Page 50 of 53 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 528

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #491
    Registered Users
    Posts
    217
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    And what's the problem with that? Real excavation campaigns, what do you mean by that? Those are pretty rare overall and the vast majority of excavations are trial & protective, bringing up no less valid data and material. They constitute a huge portion of all the European excavations and brought up a huge portion of the available archaeological material.
    The excavations whose reports are published as papers are very rarely rescue excavations, while field surveys are considered preliminary research and may be used to propose designated sites. Rescue excavations may result in the finding of artifacts which can be later used as a starting point for actual excavation campaigns. They are mostly surveys with very limited surface excavation options in a very tight timetable. Often the people involved in them (with the exception of the overseer) aren't even archaeologists, so a rescue excavation may even cause damage to a site if the number of archaeologists involved is very small. Findings from rescue excavations are stored in warehouses and they may not even be fully catalogued because no proper site information was produced. That's why the person who wrote that there have been identified 54 sites would never be able to propose such a thing in an international paper and obviously the number of proposed sites in the 2013 paper is much, much smaller and by 2020 even the remaining sites didn't share structural similarities which separate them from other sites. What I suspect that the 2006 author did in reality, is that he identified the spread of Brnjica pottery as indication of a "Brnjica site".

    PS: I've been arguing about the "Brnjica culture" or the "Vatin culture" not because I have attached their (non-)existence to a theory but because on internet fora material cultures are treated as social cultures. They aren't actual cultures. When we say "Glasinac-Mati culture", it's not a reference to an ethno-cultural group. It's a theoretical label about the similar ways in which people in a given area interacted with their material surroundings. It doesn't mean that all people of "Glasinac-Mati" necessarily shared the same origin or that people who shared the same origin with some of them didn't interact with their material surroundings in other ways. Some material culture features were transmitted via migrations, others were transmitted via trade and cultural diffusion and others developed independently via contact between different peoples.

  2. #492
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,059
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    The excavations whose reports are published as papers are very rarely rescue excavations, while field surveys are considered preliminary research and may be used to propose designated sites. Rescue excavations may result in the finding of artifacts which can be later used as a starting point for actual excavation campaigns. They are mostly surveys with very limited surface excavation options in a very tight timetable. Often the people involved in them (with the exception of the overseer) aren't even archaeologists, so a rescue excavation may even cause damage to a site if the number of archaeologists involved is very small. Findings from rescue excavations are stored in warehouses and they may not even be fully catalogued because no proper site information was produced. That's why the person who wrote that there have been identified 54 sites would never be able to propose such a thing in an international paper and obviously the number of proposed sites in the 2013 paper is much, much smaller and by 2020 even the remaining sites didn't share structural similarities which separate them from other sites. What I suspect that the 2006 author did in reality, is that he identified the spread of Brnjica pottery as indication of a "Brnjica site".
    I think you are right and wrong the same time. Because yes, many finds from rescue and protective excavations being just later or never fully processed, but I myself participated in some and can, at least from my experience, say that there was a full scale documentary of everything. Sometimes such rescue excavations end up revealing whole cemeteries or settlements, with many significant finds. And some experts oftentimes get news and material from their colleagues, which they can consider for making up their mind and creating hypothesis, even long before the material being in any catalogue or other publication. In my personal opinion, the whole peer reviewed and international paper stuff being truly blown up, primarily from the American side, for creating standards a few institutions control. Its not always about better quality first, and you can read up what kind of crap being published in renowned publications all the time, or how networks of writers control the content of major publications. Its all there, the last years brought up a lot of that stuff to the public, fortunately.
    So this too, is no argument in itself. The only real argument is whether or not the author is correct, whether his interpretation of the facts is closer to the truth or a better explanation for the observed pattern. He might be proven wrong, but nothing you said does it. It might just mean his theories are not that well established, at this point in time, as they should be to take it as safe, proven fact. But that doesn't have to mean he is just wrong, either. Rather on the contrary, he might be one of the few people with better insights from his own experience and the knowledge of his co-workers and colleagues. Of course, this could just be his pet theory, like many archaeologists have one, which they create from their main subject of interest. I can't tell.

    PS: I've been arguing about the "Brnjica culture" or the "Vatin culture" not because I have attached their (non-)existence to a theory but because on internet fora material cultures are treated as social cultures. They aren't actual cultures. When we say "Glasinac-Mati culture", it's not a reference to an ethno-cultural group. It's a theoretical label about the similar ways in which people in a given area interacted with their material surroundings. It doesn't mean that all people of "Glasinac-Mati" necessarily shared the same origin or that people who shared the same origin with some of them didn't interact with their material surroundings in other ways. Some material culture features were transmitted via migrations, others were transmitted via trade and cultural diffusion and others developed independently via contact between different peoples.
    We often don't know for sure what those archaeological cultures and provinces are, but more often than not, they represent some kind of ethnic, linguistic or political category and are, especially for that time period, very rarely arbitrary trade networks. At that time, people just didn't copy everything from each other just like that, they didn't do it. Distinct ethnosocial units used different codes, interpreted new innovations differently. Then again, we don't know for sure in every case, but more often than not, different material cultures mean different ethnicities. And be it just another tribe of the same ethnolinguistic group. But, usually its about packages. So single finds of single goods and products are not enough, that's true.
    Last edited by Riverman; 06-16-2021 at 08:57 PM.

  3. #493
    Banned
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Bouzek argues that groups from the North-West Carpathians arrived at least to Macedonia in the 1200-1050BC period.






  4. #494
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,059
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Bouzek argues that groups from the North-West Carpathians arrived at least to Macedonia in the 1200-1050BC period.
    Actually, there were various waves of Northerners moving down roughly around that period, both from the Middle Danube and the Carpathian sphere. I personally still favour a connection from Gáva-Holigrady to Belegiš II-Gava as the main vector. One of the reasons is that the Channelled Ware related groups, and especially Belegiš II-Gava, had a huge impact on both sides of the Carpathians, which I think is mandatory for the explanation of the E-V13 phenomenon. If Gáva-Holigrady wasn't the ultimate genetic source itself, it could have been many other things, but most certainly picked up on the Pannonian-Danubian area then. I still favor the Carpathians though, mainly because of the glimpse on the Pannonian study, in which E-V13 only popped up in the very North, around Nitra.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Johane Derite (06-18-2021)

  6. #495
    Registered Users
    Posts
    317
    Sex
    Omitted

    Regardless of whether it would have involved V13 or not I think the article "Migration Events in Greece at the End of the Second Millenium BC and Their Possible Balkanic Background" by Florian Ruppenstein deserves some attention in the above discussion. I'll post some excerpts:

    He starts off with:
    It is always problematic to talk about migration and to use archeological data as evidence of this. This is because the archaeological record is never unambiguous and is open to different interpretations. Furthermore, the discussion about migration and archeology is ideologically and sometimes also emotionally charged. However, archeologists cannot avoid addressing this issue, because mobility, including migration, has always been an integral part of human behavior. Otherwise human beings would still exclusively live in Africa.
    A bit further he defines criteria to identify migration:
    As noted above, the archeological record can always be interpreted in different ways, but a certain combination of circumstances make migration a plausible explanation for cultural change that is witnessed by archeologically visible testimonies. These are: 1. There should be a set of cultural novelties; 2. These innovations should appear in a certain area quite suddenly at approximately the same time; 3. A region of origin of the cultural novelties should be known. […] Innovations in different cultural and societal areas make the case for a migration especially strong.
    He also writes a bit on linguistics, I only put the conclusion:
    It can be concluded that the linguistic evidence alone is strong enough to clearly suggest migrations to central and southern Greece at some point after 1200BC. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the number of people involved in these migrations was quite substantial, because otherwise the marked change of dialectal geography of Greece could hardly be explained.
    Then he lists what he sees as novelties in central and southern Greece after 1200BC:
    From the early Mycenaean period until the end of LH IIIC, multiple interments constituted by far the most common burial practice, and the chamber tomb was the most usual grave type. This centuries-old tradition came to a sudden end in the Submycenaean period and was completely replaced by single burials. […] The new predominant grave type was the stone cist.
    […]
    The most important new type of dress accessory is the bronze pin. […] Bronze pins were not in use in central and southern Greece during the palatial and post-palatial periods of the Mycenaean culture.
    […]
    a few new types of handmade pottery without precursors in the Handmade burnished Ware of LH IIIC appeared in the Submycenaean phase. Among these, globular pyxides with pierced lugs on the rim and correspondingly pierced lids are especially noteworthy. Not only the shape but also the incised and fluted decoration of the pyxides constitutes a new element without Mycenaean ancestry.
    And he says:
    For all the above-mentioned cultural novelties which appeared in central and southern Greece in the 11th century BC, parallels can be found in an area that comprises Epirus, western Greek Macedonia, southern Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia.
    He then goes on to list the parallels with references to sites, except pottery where he says:
    Chronologically fitting exact parallels from the northern periphery are, however, unknown. Nevertheless, there are some indications for a northern origin of this group of handmade vessels. […] The fluted decoration in combination with the dark surface of the handmade pyxides is, however a feature that did not originate in Macedonia, bur further north in the area of the Belegis II cultural group.
    To be continued with his views on the reasons of this movement.

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rafc For This Useful Post:

     digital_noise (06-19-2021),  Johane Derite (06-18-2021),  Principe (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021),  Uka (06-19-2021)

  8. #496
    Registered Users
    Posts
    317
    Sex
    Omitted

    Second part:

    The evidence presented in the preceding chapter clearly shows that all cultural novelties which appeared in south and central Greece in the Submycenaean phase can be connected to cultural groups that inhabited North Macedonia, Wester Greek Macedonia, Epirus and south Albania in the Late Bronze Age.
    […]
    At this point, the possible reasons for the assumed migration to central and southern Greece can be examined. The name of the cultural group that populated North Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age was coined by Dragi Mitrevski after its most important site at Ulanci. As was shown in the preceding section, stone cist and pit grave cemeteries with individual inhumations are characteristic of the Ulanci cultural group. In the 12th and early 11th centuries BC these cemeteries were no longer used and the settlement of Ulanci that belonged to the cemetery was destroyed and abandoned. According to Mitrevski’s convincing hypothesis, the disintegration of the Ulanci cultural group was caused by a migration of population groups belonging to the Brnjica cultural group. This assumption is based on the foundation of Brnjica type cremation cemeteries in North Macedonia.
    […]
    The core region of the Brnjica cultural group […] is Kosovo and south Serbia. […] Period IIa is dated to the 11th century BC (Ha A2). In this phase fluted pottery of the Belegis II type became prevalent and the Brnjica cultural group in the proper sense disintegrated. […] Because the core are of the Belegis II cultural group was the Serbian Danube basin, it seems unlikely that fluted pottery of the Belegis II type appeared earlier in Macedonia than in south Serbia. Therefore one could argue that the beginning of the phase Brnjica IIa should probably be dated to not later than the middle of the 12th century BC. […] Though the community that founded the cremation cemetery in Klucka can clearly be associated with the Brnjica cultural group, it had probably also come in contact with the Belegis II cultural group. This is indicated by the presence of fluted pottery of the Belegis II type in the cemetery.
    […]
    The Southwesternmost cremation cemetery of the Brnjica type was excavated some 200 kilometers distant from Klucka at Palio Gynaikokastro near Kilkis in central Greek Macedonia. Its foundation can be dated with the help of regionally produced pottery of Mycenaean type, to the years around 1100BC. […] The presence of 85 inhumations in stone cist and earth pit graves next to the overwhelming majority of 542 cremation urns signifies the existence of a group of people within the burial community of Palio Gynaikokastro that maintained the burial practice of the Ulanci and related cultural groups which inhabited Macedonia in the late bronze age.
    He goes on to mention how the Brnjica cultural group was replaced by Belegis II, and says:

    Accordingly, there is a broad consensus among scholars who are working in Southern Serbia that these changes were caused by a migration of communities that originated from the core area of the Belegis II cultural group in the Serbian Danube basin. […] The reasons for the migration of population groups belonging to Belegis II cultural group to the south are not obvious and cannot be discussed in this paper. It is clear enough, however, that this migration was a major stimulus for communities belonging to the Brnjica group to migrate from Kosovo and south Serbia to Macedonia. […] On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the migration to central and southern Greece in the early 11th century BC can indeed be understood as the last act of diverse interconnected migration events that effected large parts of the Balkan peninsula at the end of the second millennium BC.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rafc For This Useful Post:

     Johane Derite (06-18-2021),  Pribislav (06-19-2021),  Principe (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021)

  10. #497
    Banned
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post
    Regardless of whether it would have involved V13 or not I think the article "Migration Events in Greece at the End of the Second Millenium BC and Their Possible Balkanic Background" by Florian Ruppenstein deserves some attention in the above discussion. I'll post some excerpts:

    He starts off with:


    A bit further he defines criteria to identify migration:


    He also writes a bit on linguistics, I only put the conclusion:


    Then he lists what he sees as novelties in central and southern Greece after 1200BC:


    And he says:


    He then goes on to list the parallels with references to sites, except pottery where he says:


    To be continued with his views on the reasons of this movement.
    Really really interesting. Do you possibly have a link or pdf of this you wouldn't mind sending me?

  11. #498
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,059
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post
    Second part:
    Accordingly, there is a broad consensus among scholars who are working in Southern Serbia that these changes were caused by a migration of communities that originated from the core area of the Belegis II cultural group in the Serbian Danube basin. […] The reasons for the migration of population groups belonging to Belegis II cultural group to the south are not obvious and cannot be discussed in this paper.
    That's a good one and is in line with what I read about the successive waves of Northerners pushing down. Belegiš II-Gava and Channelled/Fluted Ware in general wasn't the first, but it was one of the latest big ones affecting both sides before the stabilisation after transition to the Iron Age. And they brought, apparently, superiour metal working and fighting tactics with them. Looking at the crucial site of Teleac, we're dealing with the beginning of the mass production of iron weapons and large scale military campaigns, including sieges of fortification which were almost undefeatable before. The pressure and competition in the North seems to have been immense, that was a competitive environment from which even the losers would be winners some km south of their home. And that's what we see, its one after another pushing down and down and Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean is simply the end of the land route they could take. There is no way to evade the Northern pressure other than by moving to the islands and sailing over the sea, and, again apparently, that's what they did during the big Bronze Age collapse.
    Belegiš II-Gava on the other hand came to stay and they left their impression especially on the whole region North of Greece, but with infiltrations into Greece and beyond also. It might be debatable how E-V13 came into Belegiš II-Gava, probably not from the Northern centre of Gava or a small clan and province from it, but that Belegiš II-Gava was loaded with E-V13...well, if not, it would be a huge surprise for me. Because the question would be, what other haplotypes were introduced by their huge scale migration, conquest and colonisation of the Balkans? Its not just its convenient for E-V13, but its also a good way to measuring their impact, because these events can hardly have taken place without large scale patrilinear replacement rates. We're dealing with real, big scale and well organised conquests, colonisations, alliances which changed the landscape of the whole macro-region.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Johane Derite (06-18-2021)

  13. #499
    Banned
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's a good one and is in line with what I read about the successive waves of Northerners pushing down. Belegiš II-Gava and Channelled/Fluted Ware in general wasn't the first, but it was one of the latest big ones affecting both sides before the stabilisation after transition to the Iron Age. And they brought, apparently, superiour metal working and fighting tactics with them. Looking at the crucial site of Teleac, we're dealing with the beginning of the mass production of iron weapons and large scale military campaigns, including sieges of fortification which were almost undefeatable before. The pressure and competition in the North seems to have been immense, that was a competitive environment from which even the losers would be winners some km south of their home. And that's what we see, its one after another pushing down and down and Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean is simply the end of the land route they could take. There is no way to evade the Northern pressure other than by moving to the islands and sailing over the sea, and, again apparently, that's what they did during the big Bronze Age collapse.
    Belegiš II-Gava on the other hand came to stay and they left their impression especially on the whole region North of Greece, but with infiltrations into Greece and beyond also. It might be debatable how E-V13 came into Belegiš II-Gava, probably not from the Northern centre of Gava or a small clan and province from it, but that Belegiš II-Gava was loaded with E-V13...well, if not, it would be a huge surprise for me. Because the question would be, what other haplotypes were introduced by their huge scale migration, conquest and colonisation of the Balkans? Its not just its convenient for E-V13, but its also a good way to measuring their impact, because these events can hardly have taken place without large scale patrilinear replacement rates. We're dealing with real, big scale and well organised conquests, colonisations, alliances which changed the landscape of the whole macro-region.
    "For all the above-mentioned cultural novelties which appeared in central and southern Greece in the 11th century BC, parallels can be found in an area that comprises Epirus, western Greek Macedonia, southern Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia."

    What language we thinking here, cause I don't think it is Greek.

  14. #500
    Registered Users
    Posts
    566

    Much of what is said above already has been discussed previously...

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post777040
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....031#post778031

    I believe that Macedonia(both Greek and North Macedonia), Epirus and South Albania was the home of the so called Dorians in the LBA.

    I don't know how relevant is this for E-V13, probably some specific and older clades arrived to South Greece from the area of Macedonia and South Albania but the bulk and especially some younger clades like CTS9320, L241 etc. must have arrived from more northern places...
    Last edited by Aspar; 06-18-2021 at 06:44 PM.
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Johane Derite (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021)

Page 50 of 53 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Arabic Q-m25 cluster origin theory
    By Afshar in forum Q
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-17-2020, 07:45 PM
  2. Mycenaean South Caucausian Origin theory
    By Johane Derite in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2019, 04:03 PM
  3. Out of Africa: a theory in crisis
    By firemonkey in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-29-2018, 11:46 AM
  4. Ancestral origin and Haplogroup origin
    By Smilelover in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

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