search this blog

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Fascinating stuff


Coming soon I guess:

But we have results from the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age and which seems to connect the people of this culture with the future Hittites and Trojans. This has been confirmed by archeology many times and has been known for at least half a century. But now we see the genetic parallels between the two. Some of these ancient groups from the Bronze Age in one way or another have survived to this day in our country Bulgarians, as we also carry a certain amount of blood and genes from these same people, perhaps in the range of between 5 and 10%, which connects us with the Hittites, ancient Anatolia and the Trojans. There is a huge processing of the results before they are published, but among them there are huge curiosities from now on. One of them is from the necropolis in Merichleri from the Early Bronze Age and in another necropolis in Tsaribrod (the older of the two), these are mound necropolises from the Yamna culture in the Caucasus, of people who migrated here in Bulgaria and connected between you are. They came from the haplogroup R1a, namely Z93, which is the haplogroup again of the Scythian, but more of the Indo-Aryan tribes, the future Indo-Aryans, who later conquered India. But one of the tribes of the Yamna culture seems to have strayed and arrived in the Balkans instead of going to India. And so by chance, because archaeologists and geneticists have chosen between 260 burial mounds from this period, they have chosen only 3-4 and have come across exactly this extremely ancient group, which is from the time before the Indo-European group was divided into Iranians, Indians and Slavs, they were still one people at the time with the same genomes. And yes, one of these groups is among what we call Thracian tribes, but these are not Thracians. We have results from both the Early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age, which are possibly Thracian, but I will keep them a secret at this stage, as I do not want to provoke speculation.

See also...

The precursor of the Trojans

Steppe invaders in the Bronze Age Balkans

222 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222
Arza said...

Tollense sample WEZ56 is R1a-Z283(xM458, V92).

https://pastebin.com/UGUQGYJW

One more time R1a is deliberately (Yleaf automatically reports R1a1a~ R-CTS2891) removed from the official publication. WTF is going on?

mzp1 said...

For f3 remember to set outgroupmode=YES, needed if the outgroup is a single individual.

Rob said...

@ Archie

“ but now you cleverly changed the words Epigravettian for Epiaurignacian”

I haven’t changed anything . It’s your limitations which precludes your comprehension

You are falling prey to not understanding the terminology, which can be confusing for the non acquainted (like yourself)
You need to read carefully. Eg Nerudova

“ After the period of relatively unified Gravettian,
human behavior is reflected in a heterogeneous conglomerate of industries which
are referred to as Epigravettian, Epiaurignacian or Grubgrabian. Dispute has mainly
been held on the meaning of carinated elements, which occur in this period as a
sort of reminiscence of Aurignacian “

Do you understand ? It means some elements which might look like aurignacian reappear; but they are not saying it is aurignacian reappearing from nowhere

Djindjan-

“ Aurignacoïdes” industries of the beginning of the last glacial maximum:

At the beginning of the glacial maximum, a general process of adaptation transformed Gravettian industries into a polymorphic aurignacoïde facies. This phenomenon is known in many regions of Europe:”

Note the quotation marks (implying so-called )
You miss subtleties, and also generally tend to miss basics as well. You lack ability to learn because you have a very malignant attitude

Unknown said...

@Rob

You absolutely do not understand the texts you read. You don't even understand what you are writing yourself. You blame everyone for your shortcomings, which only you have but your interlocutors do not have. the inability to understand and learn is your characteristic. Talking to you is absolutely useless, you will misinterpret any text.

Rob said...

@ Archi

The text is simple for anyone to understand. You cant bluff your way out of this with your usual misdirection & irrelevancies

Again from Svoboda -
'' Typologically, the groups of short endscrapers and burins predominate,
but their quantitative relationship is variable at the individual sites. Some of them are thick and polyhedric, thus recalling some “aurignacoid” forms, however their quantity is low, and the morphology is different from the true Aurignacian...the bone-and-antler industry, whenever preserved, shows parallels to the Magdalenian (bâtons de commandament at Grubgraben and Ságvár, needles at Grubgraben) or to the Gravettian (the circular section points at Lipa VI), but never to the Aurignacian.'


You waste so much space out of your contemptuous disregard for facts and honest discourse.
You serve no purpose here



For everyone else, here is an outline of Paleolithic chronology, from Solich & Bradtmoller 2017

https://imgur.com/mrsw2tc

ambron said...

Arza, the Germans are probably ashamed of their Slavic heritage.

Mouthful said...

@ambron

I don't think you could classify that sample as Slavic.

ambron said...

Arza, how does WEZ56 look autosomal?

Unknown said...

@Rob
"Again from Svoboda-

Stop cheating. It was not for nothing that you did not give the title of the article, because then everyone would immediately see that you cheated, you just deceive everyone directly, as always. And the article is called so
THE AURIGNACIAN AND AFTER: CHRONOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY AND CULTURAL TAXONOMY IN THE MIDDLE DANUBE REGION https://www.academia.edu/19815063/The_Aurignacian_and_after_In_O_Bar_Yosef_J_Zilhao_Towards_a_definition_of_the_Aurignacian_Lisboa_2006_259_274

"ABSTRACT
The specific technological and typological features of the Aurignacian of the Middle Danube region are reviewed in the context of available chronostratigraphic data and anthropological associations. Sites of the Early Aurignacian are rare and following the Danube valley, but the number of sites increases rapidly over the landscape in the period ca.34-29 kyr BP, when Evolved (typical) Aurignacian occurrences are of unambiguous technological and typological definition, and are most likely manufactured by modern humans. Assemblages often associated with the Aurignacian label, such as the “Late Aurignacian” of ca.26-21 kyr BP, the “Morava-river” or “Mískovice” type Aurignacian, and the Kasˇovian of ca.18-15 kyr BP, however, either share many cultural traits with the Gravettian, possibly relate to mechanical admixture, or represent altogether different traditions with “aurignacoid” elements (the Streletskian)."

This paragraph is called "The Kasˇovian: 18-15 kyr BP" so and refers only to Kasˇovian place at the time 18-15 kya after the EpiAurignacian, only. Still, even for such a late time, Aurignacoid features remain.

Svonoda The Kasˇovian:"However, the sites could equally well have been called “Protomagdalenian”, especially on the basis of the bone industry from Grubgraben." not Epigravetian.
You are disgraced again. You don’t understand a word in what you read, you’re just looking for a set of words in spite of the context.

Cy Tolliver said...

@mzp1 and David

I had the following tests crap out on me when trying to test possible admixture scenarios for Dinka:

Source 1 Source 2 Target f_3 std. err Z SNPs
no data Ethiopia_4500BP_published.SG Anatolia_Epipaleolithic Dinka.DG 0 -1 0 -1
no data Ethiopia_4500BP_published.SG Anatolia_N Dinka.DG 0 -1 0 -1
no data Ethiopia_4500BP_published.SG Jordan_PPNB Dinka.DG 0 -1 0 -1
no data Ethiopia_4500BP_published.SG Israel_Natufian Dinka.DG 0 -1 0 -1


All results were "no data" and I don't know why as the samples have plenty of good SNP counts. At first I though maybe using Ethiopia_4500BP might be the problem because he's only a single sample, but I ran him in other tests trying to model African population history and they at least gave me real results (although they weren't significant).

Arza said...

Mokrin (Maros EBA, Serbia) Y-DNA:

MOK9B XX
MOK10B XX
MOK12 XY I-Y13331 (xY13339)
MOK13 XX
MOK14 XX
MOK15 XY J-L283 (xZ597)
MOK16A XX
MOK17A XX
MOK18A XY I-Y13336 (xY13339)
MOK19A XY R-Y14415
MOK20 XX
MOK21A XX
MOK22 XY R-Z2108 (xZ2110)
MOK23 XX
MOK24A XY R-CTS7556 (xBY250, Y10789)
MOK25A XX
MOK26A XX
MOK27 XY R-CTS7556 (xY5587)
MOK28A XY I-S18331 (xS8171)
MOK29A XY I pre-M838 (Y28222+)
MOK30 XX
MOK31 XX
MOK32 XY I pre-M838 (Y28222+)
MOK33 XX

Rob said...

@ Archi

Take your own advice and 'learn Read !"


either share many cultural traits with the Gravettian, possibly relate to mechanical admixture, or represent altogether different traditions with “aurignacoid” elements (the Streletskian).

No true Aurignacian in central Europe site persists beyond 33,000 cal BP.
Scholars otherwise wouldnt be so silly as to enunciate a 9,000 yera gap, or make fools of themselves by making inaccurate chronolgies.
It's no big deal that you got confused. Move along.


''Svonoda ''
It's Svoboda, genius

ambron said...

Arza, I already know - this is the one most similar to the Balts.

Mouthful, but it can be classified as Balto-Slavic.

JuanRivera said...

Most of these clades show a distribution consistent with a Steppe expansion. Interestingly, there's a J but no R1a or Q1.

ambron said...

Arza, WEZ56 is supposedly Z284. With such a large Balto-Slavic drift, the views that the entire Z283 was Balto-Slavic are confirmed.

Samuel Andrews said...

R1a Z284 is found in Scandinavian Battle Axe with no Balto-Slavic drift. Its pretty much only found in Scandinavia today. Balto SLavic drift formed after R1a Z283.

ambron said...

Samuel, mutation Z284 appears around 2700 BC and the Balto-Slavic drift appears around 2600 BC (sample N47). Given the margin of error in radiocarbon and molecular dating, we can assume with high probability that Z284 was originally Balto-Slavic. It is also logical as Z284 is a fraternal line of Z280 and M458 - typical Balto-Slavic mutations.

epoch said...

@Rob

"No true Aurignacian in central Europe site persists beyond 33,000 cal BP."

So Cioclovina and Muierii2 would be the samples to look at. They show relevant affinity to Vestonice16 when compared to KO1 in the D-stats of Fu et al, and Muierii2 also when compared to La Brana. No affection to GoyetQ116. The samples are low res, mind you. When you consider |Z| => 2 as relevant both samples show some affection to Vestonice16 and still not to GoyetQ116.

I always found these samples interesting.

Davidski said...

WEZ56 doesn't belong to Z284, so there's no point continuing the discussion related to this claim.

ambron said...

Yes, I already know, sorry.

Rob said...

@ Epoch

''So Cioclovina and Muierii2 would be the samples to look at. They show relevant affinity to Vestonice16 when compared to KO1 in the D-stats of Fu et al, and Muierii2 also when compared to La Brana. No affection to GoyetQ116. The samples are low res, mind you. When you consider |Z| => 2 as relevant both samples show some affection to Vestonice16 and still not to GoyetQ116.

I always found these samples interesting.''

Yes hopefully someone can obtain higher res. data. I agree with the views of some scholars who think Gravettian originated in East Central Europe sensu latu, a 'culturally drifted' Aurignacian forming between northern Balkans & Prut-Dniester.

But in terms of the post-Ice Age of colonziation of central Europe (which ~ 24/23000 calBP), the most relevant samples should be ''stragglers'' (so to speak) who managed to survive in south central Europe (Carpathians, southern France). Although commonly espoused, I find the notion that the colonists came from 'southern refugia' in Italy, Iberia or Balkans rather unlikely. How would warm-adapted people manage to colonize an ice Age landscape, when even the already cold-adapted guys from Central Europe really struggled ?

The aforementioned survivors initially had what looks like an impoverished culture (hence the archaicizing tendencies, some even Mousterian tendencies become evident). In fact, these were specialised hunting adaptations. Later, when the climate continued to improve, a more secure population then re-acquired the former trappings of the Gravettian, manifestly becoming epigravettian. Hence all these groups (Gravettian, the so-called 'epiaurignacian', epigravettian) are actually the same metapopulation

epoch said...

@Rob

It's a shame that the Buran Kaya 3 paper considered |Z|=2 statistically relevant, but failed to mention that Muierii2 also showed affinity to Vestonice16 and Kostenki14 as per Fu et al. Muierii2 is of similar age as Buran Kaya.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222   Newer› Newest»