Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Euro

I6222 (the Afanasievo sample in question) is positive for three SNPs in the R1b-P310 block, as well as several other SNPs, both upstream and downstream, making the call phylogenetically consistent. Some of these SNPs are ancestral to L52, but I believe L52 itself was actually a no call. Moreover, L52 is in the P310 phylogenetic equivalent block. So I6222 is simply R1b-P310*. Now the odds of a modern male contaminating I6222 with P310*, but not L151, P312, or even L52, are nil, almost impossible, but as you know, we shouldn’t expect anything less from him. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he already shifting the goal posts? I believe he’s now trying to argue that the R1b-P297 lines found in Mesolithic Baltic HGs, are directly ancestral to the R1b-M269 lineages found in WSHs. Furthermore, he seems to think that these P297 lineages somehow came from Iberian WHGs, despite the fact both P and R were found in Upper Paleolithic, ANE/ANS samples from North Asia. You’d think the earliest, European hunter gatherer populations to have ANE, would be those closest to Central and North Asia, and not those located all the way in Iberia or France. Well wouldn’t you know it? We just so happen to have such a population, EHGs, and it turns out that Mesolithic Baltic HGs have a sizable amount of ANE/EHG admixture. They also have Q1b, another P derived lineage; Q1a1 was carried by Afontova Gora 2. Now we have R1a-M417, R1b-M269, and Q1b, all together in early Bohemian CW (all three were found together in Eneolithic Khvalynsk as well). Another steppe lineage R1b-V1636, was found in a WSH admixed individual from the SGC. The SGC was an offshoot of the CWC. Man..I’m not a professional population geneticist or anything, but you’d think certain people would eventually get it.
 
So Italians are really Dutchies ������


From the EBA Unetician/Danubian cultures there is a part that went to the North Sea Coast and a part that went to the Po Valley.

See this lecture, from about 6:45 for the Polada/ Po Valley EBA culture:


The Hungarian bride and the chieftain
What makes it plausible that this also happened towards the North Sea area? For that I first go to 'two prominent people' from the Sögel-Wohlde area: the 'Hungarian bride of Fallingbostel' (Fallingbostel is located in the Lüneburg Heath) and the 'chieftain of Drouwen'.


In a concise publication about Sögel-Wohlde by Ernst Probst (2011) we encounter the 'Hungarian bride of Fallingbostel' in full regalia:



This costume can be directly related to the costume of the middle Danubian/ Gata-Wieselburgculture (Probst: 'in niederösterreichisch-westungarischer Tracht').


Golden spiral rings
The 'chieftain of Drouwen' in Drenthe/North Dutch is buried in the most important grave of the Sögel-Wohlde culture. This considerableness is underlined by the presence of two gold:

spiral rings. And yes….'In Northern Italy, two small gold wire spiral rings were found in an EBA fossa grave cemetery near Verona, at Gazzo Veronese'.


The resemblance is striking (see spiral ring at the top):

https://journals.openedition.org/archeosciences/2066
 
Last edited:
Nørgaard (2021) the LNBA connection in three clear pictures.


Network of goods, ideas and people!?










https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bronze-age-scandinavias-trading-networks-copper-north-nørgaard-phd/


Jockenhövel (2013) in words:
In Germany, as an integral part of central Europe, there are numerous cultural manifestations in the EBA, which, although having their own regionally specific character, when taken average rich single graves and their associated together show distinct common features. These are evi- dent in the appearance of above-votive depositions and hoards with new kinds of ceremonial weapons, such as solid-hilted daggers (Vollgriffdolche) and halberds, as well as various kinds of axe. From this it can be inferred that around 2000–1800 bc a leading social group (‘chieftains’) emerged, in farming communities that stretched from the lower Danube to southern Scandinavia, the south of England (Wessex culture), and Brittany, and were in close contact with one another. Their common features are evident not only on the physical level, as seen cross-regionally in very similar object forms and burial rites, but also in the spread of new technologies, like the introduction of tin-bronze, and the advent of complex metalworking techniques. EBA cultural groups are like ‘islands’ in central Europe, particularly near important deposits of copper, tin, and salt. Between these ‘islands’ are wide stretches of land that still continued in the Late Neolithic tradition. The most distinctive culture group is the Aunjetitz or Únětice culture (named after Únětice near Prague) (2300–2200 to 1600–1500 bc). Of more than just regional significance, this culture spreads from the middle Danube (south-west Slovakia, northern Lower Austria) across Moravia and Bohemia to central Germany,


The Sögel-Wohlde culture leads to a distinct cultural development that spreads from the eastern lowlands across Westphalia to Jutland. It is characterized particularly by inhumations in burial mounds and at this stage—unlike the contemporaneous Tumulus culture of central Europe—is only known from male graves. They are identified by their grave goods: short swords or daggers, flanged axes, heart-shaped flint arrowheads, pins, and occasionally small rings formed of spirally wound gold wire.
The Rastorf (east Holstein) burial mound, raised over a megalithic grave, represents a short-lived development at the start of the Nordic Bronze Age. The oldest male grave with its triangular dagger belongs to the EBA; above it there is an early solid-hilted sword (of Sögel or Apa type); the latest burial contains a Wohlde short sword.
 
@kingjohn your post # 6
Thanks for sharing; could you precise me - if possible - the places, cultures and times of these files, I can't find them; Thanks in advance, and sorry for disturbing you.
 
@kingjohn your post # 6
Thanks for sharing; could you precise me - if possible - the places, cultures and times of these files, I can't find them; Thanks in advance, and sorry for disturbing you.


go to
supplementary Materials:

other supplementary material for this manu - script includes the following :
Table S1 to S37

press- Download
:cool-v:

go to table S3
:)

you will see the site of each ancient sample


 
Interesting fact Johen is that the people of Sögel-Wohlde spoke most probably Italo-Celtic. This is elaborated by the linguist prof Kuzmenko (2011).

I'm a bit surprised (not too much, in fact). I had read the Alt-Europäisch could have ties with an IE dialect of Rhaetia (as a challenger to the Etruscanlike Rhaetian) and maybe even with eastern Venetic, all pushed by some scholars into the bag of a Pan-Italic group. But I rather would place the very Italic neat individualisation around East Austria-Croatia around Urnfield times where numerous contacts seem having found place, involving more southeastern ethnies of Hungary and Noerthern Balkans. That doesn't exclude the conservationof first tight links with other Pan-Italic dialects and people, in fact, still close enough to other western primitive IE dialects (post-BB heritage). Languages do'nt differentiate abruptly but step by step, and surely some common evolutions took place before intermediary close dialects died, evolutions shared by what would be true Italic a bit later.

Concerning the early CWC of Bohemia rich in Y-R1b-L151, I should guess they were rather on the U-106 side than the P-312 one, what don't exclude some P-312. I wait for more legible downstream SNP's in this region and elsewhere for this period. P312-U152-L2 could also be considered there as a peripheric (marginal?) remnant of the bulk of P312 which evolved later in the BB's sphere. But I can be mistaken.
I hope we 'll have more Sögel-Wohlde Y-haplos. To date, I suppose the R1b-L51 there were rather on the U106 side. Wait and see.
concerning BB's, no problem, since a long time I think that they were also of Steppic origin, or soon "steppicised" and that they adopted the BB's artefacts and incorporated them in their network.
As you know, I try to draw a global figure and not to drown myself in a cosmos of too local archeological cultures, separated by few and little.
 
When "R1b U106 data-analist" Iain mc Donald is right that, based on the paper of the topic, then the starburst of R1b U106 is in the -extended- Unetice area.
The early Corded Ware Czech R1b U106 comes, according to Iain, close to the 'proband' c.q. the first R1b U106.


Besides that he states:



Imo you can add a 'nordic' Rb U106 line like Z18 to it. The current TMRCA of Z18 is 1700 BC.


https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/


In the line North Dutch-NW Germany-Jutland, we see in EBA (1800-1600 BC) a distinctive culture called Sögel-Wohlde. This culture stood at the start of the Nordic Bronze Age.


Renowned Bronze Age archeologist like Prof H. Fokkens (University Leiden) and former Prof J.J. Butler (University Groningen) see this as a result of EBA immigrants. Prominent examples are: the "chieftain of Drouwen" (Drenthe/ North Dutch) and the "Hungarian bride of Fallingbostel" (Heidekreis/ Lower Saxony).


The (battle) gear of this people is pointing strictly at the middle Danubian area.


I guess it's a real scenario (mark: scenario) that R1b U106 was 'brought in' by these people!?

independantly of my to come answer in the Brtiain BA/IA thread, spite all these threads are linked, I give here my opinion for what it's worth.
the peri-Unetice origin of Y-R-U106 doesn't seem stupid at all - I' have not enough data to judge it seriously - but what makes me to think like that is I saw the origin of this clade in Northern Europe, between south Baltic and Central Europe mountains, based on a strong density of Y-R-L11 there todate; it's true it's not a firm proof but, time has run away... The injection of more "northeastern" auDNA in the Unetice people (heterogenous culture BTW) could check this, even if we could also put it on the account of some Y-I2a(2)? IMO it's not Czechia but rather a region between East-Germany and western Poland which were the original place of first increase of U106.
Concerning Tumuli, I have hard work to believe these cultures were still an uniform culture and ethny at BA; they have interactions but were distinct: several archeologic "provinces" were detected at the beginning of BA and even before, more interestingly, perdured in Urnfield times.
Just my interpretations.
 
about Sögel & Cy, if not Germanic, it would be easily proto-Germanic, because what kind of language can Germanic be born by? Not the CWC language for me, but as is proposed by more than one, rather a dialect son of this alt-europäisch with panitalic ties which seem having rovering from Tyrol to Benelux at ancient times; it could explain the common traits seen by some linguists between Italic and Germanic, before the contacts of Germanic with Celtic.
&: why not CWC language: because the Y-R1a present in Scandinavia - and I suppose they are a set of the CWC Y-R1a - seem having been pushed northwards and northwestwards in Norway by newcomers of South: N-West BB's descendants and SGC descendants, mingled or not at first, and with maybe a different centers of gravity (some 'dinaric' input in western Jutland (not sure but more brachy's todate at least) and in Western Norway); I read a range of numerous big tumuli traced the route of the incomers in Sweden, but I don't know what archeologic traits they had: unifoorm or variated?
 
it could explain the common traits seen by some linguists between Italic and Germanic, before the contacts of Germanic with Celtic.

Oh! These linguists are to young to have lived then! It's the common traits which are supposed to date to before Germanic-Celtic contacts,
 
about Sögel & Cy, if not Germanic, it would be easily proto-Germanic, because what kind of language can Germanic be born by? Not the CWC language for me, but as is proposed by more than one, rather a dialect son of this alt-europäisch with panitalic ties which seem having rovering from Tyrol to Benelux at ancient times; it could explain the common traits seen by some linguists between Italic and Germanic, before the contacts of Germanic with Celtic.
&: why not CWC language: because the Y-R1a present in Scandinavia - and I suppose they are a set of the CWC Y-R1a - seem having been pushed northwards and northwestwards in Norway by newcomers of South: N-West BB's descendants and SGC descendants, mingled or not at first, and with maybe a different centers of gravity (some 'dinaric' input in western Jutland (not sure but more brachy's todate at least) and in Western Norway); I read a range of numerous big tumuli traced the route of the incomers in Sweden, but I don't know what archeologic traits they had: unifoorm or variated?


Thanks Moesan! I'm always kind of skeptical with respect to "the timing" of pre-historic languages, in fact we don't have solid ground (no single source!). Of course we have our computer models, nevertheless this stays "surrogate". So much room for projections.;)

Basically we could see a difference between a Nordwestblock around the Southern North Sea, especially between Rhine and Weser. Versus the Jastorf area on the lower Elbe, and mouth of it above Hamburg. The last one could be the area were (proto-) Germanic (with the Grimm's law etc) has developed. The Nordwestblock could be related to related language but when (proto) Germanic developed around the lower Elbe, the world between Rhine and Weser, was naturally much more related to the Celtic world, the Weser for example flows through Hessen, the Glauberg! Not to mention the Rhine, the Rhine-Main area etc. Besides that the Hallstatt/La Tene area's were more developed compared to more perifere Northern regions.

No wonder that old Frisian and English (languages after migration time) can be seen as Germanic with a strong Celtic substrate...
 
We are in a bit of fog here, it's true (no texts) - if I risked a bet, I would say they was a gradiant between Lower Rhine (rather South) more BB-like and the Elbe region more CWC-like at first; between Weser and Denmark, a bit later could be arrived a new group, more on Y-R1b-U106, speaking an equally not-CWC dialect (CWC could have had some 'satemlike' features?) to add to former mix; always a gradiant, but less-BBlike; on this new layer, the peri-Weser people didn't participate to the Germanic last shift, when the peri-Elb ones and people north of them parcticipated in this shift. ATW Celtic in my mind appeared more southernly, maybe more southwest.
Wait and see, as often!
 
We are in a bit of fog here, it's true (no texts) - if I risked a bet, I would say they was a gradiant between Lower Rhine (rather South) more BB-like and the Elbe region more CWC-like at first; between Weser and Denmark, a bit later could be arrived a new group, more on Y-R1b-U106, speaking an equally not-CWC dialect (CWC could have had some 'satemlike' features?) to add to former mix; always a gradiant, but less-BBlike; on this new layer, the peri-Weser people didn't participate to the Germanic last shift, when the peri-Elb ones and people north of them parcticipated in this shift. ATW Celtic in my mind appeared more southernly, maybe more southwest.
Wait and see, as often!

That's waiting for Godot Moesan :)

With regard to the language we get in this case never clearness, the way you described it could well be the case indeed. Nevertheless thake in account that the Rhine and Weser were the ancient highways of that period that connected them with Southwest Germany! The ancient tin-way, over 'road' between the Isles and Central Europe was also a connection. The world above the Elbe had a more NE wards orientation.

This is as close as we speculative can get. Of course archeology plays a part and nowadays genetics too. Movement and influx of people also had language consequences of course. The Tumulus line of R1b U106 is thin, but it's there....So indeed wait and see if these connection gets "thicker" in the next few years.
 
@Northerner
The Hessen tribes of this window of time could have been from stock of Celtic or to proto-Celtic, or Northwest Block of some sort.
+ THey could have passed more cultural traits than demic ones to the N-W Netherlands and periphery.
The uncertain ethnic (at least linguistic) nature of certain Belgae tribes shows it's difficult ot have certainty about details.
We have just some intrication of diverse ethnies with some more distinct dominances here and there. some "in between" dialects ware faded out.
What is still there is that Celts, even at BA, had more "EEF" when they passed to Britain (Ireland is apart here) and for me it shows a more central Europe position of departure for first well developped Celtic people. Even if this "EEF" is maybe not only the effect of demic Celtic input in Britain.
I have exposed my present maybe shortlasting beliefs, nothing more, so I stop here waiting for more ancient data.
Goede nacht, "oude vriend".
 
I'm a bit surprised (not too much, in fact). I had read the Alt-Europäisch could have ties with an IE dialect of Rhaetia (as a challenger to the Etruscanlike Rhaetian) and maybe even with eastern Venetic, all pushed by some scholars into the bag of a Pan-Italic group. But I rather would place the very Italic neat individualisation around East Austria-Croatia around Urnfield times where numerous contacts seem having found place, involving more southeastern ethnies of Hungary and Noerthern Balkans. That doesn't exclude the conservationof first tight links with other Pan-Italic dialects and people, in fact, still close enough to other western primitive IE dialects (post-BB heritage). Languages do'nt differentiate abruptly but step by step, and surely some common evolutions took place before intermediary close dialects died, evolutions shared by what would be true Italic a bit later.

Concerning the early CWC of Bohemia rich in Y-R1b-L151, I should guess they were rather on the U-106 side than the P-312 one, what don't exclude some P-312. I wait for more legible downstream SNP's in this region and elsewhere for this period. P312-U152-L2 could also be considered there as a peripheric (marginal?) remnant of the bulk of P312 which evolved later in the BB's sphere. But I can be mistaken.
I hope we 'll have more Sögel-Wohlde Y-haplos. To date, I suppose the R1b-L51 there were rather on the U106 side. Wait and see.
concerning BB's, no problem, since a long time I think that they were also of Steppic origin, or soon "steppicised" and that they adopted the BB's artefacts and incorporated them in their network.
As you know, I try to draw a global figure and not to drown myself in a cosmos of too local archeological cultures, separated by few and little.


https://www.academia.edu/44684416/Raetic
 
Thanks, Torzio.
I 'll read this paper, but what is the goal? To affirm Rhaetic was a Tyrsenian language?
THis is accepted since long ago. But some scholars (based on toponymy?) think there was an other languages spoken on their territory (just before the Etruscanlike?) badly understood but whose imprecise I-E affiliation (some rare ties with Venetic other with Germanic) which could evok the famous Northwest Block and some kind of meta-Italic.
When I said "challenger" it was meaning challenger as competing for some bits of territory, not challenger as replacing the origin proposed for the better known forms of Rhaetic?
ATW I'm going to read your paper.
 
go to
supplementary Materials:

other supplementary material for this manu - script includes the following :
Table S1 to S37

press- Download
:cool-v:

go to table S3
:)

you will see the site of each ancient sample




I thank you, but the link didn't work with me.
 
Thanks, Torzio.
I 'll read this paper, but what is the goal? To affirm Rhaetic was a Tyrsenian language?
THis is accepted since long ago. But some scholars (based on toponymy?) think there was an other languages spoken on their territory (just before the Etruscanlike?) badly understood but whose imprecise I-E affiliation (some rare ties with Venetic other with Germanic) which could evok the famous Northwest Block and some kind of meta-Italic.
When I said "challenger" it was meaning challenger as competing for some bits of territory, not challenger as replacing the origin proposed for the better known forms of Rhaetic?
ATW I'm going to read your paper.


read this one ............it is more accurate and they update twice a year

https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/The_Raetic_language

also use the contents area on the left side
 
Thanks, Torzio.
But it doesn't answer the questioning of some linguists concerning the cohabitation of languages on their territory.
INteresting all the way.
 

This thread has been viewed 24515 times.

Back
Top