Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 154

Thread: Migration from the Steppe to Anatolia was 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC)

  1. #76
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Kostenki14 belonged to a Proto-Caucasoid population which was ancestral to Crown Eurasian component in all West Eurasians.

    Those Kostenki14-like populations also contributed part of ancestry to South Indian hunter-gatherers, but not to East Asians.

    In other words, Yamnaya were 50% EHG + 50% CHG and Kostenki14-like population was ancestral to both EHG and CHG.
    CHG has 55% of Caucasian admixture. Kostenki has 0%.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  2. #77
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Tomenable,

    Stop deflecting and going off on tangents when you've been proven wrong. You totally misinterpreted the Hofmanova graphic. Everyone who can see and spends two minutes looking at that graphic knows it, so it doesn't prove what you claimed it proved.

    Did you just not bother to really examine it, or did you intend to deceive people?


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #78
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Hofmanova 2016 was a poor publication which got most of things wrong (as explained by the OP in that Anthrogenica thread linked by MarkoZ) - and they got that Kumtepe result only accidentally right. I'm relying first of all on Dodecad K12b and Eurasia K14 which clearly show that Kumtepe4 and 6 had North-Eastern European i.e. Steppe admixture, but Kum4 did not have any Levantine aka. South-West Asian admixture. This is in agreement with data suggesting that Trojans who descended from Kumtepe B people were Luvian-speakers and had Indo-European given names (e.g. Paris, Priam). This is also in agreement with David W. Anthony who wrote that by 4200-4000 BC Proto-Anatolian speakers came from the Steppe to Bulgaria. It is not at all improbable that farmer-herders who established Kumtepe B culture between 3900 and 3200 BC were descended from the same early wave of Steppe emigrants, admixed by Balkan farmers.

    In other words I'm not relying on just one graph but on interdisciplinary evidence which support each other and form altogether a coherent picture. I'm not sure why you doubt it - do you think that Anthony is wrong regarding Proto-Anatolian migration?

  4. #79
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    Kumtepe4 is a BA sample. And it has EHG.
    Here a better K5 from Hoffmanova.
    It has some 20-30% of EHG (not Yamna). While Armenia Chl has 20% of EHG.
    But off course the exact route of that EHG expansion is unknown!!!

  5. #80
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    Olympos

    Good news for You. Aknashen (Shulaveri) site got finances and aDNA from there will not be late.

    There are typos in that article. Millenium instead of century.
    http://news.am/eng/news/351593.html

    @all

    Kura araxes (EBA) is very different from Armenia Chl. It is anti EHG. It is mostly ENF/CHG/IranChl.

  6. #81
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    I wrote Proto-Caucasoid (= ancestral to Caucasoids), not Caucasoid.
    Well, that's not what the 'proto-' affix usually indicates. If K14 showed no independent morphometrical development towards the Caucasoid type, he wasn't a Proto-Caucasoid. These labels become meaningless if we don't examine every single specimen individually.

    No I didn't. Crown Eurasians = all of Eurasians except for Basal Eurasians.
    Google returns a blog and a few forum entries for 'Crown Eurasians'.

    But then I was talking about a K14-like population ("K14 minus Basal" folks), not specifically about K14.
    No you weren't. You said K14 belonged to a population that was ancestral to most Eurasians.



    If that is where his "Basal" came from, then yes.

    Had Basal Eurasians expanded from Arabia, along the coast through India, all the way to South-East Asia?

    There is a hypothesis about "Southern Migration" and "Northern Migration" routes into Eurasia after the OoA.

    Maybe descendants of Basal Eurasians migrated along the southern route, and of Crown Eurasians to the north.
    No, it's precisely the opposite. Both C and F radiated out of South-East Asia after CF migrated out of Africa. Most Eurasians derive their ancestry from this migration. Tellingly, K14's C-M130 still exists in significant frequencies in Australia and India. He must have picked up his Basal Eurasian component further west or north.

  7. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    528


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by Arame View Post
    Olympos

    Good news for You. Aknashen (Shulaveri) site got finances and aDNA from there will not be late.

    There are typos in that article. Millenium instead of century.
    http://news.am/eng/news/351593.html

    @all

    Kura araxes (EBA) is very different from Armenia Chl. It is anti EHG. It is mostly ENF/CHG/IranChl.

    Hi Arame... the article does not say they have extracted samples. But I believe you.
    Just look at that architechture. Fully Shulaveri.
    You Probably already know that i truly believe it was them the original bearers of M269. And some will have L23, others not. Aknashen were the first to be abandoned. so around 5400 bc) and either moved north to joint the rest of shulaveri or way already. lets see.
    After 4900 bc (Why does Johannes Krause from Max planck wrote 4900 bc, why indeed) They made Svobodnoe, Mesokho, Khavlinski (a large percentage), Yamanya (a fairly good percentage). West they show up as Kumtepe6. south, ok my god, South.... that is where the juice stuff is.



    Kura araxes is naturally after the "explosion" that "KIcked" the shulaveri. That "explosion" came from the east, from Iran I now believe. so 1000 years (Kura araxes) after that invasion people are very admixed. Probably, Probably even to Maykop. No wonder Maykop had an "indian" Mtdna (M) and guys found in PRE-Kura araxes also had "indian" Ydna (L1a) . Kura araxes had loads od admix of diferent people.

  8. #83
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    From Hofmanova:

    "Finally, f 4-statistics of the form f4(Aegean, Kumtepe, CHG, 6=Khomani) showed that CHG populations shared unique drift with Kumtepe6 when compared to both Greek and Anatolian Aegeans (Table S25). Though little is known about hunter-gatherers in Anatolia, this suggests that towards the end of, or directly following, the Neolithic expansion there was gene flow from the Caucasus and neighboring regions to Anatolia. If there was continued gene flow across the Aegean at this time between Greece and Anatolia, this would also be compatible with the f 3 outgroup results which show the later Greek samples to be closer to CHG than the Rev5 and two early Neolithic Anatolian samples."

    The title of the graphic you posted, a title you conveniently neglected to post:

    "Figure S15: Supervised run of ADMIXTURE. The clusters to be supervised were chosen to best fit the presumed ancestral populations (for WHG Motala, for CHG KK1 and SATP and for farmers Bar8 and Bar31). 73."

    Yellow represents CHG based on Paleolithic and Mesolithic samples, not Yamnaya.

    You totally misrepresented the meaning of that graphic.

    When it was pointed out, it suddenly became an unreliable paper. If it was so unreliable why did you use it?

    As for its unreliability, imo, the results were sloppily and confusingly presented, but there was certainly some good analysis in there. Eurogenes went *** **** because the circles for the Ashkenazim were placed over Poland. God forbid anyone think they represented Polish genetics.

    The Hofmanova paper is discussed here:
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ight=Hofmanova

    As for David Anthony's work, I'm a great admirer of a lot of it, but the "Anatolian" languages portion is one of the weakest parts because he just dumps the supposed "Anatolian" speakers in the Balkans and doesn't trace them to Anatolia. So, perhaps they either originated in Anatolia or moved south through the Caucasus to Anatolia. I don't know, and neither do I care how it turns out. We need more ancient dna.

    @Arame,

    I can't make heads or tails of that graphic purporting to show EHG in Kumtepe. If you wish, present a clearer image and explain your point.
    Last edited by Angela; 18-10-16 at 19:07.

  9. #84
    Elite member
    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,508

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    I don't know if confusing or adjusting the real geographic terms to fit their own believes/models. Aegean and Marmara are Anatolia and not "Southeast and East Anatolia". Those regions are Mesopotamia and Transcaucasus.

    This is the traditional definition of Anatolia, based on the original name givers the Greeks.



    Southeast "Anatolia" in reality doesn't exist and the only reason the term Anatolia was given to that region is because of the modern state Turkey.

    The Ivanov model is the West Asian Highland hypothesis.

  10. #85
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

    I think this is the abstract of the paper:

    "The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
    a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
    language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
    Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
    from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
    of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
    indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
    each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
    of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
    new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
    and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
    the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
    hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
    hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."


    That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. Or was it SHG? We'll know very soon. Also, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.

  11. #86
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

    I think this is the abstract of the paper:

    "The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
    a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
    language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
    Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
    from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
    of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
    indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
    each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
    of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
    new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
    and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
    the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
    hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
    hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."

    That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. However, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.
    Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arame
    Kumtepe4 is a BA sample. And it has EHG.
    Here a better K5 from Hoffmanova.
    It has some 20-30% of EHG (not Yamna).
    20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

    Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).

  12. #87
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.



    20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

    Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).
    I repeat: show a legible graphic with 20-30% EHG in the Kumtepe samples. I'm tired of claims being made which on more investigation are either incorrect or deliberately misleading.

    See post #83

  13. #88
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    See what Arame wrote.

    ==========

    Edit:

    OK I'll read post #83.

  14. #89
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Angela,

    EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
    does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?

  15. #90
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    Angela,

    EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
    does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?
    Yes, to the best of my recollection, Stuttgart or LBK is where they found the additional single digit amount of WHG picked up locally, i.e. not the WHG like alleles they already possessed when they were in Anatolia.

    I think I also recall that the Hungarian farmer genomes had less, but someone should check me on that.

  16. #91
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Sorry, guys, that Hofmanova graphic was starting to confuse me. What it shows (if we take the labeling as correct) is the presence of CHG yellow in the Neolithic from very early on, since yellow is the color for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic CHG. The orange Motala element which is WHG with some EHG is in some of the Hungarian Neolithic samples, but not in LBK. It's also not in the Anatolian samples, including Kumtepe.

    That may or may not tie in with the Matthiesen paper which is upcoming, where he mentions eastern hunter-gatherers.

    However, looking at those yellow percentages they seem close to what normally are called the percentages for WHG in the early farmers.

    So, it's all very confusing. I hope Hofmanova and Hellenthal didn't get the colors confused. Maybe Matthiesen will clarify things.

  17. #92
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

    I think this is the abstract of the paper:

    "The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
    a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
    language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
    Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
    from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
    of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
    indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
    each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
    of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
    new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
    and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
    the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
    hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
    hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."
    Awesome. Can't wait.

  18. #93
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

    The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



    PS. 'Kumtepe' is not Anatolia at all, but it is actually part of the ancient Greece/ Balkans, 'Marmara'. Has nothing to do with the 'Eastern' Anatolia. That 'Kumtepe' person is a Pontic Greek/Balkanic. Has nothing to do with the Maykop that Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Culture and the 'Eastern' Anatolian (Armenian) R1b-something.
    Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
    I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
    &: It's very possible that South Caucasus gr
    oups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
    the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
    here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
    for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
    A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.

  19. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
    I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
    &: It's very possible that South Caucasus gr
    oups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
    the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
    here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
    for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
    A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.
    Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

    So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


    Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


    Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.

  20. #95
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

  21. #96
    Elite member
    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,508

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.
    Stone stelea are found throughout the Middle East as far as Arabia!! some of the oldest are in Kurdistan near my home region. So as long as scientist don't show me any signs of Indo European Bronze Age in Saudi Arabia, I doubt Stelae alone can be used as sign for it. Looks more like a general Neolithic thing.

    Anthropomorphic stelae of the Near East

    Bronze Age anthropomorphic funerary stelae have been found in Saudi Arabia. There are similarities to the Kurgan type in the handling of the slab-like body with incised detail, though the treatment of the head is rather more realistic.[12]
    The anthropomorphic stelae so far found in Anatolia appear to post-date those of the Kemi Oba culture on the steppe and are presumed to derive from steppe types. A fragment of one was found in the earliest layer of deposition at Troy, known as Troy I.[13]
    Thirteen stone stelae, of a type similar to those of the Eurasian steppes, were found in 1998 in their original location at the centre of Hakkâri, a city in the south eastern corner of Turkey, and are now on display in the Van Museum. The stelae were carved on upright flagstone-like slabs measuring between 0.7 m to 3.10 m in height. The stones contain only one cut surface, upon which human figures have been chiseled. The theme of each stele reveals the fore view of an upper human body. Eleven of the stelae depict naked warriors with daggers, spears, and axes-masculine symbols of war. They always hold a drinking vessel made of skin in both hands. Two stelae contain female figures without arms. The earliest of these stelae are in the style of bas relief while the latest ones are in a linear style. They date from the 15th to the 11th century BC and may represent the rulers of the kingdom of Hubushkia, perhaps derived from a Eurasian steppe culture that had infiltrated into the Near East.[14]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae


    Imo the Hetittes came from the East or Northeast not the West.
    Last edited by Alan; 22-10-16 at 04:08.

  22. #97
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.
    That's always been the question about this culture, yes? Did it spread from northwest Anatolia into the Balkans or the reverse. Another problem with the Gimbutas version, where they are steppe admixed people who bring the "Anatolian" languages into Anatolia and whose cultural influence can be found in Troy Level 1, is that the people of Kumtepe 6, which is a neighboring site whose population is thought to have fed into Troy. is that despite Tomenable's proposals there is no evidence of EHG in them.

    Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.

    Of course, there's a lot of population structure in Anatolia, and the Balkans, so that isn't to say that some other group won't be found who brought these languages to Anatolia by moving through the Balkans.

  23. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    528


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    ...
    Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.
    .
    I think he was talking about Kum6 that actually is quite diferent culture from Kum4. Actually there is almost 1000 years of absence of people there from one to the other.

    Altought actually he does see Steppe in almost every relevant event... even those that occured millenia before and 1000 miles away.

  24. #99
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

    So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


    Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


    Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.
    Sorry Goga but I don't see how you understood my unconclusive post; my aim was to say I-E first incursions in Europe (from East to West!) were supposed to have begun earlier than the middle period of Yamnaya; I never said CHG was settled in Danube region as a majority since 4500 BC: I spoke of "Steppes tribes" whatever their auDNA components and the %s of CHG among them; BTW the HGs (SHG or WHG or?) in Danube regions during MN were a weak component of the pop as a whole, in Tripolye surroundings it's uneasy to know (plains?mountains? the samples are scarce but the bulk of the pop was anatolian-danubian) - where did you see I said a huge pop of WHG/SHG from Danube had colonized Transcaucasus or Zagros at those times? When I spoke of moves on every direction, I spoke of Pontic Steppes; but the same occurrred South the BlackSea and South the Caucasus, but not at the same time.
    Just trying to be clear









  25. #100
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

    The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.
    Concerning languages, scientists are scientists when they speak about attested structure, grammar, phonetics, evolution but they stay almost ordinal human beings when they speak about glottochronology or first apparition in a precise place of a language without any written source;
    300/200 years is a little enough spanning; and we don't know if the cultural input of Maykop and other cultural and unresolved demic input from Transcaucasus are the source of the I-Ean language birth.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •