DOCSLIB.ORG

The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe Supplementary Information Contents: Supplementary Note 1: Archaeological and osteological context of newly reported individuals (pages 1-48) Supplementary Note 2: Phenotypically informative markers in hunter-gatherer populations (pages 49-51) Supplementary Note 3: Admixture graph modeling of the relationship among Neolithic populations (pages 52-57) Supplementary Note 1: Archaeological and osteological context of newly reported individuals. This supplement provides archaeological details for individuals that have genome-wide ancient DNA data reported for the first time in this study. They are organized first by present- day country of origin, and then by site. We also provide a brief note describing the Danube Gorges region and approximate chronologies for the Balkan Peninsula and Ukraine. Austria ................................................................................................................... 3 Kleinhadersdorf Flur Marchleiten (2 individuals) .............................................................................. 3 Schletz (4 individuals) ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................. 4 Beli Breyag (2 individuals) ............................................................................................................................ 4 Dzhulyunitsa (8 individuals) ........................................................................................................................ 4 Ivanovo (1 individual) ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Malak Preslavets (10 individuals) .............................................................................................................. 6 Merichleri – Kairyaka Necropolis (2 individuals) ............................................................................... 8 Mednikarovo (1 individual) .......................................................................................................................... 8 Ohoden (1 individual) ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Sabrano (1 individual) ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Samovodene (1 individual) ........................................................................................................................... 9 Smyadovo (6 individuals) .............................................................................................................................. 9 Sushina (3 individuals) .................................................................................................................................. 10 Varna I (5 individuals) ................................................................................................................................... 11 Yabalkovo (2 individuals) ............................................................................................................................ 13 Yunatsite (2 individuals) .............................................................................................................................. 14 Croatia ................................................................................................................. 15 Beli Manastir-Popova Zemlja (4 individuals) ...................................................................................... 15 Jazinka Cave (1 individual) .......................................................................................................................... 16 Radovanci (1 individual) .............................................................................................................................. 16 Vela Spila (1 individual) ................................................................................................................................ 16 Veliki Vanik (2 individuals) ......................................................................................................................... 17 Vučedol Tell (2 individuals) ........................................................................................................................ 17 Zemunica Cave (3 individuals) .................................................................................................................. 18 France .................................................................................................................. 18 Aven des Iboussières à Malataverne (2 individuals) ....................................................................... 18 Greece ................................................................................................................. 19 Diros, Alepotrypa Cave (3 individuals) .................................................................................................. 19 Franchthi Cave (1 sample) ........................................................................................................................... 19 Italy ..................................................................................................................... 20 Grotta d’Oriente (1 individual) .................................................................................................................. 20 Latvia ................................................................................................................... 21 Zvejnieki (17 individuals) ............................................................................................................................ 21 Macedonia ........................................................................................................... 22 Govrlevo (Cerje), Skopje (1 individual) .................................................................................................. 22 1 Poland ................................................................................................................. 23 Kierzkowo (8 individuals) ........................................................................................................................... 23 Romania .............................................................................................................. 24 Carcea (1 individual) ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Cotatcu (1 individual) .................................................................................................................................... 25 Ostrovul Corbului (2 individuals) ............................................................................................................. 25 Schela Cladovei (2 individuals) .................................................................................................................. 26 Măgura Buduiasca (Teleor 3) (1 individual) ....................................................................................... 27 Urziceni (2 individuals) ................................................................................................................................. 27 Serbia .................................................................................................................. 28 Gomolava (3 individuals) ............................................................................................................................. 28 Hajdučka Vodenica (4 individuals) .......................................................................................................... 29 Lepenski Vir (2 individuals) ........................................................................................................................ 30 Padina (12 individuals) ................................................................................................................................. 31 Saraorci-Jezava (1 individual) .................................................................................................................... 33 Vlasac (17 individuals) .................................................................................................................................. 33 Ukraine ................................................................................................................ 36 Dereivka I (20 individuals) .......................................................................................................................... 36 Ilyatka (3 indviduals) ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Ozera (1 individual) ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Shevchenko (2 individuals) ......................................................................................................................... 37 Vasil’evka (5 individuals) ............................................................................................................................. 38 Verteba Cave (5 individuals) .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Company Profile
    www.ecobulpack.com COMPANY PROFILE KEEP BULGARIA CLEAN FOR THE CHILDREN! PHILIPPE ROMBAUT Chairman of the Board of Directors of ECOBULPACK Executive Director of AGROPOLYCHIM JSC-Devnia e, ECOBULPACK are dedicated to keeping clean the environment of the country we live Wand raise our children in. This is why we rely on good partnerships with the State and Municipal Authorities, as well as the responsible business managers who have supported our efforts from the very beginning of our activity. Because all together we believe in the cause: “Keep Bulgaria clean for the children!” VIDIO VIDEV Executive Director of ECOBULPACK Executive Director of NIVA JSC-Kostinbrod,VIDONA JSC-Yambol t ECOBULPACK we guarantee the balance of interests between the companies releasing A packed goods on the market, on one hand, and the companies collecting and recycling waste, on the other. Thus we manage waste throughout its course - from generation to recycling. The funds ECOBULPACK accumulates are invested in the establishment of sustainable municipal separate waste collection systems following established European models with proven efficiency. DIMITAR ZOROV Executive Director of ECOBULPACK Owner of “PARSHEVITSA” Dairy Products ince the establishment of the company we have relied on the principles of democracy as Swell as on an open and fair strategy. We welcome new shareholders. We offer the business an alternative in fulfilling its obligations to utilize packaged waste, while meeting national legislative requirements. We achieve shared responsibilities and reduce companies’ product- packaging fees. MILEN DIMITROV Procurator of ECOBULPACK s a result of our joint efforts and the professionalism of our work, we managed to turn AECOBULPACK JSC into the largest organization utilizing packaging waste, which so far have gained the confidence of more than 3 500 companies operating in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex REPORT for 2019 UNDER the “HEALTH CARE” PRIORITY of the NATIONAL ROMA INTEGRATION STRATEGY of the REPUBLIC of BULGAR
    Annex REPORT FOR 2019 UNDER THE “HEALTH CARE” PRIORITY of the NATIONAL ROMA INTEGRATION STRATEGY OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 2012 - 2020 Operational objective: A national monitoring progress report has been prepared for implementation of Measure 1.1.2. “Performing obstetric and gynaecological examinations with mobile offices in settlements with compact Roma population”. During the period 01.07—20.11.2019, a total of 2,261 prophylactic medical examinations were carried out with the four mobile gynaecological offices to uninsured persons of Roma origin and to persons with difficult access to medical facilities, as 951 women were diagnosed with diseases. The implementation of the activity for each Regional Health Inspectorate is in accordance with an order of the Minister of Health to carry out not less than 500 examinations with each mobile gynaecological office. Financial resources of BGN 12,500 were allocated for each mobile unit, totalling BGN 50,000 for the four units. During the reporting period, the mobile gynecological offices were divided into four areas: Varna (the city of Varna, the village of Kamenar, the town of Ignatievo, the village of Staro Oryahovo, the village of Sindel, the village of Dubravino, the town of Provadia, the town of Devnya, the town of Suvorovo, the village of Chernevo, the town of Valchi Dol); Silistra (Tutrakan Municipality– the town of Tutrakan, the village of Tsar Samuel, the village of Nova Cherna, the village of Staro Selo, the village of Belitsa, the village of Preslavtsi, the village of Tarnovtsi,
    [Show full text]
  • 1 I. ANNEXES 1 Annex 6. Map and List of Rural Municipalities in Bulgaria
    I. ANNEXES 1 Annex 6. Map and list of rural municipalities in Bulgaria (according to statistical definition). 1 List of rural municipalities in Bulgaria District District District District District District /Municipality /Municipality /Municipality /Municipality /Municipality /Municipality Blagoevgrad Vidin Lovech Plovdiv Smolyan Targovishte Bansko Belogradchik Apriltsi Brezovo Banite Antonovo Belitsa Boynitsa Letnitsa Kaloyanovo Borino Omurtag Gotse Delchev Bregovo Lukovit Karlovo Devin Opaka Garmen Gramada Teteven Krichim Dospat Popovo Kresna Dimovo Troyan Kuklen Zlatograd Haskovo Petrich Kula Ugarchin Laki Madan Ivaylovgrad Razlog Makresh Yablanitsa Maritsa Nedelino Lyubimets Sandanski Novo Selo Montana Perushtitsa Rudozem Madzharovo Satovcha Ruzhintsi Berkovitsa Parvomay Chepelare Mineralni bani Simitli Chuprene Boychinovtsi Rakovski Sofia - district Svilengrad Strumyani Vratsa Brusartsi Rodopi Anton Simeonovgrad Hadzhidimovo Borovan Varshets Sadovo Bozhurishte Stambolovo Yakoruda Byala Slatina Valchedram Sopot Botevgrad Topolovgrad Burgas Knezha Georgi Damyanovo Stamboliyski Godech Harmanli Aitos Kozloduy Lom Saedinenie Gorna Malina Shumen Kameno Krivodol Medkovets Hisarya Dolna banya Veliki Preslav Karnobat Mezdra Chiprovtsi Razgrad Dragoman Venets Malko Tarnovo Mizia Yakimovo Zavet Elin Pelin Varbitsa Nesebar Oryahovo Pazardzhik Isperih Etropole Kaolinovo Pomorie Roman Batak Kubrat Zlatitsa Kaspichan Primorsko Hayredin Belovo Loznitsa Ihtiman Nikola Kozlevo Ruen Gabrovo Bratsigovo Samuil Koprivshtitsa Novi Pazar Sozopol Dryanovo
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Public Investments for Wastewater Treatment and Landfill of Waste
    Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Develonment Europe and Central Asia Region 32051 BULGARIA Public Disclosure Authorized ENVIRONMENTAL SEQUENCING STRATEGIES FOR EU ACCESSION PriorityPublic Investments for Wastewater Treatment and Landfill of Waste *t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Public Disclosure Authorized IC- - ; s - o Fk - L - -. Public Disclosure Authorized The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized May 2004 - "Wo BULGARIA ENVIRONMENTAL SEQUENCING STRATEGIES FOR EU ACCESSION Priority Public Investments for Wastewater Treatment and Landfill of Waste May 2004 Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Europe and Central Asia Region Report No. 27770 - BUL Thefindings, interpretationsand conclusions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Coverphoto is kindly provided by the external communication office of the World Bank County Office in Bulgaria. The report is printed on 30% post consumer recycledpaper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................... i Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................... ii Summary ..................................................................... iiM Introduction.iii Wastewater.iv InstitutionalIssues .xvi Recommendations........... xvii Introduction ...................................................................... 1 Part I: The Strategic Settings for
    [Show full text]
  • Kryoneri, Nea Kerdyllia: a Settlement of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age on the Lower Strymon Valley, Eastern Macedonia (Dimitria Malamidou)
    TMO TRAVAUX DE LA MAISON DE L’ORIENT List of contributors / Liste des contributeurs 69 ET DE LA MÉDITERRANÉE N° 69 Zoï Tsirtsoni is Researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research Vassiliki Adrymi-Sismani, Director Emeritus of the (CNRS), currently in position at the Archaeological Institute for Thessalian Studies THE HUMAN FACE OF RADIOCARBON mixed laboratory Archéologies et Sciences Ioannis Aslanis, National Hellenic Research at Nanterre (UMR 7041). Foundation, Athens Reassessing chronology in prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000-3000 cal BC (TMO 69) de l’Antiquité She is a specialist of the Neolithic and Maya Avramova, National Museum of Anthropology, Sofia Bronze Age periods in the Aegean and the Balkans, and codirector of the Greek- Kamen Boyadzhiev, National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Sofia French research project at the tell of Dikili This volume presents the results of a multidisciplinary research program (“Balkans 4000”) financed by Tash in Northern Greece. Yavor Boyadzhiev, National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Sofia the French National Research Agency (ANR) and coordinated by the editor between 2007 and 2011, Dimitar Chernakov, Regional Historical Museum when she was a member of the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (Laboratory of Archaeology and Zoï TSIRTSONI, chargée de recherche au CNRS, of Ruse Archaeometry). 192 new radiocarbon dates have been produced in the laboratories of Lyon, Saclay and THE HUMAN FACE est actuellement membre de l’UMR 7041 Stefan Chohadzhiev, Veliko Tarnovo University th Demokritos, from 34 archaeological sites, spanning the years from the end of the 6 to the beginning of Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité à Kleio Dimitriou, Archaeologist the 3rd millennium BC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: a New Research Agenda
    European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3) 2014, 369–406 The Second Phase of the Trypillia Mega-Site Methodological Revolution: A New Research Agenda JOHN CHAPMAN1,MIKHAIL YU VIDEIKO2,DUNCAN HALE1,BISSERKA GAYDARSKA1, NATALIA BURDO2,KNUT RASSMANN3,CARSTEN MISCHKA4,JOHANNES MÜLLER4, ALEKSEY KORVIN-PIOTROVSKIY2 AND VOLODYMYR KRUTS2 1Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK 2Institute of Archaeology, Ukraine 3Romano-German Commission, Germany 4Institute of Prehistory, Christian-Albrechts University, Germany The first phase of the Trypillia mega-sites’ methodological revolution began in 1971 with aerial photography, magnetic prospection, and archaeological excavations of huge settlements of hundreds of hectares belonging to the Trypillia culture in Ukraine. Since 2009, we have created a second phase of the methodological revolution in studies of Trypillia mega-sites, which has provided more significant advances in our understanding of these large sites than any other single research development in the last three decades, thanks partly to the participation of joint Ukrainian-foreign teams. In this paper, we outline the main aspects of the second phase, using examples from the Anglo-Ukrainian project ‘Early urbanism in prehistoric Europe: the case of the Trypillia mega-sites’, working at Nebelivka (also spelled ‘Nebilivka’), and the Ukrainian-German project ‘Economy, demography and social space of Trypillia mega-sites’, working at Taljanky (‘Talianki’), Maydanetske (‘Maydanetskoe’), and Dobrovody, as well as the smaller site at Apolianka. Keywords: mega-site, Trypillia, archaeological method, settlement, houses INTRODUCTION 1991), the current and widespread view is that the earliest towns in Europe date to The fundamental archaeological approach the Aegean Bronze Age in the late third to the origins of urbanism was developed and second millennia BC—the towns of by Childe (1928), who combined evol- the Minoans and Myceneans.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology Et Al: an Indo-European Study
    B061717 The University of Edinburgh Archaeology School of History, Classics and Archaeology Archaeology dissertation: Archaeology et al: an Indo-European study ARCA10040 2017 – 2018 Supervisor: Dr Catriona Pickard 12, 257 words Date of submission: 11th April 2018 1 B061717 Table of Contents List of figures Page 3 Acknowledgements Page 4 Introduction Page 5 Chapter I – An Introduction to Indo-European Studies Page 6 Chapter II – Theoretical Context Page 8 Chapter III – The Anatolian Hypothesis Page 10 Chapter IV – The Steppe Hypothesis Page 21 Chapter V – Discussion Page 42 Conclusion Page 47 Appendix I Page 48 Appendix II Page 51 References Page 53 2 B061717 List of figures Figure 1 – Diagram: All Indo-European languages stem from Proto-Indo-European. Page 6 Figure 2 – Map: Current spread of Indo-European languages, location of Steppe and Anatolia. Page 7 Figure 3 – Map: The Anatolian peninsula. Page 10 Figure 4 – Map: ‘Expansion of farming in Western Eurasia, 9600-4000 BC’, with regional Page 12 variations in material culture. Figure 5 – Map: The origins of Celtic as per the Hallstatt hypothesis. Page 13 Figure 6 – Map: Sheridan’s view of the spread of the Passage Grave tradition. Page 14 Figure 7 – Map: One version of the development of Indo-European into Celtic. Page 15 Figure 8 – Diagram: European population history. Page 16 Figure 9 – Diagram: Levels of admixture in prehistory and today. Page 17 Figure 10 – Map/Diagram: ‘Distribution of PIE terms referring to wheeled vehicles’. Page 19 Figure 11 – Map: Pontic-Caspian steppe. Page 21 Figure 12 – Map: Early Neolithic population movement into Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Europe Meets the Indo-Europeans Indo-European Languages Shared IE Words Proto-Indoeuropean (PIE) Characteristics
    Indo-European Languages Old Europe Meets the Indo-Europeans Spoken today from Europe to India. Alan R. Rogers Examples: Latin, Greek, German, English, Celtic, Armenian, Russian, Sanskrit March 14, 2018 1 / 30 2 / 30 Shared IE Words Inherited from PIE. These shared words tell us something about the PIE homeland. I Numbers I Body parts: heart, hand, foot I Oak, beech, wolf, bear, salmon I Snow I Relatives 3 / 30 4 / 30 Proto-IndoEuropean (PIE) Characteristics I Milk words I Horses, sheep, cattle, pigs, goats, grain I Copper, maybe bronze, not iron I Carts, weaving, mead I Patrilineal clans, raiding, war, revenge I Young male warriors, wolf totem Wheel/Horse area overlap at 5k ago shaded in blue. 5 / 30 6 / 30 PIE Characteristics, continued Gods I Deus, Zeus, Jupiter (Zeu Pater), Duanz Pita, Indra I Three classes: warriors, clergy, farmers I Jove, Sius, Deva I Epic poetry: Rig Veda, Iliad I Thor, Perjanya I “driving cattle,” “undying fame,” “immortal gods” I Hestia, Vesta I slay a dragon I Aphrodite, Venus, Freya, Lakshmi I Various twins 7 / 30 8 / 30 PIE were not technologically advanced Anatolian Hypothesis: Colin Renfrew Sumerians had I wheel IndoEuropean originated in I writing Anatolia (Turkey). I arithmetic I cities Spread north with the early Neolithic, 7 kya I irrigation PIE had domesticated the horse. 9 / 30 10 / 30 Kurgan Hypothesis: Marija Gimbutas Old Europe: 6500–2800 BC IndoEuropean originated in Pontic Steppes (Ukraine) Spread West, East, and South in Bronze Age, 5 kya It now seems clear that Gimbutas was right; Renfrew wrong. 11 / 30 12 / 30 Old Europe Varna Cemetery, Farming Bulgaria Gold, copper 4900–4400 BC Dispersed settlements little Lots of gold ⇒ warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Starinar Lxviii/2018, 1–226, Beograd 2018 Institut Archéologique Belgrade Starinar
    Arheolo{ki institut Beograd Kwiga LXVIII/2018. LXVIII 2018 Na koricama: Posude od purpurnog stakla ukra{ene apliciranim nitima iz sredwovekovnog grada Brani~eva (foto: Narodni muzej Po`arevac) Sur la couverture : Les récipients de verre pourpre à décor marbré de la ville médiévale de Brani~evo (photo: Musée national de Po`arevac) ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUT BEOGRAD INSTITUT ARCHÉOLOGIQUE BELGRADE UDK 902/904 (050) ISSN 0350-0241 ([tampano izd.) ISSN 2406-0739 (Online) © STARINAR LXVIII/2018, 1–226, BEOGRAD 2018 INSTITUT ARCHÉOLOGIQUE BELGRADE STARINAR Nouvelle série volume LXVIII/2018 RÉDACTEUR Miomir KORA], directeur de l’Institut archéologique COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION Miloje VASI], Institut archéologique, Belgrade Rastko VASI], Institut archéologique, Belgrade Noël DUVAL, Université Paris Sorbonne, Paris IV Bojan \URI], Université de Ljubljana, Faculté des Arts, Ljubljana Mirjana @IVOJINOVI], Académie serbe des sciences et des arts, Belgrade Vasil NIKOLOV, Institut archéologique national et Musée, Académie bulgare des sciences, Sofia Vujadin IVANI[EVI], Institut archéologique, Belgrade Dragana ANTONOVI], Institut archéologique, Belgrade Sne`ana GOLUBOVI], Institut archéologique, Belgrade Arthur BANKOFF, Brooklyn Collège, New York Natalia GONCHAROVA, Lomonosov, L’Université d’Etat de Moscou, Moscou Haskel GREENFIELD, L’Université de Mantitoba, Winnipeg BELGRADE 2018 ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUT BEOGRAD STARINAR Nova serija kwiga LXVIII/2018 UREDNIK Miomir KORA], direktor Arheolo{kog instituta REDAKCIONI ODBOR Miloje VASI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd Rastko
    [Show full text]
  • A FEMININE ALTERNATIVE: MARIJA GIMBUTAS and the MATRIFOCAL MODEL by SEAN MILLER Integrated Studies Project Submitted to Dr. Lisa
    A FEMININE ALTERNATIVE: MARIJA GIMBUTAS AND THE MATRIFOCAL MODEL By SEAN MILLER Integrated Studies Project submitted to Dr. Lisa Micheelsen in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Integrated Studies Athabasca, Alberta August 2014 Table of Contents Abstract................................ 3 Introduction.......................... 5 Part One................................ 8 Part Two................................ 26 Part Three.............................. 49 Conclusion............................. 60 Bibliography.......................... 63 3 Abstract During the 20th century, in tandem with transformations within and challenges to the traditional Western archaeological canon, a new and highly contentious theory gradually evolved within the halls of academia, a theory which contended that egalitarian and women-centred societies proliferated within “Old Europe”, a geographical territory which today encompasses parts of Eastern Europe and the Greek Isles, during the Neolithic, New Stone, and Copper Ages (roughly 6500-3500 B.C.). The basic tenets of this theory are centred upon the notion that within these ancient societies women and men lived as relative equals in virtually all aspects of daily life. Moreover, women were often accorded esteemed status due to their reproductive capabilities; indeed, the identity of women as life-givers was closely tied to the life-giving goddess who served as the focal point of Old European religion. Although this “matrifocal” model for Old European society has its share of supporters and proponents, the individual most responsible for its formulation and subsequent dissemination was the renowned and highly accomplished Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. Gimbutas incorporated her extensive knowledge of prehistoric Eastern European folklore and burial rites, the symbolic nature of the multitude of artifacts accrued from her Eastern European excavations, and her fluency in a number of different languages (including those of Eastern European origin) in order to develop the matrifocal model.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethno-Cultural Interactions in Northern Eurasia in the 3Rd-1St Millennia BC
    Ethno-Cultural Interactions in Northern Eurasia in the 3rd-1st Millennia BC Vladimir A. Semenov (*) Resumen * Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences, En el III milenio AC, junto con la aparición del transporte sobre ruedas y los animales de tiro, las grandes migraciones Dvortzovaya nab., 18, St.-Petersburg, se hicieron posibles. En este período, la región septentrional del Mar Negro se convirtió en una zona generadora de 191186, Russia, [email protected] tales migraciones, expandiendo hacia Oriente y Occidente a los portadores de la cultura Yamnaya de tumbas en fosa. Un segundo núcleo generador de migraciones surgió al sur de los Urales, en donde se han reconocido los rasgos culturales que definen al pueblo indoeuropeo (la ciudad de Arkaim, la necrópolis de Sintashta, etc.). Gentes de esta zona cruzaron los desiertos de Asia Central y alcanzaron el Indostán. En el I milenio AC, se produjo una ola de reflujo de poblaciones de lengua indoirania desde Asia Central hacia las estepas del Mar Negro. Esos últimos inmigrantes recibían el nombre de “Escitas”. 23 Palabras clave MARQ. Edad del Bronce, indoeuropeo, Escitas. Abstract ARQUEOLOGÍA In the 3rd millennium BC, when the wheeled transport and draught animals appeared, large-scale land migrations became possible. In that period, the northern Black Sea region was a generator of such migrations diffusing eastwards and westwards bearers of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) culture. A second source-point of the migrations arose in the South Urals. There the features of the Indo-Aryan archaeological culture have been recorded (the townsite of Arkaim, burial ground of Sintashta, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the Work of Marija Gimbutas
    Anatomy of a Backlash Charlene Spretnak! ! Special Issue 2011!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!Volume 7! ! Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the Work of Marija Gimbutas Charlene Spretnak Introduction: Marija Gimbutas’ Pioneering distancing themselves from a caricature of Work in Five Areas Gimbutas’ work they termed “outdated”—that they had made a number of fresh discoveries Anyone who assumes that material published and conclusions about Neolithic societies which under her own name will stand as an inviolable are, in truth, exactly what Gimbutas had record of her positions might well consider the discovered, observed, and written about decades case of Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994). She is a earlier. An example is “Women and Men at renowned Lithuanian-American archaeologist Çatalhöyük” by Ian Hodder in Scientific who was internationally regarded as occupying American,1 in which Hodder incorrectly informs the pinnacle of her field, having left an his readers that MariJa Gimbutas “argued extensive written record of her pioneering work forcefully for an early phase of matriarchal for over half a century (scores of monographs society.”2 In this article on the excavation of and excavation site reports, editorships of Catalhöyük in Turkey, Hodder announces “fresh scholarly journals, presentations at international evidence of the relative power of the sexes” in conferences published in proceedings volumes, that Neolithic settlement—as if it were a break- three hundred fifty articles, and more than through discovery of his own, supposedly
    [Show full text]