Донецк Форум. Донецкий форум.
   Здесь место есть политике и вздору... Удачи Вам! Я - ваш! Донецкий форум. ;)
 
ДОНЕЦКИЙ ФОРУМ - СПРАВОЧНАЯ ДОНЕЦКА
ИСТОРИЯ КАРТА ПОГОДА ДОНЕЦК ПОД ДНР НОВОСТИ
ПОЕЗДА (ЖД) АВТОБУСЫ ТАКСИ ФОТО ГОСТИНИЦЫ
WI-FI ВЕБ КАМЕРЫ БАЗА 09 ПРОВАЙДЕРЫ ОБЛАСТЬ
КИНОТЕАТРЫ ТЕАТРЫ ФК ШАХТЕР КЛУБЫ КАФЕ
ШКОЛЫ РАБОТА ИНСТИТУТЫ ТАНЦЫ ОБЪЯВЛЕНИЯ
БАНКИ АВТОСАЛОНЫ АПТЕКИ БОЛЬНИЦЫ РАЙОНЫ

Uadreams

uadreams

МЕНЮ РАЗДЕЛОВ
Вернуться   Донецк Форум. Донецкий форум. > ИСТОРИЯ > Мировая история


Мировая история Европа. США. Азия. Вторая мировая война (ВОВ), СССР, НКВД, дивизия СС...


Ответ
 
Опции темы Оценить тему Опции просмотра
Старый 05.03.2015, 03:57   #1
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию Протоіндоєвропейська мова - одна з гіпотез

https://aleximreh.wordpress.com/2015...-pie-urheimat/



заздалегідь вибачаюсь, що матеріал - англійською.
На жаль, найцікавіше в інтернеті - саме англійською.

ґуґл-транслейт тут допоможе.


I2+R1a+R1b Contact Area – PIE Urheimat

Posted on 07/01/2015 by Alex Imreh






[COLOR=#]Rate This[/COLOR]


In the archaeology of Neolithic Europe, the burned house horizon is the geographical extent of the phenomenon of intentionally burned settlements. This was a widespread and long-lasting tradition in what is now Southeastern and Eastern Europe, lasting from as early as 6,500 BCE (the beginning of the Neolithic) to as late as 2000 BCE (the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age). A notable representative of this tradition is the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which was centered on the burned-house horizon both geographically and temporally.
The roots of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture can be found in the Starčevo-Körös-Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[6] with additional influence from the Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).[20] During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC), the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian-Giulesti culture from the south.[6] Through colonization and acculturation from these other cultures, the formative Pre-Cucuteni/Trypillia A culture was established. Over the course of the fifth millennium, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture expanded from its ‘homeland’ in the Prut-Siret region along the eastern foothills of the Carpathian Mountains into the basins and plains of the Dnieper and Southern Bug rivers of central Ukraine.
<<1]Prut-Siret homeland > 2]4800-4000bc extend over Dniester-Bug basins > 3]4000-3500bc extend to Eastern Transylvania and to the Dnieper basin >
4]3500-3000bc extend to N Ukraine/Kiev and E to Don&Volga + transformation into a patriarchal structure + different forms of ritual burial were developed
>> Thus the last phase of the Cucuteni culture is already a mixture, the transformation into a patriarchal structure and the different forms of burial show the mixture between the farmers and the kurgan people. Over 1000years the farmers and the kurgan people traded, mixed, the last 500 year period there is a mixed population with a culture still dominated by the older ways, so there was not a violent and sudden end for the Cucuteni culture, there was a transformation that lasted many hundreds of years.
There was also a climate change – Beginning around 3200 BC the earth’s climate became colder and drier than it had ever been since the end of the last Ice age, resulting in the worst drought in the history of Europe since the beginning of agriculture.[27] The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture relied primarily on farming, which would have collapsed under these climatic conditions in a scenario similar to the Dust Bowl of the American Midwest in the 1930s.

The Contact Area is where I2/Cucuteni people met first with R1a than with R1b. I quote from the Eupedia page reffering to R1b, to the origin of ”indo-europeans”:
”It is not yet entirely clear when R1b crossed over from eastern Anatolia to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. This might have happened with the appearance of the Dnieper-Donets culture / c. 5100-4300 BCE, the first truly Neolithic society in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. However, many elements indicate a continuity in the Dnieper-Donets culture with the previous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and at the same time an influence from the Balkans and Carpathians, with regular imports of pottery and copper objects. It is therefore more likely that Dnieper-Donets marked the transition of indigenous R1a and/or I2a1b people to early agriculture, perhaps with an influx of Near Eastern farmers from ‘Old Europe’. Mitochondrial DNA sequences from Dnieper-Donets culture showed clear similarities with those of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in the Carpathians (haplogroups H, T and U3).
The first clearly Proto-Indo-European culture was Sredny Stog / 4600-3900 BCE <also in the Dnieper-Don area, just next to the Cucuteni area>… There is evidence of population blending from the variety of skull shapes. Towards the end of the 5th millennium, an elite starts to develop with cattle, horses and copper used as status symbols.

The Maykop culture, the R1b link to the steppe - archeology also shows a clear diffusion of bronze working and kurgan-type burials from the Maykop culture to the Pontic Steppe,where the Yamma culture developed soon afterwards (from 3500 BCE)… R1b-M269 (the most common form in Europe) is closely associated with the diffusion of Indo-European languages, as attested by its presence in all regions of the world where Indo-European languages were spoken in ancient times, from the Atlantic coast of Europe to the Indian subcontinent. It has been hypothetised that R1b people (perhaps alongside neighbouring J2 tribes) were the first to domesticate cattle in northern Mesopotamia some 10,500 years ago. The analysis of bovine DNA has revealed that all the taurine cattle (Bos taurus) alive today descend from a population of only 80 aurochs. The earliest evidence of cattle domestication dates from circa 8,500 BCE in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures in the Taurus Mountains. The two oldest archaeological sites showing signs of cattle domestication are the villages of Çayönü Tepesi in southeastern Turkey and Dja’de el-Mughara in northern Iraq, two sites only 250 km away from each others. This is presumably the area from which R1b lineages started expanding – or in other words the “original homeland” of R1b. Horses were first domesticated around 4600 BCE in the Caspian Steppe, perhaps somewhere around the Don or the lower Volga, and soon became a defining element of steppe culture. Nevertheless it is unlikely that R1b was already present in the eastern steppes at the time, so the domestication of the horse should be attributed to the indigenous R1a people.

The Yamna period / 3500-2500 BCE is the most important one in the creation of Indo-European culture and society. Middle Eastern R1b people had been living and blending to some extent with the local R1a foragers and herders <and with I2 farmers/salt&pottery traders from Cucuteni> for over a millennium, perhaps even two or three. The close cultural contact and interactions between ,<I2>, R1a and R1b people all over the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, resulted in the creation of a common vernacular, a new lingua franca, which linguists have called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). It is pointless to try to assign another region of origin to the PIE language.” end of quote, I have inserted the <I2> parts.
The Yamna horizon was not a single, unified culture. In the south, along the northern shores of the Black Sea coast until the the north-west Caucasus, was a region of open steppe, expanding eastward until the Caspian Sea, Siberia and Mongolia (the Eurasian Steppe). The western section, between the Don and Dniester Rivers (and later the Danube), was the one most densely settled by R1b people, with only a minority of R1a people (5-10%). The eastern section, in the Volga basin until the Ural mountains, was inhabited by R1a people with a substantial minority of R1b people (whose descendants can be found among the Bashkirs, Turkmans, Uyghurs and Hazaras, among others). The northern part of the Yamna horizon was forest-steppe occupied by R1a people, also joined by a small minority of R1b (judging from modern Russians and Belarussians, the frequency of R1b was from seven to nine times less lower than R1a). The western branch would migrate to the Balkans and Greece, then to central and Western Europe, and back to their ancestral Anatolia in successive waves (Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians, etc.). The eastern branch would migrate to Central Asia, Xinjiang, Siberia, and South Asia (Iran, Pakistan, India). The northern branch would evolve into the Corded Ware culture and disperse around the Baltic, Poland, Germany and Scandinavia.


The Yamna and Maykop people both used kurgan burials, placing their deads in a supine position with raised knees and oriented in a north-east/south-west axis. Graves were sprinkled with red ochre on the floor, and sacrificed domestic animal buried alongside humans. They also had in common horses, wagons, a heavily cattle-based economy with a minority of sheep kept for their wool, use of copper/bronze battle-axes (both hammer-axes and sleeved axes) and tanged daggers. In fact, the oldest wagons and bronze artefacts are found in the North Caucasus, and appear to have spread from there to the steppes.
Maykop was an advanced Bronze Age culture, actually one of the very first to develop metalworking, and therefore metal weapons. The world’s oldest sword was found at a late Maykop grave in Klady kurgan 31.
Its style is reminiscent of the long Celtic swords, though less elaborated.
Combined with advanced bronze weapons and their sea-based culture, the western branch (R1b) of the Indo-Europeans from the Black Sea shores are excellent candidates for being the mysterious Sea Peoples, who raided the eastern shores of the Mediterranean during the second millennium BCE.

The rise of the IE-speaking Hittites in Central Anatolia happened a few centuries after the disappearance of the Maykop and Yamna cultures. Considering that most Indo-European forms of R1b found in Anatolia today belong to the R1b-Z2103 subclade, it makes little doubt that the Hittites came to Anatolia via the Balkans, after Yamna/Maykop people invaded Southeast Europe. The Maykop and Yamna cultures were succeeded by the Srubna culture (1600-1200 BCE), possibly representing an advance of R1a1a people from the northern steppes towards the Black Sea shores, filling the vacuum left by the R1b tribes who migrated to Southeast Europe and Anatolia.

Maybe when we talk about blending peoples, technologies & cultures in this Contact Area to produce the PIE people and culture, we should consider that in this blending I2 Cucuteni culture/people had the following contributions:
1] farming came to the kurgan area from Cucuteni people/culture
2] first metal products, gold and copper came from I2/Cucuteni imports
3] pottery came from Cucuteni people which worked with fire at such high temperatures that today it is difficult to reproduce the way they used to burn their houses. Look to the maps refering to the Burning House Horizon! The Burning House Horizon covers all the PIE homeland.
4] and very important SALT came from Moldovia, from the Carpathian mountains. Salt was important to people, to herding AND to food conservation. Food conservation helped people to travel on longer distances and for sure contributed to the increase of herds and populations. First salt went down the rivers from the mountains, there are some very nice studies regarding the relation between first neolithic sites and salt mines. Then salt was carried further with wagons and cattle. Cucuteni people for a long time made trade with the ”kurgan” people and mixed with them, Cucuteni culture and farming spread east, there is evidence that very large quantities of salt were transported east to the Pontic steppes from the Carpathians. Life is not possible without salt, salt mines were essential for first Thracian large settlements also, see the rich Varna Culture.
5] Also consider that the area between Cucuteni and Vinca, ie Transilvania, was later
5.1]the turntable from where Urn culture spread to W Europe,
5.2]the area, turntable from where proto-celts conquered all W Europe and also
5.3] maybe the area from where indo-europeans invaded for the first time Greece, see the relation between Wietenberg and Micenian swords bronze technology. Wietenberg culture used tin from Bohemia and probably preceded Unetice and western bronze technology.
6] we could consider that the lower Danube next to the Cucuteni area was the entrance of Indo-Europeans in Europe.
7] Coming back to the way people from Cucuteni used fire at high temperatures, when they made pottery or when they burned the houses. These high temperatures are essential for copper technology – over 1100 degrees Celsius. The Cucuteni people were the first to use cremation, after Cucuteni people, the Wietenberg culture (cremation in Transylvania. From Transylvania, Urn culture spread W, later Dacians used also cremation. There seem to be a continuity in using a lot the fire: fine pottery / Cucuteni, the best bronze technology in their time / Wietenberg culture, Iron / the Dacians and all of them cremation of the dead.

So all in all when we talk about blending of haplogroups, technologies and cultures to produce the proto indo europeans we should not forget the I2 haplogroup, the HP that dominated Europe for 6.000 years after the last Ice Age, the Continuity theory of Alinei, the first human civilizations of the world ie Old Europe.
Cucuteni was there right in the eye of the storm, part of the Contact Area. Populations in Cucuteni and Vinca area, were so strong that R1b and R1a were not able to displace them. R1b spread to W Europe which was less populated, easier to be conquered, while R1a spread to N& Central Europe for the same reason. On their way up the Danube, the new haplos avoided the W of former Yugoslavia where today I2 has highest percentages.
Gimbutas said that kurgan people destroyed Old Europe. But for a long time, Cucuteni culture co-existed with ”kurgan” people, traded with them, even expanded to E. When Cucuteni culture ”vanished” the blending was over. A new mixtures took the place of the Old Europeans, stronger populations with better technology and more ”competitive” social behaviour. Stronger mixtures that had everything, just replaced not destroyed the older Cucuteni & Vinca cultures, maybe better adapted also to climate changes. The new mixture had all the new technologies, farming, herding, horses/chariots, metallurgy and also the more competitive social organization – they were fierce warriors but in the same time they were not using slavery, they had elites but no crushing state/aristocracy.
A team of archaeologists led by Dr Mykhailo Videiko of the Kyiv Institute of Archaeology has discovered the remains of a 6,000-year-old temple at a Trypillian culture village near modern-day Nebelivka, Ukraine. The culture is characterized by advanced agriculture, developed metallurgy, pottery-making, sophisticated architecture and social organization, including the first proto-cities on European soil.
.
The remains dating from 4000 BC are covering an area of 600m2 - this is one of the largest structures ever built in prehistoric Europe. “The temple was a two-story building made of wood and clay surrounded by a galleried courtyard, five rooms were on the first floor and raised family altars made of clay were on the ground floor,” said Dr Videiko, who is a co-author of the paper published in the Journal of Neolithic Archaeology.
The I2 Cucutenians were obviously smart people. They had a great peaceful way of life, but as the times changed, they learned to adapt. For more than a thousand years they traded and mixed first with R1a than with R1b in the Pontic steppes, in the end Old Europe was not wiped out by the kurgans, they simply produced together a more competitive mixture, they learned from each other how to make farming/pottery and how to make war with horse chariots and advanced bronze technology.
pasthorizonspr.com/indo-european-languages-first-emerged-circa-6500-years-ago-on-the-steppe Using data from over 150 languages, linguists at the University of California, Berkeley provide evidence that this ancestor language originated 5,500 – 6,500 years ago, on the Pontic-Caspian steppe stretching from Moldova and Ukraine to Russia and western Kazakhstan.
“Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis“, by Will Chang, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall and Andrew Garrett, will appear in the March issue of the academic journal Language. A pre-print version of the article is freely available from the Linguistic Society of America, the publishers of Language: http://www.linguisticsociety.org/fil...AlPreprint.pdf
This article provides new support for the “steppe hypothesis” or “Kurgan hypothesis”, which proposes that Indo-European languages first spread with cultural developments in animal husbandry around 4500 – 3500 BCE. (An alternate theory proposes that they diffused much earlier, around 7500 – 6000 BCE, in Anatolia in modern-day Turkey.)
Chang et al. examined over 200 sets of words from living and dead Indo-European languages; after determining how quickly these words changed over time through statistical modelling, they concluded that the rate of change indicated that the languages which first used these words began to diverge approximately 6,500 years ago, in accordance with the steppe hypothesis.
This is one of the first quantitatively-based academic papers in support of the steppe hypothesis, and the first to use a model with “ancestry constraints” which more directly incorporate previously discovered relationships between languages. In future research, methods from this study could be used to study the origins of other language families, such as Afro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan.

Сообщение добавлено в 20:57

тепер - деякі пояснення по термінолоґії.

В світі Трипільську культуру ( культура Неоліту) називають Кукутенсько-Трипільською.

Культура Ямма - це те саме, що і Курґанська культура ( пiзній неоліт)

теорія матріархату і поглинання Трипілля Курґанською ( Ямма) културою внаслідок завоювання її патріархально-войовничою ( за Марією Ґімбутас) на сьогоднішній день не вважається достовірною.

а, взагалі - насолоджуйтесь.

це в ці дебрі я забрела, в пошуках статей по ареалу R1A і R1B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuten...illian_culture
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 05.03.2015, 04:07   #2
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Cucuteni-Trypillian culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Map showing the approximate maximal extent of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (all periods)[1]


Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
(c. 4800 to 3000 BC) Characteristic example of Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery
Topics
  • Settlements
  • Architecture
  • House burning
  • Religion and ritual
  • Proto-writing
  • Economy
  • Decline and end
Related articles
  • Neolithic Europe
  • Chalcolithic Europe
  • "Old Europe"
Boian culture
Yamna culture
  • v
  • t
  • e

Chalcolithic
Eneolithic, Aeneolithic
Copper Age
This box:
  • view
  • talk
  • edit

Stone Age
Neolithic Near East
Naqada culture Uruk period, Halaf culture Europe
Pit Grave culture, Corded WareCernavodă culture, Decea Mureşului culture, Gorneşti culture, Gumelniţa–Karanovo culture, Petreşti culture, Usatovo cultureRemedello culture, Gaudo culture India
Ahar-Banas culture, Jorwe China
Mesoamerica
Metallurgy, Wheel,
Domestication of the horse,
Bronze Age The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (known as Cucuteni in Romanian and Trypilska Трипільська in Ukrainian), is a NeolithicEneolithic archaeological culture (ca. 4800 to 3000 BC) in Eastern Europe.
It extends from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dniester and Dnieper regions, centered on modern-day Moldova and covering substantial parts of western Ukraine and northeastern Romania, encompassing an area of some 350,000 km2 (140,000 sq mi), with a diameter of some 500 km (300 mi; roughly from Kiev in the northeast to Brasov in the southwest).[2][3]
The majority of Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements consisted of high-density, small settlements (spaced 3 to 4 kilometers apart), concentrated mainly in the Siret, Prut, and Dniester river valleys.[4] During the Middle Trypillia phase (ca. 4000 to 3500 BC), populations belonging to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture built the largest settlements in Neolithic Europe, some of which contained as many as 1,600 structures.[5]
One of the most notable aspects of this culture was the periodic destruction of settlements, with each single-habitation site having a roughly 60 to 80 year lifetime.[6] The purpose of burning these settlements is a subject of debate among scholars; some of the settlements were reconstructed several times on top of earlier habitational levels, preserving the shape and the orientation of the older buildings. One particular location, the Poduri site (Romania), revealed thirteen habitation levels that were constructed on top of each other over many years.[6]
Contents


  • 1 Nomenclature
  • 2 Geography
  • 3 Chronology
    • 3.1 Periodization
    • 3.2 Early period (4800-4000 BC)
    • 3.3 Middle period (4000-3500 BC)
    • 3.4 Late period (3500-3000 BC)
    • 3.5 Decline and end
  • 4 Economy
    • 4.1 Diet
    • 4.2 Salt
  • 5 Technology and material culture
    • 5.1 Settlements
    • 5.2 Pottery
    • 5.3 Ceramic figurines
    • 5.4 Textiles
    • 5.5 Weapons and tools
  • 6 Ritual and religion
  • 7 Vinča-Turdaş script
  • 8 Archaeogenetics
  • 9 See also
  • 10 Notes
  • 11 Bibliography
  • 12 External links

Nomenclature

The culture was initially named after the village of Cucuteni in Iaşi County, Romania. In 1884, Teodor T. Burada, after having seen ceramic fragments in the gravel used to maintain the road from Târgu Frumos to Iași, investigated the quarry in Cucuteni from where the material was mined, where he found fragments of pottery and terracotta figurines. Burada and other scholars from Iaşi, including the poet Nicolae Beldiceanu and archeologists Grigore Butureanu, Dimitrie C. Butculescu and George Diamandy, subsequently began the first excavations at Cucuteni in the spring of 1885.[7] Their findings were published in 1885[8] and 1889,[9] and presented in two international conferences in 1889, both in Paris: at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology by Butureanu[7] and at a meeting of the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris by Diamandi.[10]
At the same time, the first Ukrainian sites ascribed to the culture were discovered by Vicenty Khvoika. The year of his discoveries has been variously claimed as 1893,[11] 1896[12] and 1887.[13] Subsequently, Vicenty Khvoika presented his findings at the 11th Congress of Archaeologists in 1897, which is considered the official date of the discovery of the Trypillian Culture in Ukraine.[11][13] In the same year similar artifacts were excavated in the village of Trypillia (Ukrainian: Трипiлля), in Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine. As a result, this culture became identified in Ukrainian publications (and later in Soviet Russia), as the 'Tripolie' (or 'Tripolye'), 'Tripolian' or 'Trypillian' culture.
Anthropomorphic Cucuteni-Trypillian clay figure


Today, the finds from both Romania and Ukraine, as well as those from Moldova, are recognized as belonging to the same cultural complex. This is generally known as the Cucuteni culture in Romania and the Trypillian culture (variously romanized) in Ukraine. In English, 'Cucuteni-Tripolye culture' is most commonly used to refer to the whole culture,[14] with the Ukrainian-derived term 'Cucuteni-Tripillian culture' gaining currency following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Geography

Dniester landscape in Ternopil Oblast, Western Ukraine.


The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished in the territory of what is now Moldova, northeastern Romania and parts of Western, Central and Southern Ukraine.
The culture thus extended northeast from the Danube River Basin around the Iron Gates gorge to the Black Sea and Dnieper River. It encompassed the central Carpathian Mountains as well as the plains, steppe and forest steppe on either side of the range. Its historical core lay around the middle to upper Dniester River (the Podolian Upland).[3] During the Atlantic and Subboreal climatic periods in which the culture flourished, Europe was at its warmest and moistest since the end of the last Ice Age, creating favorable conditions for agriculture in this region.
As of 2003, about 3,000 cultural sites have been identified,[6] ranging from small villages to "vast settlements consisting of hundreds of dwellings surrounded by multiple ditches".[15]
Chronology

Periodization

Traditionally separate schemes of periodization have been used for the Ukrainian Trypillian and Romanian Cucuteni variants of the culture. The Cucuteni scheme, proposed by the German archeologist Hubert Schmidt in 1932,[16] distinguished three cultures: Pre-Cucuteni, Cucuteni and Horodiştea-Folteşti; which were further divided into phases (Pre-Cucuteni I-III and Cucuteni A and B).[17] The Ukrainian scheme was first developed by Tatiana Sergeyevna Passek in 1949[18] and divided the Trypillia culture into three main phases (A, B and C) with further sub-phases (BI-II and CI-II).[17] Initially based on informal ceramic seriation, both schemes have been extended and revised since first proposed, incorporating new data and formalised mathematical techniques for artifact seriation.[19](p103)
The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is commonly divided into an Early, Middle, Late period, with varying smaller sub-divisions marked by changes in settlement and material culture. A key point of contention lies in how these phases correspond to radiocarbon data. The following chart[17] represents this most current interpretation:
• Early (Pre-Cucuteni I-III to Cucuteni A-B, Trypillia A to Trypillia BI-II): 4800 to 4000 BC • Middle (Cucuteni B, Trypillia BII to CI-II): 4000 to 3500 BC • Late (Horodiştea-Folteşti, Trypillia CII): 3500 to 3000 BC Early period (4800-4000 BC)

Pre-Cucuteni Clay Figures 4900-4750 BC Discovered in Balta Popii, Romania


The roots of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture can be found in the Starčevo-Körös-Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[6] with additional influence from the Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).[20] During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC), the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian-Giulesti culture from the south.[6] Through colonization and acculturation from these other cultures, the formative Pre-Cucuteni/Trypillia A culture was established. Over the course of the fifth millennium, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture expanded from its 'homeland' in the Prut-Siret region along the eastern foothills of the Carpathian Mountains into the basins and plains of the Dnieper and Southern Bug rivers of central Ukraine.[21] Settlements also developed in the southeastern stretches of the Carpathian Mountains, with the materials known locally as the Ariuşd culture (see also: Prehistory of Transylvania). Most of the settlements were located close to rivers, with fewer settlements located on the plateaus. Most early dwellings took the form of pit houses, though they were accompanied by an ever-increasing incidence of above-ground clay houses.[21] The floors and hearths of these structures were made of clay, and the walls of clay-plastered wood or reeds. Roofing was made of thatched straw or reeds.
Some of the Cucuteni-Trypillian copper "Treasure" found at Cărbuna


The inhabitants were involved with animal husbandry, agriculture, fishing and gathering. Wheat, rye and peas were grown. Tools included plows made of antlers, stone, bone and sharpened sticks. The harvest was collected with scythes made of flint-inlaid blades. The grain was milled into flour by stone wheels. Women were involved in pottery, textile- and garment-making, and played a leading role in community life. Men hunted, herded the livestock, made tools from flint, bone and stone. Of their livestock, cattle were the most important, with swine, sheep and goats playing lesser roles. The question of whether or not the horse was domesticated during this time of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is disputed among historians; horse remains have been found in some of their settlements, but it is unclear whether these remains were from wild horses or domesticated ones.
Clay statues of females and amulets have been found dating to this period. Copper items, primarily bracelets, rings and hooks, are occasionally found as well. A hoard of a large number of copper items (a Treasure - see image) was discovered in the village of Cărbuna, Moldova, consisting primarily of items of jewelry, which were dated back to the beginning of the 5th millennium BC. Some historians have used this evidence to support the theory that a social stratification was present in early Cucuteni culture, but this is disputed by others.[6]
Pottery remains from this early period are very rarely discovered; the remains that have been found indicate that the ceramics were used after being fired in a kiln. The outer color of the pottery is a smoky gray, with raised and sunken relief decorations. Toward the end of this early Cucuteni-Trypillian period, the pottery begins to be painted before firing. The white-painting technique found on some of the pottery from this period was imported from the earlier and contemporary (5th millennium) Gumelniţa-Karanovo culture. Historians point to this transition to kiln-fired, white-painted pottery as the turning point for when the Pre-Cucuteni culture ended and Cucuteni Phase (or Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture) began.[6]
Cucuteni and the neighbouring Gumelniţa-Karanovo cultures seem to be largely contemporary,
"Cucuteni A phase seems to be very long (4600-4050) and covers the entire evolution of Gumelniţa culture A1, A2, B2 phases (maybe 4650-4050)."[22]
Middle period (4000-3500 BC)

In the middle era the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture spread over a wide area from Eastern Transylvania in the west to the Dnieper River in the east. During this period, the population immigrated into and settled along the banks of the upper and middle regions of the Right Bank (or western side) of the Dnieper River, in present-day Ukraine. The population grew considerably during this time, resulting in settlements being established on plateaus, near major rivers and springs.
Archeological finds discovered in Moldova, circa 3650 BC


Their dwellings were built by placing vertical poles in the form of circles or ovals. The construction techniques incorporated log floors covered in clay, wattle-and-daub walls that were woven from pliable branches and covered in clay, and a clay oven, which was situated in the center of the dwelling. As the population in this area grew, more land was put under cultivation. Hunting supplemented the practice of animal husbandry of domestic livestock.
Tools made of flint, rock, clay, wood and bones continued to be used for cultivation and other chores. Much less common than other materials, copper axes and other tools have been discovered that were made from ore mined in Volyn, Ukraine, as well as some deposits along the Dnieper river. Pottery-making by this time had become sophisticated, however they still relied on techniques of making pottery by hand (the potter's wheel was not used yet). Characteristics of the Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery included a monochromic spiral design, painted with black paint on a yellow and red base. Large pear-shaped pottery for the storage of grain, dining plates, and other goods, was also prevalent. Additionally, ceramic statues of female "Goddess" figures, as well as figurines of animals and models of houses dating to this period have also been discovered.
Some scholars have used the abundance of these clay female fetish statues to base the theory that this culture was matriarchal in nature. Indeed, it was partially the archeological evidence from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture that inspired Marija Gimbutas, Joseph Campbell, and some latter 20th century feminists to set forth the popular theory of an Old European culture of peaceful, matriarchal, Goddess-centered Neolithic European societies that were wiped out by patriarchal, Sky Father-worshipping, warlike, Bronze-Age Proto-Indo-European tribes that swept out of The Steppes east of the Black Sea. This theory has been mostly discredited in recent years,[23] but there are still some people who adhere to it, at least to some degree.
Late period (3500-3000 BC)

During the late period the Cucuteni-Trypillian territory expanded to include the Volyn region in northwest Ukraine, the Sluch and Horyn Rivers in northern Ukraine, and along both banks of the Dnieper river near Kiev. Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture who lived along the coastal regions near the Black Sea came into contact with other cultures. Animal husbandry increased in importance, as hunting diminished; horses also became more important. The community transformed into a patriarchal structure. Outlying communities were established on the Don and Volga rivers in present-day Russia. Dwellings were constructed differently from previous periods, and a new rope-like design replaced the older spiral-patterned designs on the pottery. Different forms of ritual burial were developed where the deceased were interred in the ground with elaborate burial rituals. An increasingly larger number of Bronze Age artifacts originating from other lands were found as the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture drew near.[6]
Decline and end

Main article: Decline and end of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture
There is a debate among scholars regarding how the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture took place.
According to some proponents of the Kurgan Hypothesis of the origin of Proto-Indo-European, for example the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas in her book "Notes on the chronology and expansion of the Pit-Grave Culture" (1961, later expanded by her and others), the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture came to a violent end in connection with the territorial expansion of the Kurgan Culture. Arguing from archaeological and linguistic evidence, Gimbutas concluded that the people of the Kurgan culture (a term grouping the Pit Grave culture and its predecessors) of the Pontic steppe, being most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language, effectively destroyed the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in a series of invasions undertaken during their expansion to the west. Based on this archaeological evidence Gimbutas saw distinct cultural differences between the patriarchal, warlike Kurgan culture and the more peaceful matriarchal Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which she argued was a significant component of the "Old European cultures" which finally met extinction in a process visible in the progressing appearance of fortified settlements, hillforts, and the graves of warrior-chieftains, as well as in the religious transformation from the matriarchy to patriarchy, in a correlated east-west movement.[24] In this, "the process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation and must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups.[25] Accordingly these proponents of the Kurgan Hypothesis hold that this violent clash took place during the Third Wave of Kurgan expansion between 3000-2800 BC, permanently ending the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
In 1989 Irish-American archaeologist J.P. Mallory in his book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" summarizing the three existing theories concerning the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, mentions that archaeological findings in the region indicate Kurgan (i.e. Yamna culture) settlements in the eastern part of the Cucuteni-Trypillian area, co-existing for some time with those of the Cucuteni-Trypillian.[4] Artifacts from both cultures found within each of their respective archaeological settlement sites attest to an open trade in goods for a period,[4] though he points out that the archaeological evidence clearly points to what he termed "a dark age," its population seeking refuge in every direction except east. He cites evidence of the refugees having used caves, islands and hilltops (abandoning in the process 600-700 settlements) to argue for the possibility of a gradual transformation rather than a violent onslaught bringing about cultural extinction.[4] The obvious issue with that theory is the limited common historical life-time between the Cucuteni-Trypillian (4800-3000 BC) and the Yamna culture (3600-2300BC); given that the earliest archaeological findings of the Yamna culture (3600-3200 BC) are located in the Volga-Don basin, not in the Dniester and Dnieper area where the cultures came in touch, while the Yamna culture came to its full extension in the Pontic steppe at the earliest around 3000 BC, the time the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture ended[26] thus indicating an extremely short survival after coming in contact with the Yamna culture. Another contradicting indication is that the kurgans that replaced the traditional horizontal graves in the area now contain human remains of a fairly diversified skeletal type approximately ten centimeters taller on average than the previous population.[4]
In the 1990s and 2000s, another theory regarding the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture emerged based on climatic change that took place at the end of their culture's existence that is known as the Blytt-Sernander Sub-Boreal phase. Beginning around 3200 BC the earth's climate became colder and drier than it had ever been since the end of the last Ice age, resulting in the worst drought in the history of Europe since the beginning of agriculture.[27] The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture relied primarily on farming, which would have collapsed under these climatic conditions in a scenario similar to the Dust Bowl of the American Midwest in the 1930s.[28] According to The American Geographical Union, "The transition to today's arid climate was not gradual, but occurred in two specific episodes. The first, which was less severe, occurred between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. Summer temperatures increased sharply, and precipitation decreased, according to carbon-14 dating. According to that theory, the neighboring Yamna culture people were pastoralists, and were able to maintain their survival much more effectively in drought conditions. This has led some scholars to come to the conclusion that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture ended not violently, but as a matter of survival, converting their economy from agriculture to pastoralism, and becoming integrated into the Yamna culture.[20][27][28][29] However, the Blytt–Sernander approach as a way to identify stages of technology in Europe with specific climate periods is an oversimplification not generally accepted. A conflict with that theoretical possibility is that during the warm Atlantic period, Denmark was occupied by Mesolithic cultures, rather than Neolithic, notwithstanding the climatic evidence. Moreover, the technology stages varied widely globally. To this must be added that the first period of the climate transformation ended some 500 years before the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and the second approximately 1,400 years after.
Economy

Main article: Economy of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
Throughout the 2,750 years of its existence, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was fairly stable and static; however, there were changes that took place. This article addresses some of these changes that have to do with the economic aspects. These include the basic economic conditions of the culture, the development of trade, interaction with other cultures, and the apparent use of barter tokens, an early form of money.
Members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture shared common features with other Neolithic societies, including:
  • An almost nonexistent social stratification
  • Lack of a political elite
  • Rudimentary economy, most likely a subsistence or gift economy
  • Pastoralists and subsistence farmers
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 05.03.2015, 04:07   #3
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Earlier societies of hunter gatherer tribes had no social stratification, and later societies of the Bronze Age had noticeable social stratification, which saw the creation of occupational specialization, the state, and social classes of individuals who were of the elite ruling or religious classes, full-time warriors, and wealthy merchants, contrasted with those individuals on the other end of the economic spectrum who were poor, enslaved, and hungry. In between these two economic models (the hunter gatherer tribes and Bronze Age civilizations) we find the later Neolithic and Eneolithic societies such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, where the first indications of social stratification began to be found. However, it would be a mistake to overemphasize the impact of social stratification in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, since it was still (even in its later phases) very much an egalitarian society. And of course, social stratification was just one of the many aspects of what is regarded as a fully established civilized society, which began to appear in the Bronze Age.[20]
Like other Neolithic societies, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture had almost no division of labor. Although this culture's settlements sometimes grew to become the largest on earth at the time (up to 15,000 people in the largest), there is no evidence that has been discovered of labor specialization. Every household probably had members of the extended family who would work in the fields to raise crops, go to the woods to hunt game and bring back firewood, work by the river to bring back clay or fish, and all of the other duties that would be needed to survive. Contrary to popular belief, the Neolithic people experienced considerable abundance of food and other resources.[3] Since every household was almost entirely self-sufficient, there was very little need for trade. However, there were certain mineral resources that, because of limitations due to distance and prevalence, did form the rudimentary foundation for a trade network that towards the end of the culture began to develop into a more complex system, as is attested to by an increasing number of artifacts from other cultures that have been dated to the latter period.[4]
Toward the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture's existence (from roughly 3000 BC to 2750 BC), copper traded from other societies (notably, from the Balkans) began to appear throughout the region, and members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture began to acquire skills necessary to use it to create various items. Along with the raw copper ore, finished copper tools, hunting weapons and other artifacts were also brought in from other cultures.[3] This marked the transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic, also known as the Chalcolithic or Copper Age. Bronze artifacts began to show up in archaeological sites toward the very end of the culture. The primitive trade network of this society, that had been slowly growing more complex, was supplanted by the more complex trade network of the Proto-Indo-European culture that eventually replaced the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.[3]


  • Bronze artifacts from later Cucuteni-Trypillian period


  • Few copper artifacts have been found, many copper tools were imported from the Balkans.


  • Around 4000 BC this treasure was buried on a Dniester river terrace


  • Cucuteni Spoon
Diet

The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was a society of subsistence farmers. Cultivating the soil (using an ard or scratch plough), harvesting crops and tending livestock was probably the main occupation for most people. Typically for a Neolithic culture, the vast[citation needed] majority of their diet consisted of cereal grains. They cultivated club wheat, oats, rye, proso millet, barley and hemp, which were probably ground and baked as unleavened bread in clay ovens or on heated stones in the home. They also grew peas and beans, apricot, cherry plum and wine grapes – though there is no solid evidence that they actually made wine.[30][31] There is also evidence that they may have kept bees.[32]
The zooarchaeology of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites indicate that the inhabitants practiced animal husbandry. Their domesticated livestock consisted primarily of cattle, but included smaller numbers of pigs, sheep and goats. There is evidence, based on some of the surviving artistic depictions of animals from Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, that the ox was employed as a draft animal.[30]
Both remains and artistic depictions of horses have been discovered at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. However, whether these finds are of domesticated or wild horses is debated. Before they were domesticated, humans hunted wild horses for meat. On the other hand, one hypothesis of horse domestication places it in the steppe region adjacent to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture at roughly the same time (4000–3500 BC), so it is possible the culture was familiar with the domestic horse. At this time horses could have been kept both for meat or as a work animal.[33] The direct evidence remains inconclusive.[34]
Hunting supplemented the Cucuteni-Trypillian diet. They used traps to catch their prey, as well as various weapons, including the bow-and-arrow, the spear, and clubs. To help them in stalking game, they sometimes disguised themselves with camouflage.[33] Remains of game species found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites include red deer, roe deer, aurochs, wild boar, fox and brown bear.[citation needed]
Salt

The earliest known salt works in the world is at Poiana Slatinei, near the village of Lunca in Romania. It was first used in the early Neolithic, around 6050 BCE, by the Starčevo culture, and later by the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in the Pre-Cucuteni period.[35] Evidence from this and other sites indicates that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture extracted salt from salt-laden spring-water through the process of briquetage. First, the brackish water from the spring was boiled in large pottery vessels, producing a dense brine. The brine was then heated in a ceramic briquetage vessel until all moisture was evaporated, with the remaining crystallized salt adhering to the inside walls of the vessel. Then the briquetage vessel was broken open, and the salt was scraped from the shards.[36]
The provision of salt was a major logistical problem for the largest Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements. As they came to rely upon cereal foods over salty meat and fish, Neolithic cultures had to incorporate supplementary sources of salt into their diet. Similarly, domestic cattle need to be provided with extra sources of salt beyond their normal diet or their milk production is reduced. Cucuteni-Trypillian mega-sites, with a population of likely thousands of people and animals, are estimated to have required between 36,000 and 100,000 kg of salt per year. This was not available locally, and so had to be moved in bulk from distant sources on the western Black Sea coast and in the Carpathian Mountains, probably by river.[37]
Technology and material culture

The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is known by its distinctive settlements, architecture, intricately decorated pottery and anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, which are preserved in archaeological remains. At its peak it was one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world at the time,[4] developing new techniques for ceramic production, housing building and agriculture, and producing woven textiles (although these have not survived and are known indirectly).
Settlements

Main articles: Settlements of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Architecture of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture and House burning of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
In terms of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, such as Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of some 335[38] hectares) in the province of Uman Raion, Ukraine, are as large as (or perhaps even larger than) the more famous city-states of Sumer in the Fertile Crescent, and these Eastern European settlements predate the Sumerian cities by more than half of a millennium.[39]
Archaeologists have uncovered an astonishing[peacock term] wealth of artifacts from these ancient ruins. The largest collections of Cucuteni-Trypillian artifacts are to be found in museums in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania, including the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamţ in Romania. However, smaller collections of artifacts are kept in many local museums scattered throughout the region.[20]
These settlements underwent periodical acts of destruction and re-creation, as they were burned and then rebuilt every 60–80 years. Some scholars[who?] have theorized that the inhabitants of these settlements believed that every house symbolized an organic, almost living, entity. Each house, including its ceramic vases, ovens, figurines and innumerable objects made of perishable materials, shared the same circle of life, and all of the buildings in the settlement were physically linked together as a larger symbolic entity. As with living beings, the settlements may have been seen as also having a life cycle of death and rebirth.[40][dead link]
The houses of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were constructed in several general ways:
  • Wattle and daub homes.
  • Log homes, called (Ukrainian: площадки ploščadki).
  • Semi-underground homes called Bordei.
Some Cucuteni-Trypillian homes were two-storeys tall, and evidence shows that the members of this culture sometimes decorated the outsides of their homes with many of the same red-ochre complex swirling designs that are to be found on their pottery. Most houses had thatched roofs and wooden floors covered with clay.[39]
Interior reconstruction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian house in the Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamţ, Romania.


Reconstruction of a Bronze Age pit-house in the Tripillian Museum, Trypillia, Ukraine.


A scale reproduction of a Cucuteni-Trypillian village.


Model of Cucuteni house


Top view of cucuteni house model


Pottery

Decorated Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery


Most Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery was hand coiled from local clay. Long coils of clay were placed in circles to form first the base and then the walls of the vessel. Once the desired shape and height of the finished product was built up the sides would then be smoothed to create a seamless surface. This technique was the earliest form of pottery shaping and the most common in the Neolithic; however, there is some evidence that they also used a primitive type of slow-turning potter's wheel, an innovation that did not become common in Europe until the Iron Age.[33]
Characteristically vessels were elaborately decorated with swirling patterns and intricate designs. Sometimes decorative incisions were added prior to firing, and sometimes these were filled with colored dye to produce a dimensional effect. In the early period, the colors used to decorate pottery were limited to a rusty-red and white. Later, potters added additional colors to their products and experimented with more advanced ceramic techniques.[6] The pigments used to decorate ceramics were based on iron oxide for red hues, calcium carbonate, iron magnetite and manganese Jacobsite ores for black, and calcium silicate for white. The black pigment, which was introduced during the later period of the culture, was a rare commodity: taken from a few sources and circulated (to a limited degree) throughout the region. The probable sources of these pigments were Iacobeni in Romania for the iron magnetite ore and Nikopol in Ukraine for the manganese Jacobsite ore.[41][42] No traces of the iron magnetite pigment mined in the easternmost limit of the Cucuteni-Trypillian region have been found to be used in ceramics from the western settlements, suggesting exchange throughout the entire cultural area was limited. In addition to mineral sources, pigments derived from organic materials (including bone and wood) were used to create various colors.[43]
In the late period of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, kilns with a controlled atmosphere were used for pottery production. These kilns were constructed with two separate chambers—the combustion chamber and the filling chamber— separated by a grate. Temparatures in the combustion chamber could reach 1000–1100 °C but were usually maintained at around 900 °C to achieve a uniform and complete firing of vessels.[41]
Toward the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, as copper became more readily available, advances in ceramic technology leveled off as more emphasis was placed on developing metallurgical techniques.
Ceramic figurines

An anthropomorphic ceramic artifact was discovered during an archaeological dig in 1942 on Cetatuia Hill near Bodeşti, Neamţ County, Romania, which became known as the "Cucuteni Frumusica Dance" (after a nearby village of the same name). It was used as a support or stand, and upon its discovery was hailed as a symbolic masterpiece of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. It is believed that the four stylized feminine silhouettes facing inward in an interlinked circle represented a hora, or ritualistic dance. Similar artifacts were later found in Bereşti and Drăgușeni.
Extant figurines excavated at the Cucuteni sites are thought to represent religious artefacts, but their meaning or use is still unknown. Some historians as Gimbutas claim that:
...the stiff nude to be representative of death on the basis that the color white is associated with the bone (that which shows after death). Stiff nudes can be found in Hamangia, Karanovo, and Cucuteni cultures[44]
Textiles

Reconstructed Cucuteni-Trypillian loom


No examples of Cucuteni-Trypillian textiles have yet been found – preservation of prehistoric textiles is rare and the region does not have a suitable climate. However, impressions of textiles are found on pottery sherds (because the clay was placed there before it was fired). These show that woven fabrics were common in Cucuteni-Trypillian society.[45][46] Finds of ceramic weights with drilled holes suggest that these were manufactured with a warp weighted loom.[47] It has also been suggested that these weights, especially "disposable" examples made from poor quality clay and inadequately fired, were used to weigh down fishing nets. These would probably have been frequently lost, explaining their inferior quality.[48]
Other pottery sherds with textile impressions, found at Frumusica[disambiguation needed] and Cucuteni, suggest that textiles were also knitted (specifically using a technique known as nalbinding).[49]
Weapons and tools

A sample of Miorcani flint. One of the most used lithic raw materials at Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements. (ca. 7.5 cm wide)


Stone industry of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture


Cucuteni-Trypillian tools were made from knapped and polished stone, organic materials (bone, antler and horn), and in the later period, copper. Local Miorcani flint was the most common material for stone tools, but a number of other types are known to have been used, including chert, jasper and obsidian. Presumably these tools were hafted with wood, but this is not preserved. Weapons are rare but not unknown, implying the culture was relatively peaceful.[50]
The following types of tools have been discovered at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites:[citation needed]
Tool Typical materials Woodworking Adzes Stone Burins Scrapers Awls Stone, antler, horn, copper Gouges/chisels Stone, bone Lithic reduction Pressure flaking tools, e.g. abrasive pieces,
plungers, pressing and retouching tools Stone Anvils Hammerstones Soft hammers Antler, horn Polishing tools Bone Textiles Knitting needles Bone Shuttles Sewing needles Bone, copper Spindles and spindle whorls Clay Loom weights Farming Hoes Antler, horn Ards Ground stones/metates and grinding slabs Stone Scythes Flint pieces inlaid into antler or wood blades Fishing Harpoons Bone Fish hooks Bone, copper Other/multipurpose Axes, including double-headed axes,
hammer axes and possible battle axes Stone, copper Clubs Stone Knives and daggers Stone, bone, copper Arrow tips Bone Handles Spatulas

Ritual and religion

A typical Cucuteni-Trypillian clay "Goddess" fetish


Main article: Religion and ritual of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
Some Cucuteni-Trypillian communities have been found that contain a special building located in the center of the settlement, which archaeologists have identified as sacred sanctuaries. Artifacts have been found inside these sanctuaries, some of them having been intentionally buried in the ground within the structure, that are clearly of a religious nature, and have provided insights into some of the beliefs, and perhaps some of the rituals and structure, of the members of this society. Additionally, artifacts of an apparent religious nature have also been found within many domestic Cucuteni-Trypillian homes.
Many of these artifacts are clay figurines or statues. Archaeologists have identified many of these as fetishes or totems, which are believed to be imbued with powers that can help and protect the people who look after them.[19] These Cucuteni-Trypillian figurines have become known popularly as Goddesses, however, this term is not necessarily accurate for all female anthropomorphic clay figurines, as the archaeological evidence suggests that different figurines were used for different purposes (such as for protection), and so are not all representative of a Goddess.[19] There have been so many of these figurines discovered in Cucuteni-Trypillian sites[19] that many museums in eastern Europe have a sizeable collection of them, and as a result, they have come to represent one of the more readily identifiable visual markers of this culture to many people.
The noted archaeologist Marija Gimbutas based at least part of her famous Kurgan Hypothesis and Old European culture theories on these Cucuteni-Trypillian clay figurines. Her conclusions, which were always controversial, today are discredited by many scholars,[19] but still there are some scholars who support her theories about how Neolithic societies were matriarchal, non-warlike, and worshipped an "earthy" Mother Goddess, but were subsequently wiped out by invasions of patriarchal Indo-European tribes who burst out of the Steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan beginning around 2500 BC, and who worshiped a warlike Sky God.[51] However, Gimbutas' theories have been partially discredited by more recent discoveries and analyses.[4] Today there are many scholars who disagree with Gimbutas, pointing to new evidence that suggests a much more complex society during the Neolithic era than she had been accounting for.[52]
Further information: Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses
One of the unanswered questions regarding the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is the small number of artifacts associated with funerary rites. Although very large settlements have been explored by archaeologists, the evidence for mortuary activity is almost invisible. Making a distinction between the eastern Trypillia and the western Cucuteni regions of the Cucuteni-Trypillian geographical area, American archaeologist Douglass W. Bailey writes:
There are no Cucuteni cemeteries and the Trypillia ones that have been discovered are very late.[19](p115)
The discovery of skulls is more frequent than other parts of the body, however because there has not yet been a comprehensive statistical survey done of all of the skeletal remains discovered at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, precise post excavation analysis of these discoveries cannot be accurately determined at this time. Still, many questions remain concerning these issues, as well as why there seems to have been no male remains found at all.[53] The only definite conclusion that can be drawn from archeological evidence is that in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, in the vast majority of cases, the bodies were not formally deposited within the settlement area.[19](p116)
Vinča-Turdaş script

Main articles: Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and Vinča symbols
The mainstream academic view holds that writing first appeared during the Sumerian civilization in southern Mesopotamia, around 3300–3200 BC. in the form of the Cuneiform script. This first writing system did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, but gradually developed from less stylized pictographic systems that used ideographic and mnemonic symbols that contained meaning, but did not have the linguistic flexibility of the natural language writing system that the Sumerians first conceived. These earlier symbolic systems have been labeled as proto-writing, examples of which have been discovered in a variety of places around the world, some dating back to the 7th millennium BC.[54]


  • An example of a Sumerian Cuneiform clay tablet


  • One of the three Tărtăria tablets, dated 5300 BC


  • One of the Gradeshnitsa tablets
One such early example of a proto-writing system is the Vinča script, which is a set of symbols depicted on clay artifacts associated with the Vinča culture, which flourished along the Danube River in the Pannonian Plain, between 6000 and 4000 BC. The first discovery of this script occurred at the archaeological site in the village of Turdaş (Romania), and consisted of a collection of artifacts that had what appeared to be an unknown system of writing. In 1908, more of these same kinds of artifacts were discovered at a site near Vinča, outside the city of Belgrade, Serbia. Scholars subsequently labeled this the "Vinča script" or "Vinča-Turdaş script". There is a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the Vinča script as to how old it is, as well as whether it should be considered as an actual writing system, an example of proto-writing, or just a collection of meaningful symbols. Indeed, the entire subject regarding every aspect of the Vinča script is fraught with controversy.[54]
Beginning in 1875 up to the present, archaeologists have found more than a thousand Neolithic era clay artifacts that have examples of symbols similar to the Vinča script scattered widely throughout south-eastern Europe. This includes the discoveries of what appear to be barter tokens, which were used as an early form of currency. Thus it appears that the Vinča or Vinča-Turdaş script is not restricted to just the region around Belgrade, which is where the Vinča culture existed, but that it was spread across most of southeastern Europe, and was used throughout the geographical region of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. As a result of this widespread use of this set of symbolic representations, historian Marco Merlini has suggested that it be given a name other than the Vinča script, since this implies that it was only used among the Vinča culture around the Pannonian Plain, at the very western edge of the extensive area where examples of this symbolic system have been discovered. Merlini has proposed naming this system the Danube Script, which some scholars have begun to accept.[54] However, even this name change would not be extensive enough, since it does not cover the region in Ukraine, as well as the Balkans, where examples of these symbols are also found. Whatever name is used, however (Vinča script, Vinča-Tordos script, Vinča symbols, Danube script, or Old European script), it is likely that it is the same system.[54]
Archaeogenetics

Further information: Archaeogenetics of Europe
A 2010 study analyzed mtDNA recovered from Cucuteni-Trypillian human osteological remains found in the Verteba Cave (on the bank of the Seret River, Ternopil Oblast, Ukraine). It revealed that seven of the individuals whose remains where analysed belonged to the pre-HV branch of the R haplogroup, two to haplogroup HV, two to haplogroup H, one to haplogroup J, and one to T4 haplogroup, the latter also being the oldest sample of the set.
The authors conclude that the population living around Verteba Cave was fairly heterogenous, but that the wide chronological age of the specimens might indicate that the heterogeneity might have been due to natural population flow during this timeframe. The authors also link the pre-HV and HV/V haplogroups with European Paleolithic populations, and consider the T and J haplogroups as hallmarks of Neolithic demic intrusions from the South-East (the North-Pontic region) rather than from the West (i.e. the Linear Pottery culture).[55]
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 05.03.2015, 10:45   #4
Сообщений: 1,182
Очки репутации: 13,350
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

У кінці 90-х, мав честь готувати до друку книгу Сергія Петровича Плачинди — "Лебедія". Точка зору автора не беззаперечна, але досить цікава і висновки логічні.
tri_v вне форума  
Сказавших "Спасибо!": 1 (показать список)
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 05.03.2015, 23:48   #5
Аватар для Дід
Сообщений: 5,974
Очки репутации: 39,138
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

К чему стока текста, не ужель нельзя дать так сказать дайджест, обозначив главные положения.

В общих чертах, история местной ойкумены по всем прикидкам, выглядит следующим образом.
Абориген европы кроманьонец, предок гаплогруппы I и возможно J,
Цитата:
Также, предположительно, у кроманьонцев преобладала Y-ДНК гаплогруппа IJ (IJK), и ,впоследствии, ее мутации I и J.
J это ближневосточная группа, вероятно там же и образовавшаяся, ну забрели туда кроманьонцы, а мож и их предки. (40—12 тысяч лет назад).
Предположительно это и были единственные люди населявшие европу, остальные мигрировали в других местах. По всей видимости в отсутствии конкуренции род распорошился по ее просторам мелкими родами, ну и выживал как то, собственно I* то и нету, есть две потомковых гаплогруппы, I1 и I2 с центрами максимумов на балканах и на севере в скандинавии

Затем с востока в район южны балкан приходит R1a, 8-9 тл назад, а 6тл перевалив карпаты в районе черновцов назад появляется на восточноевропейской равнине, затем в европе появляется спустя тысячелетие R1b, последние волны миграции этого рода проходили уже в нашей эре, булгары. Одна из ветвей этого рода попала в европу через гиблартар, ее потомки баски. Басский язык не индоевропеский, очевидно прямая ветвь праязыка рода R1b, шлеф миграции этого рода оставил после себя сонм тюркоязычных народов. А ветви разновременных миграционных потоков придя в европу обрели индоевропейские языки. R1a присутствует в европе но перед или в следствии прихода R1b исчезает полностью, и лишь со временем идет повторное перезаселение.
Цитата:
Отмеченные А. Клёсовым трагические моменты взаимоотношений родов R1b и R1a подтверждают археологические раскопки. Так, в Скандинавии и Германии при раскопках стоянок, относящихся к тому далёкому времени, археологи часто наталкиваются на останки носителей R1a «с расколотыми черепами, причём и женщин, и детей в их жилищах». С горькой иронией А. Клёсов относит ту эпоху, а это приблизительно 4 600 лет назад, к «культуре разбитых черепов».
Род I вероятно за время своего существования в европе образовал великое множество языков, будучи изолированными друг от друга пространствами европы, вероятно даже с большим спектром звуковых картинок. То есть вряд ли они были носителями праиндоевропейского языка, он очевидно оказали свое влияние на его версии, передав им свои звуковые картинки.

Род R1b очевидно был носителем иного своего языка, который проявился и в языке басков и в языках тюрков. Очевидно его ветви пришедшие в европу получили свои индоевропейские языки в результате конвергенции с языками рода R1a в результате ихнего перезаселения европы.

Каковы вероятные причины такой конвергенции, очевидно язык был подхвачен месте с технологией обработки земли, дававшей годовой запас продовольствия.

И южная часть от балкан, карпат и кавказа и быа одним из центров неолитической революции, заключающейся в одомашнивании скота и изобретения земледелия, многие культурные растения это гибриды дикорастущих растений которые растут там и по сей день. И местные культурные растения отличаются от аналогичных в других очагах возникновения земледелия. Так пшеница это гибрид нескольких злаков, вишня гибрид степной и лесной черешни, а слива гибрид алычи и терна, его можно получить и сегодня, скрестив их.

По сему индоевропейский язык как и праиндоевропейский это язык рода R1a, арии ушедшие в иран и индию принесли туда индоевропейский язык, но не принесли гаплогруппы I.

Кавказ и синокавказские языки, там побывали и R1a при миграции на восток и R1b при миграции на запад и много иных родов, внеся свою лепту.





А, ну дык, украинский и польский яыки, как и некоторые иные славянские, прямые дивергентные потомки индоевропейского языка. А вот их звуковые картинки возможно подарок рода I. В древе индоевропейских языков славянские выводят из балтославянского, но это не правильно, балтийские языки это конвергентные языки индоевропеского с угрофинскими версиями.

Ну а с хронологией, с хронологией ученые в последствии разберутся, отбросив старую и вооружившись новой парадигмой. А для лингвистов вообще непочатый край.
Дід вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 07.03.2015, 05:52   #6
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @Дід Посмотреть сообщение
К чему стока текста, не ужель нельзя дать так сказать дайджест, обозначив главные положения
бо там усе - цікаве.

і, найважливіше, це погляд збоку.

ну і в мене мова трошки про інші часи, аніж у вас

Последний раз редактировалось в 06:07.
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 07.03.2015, 08:40   #7
Аватар для Yarema
Сообщений: 22,279
Очки репутации: 143,520
Группа: Жители Донбасса
Адрес: Велика Новосілка, Донецької області.
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
а, взагалі - насолоджуйтесь.
Ага, обов'язково. Тільки мову вивчемо. А поки що картинки подивимось.
__________________
Нет, Московия — вовсе не Русь, это лишь территория,
Где кремлевские ханы держали народы в плену. Юрій Нестеренко
Yarema вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 08.03.2015, 03:10   #8
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от Yarema Посмотреть сообщение
Ага, обов'язково. Тільки мову вивчемо. А поки що картинки подивимось.
існує ще така фіча, як ґуґл-транслейт, навіть такий ламер, як я, знає )))
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 08.03.2015, 19:15   #9
Аватар для Дід
Сообщений: 5,974
Очки репутации: 39,138
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
бо там усе - цікаве.

і, найважливіше, це погляд збоку.

ну і в мене мова трошки про інші часи, аніж у вас
Кому цікаве а кому вже давно відоме, і не цікаве, та які такі інші часи, ні ті самі.
Починаючи з 39000 ВСЕ род І кроманьонців та до наших днів.


Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
існує ще така фіча, як ґуґл-транслейт, навіть такий ламер, як я, знає )))
Особливо переклад з мов іншого складу, аглютативних чи навіть аналітичних, як то англійська.
От такий і переклад, прощо йдеться то зрозумієш, але не про важливі нюаси.
Т а й перклад то не дуже і потрібен, коли знаеш про що йде мова.

Носії мов це люди, за рідким виключенням, коли носієм є книга, яка також без людини яка знає мову книги не обходиться, ото ж абстрактно, без зайвої деталізації воно і є так як я змалював, а вже деталізація повинна робитися згідно нової парадигмі, з врахуванням відомих шляхів та часів міграцій. А симбіоз старої та нової парадигм просто безглуздий.
Жо речі, дивись карти міграцій, зверни увагу 4200-3000ВСЕ та 4200-2500 ВСЕ, це не одночасно, насправді там десь тисяча років різниці, саме та про яку я казав, тут просто вдається взнаки точність подібних розрахунків. Для давніших часів там може бути і плюс мінус міліон років.

Ці мапи з европедії, яка орієнтуеться чисто на европі, описуючи її генеалогію.
Дід вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 08.03.2015, 23:17   #10
Аватар для Yarema
Сообщений: 22,279
Очки репутации: 143,520
Группа: Жители Донбасса
Адрес: Велика Новосілка, Донецької області.
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
існує ще така фіча, як ґуґл-транслейт
Там такий переклад, що краще вже картинки...
__________________
Нет, Московия — вовсе не Русь, это лишь территория,
Где кремлевские ханы держали народы в плену. Юрій Нестеренко
Yarema вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09.03.2015, 00:17   #11
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от Дід Посмотреть сообщение
Кому цікаве а кому вже давно відоме, і не цікаве, та які такі інші часи, ні ті самі.
Починаючи з 39000 ВСЕ род І кроманьонців та до наших днів.



Особливо переклад з мов іншого складу, аглютативних чи навіть аналітичних, як то англійська.
От такий і переклад, прощо йдеться то зрозумієш, але не про важливі нюаси.
Т а й перклад то не дуже і потрібен, коли знаеш про що йде мова.

Носії мов це люди, за рідким виключенням, коли носієм є книга, яка також без людини яка знає мову книги не обходиться, ото ж абстрактно, без зайвої деталізації воно і є так як я змалював, а вже деталізація повинна робитися згідно нової парадигмі, з врахуванням відомих шляхів та часів міграцій. А симбіоз старої та нової парадигм просто безглуздий.
Жо речі, дивись карти міграцій, зверни увагу 4200-3000ВСЕ та 4200-2500 ВСЕ, це не одночасно, насправді там десь тисяча років різниці, саме та про яку я казав, тут просто вдається взнаки точність подібних розрахунків. Для давніших часів там може бути і плюс мінус міліон років.

Ці мапи з европедії, яка орієнтуеться чисто на европі, описуючи її генеалогію.


та ваша карта - теж не абсолют )))

проблема в тому, що кожен бере лише один маркер і носиться з ним, як з писаною торбою.

а маркерів - дуже багато.

от по одному з них, в нас, наприклад, родичі лише шведи з данцями )))
R1А - це далеко не один маркер

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M420

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09.03.2015, 02:11   #12
Аватар для Дід
Сообщений: 5,974
Очки репутации: 39,138
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
от по одному з них, в нас, наприклад, родичі лише шведи з данцями )))
R1А - це далеко не один маркер
Ну який к хрінам маркер, мова йде не про маркери а про генеалогічні гілки роду людського, які мають певні маркери - мутації.
Та й географію ми обмежуемо европою, не розглядаючи азіатське походження R1А, де і досі є в наявності гілки з іншими маркерами. Взагаллі поняття гаплогруппа це і є досить велика зафіксована группа тих чи інших маркерів, фізично то нащадки одного чоловіка, коли ми кажемо про гаплогрупи У хромосоми. Саме велика група, вона виникає скажімо при проходженні популяції так званого горла пляшки, у наслідок чи міграцій чи інших чинників, коли ізольованною опиняеться невелика група людей. І якщо вже мовай йде про R1А то це
Цитата:
Мутации-маркеры L62/M513/PF6200, L63/M511/PF6203, L145/M449/PF6175, L146/M420/PF6229
Саме тому дерево маркерів представлено саме таким чином-

Саме ті гілки які стосуються саме европи. Як бачимо розгалуження тут іде від М417.
Це зовсім не означає що не може бути відгалужень від M420, SRY1532, M17, просто немає достатньої кількості носіїв щоб виокремити якісь гілки, в окрему групу.

Ні взагалі R1a це гілка з вичепаним складом маркерів, а ми тут ведемо розмову не про R1a а про її окремі гілки, починаючи з розгалуження від М417.
Ну і у кожної особи наявні всі маркери характерні для його гілки від спільного предка з шимпанзе та навіть і далі в по часовій шкалі в минуле, саме по них і роблять генеалогічне дерево людства.

От же якщо це R1a то наявні маркери IJK, але відсутні характерні для I та J, і далі по дереву.

І от тепер і думай що такого розумного ти хотіла сказати, певно про old european yp1041-yp1070?
Ну і час винекнення гілки зовсім не вказує на місце де сьогодні її найбільше скупчення, тим більше що мова йде про досить обмежену територію.
Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M420
Там же дивись R1a1a клады, усі крім old european ідуть від М417 дивись дерево Latest ISOGG tree as per January 2011, та мапу міграцій, виходить що усі родичі.
Дід вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09.03.2015, 02:16   #13
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от Дід Посмотреть сообщение

Там же дивись R1a1a клады, усі крім old european ідуть від М417 дивись дерево Latest ISOGG tree as per January 2011, та мапу міграцій, виходить що усі родичі.

ну так це на 2011.

читай блоґ, що я першим запостила - там новіші дані(2013)

те, що ми всі - родичі, ясно ще по мітохондріальній ДНК )))

мова по те, що постулати про той, чи інший напрямок весь час коректуються.

і найновіші дані - для чого я блоґ і навела - свідчать дещо про інше, аніж твої весь час повторювані статті . я вже їх читала.

ти б не заперечував апріорі, а почитав щось нове.

повір, воно тебе не вкусить i твоїх статей не нівелює

і те, що ти весь час товчеш одне і те ж ( про R1A ) не значить, що це - все що існує на даний момент в науковому світі.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml

Последний раз редактировалось в 02:32.
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09.03.2015, 02:53   #14
Аватар для Дід
Сообщений: 5,974
Очки репутации: 39,138
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
і найновіші дані - для чого я блоґ і навела - свідчать дещо про інше, аніж твої весь час повторювані статті . я вже їх читала.

ти б не заперечував апріорі, а почитав щось нове.

повір, воно тебе не вкусить
Я слідкую за всіма новинами, й поки що стосовно R1a, десь коло 9тр вони на південних балканах, а час загального батька у районі чернівців 6тр., відповідно вірогідний час виходу на східноевропейську рівнину.

А останній перегляд номенклатури у звязку зі зміною на дереві людства, й відмова від уявлення про вихід із африки.



Аналіз днк одного африканця істотно змінив останні уявлення, й до речі вони ще не скрізь пройшли.

Сообщение добавлено в 02:49

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
читай блоґ, що я першим запостила - там новіші дані
европедія-
Цитата:
Author: Maciamo.
Last update December 2014
(added maps of M458 and CTS1211)


Сообщение добавлено в 02:53

Цитата:
Сообщение от @jester Посмотреть сообщение
читай блоґ, що я першим запостила - там новіші дані
У тебе там стільки посилань, як що хочеш до чогось привернути увагу то спочатку опиши суть проблеми а тоді вже наводь окремо джерело.

Наприклад от тут так так і так.
Дід вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09.03.2015, 03:43   #15
Аватар для jester
Сообщений: 13,458
Очки репутации: 86,792
Доп. информация
По умолчанию

Цитата:
Сообщение от @Дід Посмотреть сообщение
Отмеченные А. Клёсовым трагические моменты взаимоотношений родов R1b и R1a подтверждают археологические раскопки. Так, в Скандинавии и Германии при раскопках стоянок, относящихся к тому далёкому времени, археологи часто наталкиваются на останки носителей R1a «с расколотыми черепами, причём и женщин, и детей в их жилищах». С горькой иронией А. Клёсов относит ту эпоху, а это приблизительно 4 600 лет назад, к «культуре разбитых черепов».
а це бред повний.

так би мовити - абсолютний.

підганяння сучасними рашистами ґенетики під свої нацистські теорії.

ні одне слово із цієї галіматьї не підтверджується - читайте юпедію

ну а, якщо зважити, звідки ця бредова цитата взята, то лише можна сказати - Shame on you, Діду


http://lad-csk.ru/Articles/sViewArticle/p171/GroupId_0



Ви англійською читаете, чи лише російська та українська?

Сообщение добавлено в 21:19

Цитата:
Сообщение от @Дід Посмотреть сообщение
У тебе там стільки посилань, як що хочеш до чогось привернути увагу то спочатку опиши суть проблеми а тоді вже наводь окремо джерело.

Наприклад от тут так так і так.
читай статтю і блоґ.

і перестань, нарешті, постити своє 'дерево' - ні к сєлу, ні к ґороду

=============
я не пощу про проблеми - бо тут немає жодних проблем - це не політика, якшо звісно, не прив'язувати її до надуманих фактів в ґенетиці, як на рашистському сайті.

Сообщение добавлено в 21:28

з тої ж юпедії, Мачіямо зібрв докупи ( і там далеко не лише R1А)

Author: Maciamo.
Last update December 2014
(added maps of M458 and CTS1211)


Цитата:
The Slavic branch

The origins of the Slavs go back to circa 3500 BCE with the northern Yamna culture. The M412 and Z280 lineages spread around Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia, and would form the core of the Proto-Slavic culture. The high prevalence of R1a in Balto-Slavic countries nowadays is not only due to the Corded Ware expansion, but also to a long succession of later migrations from Russia, the last of which took place from the 5th to the 1th century CE. The Slavic branch differentiated itself when the Corded Ware culture absorbed the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture (5200-2600 BCE) of western Ukraine and north-eastern Romania, which appears to have been composed primarily of I2a1b (M423) lineages descended directly from Paleolithic Europeans, with a small admixture of Near-Eastern immigrants (notably E1b1b, G2a, J and T). Thus emerged the hybrid Globular Amphora culture (3400-2800 BCE) in what is now Ukraine, Belarus and Poland. It is surely during this period that I2a2, E-V13 and T spread (along with R1a) around Poland, Belarus and western Russia, explaining why eastern and northern Slavs (and Lithuanians) have between 10 and 20% of I2a1b lineages and about 10% of Middle Eastern lineages (18% for Ukrainians). After just a few centuries, this hybridised culture faded away into the dominant Corded Ware (2800-1800 BCE) and Catacomb (2800-1800 BCE) cultures.
The Corded Ware period was followed in the steppes by the Srubna culture (1800-1200 BCE), and around Poland by the Trzciniec culture (1700-1200 BCE). The last important Slavic migration is thought to have happened in the 6th century CE, from Ukraine to Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, filling the vacuum left by eastern Germanic tribes who invaded the Roman Empire.
Historically, no other part of Europe was invaded a higher number of times by steppe peoples than the Balkans. Chronologically, the first R1a invaders came with the westward expansion of the Yamna culture (from 4200 BCE), a succession of steppe migrations that lasted about 2000 years. Then came the Thracians (1500 BCE), followed by the Illyrians (around 1200 BCE), the Huns and the Alans (400 CE), the Avars, the Bulgars and the Serbs (all around 600 CE), and the Magyars (900 CE), among others. These peoples originated from different parts of the Eurasian steppes, anywhere between Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which is why such high STR diversity is found within Balkanic R1a nowadays. It is not yet possible to determine the ethnic origin for each variety of R1a, apart from the fact that about any R1a is associated with tribes from Eurasian steppe at one point in history.


Сообщение добавлено в 21:43
і чому, власне, ЛИШЕ про гаплоґрупу R1А мова?

от, наприлад гаплогрупа Q - вона найпоширеніша в Скандинавії і в центральній Україні






А гаплогрупа R1В, котра була найпоширенішою в часи Трипільсько-Кукутенської культури - раптом наче ЗНИКЛА з території України?








всі ці карти та дивинки цікаво порівнювати самому - тому я й навела сайти.

А політику чи дискусію тут домішувати зайво.

Хоч багато так робить - достатньо почитати обговорення на юпедії )))

Последний раз редактировалось в 03:59.
jester вне форума  
Ответить с цитированием
Ответ




Метки
трипілля

РАССКАЖИ О ФОРУМЕ на других сайтах

Опции темы
Опции просмотра Оценка этой теме
Оценка этой теме:

Ваши права в разделе
Вы не можете создавать новые темы
Вы не можете отвечать в темах
Вы не можете прикреплять вложения
Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения

BB коды Вкл.
Смайлы Вкл.
[IMG] код Вкл.
HTML код Выкл.
Trackbacks are Выкл.
Pingbacks are Выкл.
Refbacks are Выкл.


Похожие темы
Тема Автор
Укротюркская мова - порождение большевизма
Укротюркская мова - порождение большевизма Всем известно, что на заре создания укротюркской мовы в конце 19-го века, которая сегодня признана...
Mikola77
Сначала-экономика,потом мова и шаровары!
Думаю,что многие,большинство меня поддержат! Благосостоянием народа упорно не занимаются уже 22года. Хотя гениальности не нужно,чтобы так не...
malyshev
Яка смішна російська мова, мова ненависті!!!
Недавно до одного мого знайомого родичі із Московії приїджали. Так от виявляється по-російськи слово "окуліст" правильно буде "глазной". Після того...
Киянин
Галицайская мова
Выкладываю фото очаровательной афишы 1932 года под названием "Плян проведення вечора нацкультбудiвництва". Галiцiйська мова, 1932 год... Вечер...
eledji



Создано на vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Перевод: zCarot. Донецкий форум.