Aspurg
Banned
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 233
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Bædzænæg
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-A24070
- mtDNA haplogroup
- I1a1a
Who published the analyses of bone remains from the Gava culture?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1
A Hungarian study. Female but she closely clusters autosomally with earlier Hungarian "Scythians", at whose two sites Gava urns were found (and I found that in some Hungarian archeological sources). So Hungarian Scythians were direct descendants of the Gava culture people as I have predicted some months before this new study. One Hungarian Scythian was R-YP340. Ottomany culture sample from the study is R-Z280. Gava developed on the Ottomany basis in good part.
What studies state that E-V13 is totally related to the Girla-Mare culture which was non-IE speaking?
Upcoming Bulgarian study shows two samples of Pšeničevo culture are E-V13. 15 year old sample of the same culture shows the same. Pšeničevo is ultimately derived of Girla Mare/Dubovac. This culture is considered by the archeologists to have been non-IE. Having 3 out of 3 finds from two sites belong to the same hg shows its strong relation to it.
Pšeničevo was Thracian ofc but in the previous stage it is known Gava people merged with Girla Mare people.
These are complex topics and cannot be simplified in this way. First of all, these are material cultures, not ethnicities. Villanovan culture is an Iron Age culture exclusively Etruscan. It is true that it shows similarities with various cultures of the Urnfield cultures of Central and Eastern Europe. But before the Villanovan culture there is the Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture which is almost supranational in Italy.
Material cultures can be and are in great many cases directly associated with different linguistic and genetic makeup. Otherwise Yamnaya or the EEF's would not have been so uniform...
I am talking of proto-Villanovan culture. Proto-Villanovan urns were very similar to Gava urns..
There is definitely a relationship in the material culture between the Etruscans of the early Iron Age and some Urnfield cultures between the northern Balkans and the Danubian-Carpathian plain but this relationship is very complex. Including the Proto-Tyrrhenian language in the discourse must explain not only the Etruscan language but also the Raetic language. The Raetic people in the second Iron Age are associated with the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture and before that, between the end of Bronze and the first Iron Age, with the Laugen-Melaun culture.
Per some old sources Raetic speakers were migrants from the South. Also remember that in the Balkans existed the Lemnian language. I know some of your have dismissed them as Etruscan traders but in the light of new finds connecting the E-V13 demographic expansion with Girla Mare, the fact that E-V13 is a Neolithic hg stemming from Western Balkans, as well as the nature of Girla Mare cultures, such views must be taken with great reserve.
I do not want this discussion to descend into petty nationalism where some members of modern day X, Y, Z ethnicities consider certain old cultures as part of their own identity and that therefore they must originate within the territory of the X, Y, Z ethnicity, as ofc its modern descendants are legitimate heirs and for some culture to have originated elsewhere is an affront to the "modern national unity and cohesion".. It cannot be an affront, there are no modern Etruscans speakers anymore and only Etruscan speakers would have a right to bring such an argument to the table.
The last time I talked about this it did have such undertones..