More on the Tollensee Valley battle site inc. genetics

The case for a Celtic raid seems quite plausible:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

German and Polish camarades will know more, but if the Lusatian culture is an offshot of Urnfield it's evident that the dates are the same... well, I know Galitzians in Poland would keep a Celtic past, but all Poland and Belarus is a huge expansion.

to you Berun in some way but rather to others too:
Lusacian culture lasted long time; the first launchings seem come from Danube regions, and the cremation certainly from someplace in Hungary; I think it was at first a specific ethny which launched it, surely tied to religion questions; Tumuli tribes in Poland considered as Celtic by someones, not all, (maybe they were Italics stayed close to Y-R1b-U152 Celts) came also from a section of the Danube river, colonized South Bohemia and after that Moravia and parts of Poland just before the 'Lusacian' phenomenon. This last one seems culturally very different from the Tumuli culture concerning death and burying goods and general philosophy, and we can suppose a flesh and blood input preceding what seem having been a very progressive acculturation in Poland (religion + cultural-economic superiority?). I find a bit unprecise these maps showing Lusacian culture allover Poland, BTW.
It seems this alternance of colonisation + acculturation was the rule for Urnfield period (same in baviera, same in Untrut/Liechtenstein): newcomers, contacts, neighbouring and exchanges, not without problems (strong places in high places, densification of population in several countries). The Urnfields and associated Lusacian question could explain, added to the poor value of DNA data, the relatively great variance among these WEZ 'fellows or among one party at least; and a first origin in Hungary among pre-I-E people/pre-Steppes pople could explain too the relative height of EEF percentage in admixture, if reliable. Let's notice the admixtures %'s are very variable, what could check contacts and acculturation. First Urnfields dudes were maybe not I-E speakers (why not a Rhaetic/Etruscan languages, for the fun?); spite this, in Poland it seems the Lusacian territory contained a lot of considered "Illyrian" toponyms (H. Hubert); question: true cremators newcomers or preceding Tumuli? True Illyrian language? at H. Hubert time the whole Illyrium was considered united; in fact it could rather be some Dalmatian/ Liburnian pan-Italic languages (akin to Venetian, and not far to some Osco-Umbrian?) and it could check other links already found in archeology.
My post could seem a bit out of topic, but this period was so complicated and some old scholars used so generalizating labellings... Maybe all what we are saying now will be debunked by deeper auDNA analysis, if samples permit it? But I think we are not dealing here with proto-Slavs, maybe not more with proto-Germanics, and if strontium doesn't lie, someones were coming from South if not Mediterranea! Surely two sides, whatever the mean distance between them! So some differences between them, spite the within variance.
I don't put a penny on some of my hypothesis, just for the fun, but who knows?
 
When I write archeology I think into the assimilated Urnfields and proto-Villanovian cultures in Italy and the following Etruscan cultures and their questionings. In Bavaria they spoke of "foreign cultures" speaking about new settlements of Urnfields aspects at the vicinity of preceding Tumuli ones. Some cultural links between Villanovian and Bohemia/Silesian Urnfields according to some scholars. The typical Etruscan ashes urns seem a later evolution, specific. The link that makes Maciamo between R-U152 and I2a2 is interesting too and could be a result of this turnover period; northwestwards Y-I2a2/EEFized from Hungary and S-Poland, maybe pushed by some Y-J2 and Y-E-V13, with cremation, going in touch with northeastwards I-Ean Y-R-U152 eastern Celts and/or Italics? But here I'm going far from the very topic.
 
to you Berun in some way but rather to others too:
Lusacian culture lasted long time; the first launchings seem come from Danube regions, and the cremation certainly from someplace in Hungary; I think it was at first a specific ethny which launched it, surely tied to religion questions; Tumuli tribes in Poland considered as Celtic by someones, not all, (maybe they were Italics stayed close to Y-R1b-U152 Celts) came also from a section of the Danube river, colonized South Bohemia and after that Moravia and parts of Poland just before the 'Lusacian' phenomenon. This last one seems culturally very different from the Tumuli culture concerning death and burying goods and general philosophy, and we can suppose a flesh and blood input preceding what seem having been a very progressive acculturation in Poland (religion + cultural-economic superiority?). I find a bit unprecise these maps showing Lusacian culture allover Poland, BTW.
It seems this alternance of colonisation + acculturation was the rule for Urnfield period (same in baviera, same in Untrut/Liechtenstein): newcomers, contacts, neighbouring and exchanges, not without problems (strong places in high places, densification of population in several countries). The Urnfields and associated Lusacian question could explain, added to the poor value of DNA data, the relatively great variance among these WEZ 'fellows or among one party at least; and a first origin in Hungary among pre-I-E people/pre-Steppes pople could explain too the relative height of EEF percentage in admixture, if reliable. Let's notice the admixtures %'s are very variable, what could check contacts and acculturation. First Urnfields dudes were maybe not I-E speakers (why not a Rhaetic/Etruscan languages, for the fun?); spite this, in Poland it seems the Lusacian territory contained a lot of considered "Illyrian" toponyms (H. Hubert); question: true cremators newcomers or preceding Tumuli? True Illyrian language? at H. Hubert time the whole Illyrium was considered united; in fact it could rather be some Dalmatian/ Liburnian pan-Italic languages (akin to Venetian, and not far to some Osco-Umbrian?) and it could check other links already found in archeology.
My post could seem a bit out of topic, but this period was so complicated and some old scholars used so generalizating labellings... Maybe all what we are saying now will be debunked by deeper auDNA analysis, if samples permit it? But I think we are not dealing here with proto-Slavs, maybe not more with proto-Germanics, and if strontium doesn't lie, someones were coming from South if not Mediterranea! Surely two sides, whatever the mean distance between them! So some differences between them, spite the within variance.
I don't put a penny on some of my hypothesis, just for the fun, but who knows?

Your are heading down the path of Gimbatus ..........which is what I also support in regards to lusatian, illyrian, venetic, liburnian and the rest that you mentioned ............she was correct on yamnya as well ......................but maybe her "first wave" of migration was a bit off
 
Your are heading down the path of Gimbatus ..........which is what I also support in regards to lusatian, illyrian, venetic, liburnian and the rest that you mentioned ............she was correct on yamnya as well ......................but maybe her "first wave" of migration was a bit off

Perhaps. But I avow I never red entirely Gimbutas (shame!), rather I red others opinion about her work.
 
to you Berun in some way but rather to others too:
Lusacian culture lasted long time; the first launchings seem come from Danube regions, and the cremation certainly from someplace in Hungary; I think it was at first a specific ethny which launched it, surely tied to religion questions; Tumuli tribes in Poland considered as Celtic by someones, not all, (maybe they were Italics stayed close to Y-R1b-U152 Celts) came also from a section of the Danube river, colonized South Bohemia and after that Moravia and parts of Poland just before the 'Lusacian' phenomenon. This last one seems culturally very different from the Tumuli culture concerning death and burying goods and general philosophy, and we can suppose a flesh and blood input preceding what seem having been a very progressive acculturation in Poland (religion + cultural-economic superiority?). I find a bit unprecise these maps showing Lusacian culture allover Poland, BTW.
It seems this alternance of colonisation + acculturation was the rule for Urnfield period (same in baviera, same in Untrut/Liechtenstein): newcomers, contacts, neighbouring and exchanges, not without problems (strong places in high places, densification of population in several countries). The Urnfields and associated Lusacian question could explain, added to the poor value of DNA data, the relatively great variance among these WEZ 'fellows or among one party at least; and a first origin in Hungary among pre-I-E people/pre-Steppes pople could explain too the relative height of EEF percentage in admixture, if reliable. Let's notice the admixtures %'s are very variable, what could check contacts and acculturation. First Urnfields dudes were maybe not I-E speakers (why not a Rhaetic/Etruscan languages, for the fun?); spite this, in Poland it seems the Lusacian territory contained a lot of considered "Illyrian" toponyms (H. Hubert); question: true cremators newcomers or preceding Tumuli? True Illyrian language? at H. Hubert time the whole Illyrium was considered united; in fact it could rather be some Dalmatian/ Liburnian pan-Italic languages (akin to Venetian, and not far to some Osco-Umbrian?) and it could check other links already found in archeology.
My post could seem a bit out of topic, but this period was so complicated and some old scholars used so generalizating labellings... Maybe all what we are saying now will be debunked by deeper auDNA analysis, if samples permit it? But I think we are not dealing here with proto-Slavs, maybe not more with proto-Germanics, and if strontium doesn't lie, someones were coming from South if not Mediterranea! Surely two sides, whatever the mean distance between them! So some differences between them, spite the within variance.
I don't put a penny on some of my hypothesis, just for the fun, but who knows?
Check post 71 and 72, you might like it. :)
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...genetics/page3?p=522534&viewfull=1#post522534
 

Yes, very interesting approach. When I wrote my "narratives", I had not red all the posts about it, and was prompted by the possible link made by Berun between Celts and Urnfields as a whole, what I believe untrue. I added some personal speculations in answer to a southern hypothesis concerning one of both sides, but knowing all that could be a "castle made of cards" (french saying?) for the DNA sample (genes) seems very poor, qualitatively. It was a way to me to express some thoughts about the Urnfields and Lusacian period, at this stage closer to "feminine intuition" than to scientific based conclusions! I hope I had not corrupted the topic.
Just a remark: at the present stage of knowledge we can neither affirm nor confirm the buried people here were of same ethny (or of two different ethnies, geographic distance here cannot prove or disprove ethnic diversity: ethnic differences could have grown among genetically relatively close pops, I think, and frontiers can be threadlike and not broad bands of land sometimes.
I like your approach here, ATW, I repeat.
 
Yes, very interesting approach. When I wrote my "narratives", I had not red all the posts about it, and was prompted by the possible link made by Berun between Celts and Urnfields as a whole, what I believe untrue. I added some personal speculations in answer to a southern hypothesis concerning one of both sides, but knowing all that could be a "castle made of cards" (french saying?) for the DNA sample (genes) seems very poor, qualitatively. It was a way to me to express some thoughts about the Urnfields and Lusacian period, at this stage closer to "feminine intuition" than to scientific based conclusions! I hope I had not corrupted the topic.
Just a remark: at the present stage of knowledge we can neither affirm nor confirm the buried people here were of same ethny (or of two different ethnies, geographic distance here cannot prove or disprove ethnic diversity: ethnic differences could have grown among genetically relatively close pops, I think, and frontiers can be threadlike and not broad bands of land sometimes.
I like your approach here, ATW, I repeat.


Also for what it's worth..... Still puzzling about the connection with 'Lusatian' Halberstadt, Halberstadt LBA I0099 , there is a connection with (modern) NW Germans. Most NW Germans plot close to Halberstadt.

Meant the battle a kind of breakthrough?


qowdpika7hlzj.png





At the Tollense battle time we see, in this picture, the battle area in blue. And Halberstadt in green, in German called Saalemundungsgruppe.


Was the Tollense battle sign of an upcoming Urnfield culture?
 
This was certainly one of the first Amber road of history, so its economic purpose is completely in topic i believe.

I doubt it, Amber most likely had zero economic value to these cultures. When the Romans first contacted the Germanic people they described how they had no use for amber and were surprised that the Romans found it valuable. In fact in the Germania it even says the Germans didnt have a name for Amber until the Romans appeared "In truth it lay long neglected amongst the other gross discharges of the sea; till from our luxury, it gained a name and value."

The area did have a causeway from Neolithic times so we can be sure that this spot had been important for a long period, but it's more likely it was simply a connection between Northern and Central Europe through the swampy marshlands.

Yes, very interesting approach. When I wrote my "narratives", I had not red all the posts about it, and was prompted by the possible link made by Berun between Celts and Urnfields as a whole, what I believe untrue. I added some personal speculations in answer to a southern hypothesis concerning one of both sides, but knowing all that could be a "castle made of cards" (french saying?) for the DNA sample (genes) seems very poor, qualitatively. It was a way to me to express some thoughts about the Urnfields and Lusacian period, at this stage closer to "feminine intuition" than to scientific based conclusions! I hope I had not corrupted the topic.
Just a remark: at the present stage of knowledge we can neither affirm nor confirm the buried people here were of same ethny (or of two different ethnies, geographic distance here cannot prove or disprove ethnic diversity: ethnic differences could have grown among genetically relatively close pops, I think, and frontiers can be threadlike and not broad bands of land sometimes.
I like your approach here, ATW, I repeat.

Even if they were not genetically distinct I still believe the potential for separate ethnicities is there. Isotopic analysis points to the Czech Republic as the origin of one group so they were living over 500km away from the battlefield, not local in any geographical respect for that time period. They also had very different diets, it's likely the invading group was composed of people who focused on farming and livestock while the native one was a maritime people who were fishermen and perhaps even sailors. Simply the differences between their occupations and how they sustained themselves in their respective environments could have lead to major cultural difference for a group of people who may have been related at one point.
 
different places of life don't prove difference of ethny, close places of life don't prove same ethny - and same ethny tribes can fight one against the other (helas) -
I wait more but I 'm tempted to think there were here two different ethnies. Let's wait more.
 
different places of life don't prove difference of ethny, close places of life don't prove same ethny - and same ethny tribes can fight one against the other (helas) -
I wait more but I 'm tempted to think there were here two different ethnies. Let's wait more.

I agree. Given how bad the samples are, I wouldn't be certain of anything in terms of the genetics.
 
It's better to have a major perspective, even if DNA is low quality it provides two groups, isotopes point to southern warriors, archaeology says that by such time Urnfield was in an expansive phase... and surely the typology of weapons would show novelties.
 
I really don't see how anyone who is trying to be objective could find fault with this analysis. As I've said ad nauseam, be careful where you place your trust.

"
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Generalissimo It's not a matter of opinion. You're simply wrong.



Michal: No, it is you who is apparently wrong here. SHG is not the same as WHG, and what makes WEZ different from any other Bronze Age or modern population is a much more significant drift shared with WHG rather than with EHG, so it is obvious that SHG (ie. a mixture of WHG and EHG) cannot fully replace WHG in such an analysis. Of course I understand that you deliberately omitted some of those important ancient samples (like WHG) in your PCA in order to find some less evident (or minor) drifts that might help us distinguish between the two parties fighting each other at Tollense, but this shouldn't make us forget about the close relationship between these two subpopulations, which of course makes that putative Slavic-shifted subgroup extremely unlikely to represent any Proto-Slavs (or Pre-Proto-Slavs), but rather a substratum for both some Germanic and West Slavic groupings.

F3_WEZ_a.png


The PCA shown below clearly demonstrates that when compared to modern Central European populations, WEZ is shifted towards WGH, not towards SHG. Also, it confirms what Christian Sell wrote in his dissertation about the relationship between the two parties involved in the conflict, namely that "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 Germany."

PCA_WEZ.png



quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Generalissimo
Read these posts by Matt. They might be useful.



Actually, his posts show that he is perfectly aware of those fundamental differences that make WEZ distinct from all modern populations in Central Europe. He never stated that WEZ (either as a whole or as any of the two hypothetical major subgroupings) does not share significantly more drift with WHG than any other known Bronze Age or modern population. And based of what you have written in your Eurogenes blog, it is obvious that you are also perfectly aware of that shared drift with WHG that makes WEZ different from any modern Slavic population. All this clearly demonstrates that if Welzin contributed to any Slavic populations, this was 1) a very minor contribution (as it was unable to preserve that apparent shift towards WHG), and 2) it could have significantly affected only some West-Slavic and South-West Slavic populations (including mostly the Czechs and Slovenians, both strongly admixed with the neighboring Austrians/Germans, not to mention a potential Germanic/non-Slavic substratum from the Great Migration period), so it could not have anything to do with the hypothetical Proto-Slavs (who are, BTW, extremely unlikely to have expanded from Bohemia, Pannonia or Illyria)."



quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Generalissimo
It looks to me that about half of the Welzin_BA set came from a population that was directly ancestral to Western Slavs.



What do you mean by "directly" in this particular case? Are you suggesting that the Welzin subpopulation was able to survive in a practically unchanged form until the Great Migration period and then contributed to the incoming Western and South-Western Slavs? This scenario would be of course inconsistent with the archaeology (showing an apparent expansion of the Jastorf-derived groupings which correlates with the appearance of the very well attested Germanic tribes, like the Suebi, Marcommani, Quadi, Burgundi and Longobardi (not to mention the slightly more controversial Vandali and Rugii), so it seems much more likely that those Welzin (or Welzin-like) people were at some point (probably around 500-300 BC) overrun and assimilated by the Germanic people whose remnants could have been later included in the arriving Slavic groupings. Thus, we should rather speak about a situation in which Welzin DNA was transmitted by the Germanic people from whom this DNA was eventually received by the Slavs.

In case you suggest that the Western Slavs have already lived in Central Europe (and more specifically in Bohemia and Slovenia) at about that time (ie. about 3000 ya), then this doesn't make any sense at all (and is strongly contradicted by archaeology, linguistics and genetics).




quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Generalissimo
I don't expect this to be confirmed just with more genome-wide DNA, but also with mtDNA lineages and, if we get enough samples, Y-DNA.



Any ancient mtDNA data are very unlikely to help us verify a hypothesis that is supposed to explain such relatively recent processes in a region (Central Europe) that shows no clear geographical divisions between particular mtDNA haplogroups/subclades.

Ancient Y-DNA may definitely help us verify your hypothesis, but only after we agree that finding the typically Slavic/Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a (like M458, CTS1211 and Z92, together representing nearly 100% of all Balto-Slavic R1a) will support either Balto-Slavic or (Pre-)Proto-Slavic identity of that specific Welzin subgrouping, while finding only some other haplogroups/subclades will make your scenario extremely unlikely.



quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Generalissimo
But if no typically Western Slavic Y-DNA lineages are found in the Welzin_BA set, even with, say, 100 samples, then this of course won't mean that there's no paternal relationship between Western Slavs and Welzin_BA. It could mean that the founder effects that characterize modern Western Slavic Y-DNA happened later and elsewhere than Western Pomerania.



This seems indeed quite likely, although I would like to see the results of the IBD analysis (or the haplotype-based affinity test, like that performed for BR2) that would additionally support this particular scenario, but this would require having ancient DNA of much better quality.
 
Probably too damaged genomes. In another case Genetiker would publish it:)
 
Good observation, the green share in CW and Unetice only is keept by 3 Tolenseans... population replacement????
 
Good observation, the green share in CW and Unetice only is keept by 3 Tolenseans... population replacement????

the teal CHG like component seems to be present in all published BA European samples published till today, except in most of these Tollense warriors
well, in all BA Europeans except some of the Nordic BA
in present day populations this component seems lacking in Karelian, Finnish and Baltic people, even in 1 of the 2 Swedes

I would say at least some Nordic BA people were in this battle
it would be interesting to compare the DNA with the isotope study for each individual here
 
or their origin was somewhere without teal by then: Balkans? North Italy?
 
or their origin was somewhere without teal by then: Balkans? North Italy?
Did you miss the part of discussion, where it was said many times, that these samples are very bad quality?
 

This thread has been viewed 60226 times.

Back
Top