Large-Scale Migration into Southern Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age.

[johen]

Yes, that's correct, and La Tene Celts surely had many Scythian derived influences, most likely transmitted via Thraco-Scythian contacts over Pannnonia-Southern Germany. However, I wouldn't emphasize head hunting too much, because it was a fairly common practise in many people throughout the world, some of which not even Eurasian.

Problem is what kind of relationship between scythian and celtic people?
Is it like poland and russia or russia and mongol?
It is b/c it seems to me that Urnfield culture did not have that kind of culture.

I think scythian cannibalism is related with seima turbino. Scythian and karasuk dagger clearly originated in seima turbino. Dagger represents elite at that time. Moreover seima turbino seems to spread the celtic symbol at china bronze and Hongshan area. Especially they marked celtic symbol on their daggers. It means that the celtic symbol represents seima turbino elite like nomad Tamga. I always think there is culture to share and not to share, b/c any elite people try not to sell their souls. As one russin scholar mentioned, seima turbino culture surely landed England. I personally think the celts was concerned with aryan, hence, there is some connection between celtic cultrue and aryan culture.


The Borodino treasure of seima turbino culture in Historical museum, Russia.

Triskele symbol on dagger seems to be connected to china bronze and the celts.
(of course, the above snake-moving mark is related with mycenaean and the celts)

Enlage picture in the link below and see one triskele mark on dagger:
http://nav.shm.ru/upload/iblock/c19/...04b45ebc65.png

another dagger:
see the below triquetra pattern on first dagger of the Lower Xiajiadian Culture:
http://www.jiaxiangwang.com/arch/ima...n-duanjian.jpg

http://www.jiaxiangwang.com/arch/a-i...xiajiadian.htm





Naga(snake)-mandala is a religious ritual theater in the cultural region of Tulu Nadu

[Riverman]

Problem is what kind of relationship between scythian and celtic people?

The Scythians raided Eastern Hallstatt to death. Then some of the locals transitioned into a Thraco-Scythian cultural mode, and these fought more incursions off, but raided themselves even deeper into Central Europe. So a lot of people got into close contact with "Scythian ways" either by direct, "real Scythians", or those which adopted the Scythian ways, the Thraco-Scythians primarily (like Vekerzug culture). Therefore through what remained of Eastern Hallstatt and the Thraco-Scythians, along the old communication routes along the Danube in particular, Scythian cultural elements and probably even individuals travelled to the now booming very Western fringe Hallstatt sphere, which became the centre of La Tene. Its also not just the La Tene Celts which adopted some of this, but also, but way more limited, the Germanics. It affected most of Central Europe a lot. It was a huge impact, like you find whole areas of the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely destroyed or massively degraded, with, on some sites, thousands of arrowheads around fortified settlements which were burnt to the ground.
This brought the Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely down and the luck of the La Tene Celts and Phocaeans in Massilia was that they just used the sea route, because both the West Hallstatt fringe and the Greek world got only mildly affected, same for the Illyrian core, while everybody closer to Pannonia was severely affected.
It was similar to the Hunnic, Avar and Mongol incursions, which usually didn't reach much beyond the Danubian sphere, with exceptions here and there.

Compare with the Magyar raids:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...landozasok.jpg

They came far, even to Iberia and Italy, but most affected was Pannonia and the Danubian sphere. The Scythian and Thraco-Scythian raids seem to have been similar in some ways, same goes for the even earlier Thraco-Cimmerians. They all left their mark, and contrary to the Magyars, they had some innovations in their package, especially concerning horse breeds, gear and metal working, weapons.

[torzio]

The Scythians raided Eastern Hallstatt to death. Then some of the locals transitioned into a Thraco-Scythian cultural mode, and these fought more incursions off, but raided themselves even deeper into Central Europe. So a lot of people got into close contact with "Scythian ways" either by direct, "real Scythians", or those which adopted the Scythian ways, the Thraco-Scythians primarily (like Vekerzug culture). Therefore through what remained of Eastern Hallstatt and the Thraco-Scythians, along the old communication routes along the Danube in particular, Scythian cultural elements and probably even individuals travelled to the now booming very Western fringe Hallstatt sphere, which became the centre of La Tene. Its also not just the La Tene Celts which adopted some of this, but also, but way more limited, the Germanics. It affected most of Central Europe a lot. It was a huge impact, like you find whole areas of the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely destroyed or massively degraded, with, on some sites, thousands of arrowheads around fortified settlements which were burnt to the ground.
This brought the Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely down and the luck of the La Tene Celts and Phocaeans in Massilia was that they just used the sea route, because both the West Hallstatt fringe and the Greek world got only mildly affected, same for the Illyrian core, while everybody closer to Pannonia was severely affected.
It was similar to the Hunnic, Avar and Mongol incursions, which usually didn't reach much beyond the Danubian sphere, with exceptions here and there.
Compare with the Magyar raids:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...landozasok.jpg
They came far, even to Iberia and Italy, but most affected was Pannonia and the Danubian sphere. The Scythian and Thraco-Scythian raids seem to have been similar in some ways, same goes for the even earlier Thraco-Cimmerians. They all left their mark, and contrary to the Magyars, they had some innovations in their package, especially concerning horse breeds, gear and metal working, weapons.

What do you mean when you use La Tene celts ?..................as La Tene origin/centre is in Switzerland.

Are you saying these "swiss" celts are the same as Halstatt celts ......even though there is more than 400 years difference in time

[Northener]

Hallstatt was mainly influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Basarabi culture (Daco-Thracians). This is very evident in every respect, but especially in the Eastern Hallstatt sphere, the Fr�g and Kalenderberg group. Probably even some of the elites were of foreign descent. The line of communication was along the Danube:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Hallstattzeit

La Tene did profit from the Phoceans setting up their colony Massilia and its daughter colonies, which made them independent and gave the La Tene group direct access to the East Mediterranean world, instead of depending on the Eastern Hallstatt elites. This happened right when the Eastern group was severely crippled and almost completely destroyed, later transformed, by the Scythian and Thraco-Scythian incursions. These were very influential on La Tene too, but didn't weaken it as much, which gave the West, together with the Massilia trade port and Greek allies, decisive advantages. Things like trousers, animal style, horse cult, larger horse breeds and heavy cavalry spread from the East and formed the new Celtic world.

This could be the Dutch part of the puzzle. I have put the places of the samples of the topic paper in the map of Fokkens (MBA) and Louwen(LBA).








They are Nijmegen in the river area in central-east Netherlands (border Germany). Uitgeest in the northwestern part. And Veere in the southwestern part.


I guess you could see the Netherlands as an interface between the SW and the NW, so in the Bronze Age between on the one hand the Hilversum culture and on the other hand the Elp (/ incl Hoogkarspel culture).


In iron age this more or less continued:
- in Zeeland/ Veere (SW) we see most probably an outlier of the Atlantic system, the EEF percentage of this sample is high;
- in Nijmegen (Central-East) there is a very clear influence of La Tene (from the Moselle/Marne) not only cultural but most probably also in genetic sense/ immigration; one sample is clearly Celtic and one sample as a 'Beakerish' kind of Steppe percentage (for unknown reason). Makes this sample somewhat outlying.
- West-Friesland puzzles me somewhat on the one hand we see a kind of continuation the Oostwoud (Elp/Hoogkarspel sample) is like Aak Z381, but Aak is also close to the typical La Tene/ Celtic sample of Nijmegen, still a La Tene influence? The Hoogoven man is somewhat less Celtic and comes closer to nowadays North Dutch....


Who has some clues?



PS an add with the Oostwoud BA Z381, just like Aak IA Z381.....seems not a big shift between 1700 BC and 200 BC???

[torzio]

This could be the Dutch part of the puzzle. I have put the places of the samples of the topic paper in the map of Fokkens (MBA) and Louwen(LBA).








They are Nijmegen in the river area in central-east Netherlands (border Germany). Uitgeest in the northwestern part. And Veere in the southwestern part.


I guess you could see the Netherlands as an interface between the SW and the NW, so in the Bronze Age between on the one hand the Hilversum culture and on the other hand the Elp (/ incl Hoogkarspel culture).


In iron age this more or less continued:
- in Zeeland/ Veere (SW) we see most probably an outlier of the Atlantic system, the EEF percentage of this sample is high;
- in Nijmegen (Central-East) there is a very clear influence of La Tene (from the Moselle/Marne) not only cultural but most probably also in genetic sense/ immigration; one sample is clearly Celtic and one sample as a 'Beakerish' kind of Steppe percentage (for unknown reason). Makes this sample somewhat outlying.
- West-Friesland puzzles me somewhat on the one hand we see a kind of continuation the Oostwoud (Elp/Hoogkarspel sample) is like Aak Z381, but Aak is also close to the typical La Tene/ Celtic sample of Nijmegen, still a La Tene influence? The Hoogoven man is somewhat less Celtic and comes closer to nowadays North Dutch....


Who has some clues?



PS an add with the Oostwoud BA Z381, just like Aak IA Z381.....seems not a big shift between 1700 BC and 200 BC???

The Ems Group on your map are East-Frisians , they are mixed with Saxons ( the ? on the map , before Saxons moved south ) ............they would be the most germanic of the Dutch people ( ie, no french or celtic ) ..............the Romans have the Chauci as their ancient neighbors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci

[Northener]

The Ems Group on your map are East-Frisians , they are mixed with Saxons ( the ? on the map , before Saxons moved south ) ............they would be the most germanic of the Dutch people ( ie, no french or celtic ) ..............the Romans have the Chauci as their ancient neighbors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci

It's more complicated. These are the Netherlands in BA time, take in account brown is peat, green is marsh, so only in the yellow area's they could get their feet dry....



What you qualify as East Frisia is in fact Drenthe (NL) and Emsland (Germany, not pictured) as yellow area's in the NE. Besides that we see in West-Frisia a small range of yellow dunes.

And yes the Chauci came in but much much later.....

I want to get past that Celtic vs Germanic label, in genetic sense for this stamp format place in the world it is obviously not accurat. It rather complicates. But that frames are quit strong though

But as you can see in genetic sense the West Frisians of BA and IA were, in casu Aak, close to the nowadays Irish! Not "über Germanisch"

They were much more related to Tumulus/ Urnfield.

Seen this previous publication of mc Donald (R1b U106 expert):





I see a kind of relationship between:
- 2000 BC Jimonice Unetice (DF98)
- 1700 BC Oostwoud West-Friesland Elp/ Hoogkarspel(Z381)
- 200 BC Uitgeest West-Friesland IA Frisian (Z381/ Z304)

But the whiz kids may puzzle somewhat on this matter....

Tentative conclusion in genetic sense I see more Central-European related connections than Nordic ones....

[Riverman]

It's more complicated. These are the Netherlands in BA time, take in account brown is peat, green is marsh, so only in the yellow area's they could get their feet dry....

How much inhabitation was there in the peat area?

By the way, I'm quite sure that Pannonian Bronze Age samples being included and there seem to be a range of clusters ordered like pearls on a necklace. So it should be possible, especially by using older samples, to get an idea of a shift from the Eastern Central European/Pannonian sphere with Urnfield.

[Northener]

How much inhabitation was there in the peat area?

By the way, I'm quite sure that Pannonian Bronze Age samples being included and there seem to be a range of clusters ordered like pearls on a necklace. So it should be possible, especially by using older samples, to get an idea of a shift from the Eastern Central European/Pannonian sphere with Urnfield.

zero!

I'm curios the spread of Z381 looks more MBA (Tumulus) to me....I guess these lines came from Hessen and Rhine-Main.

[Angela]

The Scythians raided Eastern Hallstatt to death. Then some of the locals transitioned into a Thraco-Scythian cultural mode, and these fought more incursions off, but raided themselves even deeper into Central Europe. So a lot of people got into close contact with "Scythian ways" either by direct, "real Scythians", or those which adopted the Scythian ways, the Thraco-Scythians primarily (like Vekerzug culture). Therefore through what remained of Eastern Hallstatt and the Thraco-Scythians, along the old communication routes along the Danube in particular, Scythian cultural elements and probably even individuals travelled to the now booming very Western fringe Hallstatt sphere, which became the centre of La Tene. Its also not just the La Tene Celts which adopted some of this, but also, but way more limited, the Germanics. It affected most of Central Europe a lot. It was a huge impact, like you find whole areas of the Lusatian and Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely destroyed or massively degraded, with, on some sites, thousands of arrowheads around fortified settlements which were burnt to the ground.
This brought the Eastern Hallstatt sphere completely down and the luck of the La Tene Celts and Phocaeans in Massilia was that they just used the sea route, because both the West Hallstatt fringe and the Greek world got only mildly affected, same for the Illyrian core, while everybody closer to Pannonia was severely affected.
It was similar to the Hunnic, Avar and Mongol incursions, which usually didn't reach much beyond the Danubian sphere, with exceptions here and there.

Compare with the Magyar raids:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...landozasok.jpg

They came far, even to Iberia and Italy, but most affected was Pannonia and the Danubian sphere. The Scythian and Thraco-Scythian raids seem to have been similar in some ways, same goes for the even earlier Thraco-Cimmerians. They all left their mark, and contrary to the Magyars, they had some innovations in their package, especially concerning horse breeds, gear and metal working, weapons.

Some of those "Scythians" were extremely "Med". They're some of my best matches. So, they picked up a lot of people along the way; very inclusive, unlike the Langobards, at least in Italy.

[Riverman]

Some of those "Scythians" were extremely "Med". They're some of my best matches. So, they picked up a lot of people along the way; very inclusive, unlike the Langobards, at least in Italy.

Basically there seem to have three things:
- Pure steppe nomads coming in, this is the earliest phase
- These pure steppe nomads pick up local womensfolk and ally up with local groups, these are true fused formations
- Thirdly, and interestingly these became to dominate especially with "the Scythians", then there were formations of largely local stock, with little outside influences, just adopting Scythian gear and ways.

The third group being especially prominent in various Pannonian and Western steppe Thraco-Scythian and Geto-Scythian or however you want to call it formations. They were actual Daco-Thracians in some cases and tribal formations. Some of them were stratified, with new steppe elements on top, some probably not even that. This need to be extensively tested to be sure, but from the archaeological record alone its clear that the G�va derived local population elements mostly prevailed. Especially the pottery is in some areas pure continuation in the transitional phase and just later changes.

[Riverman]

Here a PCA to underscore my last comment:
"F�zesabony-Cluster" how I called it completely overlaps with "Scythians" - here more Scythian samples, quite revealing:



https://ibb.co/TWJJQBM

The MDA Scythians are clearly influenced by BGR_EBA and Aegeans, that's why they are the only ones plotting outside of the usual range, even more South Eastern than the J2b sample cluster. The Thraco-Scythians from Hungary are just G�va-like.

[MOESAN]

What do you mean when you use La Tene celts ?..................as La Tene origin/centre is in Switzerland.
Are you saying these "swiss" celts are the same as Halstatt celts ......even though there is more than 400 years difference in time

Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).

[torzio]

Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).

Can you guarantee that halstatt celts circa 1000BC in or near Vienna Austria are the same people as La Tene Swiss celts circa 450BC ?...................more than 500 years apart in time

or you saying.............they both originate near the celtic capital of Glauberg near Frankfurt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

[Northener]

Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).

By the way the two Nijmegen (Central-East Dutch) samples were most probably also La Tene related:

From this paper (google translate):

6.6. Sub-conclusion
There are many similarities between the burials in the Dutchriver area, and those in the Marne-Moselle region. Notable are the position of the body (stretched on the back), the appearance of burial mounds and long beds, the fact that children are underrepresented in the grave file, the presence of double graves and last but not least: the grave goods. The grave goods sets are particularly similar with regard to the jewellery, but the northern French Marne pottery has also been found in the river area.
However, it is also clear that there are differences between the two regions. Certain elements from the Marne-Moselle region do not occur in the Netherlands at all. You will hardly find grave goods made of animal material or glass here. It also applies the other way around: pewter and amber beads are more common here than in northern France. Furthermore, there are no secondary burial rituals in the Netherlands, and the clear northwest orientation – which is almost always used in France – can only be seen in a few cases in the Netherlands.
It seems that the burial ritual in the Dutch river area was indeed influenced by the use in the Marne-Moselle region. It is currently difficult to say whether this was a question of immigrants or takeover by the local population: one does not have to exclude the other. Perhaps this is a mixture of immigration and readmission. Certain elements from northern French usage have been adopted, certain elements have been omitted. Some elements have also been adapted: for example, not all individuals in the river area are laid out stretched out on their backs – others are placed on their stomach or side, for example. In addition, some influences from Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur can also be seen (the use of burial mounds and long beds, and the appearance of certain jewellery).

[Northener]

How much inhabitation was there in the peat area?

By the way, I'm quite sure that Pannonian Bronze Age samples being included and there seem to be a range of clusters ordered like pearls on a necklace. So it should be possible, especially by using older samples, to get an idea of a shift from the Eastern Central European/Pannonian sphere with Urnfield.

On thing is clear as glass the spread of R1b U106 in the North Dutch/ Frisian area-it's nowadays hotspot- already began before the Germanic spread as it was already related to the Tumulus spread!


I guess this shows some "familiarity"
- 2000 BC Jimonice/Unetice (DF98) (proto-Tumulus),
- 1700 BC Oostwoud West-Friesland Elp/ Hoogkarspel(Z381)= Tumulus spread (Elp/Hoogkarspel is Tumulus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture
- 200 BC Uitgeest West-Friesland IA Frisian (Z381/ Z304)

in archeological sense it has some support, not the least by good Bronze Age Archeologists like Prof. Fokkens (Leiden University) or Prof. JJ Butler (University Groningen).


Fokkens and Butler about Elp/Sögel/Tumulus spread.


Harry Fokkens (1998)

The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture represented an immigration of Sögel warriors.

Jay Butler (1986)

3.1. Drouwen and Sögel: the Early Bronze Age

In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex. By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely undisturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together. But, if the Drouwen warrior’s grave goods are exotic, the fact that he was buried there under a monumental tumulus (a recent excavation by J.N. Lanting, in October 1985,has shown that the tumulus was surrounded by a ring-ditch some 30 metres in diameter) argues that in life he must have had local authority.

This was the influx of a Tumulus warrior elite. They were founding for the Elp/Hoogkarspel (=explicit West Friesland) culture. The samples fit in this picture. This was the real Tumulus spread nothing more nothing less.

[Northener]

10 years ago....still foreseeing what is now becoming more and more real?
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...tic-migrations

[kingjohn]

this should be interesting maybe they are based
on the remains from the future british paper


ISOTOPIC AND GENETIC EXPLORATIONS OF CROSS-CHANNEL CONNECTIVITY IN BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE KENT
Madeleine Bleasdale1, Claire-Elise Fischer1, Lindsey Büster1, Jane Evans2, JacquelineMcKinley3, David Reich4, Ian Armit11 University of York, UK2 National Environmental Isotope Facility, British Geological Survey, UK3 Wessex Archaeology, UK4 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, USA

Persistent long-distance networks of connectivity between Britain and the Continent have been evidenced archaeologically through shared aspects of material culture. During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, cross-channel exchanges resulted in the formation of abroad, common cultural entity on both sides of the Channel: the “Manche—Mer du Nord(MMN) complex”. Such interactions persisted during the Iron Age, becoming more visible in the Late Iron Age, when new continental imports (e.g. Mediterranean pottery) reached southern Britain. Lastly, as the Roman provinces expanded, textual sources frequently evoke resources originating from northwestern France and southern Britain.Existing sources demonstrate that, rather than being a barrier, the channel was adynamic maritime axis during the Bronze and Iron Age. Nevertheless, reconstructing the nature of cross-channel interactions remains challenging. In recent years, aDNA has confirmed movements between the Continent and Britain (Fischer et al., 2018), and strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and oxygen (ẟ18O) isotope measurements of tooth enamel have identified potential migrants in southern Britain (McKinley et al., 2014).This paper synthesizes existing and new multi proxy data at a regional-scale, focusing on sites from Kent, including Margetts Pit and Cliffs End Farm. Given its proximity to the Channel, Kent is an important locale for exploring cross-channel connections. Indeed,several individuals from Cliffs End Farm have already yielded isotope measurements demonstrating they spent their childhood outside of Britain. New aDNA analysis targeting individuals from Cliffs End Farm and elsewhere has now identified the continent, and perhaps France as a potential point of origin for incoming individuals.The revaluation of pre-existing data, combined with new analysis demonstrate that Kent was an important crossroads between continental Europe and Britain throughout the Bronze and the Iron Ages. Our study also highlights the strength of multi-proxy approaches for reconstructing the timing and tempo of mobility, and individual life histories.


file:///C:/Users/HP%20PRO/Downloads/abstract_1465.pdf

[MOESAN]

Can you guarantee that halstatt celts circa 1000BC in or near Vienna Austria are the same people as La Tene Swiss celts circa 450BC ?...................more than 500 years apart in time

or you saying.............they both originate near the celtic capital of Glauberg near Frankfurt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

My post was just about origin and spread of the LaTène C.
Surely for more than a reason « Celts » of LaTène were not exactly the same as « Celts » of western Hallstatt. I have just now not enough clues to be sure of anything. La Tène people occupied other places than Hallstatt people, and I said already I thought Hallstatt was impulsed by a partly foreign elite, whose importance drowned progressively later, or was « reduced » by force (?).
But the LaTène settlements, if not the same, has been placed for the most not far from the preceding Hallstatt ones. The economy changed, more based on breeding and with other geographic connexions, and the hierarchy was flattened with « princes » replaced by more numerous chieftains (according to my readigs at least) ; I cannot say more ; these changes did not need by force foreigners from remote places : return to ancient habits, revenge of people clans or cans sets left on the road side when the « ancient new » economy raised before to fall down ?
BTW I’m wondering now if among Barbarians the habits of building huge life centers controlling access routes are not an heritage of the Tells post-Neolithic cultures with wide span hierarchies, when the less hierarchical system reflected a more ancient and more « steppic » stage with kind of more « compressed » warriors elite at the level of social differences ?

[MOESAN]

On thing is clear as glass the spread of R1b U106 in the North Dutch/ Frisian area-it's nowadays hotspot- already began before the Germanic spread as it was already related to the Tumulus spread!


I guess this shows some "familiarity"
- 2000 BC Jimonice/Unetice (DF98) (proto-Tumulus),
- 1700 BC Oostwoud West-Friesland Elp/ Hoogkarspel(Z381)= Tumulus spread (Elp/Hoogkarspel is Tumulus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture
- 200 BC Uitgeest West-Friesland IA Frisian (Z381/ Z304)

in archeological sense it has some support, not the least by good Bronze Age Archeologists like Prof. Fokkens (Leiden University) or Prof. JJ Butler (University Groningen).


Fokkens and Butler about Elp/Sögel/Tumulus spread.


Harry Fokkens (1998)

Jay Butler (1986)

3.1. Drouwen and Sögel: the Early Bronze Age

This was the influx of a Tumulus warrior elite. They were founding for the Elp/Hoogkarspel (=explicit West Friesland) culture. The samples fit in this picture. This was the real Tumulus spread nothing more nothing less.

Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???

[torzio]

My post was just about origin and spread of the LaTène C.
Surely for more than a reason « Celts » of LaTène were not exactly the same as « Celts » of western Hallstatt. I have just now not enough clues to be sure of anything. La Tène people occupied other places than Hallstatt people, and I said already I thought Hallstatt was impulsed by a partly foreign elite, whose importance drowned progressively later, or was « reduced » by force (?).
But the LaTène settlements, if not the same, has been placed for the most not far from the preceding Hallstatt ones. The economy changed, more based on breeding and with other geographic connexions, and the hierarchy was flattened with « princes » replaced by more numerous chieftains (according to my readigs at least) ; I cannot say more ; these changes did not need by force foreigners from remote places : return to ancient habits, revenge of people clans or cans sets left on the road side when the « ancient new » economy raised before to fall down ?
BTW I’m wondering now if among Barbarians the habits of building huge life centers controlling access routes are not an heritage of the Tells post-Neolithic cultures with wide span hierarchies, when the less hierarchical system reflected a more ancient and more « steppic » stage with kind of more « compressed » warriors elite at the level of social differences ?

IMO...........la Tene celts came from france alsace area ......................halstatt celts came from Bavaria and czech lands ....................I doubt they are the exact same ethnicity especially since there is over 400 years of difference between the 2 cultures

We also need to know how many of these celts are associated with the celt capital near frankfurt germany ...that is Glauberg

[kingjohn]

I wonder from where this N sample will come
I20509 N1a1a1a1a1a1a N-CTS8428*(xB189,Y20413,A14018,A917,Y21046,
Britain ? Croatia ? Maybe slovenia
Or somewhere else

[torzio]

I wonder from where this N sample will come
I20509 N1a1a1a1a1a1a N-CTS8428*(xB189,Y20413,A14018,A917,Y21046,
Britain ? Croatia ? Maybe slovenia
Or somewhere else

maybe Croatia as other N ydna have been found in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krk

[kingjohn]

maybe Croatia as other N ydna have been found in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krk

Today it is very rare in modern croatia
Source: wikipedia

Haplogroup's N subclades are rare in Croatia (0.6%-2.2%).[6][8] It is very frequent in the Far East, like Siberia and China, while in Europe in Finns (60%) and in the Baltic countries (45%). Unusually for European populations, another central Asian-Siberian haplogroup P (i.e. Q) was found in unusually high frequencies due to founder effect in the islands of Hvar (14%) and Korčula (6%).[3]

P.s
But maybe it was more present in bronze age time who knows

[bicicleur 2]

Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???

Yes, it would be interesting. What ancient DNA do we have?

We know U106 expanded as early as 4,6 ka, and when checking the distribution map, the conclusion at first sight would be they were proto-Germanic.



But maybe if we would have maps with distributions of the major subclades, we could come to other conclusions.

[Northener]

Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???

There are no Single Grave R1b U106 samples. There are no NW BB R1b U106 samples. So Nordic and IE? Strictly based on the found samples....I guess not.

The earliest R1b U106 sample is from early Corded Ware Bohemia (2900-2800 BC). At that time the Single Grave Culture in the range North Dutch-Jutland appeared (2850 BC).


Egfjord (2021) in his paper about Single Grave:

Based on archaeological indicators, the origin of the SGC migration could point towards central Germany, the Halle region [13], and it must have been substantial and continuous, as the forests disappeared within a few generations. Once the SGC had established their territory in central and western Jutland it seems likely that they expanded into areas possibly still populated by late TRB groups in northern and eastern Jutland, as well as the Danish islands [16].

So when R1b U106 was part of SGC it was Central Europe> Jutland (not the reverse).Halle is core (later on) Unetice.

For the rest we have 1 read R1b U106 from a BB in Augsburg Bavaria (about 2400 BC). And of course Rise98 Lille Beddinge Scania 2000 BC, that's a rare kind of pre kind of subbranche of R1b U106, we only find in places that are very remote of NW Europe.

And the Unetice culture(Prague/Jimonice) sample 2000 BC (DF98), Elp-Hoogkarspel culture (Oostwoud, West Friesland 1700 BC, Z304) and from the paper West Friesland IA ('Aak' Uitgeest 200 BC, Z304). These ones all belong to the subbranches beneath Z156. That's the line Iain mc Donald suspects of belonging to Tumulus spread.

R1b U106 knows a nodus in the old NW block area, it correlates somewhat with the Elp/Tumulus spread around the North Sea. And has also a recognizable spread in Rhine-Main area, more central European area's (more than in Sweden). So even nowadays we can recognize the Tumulus spread.





It's up to you if you call this (proto) Germanic, when you associate the Tumulus folk with the original Germani cisrhenani. Yes imo this is kind of proto Germanic indeed...


Bu I guess this is differentiated from the Jastorf area!

My hypothesis (assumption) is that based on the Celtic paper the samples from Nijmegen, Zeeland and also West-Friesland come genetically (and also in linguistic sense!?) close to the 'original' Germani Cisrhenani.


Wiki:

As for the historicity of Caesar's account of the arrival of the Germani from beyond the Rhine, Wightman (1985) distinguishes two main scenarios:


Arrival in remote prehistory, as early as Urnfield times*, long before the development of Germanic as a separate linguistic phylum, and predating the arrival of the Belgae with the spread of the La Tène Culture after 500 BC.
Derivation of both Belgae and Germani out of the Hunsrück-Eifel culture found near the Moselle river. "The left-bank Germans would then be people who went northward across the Ardennes rather than westwards to the Marne".[1]

* may be already MBA/ Tumulus times!

It is possible that these original Germani on the Lower Rhine were, in modern terminology, Celtic-language speaking, and not Germanic language-speaking. The name Germani in antiquity cannot be assumed to imply linguistic unity, let alone the use of Germanic languages according to the modern definition (Indo-European languages which underwent the first Germanic soundshift).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani


Correspondences with their position in the G25 PCA