Halafians,dravidians were Vincan’s ancestors? gutians, those of thracianns ?

Picture (Ubaid figure) from http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/serbiavinca.htm

The Vinča Culture: (‘Old Europe’). http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/serbiavinca.htm                               

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.

Present day Y-haplogroups in Romania:
Before Farming Ro DNA – 33%: I1-4.5%, I2/I2a-26%, I2b-2.5%
Middle East Farmers DNA – 35%: J2/J1-15%, E1b1b-15%, G-5%
Old Europe DNA – 68% : I1/2-33% + J1/E1/G – 35%
Kurgan, Celt & Slav DNA – 29.5% : R1a-17.5% + R1b-12%.
Kurgan/Celt DNA 17.5% : R1a-17.5%,
Kurgan/Slav DNA – 12%: R1b-12%

j2-migration_thumb6000BC-5000BC – J1/2,E1b1,G bring farming from Middle Asia. 

2-4883031c1915508BC: An equal mix of hunters I1/2 (50%) and farmers J1/2+E1b1+G (50%) start The Old Europe Era.

On the origins of the first farmers in Anatolia 

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-origins-of-first-farmers-in-anatolia.html Sedentary farming communities emerged in parts of the Fertile Crescent during the tenth millennium and early ninth millennium calibrated (cal) BC and had appeared in central Anatolia by 8300 cal BC [ 4 ].                                                                           Farming spread into west Anatolia by the early seventh millennium cal BC and quasi-synchronously into Europe, although the timing and process of this movement remain unclear.                                                                                                                               Our results confirm that the earliest Neolithic central Anatolians belonged to the same gene pool as the first Neolithic migrants spreading into Europe.                         Further, genetic affinities between later Anatolian farmers and fourth to third millennium BC Chalcolithic south Europeans suggest an additional wave of Anatolian migrants, after the initial Neolithic spread but before the Yamnaya-related migrations.

Anatolia and the Balkans:archaeology 
Mehmet Özdogan https://www.academia.edu/5300302/Anatolia_and_the_Balkans                                     
Regarding archaeology, in assessing processes of neolithization in Europe, main-stream debate has focused on data from the Aegean coast and islands and the Balkans,where many Neolithic sites were extensively excavated in the second half of the 20thcentury. Within this region, there is an overall chronological sequence for the Neolithicfrom 6000bce onwards, commencing with a horizon variously termed Sesklo, Karanovo I, Kremikovci, Starčevo, Criş and Körös (Bailey 2000; Tringham 2000; Perlès2001). All through the Balkan peninsula, from the Aegean (Sesklo in Thessaly) to southern Hungary (Körös), even in the initial phase, there are hundreds of settlements that share more or less common material elements, such as white-on-red paintedpottery, triangular or rectangular pottery cult vessels, steatopygous female pottery figu-rines, baked clay decorated stamps (so-called pintaderras), bone spoons, and large flintblades. What is significant is that, with the exception of sites along the Aegean littoral,all sites begin with this horizon, without any predecessors. It seems evident that rather rapid and massive population movement took place, seemingly initiated fromthe Aegean.
Figure 17.1
The expansion of Neolithic cultures out of Anatolia towards the Caucasus and
the Balkans, 73005700bce. Developments between 10 000 and 7000
bce (Pre-Pottery Neolithic).Map production by Education and Multimedia Services, College of Asia and the Pacific, TheAustralian National University
Folowing map:Figure 17.2

The expansion of Neolithic cultures out of Anatolia towards the Caucasus and theBalkans, 73005700bce. Developments during the 7th millennium bce
, at the start of thePottery Neolithic phase in Anatolia and the Levant
Old core: Newly emerging complex societies                                                                           New core: Sustained village life                                                                                                   Old periphery: Becoming core for expanding Neolithic communities                              New periphery: Merging Mesolithic and Neolithic communities                                      
Continuing Mesolithic
Rapid and massive movement
The diversity in the regions of Neolithic expansion is best reflected in burial customs. Numerous sites have revealed Neolithic burials, either in cemeteries or under house floors, dis-playing a variety of burial practices even in the same site, ranging from simple inhumation to secondary burial or cremation. 
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
At around 6200bce, there seems to have been another more intensive migratory movement that originated in the eastern regions of central Anatolia. Possibly, unstableclimatic conditions related to the so-called Labrador/Hudson Bay Climatic Event hada triggering effect in this movement (Berger & Guillaine 2008). The sites of this newwave are rarely in the same locations as before (Özdogˇan 2008), yet many maintainedtheir locations over subsequent millennia, in time developing as major archaeologicalmounds. To this new group belong the Karanovo I, Sesklo, and Star
čevo cultures in the Balkans, all associated with new Neolithic elements.

Ancient DNA from the Carpathian Basin (5700 BCE to 3900 BCE)

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2015/06/ancient-dna-from-carpathian-basin-5700.html                                                                                                                                The first European farmers probably emerged from the highlands that form the Southern boundaries of Europe and West Asia, rather than from what we would conventionally think of as the “Near East” proper.

WHEN AND WHY THE TRYPILLIANS BURNT THEIR VILLAGES:
possible language and cult relations between Cucuteni-Trypillia, Vinča, and Halaf
Iurii Mosenkis file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/WHEN_AND_WHY_THE_TRYPILLIANS_BURNT_THEIR.pdf

“Why
Architecture of Cucuteni-Trypillia was related to one of the Thracian Eneolithic,
Lengyel, Tizsapolgár, and Vinča while the tradition of burning of settlements was
known in Vinča, Boian, Petreşti, and Trypillia2 and might reflect the homonymy of
Proto-Dravidian *ūr- ‘village’ (> Telugu ūru) and Proto-Dravidian *ur- ‘to burn’ (> Tamiluru). The magical impression of homonymy between two words, ‘village’ and ‘to burn’, might cause the rite while all cultures which had similarities with Cucuteni-Trypillia in architecture or in the rite of the village burning were Vinča-related. N. B. Burdo underlined the important role of the culture in the genesis of Cucuteni-Trypillia and other Carpathian-Balkan-Danube cultures.
The language of Vinča might be Dravidian because                                                                                                1) Vinča was related to Çatal Hüyük which art may be interpreted as created by Dravidian-spoken people;                                                                                                                          2) the Tărtăria tablets of Vinča are dated to the Ubaid time and similar to the Sumerian script of possible pre-Sumerian origin while strong Dravidian substrate presents in Sumerian;
3) the Cretan syllabary originated from Vinča via the Trojan script and the Dispilio
tablet may be interpreted in Dravidian;                                                                                                                   4) the Balkan-Anatolian relations was close until Karanovo IV, a contemporary of Vinča, according to M. Özdoğan, while the Karanovo IV statuette of a bearded man (see H. Todorova) is very similar to Harappan statuettes;
6) several unetymologized words of the Dacian substrate in Romanian and of Ancient Greek have Dravidian etymologies.
Ubaid Dravidian urbanization might also reflect in other names: Proto-Dravidian
*kōt.t.ai ‘fortress, palace’ might be related to the name of the Cretan town of Kutaion (possible Dravidian Alishar influence), Georgian Kutaisi (possible Anatolian Ubaid influence), and Hittite kutt- ‘wall’ (possible Anatolian Ubaid influence).
An intentional burning of houses related to burials was known in proto-Halaf Tell
Sabi Abyad (the second half of the 7th millennium BCE).
4 Halaf-Çatal Höyük-Vinča relationship in architecture and cult provided us to hypothesis of common Dravidian language of the sites.

===========================================================================Dravidian Ubaid influence on the Balkan Neolithic elite? Iurii Mosenkis   https://www.academia.edu/31086440/Dravidian_Ubaid_influence_on_the_Balkan_Neolithic_elite

 Elite/priest/cult language of Criş and Vinča might be Dravidian (of Anatolian Ubaid origin) because of:                                                                                                                               1) Dravidian etymologies for several Linear A, B signs related to the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet (Greek Macedonia; C14: 5260 BCE) and Trojan Script;

2) Tărtăria tablets (the age of the human bones found with the tablets: 5370-5140 cal BC, i. e. the Ubaid time) similar to Sumerian hieroglyphs of possible pre-Sumerian origin while Ubaid might be related to the Dravidian substrate in Sumerian;

3) Unetymologized words in Greek, Albanian, and Romanian (cf. Dravidian interpretation of tokens and their Balkan relationship);

4) A similarity between Vinča, especially the Parţa sanctuary (Gh. Lazarovici’s reconstruction), and Çatalhöyük which art may be interpreted in Dravidian;

5) A similarity between the Ubaid ‘lizard’ figurines and the Vinča figurines which had the Criş parallels;

6) Close similarity between the Karanovo IV beard figurine (synchronous with Vinča) and the Harappan ones;

7) Dravidian (?) H haplogroup in Starčevo and Dravidian (?) T haplogroup (close cognate of Dravidian L haplogroup) in Linear Pottery;

8) Chalcolithic rite of house-burning was spread in Vinča-related cultures while *ur- ‘village’ and *ur- ‘burning’ were homonyms in Proto-Dravidian; cf. Sumerian uru(2), ‘city, town, village’ and ùru, ‘watch fire; light; glowing, luminous object’. V. V. Khvoika-N. B. Burdo’s interpretation of Trypillian burned houses as houses of dead correlates with proto-Halaf burial rite in burning houses; cf. a rite of fire related to the Tărtăria tablets;

9) The similar round mace-heads in Vinča and Mesopotamia of the Uruk period (and pre-Dynastic Egypt as a result of the Uruk expansion).

The Vinča might be partially dravidianized by the Anatolian Ubaid. The phonetic structure of the Dravidian languages is similar to the ‘banana’ substrate in Sumerian and Hurrian. Sumerian writing system is good for the Dravidian word structure but not so good for Sumerian one. The strong Dravidian element in Sumerian basic and cultural lexicon might be interpreted as a ‘banana’ = Ubaid component.

The Dravidian Ubaid roots might be suggested for 1) the Sumerian script of suggested pre-Sumerian origin, 2) the Vinča script, including the Tărtăria tablets, related to the Sumerian script but not immediately, 3) the Cretan Linear A, B script derived from the Vinča script via the Dispilio tablet and the Trojan script, 4) the Kura-Araxes script similar to Vinča.

The beginning of the Ubaid culture in Southern Mesopotamia is currently dated from 6500 BCE, i. e. earlier than the Vinča and the Vinča script. The first tokens as the prototypes of the Sumerian hieroglyphs are dated from the 9th millennium BCE. The Anatolian Ubaid influence on the Balkans is confirmed by the Dravidian etymologies of the Cretan Linear A, B signs and several Paleo-Balkan words.

So Dravidian might be a cult language of the Anatolian Neolithic, Criş and Vinča Dravidian Ubaid traces in later Balkans are confirmed by several Albanian and Romanian words of substrate origin which have Dravidian parallels:                                                       Romanian < Dacian mal ‘shore’, Albanian mal ‘mountain’ : PD *màl- ‘mountain’                                                                                                                       Romanian < Dacian moș ‘old man’, Albanian moshë ‘age’, moshëm ‘old, aged’ : PD *mūt- ‘old’                                                                                                                                                       The Proto-Dravidian language might be a source of the Minoan Linear A signs, e. g.: Linear A, B mu (bull) : PD *mūr- ‘buffalo, cow’;

Linear A, B me (goat) : PD *mē-K- ‘goat’;

Linear A, B mi (fish) : PD *mīn- ‘fish’;

Lin A, B ra ‘dog’ : PD *er-Vc- ‘wild dog’ > Proto-Gondi *rac-i

Greek sukon, tukon ‘fig’ of unknown origin, Linear A, B tu (fig) : PD *tōɣ‘a kind of ficus’;

Greek sepia of unknown origin, Linear A, B sa (sepia) : PD *śip- ‘shell’ > ‘pearl-oyster’.

Ubaid Dravidians might be related to European cult of tree (Proto-Slavic *dombъ of unknown origin : Proto-Finnish *tamb of pre-Finno-Ugrian origin : Proto-Dravidian *tumb- ‘a kind of tree’) and pre-Greek words in Greek (Greek tuk- ‘fig-tree’ : Proto-Dravidian *tōɣ‘a kind of ficus’).      Greek drakon of unknown origin : PD *śàrac- > Telugu trā̃cu ‘serpen

=========================================================================

Danube-Trypillia source of Minoan scripts? Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/27943346/Danube-Trypillia_source_of_Minoan_scripts

========================================================================

Iurii L. Mosenkis      Pre-Mycenaean Greeks in Crete   https://www.academia.edu/24600947/Pre-Mycenaean_Greeks_in_CreteWeb-page: https://independent.academia.edu/iuriimosenkis                                                             Contents

Ethno-linguistic view on Aegean … 4                                                                                       Ethnic map of Ancient Balkans,Sea Peoples, and Troy … 4                                         Palaeoethnology of Crete … 8                                                                                     Pelasgians and their language … 13                                                                                Newfound Paleo-Balkan languagess: ‘Dithyrambic’ and Gutian… 14                       Phrygian-like language of ‘Eteocretan’ inscriptions … 16                                                   Greek vs ‘preGreek’ users of the Linear A script … 17                                                 Phrygian-like elements in Linear A?… 23
Bronze Age Greece: geography of countries and contacts … 24
 Mycenaean oecumene: Greek epic evidence … 24                                                           Minoan-Mycenaean Greeks in Colchis … 29               Minoan Greeks in Bronze Age Norway and Cypriot Hurrian trade elite of Proto-Germanipeople … 33
Multi-disciplinary periodization of Balkan prehistory … 37
Key role of climate events in socio-cultural changes … 37                                                     Climate changes, metal ages, and mythical generations … 39           Helladic culture and early Greek kingdoms … 41                                                                Greek ‘Floods’: natural and cultural interpretations … 42
Pre-Mycenaean Greek written language … 44
 Minoan painters were Greek-spoken … 44                                                                          Phrygian-like Greek language of Cretan Hieroglyphics … 45Greek constellation names on the
Phaistos Disc … 52                 Hieroglyphic/acrophonic origin of Linear A and B syllabic signs… 53                                   Phonetic features of Linear A: Hurrianized Graeco-Macedono-Phrygian … 56             Greek morphology of Indo-European origin in Linear A … 57
Greek names of sum and debt in Linear A … 58       Asiatic slaves in Minoan Zakros: Linear A evidence … 59                           Fates of Cretan slaves in the Linear A tablet HT 7 … 60
Minoan goddess as the queen of city … 6
Gutian language of the late 3rmillennium BCE invaders in Mesopotamia might also be Paleo-Balkan.
 The Gutians, Mesopotamian rulers during XXII c. BCE, were pale skinned and blonde haired or fair-skinned.They were described as the people of northern originThe Sumerians brutally called Gutian as a language of dogs. Perhaps, this opinion might be based on the frequent usage of initial
eu- and final eus in Greek.The ethnical name Gutor Kutmay reflecGreek
 κυδίων,noblercf. the Cretan tribe of Cydonians from kudos,glorycf. also the names of main ancient Cretan townsKnossos,famous’ as a variant of Greek
 gnostosPhaistos,most light(ed) from phanos,light’,Kudonia,
 glorious’ etc.The Gutian king’s name Ingeš uš oIngeš auš 
 may be possibly interpreted as γγυησευ󰏍ς,one who gives security’ from γγυάω
give security’. The name of Anchisos and its Philistine cognate may also be taken into consideration.According to a hypothesis, the Gutian language is Tocharian:
Two variants of another Gutian king’s name,Sarlagaand Iarlagab
may beinterpreted in comparison to the reconstructed Greek word*
Bερολογεύς‘one whospeaks sacral words’ from
 Bερολογέω, recount a BερCς λόγος. These variantreflect the possible s / alternation in pre-written Greek (later only from s). Anotherpair of the kings’ names,Silulumeš and Elulumešmay also contain the samealternation.The name Ibate may be compared with Greek α68εόςCretan and Pamphylian α6Aεός
 eagle’.The name Iarlagan oIarlaganda may be regarded as Greek*BερολαγενDς‘whowas born of priest’, cf.
Bερόλας=Bερεύς andγενDςγενέ%ς,
 who was born’ The name oTirigan is similar to Greek ριγενDςthrice-born’; cf.
ριγένν%ος,thricebornas an epithet ofAthena.Gudeathe famous ruler of Southern Mesopotamia ca. 2144–2124 BC, might bealso the Gutian.The Kutaioi as a name of the Colchians in Argonautica might be related with thename of the Gutians, Kuticf. the Caucasian Achaeans and Phryx the Phrygian whomigrated to Colchis in the beginning of the XIII c. BCE; cf. also Greek
teikhoswalland Georgian cixefortress’. Language contact between ‘pre-Greek’ and Kartvelianwere detaiinvestigated by R. V. Gordeziani.
================================================================

INDO-EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOGENETICS      Iurii Mosenkis https://www.academia.edu/28867344/Indo-European_archaeology_and_archaeogenetics

In our interdisciplinary model of the Indo-European origins, almost all previousmodelare combined. During 8-tm. BCE: Catalhöyük-Hacilar Neolithic (I. M. Diakonoff’s ‘pre-Proto-Indo-European’existed in Anatolia but natural events (the beginning of the Atlantic period about 7,050 / 6,910 possibly related to the Vesuvius eruption about 6940 BCE and theeruption of Erciyes Dagi, the highest mountain in central Anatolia, about 6,880 BCE)might cause the migrations in Rakushechnyi Yar culture Sesklo (from about 6850 BCE).Finish of the highest Anatolian Neolithic development was caused by global cooling and aridification 6200 BCEFrom early 7
tto mid 6-tm. BCE Neolithic peoples appeared in Europe in several waves (C. Renfrew’, V. A. Safronov’ models) but their initial language(s) are disputable.We must refer to achaeogenetics to identify the languages‘Only European’ male haplogroup is I (closely related to J, possibly Hurrian-Tyrsenian) which was presented in the earliest European Neolithic (Körös, Starčevo and Lengyel), but also in the post-Baden cultures like Vučedol-related Remedello and Vatya (‘Paleo-Balkan’?), Unetice and Urnfield (Italic-Celtic’ or ‘Celtic’?) etc. In contrast, main Y haplogroup of the European Neolithic was G (Kartvelian?while Y haplogroup of Indo-European elite was R1a of northern origin, akin to North Caucasian and Basque R1b, Burushaski R2, andYenisseian-Amerind Q. Archaeologically, Indo-European divergence appeared as Proto-Indo European Neolithic, migrated from Anatolia (I. M. Diakonoff’s ‘pre-Proto-Indo-European’Catalhöyük) to Europe in several waves (C. Renfrew’s model), and Vinča was the most developed among them (V. A. Safronov’s model) and gave Hittite-Luwian (or Hittite-Tocharian) Boian and the rest Indo-European Lengyel. Then Boian separated fromKaranovo IV–Vinča and divided into two branches, Gumelniţa-Varna and Cucuteni-Trypilla; common ancestors of the branches determined their common language orclosely cognate languages. Then Hittite-Luwian group correlated with the line Gumelniţa > Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop > Maikop > Alaca while Tocharian grouplinked with the line Gumelniţa > Cernavodă I (and Trypillia) > Skelya/Dereivka >Repin > Afanasevo > Okunevo > Tarim Basin. The rest of Indo-European languages  
were common among Lengyel > (a part of) Funnel Beaker > Corded Ware. If CordedWare was Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Venetic (and Illyric if it not belonged toPaleo-Balkan) then Baden was Paleo-Balkan and Globular Amphora was Indo-Iranian. If Corded Ware was all non-Hittite-Tocharian Indo-European then Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo-Balanovo were Indo-Iranian and cordized Baden-Coţofeni-KostolacCernavodă III-Ezero-(partially)Troy I-II were Paleo-Balkan.
Archaeology: Starčevoand Vinča(Proto-IE)> Boian > Gumelniţa(Hittite-Tocharian)> Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop > Maikop > Alaca (Hittite-Luwian)> Cernavodă I (and Trypillia?) > Skelya/Dereivka > Repin > Afanasevo >Okunevo > Tarim Basin (Tocharian)> Lengyel > (a part of)Funnel Beaker (resof IE)> Corded Ware (rest of IE or only Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Venetic)> Baden (Paleo-Balkan or cordized substrate of Paleo-Balkan)> Globular Amphora (Indo-Iranian or northen pre-IE priest elite of Indo-Iranian)Corded Ware> Malopolska Corded Ware / Kraków-Sandomierz Corded Ware > Mierzanowice >Trzciniec-(Komariv-)Sośnica (Baltic-Slavic) > Lusatian > Pomorska/Pomeranian >(Przeworsk-)Zarubyntsi > the Kyiv culture (Slavic) and Lebedivka > Juchnovo (Baltic)> northern groups of Corded Ware (Germanic)> Protruding Foot Beaker of Single Grave / Corded Ware (Celtic) indoevropeanized BellBeaker (Basque initially)> late Corded Ware of the Alpine pile dwellings in Switzerland and Southwest Germanyand Unetice-related Polada with pile dwellings in North Italy (Italic)> Middle Dnieper > Fatianovo-Balanovo > Abashevo (Indo-Iranian) > Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim-Andronovo (Indo-Aryan) and Timber Grave (Iranian)> cordized/indoeuropeanized Baden-Coţofeni-Kostolac-Cernavodă III-Ezero-EarlyHelladic II-(apparently)Troy II (Paleo-Balkan): Kostolac (Illyrian-Albanian), Coţofeni >Budzhak > Novotitorovka > Catacomb and Multi-Rolled > Sabatynivka (Phrygian),Cernavodă III (Thracian), Ezero (Greek), Early Helladic II (Pre-Greek Paleo-BalkanPelasgian’)Early Helladic III (Greek), Kostolac > Vučedol >Vinkovci-Somogyvár orEzero-related Sitagroi IV (Macedonian)
ARCHAEOLOGYANTHROPOLOGY, POPULATION GENETICSAND ARCHAEOGENETICS, GLOTTOCHRONOLOGY
…………………….According to this hypothetical course of events, Linear Pottery, Vinča or their possible common Proto-Sesklo-Starčevo-Kriş or Anatolian ancestors, might be Proto-Indo-EuropeansIf the language of Anatolia-related Vinča culture was only Hittite-Luvian,then Linear Pottery might be ‘Narrow Indo-European’, in other words Indo-European without Hittite-Luvian. Cardium Pottery/Impresso (which might be also of Proto-Sesklo origin and which might have shared the G2a male haplogroup – the main haplogroup of the European Neolithicization creators – with Kriş and Linear Pottery)might be Hurro-Tyrrenian. Alternatively, only Linear Pottery might be of Proto-Indo-European origin while Vinča – of Hurro-Urartian and Impresso – of Tyrrenian.Linear Pottery and Vinča gave birth to both Boian and (via Stroked Pottery) Lengyelcultures. Boian as well as its Gumelniţa-Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillia descendants werepossibly Hittite-Tocharian or, if Vinča was Hittite-Luvian, only Tocharian. Cucuteni-Trypillia had an influence on Anatolia in the early stage of its development(M. Ozdogan).
Hittite-Luwian languages diverged from the other Indo-European ones around 6700 BCE,The GreekArmenian branch diverged from others about 5300 BCE, cf. the appearance of Vinča (the signs of which preceded Linear A) about 5500 BCE (the highestform ofdevelopment of sign system in Vinča is correlated with the parallel of Greek gropheus and Armenian
 grohscriber’, whereas the root had other meanings, not related to writing, in other Indo-European languages). The separation of the Baltic-Slavic language branch from others about 4500 BCE  Greek-Armenian-Albanian – about 5000 BCE, Indo-Iranian and Baltic-Slavic – soon after the latter date, Germanic-Italic-Celtic – about 4000 BCE
ICeltic-Germanic-Italic and Baltic-Slavic – before 4500 BCE                                                Celtic andGermanic-Italic – before 4000 BCE  The Celtic-Italic-Germanic  branch appeared about 3000 BCE (CordedWare),                                              Celtic – about 2500 BCE (Bell Beaker),                            Indian and Iranian divided after 3000 BCE,                                                                            Baltic and Slavic – before 1000 BCE. Proto-Slavs included two anthropological types – light
pigmented North Europeandolichocephalic was related to Corded Ware and dark-pigmented South European brachycephalic– to Bell Beaker; Southern Slavs, especially Bulgarians, included the leptoprosopic descendants of Linear Pottery-Boian-Trypillia through Thracians.;The divergence of Armenian-Greek-Albanian from other groups started about 3020BCE 
The divergence of Armenian, Greek, and Albanian languages
from each other started about 2590 BCE (the beginning of Troy II was related to the appearance of Baden inAnatolia oralternatively, the beginning of the Early Helladic period II); the corded waretradition from the Early Helladic II-III periods started spreading from the Coţofeni areaas A. Bulatović suggests, and the tradition might be Macedonian-Greek, while late Coţofeni might be the other part of the Paleo-Balkan  branch, perhaps Thracian-Phrygian;
The divergence of Italic and Germanic language groups took place about 2500 BCE;   Indo-Aryan and Iranian groups diverged about 2000 BCE (the appearance of Petrovka-Sintashta-Arkaim-Andronovo cultural complex and Timber Grave/Srubna cultures from common late Yamna/Poltavka-Catacomb-Abashevo sources).The Indo-Iranian cult of battle axe
Baltic and Slavic language groups diverged about 1210 BCE (the end of Trszciniec,the ancestor of possible Slavic
Lusatian culture and Milograd which generated thePomeranian culture, and possible Baltic Lebedivka, which developed Juchnovo). The appearance of the proto-Slavic Kyiv culture may hypothetically be reconstructed:Trzciniec(Komariv-)Sośnica > Lusatian > Pomorska/Pomeranian >(Przeworsk-)Zarubyntsi > the Kyiv culture. The end of the Kyiv culture (5-tcACE)coincided with the end of the Proto-Slavic language. In addition, the Proto-Slavic open- syllable structure of language resembles the Ukrainian CVCV-structure (C – consonant,V – vocal), pointing to the Proto-Slavic homeland in Ukraine.Fundamentally, Corded Ware might be the common ancestor of Indo-Europeans,without Hittite-Luwians but possibly including Tocharians (see below). If Slavic-Baltic,Italic-Germanic and Indo-
Iranian language branches were the results of the CordedWare
migration,then Celtic, Paleo-Balkan and Tocharian ones would be the results of the Corded Ware elite influence
.The primary divergence of Corded Ware might be related to climatic events about3300-2900 BCE (Piora Oscillation).Hittite
Luwian diverged from others about 4670 BCE (the Gumelniţa-Varna-Novodanylivka and Cucuteni-Trypillia influenced pre
Maikop PrickedPearls/Svobodnoe; appearance of Novodanylivka and Funnel Beaker)
. N. S. Kotovasuggests the Trypillia-Serednii Stig close contacts (including marriages) and the contactof Pre
Maikop with Trypillia, western and eastern Serednii Stig (with marriages in thelatter case).
Early Hittite-Luwian languages might belong to the Pricked Pearls culture,which was known in pre-Maikop (Svobodnoe), Maikop (Meshoko), Novosvobodnaia,and Dolmen times (the Maikop figurines are very similar to the Alaca ones), whereaslate Hittite-Luwian languages (Karanovo VII-Ezero, possibly under ‘Baden veil’) mighthave migrated not through Caucasus but straight from the Balkans
Another Hittite-Luwian culture might be ‘Early Bronze culture of the ColchianLowland’, a contemporary of the Maikop and Kura-Araxes cultures. The culture hadmany similarities with Ezero.
Bodrogkerezstúr was similar to proto- and early Kura-Araxes, possibly via Anatolia because of the absence of steppe links
J. Makkay regarded the Bodrogkerezstúr and Sălcuţă IV cultures as the Hittite-Luwian ‘Parnassian’ language of the pre
Greek substrate.Tocharian diverged from others about 3810 BCE (the appearance of Repinadescendant of Gumelniţa > Cernavodă I> Dereivka
and an ancestor of Afanasevo and then Okunevo). Cf. the climatic event 3900 BCE (
Bond event)the aridification,which caused migrations. Alternatively, N. S. Kotova underlines the closest relations  (including marriages) between Trypillia and Dereyivka,
so Trypillia mightbeTocharian.Tocharian languages demonstrate the close proximity with Greek, Phrygian, and Thracian, including the names of towns (possibly related to Gumelniţa) and Tocharian
nakt- ‘Sun god’ (possibly related to the Sun god images on the Okunevo steles) as a link between Greek-Phrygian (Minoan-Mycenaean)wanax
‘sacral king’ and Chinese
wang,king’ (Cretan Linear A, B syllabic sign
wis very similar to the Chinese hieroglyph for wang)cf. Cretan solar dynasty, Chinese Yellow Emperor, Chinese emperors’ yellowattire and the old hypothesis of Minoan-Chinese relationship.The hypothesis of relation between Tocharian Afanasevo-Okunevo and CordedWarcorrelates with the R1a haplogroup, which is common for Tocharians andCorded Ware. Novodanylivka and Dereivka had very similar anthropological types whereas Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian were close in: a) phonetics; b) grammar; c) basic lexicon; d) cultural lexicon. Moreover, the Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian languagegroups have the unique common name of town (possibly related to Gumelniţa). Thelinguistic similarities between the two aforementioned groups correlated with thearchaeological similarities of Serednii Stig I/Novodanylivka andSerednii Stig II/Dereivka as well as with the anthropological similitude betweenSeredniStig and North European ancestors of other Indo-Europeans (Polish Funnel-Beaker etc.), cf. N. S. Kotova’s hypothesis of the Funnel Beaker influence on theformation of Serednii Stig.The horizon of ‘Polgarized’ Trypillia with astronomical-related giant settlements andTrypillia-influenced horse-rich Dereivka might be a primary source of
Tocharian,inherited via Repin by Afanasevo with its round buildings. Polgar as the source of bothBodrogkerezstúr and the ‘Polgarization’ of Trypillia might be Hittite-Tocharian.Not only Boian and its descendantsGumelniţa and Cucuteni-Trypillia, but alsoSerednii Stig I-II might be Hittite-Tocharian. Cucuteni-Trypillia was interpreted asHittite-Tocharian by O. Menghin (basing on the correlation between Cucuteni-Trypilliaas ‘eastern Linear Pottery’ and the eastern location of Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian),however as Hittite by V. P. Petrov (basing on the comparison of Trypillian figurines andHittite reliefs). L. L. Zalizniak underlines the anthropological difference betweenNordic’ Hittite charioteers (maryanna) and their
‘Armenoid’ servants. It ought to beadded that the charioteers were Indo-Aryan.Therefore, ‘Kossinna was right‘, as L. S. Klejn estimates the hypothesis of the NorthEuropean origin of Indo-Europeans. According to G. Cossinna, the proto-Indo-European culture was
Corded Ware, the idea being confirmed by S. A. Starostin’srecalibrated’ glottochronology. As demonstrated above, the achaeogenetic,anthropological, glottochronological, and archaeological evidence may confirm theNorth European hypothesis and point to Corded Ware as a principle Indo
Europeaarchaeological culture. In search of the
cord ornament among suggested Hittite-Luviansand the ‘Parnassus language’ of Hittite-Luvian substrate in Greece, the Vinča-Gumelniţa-related Krivodol-Sălcuţă-Bubanj-Hum complex as a source of the earliestcord ornament in Greece must be mentioned.         
MYTHOLOGYLINGUISTIC PALEONTOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY,ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

 Pe-Maikop and Maikop gold might be influenced by the Balkans.Copper spread from Gumelniţa to Steppe via Novodanylivka; some Caucasian copper objects of the pre-Maikop time might be related to the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province. Sumerians did not have their own copper, therefore Sumerian urudu, ‘copper’ might be derived from Indo-European*Həreudh-‘red, ruddy’ > Hittite-Luvian*Hərud/t-North Caucasian*rĕwc_wi‘red copper, gold’ and*HVrĕc󰁣Vcopper’might be related to the aforementioned words. Consequently, the ‘copper argument’links the Balkans and the Caucasus, including possible Sumerian Maikop from the pre-Maikop time.The ‘scepter argument’ gives the ‘hieroglyphic’ interpretation of the Balkan-SteppeEneolithic scepters basing on the comparison of Indo-European*g’hebhal-‘top, head(e. g., Tocharian Aśpāl, denoted ‘head’, while the closely-related Tocharian B śpālu meant superior, excellent’) and Greek kaballes, Laticaballus of possible Celtic origin,Proto-Slavic*kobylahorse’.                            Archaeoastronomy permits to interpret the mythical image of encircled world (AncientGreek Okeanos RiverOld Norse Jormungandr, Old Indian parallels) and entitles tointerpret Ancient Greek Galaksios kyklos‘the Milky Way’ (literally ‘the Milky circle) asan observation of the Milky Way as a whole circle. It is possible at the 52latitude. In the mid-5-tmillennium BCE, the Sun used to cross the Milky Way at the equinoxes andlocated near the centre of the Milky Way at the summer solsticeStroked Pottery andLengyel roundels were built near this latitude in the mid-5-t millennium BCE. Thus,Stroked Pottery and Lengyel might be among the ancestral Indo-European cultures.

ELITE LANGUAGE MECHANISM, MODELS AND PERSPECTIVES
Elite language mechanism.Corded Ware Northern Indo-European elite inherited itsNordic’ anthropological type (however not language) and Neolithic package from Kunda-Narva. The elite might accept Indo-European from haplogroup I carriers, the haplogroup, which was found not only in the earliest European Neolithic (Körös,Starčevo and Lengyel), but also in the post-Baden cultures like Vučedol-relatedRemedello and Vatya (‘Paleo-Balkan’?), Unetice and Urnfield (‘Italic-Celtic’ or ‘Celtic’?)etc. Urnfield’s case was extremely interesting: it included the R1a gaplogroup of theNorth European origin, Basque R1b of the Pyrenaean origin and I. Similarly, Indo-Aryanelite of Mitanni accepted the Hurrian language, whereas Kyiv Rus’ Norse dynasty and Turkic chiefs in Bulgaria accepted the language of Slavic people.According to T. O. Rudych, Vinča-Lengyel and Corded Ware male anthropology was similar; male and female skulls of Corded Ware were closethus, the Corded Waremen and their women migrated together and did not mix with previous people of populated territories or, more credibly, constituted varnalike social stratification. PolishFunnel Beaker
might be an anthropological intermediate between Vinča-Lengyel andCorded Ware (cf. the role of Lengyel in the formation of Corded Ware), according to
V. A. Safronov’s ‘Vinča-Lengyel-Funnel Beaker’ hypothesis of the Indo-European development.Therefore, Vinča-Lengyel and Polish Funnel Beaker might have been asource of southern influence on Corded Ware. The idea of an encircled world mighthave been inherited by late Indo-Europeans from Lengyel.
Conclusional models.
Archaeogenetics, anthropology, mythology, linguisticpaleontology, linguistic typology, and glottochronology made us choose the NorthEuropean / Corded Ware hypothesis of the (late phase of) Indo-European problemamong other archaeological versions. Archaeoastronomy points to Lengyel’s ancestralrole as a possible source of southern influence on Corded Ware. Ancient Iranianmythology makes it possible to identify the ancestral role of Funnel Beaker, whileHesiod’s mythical generations may point to the ancestral role of the Balkans. The earliesIndo-European cultures might be Karanovo IV-Vinča as a possible source of 1)Hittite-Tocharian Karanovo V-Boian (the common ancestor of Gumelniţa-Varna andCucuteni-Typillia) and 2) other Indo-European cultures such as Lengyel-(Polish)Funnel Beaker.The proposed interpretation of the Indo-European problem combinedC. Renfrew’sAnatolian-Neolithic version and the North European version ofG. Kossinna, L. S. Klejn, L. L. Zalizniak, S. V. Koncha and others.However, thecommon ancestor of non-Hittite-Tocharian Indo-Europeans might be not only Corded Ware, but also its Funnel Beaker ancestor, as it was shown above.Now I prefer to interprete Vinča (the most developed culture in VI–V m. BCE, withwriting and bronze) as Proto-Indo-European (a combination of the C. Renfrew andV. A. Safronov models). The culture had two main branches: 1) Gumelniţa-Trypillia, anancestor of Hittite-Luwian (via Skelya/Novodanylivka > pre-Maikop and Maikop >Alaca Höyük) and Tocharian (via Cernavodă I > Dereivka > Repin > Afanasevo >Okunevo) language groups, and 2) Lengyel > Funnel Beaker > Corded Ware, anancestor of other Indo
-European language groups. N. S. Kotova’s hypothesis of theparticipation of Funnel Beaker in the formation of Serednii Stig (the similar cord andzigzag ornament) explains western links of Tocharian, cf. A. A. Kovaliov’s model of theTocharian origin. However, Dereivka disappeared about 3700 BCE while Funnel Beaker appeared in Ukraine about 3600 BCE.Origin of three non-Hittite-Tocharian branches may be modeled in two ways: 1)Corded Ware gives all western-central groups (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic,Venetic, possibly Illyric if it isn’t a member of Paleo-Balkan branch, i. e. E. Krahe’s ‘OldEuropean’and Indo-Iranian groups (Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo-Balanovo), andalso ‘cordized’ the Baden circle cultures (Baden-Koţofeni-Kostolac-Ezero-Troy I–II),making Paleo-Balkan group/branch; 2) Funnel Beaker gives Slavic-Baltic-Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic Corded Ware, Paleo-Balkan Baden (with a participation of Lengyel,cfvery early separation of Greek in the Gray-Atkinson model), and Indo-IranianGlobular Amphora. Two models not exclude each other: Paleo-Balkan includes cordedand post-Baden components whereas Indo-Iranian – corded and amphoras components.
Perspectives may be related to the investigation of possible key role of the Badenculture in the last (post-Hittite-Tocharian) common period of the Indo-Europeandevelopment, i. e. the primary divergence of Paleo-Balkan, Indo-Iranian, and ‘OldEuropean’ branchesBaden 1) was the most developed culture in the IV millenniumBCE Europe, acc. to M. Yu. Videiko, 2) used vehicles, 3) had relations with Anatolia,Eastern and Central Europe, 4) partially took part in the formation of (possibly Indo-Iranian) Globular Amphora and (possibly ‘Old European’) Corded Ware, and 5) mighttransite European-specific male haplogroup of I, possibly related to the Indo-Europeanlanguage, from Lengyel to post-Baden cultures. Thus, ethnicity and mythology of theCorded Ware ‘northern elite’ and language of Baden might unit in the period of theBadenization’ of Funnel Beaker and the spread of Corded Ware. Hammers of PitGrave/Yamna (including a picture on the Kernosivka stele) and Catacomb culturesmight be related to the Corded Ware elite; Indo-Iranians might be formed in thecontacts of Yamna, Catacomb, GlobularAmphora, and Corded Ware (Fatyanovo,Balanovo, Abashevo) cultures. If common ‘Graeco-Aryan’ (Paleo-Balkan-Indo-Iranian) branch existed, it might be Coţofeni, a source of (probably Paleo-Balkan) Coţofeni-Kostolac and (probably Indo-Iranian) Budžak/Bugeac; so divergence of the branch intotwo sub-branches might be dated to about 3200 BCE.Alternatively, the Baden circle might be Hittite-Luwian, as L. S. Klejn suggests, orrather only Luwian, cf. the Baden-Klady (the Novosvobodnaya culture) and Ezero-Colchis relations as well as the Baden/post-Baden influence on Greece where theParnassus’/Luwian language was identified toponymically. So Funnel Beaker ofLengyel origin might be (partially) Hittite.

Proto-Greek language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language                                                  The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the assumed last common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., AtticIonicAeolicDoricAncient Macedonian and Arcadocypriot) and, ultimately, KoineByzantine and Modern Greek. The unity of Proto-Greek would have ended as Hellenic migrants, who spoke the predecessor of the Mycenaean language, entered the Greek peninsula sometime in the Neolithic or the Bronze Age.

Prehistory of Transylvania (continue)

On the other hand, farther east, along the Dniester River, groups that made Epigravette-Tardenois tools were breeding pigs and cattle around 5500 B.C. (!), and it is conceivable that their western cousins did likewise.

The Epipalaeolithical groups’ moves toward food production were interrupted by the arrival of people who belonged to the Starčevo-Körös culture of the southern Balkans. The latter brought from their homeland the practices, assimilated from Anatolian migrants, of wheat and barley cultivation and goat and sheep husbandry. The cultivation of millet and the domestication of cattle may have been their own ‘invention’.

Prehistory of Transylvania (continue)

On the other hand, farther east, along the Dniester River, groups that made Epigravette-Tardenois tools were breeding pigs and cattle around 5500 B.C. (!), and it is conceivable that their western cousins did likewise.

The Epipalaeolithical groups’ moves toward food production were interrupted by the arrival of people who belonged to the Starčevo-Körös culture of the southern Balkans. The latter brought from their homeland the practices, assimilated from Anatolian migrants, of wheat and barley cultivation and goat and sheep husbandry. The cultivation of millet and the domestication of cattle may have been their own ‘invention’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: