The Mediterranean route into Europe (Paschou et al. 2014)

The Romans were able to make the trip because they built huge ships and powered them with slaves. Even then, there was a particular route they needed to follow in order to make the trip. I think it would have been a very difficult journey in small vessels that relied solely on sail and couldn't tack against the wind. And yet the DNA evidence may suggest some spread of peoples around the Mediterranean during the Neolithic. I personally think at this point it's still a bit of an unsolved puzzle but that if we're going to get clearer answers to how people spread into southern Europe during the Neolithic we may need to look at the potential for crossings from Libya to Sicily and from Morocco to Spain.

Although of course some of the people who arrived in Europe during the Neolithic got there by skirting the Adriatic.

Yes, but as you point out progress in ship building had already been made by Roman times. It would not have been as challenging to make an Alexandria-Rome/Rome-Alexandria trip during those times as it would have been in Neolithic times.
 
I do not know what this issue is of a rome to alexandria sea voyage is about.

If the Phoenicians where traveling by ship across all of the Mediterranean as early as the late bronze-age then what is the issue with a Rome to Alexandria trip?


The Phoenicians (from Tyre, in southern Lebanon) were amongst the greatest Mediterranean traders from approximately 1,500 to 600 BC. Tradition has it that they founded the city of Gadir/ Cádiz in south west Spain in 1100 to exploit the natural resources in the area. There is, however, no hard evidence to substantiate such an early date. Based on archaeological remains, the consensus now is that colonisation began around 800, when settlements were founded along the south coast of the peninsula. The most important besides Gadir, were Malacca (Málaga), Sexi (Almuñecar) and Toscanos (Vélez Málaga, in the province of Málaga).


Under the protection of their powerful, military neighbours, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians expanded throughout the Mediterranean and beyond in search of raw materials and metals for the Middle East market. Although their voyages took them as far as Cornwall (southern England) in pursuit of tin, they found an ample supply of gold, silver, copper and iron in southern Spain. Silver was particularly important to the Assyrians since their currency was largely based on it, and the Phoenicians were expected to provide it. This is why the Río Tinto mines north of Huelva were so important to the Phoenicians; the area contained large deposits of silver. While excavations show that mining in this area goes back to the early Bronze Age, the Phoenicians exploited the deposits of silver more efficiently than ever before.
 
I would suggest that anyone still confused about these matters re-read the paper and the linked studies.
 
The trail also seems to go up into the Balkans from Greece.

I think this map is generally correct in terms of chronology. I should point out, however, that I haven't checked the date of each site. I think there's also a pretty good correlation with the conclusions of this paper. This is the link so that you can decide for yourself the reliability you want to assign to it.
http://www.markbwilson.com/album/1-...a-Neolithic Agricultural Revolution Sites.jpg

2a-Neolithic%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20Sites.jpg
There are other, detailed maps available. Both of the studies I have linked to have done extensive mapping (623 sites covered by the second study), and applied a finer time scale (500 years per colour), which allows to better trace development. Can't link the maps here, you need to look them up in the studies yourself. Another map (University of Dublin) is this one:
S003_Neolith_Exp.jpg

There are obvious differences with the selection of sites considered, aside from dating problems of individual sites, and the fact that some regions haven't been well covered archeologically yet.

In any case, aside from the Mediterranean Route that Pachou et.al. explored, I agree that there also seems to have been a Continental Route. Rather than the Balkans route, however, I would call it the Macedonian / Danube route, since the Dinaric Alps have been spared out, and the Dalmatian coast appears to have been "agriculturalised" from the Mediterranean rather than from the Danube.
A look at the admixture data provided in Pachou's annex (K=8, excluding Bedouins & Yemenites) shows the "Palestine" admixture component in Macedonia and East Rumelia at similar levels as on the Peloponnese, slightly higher than in Tuscany and Sardinia, but lower than on Crete and Sicily. This seems to confirm a migratory spread into Macedonia and the lower Danube region, either via Crete, or overland from Cappadocia via the (at that time still closed) Bosporus. At third route to consider is the Black Sea (in the 7th millennium BC still freshwater and smaller than today), from West Georgia (Colchis), which itself might have been reached by Obsidian and early metal trade between the Armenian Plateau and the Fertile Crescent. Early agricultural settlements would have been near the Black Sea lakeshore and submerged in the meantime; West Georgia is anyway poorly covered archeologically.

Further expansion along the Danube appears to have occurred in several steps:
  1. Pachou's annex has the "Palestinian" admixture component in Serbia (Belgrade) substantially lower than in East Rumelia and Tuscany, at a level comparable to Italy (Rome), with a comparably higher share of "Finnish/Russian/Danish" admixture (however that admixture component would break down in a finer analysis). [Italy (Rome), in comparison, has more "Basque/ Sardinian" elements]. This suggests a later, "watered down" migratory expansion from Macedonia and the Lower Danube (Sesklo Culture, since 6,800 BC) into the Middle Danube and Tisza area (Starcevo & Köros Cultures, since 6,200 BC).
    The contemporary evolution of the Bug-Dniester Culture in Moldova / SW Ukraine suggests also a Back Sea expansion route.
  2. With early LBK (since 5,600 BC), agriculture spreads into Transdanubia and along the Morava (Eastern Austria/ Western Slovakia). Pachou's appendix shows the "Palestinian" admixture further watered down slightly in Hungary compared to Serbia. In this case, both the "Basque/Sardinian" and the "Finnish/Russian/Danish" components go up accordingly.
  3. While there may have been some pause, expansion quiclly contues along 2- 3 paths. Westwards, it follows the Danube and reaches the Middle Rhine. Towards the East, it goes up into Moravia and then, via the Moravian Gate, to upper Oder and Vistula. North of the Carpathians, it encounters the equally expanding Bug-Dniester culture, possibly also migration streams from the upper Tisza. The central route, finally, leads through Bohemia to the middle Elbe up to the northern Harz piedmonts. Rather than in a wave, this expansion appears to have occurred through individual settlements along the main streams, from where gradually the surrounding areas and side valleys were colonized. Both the middle Rhine and the middle Elbe were reached by around 5300 BC at latest.
    While Pachou did not cover this area, ancient DNA from a LBK grave from Derenburg (near Halberstadt north of the Harz) was investigated in 2010. Only three yDNAs could be isolated, they proved out to be two times basal F, and one time G2a3. A Shared Haplotype Analysis showed remarkable similarity with Iranian, Palestine, Turkish and Caucasian gene pools. Finally, they mapped the genetic matrilineal distances between 55 modern European populations and (A) a total of 43 neolitich LBK samples and (B) the single Derenburg graveyard. The maps speak for themselves!
    largerimage

    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536
  4. Between 5300 BC and the turn of the millennium, the later LBK expanded further into the Polish and East German plains, as well as into the Rhineland, the Netherlands and the Paris Basin. Central and NW France may at around the same time also have been reached from the Mediterranean vie the Rhone and Loire valleys. Pachou's results show still a discernible "Palestinian" admixture component in France and Denmark - less than in Hungary, but clearly more than in Ireland, Finland or Russia.
 
Since it is a very nice map, I have copied the map of agricultural expansion from the Cronenburg 2009 essay (my first link in post #56). For the colouring, see the bottom line of the climate diagrams in the upper left corner. In central France, the map appears to apply colour overlays to indicate the convergence of the Mediterranean and the Danube routes.
View attachment 6495

Somehow the map doesn't show up as thumbnail. Could an admin please help?
 
@FrankN,

I read the papers in question with great interest. Thank you for the links. Here is the map from the Carsten Lemmen paper:

Spread of Neolithic Lemmen et al.jpg

From what I see, this reinforces the map I provided above, and the findings of this Paschou paper, that the Neolithic moved from the Levant to Cyprus, Crete, then presumably the Aegean and even the Adriatic and Sicily before it moved to even central Anatolia, much less northwestern Anatolia. So, I think it unlikely that the spread north onto the continent (i.e. broadly the Balkans and then via the Danube into central and eastern Europe) came by way of northwestern Anatolia over the Bosphorous.

Do you have other archaeological data to indicate that there was a definite, direct connection between the Neolithic of the Northwest and that of Thessaly? I believe that Maju, on his blogs has questioned such a connection.
 
Last edited:
Since it is a very nice map, I have copied the map of agricultural expansion from the Cronenburg 2009 essay (my first link in post #56). For the colouring, see the bottom line of the climate diagrams in the upper left corner. In central France, the map appears to apply colour overlays to indicate the convergence of the Mediterranean and the Danube routes.
View attachment 6495


Somehow the map doesn't show up as thumbnail. Could an admin please help?Have you
Have you checked to see (under Settings) whether you have used up all your attachment space? I frequently run into this type of problem, and then have to delete older stored data.

This is another map by Carsten Lemmen. (World distribution of land cover changes during Pre-and Protohistoric Times and estimation of induced carbon releases) This time, instead of using the Pinhasi 2005 data set, he used the Turney and Brown data set. The map is on the internet, so it's easier to post.

img-6-small580.jpg
 
In classical times ships mostly sailed along the coast so they could beach if a storm came up. So they could sail a long way but most of the time they didn't take a direct route if it was possible to follow the coast.

That's why Pheonician colonies tended to be along the south coast and the Greeks along the north.
 
@FrankN,

I read the papers in question with great interest. Thank you for the links. Here is the map from the Carsten Lemmen paper:

View attachment 6496

From what I see, this reinforces the map I provided above, and the findings of this Paschou paper, that the Neolithic moved from the Levant to Cyprus, Crete, then presumably the Aegean and even the Adriatic and Sicily before it moved to even central Anatolia, much less northwestern Anatolia. So, I think it unlikely that the spread north onto the continent (i.e. broadly the Balkans and then via the Danube into central and eastern Europe) came by way of northwestern Anatolia over the Bosphorous.

Do you have other archaeological data to indicate that there was a definite, direct connection between the Neolithic of the Northwest and that of Thessaly? I believe that Maju, on his blogs has questioned such a connection.

Well, your map leaves out the lower Danube and Western Anatolia, which makes it difficult to trace the continental route.
On the lower Danube, I only have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precriş#Neolithic
The Early Neolithic (c. 6600 – 5500 BC) consists of two cultural layers: genetically linked and with similar physiognomies. The first (layer Gura Baciului - Cârcea/Precriş) is the exclusive result of the migration of a Neolithic population from the South Balkan area, while the second (the Starčevo-Criş culture) reflects the process of adjusting to local conditions by a South Balkan community, possibly a synthesis with the local Tardenoisian groups.
Layer Gura Baciului – Cârcea, also called the Precriş culture, is a spin-off of a Protosesklo culture group that advanced north and reached the North Danubian region where it founded the first culture of painted pottery in Romania. The small number of sites attributable to this early cultural time has not allowed the route followed by the group, to penetrate the Inter-Carpathian area, to be firmly established, yet in all likelihood, it was the Oltului Valley.
There is a long list of Romanian sources enclosed - maybe one of the Romanian forum members can provide a few more details.

As to a possible Bosporus route, this paper etensively discusses the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Trace: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3994/1/3994_1511.pdf?UkUDh:CyT.
According to the paper, the site of Hoka Cesme, near the Maritsa/Meric delta, has been dated as contemporary to Sesklo (Thessaly) and Nea Nikomedia (Macedonia), most of early Neolithic material is also similar to Nea Nikomedia. Some early Neolithic sites in Western Anatolia show pottery similar to Hoka Cesme (p 223f). Moreover, a marked change in flint processing in some Western Anatolian sites near Eskisehir (from microliths to long blades) is believed to show Central Anatolian influence during the pre-pottery Neolithic, and possibly indicate a transition to farming (p. 220). The early Fikirtepe culture (named after a south-eastern Istanbul suburb), a mixed hunting-fishing-stockbreeding economy with some farming, OTOH, is dated somewhat later than Sesklo/ Hoka Cesme at 6.400 BC (p. 181). For subsequent periods, the late Neolithic and especially the Chalcolithic, the study documents several cultural linkages between the Black Sea coast east of Samsun, the Aegean, Turkish Thrace, the Eastern Balkans, and pre-Cucuteni in Romania /Moldova, and- to a lesser extent -also with Central Anatolia (p. 215ff). With respect to an eventual overland spread of farming, however, it concludes that late Mesolithic sites in West Anatolia require further investigation before substantiated statements become possible.
My personal takeaway from that study is that, rather than an overland route, a Black Sea route might deserve further consideration - not that much for the Aegean and the Danube, but especially for the Bug-Dniester culture, which in turn might have complemented LBK in introducing agriculture north of the Carpathians.

Here is another, very interesting take on the matter: http://www.academia.edu/656645/The_Late_Escape_of_the_Neolithic_from_the_Central_Anatolian_Plain
The author postulates that the Central Anatolian Plain, rich in wild animals, did not require a full-fledged switch to agriculture, and for millenniums allowed for a hybrid "hunter cum farmer" sedentary economy. Further to the west, ecological conditions were different, but local populations needed time to "re-assemble" the Central Anatolian model to be workable (smaller, household-based units, etc.) in their environment. Once that had been achieved, in a way that included most of the "Mediterranean package", it from 6.400 BC on spread quickly around Western Anatolia and beyond. The spread itself is not described, just referenced in footnotes.

Obviously, the fastest dissemination path would be from the "Lake District" north of Antalya via the Mediterranean. Such a connection is also favoured by a paper on the early-to late 7th millennium BC site of Ulucak (Izmir), west of Antalya, that identifies similarities between local pottery and the one found in Syria and in the Aegean:
http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2009/4278/pdf/Diss_Cilingiroglu_1.pdf
A similar conclusion, based on comparing five different sites in South Anatolia ("Lake District") with Ulucak (Izmir) is reached here:
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf37/37_23.pdf

However, for the specific distribution of "stamp seals", originating in Anatolia but also found on the Eastern Balkans, the following paper argues for a land connection, while constating that archaeological research of West Anatolia has been sparse so far: http://www.academia.edu/947635/West...rly_Chalcolithic_the_actual_state_of_research

Domesticized animals appear to have appeared in Western Anatolia (Uluzak) by the beginning of the 7th millennium BC - by boat or over land from Central Anatolia?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8743970
(abstract only).

All in all, this very much looks like work in progress. A site to watch in this respect will be http://beanproject.eu/
 
I do not know what this issue is of a rome to alexandria sea voyage is about.

If the Phoenicians where traveling by ship across all of the Mediterranean as early as the late bronze-age then what is the issue with a Rome to Alexandria trip?


The Phoenicians (from Tyre, in southern Lebanon) were amongst the greatest Mediterranean traders from approximately 1,500 to 600 BC. Tradition has it that they founded the city of Gadir/ Cádiz in south west Spain in 1100 to exploit the natural resources in the area. There is, however, no hard evidence to substantiate such an early date. Based on archaeological remains, the consensus now is that colonisation began around 800, when settlements were founded along the south coast of the peninsula. The most important besides Gadir, were Malacca (Málaga), Sexi (Almuñecar) and Toscanos (Vélez Málaga, in the province of Málaga).


Under the protection of their powerful, military neighbours, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians expanded throughout the Mediterranean and beyond in search of raw materials and metals for the Middle East market. Although their voyages took them as far as Cornwall (southern England) in pursuit of tin, they found an ample supply of gold, silver, copper and iron in southern Spain. Silver was particularly important to the Assyrians since their currency was largely based on it, and the Phoenicians were expected to provide it. This is why the Río Tinto mines north of Huelva were so important to the Phoenicians; the area contained large deposits of silver. While excavations show that mining in this area goes back to the early Bronze Age, the Phoenicians exploited the deposits of silver more efficiently than ever before.

There is no "issue", just that post #10 in this thread was claiming that making a voyage from Egypt to Italy during Roman times was something akin to some sort of an almost impossible odyssey, which is hardly the case. It was in fact one of the most common shipping routes in the empire, and vital for Rome.

The Phoenicians? Yes, indeed, they too could make such voyages before Roman times as well, no problem:

Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.
Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade.


http://books.google.com/books?id=sm...v=onepage&q=phoenicians italy etruria&f=false

Page 179.
 
I think people should also consider wild life with predators like bears, lions, wolves being quite prevalent as there was a lot of forested land. There are ancient lion statues found in Anatolia. People would have avoided forests and hills till they began domesticating animals. Hills and mountains were scary places for ancient people. For instance Switzerland's high peaks were avoided till recent times as they thought the gods and spirits inhabited them. (Does Mt. Sinai in the Bible come to mind?) With shepherding mountains became the place to pasture goats and sheep.
 
I think people should also consider wild life with predators like bears, lions, wolves being quite prevalent as there was a lot of forested land. There are ancient lion statues found in Anatolia. People would have avoided forests and hills till they began domesticating animals. Hills and mountains were scary places for ancient people. For instance Switzerland's high peaks were avoided till recent times as they thought the gods and spirits inhabited them. (Does Mt. Sinai in the Bible come to mind?) With shepherding mountains became the place to pasture goats and sheep.
A relation that is still well traceable in German: Wald (woods, forests, also mountain ranges as in "Schwarzwald"= Black Forest) <> Wild (game for hunting) <> wild <> gewaltig (violent, mighty).
 
ROFL? An American triracial mulatto talking about Egyptian slaves in Italy?

First of all, the Italian peninsula was already heavily urbanized and satured well before Rome expanded in the East. It was not like Brazil or Alabama which were completely empty and needed hordes of slaves.

Better watch for your Iberian masters who were active in the shipping of African slaves in the last 1.500 years with their Moorish and Jewish buddies, with all the obvious mixing.
 
East Rumelia???? Almost fell from the chair from laughter :rolleyes:
 
ROFL? An American triracial mulatto talking about Egyptian slaves in Italy?

First of all, the Italian peninsula was already heavily urbanized and satured well before Rome expanded in the East. It was not like Brazil or Alabama which were completely empty and needed hordes of slaves.

Better watch for your Iberian masters who were active in the shipping of African slaves in the last 1.500 years with their Moorish and Jewish buddies, with all the obvious mixing.

Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?
 
Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?


You got a point, there were some emperors who came from north Africa and west Asia, I don't remember the names of the north African emperors, but a good example for a west Asian one was Philip the Arab, who came from the Roman province of Arabia.
 
Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?

All debunked non scientific stuff from deluded nordicists like Arthur Kemp. Whereas your Iberian masters were very active in the African slave trade with their North African/Arab friends, with all the obvious mixing, my mulatto friend.

Do you actually know that they have found a copper age Iberian farmer who was genetically very similar to modern mainland Italians? I guess he was one of those milions of slaves who invaded Italy.
 
Egypt has direct connections to Crete (also known from Minoan civilization records), but surprisingly to Sicily too. I know Egypt was producing lots of food for Rome. Perhaps Sicily was a shipping hub?

Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.


East Rumelia, the land above Rodope mountains from Pontos sea to Aimos Mountains, Varna is included.
part of today Turkey and Bulgaria the antique Odrysse Thrace
 
East Rumelia, the land above Rodope mountains from Pontos sea to Aimos Mountains, Varna is included.
part of today Turkey and Bulgaria the antique Odrysse Thrace
Glad to see somebody bringing this thread back to topic.
 

This thread has been viewed 67187 times.

Back
Top