Pax Augusta
Elite member
You're right, the topic of the thread is a different one, the David Reich Southern Arc coming paper, and let's all get back on topic.
David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract
- Thread starter Anfänger
- Start date
You're right, the topic of the thread is a different one, the David Reich Southern Arc coming paper, and let's all get back on topic.
Do you know their burial type in grave?
In ancient East europe, EHG group introduced supine type for the first time which was changed by next intruders. SS/repin/yamna has supine with leg flexed like scythians. However EEF continued their traditions of ANATOLIA:
- Samara culture and Dniepr-Dones (5th – 4th millennium BC)
- Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures (5th – middle 4th millennium BC)
EEF
Philjames100
Regular Member
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 130
- Points
- 43
The link works for me: https://atlas-innovations.de/en/
Your book only mentions evidence for wheeled vehicles dating back to c. 3500 BC, e.g. the Bronocice pot from Poland. However there is significantly older evidence in Europe, which isn't mentioned. Not only is the oldest evidence in Europe, but also the oldest actual wheels and vehicles are in Europe, and the quantity of evidence in Europe is much larger than in Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian evidence basically consists of some drawings whose interpretation and dating is controversial.
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
Thanks for the links. However, you seem not to understand where I'm coming from. Why do you ignore the scientific article which states that anthropologist Cosimo Posth of the University of Tübingen in Germany led a large international team of researchers who found out that the Etruscans differ culturally from the Romans? That is not me but the scholars speaking. So I based my opinion on their conclusion. Anyway, If I don't know what I'm talking about, then tell me why do the Romans speak an Indo- European language and the Etruscans don't. Do you think speaking a totally different language is not a big deal? And isn't speaking a pre-Indo-European language not a case of retaining more of pre-Indo-European culture than your neighbors who switched the language?
https://www.euvolution.com/promethe...rigins-of-the-ancient-etruscans-sciencealert/
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
I beg to disagree, it's not about Italians here. Whenever Steppe people, blond hair or blue eyes are being discussed, as sure as day people bring up the Nazis or the boogeyman Nordicism. In other threads, I plead several times in vain to stop making everything about Nazis, and Nordicism when these topics are being discussed to maintain a rational debate. Apparently, Germanic and Steppe populations, are fair game and thus people can display expressions of bias or prejudice and write comments that are dripping with disdain about them all they want. Some appear to take Nordism as an excuse to trash Germanic or Steppe ancestry. Anyway, let's go back to topic.
Pax Augusta
Elite member
Because it is irrelevant what that article writes, it is based on the press release and statements copied and pasted on the occasion of the release of the study. The Transhumanism, really? As for Cosimo Posth is not an anthropologist, he is a geneticist and has studied chemistry and natural sciences. I can hardly believe that a group of geneticists could have found out that the Etruscans and Romans were culturally different. It is not within their competence to find out this. Their competence is to comment on the genetic data, and that's it. And for the genetic datum, Etruscans and Latins were similar. End of story. Different ones are the Romans of the Imperial era.
Writing that the Etruscans and Romans had significant linguistic and cultural difference is something extremely banal. It is obvious that they were, just as everyone in pre-Roman Italy was 'different'. It is something that can be said of many civilisations that were geographically close. Given that the Romans then borrowed much from the Etruscans, given that Rome was even under Etruscan rule for a few centuries, and since from a certain point onwards all Etruscans also became Romans, it is almost paradoxical. Etruscans were a civilisation that lasted almost a thousand years, and the Romans even a little more. Which period exactly are you comparing? The linguistic ancestors of the Romans are the Latins, and in the early Iron Age it is much more what the Etruscans and Latins have in common than what differentiated them. Attributing diversity to the fact that they spoke different languages... it's not even worth going further and continuing the discussion. And as some users have pointed out, we are off topic, this thread is about David Reich and the Southern Arc, and what we are discussing has nothing to do with this thread at all.
real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 63
Before we go back to the topic let me make that clear I'm not talking out of my head as you try to make me appear.
Here's the thing same scientific article was posted on a blog about Archaeology&history. https://ancient-archeology.com/category/archaeology-history/
Plus, on the official Website of the University of Tübingen, there was this article that alludes to the Etruscans being different from their neighbors not in terms of genetics, though.
"Die Etrusker bewohnten während der Eisenzeit große Gebiete Mittelitaliens, die heutigen Regionen Toskana, Latium und Umbrien mit lokalen Ausläufern in benachbarte Regionen. Ihre Kultur ist bekannt für die besonderen Fähigkeiten bei der Metallbearbeitung, ihre hochentwickelte Kunst und ihre Sprache, die noch nicht in allen Teilen entschlüsselt ist und nicht zur Sprachfamilie der Indoeuropäischen Sprachen gehört. „Die Etrusker traten so verschieden von ihren Nachbarn auf, dass in der Wissenschaft schon lange darüber diskutiert wird, ob diese Bevölkerung lokal entstand oder zugewandert war. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen einen lokalen Ursprung“, berichtet Cosimo Posth."
Translation
The Etruscans inhabited large areas of central Italy, present-day regions of Tuscany, Lazio and Umbria, with local outcrops into neighboring regions, during the Iron Age. Their culture is known for their special skills in metalworking, their highly developed art and their language, which is not yet fully deciphered and does not belong to the Indo-European language family. “The Etruscans appeared so different from their neighbors that scholars have long debated whether this population was local or immigrant. Our results show a local origin,” reports Cosimo Posth."
https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche-fakultaet/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/fachbereich/aktuelles/aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/newsfullview-aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/article/genetische-abstammung-und-erbe-der-etrusker-entschluesselt/
Pax Augusta
Elite member
It is still the same old stuff, which does not prove your point in any way. Posth does nothing more than peddle the importance of his discovery to an uneducated public, making you believe that he has solved the mystery of the Etruscans (a mystery that was based on the classic clichés of the Etruscans' coming from outside, of their diversity in the Preroman context and their eventual disappearance) because his research would finally disprove all the false beliefs about the Etruscans. Too bad that his research at best confirmed what archaeologists had been claiming for 50 years, Etruscans were local and the whole subject of diversity has been put back into perspective.
To take this a step further, what does this have to do with David Reich's forthcoming paper The Genetic History of the Southern Arc?
A. Papadimitriou
Regular Member
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 188
- Points
- 43
There are some people of European background usually that like to present Indoeuropeans as 'warlike' but 'pre-indo-Europeans' or non-Indpoeuropeans as 'peaceful' or weak in one way or another etc. The truth is most IE groups at least seemed to have been generally 'warlike' but many other non-IE groups are presented as warlike too.
E.g. Dionysius of Halikarnassus presents the Etruscans as warlike too.
In Plato we read:
Here we see that both IE and non IE groups (Carthaginians, Iberians) can be presented as warlike. The passage may also be important concerning cultural differences within the speakers of one language group (e.g. Greeks here).
So, there may be cultural differences between Etruscans and Romans, the language may play a role but most likely not the most important one (there is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis though)
But one important question should be which are the differences exactly. (maybe for another thread, I don't really care personally)
Peaceful people can primarily live in isolation or as a subjugated entity, which is not fully independent and under the control and/or protection of another, more warlike people. Warfare is in human nature, we already see it in chimpanzees.
There are however cultures and people with a stronger or weaker emphasis on warfare, like in their religion, ethics, ideology and social-moral evaluation etc. If we look at the intensity and brutality of warfare, pre-IE was either as intense or more so by most realistic accounts. Actually things got overall more peaceful over time, because larger entitities began to control larger pieces of land and more people, which relatively pacified things in comparison to the earlier, pre-Copper Age stage, when small scale warfare was the norm and happened all the time.
The biggest difference being, in my opinion, that while there was constant small scale warfare before, which oftentimes had little effect than killing a certain percentage of males, with TRB-GAC and PIE at the same time, we see a much larger scale mobile warfare, which was not necessarily more brutal or frequent, but way more consequential.
I would compare it with the age old warfare among Papuans, which rarely exterminates one tribe and clan completely, but it happens all the time, vs. Turkic and Mongol warfare, which was not more frequent, but much bigger in scale and could annihilate a whole range of groups and either exterminate those or assimilate and mix with them.
Same here, PIE brought warfare to the next level, that's what they really did. But they weren't even the first, TRB-GAC pretty much did the same thing, so did other groups of LN-CA people. For some reason, the PIE were in the end just the most effective.
kingjohn
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,218
- Reaction score
- 1,181
- Points
- 113
Ricardo
Elite member
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 8
- Ethnic group
- Brazilian Portuguese Founder
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J1-FGC6035
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1ao1
Not every culture, society or State have the same projection of warfare with the same intensity. In South America the Tupi-Guarani had a very expansionist and warlike culture ready to absorb and include other warriors in their culture, they had tribal chiefdoms and invaded a good part of Eastern South America while other tribes were more local and rooted in the same regions, so we can compare with the PIE culture, ideologies and movements. Most of the IE formations were extremely warlike, just like the Ancient Iranians, Greeks, Latins, Romans and the modern Western Atlantic Powers, Portugal, Castile (Spain), France, England and the Eastern Eurasian Russia created the big modern European Empires following the ancient IE traditions. IE was born as an expansionist culture and language and still is in some formations. They could had stayed only in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc but decided to conquer the world.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I would suggest you go back and re-read David Anthony, or any of the many papers on "Indo-European" culture for a refresher course on the emphasis put on war and conquest in that culture. Violent conflict between farmer clans or settlements in "Old Europe" in times of scarcity is a completely different story, and anyone with an ounce of logic and any knowledge of the groups being discussed should know that.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
To the readers of this thread:
As to the complaints about discussions of pigmentation, those discussions are almost always started or returned to again and again by Northern or Eastern Europeans. It's "their" freaking obsession, so pardon me or others for noticing that. It's like we're supposed to ignore all the bilge that's posted on the internet about it and what it means. Stop whining about it when you're called out for it, and stop pretending.
As for the poster complaining about "too many" posts about Italians, don't blame me or Jovialis or Pax or many of our other members. The obsession with Italian genetics and phenotype is all over anthrofora. We post the papers or calculators about Italian genetics and discuss them, but the people who come back to those papers and calculators over and over again are not Italians or people of Italian descent in most cases. Why they're so obsessed with us is a whole separate issue, and not something we can control. Furthermore, probably half of the posts here are about Balkan genetics. If people want to discuss the genetics papers or history of their own ancestral areas, then post about them, for crying out loud. I'm certainly interested and would participate.
Now, I also got drawn off topic, so I won't be deleting past posts. However, any future off-topic posts will be deleted.
As to the complaints about discussions of pigmentation, those discussions are almost always started or returned to again and again by Northern or Eastern Europeans. It's "their" freaking obsession, so pardon me or others for noticing that. It's like we're supposed to ignore all the bilge that's posted on the internet about it and what it means. Stop whining about it when you're called out for it, and stop pretending.
As for the poster complaining about "too many" posts about Italians, don't blame me or Jovialis or Pax or many of our other members. The obsession with Italian genetics and phenotype is all over anthrofora. We post the papers or calculators about Italian genetics and discuss them, but the people who come back to those papers and calculators over and over again are not Italians or people of Italian descent in most cases. Why they're so obsessed with us is a whole separate issue, and not something we can control. Furthermore, probably half of the posts here are about Balkan genetics. If people want to discuss the genetics papers or history of their own ancestral areas, then post about them, for crying out loud. I'm certainly interested and would participate.
Now, I also got drawn off topic, so I won't be deleting past posts. However, any future off-topic posts will be deleted.
Silesian
Junior Member
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 104
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Citizen of Earth.
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-BY593
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2a2
Chimpanzee can be very aggressive to their own, they even hunt down weaker monkeys and eat them. Bonobos related to Chimpanzee, are very different in nature. I always heard studies of when food run's out in a city (dense population)that human instinct turns violent very fast. The typical grocery store has to be replenished with food very frequently. I wondered if people in s big city would ever turn to cannibalism if food was not provided.
matadworf
Regular Member
They'd probably move to the country and raise their own food which i've been doing for years. My family moved to the US (Wyoming) from Greece (where they were self sustainable mountain folks in the Peloponnese) in the early 1900's and have a tradition of hunting, fishing, raising our own food (veggies). I guess we're a part of the farming tradition. I would suggest more folks do that.
matadworf
Regular Member
If the Steppe people were pastoralists didn't they sort of combine herding with farming. Farmers, I would guess, were herders as well. What you see (less so now than 30 years ago) historically in mountain communities of the Balkans;Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria are folks who are essentially farmers/pastoralists so I would assume that at some point these traditions fused rather than collided.
When we talk about major migrations there should be an important reason for it, 5,000 years ago there was a huge lake in the north central Iran where there is already a huge desert.
https://www.openquaternary.com/articles/10.5334/oq.94/
https://www.openquaternary.com/articles/10.5334/oq.94/
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
The steppe itself was not conducive to farming. Some steppe people tried it, but it really only worked right around the rivers. There was no large scale farming on the steppe, just herding of domesticated animals they got from farmer societies, and, of course, the horse.
Keeping this to the topic of the thread, one of my questions does indeed relate to farming and domesticated animals on the steppe. IF the original homeland was in some area south of the Caucasus, was it after the domestication of animals that they moved north unto the steppe, and they brought them with them, and didn't buy them from the farmers of "Old Europe"? Did they also bring the knowledge of farming, and does that explain the attempts at farming in the river valleys? Or, was it even further back in time.
I also really want to see, along with some dating, the y Dna of those first Anatolian I.E.
This thread has been viewed 205017 times.