Alexandru Imreh



Imreh ca nume de familie are o  frecventa de 0.0027%.
Numarul aproximativ de oameni cu acest nume de familie ce traiesc in Romania: 513

Alexandru ca prenume are o frecventa de 0.9554%. Numarul aproximativ de oameni cu acest prenume ce traiesc in Romania: 181526

Imre ca  prenume are o frecventa de 0.0146%.
Numarul aproximativ de oameni cu acest prenume ce traiesc in Romania: 2774

Imre ca nume de familie are o frecventa de 0.0095%.
Numarul aproximativ de oameni cu acest nume de familie ce traiesc in Romania: 1805


Posted in Alex Imreh | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Getes – the story to be told – Quotes

Source – A story never told – DECEMBER 19, 2015 / PRIMUS GETARUM


1. Sumerian researcher A. Kisifim: “The ancestors of Rumanians had a powerful influence upon the whole ancient world, respectively upon old Ellada, old Egypt, Sumer and even China.”

2. Pythagoras (580 B.C. – 495 B.C.), Law 1143: “Travel to the Getes, not to give them laws, but to learn from them. There the fields are boundless, all lands are common.”

3. Homer about the Getes: “Out of all the peoples, they are the wisest.”

4. Plato (427 B.C. – 347 B.C.), student of Socrates and professor to Aristotle, in the dialogue CARMIDES reveals a discussion between Socrates and Carmides, where the professor explains to Carmides what he had learned from a ‘Thracian’ doctor when he was in the army: “Zamolxis, our king, which is a god, tells us that the same we ought not try to take care of our eyes, without acknowledging the head, not even the head can be taken care of, without acknowledging the body. So, we have to take care of the body, as well as the soul, altogether. Here is why the Greek doctors are not experienced in many diseases, because they do not know the whole they have to take care of. If this whole is ill, the part cannot be healthy, because all things good and bad, for the body and for the man in his wholeness, come from the soul and out of it, they flow like out of a spring, from the head to the eyes. Therefore, firstly, let us heal the spring of harmfulness, so that the head can enjoy health, so like the rest of the body. Friend, the soul can be healed through incantations. These incantations are the beautiful words which give birth to the wisdom within the souls.”

5. Dionysius Periegetes (138 A.D.): “The following will be about the biggest land, that spreads from Asia Minor to Iberia and from Northern Africa to Scandia, the great land of Dacians.”

6. Marco Merlini, Italian archaeologist, about the Tărtăria tablets and the bones found along with them: “The bones, as well as the tablets, are very old. It is a certainty. It is our turn to think that writing began in Europe, 2.000 years before the Sumerian writing. In Romania we have a great treasure, but it does not belong only to Romania, but to the whole of Europe.”

7. Friedrich Hayer (1899) – Austrian philosopher: “Rumanians are the people of Europe which were born Christians.” (A few years ago the ambassador of Vatican at Bucharest, in the Academy theatre, said the same).

8. Alfred Hofmann (Paris, 1820, p. 3075) – The History of Earth: “Indeed, nowhere will you find a power of faster understanding, a mind more open, a spirit more alert, accompanied by the gracefulness of being, like one finds with the Rumanian people. This nation, risen through instruction, should stand in front of the spiritual culture of humanity. And as an addition, its language is so rich and harmonious, it should fit the most cultivated nation on Earth. Rumania is not the center of the Earth, but the Axis of the Universe.”

9. Marija Gimbutas – professor of U.C.L.A. – Civilization and Culture: “Romania is the hearth of what I named, Old Europe, a cultural entity of 6.500 – 3.500 B.C., based on a matriarchal society, theocratic, peaceful, loving and creators of art, that preceded the patriarchal indo-european societies of warriors from the bronze and iron age. It became evident that this ancient European civilization, precedes the Sumerian by millennia. It was a period of real harmony, in full agreement with the creator energies of nature.”

10. Louis de La Vallée-Poussin: “The inhabitants of northern lower Danube can be regarded as the ancestors of humanity.”

11. Gordon W. Childe: “The primary places of Dacians must be searched on the territory of Romania. Indeed, the placing of the main center of formation and expansion of indo-europeans must be made at the north and south of the lower Danube.”

12. Eugène Pittard: “The ethnic ancestors of Rumanians, climb undoubtedly up to the first ages of humanity, the Neolithic civilization represents only a recent chapter of the country’s history.”

13. Daniel Ruzo (1968) – Peruan archaeologist, anthropologist and writer: “The Carpathians are in a region of the world, where the european center of the oldest culture known today, was situated.”

14. William Schiller – American archaeologist: “Civilization was born where the Romanian people live today, spreading to the east and the west.”

15. John Mandis: “The oldest discoveries of some writing symbols were made at Turdaș and Tărtăria.”

16. Ekström Par Olof: “The Rumanian language is a key-language that influenced, for the most part, all European languages.”

17. University of Cambridge: “In the 4th millennium B.C., the Getic Carpathian space was the only space inhabited in Europe; The Carpathian, Getic or Wallachian space has represented the OFFICINA GENTIUM in antiquity, it has fueled with people and civilization, India, Persia, Greece, Italy, Germany, France and the so called Slavic space; The vedas, the oldest literary monuments of humanity were created in the center of Europe.”

18. Jawaharlal Nehru, ex-Prime Minister of India: “The vedas are the operas of Aryans that invaded the rich land of India.”

19. Bonfini: “The language of Rumanians could not be exterminated, although they are settled in the middle of so many barbarian peoples and they fight not to leave it, no matter what, as they wouldn’t fight for a life, as they do for a language.”

20. Ludwig Schlözer (Russian Annals, 18th century): “These Volohs are not Romans, not Bulgars, not Wolsche, but Vlachs, descendants of a great and ancient bloodline of nations, of Thracians, Dacians, Getes, that even now have their own language and despite all oppressions, they live in Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania and Hungary in their millions.”

21. Michelet, Paris (1859), to Cuza’s emissary: “Do not envy the old nations, but look at yours. The deeper you will search, the more you will see life springing.”

22. André Armad: “Indeed this is one of the oldest peoples of Europe…be them Thracians, Dacians. The peoples have remained the same since the Neolithic era – polished stone era – until today, so sustaining the continuity of a nation by example, maybe unique in the history of the world.”

23. D’Hauterive (Memoir on the old and actual present of Moldavia, 1902): “Indeed Latin comes out of this tongue and the other languages, especially Rumanian, represent this tongue. Latin is far from being the trunk of the languages spoken today, I would say that Latin is the newest of all.”

24. Huszti András: “The descendants of Geto-Dacians live today, where their parents lived, they speak the language that their parents used to speak long ago.”

25. Bocignoli (1524): “Rumunians, about which I said that are Dacians.”

26. L.A. Gebhardi: “The Getes spoke the same language as the Dacians and had the same customs. The Greeks use to give the same name for the Getes of Bulgaria, Dacians of Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania and Hungary and believed that both Getes and Dacians come from Thracians.”

27. Abdolonyme Ubicini (The Origins of Rumanian History, Paris, 1866): “Dacians are the first ancestors of nowadays Rumanians. Ethnographically speaking, Dacians are confused with the Getes, of the same origin, same language. About this view, all testimonies from the past agree.”

28. University of Cambridge (The Cambridge History of India, 1922): “The primary phase of the Vedic culture began in the Carpathians, most likely in Haar-Deal (Ardeal).”

29. Jakob Grimm (The History of the German Language, 1785-1863): “The Dacian nomenclature for plants, kept by Dioscoride (Greek medic from the period of emperors Claudius and Nero) can be found in the background of the German language.”

30. The Spanish Chronicles (25 – p. 179): “The Daco-Getes are considered to be the founders of the Spaniards.”

31. Carol Lundius (The Chronicle of the Dukes of Normandy): “The Daco-Getes are considered to be the founders of the nordic nations.”

32. Leibnitz (Collectanea Etymologica): “The Daco-Getes are considered to be the founders of the Teutons and Frisians, of the Dutch and Anglians.”

33. Miceal Ledwith (Ex-Counselor for Pope John Paul the 2nd): “The Rumanian language is grouped in the category of Latin languages as well, but during my lifetime, through my work, I came to understand that it is not that Rumanian is a Latin language, but rather that Old Rumanian is the language out of which Latin came. All european languages came from the Old Rumanian. No culture of the world has spoken the real history of the world, ever. Rumanian is wrongly considered a Latin language. It should be the other way around, Latin, Italian, Spanish are Rumanian languages. I am sure this fact will be acknowledged very soon.”

34. Carlo Troya (1784 – 1858), Italian historian: “No nation of the ones mentioned by the Greeks as barbarian, has a more certain and more older history like the one of the Getes/Goths. The purpose of my work, Getic or Gothic History, is divided in two parts and one of them shows that the Getes of Zamolxis and of Decebal had been the ancestors of the Goths of Theodoric of the Amals.”

35. Harald Haarman, German savant: “The oldest writing in the world is that of Tărtăria – Romania. The Danubian Civilization is the first great civilization in history, preceding by thousands of years the Sumerian civilization.”

36. Paul Mac Kendrick (Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals): “Burebista and Decebal created in Dacia a culture that only the narrow minded could qualify it as barbarian. Rumanians are the members of one of the most remarkable creator states of antiquity. Up in Maramureş there is a place marked as the center of the old continent.”

37. William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists (1995): “The place described in the Old Testament as being flooded is the one of the Black Sea.”

38. Robert Ballard, explorer (1999), confirms what William Ryan and Walter Pitman said.

39. Cavasius (The Administration of the Kingdom of Transylvania): “In Italy, Spain and Galia, the peoples used to spoke an idiom of an older formation under the name of Rumanian language, as in the time of Cicero. The Rumanian language has more latinity than Italian.”

40. G. Devoto, G. Wilkie, W. Schiller: “The barbarians weren’t only the discoverers of philosophy, but of technology, science and art. Most of the peoples had their apprenticeship between the barbarians. Plato praises the barbarians and reminds, as Pythagoras did, that they learned the most numerous and beautiful teachings by living between the barbarians.”

41. Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata): “At last, another burden of interpretation using this method of the teachings of the Scripture, stand in the fact that we don’t have them also in the language in which they were written the first time… Then the language is kept by the peoples, not only by the initiates, whereas the meaning and texts are kept only by the initiates and that is why we can easily conceive that they could falsify the meaning of the texts of one of the rarest books they had in their custody.”

42. Mark Pagel, professor on Evolutionary Biology, Reading University of London: “Over 10.000 years ago, in the Carpathian region there lived a nation that spoke an unique language, precursor to Latin and Sanskrit.”

43. Clémence Royer (The Bulletin of the Anthropological Society, Paris, 1879): “The Celts, Germans and Latins come from Eastern Europe and the traditions of the historic Aryans of Asia shows them as coming from the Occident. We have to search for the common cradle at the lower Danube, in this Pelasgian Thrace, that its language we ignore.”

44. Jean Laumonier (The French Nationality, Paris, 1892): “The Rumanian or modern Dacian is the true Celt of Eastern Europe.”

45. André Lefèvre (The Races and Languages, Paris, 1893): “The ‘brown’ Celts that ethnography revealed their traces from Dacia to Bretonia and Ireland, the blond Gals, peoples that spoke indo-european dialects.”

46. Prof. Fabio Scialpi: “I am intrigued by the presence on the territory of Rumania, of a number of many toponyms of Sanskrit resonance.”

47. Bonaventura Vulcannius of Bruges, 1597: “The Getes had their own alphabet long before the Latin one was born. The Getes sang, using the flute, the deeds of their heroes, composing songs even before the foundation of Rome, that of which Cato says – the Romans started to do much later.”

48. V. Titov, Russian archaeologist: “At Tărtăria emerged the oldest writing of humanity.”

49. Pope Nicholas the 1st to Michael the 2nd of Byzantium: “The Greeks name the Latin language, the language spoken by the Scythians.”

50. Otrokocius: “That Priscus din not neglect to mention what were the languages spoken around Attila. He presumes by this, that some of the Huns, because of their links with the Romans, tried diligently to learn the Gothic language that is kindred with the Alanic and Ausonic. Whereas by Ausonic, they understand Wallachian, the corrupt Latin (vulgar).

51. Trogus Pompeius: “Even Dacians are a branch of the Getes.”

52. Courtenay Baoudin: “In Slavonic can be found many Rumanian words, especially in the language used by the Church.”

53. Fontes II, p. 19: “The Belagines (The Divine Laws) are the foundation of human civilization.”

54. Carolus Lundius (Zamolxis, Primus Getarum Legislator): “It has to be clear for everyone, the ones who antiquity named them with a distinguished admiration Getes, the writers named them afterwards, through a unanimous agreement, Goths. The Greeks and other nations took letters from the Getes. We find with Herodotus and Diodorus, direct opinions about the spreading of these letters.”

55. Isidore of Seville: “Rome itself, the vanquisher of all nations, had to serve subdued and to receive the barring of the Getic triumph.”

56. Bonaventura Vulcanius, The letters and Getic or Gothic Language, 1597: “I cannot be silent about the fact that I have always been the admirer, more than all of the others, of this name, noble by excellence, of a nation that believes in the bottom of its heart, in the immortality of souls, where by my judgement, strongly condemning death, they gain an unbounded courage to achieve anything. As we can see, the Getic peoples, have been like this always from nature. This nation was and still is, a nation unique and eternal.”

57. After he mentioned in his speech, the troubles that Romania had gone through the communist regime, Pope John Paul the 2nd encouraged the Romanian people saying: “Romania bridge-country between the Orient and the Occident, crossroad point between Central Europe and Oriental Europe, Romania, the land that tradition names it with the beautiful title of “Saint Mary’s Garden”, I come to you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and in the name of Saint Mary. In the midst of a new millennium, build your future further on the hard rock of the Holy Gospel. With the help of God you will be the protagonist of a new period of enthusiasm and courage. You will be a prosperous nation, land of good making, peaceful and sympathetic nation. May God protect you and bless you always.”


GET (pronounced ‘Jet’) = Earth-born. In Rumanian, the word ‘gețuitor’ (viețuitor) means ‘living man’. Earth = Geea/Gaia (Geb/Gebeleizis), the same way the word ‘peasant’ in Rumanian is ‘țăran’ which also means ‘man of earth’, where earth = ţărână (in Rumanian).

Sarmatia/Sa(r)mo-Getia/Dio Getia = The Holy Land/Land of God/Land of the Sun – meaning the heart or the hearth of Old Pelasgian Europe. Here we have the Getic Sea (Black Sea), Sarmizegetusa Regia that was the capital and the most important military, religious and political center of Dacians. In translation Sarmizegetusa = The Getes of Sarmis/Armis, where Sarmis is the protector of this sanctuary. Named by the Greeks, Hermes. We also find here the Getic Pole (Polus Geticus) around which the skies rotate. Also there is a saying in Rumanian, ‘get-beget’ which means ‘from ancestor to ancestor’. About the language, following the same logical reasoning, we can speak of the Getic or Sermo-Getic language, although Pelasgo-Getic would also be a correct term.

Djed = The forefathers of the first pharaohs of Egypt. Egyptians use this word Djed (pronounced ‘Jet’) when they speak of the ‘old ones’ that lived before them. Therefore this term has to do, not only with the Greeks. In Croatian the word ‘đed’ (pronounced ‘Jed’) means ‘grandfather’, which is another proof that the word ‘Get’ bears the meaning of ‘Old/Ancient’.

Here are the main ethnonyms the Getic tribes had, depending on the territories they used to inhabit: Getulians, Ilergetes, Indigetes, Mysogetes, Tissagetes, Sargetes, Tyragetes, Samogetes, Massagetes, Geats, Getae, Jats (Northern India), Djed (Egypt), Tocharians – a branch of the Massagetes (Western China). As you can see, the Getes where everywhere.

Dio Cassius speaks of Dacians only after 300 years when the Romans named the partially conquered territory, Dacia. But the people call themselves depending on the name of the region they live in. For example the people from Oltenia call themselves ‘olteni’, the ones from Ardeal ‘ardeleni’, the ones from Banat ‘bănăţeni’ and so on, but they are all Rumanians, just as the enslaved Getes from the Roman province of Dacia, which were named by the Romans ‘Dacians’, from the name of the province, not from the people’s own identity. To clarify this matter, we have a map by Pomponius Mela, made 63 years before Decebal’s death, in which he names the region from the north of Danube, how else? Sarmatia which is really Getia (Goethia).

When we speak about Dacia and Dacians, we can only do it as a reference point in history, but we cannot identify them with these terms, as they only reflect a history that is not older than ca. 2.000 years. Dacia was only a part of Getia, only a Roman province, a late appearance in history, where the Dacians or Davo-Getes lived. We also find in other historical documents, terms almost lost in history, such as Gitia, Du Gitii (Dio Getia) or Arima, where the enigmatic Hyperboreans lived. But they had many names such as, Arimins, Ars, Rohmans, Aryans, Rumunians and later Rumanians (today Romanians), some of them being exonyms and some ethnonyms. About the term ‘Gitia’ we have as a reconfirmation of the sacrality of its name, the Vedic opera Bhagavad Gītā (pronounced ‘Geeta’) which means ‘Song of the Lord’ or ‘Divine Song’ that speaks about the noble Aryans (‘Deva’ or ‘Devi’ meaning ‘The Divine’) which invaded the rich land of India. Also we have the terms Deva/Davo/Dava/Daoi/Dioi/Dai/Daos/Danaoi/Dahae | ΔABO ΨETO – DAB(V)O GETO = ‘The Brilliant’ or ‘The Divine’ or ‘The Wolves’, but they also have the meaning of ‘inhabitants of Davas’, where ‘Dava’ = ‘Fortress’. All these terms are in fact epithets that describe the Getes. When we talk about wolves we can give as an example Apollon Lykeios the Hyperborean (the Lycan) which in translation means ‘The Light of the Wolf’ or ‘The Enlightened Wolf’.

The exonyms ‘Dac’/’Daki’ were used by the Romans to describe the Getes. The same goes for the exonym ‘Thracian’ where the word ‘trake’ in Greek, really means ‘north’. ‘Thracia’ = The sum of all regions inhabited by the Thracian Getes or Thraco-Getes, meaning the Getes of the North (north of Greece). The word ‘Get’ is central to all native tribes. It is a shame the real history is so little known by the masses, because everybody is promoting great cultures by identifying them with exonyms given by the Greeks or the Romans.

To demonstrate the Sanskrit resonance of the Rumanian language we shall use just a quick example: Rumân (Rumanian), mână (hand), a mâna (to lead/to take action), rămâne or rămână (to stay). Where we observe a similar form which suggests that ‘Rumanian’ also means ‘to stay’, meaning something that persists – continuity. Ramana – indian name. Ram(a) – Deity from the Hindu pantheon, in Rumanian ‘ramură’ or ‘ram’, means ‘branch’.

In a village situated near the banks of the Danube, from Mehedinți County, Romania, the peasants use the following words to call for ducks or piglets: For ducks: MANI MANI (with repetition). Where ‘Mani’ resembles ‘Manu’, another deity from the Hindu pantheon, but also a Rumanian name, where Manu = Emanuel (E-Manu-El), in translation ‘He is Manu’. In Hindi the word ‘Mani’ also means ‘pearl’ or ‘jewel’. But the root ‘MA’, by repetition becomes MAMA, meaning mother.

For piglets: GANI GANI (with repetition). Where ‘Gani’ resembles ‘Ganesh’, another deity from the Hindu pantheon. The root ‘GA’ is another primordial syllable which means ‘earth’ (Gaia). But in the Rumanian folklore ‘Gaia’ is a goddess representing death as a bird of prey, which takes the souls of people after they die.

We have another Rumanian saying: “A dat iama în găini.” Meaning “Iama killed the hens.”, where Yama is another deity from the Hindu pantheon (the God of Death).

These repetitions MANI MANI and GANI GANI resemble the Hindu mantras.

So it is fair enough to say that in the history of our ancestors, the precedence and honor go to the Getes, respectively to the Pelasgo-Getic peoples.

Posted in Aryans, Dacia, Etnogenesis, Romania | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hittites – R1b, chariots, iron & the first indo-euro writing

baden ezero

>> Marija Gimbutas – Old Europe and the Intrusion of Kurgan people <<

EUPEDIA : 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.

hittite-archer-on-a-chariotHittite Ritual Axe

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.

Hittite 2Hittite Swatstika

The Hittites (c. 2000-1178 BCE) were the first Indo-Europeans to defy (and defeat) the mighty Mesopotamian and Egyptian empires. There are two hypotheses regarding the origins of the Hittites. The first is that they came from the eastern Balkans and invaded Anatolia by crossing the Bosphorus. That would mean that they belonged either to the L23* or the Z2103 subclade. The other plausible scenario is that they were an offshoot of the late Maykop culture, and that they crossed the Caucasus to conquer the Hattian kingdom (perhaps after being displaced from the North Caucasus by the R1a people of the griffinCatacomb culture). In that case the Hittites might have belonged to the R1b-M269* or the R1b-M73 subclade. The first hypothesis has the advantage of having a single nucleus, the Balkans, as the post-Yamna expansion of all Indo-European R1b. The Maykop hypothesis, on the other hand, would explain why the Anatolian branch of IE languages (Hittite, Luwian, Lydian, Palaic) is so archaic compared to other Indo-European languages, which would have originated in Yamna rather than Maykop.
There is substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence that Troy was an Indo-European city associated with the steppe culture and haplogroup R1b. The Trojans were Luwian speakers related to the Hittites (hence Indo-European), with attested cultural ties to the culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. The first city of Troy dates back to 3000 BCE, right in the middle of the Maykop period. Troy might have been founded by Maykop people as a colony securing the trade routes between the Black Sea and the Aegean. The founding of Troy happens to coincide exactly with the time the first galleys were made. Considering the early foundation of Troy, the most likely of the two Indo-European paternal haplogroups would be R1b-M269 or L23.


1200 BCE was a turning point in European and Near-Eastern history. In Central Europe, the Urnfield culture evolved into the Hallstatt culture, traditionally associated with the classical Celtic civilization, which was to have a crucial influence on the development of ancient Rome. In Italy, the Terramare culture comes to and end with the Italo-Celtic invasions. In the Pontic steppes, the Srubna culture let place to the Cimmerians, a nomadic people speaking an Iranian or Thracian language. The Iron-age Colchian culture (1200-600 BCE) starts in the North Caucasus region. Its further expansion to the south of the Caucasus correspond to the first historical mentions of the Proto-Armenian branch of Indo-European languages (circa 1200 BCE). In the central Levant the Phoenicians start establishing themselves as significant maritime powers and building their commercial empire around the southern Mediterranean.

But the most important event of the period was incontestably the destruction of the Near-Eastern civilizations, possibly by the Sea Peoples. The great catastrophe that ravaged the whole Eastern Mediterranean from Greece to Egypt circa 1200 BCE is a subject that 1280px-AlterOrient2remains controversial. The identity of the Sea Peoples has been the object of numerous speculations. What is certain is that all the palace-based societies in the Near-East were abruptly brought to an end by tremendous acts of destruction, pillage and razing of cities. The most common explanation is that the region was invaded by technologically advanced warriors from the north, probably Indo-Europeans descended from the steppes via the Balkans.
The Hittite capital Hattusa was destroyed in 1200 BCE, and by 1160 BCE the empire had collapsed, probably under the pressure of the Phrygians and the Armenians coming from the Balkans. The Mycenaean cities were ravaged and abandoned throughout the 12th century BCE, leading to the eventual collapse of Mycenaean civilization by 1100 BCE. The kingdom of Ugarit in Syria was annihilated and its capital never resettled. Other cities in the Levant, Cyprus and Crete were burned and left abandoned for many generations. The Egyptians had to repel assaults from the Philistines from the East and the Libyans from the West – two tribes of supposed Indo-European origin. The Lybians were accompanied by mercenaries from northern lands (the Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka, Sherden and Shekelesh), whose origin is uncertain, but has been placed in Anatolia, Greece and/or southern Italy.

The devastation of Greece followed the legendary Trojan War (1194-1187 BCE). It has been postulated that the Dorians, an Indo-European people from the Balkans (probably coming from modern Bulgaria or Macedonia), invaded a weakened Mycenaean Greece after the Trojan War, and finally settled in Greece as one of the three major ethnic groups. The Dorian regions of classical Greece, where Doric dialects were spoken, were essentially the southern and eastern Peloponnese, Crete and Rhodes, which is also the part of Greece with the highest percentage of R1b-L23. Another hypothesis is that the migration of the Illyrians from north-east Europe to the Balkans displaced previous Indo-European tribes, namely the Dorians to Greece, the Phrygians to north-western Anatolia and the Libu to Libya (after a failed attempt to conquer the Nile Delta in Egypt). The Philistines, perhaps displaced from Anatolia, finally settled in Palestine around 1200 BCE, unable to enter Egypt.


>> Griffons on Dacian artefact – 100BC <<

Posted in Aryans, Etnogenesis, Linguistics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vojvodina & Banat – Timiș, Mureș, Tisa, Drava, Sava (Bosna,Drina), W/S/Great Morava, Vardar, Danube – Starcevo, Vinca, Vucedol, Scordisci/Celts, Dacians/Thracians, Scythians

The Vinča Culture – is the is the oldest Neolithic culture in South-eastern Europe – the First European Metallurgists, the First European Writing. The ‘Old European’ Vinca pottery, artefacts and writing all show an immediately noticeable similarity to what was originally thought to be an earlier Ubaid Sumerian influence from the middle east. In addition, the Cycladian/Cretan cultures are suspected of having close close artistic and possibly religious connections with the Vinca. Both of these cultures appeared following the demise of the Old European Heartland, perhaps not so coincidentally, at the same time as several other important civilisations (Egyptian, Indus Valley, Western European, Maltese Etc) appeared in the prehistoric record.
Several eminent archaeologists of the time (such as Childe, Hood, Vlassa, Maccay), were convinced that the Vinca had somehow been influenced or ‘cradled into being’ by the mistaken belief at the time that the Sumerians were the ‘Mother race’. However, much to everyone surprise, more recent discoveries of earlier Vinca settlements have shown quite clearly that events must have occurred the other way round as the Old European settlements, along with writing, pottery, metallurgy and ‘Ubaid‘ style art, date to a thousand years before the first Sumerian fingerprint, suggesting remarkably that it was actually a Western European culture that influenced Sumerian development.


The First Temperate Neolithic (FTN) is an archaeological horizon consisting of the earliest archaeological cultures of Neolithic Southeastern Europe, dated to c. 6400–5100BCE.[1] The cultures of the FTN were the first to practice agriculture in temperate Europe, which required significant innovations in farming technology previously adapted to amediterranean climate.[2] The constituent cultures of the FTN are:[1]


The Starčevo culture, sometimes included within a larger grouping known as the Starčevo–Kőrös–Criş culture,[1] is anarchaeological culture of Southeastern Europe, dating to the Neolithic period between c. 5500 and 4500 BCE[2] (according to other source, between 6200 and 5200 BCE). The village of Starčevo, the type site, is located on the north bank of the Danube in Serbia (Vojvodina province), opposite Belgrade. It represents the earliest settled farming society in the area, although hunting and gathering still provided a significant portion of the inhabitants’ diet. The culture was preceded by Mesolithic Romania, Körös culture, Sesklo culture, Dimini culture, Neolithic Greece, and followed by Vinča culture, Gumelnița–Karanovo culture.


The Vinča culture occupied a region of Southeastern Europe (i.e. the Balkans) corresponding mainly to modern-day Serbia andKosovo, but also parts of Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Greece.[2] This region had already been settled by farming societies of the First Temperate Neolithic, but during the Vinča period sustained population growth led to an unprecedented level of settlement size and density along with the population of areas that were bypassed by earlier settlers. Vinča settlements were considerably larger than any other contemporary European culture, in some instances surpassing the cities of the Aegean and early Near Eastern Bronze Age a millennium later. One of the largest sites was Vinča-Belo Brdo, it covered 29 hectare and had up to 2,500 people.[3] Early Vinča settlement population density was 50-200 people per hectare, in later phases an average of 50-100 people per hectare was common.[1] The Divostin site 4900-4650 B.C. had up to 1028 houses and a maximum population size of 8200 and could perhaps be the largest Vinča settlement. Another large site was Stubline from 4700 B.C. it may contained a maximum population of 4000. The settlement of Parţa maybe had 1575 people living there at the same time.[4][5][6][7][8][9]


Les Pélasges Vinciens sont venus d’Anatolie pour s’installer en Grèce en même temps que les Pélasges Diminiens (4400 av.jc). Comme eux ils utilisaient des poteries noires lustrées et incisées. Leurs maisons sont ovales et semi-enterrées ou carrées en argile, torchis ou bois. Leur civilisation se subdivise ainsi dans le temps :
-Vinca-Tördös (4400 av.jc / 5500 BC) : Poteries noires polies, lustrées, incisées,gravées, incrustées et cannelées.vinciens
-Vinca-Gradac (4300 av.jc / 5300 BC) : Poteries noires lissées, incisées, incrustées et cannelées. Début de l’utilisation du cuivre.
-Vinca-Plocnik (4150 av.jc / 5150 BC) : Poteries noires lissées, cannelées, à spirales incrustées ou à peinture pateuse de l’ouest (Butmir), poteries graphitées à spirales incrustées ou à peinture pateuse de l’est (Karanovo 5 / Marica). Les maisons sont en poteaux de bois ou en torchis sur clayonnage.
-Vinca-D (3800-2800 av.jc / 4700-3500 BC) : Devant les 1ères invasions Indo-Européennes dans les Balkans (vers -3800 av Jc / 4700 BC), les Vinciens occidentaux (avec poteries noires lustrées, incisées, incrustées et cannelées) se replient vers la cote dalmate pour créer la culture de Nakovanj et les Vinciens orientaux (avec poteries graphitées de Marica) se replient vers l’ouest des Balkans (cultures de Shuplevec-Gradeshnica-Krivodol en Macédoine-Yougoslavie orientale). Mais ces deux groupes finiront quand même par succomber dans la 2ème phase des invasions.Vucedol_culture_map

The Vucedol culture developed from two older eneolithic cultures: the Baden culture mainly in the pannonian plain and the Kostolac (Cotofeni) culture in northern Serbia and western Romania. The Vučedol civilization was contemporary with the Sumer period in Mesopotamia, the Early Dynastic period in Egypt and the early Troy (I and II).
Following the Baden culture, another wave of Indo-European people came to the banks of the Danube. One of the major places they occupied is present-day Vučedol (“Wolf’s Valley”), named after Vučedol, a location six kilometers downstream from the center of the town of Vukovar, Croatia.
The early stages of the culture tenanted locations not far from mountain ranges, where copper deposits were located, because of their main invention: making tools from arsenical copper in series employing reusable, double, two-part moulds. The center of the culture was Vučedol in modern day Croatia. It is estimated that the site had once been home to about 3000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest and most important centers of its time.


Around 1500 BC when the Acheans of Phthia decided to name themselves Ellines (remember we read like in Spanish) after their King (Ellin) the area looked like this. Before the Illyrians the area is inhabited by the Vucedol culture (not pelasgians). Illyrians are known to have migrated together with Italics and Celts.


c. 5000 bc. Indo-Arian homeland:  The Danube River valley (Wallachia and Hungary). There are many reasons for choosing the Danube River valley:  Farming is possible, learned from the people of Asia Minor. The flora and fauna, as well as for other natural features such as hills and rivers, are represented by the oldest words we can reconstruct; it includes the natural ranges of wild horses which, when later domesticated, would become the Indo-European’s “ace card”;  the area is central to the eventual expanse of the Indo-Europeans, with due allowance for the more rapid expanse commonplace over steppe-lands;  the area is also in close proximity to some of the most conservative recent representatives of the family.
The most compelling reason is the presence of the Danubian culture, with its linear incised pottery, at this same time.  The culture spreads soon after in exactly the directions that would account for the spread of PIE.
There are, of course, many other possibilities.  The most common suggestion is the steppes north of the Black Sea, for many similar reasons.  I believe that the strong tribal social structure suggests that the Indo-Europeans were farmers before they were pastoralists.  It is highly unlikely that they went straight from steppe hunter-gatherers to sophisticated pastoralists in one step.
c. 4000 bc. Proto-Anatolians – into the northern Caucasus. Proto-Tokharians  – into the Ukraine. There is plenty of evidence of ox-drawn wagons with disk wheels in the western steppes. A western dialect emerges on the upper Danube and beyond.
c. 3000 bc. Copper working, learned from the people of Asia Minor, begins in Thrace and the Danube valley and reaches Germany by 3000 bc. Domestication of the horse spreads from the Ukraine.  Within a thousand years, horsemanship spreads from the Ukraine throughout the Indo-European area, even into Scandinavia.  It is the steppe inhabitants who change most dramatically into true pastoral societies.  In the more wooded areas of Europe, horse ownership begins to differentiate a warrior nobility from commoners.  Of course, use of the horse spreads to the non-IE societies of the Middle East as well. The disk-wheel wagon has spread from Russia across Europe to Holland.
The Proto-Anatolians move from the Caucasus to Asia Minor. The Proto-Tokharians continue east to the steppes, towards the Tarim Basin in northwestern China.  They may be the people known to the Chinese as the Yüeh-chi, and may have been the core of the Kushan Empire of the first century AD.
The Proto-Celts separate from the rest of the western dialect and expand west into southern Germany and France. The remaining western dialect tribes edge into the modern Slovenia-Croatia area as well as northern Germany. The main body of Indo-Europeans expands into Thrace, the Ukraine, Bohemia, and Poland, and begins to differentiate into a northern dialect (Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary, represented by the Funnel Beaker culture) and a southern dialect (Wallachia, Thrace, and Ukraine, continuing the Danubian culture). The original inhabitants north and west of the Carpathians, likely speakers of Uralic languages, are pushed further north and east.


c. 2000 bc. The main body of the southern Satem dialect expands into the Ukraine to become the Cimmerians, leaving the Dacians in the original homeland.  The people of Thrace probably also had a southern Satem dialect.  These people develop the steppe version of the Battle Ax culture. The main body of the northern Satem dialect – Proto-Balto-Slavic – expands north from Poland into Belarus and the Baltic coast.  With the Germans, they constitute the northern version of the Battle Ax culture.
The Celts expand further into western Europe and, in a retrograde move, back into Hungary.  A powerful society, they pressure the original peoples of western Europe, as well as their own relations to the east.  They develop the Bell-beaker culture and, later, the Urnfield culture. A second wave of Hellenics (Doric Greeks) moves into Greece from Macedonia.
c. 1500 bc. Proto-Phrygians – possibly a branch of the Cimmerians – move from Thrace across the Bosporus to northwestern Asia Minor.  The Phrygians would move into the power gap left by the collapse of the Hittite Empire around 1200 bc. The western Celts expand into western Iberia and the British Isles, where they absorb most of the prior inhabitants. The Balto-Slavics differentiate into Baltic and Slavic.  Both begin to expand east- and northward, at the expense of the hunter-gatherer Finno-Ugric people. The Indo-Iranians differentiate into Indic and Iranian. The Indic group rapidly expands across northern India as far as Magatha.  The ”Iranians” split into powerful tribes, notably the Persians and the Medes, by the 800’s bc.  The Iranians remaining in the steppes would come to be known as the Scyths and Sakas.  The powerful Scyths expand westward at the expense of the remaining Cimmerians.
c. 1000 bc. Iron working begins in the Balkans by 1000 bc.  The “Age of Empires” begins in earnest.


At its peak of power, the empire of Burebista streched from Slovakian Carpathians to the Balkans and from the Middle Danube to the Black Sea. Strabo claims that the Getae could raise up to 200,000 soldiers in wartime[1], a rather improbable number,[7] but which could represent the total number of able males, not the number of any army.[1] Burebista was a worthy adversary for the Romans, as his army would cross the Danube and plunder the Roman towns as far as in Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria. The development of a La Tène-based economy in 3rd-2nd century BC allowed the consolidation of political power through tribal unions. Such regional unions were found both among the Transylvanian Dacians (under the rule ofRubobostes) and the Moldavian and Wallachian Getae (with a center of power in Argedava). Burebista was the first to create a union of tribes of both Dacians and the Getae. This tribe alliance was probably a weakly-centralized state, with a military organization, similar to the one of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.[1]
The heart of Burebista’s empire, in the Orăştie Mountains, close to the iron and gold mines where they built a system of stone fortifications on higher ground.

Burebista led a policy of conquest of new territories: in 60/59 BC, he attacked and vanquished the Celtic tribes of Boii and Taurisci, who dwelt along the Middle Danube and in what is now Slovakia.


Celtic peoples – R1b, ”Iranian”/Scytian/Sarmatian people – R1a, Thracian – I2/J2 substratum mixed with R1a and R1b. An example of the ”yugoslav” mix is Vojvodina – there are more than 26 ethnic groups in the province, which has six official languages.
In the Neolithic period, two important archaeological cultures flourished in this area: the Starčevo culture and the Vinča culture. Indo-European peoples first settled in the territory of present-day Vojvodina in 4200 BC. During the Eneolithic period, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, several Indo-European archaeological cultures were centered in or around Vojvodina: the Vučedol culture, the Vinkovci culture, the Vatin culture, the Belegiš culture, the Bosut culture, etc. Before the Roman conquest in the 1st century BC, Indo-European peoples of Illyrian, Thracian and Celtic origin inhabited this area. The first states organized in this area were the Celtic State of the Scordisci (3rd century BC-1st century AD) with capital in Singidunum (Belgrade), and the Dacian Kingdom of Burebista (1st century BC).


The Scordisci was a Celtic tribe formed after the Gallic invasion of the Balkans,[2] or rather a “Celtic political creation”[3] having mixed with the local Thracians and Illyrians.[4] The Scordisci (Greek: Σκορδίσκοι, Serbian: Скордисци) were a Gallic Iron Age tribe centered in the territory of present-day Serbia, at the confluence of the Savus (Sava), Dravus (Drava) and Danube rivers. They were historically notable from the beginning of the third century BC until the turn of the common era.
In 279 BC, after their clash with the Greeks, Scordisci started progressing towards Pannonia, settling at the point where Moesia and Balkans end, at the confluence of two rivers, Sava and Danube, where they erected fortresses in Singidunum and Taurunum, founding today’s city of Belgrade!!
Celtic expansion reached the Carpathians in the beginning of the 4th century BC.[16] According to a Celtic legend, the Celts that migrated to Italy and Illyria numbered 300,000.[16] The Celts established themselves in Pannonia, subjugating the Pannonians, and in the end of the 4th century they renewed raids into the Balkans.[16] By the early 3rd century BC, Pannonia had been Celtiziced.[17] !!
The Celts, retreating from Delphi (280–278 BC), settled on the mouth of the Sava and called themselves Scordisci.[17] The Scordisci established control to the north of the Dardani.[18] There is no mention of the Scordisci until the reign of Philip V of Macedon (r. 221–179 BC), when they emerge as Macedon allies against the Dardani and Rome.[18]
The Scordisci, having conquered the important Sava valley, the only route to Italy, in the second half of the 3rd century BC, “gradually became the most important power in the northern Balkans”.[19]


The Banat is geographically referred to as a part of the Pannonian Basin bordered by the River Danube to the south, the River Tisa to the west, the River Mureș to the north, and the Southern Carpathian Mountains to the east. Its historical capital was Timișoara, now in Timiș County in Romania. The first known inhabitants of present-day Banat were the various Thracian tribes: Agathyrsi, Getae, Dacians and Singi. In the 3rd century BC, Celtic tribes settled in this area. The region was part of the Dacian kingdom under Burebista in the first century BC, but the balance of power in the area partially changed during the campaigns of Augustus. At the beginning of the 2nd century A.D., Trajan led two wars against the Dacians: the campaigns of 101-102, and 105-106. Eventually, the territory of Banat fell under Roman rule. It became an important link between Dacia province and the other parts of the Empire.


Glad (Bulgarian: Глад, Hungarian: Galád, Romanian: Glad, Serbian: Глад) was the ruler of Banat (in present-day Romania and Serbia) at the time of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 900, according to the Gesta Hungarorum. Anonymus wrote that Cumans, Bulgarians, and Vlachs, or Romanians, supported Glad against the invading Magyars. The Gesta presents Ahtum, who ruled the Banat at the beginning of the 11th century, according to the longer version of the Life of St Gerard, as Glad’s descendant.


Ajtony was a powerful prince who had his seat in a stronghold on the Mureș (urbs Morisena), according to the Life of St Gerard.[43][30][44] His realm stretched from the Criș in the north to the Danube in the south, and from the Tisza in the west to Transylvania in the east.[44][45] He was a wealthy ruler who owned horses, cattle and sheep.[45][46] He commanded so many warriors that he did not fear of setting up custom offices and guards along the Mureș and levying tax on the salt carried to Stephen I of Hungary on the river.[45][47] Although originally a pagan, Ajtony was baptised according to the “Greek rite” in Vidin.[48][49] Ajtony established a monastery for Greek monks in his seat and dedicated it to St John the Baptist shortly after his baptism.[49] However, he remained polygamic and had seven wives even after his baptism.[50][46] St Gerard’s legend also stated that Ajtony “had taken his power from the Greeks”,[49] suggesting that he accepted the Byzantine Emperor’s suzerainty.


The Austrians united Vojvodina and Banat in one province.  The Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar or Serbian Voivodeship and Banat of Temeschwar was a province (duchy) of the Austrian Empire that existed between 1849 and 1860. An Austrian governor seated in Temeschwar ruled the area, and the title of Voivode belonged to the emperor himself. The full title of the emperor was “Grand Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia” (German: Großwoiwode der Woiwodschaft Serbien). Even after the Voivodeship was abolished, the emperor kept this title until the end of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in 1918.




Posted in Dacia, Etnogenesis, Getes, OldEurope | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C.Noica – cu tandrețe întru răs-bunarea rostirii românești. Lee Whorf – engleza faţă de hopi e ca o măciucă faţă de o sabie. Salvarea de sub obsesia puterii – ”ras-bunarea prin smerenie”.

.. resemnificarea cuvântului „răzbunare”, scoborâtor din „răs-bunare”, care înseamnă revenirea la starea anterioară de bunătate. Aşa cum vremea „se răzbună” (de fapt „se răs-bună”), adică devine din nou senină…

Obsesia care a constituit principala ipoteză de lucru a lui Noica a fost „gândul că limba noastră de pădurari, oieri şi dieci este pe măsura filosofiei”. „Întreaga noastră filosofie cultă – va afirma el – este în consonanţă cu ţărănescul”. Pornind de la un scepticism, care nu era numai al său, convins initial că în viziunea Dinu-Lazar-Constantin-Noica-fotografiromani.ro_ţărănească nu se ajunge „decât la înţelepciune, nu şi la filosofie”, Noica va căuta „continuitatea dulce”, „prelungirea firii în spirit”, absenţa rupturii dintre cugetarea lumii noastre naturale şi filosofia cultă, va cauta nestematele de gândire speculativă în chiar minereurile limbii române naturale.
A găsit plenitudine filosofică în modulaţiile verbului „a fi”, în ordinea lui „rost”, în isprăvile dialectice ale negaţiei „ba”, în hârjoana cuplului „sinele-şi-sinea”, ori, nec plus ultra, în potenţialul arhitectonic al prepoziţiei „întru”, pe seama căreia va săvârşi minunea de a edifica un veritabil sistem filosofic – sau cel puţin unul ontologic. Insolitul acestei fapte constă în aceea că, de regulă, toate sistemele filosofice sunt construite pe seama unor substantive sau infinitive lungi; Noica a descoperit însă în limba română o prepoziţie, „întru” – din alt unghi de vedere un fel de punct arhimedic propice nu pentru a urni, dar pentru a ţine în echilibru întreg globul filosofiei şi al cunoaşterii.

Originea schimbării de orientare – spre limba naturală „din colibe şi cătune”, cum spusese Hasdeu – va fi stat în bună parte şi sub efectul strălucitorului eseu al lui Mircea Vulcănescu, Dimensiunea românească a existenţei, cu glosele fenomenologice asupra unor cuvinte („fire”, „vreme” etc.) al căror potenţial metafizic nimeni nu-l luase în seamă până atunci; Noica va aminti mai târziu de acel eseu, mărturisind: „… fără lecţia căruia, poate, n-aş fi scris niciodată Rostirea românească”. În plus, dacă e să căutăm înrâuriri nu avem voie să ignorăm lecturile lui Constantin Noica din opera lui Wilhelm von Humboldt. Frate mai mare al mai cunoscutului geograf şi explorator Alexander von Humboldt şi savant plurivalent din linia deschisă de Herder, Wilhelm von Humboldt a fost unul dintre primii filologi moderni care au văzut în limbă o zestre de legitimare a popoarelor. Lui i se datorează, de asemenea, lansarea noţiunii de Nationalcharakter, în continuarea celei de Volksgeist, prima fiind preluată şi difuzată în secolul al XX-lea de antropologia americană.
„Ca un miracol ţâşneşte limba din gura unei naţiuni! În definitiv, cu particularul lor, limbile exprimă, fiecare, universalul rostirii, respectiv al logos-ului. Fiecare limbă are acces la tot. Aşa fiind, adâncirea într-o limbă poate spune uneori ceva esenţial despre rostirea omului… În el însuşi – se ştie – cuvântul a apărut în trecut nu drept mijloc de comunicare, ci drept o adevărată forţă a spiritului în sânul realităţii”

Dincolo de asemenea influenţe, două sunt temeiurile ce sprijină tentativa lui Constantin Noica de a propulsa limba română printre limbile filosofice de pe Terra: acele temeiuri sunt hermeneutica heideggeriană şi ipoteza Sapir–Whorf privind relativitatea culturală a limbilor.  În stilul romantic al lui Wilhelm von Humboldt, am putea exclama şi noi: „Ca într-un paradis se răsfaţă limba în hermeneutica heideggeriană”! Şi dacă, însoţindu-l pe Heidegger în căutările sale, nu vom afla propriu-zis ce este fiinţa,  vom afla în schimb, cu siguranţă, unde sălăşluieşte fiinţa, anume: în limbă. Lui Heidegger, într-adevăr, îi aparţine celebra definiţie metaforică: „Limba este casa fiinţei” / „Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins”. Dar dacă limba e casa fiinţei, bogăţia fiinţei constă în posibilitatea de a avea mai multe case, cum confirmă şi un exeget ca Michel Haar: gândirea „trebuie să găsească o limbă, să-şi caute cuvintele, gândirea se înscrie în limbi particulare ca să-şi traseze drumul”. Prin exerciţiile sale hermeneutice, Heidegger explora originile cuvintelor descompunându-le şi recombinând apoi sensurile părţilor componente. Entschlossenheit, de exemplu, înseamnă „hotărâre”, dar grafiat Ent-schlossenheit, înseamnă „ieşire din închis”, ceea ce spune mult mai mult decât o simplă decizie, este ca o radiografiere a mişcării atitudinii de la starea de pasivitate, poate de complacere în limitare, la starea de acţiune.

Al doilea temei ce susţine lucrarea lui Constantin Noica asupra limbii române, scoţând efortul său din categoria actelor donquijoteşti, este plasat în perimetrul antropologiei. Este vorba de ceea ce antropologii au fixat sub denumirea „ipoteza Sapir–Whorf”. Ca expresie a relativismului cultural-lingvistic, ipoteza Sapir–Whorf postulează legătura dintre limbă şi gândire ca manifestări culturale ale unei colectivităţi anume, manifestări determinate la un nivel profund de experienţa de viaţă a oamenilor. Intuită de un antropolog de talia lui Franz Boas, ideea a fost formulată mai întâi de Edward Sapir (discipol al lui Boas) în secolul trecut, în anii ’20, dar a fost dezvoltată şi supusă validării de Benjamin Lee Whorf (discipol al lui Sapir), prin amănunţite studii de caz asupra limbilor unor grupuri etnice din America de Nord – şi vechi, şi contemporane: maya, uto-azteci, eschimoşi, hopi, navajo, zuni etc. Conform unui cunoscător în domeniu, două sunt ipotezele cardinale ale lui Whorf: „Întâi, că toate nivelurile superioare ale gândirii sunt dependente de limbă. În al doilea rând, că structura limbii pe care cineva îndeobşte o foloseşte influenţează modul în care acela îşi înţelege mediul. Tabloul universului se schimbă de la un grai la altul”.
avatar_pandora_background_by_pimperius-d3hl96jWhorf nu şi-a limitat însă cercetările la limbile exotice, ci s-a angajat în comparaţii între acestea şi limbile „mari” ale civilizaţiei moderne. Rezultatele au fost surprinzătoare, precum se vede şi din rândurile următoare: „Relativ puţinele limbi ale culturilor care au ajuns la civilizaţia modernă promit să acopere globul şi să provoace extincţia sutelor de variate specii lingvistice exotice, dar e frivol a pretinde că ele prezintă în vreun fel o superioritate. În comparaţie cu multe limbi americane/amerindiene, sistematizarea formală a ideilor în engleză, germană, franceză ori italiană pare săracă şi pustie”. Speciale comparaţii a întreprins Whorf între limba engleză şi limba hopi, în privinţa reprezentării timpului şi spaţiului; concluzia? – ca subtilitate şi rafinament, engleza faţă de hopi e ca o măciucă faţă de o sabie!. Dacă un lingvist cum era americanul Lee Whorf putea spune că limba hopi a pieilor roşii era, sub multe raporturi, mai potrivită pentru teoria relativităţii decât germana ori engleza, nu ne vom sfii să credem că o limbă de obârşia nobilă şi dezvoltarea impresionantă a celei româneşti are a spune ceva raţiunii”.
Cele două temeiuri care susţin strădania şi judecăţile lui Constantin Noica privind virtuţile filosofice ale limbii române (hermeneutica heideggeriană şi ipoteza Sapir–Whorf) nu se află doar într-un simplu raport de adăugire, una la cealaltă. Semnificaţiile lor sunt consonante, dar statutul lor nu este identic. În operaţionalitatea lor faţă de demersul noician, ele se completează într-un mod special, şi anume: ipoteza Sapir–Whorf reiterează hermeneutica heideggeriană, iar aceasta o luminează pe cea dintâi de la altitudinea cea mai înalt speculativă! În faţa revendicărilor lui Noica, Heidegger este un ins singular, iar un ins, fie el şi Heidegger, e mai puţin decât o instituţie. Spre deosebire, ipoteza Sapir–Whorf conferă demersului noician o validitate instituţională din partea unei discipline ştiinţifice – antropologia, întrucât această ipoteză a fost general adoptată de antropologi, ea fiind inclusă în manuale şi în dicţionare. În plus, studiile de caz ale lui Whorf au generat o veritabilă tradiţie de cercetare antropologică în lumina relativismului cultural-lingvistic, tradiţie pe care un exeget mai recent o numeşte „abordare linguacentrică”.

Noica nu a eliminat niciodată din discursul său referirile la Platon, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, sau Heidegger, ci dimpotrivă a imaginat un dialog cu aceştia, ca la o întrunire a marilor spirite, convins că filosofia comparativă pe temeiuri lingvistice (terenul în care el, de fapt, s-a exersat tot timpul) înseamnă o mai bună aşezare a modurilor de a filosofa. La această imaginară şezătoare a limbilor, într-o lume pândită de globalizare (deşi termenul nu apăruse încă în dicţionare), el simţea că: „Este o datorie de cultură să ridici la lumina zilei tot ce stă tăinuit şi infuz în cugetul tău şi, făcând aşa, să urci către înţelesuri care sunt ale omului, chiar dacă poartă pecetea geniului local”. „Căci totul în filosofie, şi poate şi în cultură – este nu atât să atingi universalul şi legea, cât să ridici particularul la universal şi la lege”.

Istoria umanităţii a adus însă în prim-plan, în toate etapele ei, încă o ipostază a generalului, una în care dinamica acestuia e guvernată de formula nietzscheană Wille zur Macht – să-i zicem generalul grandorii, al „voinţei de putere”. Sub specia acestui tip de general au lucrat în istorie popoarele mari, care au supus alte popoare şi care şi-au extins cultura şi limba proprie pe arii vaste. Paradoxal, însă, din punct de vedere ontologic, acest tip de general (care nu se cunoaşte şi nu se recunoaşte decât pe sine) este mai sărac decât orice individual care îşi depăşeşte condiţia de individual pur şi simplu şi îşi apropriază condiţia de model ontologic!  Instanţa de la care poate veni salvarea acelui general al grandorii/puterii este antropologia – şi nu numai prin studii de felul celor întreprinse de Benjamin Lee Whorf, ci prin consacrarea observării participative drept metodă fundamentală în cercetarea unei culturi; şi oricât ar fi de „primitivă” cultura abordată, una dintre exigenţele principale ale observării participative este învăţarea de către cercetător a limbii vernaculare, adică a limbii populaţiei cercetate. Altminteri, cu toată smerenia lor, culturile „mici” îşi au şi ele şansa lor de răsbunare, la judecata fiinţei: spre deosebire de culturile „mari”, care nu ştiu decât de ele însele, culturile „mici” – îmbogăţite de îmbinarea între aplecarea către sinele propriu şi deschiderea către culturile „mari” – se pot înfăţişa la acea judecată ca „modele ontologice”.

Şi iată-l pe Constantin Noica pus pe comparaţii inter-culturale (cross-cultural comparisons, cum spun antropologii): căutând corespondenţe în germană şi în engleză pentru „vreme” şi „vremuire”, punând faţă în faţă „sinea” şi „sinele” cu esenţele lui Platon, cu „mumele” lui Goethe şi cu „lucrul în sine” kantian, sau minunându-se de paradoxul negaţiei „ba”, care ajunge uneori să întărească afirmaţia „da”, adică să săvârşească ceva ce verbului hegelian „aufheben” nu-i stătuse la îndemână. Cu puţină luare-aminte, putem desprinde din asemenea exerciţii comparative o lecţie despre ce înseamnă a gândi universal şi a simţi local. Ducându-ne gândul până la capăt, putem vedea acolo – de ce nu? – o reţetă de împăcare între Geist şi Seele!… Deşi din asemenea comparaţii vocaţia filosofică a limbii române iese mai mult decât onorabil, comparatistul şi-a păstrat cumpătul şi a izbutit să nu alunece spre zona etnocentrismului. Dovadă, printre altele, stă şi acest comentariu lucid, după ce descoperise surprinzătoarele resurse de acţiune ale minusculei vocabule „ba”: „Dacă este grotesc să spui că dialectica ar fi trebuit să apară la noi, în spaţiul Dunării de jos – cum [la fel] este să spui că Orfeu e de la noi, că Diotima lui Platon e de la noi –, are totuşi oarecare rost să crezi că suntem în măsură să-i primim mai bine mesajul decât alte limbi şi cugete. În orice caz, suntem oarecum în spiritul ei; purtăm cu noi ceva din fluiditatea ei. Iar lucrările lui ba pot să ne-o arate”. Prin astfel de reflecţii, Noica iese din starea de seducţie în care îl aduce adesea plăcerea propriilor explorări hermeneutice, se ridică deasupra lucrării pe care o întreprinde şi îşi dă el însuşi măsura simţului măsurii.

Un sceptic, dacă nu chiar un rău-credincios, ar putea, totuşi, ridica din umeri: „Ei, şi? La ce bun toată această demonstraţie de subtilitate în gândire dacă virtuţile relevate nu trec hotarele limbii române, sau dacă ele nu atrag pe alţii, din afară, spre a se împărtăşi din subtilităţile limbii noastre?”. În aparenţă, scepticismul acesta nu poate fi depăşit, numai că hotarele au puterea de a obstrucţiona doar în plan orizontal. Or, adevărata universalitate este pe verticală! A spus-o Nichita Stănescu, dar o spusese în alt fel şi Eminescu; comentând „principiul independenţei absolutului”, formulat de Laplace, „poetul nepereche” nota: „Pentru a constata mişcarea, trebuie ceva nemişcat” 40. Este nevoie, aşadar, de un reper Absolut. Dar numai ignorând orizontalitatea universalului şi privind în sus, Absolutul devine accesibil ca instanţă, şi anume: în ipostaza de Dumnezeu al teologiei (care rânduieşte totul la Judecata de Apoi), de Raţiune hegeliană (care priveşte cu amuzament – die Lust der Vernunft – cum lucrurile se frământă făcându-i jocul), sau de conştiinţă transcendentală de tip fenomenologic (care ţinteşte atingerea unor esenţe prin reducţia eidetică, după care supune datele obţinute testului de intersubiectivitate). În orice caz, privind în sus oamenii au putut măsura înălţimea munţilor; la fel privind, nu se poate măsura, desigur, cu aceeaşi exactitate înălţimea ideilor, dar se poate spune totuşi dacă o idee este mai aproape de cer decât alta.

În ultimul paragraf din „Cuvânt înainte” la Rostirea filosofică românească, Noica reflecta public: „Ce e de făcut, la drept vorbind, cu asemenea cuvinte, nu ştim. Un Eminescu al filosofiei româneşti n-a apărut încă. Dar atâta vreme cât se vorbesc limbile popoarelor şi nu ale maşinilor, suntem datori să credem că se va ivi unul”. Era limpede din această întredeschidere confesivă că Eminescu va fi fost pentru Noica steaua fixă – iar omeneşte vorbind, modelul – după care se va fi călăuzit în propriile-i căutări. Avea s-o spună şi mai târziu, într-o conferinţă din 15 ianuarie 1980, ţinută la Biblioteca „Astra” din Sibiu: „măsura noastră este Eminescu”, unde posesivul „noastră” exprimă totodată extensiune etnică (de la „noi, românii”) şi pluralul modestiei. Rezultatele acelor căutări ne-ar îndreptăţi să-l aşezăm de pe acum pe filosof lângă poet. Consacrările însă – şi în registrul religios, şi în cel profan – se săvârşesc în timp, iar timpul ne cere, neînduplecabil, să avem răbdare. Poate că personalitatea lui Noica ne este încă prea aproape ca imagine vie spre a o percepe şi ca efigie. Şi-apoi, timpul istoric aduce nu numai limbaje ale maşinilor, dar şi tăvălugul globalizării. Totuşi, atâta vreme cât vor exista popoare, vor exista şi limbi naturale – şi, implicit, un filosof precum Constantin Noica lângă un poet precum Mihai Eminescu: două conştiinţe capabile, amândouă, a împăca pe Geist cu Seele, adică a gândi global şi a simţi local, întruchipând astfel aspiraţia către unitatea sintetică dintre universal şi particular, ca valoare absolută.


Dialectica putere / simțire, materialism / spiritualitate, tehnologie / ecologie, imperii / popoare: se definesc reciproc, se condiționează reciproc. Dacă nu se vor echilibra reciproc, nu o să mai avem loc pe pamântul asta, unde sa ne mai ascundem.  Salvarea de sub imperiul măciucii, de implozia provocată chiar de către obsesia puterii, poate veni doar cu ”răs-bunarea prin smerenie”, însăși ”marile culturi imperiale” dominante prin tehnologie si  forță, își pot gasi salvarea doar prin re-conectarea la spiritualitate, re-învățînd sa ”simtă” de la primitivi, de la ”culturile minore” nepervertite de obsesiile ”materialismului”. Salvarea noastră, a fiecăruia separat și a tuturor împreună, depinde de râsul copiilor. I just hope ”the Russians” love their children too, sper că suficient de mulți vor fi în stare să râda împreuna cu copiii lor…

Posted in Linguistics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

An introduction to Archeometallurgy. Wietenberg, Santana. Ethnogenesis of the Celts, Geto-Dacians and Greco-Thracians.

Bellow pix – Part of the Cucuteni! treasure found at Zargidava in 1982 – the site has layers from eneolithic, middle bronze, Hallstatt B, La Tene (sec IVbc-sec II) and medieval era (sec. XV-XVIII) ie Cucuteni, Monteoru, Costișa and geto-dacian cultures.
cucuteni trsr

Gold, the most attractive and precious of metals in every society, is also the easiest for primitive man to acquire. Gold is bright, incorruptible, malleable, and appears in pure form in the beds of streams. Once seen, acquiring it is just a matter of picking it up. Nuggets of this gleaming substance must often have been kept and treasured. Pure gold also has the quality of softness. It can be easily shaped by hammering, but this malleability makes it useless for practical purposes. It always was just a luxury item. Copper which exists in nature in a pure form, can also be bashed into new shapes – with less ease than gold for it is much harder, but with more practical results for everyday use.

Bellow 2 charriots – left Butmir/Bosnia culture and right Wietenberg culture.1310845970_1557753571127497_867977896108097399_n

From about 7000 BC a few neolithic communities begin hammering copper into crude knives and sickles, which work as well as their stone equivalents and last far longer. Some of the earliest implements of this kind have been found in eastern Anatolia.
This intermediate period between the Stone Age and the Bronze Age, has been given a name deriving from the somewhat awkward combination of materials. It is called the Chalcolithic Period, from the Greekchalcos ‘copper’ and lithos ‘stone’. An accident, probably frequent, reveals another of nature’s useful secrets. A nugget of pure copper, or perhaps a finished copper tool, falls into the hot camp fire. The copper melts. When it cools, it is found to have solidified in a new shape. And the magic of fire has yet more to offer. Certain kinds of bright blue or green stones are attractive enough to collect for their own sake. It turns out that when such stones are heated to a high temperature, liquid metal flows from them. They are azurite and malachite, two of the ores of copper.cucuteni
The use of fire thus makes possible two significant new steps in the development of metallurgy: the casting of metal, by pouring it into prepared moulds; and the smelting of mineral ores to extract metal. Objects made from smelted copper, from as early as 3800 BC, are known in Iran.
Many mineral ores are found on the surface of the earth, in outcrops of rock. Chipping away at them, to pursue the metal-bearing lode down below the surface, leads inevitably to another technological advance – the development of mining.

Bellow picture – According to National Museum archaeologist Dušan Šljivar, experts found a “copper chisel and stone ax at a location near Prokuplje in which the foundation has 10392443_1558687581034096_3118940659047911408_nproven to be 7,500 years old, leading us to believe that it was one of the first places in which metal weapons and tools were made in prehistoric times.” The first miners: from 4000 BC. By 4000 BC deep shafts are cut into the hillside at Rudna Glava, in the Balkans, to excavate copper ore. This robbing of the earth’s treasures is carried out with due solemnity. Fine pots, bearing produce from the daylight world, are placed in the mines as a form of recompense to propitiate the spirits of the dark interior of the earth. By about 3800 BC copper mines are also worked in the Sinai peninsula. Crucibles found at the site reveal that smelting is carried out as part of the mining process.

The age of bronze: from 2800 BC. Sometimes the ores of copper and tin are found together, and the casting of metal from such natural alloys may have provided the accident for the next step forward in metallurgy. It is discovered that these two metals, cast as one substance, are harder than either metal on its own. The cast alloy of copper and tin is bronze, a substance so useful to human beings that an entire period of early civilization has become known as the Bronze Age. A bronze blade will take a sharper edge than copper and will hold it longer. And bronze ornaments and vessels can be cast for a wide variety of purposes.
The technology of bronze is first developed in the Middle East. Bronze is in use in Sumer, at Ur, in around 2800 BC, and in Anatolia shortly afterwards. It then spreads spasmodically. It appears in the Indus valley in about 2500 BC, and progresses westwards through Europe from about 2000. At much the same time it is found in crude form in China, where it later achieves an unprecedented level of sophistication. From about 1500 BC the Shang dynasty produces bronze objects of exceptional brilliance.
In all these regions it is the rulers who use bronze, as a luxury for themselves or as a weapon for their armies. For ordinary people the Stone Age survives well into the Bronze Age.
weitenberg minoic swordLeft pix – ”Mycenaean” sword / Wietenberg culture / National Museum of Transylvanian. The Mycenians came to Greece from the North of present day Romania, where this sword was found.
As the most valuable of commodities (in addition to being compact and easily portable), metals are a great incentive to trade. The extensive deposits of copper on Cyprus bring the island much wealth from about 3000 BC (Cyprus, in Latin, gives copper its name –cyprium corrupted to cuprum). Later, when the much scarcer commodity of tin is required to make bronze, even distant Cornwall becomes – by the first millennium BC – a major supplier of the needs of Bronze Age Europe.
There are various opinions about which methods were used to introduce the arsenic, but by the 1970s most researchers believed that the arsenic was there because Bronze Age metalworkers had selected copper ores that were naturally rich in the element. Copper ore deposits are usually laid down in rock fissures or veins as primary copper sulphide minerals. Exposed areas of such deposits are converted to secondary minerals such as oxides and carbonates. Within some primary copper deposits are the ‘fahlerz’ ores, which contain arsenic and the metal antimony. The metalworkers had apparently discovered that these ores yielded a superior product.
While some archaeologists were classifying metal artefacts by their physical appearance others began to analyse their composition, especially after spectrographic methods became widely available in the 1930s. This approach, pioneered by the German chemists Helmut Witter and Wilhelm Otto and the Austrian scientist Richard Pittioni, culminated in a massive programme, based in Stuttgart, which was responsible for more than 16 000 analyses of Early Bronze Age metalwork by the mid-1970s.


The magic of iron: from 1500 BC. The Hittites are the first people to work iron, in Anatolia from about 1500 BC. In its simple form iron is less hard than bronze, and therefore of less use as a weapon, but it seems to have had an immediate appeal – perhaps as the latest achievement of technology (with the mysterious quality of being changeable, through heating and hammering), or from a certain intrinsic magic (it is the metal in meteorites, which fall from the sky). Quite how much value is attached to iron can be judged from a famous letter of about 1250 BC, written by a Hittite king to accompany an iron dagger-blade which he is sending to a fellow monarch (see Letter from a Hittite king).

The discovery of steel: 11th century BC. By the 11th century BC it has been discovered that iron can be much improved. If it is reheated in a furnace with charcoal containing carbon, some of the carbon is transferred to the iron. This process hardens the metal; and the effect is considerably greater if the hot metal is rapidly reduced in temperature, usually achieved by quenching it in water.
The new material is steel. It can be worked just like softer iron, and it will keep a finer edge, capable of being honed to sharpness. Gradually, from the 11th century onwards, steel replaces bronze weapons in the Middle East, birthplace of the Iron Age. It becomes essential, from now on, to have a good steel blade rather than a soft and indifferent one.

Cast iron in the east: 513 BC. Thus far in the story iron has been heated and hammered, but never melted. Its melting point (1528°C) is too high for primitive furnaces, which can reach about 1300°C and are adequate for copper (melting at 1083°C). This limitation is overcome when the Chinese develop a furnace hot enough to melt iron, enabling them to produce the world’s first cast iron – an event traditionally dated in the Chinese histories to 513 BC. In this they are a thousand and more years ahead of the western world. The first iron foundry in England, for example, dates only from AD 1161. By that time the Chinese have already pioneered the structural use of cast iron, using it sometimes for the pillars of full-size pagodas. Read more @


Central Europe Bronze Period A1, 2300-1950 BC; Key:(1) Late Eneolithic;(2) Beaker culture;(3) Riesenbecher;(4) Únětice culture; (5)Adlerberg group; (6)EBA of north Alps,incl.Singen&Neckar-Ries-Lech groups;(7) Straubing culture;(8) Unterwölbling culture;(9) Early Bronze Age of South-East Alps;(10) Wieselburg culture;(11) Nitra culture;(12) Kisapostag culture; (13) Nagyrév culture; (14) Perjámos culture; (15) Otomani culture;(16) Hatvan culture;(17) Košťany culture;(18) Mierzanowice culture;(19) Dobre group; (20) Płonia (Buchholz) group.

wiki about cooper archaeometallurgy: The theory that metallurgy was imported into Europe from the Near East has been practically ruled out. Nowadays, the general opinion is that the development of metallurgy took place independently in different places, at different times, with various techniques. One fact that supports this interpretation is that, although the final products are quite similar throughout Europe, the method of production is not.
The earliest recorded metal employed by humans appears to be gold which can be found free or “native.” Certain metals, notably tin, lead and (at a higher temperature) copper, can be recovered from their ores by simply heating the rocks in a fire, a process known as
smelting. The first evidence of this extractive metallurgy dates from the 5th and 6th millennium BC and was found in the archaeological sites of Majdanpek, Yarmovac and Plocnik, all three in Serbia. To date, the earliest evidence of copper smelting is found at the Belovode site,[6] including a copper axe from 5500 BC belonging to the Vinča culture. Around 3500 BC, it was discovered that by combining copper and tin, a superior metal could be made, an alloy called bronze, representing a major technological shift which began the Bronze Age. Europe has very few sources of tin. It was therefore of extreme importance throughout ancient times to import it long distances from known tin mining districts of antiquity, namely Erzgebirge along the border between Germany and Czech Republic, the Iberian Peninsula,Brittany in France, and Devon and Cornwall in southwestern England. Another minor source of tin is known to exist at Monte Valerio in Tuscany, Italy.
The extraction of
iron from its ore into a workable metal is much more difficult than for copper or tin. The process appears to have been invented by the Hittites in about 1200 BC, beginning the Iron Age. The secret of extracting and working iron was a key factor in the success of the Philistines.[5][8]

Copper is the eighth most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust, available all over the world and one of the few that can appear in pure state (Atkinson 1987). It is not complicated to work with, a bare hammering can be enough to transform a nugget into a bead.
tcasting_setupStage A: Although
native copper nowadays is frequently displayed in museum showcases of mineral collections, it once occurred copiously during prehistoric times. In Cyprus or Crete, collecting the mineral was once as easy as simply picking it up from the ground. In fact, native copper is no longer as easy to find in that state these days. The treatment of this native mineral was also uncomplicated through cold-hammering. This only permitted the production of a limited range of artifacts like awls, pins, or beads. In larger objects, the metal cracks when it is cold-hammered.
Stage B: Annealing the metal on an open fire (200–300 °C) reduces its hardness considerably and gives in malleability. This permits the manufacture of slightly more sophisticated objects, like bracelets, but is still a rather limited technique.
Stage C: In the first two steps, the mineral used was
native copper with no specialized smeltingtechnology. Probably, due to the situation that native copper was increasingly difficult to find, copper ore was used in the third step. This was a very significant development, in fact this was truly the beginning of metallurgy. Separating the copper from the gangue was possible only by smelting, using furnaces that were able to reach at least 1,089 °C.
Numerous examples of mines are known all over Europe (Craddock 1980, Mohen 1992 and 1996, Shennan 1999, Bartelheim et al. 2003) from the east: Rudna Glava (Serbia), Ai Bunar (Bulgaria); to the west: Mount Gabriel (Ireland), Great Orme, Alderley Edge (United Kingdom); crossing Central Europe: Mitterberg (Salzach, Austria), Neuchâtel (Switzerland), Cabrierés (France); to the south: Riotinto,Mola Alta de Serelles (Spain); and the Mediterranean: Corsica, Cyprus, and the Cyclades islands. It is remarkable that, usually, it is not a single mine but a complex, with a variable, large number of mineshafts, as in Rudna Glava (30) or Mount Gabriel

One of Greece’s most famous archaeological sites, the Middle Bronze Age city of Akrotiri is the Pompeii of Greece.  Inhabited in c.1600-1525 BC, Akrotiri was once a prosperous trading centre but was abandoned after a volcanic eruption buried the site in several metres of ash. Its houses – many preserved up to two or three stories high, along with furniture and pottery – lay undisturbed for 3,500 years until the site was Akrotiri-credit-Klearchos-Kapoutsisexcavated by Spyridon Marianatos in 1967.  It’s eerie walking through there. Beds are upturned on top of one another, as if the occupants would come back for them. Jars and jugs lay scattered. The ash formed a sort of cast for some of the furniture, leaving behind beautifully sculpted tables and even a keepsake box with a gold ibex. Akrotiri even had a sewage system. Santorini Island itself didn’t have such technology until the mid-1900s. These people were bloody brilliant. “Thera” was the original name of Santorini Island, and this museum houses most of the artifacts collected from Akrotiri. Perfectly preserved pieces of wall murals and frescoes are on display here, and even 7000-year-old fossilized olive leaves from some of the island’s earliest eruptions. Other interesting tidbits: the world’s first portable oven and pieces of jewelry.

Relation between salt mines and copper workshops in late Bronze age. Deja în urmă cu sare-bronzaproape o jumătate de secol, M. Rusu atrăsese atenţia asupra unei posibile legături între marile depozite de bronzuri transilvănene şi resursele de sare, ipoteză reluată şi de alţi cercetători.
Hartă cu localizarea exploatărilor de sare din Bronzul târziu (^) şi a principalelor depozite-atelier (*):1. Dipşa ; 2. Figa ; 3. Uioara de Sus
şi Şpălnaca ; 4. Ocna Mureş; 5. Aiud ; 6. Pănade; 7. Ocnişoara ; 8.Guşteriţa; 9. Ocna-Sibiului ; 10. Bicaz ; 11. Coştiui – Şugatag ; 12.Valea Florilor ; 13. Band.

Middle Bronze 1800BC: The modest huts were replaced by larger houses and some settlements were fortified with earthworks and stone walls. Four wheel wagons were common throughout the Balkans, central Europe and Asia Minor.
Wietenburg culture: Origins – Coţofeni & Baden, Area – Crisana, E Hungary, Slovakia spread west later, Pottery – high-necked cup, geometric & spira, Settlements – houses arranged in circles, fortified with ramparts, Technology – developed bronze metallurgy, Burials – inhumation.
The Únětice culture dated roughly to about 2300–1600 BC, originated in South East Europe history - 1,800 BC mapthe territories of contemporary Bohemia, the village Únětice is located  northwest of Prague. Today, this archaeological culture is known from Czech Republic and Slovakia from approximately 1400 sites, from Poland (550 sites) and Germany (approximately 500 sites and loose finds locations).[1] The culture corresponds to Bronze A1 and A2 in the chronological schema of Paul Reinecke: A1: 2300-1950 BC: triangular daggers, flat axes, stone wrist-guards, flint arrowheads ; A2: 1950-1700 BC: daggers with metal hilt, flanged axes, halberds, pins with perforated spherical heads, solid bracelets. Úněticean graves can be divided in two categories: flat graves and barrows.[26] The Únětice culture practiced skeletal inhumations, however occasionally cremation was also practised.In classic phase (approx. 1850-1750 BC), Úněticean burial rite displays strong uniformity, regardless of the gender or age of the deceased. Men and women were buried in the same N-S position.Coffins were made of single block of wood. The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture. Cornish tin was widely traded as well.CBMP

The Carpathian arc from the Bohemia -Únĕtice culture, the upper Tiza Otomani culture and into Transylvania Wietenburg culture was the centre of the Bronze industry, trading up to the Baltic coast and east to the Caucasus. The ‘alliance’ of these three cultures used tin from Bohemia to produce Bronze in Transylvania and then their strength spread north of the Carpathians into the Ukraine (Komarów culture) and east to the Pontic Steppe.
Wietenberg and Otomani were the first cultures to develop bronze technology in Transylvania. While Otomani, Unetice and all the other cultures around still had inhumation, Wietenberg had cremation and urns. When all the other cultures had only stone tools, Wietenberg had a well develope bronze and gold technology, followed by Otomani culture. And in the above pix the Wietenberg battle ax looks nicer than the Unetice axe Smile Look also to the Mycenaean bronze sword found at Dumbrăvioara, Mureş County, Romania and consider that first ”aryan” invasion of Greece, came from this area! The period of Greek history from about 1600 BC to about 1100 BC is called Mycenaean in reference to Mycenae. At its peak in 1350 BC, the citadel and lower town had a population of 30,000 and an area of 32 hectares.[1] 

The first Bronze technology from Serbia/Vinca is probably related to the ancient copper & tin mines from W Serbia – Cer & Bukulja mountains (close to where Sava & Morava flows into the Danube). The Early Bronze Age from Spain can be explained through the tin mines from Spain. As well the Nuragic Culture was linked to the copper mines from Sardinia. Metallurgy appeared later in NW Europe but very soon became the most advanced technology in Europe, that could be linked to the tin mines from England/Cornwall, which were the most abundant from all Europe. Unetice Culture probably is closely connected with the Copper Tin mines from Bohemia/Erzgebirge. Metallurgy produced strong rich cultures, produced well armed  warriors that were able to conquer other people.
New technologies produced welfare, better living conditions, increased population. New products induced trade, traders had to protect the products they transported, ‘industrial areas’ and ‘rich comunities’ also had to be protected, I guess there is a good link between welfare/expensive products/trade and warriors/aristocracies.

Metallurgy and strong cultures in Transylvania could be linked with 1#the gold sources from Alburnus Maior, some of the richest in Europe, the main reason for Traian to conquer Dacia and 2#with salt mines from Transylvania. 3#Transylvania was in the middle of everything: it was between Vinca and Cucuteni. 4#It was the turntable from where R1b conquered W Europe and 5#close to the tin sources from Bohemia. 6#It was connected with the pontic steppes, and through this highway with the metallurgic centers from Urlas/Arkaim and Caucaz. 7#And finally it was close to the rich basins of lower Danube and Middle Danube+Tisa basin.
Bellow pix: left is Unetice from Germany, right is Wietenberg from Transylvania.

The Wietenberg culture from Transylvania,  is the extension of the CONTACT AREA on the Dniester river, the melting pot area where the
1#Old Europe Cucuteni I2(+J1+E1+G) farmers met
2#the R1b coming on the N&S shores of the Black Sea and the
3#R1a coming from the northern forest steppes.
This melting pot ended the Cucuteni Culture around 3000BC but produced people with all the qualities to be more competitive than others around: they knew farming, metallurgy, they had horses & chariots, they were fierce warriors.  Cremation could come from Cucuteni who used to burn everything, cooper mining could come from salt mining typical for Cucuteni also, bronze technology seems to be connected with R1b who later conquered all Western Europe. All in all the Wietenberg area 2200–1600/1500 BC seems to be / could be :
1]in the center of the European bronze technology, which expanded from here North to Poland (Unetice), to West up the Danube to England and to East it related strongly over the Pontic steppes to the Urals,  to the
Sintashta-Arkaim culture 2100–1800 BC.
2]the starting area of the protoceltic Urnfield culture 1300 BC – 750 BC which led to the Hallstat Iron  Age culture. Urnfield is preceded by the
Tumulus culture   1600 BC to 1200 BC, descendant of the Unetice culture
3]may be the original area of the Greco-Macedonians & Thracians the – Mycenae 1600-1100bc and of course could be
4] origin of the Geto-Dacian people, who worked gold and iron in Transylvania mountains, simillar to Hallstat and LaTene celts in the Alps.

Eastern LinearProtoItaloCelts

Thus the Middle Danube & Tisa basins plus Transylvania were the turntable, the area from where 1#Linear Pottery spread to Central Western Europe than later 2#Pro Italo Celts  conquered all Western Europe.

Wietenburg culture spread east to the Noua culture of Moldavia and Sabatinovka culture of the Steppe as far as the Dnieper. Pastoralism was practiced extensively in the central to South East Europe history - 1,400 BC mapeast of Romania. Seven of the nine superior Bronze “Mycenaean” swords found in Romania were found in Transylvania showing connections with the southern Balkans through the Morava-Vardar corridor.
Suciu de Sus – Felchesevch-Stanova Culture: Origins – either from Otomani & Sighişoara, or Vučedol-Zok-Nir, Area – Maramures & Ukraine sub Carpathians, & part of Crişana, Pottery – spirals & solar designs, also geometric, Houses – surface huts of wattle & daub, Economy – on trade route from central to north Europe, Technology – metallurgy, Burials – cremation, tumulus graves.

The shift to cremation rather than interment around 1300 BC, gave archaeologists a name for the burgeoning Urnfield culture. The typical Urnfield burial used a urn to contain the ashes of the desceased, capped by an upturned bowl, set into a pit. The usage had spread over much of Europe by 1000 BC.
Any type of cremation was uncommon earlier over most of Europe except the Carpathian Basin, where it appears urnamong the Makó and Bell Beaker groups as early as c. 2700 to 2400 BC. So this region has often been considered the starting point for the Urnfield tradition. Two of the Middle Bronze Age cultures of Hungary favoured cremation, but only one of them placed a capped burial urn in a pit. That was the Vatya Culture of sheep-breeders living in the settlements along the Danube. These were well-placed foUrnfieldCulturer trading, as well as having good grazing land nearby. So the idea could easily have travelled up the Danube to the trading nexus at its head. From there it spread west and north into Germany and Poland and south into Italy. Finally it moved into France and part of Spain. There was also a transition to cremation burial in Scandinavia and the British Isles in the Late Bronze Age, but without the vast cemeteries of Continental Europe.
The distribution of the Urnfield Culture is very similar to that of the Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b-U152. The origins of the cremation rite are commonly believed to be in Hungary, where it was widespread since the first half of the 2nd millennium BC.[3] The neolithic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of modern-day northeastern Romania and Ukraine were also practicing cremation rituals as early as approximately 5,500 BC.

The village Malaya Kopanya (укр: Мала Копаня) is located on the banks of the river Tisa. The village is famous for its hill-fort (Gorodyshche) located one and a half kilometers Malaya Kopanya 2from the center of the village, where excavations were conducted for many years. The hill-fort reffers to the Dacian culture and occupies an area of almost 5 hectares of which only 2 were investigated. Here is a study about iron swords found at Malaya Kopanya, stating that the dava, the Dacian fort, was built around 60BC in the time of Burebista king, replacing the ”North Thracian environment”. The  settlement  was destroyed by the Romans in 107AD. All findings convey to Vynohradiv (Seleuşu Mare) State Museum.

La 20 de kilometri de graniţa cu România, (48° 10′ 0″, 23° 6′ 0″) la intrarea Tisei în bazinul Maramureşului istoric, săpăturile arheologice au fost demarate în 1977 si din anul 2.000 au continuat în baza unui acord de colaborare științifică dintre Muzeul Județean Satu Mare și Malaya Kopanya 1Universitatea Națională din Ujgorod, cu finanțare de la Ministerul Culturii şi Cultelor din România. Încununarea cercetărilor arheologice a venit o dată cu campania de săpături din 2008, când arheologii sătmăreni au descoperit mormintele şi, odată cu acestea, cea mai mare şi reprezentativă cantitate de bijuterii dacice după vestitele brăţări din aur. Săpăturile au fost oprite în 2011 pe fondul lipsei de finanțare. Acesta este al doilea cimitir-cetate dacic descoperit, pe lângă cel din Zemplen – Slovacia, aflat la 200 de kilometri de graniţa cu România.
Cea mai mare descoperire de la Malaya Kopanya se referă la cele 70 de morminte, mai Malaya Kopanya 3multe decât au fost descoperite vreodată în tot arealul Marii Dacii, ceea ce a determinat arheologii să afirme că suntem în fața celei mai mari necropole dacice. Cercetătorii speră să dea de câteva sute de morminte pe când vor finaliza săpăturile. Stratul de cultură coboară până la 3, 8 m. Este vorba despre un cimitir de incineraţie, în care defuncţii au fost puşi pe rug, osemintele calcinate depuse în urne şi îngropate în pământ. În mormintele de femei au fost descoperite bijuterii, fibule, catarame, inele şi verigi, în timp ce în mormintele bărbaţilor au Descoperirile-arheologilor-din-Satu-Marefost descoperite arme, printre care şi unele foarte spectaculoase, precum spade îndoite, o armă specială numită fica – un fel de sabie cu un singur tăiş, pinteni și vârfuri de lance. Mormintele datează din perioada lui Burebista. Sistemul de apărare al cetăţii este deosebit de complex, demn de un mare centru politic, comercial şi religios, cetetea de la Malaya Kopanya se aseamănă cu Sarmisegetuza Regia, doar că cetatea din Ucraina ar fi avut zidurile din lemn, pe când Sarmisegetuza le avea din piatră.

Epoca bronzului mijlociu cuprinde, conform datelor 14C calibrate, prima jumatate a mil. II i.Ch., sau conform cronologiei traditionale, sec. 17-14 i. Hr. Aceasta epoca, in toata Europa de Sud-Est si Centrala, se caracterizeaza prin cristalizarea unor entitati etnoculturale bine delimitate geografic si tipologic, prin trecerea treptata la forme de habitat mai stabile, prin cresterea complexitatii structurilor sociale, proces a carui expresie cea mai elocventa a reprezentat-o cresterea accentuata a numarului asezarilor fortificate, depunerea tezaurelor de piese de aur si argint – simboluri ale puterii sacrale si sociale; prin progrese baia mareremarcabile in metalurgia bronzului: inlocuirea treptata a tiparelor de lut cu cele de piatra, folosirea pe scara larga a cositorului pentru obtinerea bronzului de calitate. Avand in vedere lipsa cositorului in zacamintele din toata Europa de Est si Sud-Est, tehnologia bronzului nu ar fi fost posibila fara sa fi existat o retea transeuropeana de circulatie a acestui metal. Cositorul folosit in Transilvania provenea din Slovacia. Mai sus piese din colectia muzeului Baia Mare.
Perioada mijlocie a epocii bronzului in Bazinul Carpatic se caracterizeaza si prin manifestari artistice deosebite: eleganta formelor si ornamentare extrem de bogata si expresiva a vaselor ceramice, care in unele privinte repeta motivele ornamentale din eneolitic. Printre motivele decorative caracteristice bronzului mijlociu un loc aparte il ocupau simbolurile solare si reprezentari de plante, motive care sugereaza cultul solar, cel al fertilitatii si al fecunditatii. Probabil, un rol ritual au jucat si carele votive, figurine de animale si pasari.
Majoritatea cercetatorilor atribuie culturile arheologice ale epocii bronzului mijlocii din spatiul Carpato-Dunareano-Pontic unor grupuri prototracice sau tracice. Pe tot parcursul bronzului mijlociu, sudestul Transilvaniei a fost net dominat de cultura Wietenberg, raspandita in toata Transilvania.

Valea Muresului este ‘autostrada preistorica’ prin care au patruns in Ardeal toti migratorii care au venit din Zona Dunare/Tisa. Arheologii au inventariat 57 de situri pe traseele din judetul Alba ale viitoarei autostrazi de pe Culoarul IV Pan-European, practic, la fiecare 2,5 kilometri exista cate un sit arheologic. Cetatea preistorica de la Santana – Troia Romaniei – are 78 de hectare! si este cea mai mare cetate hallstattiana din Europa! Csantanauprinde o necropola din prima epoca a cuprului, cultura Tiszapolgar circa 4000BC, apoi o asezare ce dateaza de la sfarsitul epocii bronzului, de la circa 1200BC si o fortificatie ridicata de traci la inceputul primei epoci a brnz sntnfierului. o necropola din prima epoca a cuprului, cultura Tiszapolgar circa 4000BC, apoi o asezare ce dateaza de la sfarsitul epocii bronzului, de la circa 1200BC si o fortificatie ridicata de traci la inceputul primei epoci a fierului. În 1988, cu ocazia unor lucrări de modificare a terasamentului căii ferate ce leagă Aradul de Oradea, se descoperă un vas din pastă grosieră care conţinea oase umane, şi un tezaur compus din 23 de piese din aur.
În 1954, Ioan Mărinoiu a găsit, în urma bronz santanaunor lucrări agricole, un celt şi un fragment de seceră. Tot în această perioadă a mai fost descoperit (întâmplător) un brâu realizat din bronz aurit. În 1976, tractoristul Aurel Bulzea din Sântana, găseşte în spatele fostei halte C.F.R. Cetatea Veche, un cuptor plin (aprox. 200 de piese) cu proiectile (bile) de praştie din lut. Elevii cercului de istorie-arheologie de la Şcoala generală nr.1 din Sântana, aflaţi sub îndrumarea lui Augustin Mureşan, urmărind lucrările la un canal care a traversat fortificaţia, salvează în 1980 mai multe obiecte: un topor din piatră găurit şi şlefuit, proiectile din lut pentru praştie, două râşniţe din piatră, două greutăţi de la războiul de ţesut, ceramică şi un fragment dintr-un tipar de gresie, folosit probabil pentru turnarea unor piese de harnaşament.

Metsamor The citadel on top of the volcanic hill is about 10.5 hectares in size, but the entire city is believed to have covered 200 hectares at its greatest extent, housing up to armenia50,000 people. Excavations have shown strata of occupancy going back to the Neolithic period 7,000-5,000 BC, but the most outstanding features of the site were constructed during the early, middle and late Bronze Ages 5,000-2,000 BC.  Inscriptions found within the excavation go back as far as the Neolithic period, and a sophisticated pictograph form of writing was developed as early as 2000-1800 BC.  The “Metsamor Inscriptions” have a likeness to later scripts.
Metallurgy – The excavations uncovered a large metal industry, including a foundry with 2 kinds of blast furnaces (brick and in-ground).  Metal processing at Metsamor was among the most sophisticated of its kind at that time:  the foundry extracted and processed high-grade gold, copper, several types of LLchashen-chariot-museumbronze, manganese, zinc, strychnine, mercury and iron. Metsamor’s processed metal was coveted by all nearby cultures, and found its way to Egypt, Central Asia and China.  The iron smelting process was not advanced in Metsamor, probably due to the vast quantities of pure bronze alloys at hand, and Metsamor primarily mined and sold iron ore to neighbouring cultures which took better advantage of its properties.
The Foundry – The foundry dates from the Early Bronze Age – ca. 4,000 BC, though recent digs in the area uncovered signs of metal processing as early as 5,000 BC.  The Medzamorcoppersmelter3000complex of smelting furnaces and moulds date from the mid Bronze to Early Iron Age (3,000-2,000 BC).  The complex becomes more astounding the more you walk through it.  Several huge underground caves were uncovered that are thought to have been storehouses for base metal, as well as a granaries for winter months.  The first iron in the ancient world was probably forged here, though it was not considered as important as bronze, giving the jump on development to the Babylonians.

The Varna culture belongs to the late Neolithic of northern Bulgaria. It is conventionally dated between 4400-4100 BC, contemporary with Karanovo in the South. It is characterized by polychrome pottery and rich cemeteries, the most famous of which are varnaVarna Necropolis, the eponymous site, and the Durankulak complex, which comprises the largest prehistoric cemetery in southeastern Europe, with an adjoining coeval Neolithic settlement (published) and an unpublished and incompletely excavated Chalcolithic settlement.
294 graves have been found in the necropolis, many containing sophisticated examples of copper, some of the world’s oldest gold jewelry, pottery (about 600 pieces, including gold-painted ones), high-quality flint and obsidian blades, beads, and shells.
The findings showed that the Varna culture had trade relations with distant lands, possibly including the lower Volga region and the Cyclades, perhaps exporting metal goods and salt from the Provadiya rock salt mine. The copper ore used in the artifacts originated from a Sredna Gora mine near Stara Zagora, and Mediterranean spondylus shells found in the graves may have served as primitive currency.

The pix bellow – distribution of polymetallic deposits in the Western Carpathians including the Slovakian Erzgebirge. The triangles mark Early Bronze Age settlements.
The Mondsee group was a neolithic Austrian Pile dwelling culture spanning the period erzgbrgfrom roughly 3800 to 2800 BC, of particular interest due to its production of the characteristic “Mondsee Copper” arsenical bronze, apparently the first in central Europe to emulate the Serbian Vinča culture.  
Metalurgy in the Elbe-Saale (Harz) region. A recent paper (2012, in German) discusses a copper dagger that has been found in a late Neolithic grave from Aspenstedt near Halberstadt (15 km north of the Harz mountains), and uses the opportunity to, based on other finds in the region, reconstruct the early history of metallurgy in the area:
According to the paper, the process included the following stages:
1] 4.100-3.800 BC : Occasional import of copper tools from western Slovakia
2] 3.800-3.500 BC: Increased occurrence of copper artefacts and indication of local processing of imported copper. The supply source shifts towards East Alpine Mondsee copper. The Aspenstedt dagger, a Mondsee dagger that exhibits signs of local re-shaping, belongs into this group.
3]3.500- 3.350 BC: First indication of the use of local copper alongside imported one.
4]3.350 – 3.100 BC: Strong increase in copper finds (8% of all locations, compared to 4% before), mostly decorative items, increasingly produced from local copper.
5]3.100 – 2.800 BC: Further increase of copper finds (11% of all locations). The increased occurrence of copper axes, produced from local copper, indicates a well developed local tool making industry.

Eupedia Forum: I think it makes a lot of sense to associate baking pottery with copper age revolution. You do not need an oven to make simple pottery, that can be done in an open fire. But for fine pottery, with proper glazing, you need higher temperatures and also some control over the amount of oxygen inside the oven. It is true that copper in natural form could be found and cold molded for tools, and was in sporadic use very early, but ubiquitous copper use, the true copper revolution, only came with ability to smelt it and cast it.
Clay pottery to harden needs to be baked in fire/heat. But how hot kiln needs to be to achieve the ceramic state of clay? Required temperature turned to be no less than 1,000 C, and in some cases as high as 1,400C for best quality. Temperature needed for melting copper is 1,084C, pottery kilns were hot enough to melt copper.
Interestingly, to cast copper we need clay/ceramic molds. Should we mentioned that clay molds were readily available around pottery kilns? A very convenient circumstance.
Another interesting fact is that copper, copper oxide and dioxide, was used as pottery colorant. At this high temperatures copper evaporates in kiln and is absorbed by pottery, giving it greenish and reddish colour. This colouring technique could have been primary introduction of copper in kilns. From this it is only a short step to accidental invention of smelting copper.

Tainted ores and the rise of tin bronzes Excavations at Plocnik, a Vinca culture site in Serbia, recovered a piece of tin bronze foil from an occupation layer dated to the mid fifth millennium BC. The Plocnik and Gomolava objects are similar in composition to 13 previously analysed early tin bronzes from Bulgaria and Serbia. Their shape implies that they were used for decorative purposes; visual appearance played a significant role in their use. The foil from Plocnik was left in a soft annealed state so that it could be wrapped around a ceramic vessel, while the ring from Gomolava was left in the work-hardened state. This study provides archaeological and analytical evidence for the independent emergence of tin bronze production, from complex copper-tin ores, some 1500 years 6500-year-old-tin-bronze-from-serbiabefore the first tin bronze alloys of south-western Asia. They also preceded by almost half a millennium the earliest use of natural alloys of arsenical copper (Roberts et al. 2009). Thus the fifth millennium tin bronzes fundamentally challenge the established sequence of the evolution of metallurgy in western Eurasia.
Copper, tin bronzes and gold are not the only metals used in the Balkans at this period. There is evidence of mid fifth millennium BC use of both lead and galena from the Vinca culture sites of Selevac, Opovo, Autoput and Donja Tuzla (Glumac & Todd 1987). In the wider Balkan region the use of silver is attested by the hoard of more than 100 silver artefacts from the Alepotrypa Cave in Greece, and dated to the mid fifth–early fourth millennia BC (Muhly 2002). The near-contemporary use of tin bronze, gold, lead/galena and, most likely, silver in addition to the dominant copper in the Balkans during the mid to late fifth millennium BC defies the conventional narrative of a slow unilinear evolution of metallurgy. Quite the reverse, the early trajectory of metallurgy in the Balkans emerges almost from the very beginning as polymetallic in nature.
The production of complex tin bronzes in the Balkans declined towards the end of the fifth millennium BC. Significantly, this coincided with the collapse of the gold-using cultures in Bulgaria. Explanation could be sought in population dynamics, which were a powerful mechanism for both the generation and decline of innovations in prehistoric societies (Henrich 2004; Powell et al. 2009). Tin bronzes only re-appeared some 1500 years later, based on cassiterite tin.

cotofeniThe Coţofeni culture (Serbian: Kocofeni), also known as Usatove culture, is a Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age archaeological culture that in south-eastern Central Europe facing the Black Sea between the mouths of the Bug River and the Danube in present-day Romania, Moldova, and southern Ukraine, between roughly 3500 and 2500 BCE.

Mid fourth-millennium copper mining in Liguria, north-west Italy: the earliest known copper mines in Western Europe. PROTOHISTORIC METALLURGY IN LIGURIA. The earliest copper mining on the European continent (Figure 7) is in the Balkans and may be dated generically to the later fifth millennium cal copper-mine-02BC: Ai Bunar in Bulgaria (Cernych 1978) seems to be dated to Karanovo V (approximately 4230-4000 cal BC) and Rudna Glava in Serbia (Jovanovic 1979; Jovanovic & Ottaway 1976) to Vina D (approximately 4670-4980 cal BC). Copper mining in Liguria is thus about a millennium later than that in the Balkans.
To the west, an independent origin is now generally accepted for Iberian metallurgy, with Ruiz-Taboada and Montero-Ruiz (1999) recently publishing a radiocarbon date in the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC for copper smelting at Cerro Virtud in Almer´ıa. Other dates for copper metallurgy in Almer´ıa are in the mid fourth millennium BC, and Rothenberg & Blanco Freijeiro (1980) have claimed late fourth/third millennium BC copper mining at Chinflon (Huelva) – although the interpretation of this latter site is controversial.

Obsidian trade, amber trade, prehistoric flint are all related the early copper mines.  The mining history of Sardinia started probably around the 6th millennium BC with the mining of obsidian. About 3000 BC, the metal working practices expanded into Sardinia too, where they reached a highly practical level. Together with metal working, mining practices developed too allowing the mining of growing amounts of minerals and then of metals. The geographical position of the island, but also its mining asset, attracted between the tenth and the 8th century BC. Phoenician merchants, that were replaced by Carthaginians.


How did R1b come to replace most of the older lineages in Western Europe ?  Until recently it was believed that R1b originated in Western Europe due to its strong presence in the region today. The theory was that R1b represented the Paleolithic Europeans (Cro-Magnon) that had sought refuge in the Franco-Cantabrian region at the peak of the last Ice Age, then recolonised Central and Northern Europe once the ice sheet receded. The phylogeny of R1b proved that this scenario was not possible, because older R1b clades were consistently found in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the youngest in Western and Northern Europe. There was a clear gradient from East to West tracing the migration of R1b people (see map bellow). This age of the main migration from the shores of the Black Sea to Central Europe also happened to match the timeframe of the Indo-European invasion of Europe, which coincides with the introduction of the Bronze-Age culture in Western Europe, and the proliferation of Italo-Celtic and Germanic languages.


Historians and archeologists have long argued whether the Indo-European migration was a massive invasion, or rather a cultural diffusion of language and technology spread only by a small number of incomers. The answer could well be “neither”. Proponents of the diffusion theory would have us think that R1b is native to Western Europe, and R1a alone represent the Indo-Europeans. The problem is that haplogroup R did arise in Central Asia, and R2 is still restricted to Central and South Asia, while R1a and the older subclades of R1b are also found in Central Asia. The age of R1b subclades in Europe coincide with the Bronze-Age. R1b must consequently have replaced most of the native Y-DNA lineages in Europe from the Bronze-Age onwards.


However, a massive migration and nearly complete anihilation of the Paleolithic population can hardly be envisaged. Western Europeans do look quite different in Ireland, Holland, Aquitaine or Portugal, despite being all regions where R1b is dominant. Autosomal DNA studies have confirmed that the Western European population is far from homogeneous. A lot of maternal lineages (mtDNA) also appear to be of Paleolithic origin (e.g. H1, H3, U5 or V) based on ancient DNA tests. What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why.
1]Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.
2]Status & Power. Equipped with Bronze weapons and horses, the Indo-Europeans would have easily subjugated the Neolithic farmers and with even greater ease Europe’s last hunter-gatherers. If they did not exterminate the indigenous men, the newcomers would have become the new ruling class, with a multitude of local kings, chieftains and noblemen (Bronze-Age Celts and Germans lived in small village communities with a chief, each part of a small tribe headed by a king) with higher reproductive opportunities than average.


3]Gender imbalance. Invading armies normally have far more men than women. Men must therefore find women in the conquered population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.
4]Aggressive warfare. The Indo-Europeans were a warlike people with a strong heroic code emphasising courage and military prowess. Their superior technology – metal weapons, wheeled vehicles drawn by horses and attitude to life would have allowed them to slaughter any population that did not have organised armies with metal weapons i.e. anybody except the Middle-Eastern civilizations.
5]Genetic predisposition to conceive boys. The main role of the Y-chromosome in man’s body is to create sperm. Haplogroups are determined based on mutations differentiating Y-chromosomes. Each mutation is liable to affect sperm production and sperm motility. Preliminary research has already established a link between certain haplogroups and increased or reduced sperm motility. The higher the motility, the higher the chances of conceiving a boy. It is absolutely possible that R1b could confer a bias toward more male offspring. Even a slightly higher percentage of male births would significantly contribute to the replacement of other lineages with the accumulation effect building up over a few millennia. Not all R1b subclades might have this boy bias. The bias only exist in relation to other haplogroups found in a same population. It is very possible that the fairly recent R1b subclades of Western Europe had a significant advantage compared to the older haplogroups in that region, notably haplogroup I2 and E-V13. Read more


Replacement of patrilineal lineages following this model quickly becomes exponential. Imagine 100 Indo-European men conquering a tribe of 1000 indigenous Europeans (a ratio of 1:10). War casualties have resulted in a higher proportion of women in the conquered population. Let’s say that the surviving population is composed of 700 women and 300 men. Let’s suppose that the victorious Indo-European men end up having twice as many children reaching adulthood as the men of the vanquished tribe. There is a number of reason for that. The winners would take more wives, or take concubines, or even rape women of the vanquished tribe. Their higher status would garantee them greater wealth and therefore better nutrition for their offspring, increasing the chances of reaching adulthood and procreating themselves. An offspring ratio of 2 to 1 for men is actually a conservative estimate, as it is totally conceivable that Bronze-Age sensibilities would have resulted in killing most of the men on the losing side, and raping their women (as attested by the Old Testament). Even so, it would only take a few generations for the winning Y-DNA lineages to become the majority. For instance, if the first generation of Indo-Europeans had two surviving sons per man, against only one per indigenous man, the number of Indo-European paternal lineages would pass to 200 individuals at the second generation, 400 at the third, 800 at the fourth and 1600 at the fifth, and so on. During that time indigenous lineages would only stagnate at 300 individuals for each generation.
Based on such a scenario, the R1b lineages would have quickly overwhelmed the local lineages. Even if the Indo-European conquerors had only slightly more children than the local men, R1b lineages would become dominant within a few centuries. Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the priviledges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.
The present-day R1b frequency forms a gradient from the Atlantic fringe of Europe (highest percentage) to Central and Eastern Europe (lowest), the rises again in the Anatolian homeland. This is almost certainly because agriculture was better established in Eastern, then Central Europe, with higher densities of population, leaving R1b invadors more outnumbered than in the West. Besides, other Indo-Europeans of the Corded Ware culture (R1a) had already advanced from modern Russia and Ukraine as far west as Germany and Scandinavia. It would be difficult for R1b people to rival with their R1a cousins who shared similar technology and culture. The Pre-Celto-Germanic R1b would therefore have been forced to settled further west, first around the Alps, then overtaking the sparsely populated Western Europe.

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 mayakopsome 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.

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). This was the first truly Neolithic society in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Domesticated animals (cattle, sheep and goats) were herded throughout the steppes and funeral rituals were elaborate. Sheep wool would play an important role in Indo-European society, notably in the Celtic and Germanic (R1b branches of the Indo-Europeans) clothing traditions up to this day. 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), when small kurgan burials begin to appear, with the distinctive posturing of the dead on the back with knees raised and oriented toward the northeast, which would be found in later steppe cultures as well. 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? Another migration across the Caucasus happened shortly before 3700 BCE, when the Maykop culture, the world’s first Bronze Age society, suddenly materialized in the north-west Caucasus, apparently out of nowhere. The origins of Maykop are still uncertain, but archeologists have linked it to contemporary Chalcolithic cultures in Assyria and western Iran. Archeology also shows a clear diffusion of bronze working and kurgan-type burials from the Maykop culture to the Pontic Steppe, where the Yamna culture developed soon afterwards (from 3500 BCE). Kurgan (a.k.a. tumulus) burials would become a dominant feature of ancient Indo-European societies and were widely used by the Celts, Romans, Germanic tribes, and Scythians, among others.
<<So the blending of Cucuteni I2 and R1a herders produced the first elites, herders with horses and copper from Cucuteni. Maykop could correspond to the crossing of  Caucasus by the R1b-M269, and the mixture of Cucuteni farmers with R1a&R1b produces the first ”arians”, the first true kurgan society, with superior bronze technology from R1b Maykop, horses from R1a and farming&pottery&salt from Cucuteni culture.>>
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 for over a millennium, perhaps even two or three <<and with I2 Cucuteni culture>>. The close cultural contact and interactions between R1a and R1b people <<I2>> 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.

Posted in Etnogenesis, OldEurope | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Sardinia – Vinca I2a1 + Beaker R1b >> Nuragic culture. 1200bc The Sea Peoples>First Dark Age. R1b & R1a ‘Aryan’ waves.

At the site near Prokuplje called Pločnik, serbian archaeologists found evidence of what could be the oldest metal workshop in all of Europe. According to National Museum 10392443_1558687581034096_3118940659047911408_narchaeologist Dušan Šljivar, experts found a “copper chisel and stone ax at a location near Prokuplje in which the foundation has proven to be 7,500 years old, leading us to believe that it was one of the first places in which metal weapons and tools were made in prehistoric times.”  Archaeologists hope that this find in southern Serbia will prove the theory that the metal age began a lot earlier than it was believed to have, Šljivar said.


After the Last Ice Age most of Europe was I1,2. Old Europe, Cardium Culture and Western Europe had I1,I2 as dominant substratum into which neolithic farmers J2,E1&G inserted. So oldest bronze items were discovered in Vinca area, where I2a1 concentration is highest. I2a1 continuum is also very high in Cucuteni area but Sardinia is the area with highest I2a1 concentration after Bosnia, S of Croatia & W of Serbia.
Consider the Nuragic Civilization,  lasting from the Bronze Age (18th century BC) to the 2nd century AD. They were one of the Sea Peoples that wiped out most of Middle Asia, around 1300-1200Bc.


Butmir culture existed in Butmir, near Ilidža, Bosnia and Herzegovina, dating from the Neolithic period. It is characterized by its unique pottery, and is one of the best researched 13European cultures from 5100–4500 BC.[1][2] It was part of the larger Danube civilization.
The Butmir culture was discovered in 1893, when Austro-Hungarian authorities began construction on the agricultural college of the University of Sarajevo. The finds caused interest among archaeologists worldwide. They were largely responsible for the International Congress of Archaeology and Anthropology being held in Sarajevo in August 1894. The most impressive finds were the unique ceramics, which are now found in the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Certain characteristics of the Butmir pottery designs (e.g. its resemblance with Kamares Butmir-vdvdv14style Minoan pottery) made some suggest a connection to the Minoan culture on Crete. The Butmir culture was the home for several large settlements, among them was the site of Okoliste in Bosnia dating to 5200-4500 B.C. with a population size of 1000-1500 people. The settlement was largest in the early phase (5200 B.C) with an area of 7.5 hectare, from there it gradually declined to reach the size of 1.2 hectare in 4500 B.C. The site likely consisted of parallel rows of houses that ranged in size from four to ten meters in length.

European_Late_NeolithicDating to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, the nuraghe are megalithic towers with a truncated cone shape, which are widespread in the whole of Sardinia, about one nuraghe every three square kilometers. According to Massimo Pallottino, a scholar of Sardinian prehistory, the architecture produced by the Nuragic civilization was the most advanced of any civilization in the western Mediterranean during this epoch, including those in the regions of Magna Graecia.
Sardinia, a land rich in mines, notably copper and lead, saw the construction of numerous furnaces for the production of alloys which were traded across the Mediterranean basin and nuragic people became skilled metal workers; they were among the main metal producers in Europe [8] and with bronze they produced a wide variety of objects and new weapons as swords, daggers, axes, and after drills, pins, rings, bracelets, typical bronze statuettes, and the votive bronze boats show a close relationship with the sea.nuragic
The late Bronze Age (14th-13th centuries BC) saw a vast migration of the so-called sea people, described in ancient Egyptian sources. They destroyed Mycenaean and Hittite sites and also attacked Egypt. According to some scholars the Sherden, one of the most bebeb945571e3674e32fffdae6fc986cimportant tribes of the sea peoples, are to be identified with the Nuragic Sardinians.[12]Another hypothesis is that they arrived to the island around the 13th or 12th century after the failed invasion of Egypt.
Archaeologists define the nuragic phase as ranging from 900 BC to 500 BC (Iron Age) the season of the aristocracies. The handicraft produced fine ceramics and more and more elaborate tools, and the quality of the weapons increased.
With the flourish of the trade, metallurgy products and handcrafts were exported to every corner of the Mediterranean, from the Near East to Spain and the Atlantic. The huts in the villages increased in number and there was generally a large increase in NURAGHE BARUMINI (1)population. The construction of the nuraghi stopped and individual tombs replaced collective burials (Giant’s Tombs). But the real breakthrough of that period, according to archaeologist Giovanni Lilliu, was the political organization which revolved around the Parliament of the village, composed by the heads and the most influential people, who gathered to discuss the most important issues. The nuragic people dominated Sardegna until they were defeated by the Carthaginians around 500 BC and forced to take refuge in the mountainous interior. The Carthaginians were defeated in turn by the Romans, and Sardegna became a Roman province. The nuragic civilization still maintained a separate identity until around 200 AD.


The Bonnanaro culture is the last evolution of the Beaker culture in Sardinia (c. 1800 BC), and shows several similarities with the Bronze-Age Polada culture of northern Italy. These have been connected with prehistoric settlements from the Italian peninsula through Corsica.[4] The introduction of bronze from the new people arriving from the mainland brought numerous improvements, such as in agriculture, in which more effective tools could be used, but also in war and hunting. To this period date the construction of the platformlike so-called proto-nuraghe.
Throughout the second millennium and into the Etnie_Nuragiche-2.svgfirst part of the first Sardegna_Barbariamillennium BC, Sardinia was inhabited by the single extensive and uniform cultural group represented by the Nuragic people. Centuries later, Roman sources describe the island as inhabited by numerous tribes which had gradually merged culturally. They however maintained their political identities and the tribes often fought each other for control of the most valuable land. The most important Nuragic populations mentioned include the Balares, the Corsi and the Ilienses, the latter defying the Romanization process and living in what had been called Civitatas Barbarie.

The most ancient settlements have been discovered both in central Sardinia and Anglona; later several cultures developed in the island, such as the Ozieri culture 3200−2700 BC. Remains from this period include more than 2,400 hypogeum tombs called Domus de Janas, the 3rd millennium BC statue Copper Age walled city, Los Millares, Iberiamenhirs representing warriors or female figures, and the stepped pyramid of Monte d’Accoddi, near Sassari, which has some similarities with the monumental complex of Los Millares (Andalusia) and the later Talaiots in theBalearic Islands. According to some scholars, the similarity between this structure and Mesopotamian ones is due to cultural influxs coming from the Eastern Mediterranean.[3] During this period copper objects and weapons also appeared in the island. The altar of Monte d’Accoddi fell out of use starting from c. 2000 BC, when the Beaker culture, which at the time was widespread in almost all western Europe, appeared in the island.


Thus in Sardinia, the dominant I2a1 (+J2/E1/G) substratum, related to the Vinca/Cucuteni cultures via the Butmir Culture from Bosnia, Croatia, via the sea, was ”fertilized” around 2000bc by the R1b warriors coming from North via Corsica, to produce the Nuragic civilization. On the other hand it’s interesting to note that the R1b migrations coming to Europe from the Middle East through the N of Anatolia and Thracia, went AROUND Bosnia, where they probably met a I2a1 population too strong to go through. The I2a1 economy was based on agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing and trading with the mainland just as in Old Europe and already had metalurgy, R1b brought weapons&war, they came for the copper mines, they conquered military the island but they were absorbed by the substratum.

Haplogroup I1 I2*/I2a I2b R1a R1b G J2 J*/J1 E1b1b
Corsica 0 18.5 1 0 49 7.5 14 0 8
Sardinia 0 37.5 2 1 18.5 12 9 4 9.5
Croatia 5.5 37 1 24 8.5 2.5 6 1 10
Bosnia 3 55.5 0 15 3.5 1.5 4 0.5 12
Bosniaks 4 56 0 16 3 2 3.5 0.5 10
Bosnian Croats 0 71 2 12 2 1 1 0 9
Bosnian Serbs 2.5 31 2.5 13.5 6 1 8.5 0 22.5
Romania 4.5 26 2.5 17.5 12 5 13.5 1.5 15
Moldova 5 21 3 30.5 16 1 4 4 13
Kosovo 5.5 2.5 0 4.5 21 0 16.5 0 47.5

Above you can see present day percentages of Y haplogroups. We can see that the Cardial_map‘farming’ substratum remained dominant in Sardinia: I2/39.5%+G/12%+E1/9.5%+J2/9%. R1b brought the aristocracies, but as I2a1 substratum remained dominant, the overall resulting civilization remained pretty much egalitarian. Present day Sardinian haplo structure is similar to Croatian percentages with 2 differences: Croatians received an R1a influx in second stages from Thracia & Pannonia, while Sardinians received the R1b influx from Western Europe through Corsica.
I2a1: Vinca/Cucuteni> Butmir>Mediterranian Neolithic>Nuragic Sardinia>Sea People
1]Farming came to Old Europe from Middle East through J2+E1+G haplos resulting Old Europe with 2 epicenters in Vinca & Cucueni areas.
2]Bronze technology starts in Vinca/Serbia, Vinca farmers go West to the sea through Butmir culture
3]When they hit the sea, they learn shipping technology and start spreading from Croatia to Italy and further, producing the farming Meditteranian Neolithic Cultures.
4]Cardinal culture in Sardinia 5000bc. Farmers arrive in Sardinia 3000Bc. According to wiki during this period copper objects and weapons also appeared in the island!!
5]Around 2000Bc R1b warriors from Beaker culture arrive from N, through Corsica. They bring the bronze technology, they find in Sardinia the copper mines. wiki:the Bonnanaro culture is the last evolution of the Beaker culture in Sardinia (c. 1800 BC), and shows several similarities with the Bronze-Age Polada culture of northern Italy.e3

e4In the second millennium BC, Mycenae was one of the major centers of Greek civilization, a military Pozzo_Sacro_Santa_Cristinastronghold which dominated much of southern Greece. The period of Greek history from about 1600 BC to about 1100 BC is called Mycenaean in reference to Mycenae. At its peak in 1350 BC, the citadel and lower town had a population of 30,000 and an area of 32 hectares. Some of the pottery and architecture (above picture) of older Nuragic culture, show resemblance with the Minoan culture. Between 1600-1200bc there were obvious commercial relations between the 2 areas.

BACollapse936In around 1200 BC the Sea Peoples produced the Late Bronze Age collapse.  In the first phase of this period, almost every city between Pylos and Gaza was violently destroyed, and often left unoccupied thereafter: examples include Hattusa, Mycenae, and Ugarit.[3] Drews writes “Within a period of forty to fifty years at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the twelfth century almost every significant city in the eastern Mediterranean world was destroyed, many of them never to be occupied again” (p. 4). The palace economy of the Aegean Region and Anatolia which characterized the Late Bronze Age was replaced, after a hiatus, by the isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages. The Sea Peoples from the north weakened and destroyed the Egyptians and the Hittites respectively. In the resulting power vacuum, a number of Phoenician cities rose as significant maritime powers to dominate the Medeterana.1200Bc – The Dorian invasion of Greece ends the Mycenian culture. Expanding R1b Hallstatt Culture is probably the main wave behind the Sea Peoples and the Dorians are one of those ‘Sea Peoples’ pushed down by the The Alpine Celts. The Iron technology produced the more competitive weapons, the R1b warriors mixed with growing populations from Sardinia, Sicily, S of Italy and Anatolia destroyed all the palace empires.

Egypt survived with great effort and Phoenicians were the only area NOT invaded in Levant.  Phoenicia  was the enterprising maritime trading culture the spread in Mediterana starting with 1550Bc, that dominated the Mediterranean shores from 1200BC PhoenicianTradeto 300 BC, after the raids of the Sea People. Their civilization was organized in city-states, similar to ancient Greece. The Phoenicians were the first state-level society to make extensive use of the alphabet. The Phoenician phonetic alphabet is generally believed to be the ancestor of almost all modern alphabets.  Through their maritime trade, the Phoenicians spread the use of the alphabet to North Africa and Europe, where it was adopted by the Greeks, who later passed it on to the Etruscans, who in turn transmitted it to the Romans. Phoenicia was an early example of a “world-economy” surrounded by empires. The high point of Phoenician culture and sea power is usually placed c. 1200–800 BC.


# 1800bc-200ad Nuragic Civilization from the Bronze Age – metal industry; in 500bc Cartagina invades the island.
# 1850-1600bc first Indo-Aryans invade Greece – the Ionians & the Aeolians – according to Eupedia this wave is mainly R1a, the Thracians, the Macedonians and the Mycenians are R1a warriors over Old Europe substratum.
# The Indo-European invasions brought the Hittites 1750bc, the Lydians & Lycians 1450bc, the Phrygians 1200bc and the Proto-Armenians 1200bc. All were probably predominantly R1b-L23, considering its high percentage in the regions they settled.
# 2000-1200bc Crete navy dominates Mediterana
# 1600–1150bc – Mycene, aristoi palace society
# 1194–1184bc legendary war of Troy
# 1200bc –R1b Dorians are pushed south by Illyrians, end of Mycene & Crete, end of all Middle East empires. End of Bronze Age, start of Iron Age and start of Bronze Age collapse.
# 1200-300bc –  Phoenicia dominates the seas from. So first ‘Greek wave’ was R1a, the second was R1b, that is why Macedonians, Athenians, Spartans and Asian Ionians were never too united, having the  Peloponesian war between Athens & Sparta  and later Alexander conquered Athens and  RAZED Thebes!
# 750bc – starts the big Greek colonizations, Sparta rules the South, Athens rules the North of Greece.
# around 700bc t
he Cimmerians are probably the last wave of migration  from the Pontic Steppe. They push into Anatolia and later into Pannonia. By that time the Pontic Caspian steppe would have been thoroughly overrun by R1a people.


# 10.000-6.000bc, after last Ice Age, I2 go E to W, I1 go S to N to Scandinavia, from Danube/Carpathian area, to recolonize deserted Europe, following the ice retreat.
#6.000-4000bc, J2+E1+G neolithic famers go from E to W and S to N, to spread farming in Europe, coming from Middle East, along the Danube and by sea.
#4.000-2.000bc – R1b enters in Europe around the Black Sea, S&N of Black Sea, go over Romania from E to W, than to the W along the Danube. First base on Western shores of Black Sea, second base in Transylvania, final base above the Alps. R1b becomes dominant haplogroup in Western Europe.
#3.500-1500bc – R1a goes W to E becomes dominant in Central and NE Europe.
# 2.000-1.500bc R1b accumulation in W Europe, population grows. R1b becomes ruling elite, military dominant in Anatolia also.
First tide which is not E to W: first Aryan migration to Greece – R1a from N to S, over Romania –  Thracians, Macedonians, Mycenians.
# 1.200-1.100bc – the Hallstatt accumulation produce the first wave W to E, the celt explosion produces the Sea People raids in Mediterana. R1b Italics occupy N of Italy, Dorians end Mycenian & Mynoic cultures, Sea People end all palace empires in Anatolia. The First Dark Age of Europe ends aristocratic ‘civilizations’, destroy the cities, egalitarian/rural area begins.
#700bc – Starting with the Cimmerians, the tide changes again, from now on there will be waves only from E to W – R1a Scytians, the Big Hun tsunami that will be the beginning of the End for the Roman Empire, the Goths that will bring the Second Dark Age and so on, Avars, Magyars, Mongols, Slavs (N to S), Turkish peoples…


Let’s take a look to the Eupedia neolithic maps:
1] Expansion of agriculture (above)
1.1] 6300-5800 bc: Old Europe and western coast of Italy – that implies expansion BY SEA from Croatia to W Italy, if we consider that the farming arrived to the northern shores of Adriatic Sea in a later phase
1.2] 5800-5300 bc: Sicily, Sardinia/Corsica, NW shores of Italy, S shores of France and SE shores of Spain, all that BEFORE central Italy – this implies also expansion BY SEA to western Mediterana and Sardinia – the subject of this article. Thus the neolithic I2, E1, J2, G farmers seem to arrive to Sardinia by sea from Old Europe. The ‘Fenician’ route by sea around the N shores of Africa seems to be not so continuous at this time, to my logic it was developed in a later phase.
1.3] Obviously the Croatian Alps were not inhabited in neolithic, but it is hard to believe for me that people were not able to travel over these mountains, so I guess we can talk about a link between #neolithic farmers from Bosnia – Butmir culture and #the Croatian shores, so we can talk about an expansion to W – Vinca >> Butmir >> Croatia by land than E of Italy >> Sicily >> Sardinia by sea

2] So we have farming in Sardinia by 5000bc according to Eupedia maps, now let’s consider the expansion of bronze technology, Copper Age.
2.1] 5800-5000bc – Now this map is fascinating to me. For one, we see that copper technology appeared in Serbia and on the Lower Danube BEFORE spreading to Greece.
2.2] 4000-3000 bc – Vinca&Lower Danube is the epicenter, from there Copper Age arrives to Croatia. According to wiki during this period copper objects and weapons also appeared in the island.
2.3] Copper expands in Anatolia from ANOTHER epicenter, and in Pontic-Caspian steppes from a THIRD epicenter. At about 3500bc there seems to be a connection between all the 3 epicenters, around the Balck Sea, through the areas in between.
2.4] 3000-2500 bc Copper expands to Central Europe than to N&W of Italy, the classic Celtic area. BY LAND not by sea, with R1b expansion up the Danube.
2.5] Copper technology arrives from N to Sardinia by sea through Corsica, brought by R1b around 2000 bc.
2.6] Here is a nice study on about Sardinian bronze figurines, which dates the first famous bronzetti around 1200bc.
Thus I can conclude/speculate:
3.1] I2 basic layer arrived to Sardinia after last Ice Age and remained dominant according to present day percentages.
3.2] farming and J2/E1/G haplos arrived to Sardinia BY SEA from Old Europe around 5000bc
3.3] copper technology and R1b expanded up the Danube BY LAND to Central Europe than to Sardinia by sea through Corsica, around 2000bc
3.4] Certain maps show neolithic expansion to Spain through Sardinia. Sardinia was obviously in direct relations with Carthage by the time it was a Phenician colony, it was exporting bronze products in all Mediterana all in all it’s logical to assume that these Bronze warriors were one of the Sea People who in 1200bc invaded Levant & Egypt, sparing Phoenicia.

On Eupedia Forum sparkey: A recent study on 1200 Sardinians is raising a question. The type of I2 dominant in Sardinian Y-DNA Phylogeny per Francalacci et al. 2013Sardinia is a young branch of I2-M26. The I2-M26 in Sardinia is not even one of the oldest haplogroups in Sardinia, see here: In addition, I2-M26 has its greatest diversity around France, not SE Europe, and every indication is that it diversified in Western Europe by the Neolithic. Some ancient I2-M26 from Neolithic France have been found already to help substantiate that. It branched from I2a1b, nowadays dominant in SE Europe, well before it spread to Sardinia. Not that I2a1b spread from SE Europe itself; it seems to have spread from farther west as well, based on both modern diversity and ancient samples.
adamo/eupedia: Haplogroup I-M26, the “Sardinian” I2a variety, is found in 40-45% of Sardinian males for example; most people do not realize it is also about 19-20% of Spanish Castillan male lineages in Central Spain. In fact, the very center of Spain, the countries nucleus has a high of 33% hg I. Most of Portugal has 5-10% hg I. But Spain has 10-30% I across most of the country. This means that these men certainly moved from southeastern Europe towards Central Europe, then to Iberia, from where they arrived in Sardinia.
sparkey/eupedia: The days of supposing an I2-M26 origin in Sardinia are over; it’s clearly a founder effect there. Iberia has significant diversity, considering that the most common subclade (L160+) has high diversity there, and an outlier (L277+ L247+) is found there. See Cullen. That could indicate that most modern I2-M26 passed through Iberia, at least visigothsnortheastern Iberia near the Pyrenees. However, it’s worth noting that the greatest I2-M26 outlier is in fact German, as is a cousin of the Iberian outlier, indicating that before arriving in Iberia, it was indeed in or around Germany, or at least expanded that direction as well between the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of the Neolithic.
adamo again: That is correct. It actually seems to have arrived in central Spain/Castile where 33% of males are I, and 20% of it is I-M26 like in 40-45% of Sardinians. About 10% of spaniards are I on a national level though. There was probably an I migration from the Balkans to Central Europe a very long time ago. From there, it would move towards central Iberia. From here it somehow reached Sardinia.
wiki on Sardinian people : Sardinia was first colonised in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic from Iberian and Italian peninsulas, during the Neolithic from Italy, Spain and Aegean [farming], during the Early Bronze Age by Beaker folk from Central Europe and Franco-Iberian area [bronze technology]. : According to most theories, Haplogroup I is associated with Gravettian culture. The western Gravettians were responsible for the cave paintings at Lascaux, and other sites in France. I-M26’s Overlay with the Distribution of Megaliths. Conclusion: It is likely that small groups of megalithic mariners influenced greatly the religious, political, cultural (and physical) landscape of the lands to which they ventured during the Neolithic. M26 is a strong candidate for the marker of a “single population of colonizers, navigators and cultivators” (Cavalli-Sforza 1995) which likely originated somewhere in the vicinity of the Pyrenees shortly after the LGM. As Cavalli-Sforza noted, “the Megalithics may have even been a priesthood or some kind of prehistorical aristocracy, who had good ships and perhaps good weaponry, as well as a much more advanced understanding of astronomy and architecture than their contemporaries.”

Posted in Etnogenesis | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments