More on the Tollensee Valley battle site inc. genetics

[Lukas]

PCA with PC1 on longer x axis

[Tomenable]

Sorry I made mistake in counting:)

10 Germanics and 7 Slavic is correct.

And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.

Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.

Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)

[Lukas]

And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.

Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.

Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)

Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.

I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

[Lukas]

Also there weren't Slavs anf Germanics in Bronze Age, are you aware of that I thought:)

Only some proto-populations. Those proto-Slavic were probably Lusatian like.

[Tomenable]

Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.

That's not what isotopes suggest, they came from far away:

"Two major groups can be distinguished in the isotope data, along with evidence for different homelands for some of the individuals."

These individual "outliers" are probably Mediterranean guys.

[Tomenable]

Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

Except that they were not a mix, but two genetically different populations.

They were not 20 Mecklenburgians, but 10 Mazovians + 10 Rhinelanders. :)

[Tomenable]

Here is where the battle took place, obviously between "Nordics" and "Lusatians":

[berun]

The date is similar to that of the invading Sea Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean sea and the continental expansion of the Urnfield culture aka Celts... I wonder if archaeology and isotopes allow a Celtic raid from Austria or somelike.

[bicicleur]

PCA with PC1 on longer x axis

does it mean 2 groups after all?
one southern - Bell Beaker like
one northern - CW or Battle Axe like

[bicicleur]

And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.

Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.

Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)

it was on the road across the swamps from south to the Baltic areas - there were not many alternative roads to cross these swamps
it looks like the invaders were stopped - there was no dramatic turnover in Baltic societies around that time

[bicicleur]

their weaponry is primitive, but still simple farmers wouldn't have such weaponry

Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.

I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

[LeBrok]

So we have 8 Slavo-Balts vs. 10 Germanics + 2 Mediterranean mercenaries. :)

Nope. With low quality samples they will plot all over bigger area "pretending" to belong to modern ethnic groups. Give me more samples I will calculate the average guy.

[LeBrok]

Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.

I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

Could you please put more samples into gedmatch? Thanks.

[Sile]

PCA with PC1 on longer x axis

who is this north-Italian WEZ54 ?

[Promenade]

I’m not sure how useful it is to try and label these people as “slavic." Early Slavs were much more primitive than the Bronze age cultures that preceded them and the slavic languages didn’t even have native words to describe the sea, the environment near to where the battle took place. Slavic speakers from modern Greece could communicate with Slavic speakers of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as the ninth century AD which points to a recent diversification. I could see one group being labeled as proto-germanic though, the nordic bronze age culture had reached the area by that time and genetically a few appear Scandinavian like. They haven’t found the residence of the people native to the area that fought in the battle yet so even that description is speculative.

I do believe we are dealing with two separate populations though and not just from the genetic evidence, the fact is also made clear by the isotopic analysis.

The date is similar to that of the invading Sea Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean sea and the continental expansion of the Urnfield culture aka Celts... I wonder if archaeology and isotopes allow a Celtic raid from Austria or somelike.

The group that traveled north is presumed to be from the Czech Republic, given they look more east than west european genetically I’d say Lusatian and not Urnfield.

The Sardinian-shifted guy dates to 2900 BC not 1000 BC, so a "Neolithic farmer."

who is this north-Italian WEZ54 ?

It makes sense that Welzin16 was from an earlier time period, but Welzin54 and 57 are also clearly southern Europeans and out of place here. I only remember the Isotopic analysis describing one group being local and having a maritime diet and a foreign one relying on a terrestrial diet. I think it'd be important for the study to also mention the isotopic analysis of Welzin54 and Welzin57 as separate groups since they represent genetic outliers compared to the two major factions, it might shed light on where they came from.(And it doesnt look like they came from the same spot either, one looks Iberian the other Italian)

[I1a3_Young]

Has Y DNA been posted or said to be available later?

That's right about the time of rapid I1 DF29 expansion within the Germanic tribes so we could get some interesting info.

[berun]

Definetively there were recent migrants, in page 59 fig 4.29 a K2 Admixture displays Bell Beakers, Unetice and Corded Ware with less EEF share than the warriors of Tollense, even three warriors are 100% EEF (LBK) and I can't believe about surviving pure EEF pockets in North Europe. We know something about their weaponry?

[berun]

hum, maybe the no-IE vocabulary in Germanic is not from its substrate but from an unknown adstrate? (just like French in English)

[Promenade]

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion from the paper that the parties were "relatively local and more closely related." The Isotopic analysis pretty much confirms they had separate diets and areas of origin. I'm not sure of the genetic distance between people from the Rhineland and Hessen but I'm guessing it's not much.

"Four outliers were identified and the sum of the results points in the same direction: Three of the four outliers WEZ16, WEZ54 and WEZ57 show closer affinities to neolithic populations than the grouped Welzin individuals and WEZ56 shows closer affinities to hunter-gatherers. Any interpretation regarding possible parties that might have been involved in the conflict in the Tollense valley∼3200 ago can only be speculative with regards to the here shown data. With the resolution given here, an educated guess for different involved parties could be, that both parties were relatively local and more closely related than any ancient DNA study was able to separate so far. Maybe similar to people from Hessen versus people from Rhineland-Palatinate in modern German."

Definetively there were recent migrants, in page 59 fig 4.29 a K2 Admixture displays Bell Beakers, Unetice and Corded Ware with less EEF share than the warriors of Tollense, even three warriors are 100% EEF (LBK) and I can't believe about surviving pure EEF pockets in North Europe. We know something about their weaponry?

Yeah we do, but they say it gives them no clue as to the origins or cultures of the people involved:
"The artifacts that have been found, include weapons such as wooden clubs, bronze spear and axe heads as well as bronze and flint arrow heads, but also bronze arm and finger rings. So far those findings allow no correlation between skeletal remains and separate cultures or the identification of different parties involved in the conflict."

Also I highly doubt the two southern Europeans from the battle were Neolithic leftovers, that seems really improbable.

[berun]

Let's see if there is autosomal or Y-DNA groupings by weapon and injury, it seems that some skulls were beaten by clubs, some clubs were found on the site, and others received mortal arrowhead impacts... others uses spears, others axes, there were chevaliers... if the battle was arrows vs clubs I can understand a massacre of 4000 men.

[Lukas]

Could you please put more samples into gedmatch? Thanks.

When I'll finish second PCA with added other ancient samples (like RISE569, Sunghir6). I want to be first to do that:)

[LeBrok]

When I'll finish second PCA with added other ancient samples (like RISE569, Sunghir6). I want to be first to do that:)

I'm cool with this, and glad you will post kit numbers. :)

[Fire Haired14]

Yeah, Y DNA isn't available everyone.

[Tomenable]

Early Slavs were much more primitive than the Bronze age cultures that preceded them

No. Early Slavs were an Iron Age society, not Bronze Age. They had iron-made weapons.

Slavic speakers from modern Greece could communicate with Slavic speakers of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as the ninth century AD which points to a recent diversification.

The migration of South Slavs into the Balkans is documented in historical sources.

I'm not claiming that there were any Slavs in the Balkans already in 1250 BC.

But Poland is a possible homeland of Proto-Slavs during the Late Bronze Age, even if later they all emigrated to the east (remember that the Zarubintsy culture was created by "Polish" immigrants from the west - from Lusatian-Pomeranian cultures).

The "recent diversification" thingy is only related to vast geographical expansion.

As long as a population occupies a relatively small area, or a large area but connected by strong ties, its language will not diversify. For example Latin only diversified after the collapse of the Roman Empire, despite existing altready in 750 BC.

[bicicleur]

No. Early Slavs were an Iron Age society, not Bronze Age. They had iron-made weapons.



The migration of South Slavs into the Balkans is documented in historical sources.

I'm not claiming that there were any Slavs in the Balkans already in 1250 BC.

But Poland is a possible homeland of Proto-Slavs during the Late Bronze Age, even if later they all emigrated to the east (remember that the Zarubintsy culture was created by "Polish" immigrants from the west - from Lusatian-Pomeranian cultures).

The "recent diversification" thingy is only related to vast geographical expansion.

As long as a population occupies a relatively small area, or a large area but connected by strong ties, its language will not diversify. For example Latin only diversified after the collapse of the Roman Empire, despite existing altready in 750 BC.

ok, but it is not usefull to label the northern group as Slavic, the date is to old for that
the northern group has more CW than the southern group, who is more BB
and early Slavs probably also had quite some CW
but that is where similarities stop
if Slavs have some Polish origin, it is more probable southern Poland than northern
I think northern Ukraine is a more likely origin