi claims to be the universal truth , but can never manage to support his claims in any solid or truthful manner
For some reason, he resonates with a handful of lower-register commentators

Archi said...

@Copper Axe

Old map (80-90s) distribution of discoid psalies of Mycenae type.
http://s020.radikal.ru/i706/1601/89/1fe043f09842.png
"Taking into account the monocentric origin of discoidal psalies, we can assume that they spread to both Kazakhstan and the Danube region and further to Greece from the southern Russian steppes. In this case, the date of the psalies from Tomb IV in Mycenae, which refers to the end of the Middle Elladian (CE) - the beginning of the Late Elladian (LE) period, serves as the terminus ante quern of the psalies of type I from Potapovka, Sintashta and Petrovka, and even more so - the most archaic specimens of the Abashevians (Balanbash, Tavlykaevo, Surush) and KMK (Kamenka, Trakhtemirovo)"

The ancient Greek language appeared in Greece only with the appearance of Mycenae, Chariots and psalies. Before that, it was not there.

-------------------------------------
A lot of nickname (Rob Mamonth_Hunter M.H. _82 ...) commentator just a psycho who can never prove anything, because he knows nothing. He hasn't once written anything true or evidentiary, he's always lying and only freaking out, I always write in the evidentiary style. I confirmed everything I said.

Davidski said...

I really can't wait until all of the samples that are slotted in for publication are finally published.

It'll make the discussions here significantly less idiotic. Or at least one can hope.

Jatt_Scythian said...

I'm super exicited about Fataynovo and the Ancient Egypt paper. Both pretty awesome.

I'm just confused on the main vector of Z93's spread. We found it in Sredy Stog and Usatovo but also as far north as Fataynovo. I;m guessing the Northern stream is the main vector for spread into Asia but what happened to the Southern Z93?

Archi said...

@Davidski

Genetic data from the Babino culture are, all of them point to the Central European CWC.

Bronze Babino Ukraine Pidlisivka, Grave 13, barrow 1 [poz094] 2200-1700/1600 BC F J2b1a Juras 2018

Bronze Babino Ukraine Klembivka, Grave 12, barrow 1 [poz213] 2117-1950 BC (Poz-74400) F J1c2m Juras 2018

Bronze Babino Ukraine Klembivka, Grave 3, barrow 1 [poz356 ] 1880-1771 BC (Poz-74398) F H1e Juras 2018

Bronze Babino Ukraine Liubasha, kurgan 2 [L11] {1523 ± 76 BC (bug)} HV1 Nikitin 2017

These mitohaplogroups were not in the steppe before that.

Copper Corded Ware Switzerland Spreitenbach-Moosweg [17/5] 2500 BC F J2b1a
Bronze Unetice Germany Plotzkau 3 [PLOTZ 1] 2200-1550 BC J2b1a
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Königsbrunn – Obere Kreuzstraße (Baugebiet 110) [OBKR_47] 2136-1977 cal BC (3671±22 BP, MAMS 18894) M J2b1a
Bronze Sintashta Russia Stepnoe VII [RISE392] 2126-1896 calBCE (3626±33 BP, OxA-30999) M R1a1a1b2a2a [Reported as R1a1a1b] J2b1a2a
Bronze Minoan Prepalatial Greece Ossuary near Moni Odigitria, Crete [12V / I9127] 2210-1680 BCE F J2b1a1
before this mt is in Italy, Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Spain, Portugal

Copper Corded Ware Czech Republic Radovesice X [I7209 / RDVS_5/79, Radovesice X, "U bílinské silnice", Grave 5/79, National Museum No. P7A 9322] 2458-2207 calBCE (3850±25 BP, PSUAMS-4026) M R1a1a1 J1c2
Copper Corded Ware Germany Esperstedt [I1532/ESP 8] 2500-2050 BC M R1a1a L168, M512, L449 J1c2e
Bronze Unetice Germany Rocken [ROC 8] 2200-1550 BC J1c2e
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Kleinaitingen – Gewerbegebiet Nord [AITI_70] 2116-1785 cal BC (3594±37 BP, MAMS 21582) M R1b1a2a1a2* J1c2c2
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Kleinaitingen – Gewerbegebiet Nord [AITI_36] 2006-1774 cal BC (3552±27 BP, MAMS 21568) M BT J1c2c2
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Kleinaitingen – Gewerbegebiet Nord [AITI_72] 1926-1705 cal BC (3508±34 BP, MAMS 21583) M R1b1a2a1a2* J1c2c2
Bronze Sintashta Russia Kamennyi Ambar 5 Cemetery [I1088 / 1011, kurgan 2, burial 13] 2050-1650 BCE [based on directly dated samples from the same site] F J1c2m
Bronze Andronovo Kazakhstan Kazakh Mys [I4321 / KZ-KAZ-003, Kazakh Mys 2015, Area 6, Grave 1 ] 1640-1527 calBCE (3310±20 BP, PSUAMS-2962) F J1c2m
Before in LBK Austria, ALPc Hungary, Lengyel Hungary, Scotland_N Great Britain, Croatia, Baden (Viss group) Hungary

Copper Corded Ware Poland Hubinek [poz234 / Stan. 2, kurgan I, grave 8] 2800 -2300 BC H1e
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Haunstetten – Postillionstraße [POST_38] 2197-2034 cal BC (3717±23 BP, MAMS 18963) M H1e
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Kleinaitingen – Gewerbegebiet Nord [AITI_62A] 1881-1691 cal BC (3459±34 BP, MAMS 21576) M H1e
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Kleinaitingen – Gewerbegebiet Nord [AITI_62B] 1889-1695 cal BC (3478±33 BP, MAMS 21577) M H1e
before in LBK Germany, ALPc Hungary, Spain, Schöningen Germany, Middle Neo Portugal

Neolithic Middle + Late Neolithic Spain La Mina [Mina16] 3890-3660 cal BC HV1

Davidski said...

@Archi

You're too sure of yourself, and you often propose theories that are probably not going to work out.

That's why people are getting pissed off with you.

I don't know what a fair number of samples will reveal about the Babino culture people, but I've heard stuff about a few Multi Cordoned Ware samples from Moldova, and they don't look like they derive from the CWC.

It seems that they're a mix of Srubnaya and Catacomb, or something like this, and I don't know if it'll be possible to link them to Mycenaeans. Possibly not.

So wait until they're published and quit pretending like you've worked everything out, otherwise a lot of people will be laughing their asses off at you when the time comes.

Archi said...

@Davidski

"You're too sure of yourself, and you often propose theories that are probably not going to work out.
That's why people are getting pissed off with you.
I don't know what a fair number of samples will reveal about the Babino culture people, but I've heard stuff about a few Multi Cordoned Ware samples from Moldova, and they don't look like they derive from the CWC.
It seems that they're a mix of Srubnaya and Catacomb, or something like this, and I don't know if it'll be possible to link them to Mycenaeans. Possibly not.
So wait until they're published and quit pretending like you've worked everything out, otherwise a lot of people will be laughing their asses off at you when the time comes."

Talking about what would be pointless. The main thing is to have proof of own opinion, not their absence. I always write theories only of academic science that you're not known about because you are not familiar with the topic. My data is scientific. Mad at me any freaks like multiclone R MH... who just lie and write their fantasies without being based on scientific data. They look like idiots now.

Late Babino, Moldavia is later Babino, probably, and should look autosomatically like a mixture of CWC and Сatacombs, just like CWC is a mixture WSH and EEF, but in general anthropologists have long written that Babinians did not differ from CWC/Fatyanovo, and absolutely nothing like Catacombans.

The genetic evidence I gave you, can you refute it?

A said...

"anthropologists have long written that Babinians did not differ from CWC/Fatyanovo, and absolutely nothing like Catacombans."

How does that make sense if Babino is a mix of CWC and Catacomb?

Maybe Babino is a mix of Catacomb and EEF + Sintashta-like people from further east (given the archaeology wrt to chariots, weapons and ornaments).

Davidski said...

@All

The following samples from this paper have been added to the Global25 datasheets.

BWA_Taukome_1100BP:TAU001
BWA_Xaro_1400BP:XAR001
BWA_Xaro_1400BP:XAR002
COG_Kindoki_230BP:KIN002
COG_Kindoki_230BP:KIN004
COG_NgongoMbata_220BP:NGO001
KEN_HyraxHill_2300BP:HYR002
KEN_Kakapel_300BP:KPL002
KEN_Kakapel_900BP:KPL003
KEN_Kakapel_3900BP:KPL001
KEN_LuKENHill_3500BP:LUK001
KEN_MoloCave_1500BP:MOL001
KEN_MoloCave_1500BP:MOL003
KEN_Nyarindi_3500BP:NYA002
UGA_Munsa_500BP:MUN001

Same links as always...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html

Archi said...

A said...

"How does that make sense if Babino is a mix of CWC and Catacomb?

Maybe Babino is a mix of Catacomb and EEF + Sintashta-like people from further east (given the archaeology wrt to chariots, weapons and ornaments)."

I don't know what kind of mix Gatacomb and CWC is, there is no such data, there is only about CWC. Sintashta is strictly CWC, pure CWC + Siberian outliers. Babino can not come from Sintashta, because it is older than Sintashta and definitely does not come from Sintashta, it is a completely separate migration different from Sintashta. Babino synchronously Abashevo, and maybe even older. The oldest horse psalies are located on the territory of these both cultures.

A said...

"The oldest horse psalies are located on the territory of these both cultures."

Do you mean disk cheek-pieces, used for chariots? I thought the earliest ones were from the Sintashta area, along with the earliest chariots.

Cy Tolliver said...

@ David

Do you ever do Y-Calls by any chance? KEN_Kakapel_3900BP was listed as CT in the paper, and I think there's a good chance he actually might be either a basal CT or pre-CT since the sample coverage looked reasonably good. Would be great if someone could actually confirm what his Y really was.

Ryan said...

@David - "The following samples from this paper have been added to the Global25 datasheets."

Thanks for linking to that paper. Seems like confirmation of what was already suspected - a collapse of a hunter-gatherer cline in the face of Afro-Asiatic and Bantu pastoralists.

COG_Kindoki_230BP:KIN004 is R1b1 if anyone want to put their tinfoil hats on by the way.

Archi said...

@A "I thought the earliest ones were from the Sintashta area, along with the earliest chariots."

You did not think correctly, chariots are chariots, and harnessed horses are harnessed horses. To invent a chariot, you must first harness a horse to a cart.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Hey Cy Tolliver,

I wanted to discuss something about deep ancestry with you if you don't mind. DO you mind if I shoot you an email? Thanks man.

A said...

Archi, have you got any more info on that?

capra internetensis said...

@Ryan

Probably R1b-V88, but could be Portuguese R1b-M269; unlikely to be mysterious anyway.

Archi said...

@A

I already did, but I repeat. Kuzmina, 1994

"The classification of psalies and the establishment of their evolution allow us to establish the origin of discoid psalies and their chronology. The most archaic
discoid amorphous non ornamented psalies of type I originate from
Catacomb-Mnogovalikovaya and Abashevo complexes from Ukraine to the Urals.

This allows you to recognize the first inventors of chariots psaliya is found with the tribes of the Abashevo and Mnogovalikovaya ceramics (KMK). These and others took a decisive part in the construction of closely related monuments of the Potapovka type from the don to the Volga, Sintashta and Petrovka in the Urals and Kazakhstan. Within Potapovka and Sintashtinsko-Petrovsky population chariot tactic of the battle were the mass distribution, as evidenced, first, by the appearance of the graves of warriors, buried with chariots and harness the horses, secondly, the concentration of the greatest number known in the Old world, discoid psalies in the forest-steppe between the don and the Urals; the third, an intensive search is the most rational design psalia, a variety of coexisting types. Taking into account the monocentric origin of discoidal psalies, we can assume that they spread to both Kazakhstan and the Danube region and further to Greece from the southern Russian steppes. In this case, the date of the psalies from Tomb IV in Mycenae, which refers to the end of the Middle Elladian (CE) - the beginning of the Late Elladian (LE) period, serves as the terminus ante quern of the psalies of type I from Potapovka, Sintashta and Petrovka, and even more so - the most archaic specimens of the Abashevo (Balanbash, Tavlykaevo, Surush) and KMK (Kamenka, Trakhtemirovo) which can be attributed to the XVII century BC
Age of psalies of type II (with a dedicated bar and often with inserts
pami), to which most of the Potapovka and Sintashta regions belong
it is set based on synchronization with the Danubian ones that belong to the Monteoru IC4-IIA period. The PA and PB subtypes are synchronous, so that
the joint finding in Utevka VI proves this."

Archi said...

С. V. Kuzminykh, R. A. Mimokhod Radiocarbon Dates of the Pepkino Barrow and some issues of chronology of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, 2016

"In our opinion, the Middle Volga Abashevo culture is the oldest culture in the Abashevo community. This view is consistently defended by OV Kuzmina. Let's add one more argument to that. Many researchers (V.F. Smolin, A.H. Khalikov, S.V. Bolshov, etc.) rightly note the coming nature of the Abashevo culture in the Middle Volga region. It appears here "with already established cultural determinants" (Bolsov 2003: 44; 2005: 111). We believe that the Middle Volga Abashevo culture was formed under direct impetus from the Carpathian-Balkan region and southern Germany. It is here that the cultures of the European Early Bronze Age have direct analogies not only to the majority of Abashevo ornaments (spiral pierces, spectacle pendants, spherical plaques with two holes), but also to the combinations of their arrangement in a suit (Matuschik 1996: Abb. 9, 1, 2). This set of matches is hardly the result of convergent development. The bright ceramic complex of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, which flourishes suddenly and is only indirectly connected with the local preceding substrate, finds striking analogies both in morphology and ornamentation of Central European cultures, in particular, the Adlerberg group (a variant of the Unetice culture) (Gebers 1978: Taf. 33, 12, 35, 5, 48, 4, etc.). This western impulse is much clearer in the Middle Volga Abashevsk culture than in the Fatyanov-Balanov antiquities, whose roots are traditionally associated with Central and Northern Europe. The emergence of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture is most likely connected with the promotion of European groups in the Volga region. Thus, the Middle Volga culture of Abashevo, which has preserved the strongly pronounced Central European component in its appearance, is primary in the Abashevskaya community. In its derivatives from the Don-Volga Abashevo culture and the South Urals Abashevo culture this component has already been significantly levelled, although the last two cultures still retain the traditional ethnographic burial costume, and they belong mostly to the next horizon of chariot cultural formations".

Ryan said...

@Capra - My bet would be V88 as I don't think the sample showed any European ancestry.

Mike said...


@Davidsk

Off-topic

Instead of Dronikha culture maybe we are talking of the donetsk culture, which belongs to the DDC community. There are one mariupol burial in Alexandria from 5th millennium BC.

Joey said...

What happened to the Seima-Turbino arrow heads found from the Pepkino kurgan?