Unetice culture was clearly multi-ethnic

Lavanttal seems to be located in a region where the Slovene minority lives. Are you sure this "Austrian" is not one of them?
Nope he isn't, and he has no any known ancestors with Slovene surnames. I asked him whether he is ethnically Slovene and here is what he told me: "No, I'm not a Carinthian Slovene. I sure turn out very Slavic in these tests and I very likely have a lot of (Alpine) Slavic ancestry further back. But I do not speak Slovene or any Slovene local Carinthian dialect nor do I have any known ancestors with Slovene surnames. Koroških just means Carinthian in slovene language, could be ethnic German or ethnic Slovene. And all my known ancestors are from what was ancient Caranthania (Carinthia and Styria today)."
 
Nope he isn't, and he has no any known ancestors with Slovene surnames. I asked him whether he is ethnically Slovene and here is what he told me: "No, I'm not a Carinthian Slovene. I sure turn out very Slavic in these tests and I very likely have a lot of (Alpine) Slavic ancestry further back. But I do not speak Slovene or any Slovene local Carinthian dialect nor do I have any known ancestors with Slovene surnames. Koroških just means Carinthian in slovene language, could be ethnic German or ethnic Slovene. And all my known ancestors are from what was ancient Caranthania (Carinthia and Styria today)."

I'am more and more convinced that the Yamna heirs had an effect in two ways:
1. Trough Corded Ware/Single grave, which had an impact on the North European Plain (North Dutch, North German, Southern Scandinavia, Poland, into Russia)
2. Trough Tumulus culture related to the Carpathian/Hungarian Bronze Age, the hub between Steppe and Mediterranean influences.
The last development is also called proto-celtic. This had a very deep influence on the Nordic Bronze Age. According to Euler (2009) (proto-)german is developed in nowadays eastern Lower Saxony and Saxon Anhalt.
Large parts of Northwestern Europe were deeply influenced by the (proto-)celtic tongue. A range from the Low Lands up to Jutlands for example the Frisians and Cimbri were influenced by it. A kind of in between "Germanic" and "Celtic". In the case of Frisia the germanization was very late a fact: until in the 4th century AD (along the Anglo-Saxon invasion in England).
See also the discusion here on Eupedia: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ice-Tumulus-Urnfield-into-Northwestern-Europe
 
concerning aspect, Frisians of today show very little celtic imput, I think; I think in a very little taste of BBs but the bulk of the pop seems pops came from North and East, lately it's true. What language were they speaking before? I don't know, not sure it would be a proto-celtic, maybe rather this famous northwest IE language (first IE layer in NW Europe?). Surprisingly enough, the types of the first 'terpen' were rather 'mediterranean'like, according to someones (surely not pure!)
 
Just for general purposes, here is the two population analysis of Unetice from the supplement of the Haak et al paper. The more I read it the more I find important things which illuminate current discussions.

Haak et al models of Unetice.PNG

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14317-s1.pdf
 
concerning aspect, Frisians of today show very little celtic imput, I think; I think in a very little taste of BBs but the bulk of the pop seems pops came from North and East, lately it's true. What language were they speaking before? I don't know, not sure it would be a proto-celtic, maybe rather this famous northwest IE language (first IE layer in NW Europe?). Surprisingly enough, the types of the first 'terpen' were rather 'mediterranean'like, according to someones (surely not pure!)

Mediterranean is an old meme Moesan! Although EEF and Iberian Beaker influences are probable.
In fact the old 'Frisians' inhabited the terps around 800 BC. Most probably people from the higher sandy inland places. So derived from the Elp culture.
After a population dip around the end of the Roman Empire there was an influx from the "Kieler Bocht" (nowadays Schleswig-Holstein/ Jutland). A few centuries later they called themselves Frisians again....
 
DNA Land Ancestry Reports for 3 samples of Unetice culture show stark differences between them:

By the way - RISE139 explains where did those "Polish-like" warriors in Tollense battle come from:

RISE139 (Chociwel, Western Pomerania), Unetice culture:

RISE139.png


RISE145 (Polwica, Greater Poland), Unetice culture:

RISE145.jpg


RISE150 (Przeclawice, Lower Silesia), Unetice culture:

Przeclawice.jpg


As you can see RISE139 and RISE145 are similar to each other, but RISE150 is totally different.

Tomenable I'am more and more convinced that Maciamo's theory about the initial spread of R1b U106 is related to Unetice is true.

First we have Olaide (2017) he has published the R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC.

On Anthrogenica Radboud states:

I 've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. If these groups came from Scandinavia/Northern Germany that would fit the U106 that was preciously found in Scandinavia and absent in BB. In this case it would seem U106 was first brought by CW and not BB.

I guess he is wrong with the Scandinavian association but the rest is interesting and confirms the opinion of prof 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture) represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."

The Sögel warriors are synomiem for the Unetice people.

Second we have a R1b U106 sample of Lilla Beddinge, outmost southwest Scania, dated 2580–1980 BC. On Gedmach MDLP K11 Rise98 plots close to Unetice:
1. Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374

According to Y-Full the TMRCA of R1b U106 is 2700 BC. This is most probably a split that occurred in the Eastern Bell Beaker culture (on previous Corded Ware ground) and most probably in the area of the direct ancestors of the Unetice (2300-1600 BC) people. The Unetice people used the old BB network to spread through NW Europe.

zcdqgjr3lpjqp.png



Unetice on R1b U106 maps:
sfvtfmblpnxfj.png

ksbzahxyuaiog.png


The Unetice people triggered the Nordic Bronze age and probably spoke a kind of (pre-proto) Celtic c.q. a kind of Indo-European language.
In modern Germanic people you can find besides Bell Beaker in the top scores also the Halberstadt sample. Halberstadt (a Lusatian outlier) is also related to Unetice or as the Germans call the Aunjetitzer kultur. Eastern Harz.

This gives overall the following impressions:


ww8pf7egck7ld.png



0l20jlzp1r4wf.png



lu2ddznnyowb9.png
 
Last edited:
By the way:

There is this 70-year-long dispute whether the Führer was Austrian or German... :grin:

We need his DNA sample, and we need to run it through PuntDNAL K15 calculator.

The dispute is that ...........some declare that, no Austrian troops served on the western front ..........and hitler was gassed on the western front.....conclusion , he could not be Austrian......IMO this is no proof
 
concerning aspect, Frisians of today show very little celtic imput, I think; I think in a very little taste of BBs but the bulk of the pop seems pops came from North and East, lately it's true. What language were they speaking before? I don't know, not sure it would be a proto-celtic, maybe rather this famous northwest IE language (first IE layer in NW Europe?). Surprisingly enough, the types of the first 'terpen' were rather 'mediterranean'like, according to someones (surely not pure!)

And an add for the phenotype during EBA (Elp culture/Sögel-Wohlde), according to Ernst Probst, Der Sögel-Wohlde-Kreis (2011):

"The people of the early Bronze Age in northern Germany had skulls of great height with a broad forehead and a relatively small or narrow and low face."

When there was an influx from the Unetice area, Harz area, they were most probably a CW/BB mix? High amount of robust dolio's?

According to Gerhardt (1953) in the Unetice and especially in it's subculture of Southwest Germany called Adlerberg culture, the plan-occipital Steilkopf (=BB heritage) was well represented.
 
And an add for the phenotype during EBA (Elp culture/Sögel-Wohlde), according to Ernst Probst, Der Sögel-Wohlde-Kreis (2011):

"The people of the early Bronze Age in northern Germany had skulls of great height with a broad forehead and a relatively small or narrow and low face."

When there was an influx from the Unetice area, Harz area, they were most probably a CW/BB mix? High amount of robust dolio's?

According to Gerhardt (1953) in the Unetice and especially in it's subculture of Southwest Germany called Adlerberg culture, the plan-occipital Steilkopf (=BB heritage) was well represented.

Thanks. But these descriptions are very vague.
&: today populations are means of very different shapes and measures, but with gradual differences between neighbouring regions. It has not been the case evrytime in History; over few kilometers I think that, spite mixings (more often among elites), you could find very distinct pops with very different aspects.
"skulls of great height with a broad forehead and a relatively small or narrow and low face"
This above description at first sight could check the 'danubian mediterranean' type, surely close enough to the part of Catal Höyük neolithikers which colonised S-E Europe. Coon wrote this light boned type was part of the mix with 'corded' high statured types which formed the 'nordic' type in Europe since Unetice times. Personally I think even 'corded' type is already a mix, the only unicity being in the dolichocephally and the high stature -I see in it a rather genuine soft 'nordic' element of regions South Finland and Baltic having absorbed diverse 'brünnoids' and even some 'irano-afghan' types in northern Steppes, with relatively very little true 'cromagnoid' input.
ATW the mean of the 'corded' type element had as high skulls as 'danubian' ut their faces were very very larger, and relatively longer
Whatever the differences between groups,
 
Hell!
I keep on:
...relatively a bit longer and narrower. Whatever the differences between groups I mentioned above, I doubt Bronze Ages people of N-Germany would have kept the almost pure type of only 'danubian' element. CWC were for the most 'corded' types in Germany more than in other places. BB were become a mix but still shewed a lot of planoccipital 'dinaric' types in their mix. In Unetice it seems they mixed with more 'corded mix' types, with surely some input of 'danubian' elements. IMO nordic BA people were already the mix 'corded'-'danubian' of Coon, with surrounding pops not plainly amalgamated as mixes of diverse 'mediterraneans' (rather atlantic) + 'cromagno-brünnoids' (HG's) as Long-Barrows megalithers + ex-fishers can have produced and an input of brachycephals where the famous BB's mix (lot of 'dianrics') found more rough brachy types there since TRBK. All admixtures, but with sometimes very different proportions according to places and cultures. the high skulled little 'danubian' type as a phenotype is not a Coon's dream. I recognize its input very well in nevertheless rather brachycephallic pops like today Czechs.
In short: the N-Europe BA was a mix where the typical ones shewed rather a Coon labelled 'nordic' mix of 'corded' and 'danubians' (LBK inheritage?) which seems having taken place during the Unetice osmosis, where the formerly important BB element had lost weight by time.
Culturally, archeology found Unetice was heterogneous (burying, settlements ...), at least at its beginning, anthropologically, heterogenous too, spite cultural and anthropologic and genetic differences don't coincide in details.
The first heterogeneity was pre-genesis. But post-genesis this culture influenced other surrunding cultures (like first Tumuli) where the basic population did not change too much as opposed to culture.
&: the fact all pops did not completely mix since their first meetings is that the several dominant dolicho types of elites alterned in same places according to time (and culture): the IA Danish people were closer to the Celtic dolicho elites element (what? Cimbri/Teutons-like fellows?) than to CWC or LBK people that precded them but in Hallsttatt/La Tène times the Celtic elites shewed an roughly 25% input of dolicho types closer to CWC ones (what is maybe rather a new input from Steppes direction than a CWC come back). Metrics and typology can show nuances auDNA cannot show so precisely: effect of time scale?)
 
the outsider position of Danish IA (this time through metrics mean, not typology) has been confirmed compared to other series of Danish and surroundings pops since TRBK (?) to Middle-Ages; i think the reference pops were not so homogenous, but as a mean, they would tend to cluster one with another, what doesn't the IA Danes series; the less far from this Danish IA men would have been Lombards of Italy, Vandals, Crimea Goths, and more surprisingly (to me) Swedish MN/LN, if the blogger's sources have been well understood.
 
Hell!
I keep on:
...relatively a bit longer and narrower. Whatever the differences between groups I mentioned above, I doubt Bronze Ages people of N-Germany would have kept the almost pure type of only 'danubian' element. CWC were for the most 'corded' types in Germany more than in other places. BB were become a mix but still shewed a lot of planoccipital 'dinaric' types in their mix. In Unetice it seems they mixed with more 'corded mix' types, with surely some input of 'danubian' elements. IMO nordic BA people were already the mix 'corded'-'danubian' of Coon, with surrounding pops not plainly amalgamated as mixes of diverse 'mediterraneans' (rather atlantic) + 'cromagno-brünnoids' (HG's) as Long-Barrows megalithers + ex-fishers can have produced and an input of brachycephals where the famous BB's mix (lot of 'dianrics') found more rough brachy types there since TRBK. All admixtures, but with sometimes very different proportions according to places and cultures. the high skulled little 'danubian' type as a phenotype is not a Coon's dream. I recognize its input very well in nevertheless rather brachycephallic pops like today Czechs.
In short: the N-Europe BA was a mix where the typical ones shewed rather a Coon labelled 'nordic' mix of 'corded' and 'danubians' (LBK inheritage?) which seems having taken place during the Unetice osmosis, where the formerly important BB element had lost weight by time.
Culturally, archeology found Unetice was heterogneous (burying, settlements ...), at least at its beginning, anthropologically, heterogenous too, spite cultural and anthropologic and genetic differences don't coincide in details.

The first heterogeneity was pre-genesis. But post-genesis this culture influenced other surrunding cultures (like first Tumuli) where the basic population did not change too much as opposed to culture.
&: the fact all pops did not completely mix since their first meetings is that the several dominant dolicho types of elites alterned in same places according to time (and culture): the IA Danish people were closer to the Celtic dolicho elites element (what? Cimbri/Teutons-like fellows?) than to CWC or LBK people that precded them but in Hallsttatt/La Tène times the Celtic elites shewed an roughly 25% input of dolicho types closer to CWC ones (what is maybe rather a new input from Steppes direction than a CWC come back). Metrics and typology can show nuances auDNA cannot show so precisely: effect of time scale?)

Pretty recent research from the most Eastern Bell Beaker, Csepel:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nyei_Anthropologiai_Kozlemenyek_52_2011_55-76

Köhler, K.: Anthropological examination of the Bell Beaker cemetery at Szigetszentmiklós- Felső-Ürge-hegyi dűlő. The archaeological remains of the Early Bronze Age Bell Beaker culture, known from all around West-Europe, are present in Hungary along the Danube down to the Csepel Island. In this paper we present the results of the physical anthropological analysis of the cemetery found at Szigetszentmiklós, excavated by Róbert Patay, between 2006 and 2007. During the examination 100 inhumation and 74 cremations were analysed. Based on the results of the metrical and morphological examination we may establish that we can for the first time demonstrate the presence of the brachycranial, so called (“Glockenbecher”) Taurid type in the Bell Beaker populations from the Carpathian Basin. Previously, the presence of this anthropological component in this region could be demonstrated only indirectly, through its appearance among human remains of somewhat later Bronze Age cultures.

Confirmed by:
Previously archeology considered the Bell-beaker people to have lived only within a limited territory of the Carpathian Basin and for a short time, without mixing with the local population. Although there are very few evaluable anthropological finds, the appearance of the characteristic planoccipital (flattened back) Taurid type in the populations of some later cultures (e.g. Kisapostag and Gáta–Wieselburg cultures) suggested a mixture with the local population contradicting such archaeological theories. According to archaeology, the populational groups of the Bell-beakers also took part in the formation of the Gáta-Wieselburg culture on the western fringes of the Carpathian Basin, which could be confirmed with the anthropological Bell Beaker series in Moravia and Germany.
By the way....
The mix during LN/EBA you describe sounds plausible. Even personally, having a non mistakable plan occiput ;) but that seems to be a minor element in nowadays population?
 
The net closes around R1b U106 and the initiatal spread by the Unetice culture!

R1b U106 Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge and Oostwoud can both be connected with LN/EBA.

In addition to previous posting the Oostwoud R1b 106 can be connected with the Sögel-Wohlde culture and Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge can be connected with Valsømagle culture. Both can be considered as derivates of the Unetice culture.

In Valsømagle we find the earliest Nordic swords (Oxford Handbook Bronze Age).

Valsømagle culture, Sealand, lays exactly in front of Lilla Beddinge, just at the other side of the sea.


Wrap up: an amount of the EBA pioniers in NW Europe were bearers of R1b U106. They stand on the threshold of a proto-Germanic Bronze Age culture!

VandKilde 2005:
The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through materi al means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincidences roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnel-necked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsømagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to con texts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity.
 

This thread has been viewed 51523 times.

Back
Top