Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So Italians are really Dutchies ������
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.
Interesting fact Johen is that the people of Sögel-Wohlde spoke most probably Italo-Celtic. This is elaborated by the linguist prof Kuzmenko (2011).
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!?
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
This thread has been viewed 24675 times.