Olalde (2018), Unetice and the founder effect in NW Europe

Northener

Elite member
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
522
Points
113
Location
Groningen
Ethnic group
NW Euro
Y-DNA haplogroup
E1b1b/ E-V22
In the final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe is one of the new samples was an R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC.


IMO it's a proof that Maciamo got a right clue:
The principal Proto-Germanic branch of the Indo-European family tree is R1b-S21 (a.k.a. U106 or M405). This haplogroup is found at high concentrations in the Netherlands and north-west Germany. It is likely that R1b-S21 lineages expanded in this region through a founder effect during the Unetice period, then penetrated into Scandinavia around 1700 BCE (probably alongside R1a-L664), thus creating a new culture, that of the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BCE). R1b-S21 would then have blended for more than a millennium with preexisting Scandinavian populations, represented by haplogroups I1, I2-L801, R1a-Z284. When the Germanic Iron Age started c. 500 BCE, the Scandinavian population had developed a truly Germanic culture and language, but was divided in many tribes with varying levels of each haplogroup. R1b-S21 became the dominant haplogroup among the West Germanic tribes, but remained in the minority against I1 and R1a in East Germanic and Nordic tribes, including those originating from Sweden such as the Goths, the Vandals and Lombards.
Why? look at my North Dutch auDNA (loaded with R1b U106), analyzed with Davidski's new Global 25. It's connected with a Unetice derivative called Sögel-Wohlde.

Northener [1] "distance%=0.9722"


Insular_Celtic,74.8
Hungary_BA,15.2
Central_Europe,6
Baltic_BA,4


This is a Tumulus from Drouwen/Drenthe/NorthDutch, my mothers auDNA region:


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 un disturbed 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 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.


The sword came from the Moravian-Hungarian room.....


Even the cloths of the Sögel-Wohlde culture were from a West-Hungarian model:


ibw8aqor.png



The woman of the Sögel-Wohlde culture in Drenthe/North Dutch were at that time the only one in the Dutch area with amber necklaces:


"The Weser route must, in particular, have been an important north-south highway by which amber and metals were exchanged between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, the Liineburger Heide region, Hessen, and other regions of the Central European Hiigelgrabkultur"


https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/viewFile/24902/22350


And than a map of R1b S21/ U106, hey an hotspot in North Dutch but also in the Unetice area! ;)
d8azd2z.gif



my8ewhzuy.png





http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/?media=14th-nordic-bronze-age-symposium&lang=en


Wrap up Vandkilde :
The breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age (NBA) c. 1600 BC as a koiné within Bronze Age Europe can be historically linked to the Carpathian Basin. Nordic distinctiveness entailed an entanglement of cosmology and warriorhood, albeit represented through different media in the hotspot zone (bronze) and in the northern zone (rock). In a Carpathian crossroad between the Eurasian Steppes, the Aegean world and temperate Europe during this time, a transcultural assemblage coalesced, fusing both tangible and intangible innovations from various different places. Superior warriorhood was coupled to beliefs in a tripartite cosmology, including a watery access to the netherworld while also exhibiting new fighting technologies and modes of social conduct. This transculture became creatively translated in a range of hot societies at the onset of the Middle Bronze Age. In southern Scandinavia, weaponry radiated momentous creativity that drew upon Carpathian originals, contacts and a pool of Carpathian ideas, but ultimately drawing on emergent Mycenaean hegemonies in the Aegean. This provided the incentive for a cosmology-rooted resource from which the NBA could take its starting point.

Maciamo!(y)(y)
 
In the final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe is one of the new samples was an R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC.


IMO it's a proof that Maciamo got a right clue:

Why? look at my North Dutch auDNA (loaded with R1b U106), analyzed with Davidski's new Global 25. It's connected with a Unetice derivative called Sögel-Wohlde.

Northener [1] "distance%=0.9722"


Insular_Celtic,74.8
Hungary_BA,15.2
Central_Europe,6
Baltic_BA,4


This is a Tumulus from Drouwen/Drenthe/NorthDutch, my mothers auDNA region:


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 un disturbed 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 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.


The sword came from the Moravian-Hungarian room.....


Even the cloths of the Sögel-Wohlde culture were from a West-Hungarian model:


ibw8aqor.png



The woman of the Sögel-Wohlde culture in Drenthe/North Dutch were at that time the only one in the Dutch area with amber necklaces:


"The Weser route must, in particular, have been an important north-south highway by which amber and metals were exchanged between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, the Liineburger Heide region, Hessen, and other regions of the Central European Hiigelgrabkultur"


https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/viewFile/24902/22350


And than a map of R1b S21/ U106, hey an hotspot in North Dutch but also in the Unetice area! ;)
d8azd2z.gif



my8ewhzuy.png





http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/?media=14th-nordic-bronze-age-symposium&lang=en


Wrap up Vandkilde :


Maciamo!(y)(y)

Good analysis Northerner. :) Maciamo has been right about a lot of things, certainly about Bell Beaker.
 
this suggests Unetice offspring spread all over NW Europe and also founded the Nordic Bronze Age 3.7 ka

the rest of NW Europe was subsequently overrun by Urnfield culture people, probably also originating in the Carpathian Basin
but the Nordic Bronze Age people took a stance in the Tollense battle 3.2 ka
 
That was a great post about NW Europe, lovely!
 
It was not a U106 a Dutch BB?
 
Aren't Unitice people considered Proto-Celts by many?
 
It was not a U106 a Dutch BB?

It was actually the culture after the Bell Beakers (but partly rooted in the same Eastern Beaker area). Prof. L. Kooijmans:
''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 was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

The Uneitce derived Sögel-Wohlde warriors are most probably the cause of a founder effect of R1b U106. That was after the BB period (Sögel-Wohlde, Elp is about 1700 BC). So this was to late for the BB spread and 'take over' on the Isles.


During the Nordic Bronze Age R1b U!06 took hold along the continental North Sea coast (from the Northern Lowlands, NW Germany to Jutland) and during the big migration in the iron age/ early middle ages it set foot on the Isles and spread to lager parts of Europe primarily in NW Europe (Belgium, Northern France etc) and even went (with the Vikings) to Sicily etc.


The Elp/Sögel Wohlde culture in red:
ctxwba53bji6u.png
 
I rather think the proto-Celts were in the South Tumuli zone centered around South Germany, distinct I think of the Rich Tumuli culture of East Germany, I see this last one as a possible PART of Unetice which surely was a multi origins culture and influenced other cultures without to change too much their genetic makeup -
 
Aren't Unitice people considered Proto-Celts by many?

I find it unlikely. Part of them, maybe some kind of Pre-Proto-Celtic-speaking tribes, may have existed - maybe together with Pre-Proto-Italic and other related groups (maybe the future and somewhat difficult to classify Ligurian and Lusitanian?), but the fact is that none of these early to mid Bronze Age are the direct and sole ancestors of Proto-Celtic speakers. Goidelic and Brittonic/Continental languages split early enough, probably much before Gaulish and Brittonic, for example, but still most estimates date that divergence to around 1,000-800 BC. Unless for some reason there were many other Celtic languages but only one survived and this one soon divided into new branches (kind of like Latin did with Italic), we should date Proto-Celtic proper (not some language branch close to it, but also including other eventual distinct IE branches) to the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age. I think the culture that best fits with that pattern of expansion and diversification is Urnfield, though Proto-Celts could've and probably had been just a part of the tribes that shared that culture.
 
I find it unlikely. Part of them, maybe some kind of Pre-Proto-Celtic-speaking tribes, may have existed - maybe together with Pre-Proto-Italic and other related groups (maybe the future and somewhat difficult to classify Ligurian and Lusitanian?), but the fact is that none of these early to mid Bronze Age are the direct and sole ancestors of Proto-Celtic speakers. Goidelic and Brittonic/Continental languages split early enough, probably much before Gaulish and Brittonic, for example, but still most estimates date that divergence to around 1,000-800 BC. Unless for some reason there were many other Celtic languages but only one survived and this one soon divided into new branches (kind of like Latin did with Italic), we should date Proto-Celtic proper (not some language branch close to it, but also including other eventual distinct IE branches) to the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age. I think the culture that best fits with that pattern of expansion and diversification is Urnfield, though Proto-Celts could've and probably had been just a part of the tribes that shared that culture.
I agree with most of that, but I would consider your dating of the Insular/Continental split with some circumspection. I would suspect it occurred far earlier than that. In my opinion, your timeline doesn't give the two languages time enough to diverge as much as they did. All the more so if we include Ligurian and Lusitanian, which I have always felt tempted to do. Proto-Celtic (or Proto-Italo-Celtic) as a distinct variant of IE must have been in the works by the end of Unetice. My suggestion would be... Ligurian and Lusitanian : (late ?) Unetice ; Q-Celtic : early Urnfield ; P-Celtic : Halstatt.
 
I agree with most of that, but I would consider your dating of the Insular/Continental split with some circumspection. I would suspect it occurred far earlier than that. In my opinion, your timeline doesn't give the two languages time enough to diverge as much as they did. All the more so if we include Ligurian and Lusitanian, which I have always felt tempted to do. Proto-Celtic (or Proto-Italo-Celtic) as a distinct variant of IE must have been in the works by the end of Unetice. My suggestion would be... Ligurian and Lusitanian : (late ?) Unetice ; Q-Celtic : early Urnfield ; P-Celtic : Halstatt.

I agree, what you say is basically what I also believe. I think Unetice was related to a broad group of relatively similar languages in a dialect continuum, eventually splitting into Celtic, Italic, Ligurian and Lusitanian, those languages that are clearly more related among themselves than with other IE groups, with Pre-Germanic and Pre-Venetic (could Liburnian and "mystery" languages like South Picene be included here? Maybe) possibly on the peripheries, much more mixed with other more distinct groups like those of Corded Ware ancestry or even extant non-IE peoples. It's all actually a continuum.

When I associate Proto-Celtic with Urnfield I'm talking about Proto-Celtic strictly and properly, without the dubious and still debatable inclusion of Lusitanian, Ligurian and others. So, I'm just talking of the latest common ancestor of all known and undeniably Celtic languages, but of course there must've been other "Celtic-like", Pre-Celtic languages as early as Unetice or even Bell Beaker. It was a continuous chain of evolution.

Proto-Celtic was by definition Q-Celtic, but I think the other particular properties that made Goidelic be really set apart from P-Celtic was defined only by the times that both Q-Celtic Goidelic developed its own innovations and P-Celtic innovated in divergent ways in Central Europe and spread its linguistic innovations in the context of Halstatt expansion. This expansion happened roughly between 900-700 BC, what fits really well with the recalibrated glottochronological estimate that I read recently, of a Goidelic/Continental+Brittonic split around 900 BC.

By the times of Roman Era Gaulish, Old Irish was still not that different from P-Celtic continental Gaulish, but different enough. 900 years, if a language is not conservative, is more than time enough for that relatively intense divergence. French and Spanish, for instance, probably started to split into really different dialects from Western Vulgar Latin by the 5th century AD. 900 years later, by 1400-1500, they were already very different languages.
 
Sorry for my ignorance, who are Unitice people? Never heard before

for a first taste you can google Wikipedia Unetice culture and you 'll have some basis before go further and deeper if you want - but I think threads here were already speaking about this stuff.
 
I rather think the proto-Celts were in the South Tumuli zone centered around South Germany, distinct I think of the Rich Tumuli culture of East Germany, I see this last one as a possible PART of Unetice which surely was a multi origins culture and influenced other cultures without to change too much their genetic makeup -

It's still a brain breaker for me Moesan. in Northern Europe there seems to a LN/EBA, Barbed Wire, 'hybrid' BB/CW connection that also had linkages with R1b-U106. Still puzzling.

But i's solid in my auDNA. My auDNA analyzed by Tomenable some time ago:

1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
CWC_Sweden_RISE98 EMA_Northumbria_NO3423
10.76911 11.74862
IA_Sweden_RISE174 CWC_Sweden_RISE94
12.13263 12.13601
BA_Unetice_Czechia_RISE577 IA_Celto-German_6DRIF3
12.80284 13.38595
IA_Celto-German_3DRIF16 BB_Germany_RISE563
14.19219 14.33519
 
Our genetic time transect in Britain also allowed us to track the frequencies of alleles with 273 known phenotypic effects. Derived alleles at rs12913832 (SLC45A2) and rs16891982 (HERC2/OCA2), which contribute to reduced skin and eye pigmentation in Europeans, dramatically increased in frequency during the Beaker and Bronze Age periods (Extended Data 276 Fig. 5). Thus, the arrival of migrants associated with the Beaker Complex significantly altered the pigmentation phenotypes of British populations. However, the lactase persistence allele at SNP rs4988235 remained at very low frequencies in our dataset both in Britain and continental Europe, showing that the major increase in its frequency in Britain, as in mainland Europe, occurred in the last 3,500 years.
So, the central European Bell Beakers, c. 2,000 BC?, were light-skinned, but not milk drinkers (lactose-intolerant). Lactase-persistence was brought in by a second light-skinned wave, c. 1,500 BC?, who were likely much better armed. It was the combination of the two waves that replaced 90% of the neolithic British population. Both waves were apparently mostly R1b. Somebody brought wives and families (otherwise, only the y-DNA lineages would have been replaced). Thoughts? (Why is this thread buried in the Humanities & Anthropology / History & Civilization forum? It seems misplaced.)
 
So Unetice are not BB but are the ancestors of the proto-germans ? but where I1 came from so, not native to scandinavia, barely found in hungarian neolithic context and not found in bronze and iron age central europe, hhmmm.
 

This thread has been viewed 9779 times.

Back
Top