# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  More on the Tollensee Valley battle site inc. genetics

## Angela

See: 
https://www.archaeology.org/news/604...ollense-valley

"_Live Science_ reports that archaeologists are investigating a 3,250-year-old battlefield site in northern Germany’s Tollense Valley. *They have recovered remains of some 140 people, most of them men between the ages of 20 and 40*, in addition to the bones of horses and military artifacts. Some of the bones had been pierced with arrows. “We are very confident that the human remains are more or less lying in the position where they died,” said archaeologist Thomas Terberger of the Lower Saxony State Office for Cultural Heritage. He thinks as many as 2,000 may have been involved in the battle. *Isotopic analysis of the bones suggests that some of the remains came from nonlocals, perhaps from southern Germany and central Europe.* They may have brought the arrowheads and dress pins found on the battlefield, which resemble those found in Central Europe, and not those made in northern Germany. Terberger speculates the warriors may have been fighting for control of the Tollense River, an important north-south trade route, since the battle took place at a narrow part of the river, where there is evidence a wooden bridge may have stood in 1900 B.C. "


The longer live science article:
https://www.livescience.com/60739-eu...s-secrets.html

This is the Springer link, but I can't get access even to the Supplementary material.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...520-017-0529-y

If this is true, all the speculation that this was Southern Europeans against Northern Europeans was way off. 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...orthern+Europe

----------


## Wheal

Is this the one you are trying to open, Angela?

Multi-isotope proveniencing of human remains from a Bronze Age battlefield in the Tollense Valley in northeast Germany

----------


## Angela

> Is this the one you are trying to open, Angela?
> Multi-isotope proveniencing of human remains from a Bronze Age battlefield in the Tollense Valley in northeast Germany


Yes, Wheal, that's the one.

----------


## Messier 67

Let me guess they will only show mtDNA and admixtures.

----------


## Wheal

I was able to pull it up but it's 14 pages, so somewhat long for a post

----------


## Wheal

Strontium Isotopes in Enamel
Strontium isotope analysis provides a robust means for examining human mobility in the past and tracing first generations of migrants. The principle is straightforward. The strontium isotope ratio of 87Sr/86Sr varies among different kinds of rocks. Because the 87Sr forms through a radiogenic process as a product of decay from rubidium-87 over time, older rocks with more rubidium have a higher 87Sr/86Sr ratio, while younger rocks with less rubidium are at the opposite end of the range with low ratios (e.g., Montgomery et al. 2006). Sediments reflect the ratio of their parent material. The amount of 87S in nature varies but is roughly 7% of total strontium and 86Sr is 10% (87Sr/86Sr ⋍ 0.7). This ratio normally varies from about 0.704 in young rocks with low Rb to >0.730 in high-Rb rocks that are billions of years old. 
Strontium moves into humans from rocks and sediment through the food chain (Price 1989, 2000, Sillen and Kavanagh 1982). Most measurements of human enamel fall in the range of 0.704 to 0.725. This ratio in enamel then generally reflects the underlying geology where one was born when the enamel formed. If an individual moves to a new location in a different geologic context, or is buried in a new place, the enamel isotopes will differ from those of the new location, allowing the designation of that individual as a non-local.
There are several published summaries of the method (e.g., Bentley 2006, Montgomery 2010, Price and Gestsdóttir 2006, Slovak and Paytan 2011). Analytical methods are described in detail in a number of publications (e.g., Frei and Price 2012, Price et al. 1994, Sjögren et al. 2009, Slovak and Paytan 2011). Numerous examples of the application of strontium isotope ratios to archaeological questions have been published (e.g., Benson et al. 2003, Hedman et al. 2009, Knudson et al. 2008, Montgomery et al. 2003, Price et al. 2011, Wright 2005).
An essential issue in strontium isotope analysis involves determination of the local strontium isotope signal for the area in which a burial is found. In fact, levels of strontium isotopes in human tissue may vary from the actual geological background for a number of reasons (e.g., Maurer et al. 2012, Price et al. 2002, Sillen et al. 1998). Factors include differential weathering of minerals in rock, atmospheric dust, the deposition of aeolian, alluvial, or glacial sediments on top of bedrock geology. Complex geological areas may have several different sources of 87Sr/86Sr contributing to human diets. Coastal populations are impacted by several phenomena. Marine foods, for example, have a constant strontium isotope ratio of 0.7092. The same ratio, 0.7092, may also be introduced by salt spray and rainfall in coastal areas. For these reasons, it is necessary to measure bioavailable levels of 87Sr/86Sr to ascertain local strontium isotope ratios.

----------


## Wheal

Attachment 9408

Oxygen Isotopes in Apatite
Oxygen isotope ratios vary geographically in surface water and rainfall. The oxygen isotope ratio in the human skeleton reflects that of body water, and ultimately of drinking water (Kohn 1996, Luz et al. 1984, Luz and Kolodny 1985), which in turn predominantly reflects local rainfall. Isotopes in rainfall are greatly affected by enrichment or depletion of the heavy 18O isotope relative to 16O in water due to evaporation and precipitation (e.g. Dansgaard 1964). Major geographic factors affecting rainfall values then are latitude, elevation, amount of precipitation, and distance from the source (e.g., an ocean). Rainwater, H2O, can contain either isotope, and H218O has a greater mass than H216O, and requires more energy to evaporate and to stay in the atmosphere. As this moisture moves over land, the first precipitation contains more of the heavy isotope and as the clouds move inland (and to higher elevations) the rain becomes more depleted in the heavier isotope. Thus oxygen isotope ratios have some potential to vary geographically and provide information on past human movement. 
Oxygen isotopes in ancient human skeletal remains are found in both tooth enamel and bone. Oxygen is incorporated into dental enamel during the early life of an individual and it remains unchanged through adulthood. Thus, oxygen isotopes have the potential to be used to investigate human mobility and provenience (Bowen and Revenaugh 2003). Oxygen has three isotopes, 16O (99.762% in nature), 17O (0.038%), and 18O (0.2%), all of which are stable and non-radiogenic. Oxygen isotopes are conventionally reported as the per mil difference in the ratio of 18O to 16O between a sample and a standard. This value is designated as 18O. This value can be measured in either carbonate (CO3)-2 or phosphate (PO4)-3 in apatite in tooth and bone. Less sample is needed for carbonate, preparation is less demanding, and results between laboratories are more comparable (e.g., Bryant et al. 1995, Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp 1999, Chenery et al. 2012). The standard used is commonly VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) for phosphate, or PDB (PeeDee belemnite) for carbonate oxygen. 
These 18O values for carbonate and phosphate oxygen using different standards are comparable though calculation. Chenery et al. (2012) defined the relationship between the 18O value of drinking water and 18O in enamel carbonate as 18OC = (18ODW + 48.634) /1.59 relative to standard mean ocean water (VSMOW). Measurements made using a Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) standard must be further corrected: 18OC(VPDB) = (0.97 x 18OC(SMOW)) -29.98. Thus, as an example a drinking water value of -6.0‰ to -6.5‰(SMOW) yields an enamel carbonate 18OC(VPDB) value of approximately -4.0‰.
At the same time, there are difficulties in the application of oxygen isotope ratios to human proveniencing (e.g., White et al. 2004, Knudson and Price 2007). There are potential difficulties with diagenesis (e.g., Sharp et al. 2000). In addition, oxygen isotope ratios vary with latitude but variation is more pronounced in the polar regions. Many places in the temperate and tropical regions, however, have similar 18O values, ranging broadly from approximately -2.0‰ to -8.0‰, so that finding meaningful differences in these regions is difficult (Bowen and Revenaugh 2003). We have also observed unexplained variation on the order of ±1‰ in 18O values among individuals from the same location in our investigations (see also Huertas et al. 1995). Rainfall 18O levels vary from season to season, year to year, and over time in the same area (e.g., Rozanski et al. 1993). This variability is undoubtedly a major contributor to the broad range of 18O values seen at a given site.

----------


## bicicleur

eurogenes says there is a paper with DNA in the making : http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2017/10...ge-battle.html
in the preliminary there is not much to see
contrary to the isotope study they can't discern the 2 fighting parties
it deals more with new methods than with results

----------


## bicicleur

> If this is true, all the speculation that this was Southern Europeans against Northern Europeans was way off. 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...orthern+Europe


wasn't that the conclusion made in the study based on the isotopes?

----------


## Promenade

I don't remember anyone claiming it was a battle between Northern and Southern Europeans 

There is man who genetically places close to Sardinians and another that seems half Welzin and Sardinian like that seems out of place though. It's up to the imagination how the two ended up there. There is also the sample that is slightly corded ware or EHG shifted. Also all the samples seems hunter gatherer shifted compared to modern north Europeans. Closest modern populations are Poles and Austrians which makes sense in my mind.

----------


## Tomenable

F3 statistics show that they had a lot of shared drift with modern Poles, but on PCA graphs most of them don't cluster with Poles (only few individuals cluster close to Poles). What does it mean? A population ancestral to Poles but not the only one (modern Poles are a mix of Welzin-like people + other groups)?

F3 stats explained: http://gaworkshop.readthedocs.io/en/.../06_f3/f3.html

Welzin/Tollense samples:

https://seafile.rlp.net/d/2ac8729845/

----------


## Tomenable

They might represent Pre-Slavic substrate of modern Poles.

But on PCA graphs, Poles plot to the east of Welzin samples.

----------


## Tomenable

These ones have North-Eastern affinities and are similar to modern Poles:

Sample - GEDmatch kit (uploaded by mlukas):

WEZ15 - *Z468191*
WEZ58 - *Z594501*
WEZ83 - *Z468191*

WEZ51, WEZ56 and WEZ24 should also be North-Eastern (based on the other PCA).

Based on F3 statistics, these ones have the highest affinity to Poles:

WEZ15 (affinity to Poles confirmed by PCA)
WEZ58 (affinity to Poles confirmed by PCA)
WEZ51 (affinity to Poles confirmed by PCA)
WEZ56 (affinity to Poles confirmed by PCA)

WEZ64 (not confirmed by PCA)
WEZ74 (not confirmed by PCA)
WEZ53 (not confirmed by PCA)

WEZ24 - Finnish (so also North-Eastern but not Polish-like)
*
Why are these two PCAs so different from each other?:*

https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de.../100001279.pdf

The first PCA is in *Figure 3.20*. The 2nd PCA is in *Figures 4.24 and A.48*.

The 2nd PCA shows that WEZ56 and WEZ51 are relatively close to Poles.

The 1st PCA shows that WEZ15, WEZ58 and WEZ83 are close to Poles.

==============

The 2nd PCA:



The 1st PCA:



==========================

WEZ56 is actually closer to Lithuanians than to Poles, if we take a look here (does it mean that Balts or Proto-Balts were present as far west as Mecklenburg-Vorpmmern during the Bronze Age?):

----------


## Fire Haired14

The Sardinian-shifted guy dates to 2900 BC not 1000 BC, so a "Neolithic farmer."

----------


## Tomenable

So the average of 21 warriors looks mixed Slavic-Germanic. But does it make sense to create one average from all warrios, considering that they were from 2 different, opposing armies? It makes sense to create one average only if it was a "civil war". But if each army consisted of people from a different ethnic group, then we should expect genetic differences between them. These 21 warriors should be plotted on a PCA and we will see if they form 2 distinct clusters - "western" and "eastern" - or one "central" cluster.

Something tells me that there will be 2 distinct cluster, because WEZ83 looks fully Germanic. If the average of 21 is Slavo-Germanic, but some look fully Germanic, then some must look fully Balto-Slavic.

Average in K36 Eurogenes for 21 WEZians (as I wrote above, I think there should be 2 averages, because *those warriors were from two opposing armies* and were killing each other):

Amerindian 0,11
Arabian 0,26
Armenian 0,00
Basque 3,20
Central_African 0,01
Central_Euro 6,01
East_African 0,20
East_Asian 0,00
East_Balkan 2,67
East_Central_Asian 0,09
East_Central_Euro 18,20
East_Med 0,38
Eastern_Euro 7,99
Fennoscandian 7,01
French 5,93
Iberian 11,21
Indo0Chinese 0,00
Italian 6,16
Malayan 0,00
Near_Eastern 0,05
North_African 0,31
North_Atlantic 9,91
North_Caucasian 0,45
North_Sea 11,52
Northeast_African 0,18
Oceanian 0,13
Omotic 0,09
Pygmy 0,04
Siberian 0,00
South_Asian 0,00
South_Central_Asian 0,01
South_Chinese 0,00
Volga0Ural 3,14
West_African 0,37
West_Caucasian 0,28
West_Med 4,11

----------


## LeBrok

You are too easily applying ethnic labels, like germanic and slavic, which showed up good 1 thousand years or more later. I bet there was a population in the middle or undiversified yet, that's why plots in the middle on pca. Do we have other samples from this area from same time to make comparison? Early Lusatian?

----------


## Tomenable

> I bet there was a population in the middle or undiversified yet, that's why plots in the middle on pca.


That's not the case, because it is not one population, but two populations.

The average looks Slavic-German. But they were from 2 opposing armies. 

Some of them look 100% Danish (like WEZ83), some look 100% Slavic.

It was a battle between two different ethnic groups, "western" and "eastern".

----------


## LeBrok

> That's not the case, because it is not one population, but two populations.
> 
> The average looks Slavic-German. But they were from 2 opposing armies. 
> 
> Some of them look 100% Danish (like WEZ83), some look 100% Slavic.
> 
> It was a battle between two different ethnic groups, "western" and "eastern".


 What about quality of samples? Low quality ones might be misleading.

----------


## LeBrok

> These ones have North-Eastern affinities and are similar to modern Poles:
> 
> Sample - GEDmatch kit (uploaded by mlukas):
> 
> WEZ15 - *Z468191*
> WEZ58 - *Z594501*
> WEZ83 - *Z468191*


First and third are the same. Probably a typo. The two I checked are not god quality, so it is impossible to say if they are were more like germanics or slavs. Too much DNA missing.
Can we get more samples with indication who was in which army? Perhaps we can average them better by their suppose "tribe"?

----------


## Tomenable

Isotopes suggest, that there were two major groups of warriors, of different origin:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...520-017-0529-y

"Abstract

Although the Bronze Age is best known for its remarkable metal weapons, there is little evidence of conflict. Traumatic wounds in human skeletal remains are rare, and there have been few recognized scenes of warfare such as those known from later periods. Recent discoveries, however, have revealed evidence of a major battle in a small valley in the northeast of Germany, some 3250 years ago. Both military equipment and human and animal remains have been encountered in surveys and excavations along almost 3 km of the Tollense Valley. More than 130 human individuals have been recovered in the investigations, for the most, part young men between 20 and 40 years of age. In addition, horse bones have been found among the human remains in the riverbed and banks. This study reports on the isotopic proveniencing of the excavated remains utilizing strontium, lead, oxygen, and carbon isotopes to learn about place of origin and past diet. *Two major groups can be distinguished in the isotope data, along with evidence for different homelands for some of the individuals who died in the Tollense Valley."*

----------


## Lukas

PCA based on K36 Unofficial Oracle averages. We have three clusters and one Baltic outlier:)

7 WEZians in "Slavic"
1 "Baltic"
10 in "Germanic"
3 in "Med"


All have very low quality. Best one has 21000 snps, lowest 2500. Polako checked them also and the same quality. So the resulsts are very vague and could be misleading.

----------


## Tomenable

WEZ16 is an older Neolithic sample, from 2900 BC. Didn't take part in the battle.

----------


## Tomenable

So we have 8 Slavo-Balts vs. 10 Germanics + 2 Mediterranean mercenaries. :)

----------


## Tomenable

WEZ64 - Slavic cluster
WEZ15 - Slavic cluster
WEZ40 - Slavic cluster
WEZ58 - Slavic cluster
WEZ77 - Slavic cluster
WEZ63 - Slavic cluster
WEZ61 - Slavic cluster
WEZ56 - Baltic cluster

WEZ57 - Med cluster
WEZ54 - Med cluster

WEZ35 - Germanic cluster
WEZ59 - Germanic cluster
WEZ71 - Germanic cluster
WEZ51 - Germanic cluster
WEZ74 - Germanic cluster
WEZ39 - Germanic cluster
WEZ48 - Germanic cluster
WEZ83 - Germanic cluster
WEZ53 - Germanic cluster
WEZ24 - Germanic cluster

----------


## Lukas

Sorry I made mistake in counting:)

10 Germanics and 7 Slavic is correct.

Wez15 22123 - Slavic cluster
WEZ57 14342 - Med cluster
WEZ61	13817 - Slavic cluster
WEZ54 11571 - Med cluster
WEZ35-2 11531 - Germanic cluster
WEZ56	11193 - Baltic
WEZ59	11009 - Germanic cluster
WEZ64-1	10481 - Slavic cluster
WEZ40	8640 - Slavic cluster
WEZ58 8444 - Slavic cluster
WEZ71 6561 - Germanic cluster
WEz51 6252 - Germanic cluster
WEZ77	6207 - Slavic cluster
WEZ83 5702 - Germanic cluster
WEZ53 5669 - Germanic cluster
WEZ24	5391 - Germanic cluster
WEZ63 4892 - Slavic cluster
WEZ74	3997 - Germanic cluster
WEZ39	3748 - Germanic cluster
WEZ48	2510 - Germanic cluster
WEZ16	2421 - neolithic?

----------


## Lukas

PCA with PC1 on longer x axis

----------


## Tomenable

> Sorry I made mistake in counting:)
> 
> 10 Germanics and 7 Slavic is correct.


And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.

Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.

Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)

----------


## Lukas

> And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.
> 
> Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.
> 
> Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)


Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.

I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

----------


## Lukas

Also there weren't Slavs anf Germanics in Bronze Age, are you aware of that I thought:)

Only some proto-populations. Those proto-Slavic were probably Lusatian like.

----------


## Tomenable

> Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.


That's not what isotopes suggest, they came from far away:

"Two major groups can be distinguished in the isotope data, along with evidence for different homelands for some of the individuals."

These individual "outliers" are probably Mediterranean guys.

----------


## Tomenable

> Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).


Except that they were *not a mix*, but two genetically different populations.

They were not 20 Mecklenburgians, but 10 Mazovians + 10 Rhinelanders. :)

----------


## Tomenable

Here is where the battle took place, obviously between "Nordics" and "Lusatians":

----------


## berun

The date is similar to that of the invading Sea Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean sea and the continental expansion of the Urnfield culture aka Celts... I wonder if archaeology and isotopes allow a Celtic raid from Austria or somelike.

----------


## bicicleur

> PCA with PC1 on longer x axis


does it mean 2 groups after all?
one southern - Bell Beaker like
one northern - CW or Battle Axe like

----------


## bicicleur

> And 1 Balt which can be added to these 7 Slavs, in total 8.
> 
> Apparently Germanics lost the battle because more of them died.
> 
> Unless both of Mediterranean mercenaries were on Slavic side. :)


it was on the road across the swamps from south to the Baltic areas - there were not many alternative roads to cross these swamps
it looks like the invaders were stopped - there was no dramatic turnover in Baltic societies around that time

----------


## bicicleur

their weaponry is primitive, but still simple farmers wouldn't have such weaponry




> Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.
> 
> I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).

----------


## LeBrok

> So we have 8 Slavo-Balts vs. 10 Germanics + 2 Mediterranean mercenaries. :)


 Nope. With low quality samples they will plot all over bigger area "pretending" to belong to modern ethnic groups. Give me more samples I will calculate the average guy.

----------


## LeBrok

> Not mercenaries because I doubt in mercenary in primitive Brozne Age societies. But local neolithics.
> 
> I don't give a **** who win. Apparently they were similar to modern Mecklemburg (Germano-Salvic mix).


 Could you please put more samples into gedmatch? Thanks.

----------


## Sile

> PCA with PC1 on longer x axis


who is this north-Italian WEZ54 ?

----------


## Promenade

I’m not sure how useful it is to try and label these people as “slavic." Early Slavs were much more primitive than the Bronze age cultures that preceded them and the slavic languages didn’t even have native words to describe the sea, the environment near to where the battle took place. Slavic speakers from modern Greece could communicate with Slavic speakers of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as the ninth century AD which points to a recent diversification. I could see one group being labeled as proto-germanic though, the nordic bronze age culture had reached the area by that time and genetically a few appear Scandinavian like. They haven’t found the residence of the people native to the area that fought in the battle yet so even that description is speculative.

I do believe we are dealing with two separate populations though and not just from the genetic evidence, the fact is also made clear by the isotopic analysis.




> The date is similar to that of the invading Sea Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean sea and the continental expansion of the Urnfield culture aka Celts... I wonder if archaeology and isotopes allow a Celtic raid from Austria or somelike.


The group that traveled north is presumed to be from the Czech Republic, given they look more east than west european genetically I’d say Lusatian and not Urnfield. 




> The Sardinian-shifted guy dates to 2900 BC not 1000 BC, so a "Neolithic farmer."





> who is this north-Italian WEZ54 ?


It makes sense that Welzin16 was from an earlier time period, but Welzin54 and 57 are also clearly southern Europeans and out of place here. I only remember the Isotopic analysis describing one group being local and having a maritime diet and a foreign one relying on a terrestrial diet. I think it'd be important for the study to also mention the isotopic analysis of Welzin54 and Welzin57 as separate groups since they represent genetic outliers compared to the two major factions, it might shed light on where they came from.(And it doesnt look like they came from the same spot either, one looks Iberian the other Italian)

----------


## I1a3_Young

Has Y DNA been posted or said to be available later?

That's right about the time of rapid I1 DF29 expansion within the Germanic tribes so we could get some interesting info.

----------


## berun

Definetively there were recent migrants, in page 59 fig 4.29 a K2 Admixture displays Bell Beakers, Unetice and Corded Ware with less EEF share than the warriors of Tollense, even three warriors are 100% EEF (LBK) and I can't believe about surviving pure EEF pockets in North Europe. We know something about their weaponry?

----------


## berun

hum, maybe the no-IE vocabulary in Germanic is not from its substrate but from an unknown adstrate? (just like French in English)

----------


## Promenade

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion from the paper that the parties were "relatively local and more closely related." The Isotopic analysis pretty much confirms they had separate diets and areas of origin. I'm not sure of the genetic distance between people from the Rhineland and Hessen but I'm guessing it's not much.

"_Four outliers were identified and the sum of the results points in the same direction: Three of the four outliers WEZ16, WEZ54 and WEZ57 show closer affinities to neolithic populations than the grouped Welzin individuals and WEZ56 shows closer affinities to hunter-gatherers. Any interpretation regarding possible parties that might have been involved in the conflict in the Tollense valley∼3200 ago can only be speculative with regards to the here shown data. 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 German._"





> Definetively there were recent migrants, in page 59 fig 4.29 a K2 Admixture displays Bell Beakers, Unetice and Corded Ware with less EEF share than the warriors of Tollense, even three warriors are 100% EEF (LBK) and I can't believe about surviving pure EEF pockets in North Europe. We know something about their weaponry?


Yeah we do, but they say it gives them no clue as to the origins or cultures of the people involved:
"_The artifacts that have been found, include weapons such as wooden clubs, bronze spear and axe heads as well as bronze and flint arrow heads, but also bronze arm and finger rings. So far those findings allow no correlation between skeletal remains and separate cultures or the identification of different parties involved in the conflict._"

Also I highly doubt the two southern Europeans from the battle were Neolithic leftovers, that seems really improbable.

----------


## berun

Let's see if there is autosomal or Y-DNA groupings by weapon and injury, it seems that some skulls were beaten by clubs, some clubs were found on the site, and others received mortal arrowhead impacts... others uses spears, others axes, there were chevaliers... if the battle was arrows vs clubs I can understand a massacre of 4000 men.

----------


## Lukas

> Could you please put more samples into gedmatch? Thanks.


When I'll finish second PCA with added other ancient samples (like RISE569, Sunghir6). I want to be first to do that:)

----------


## LeBrok

> When I'll finish second PCA with added other ancient samples (like RISE569, Sunghir6). I want to be first to do that:)


I'm cool with this, and glad you will post kit numbers. :)

----------


## Fire Haired14

Yeah, Y DNA isn't available everyone.

----------


## Tomenable

> Early Slavs were much more primitive than the Bronze age cultures that preceded them


No. Early Slavs were an Iron Age society, not Bronze Age. They had iron-made weapons.




> Slavic speakers from modern Greece could communicate with Slavic speakers of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as the ninth century AD which points to a recent diversification.


The migration of South Slavs into the Balkans is documented in historical sources.

I'm not claiming that there were any Slavs in the Balkans already in 1250 BC.

But Poland is a possible homeland of Proto-Slavs during the Late Bronze Age, even if later they all emigrated to the east (remember that the Zarubintsy culture was created by "Polish" immigrants from the west - from Lusatian-Pomeranian cultures).

The "recent diversification" thingy is only related to vast geographical expansion.

As long as a population occupies a relatively small area, or a large area but connected by strong ties, its language will not diversify. For example Latin only diversified after the collapse of the Roman Empire, despite existing altready in 750 BC.

----------


## bicicleur

> No. Early Slavs were an Iron Age society, not Bronze Age. They had iron-made weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> The migration of South Slavs into the Balkans is documented in historical sources.
> 
> I'm not claiming that there were any Slavs in the Balkans already in 1250 BC.
> 
> But Poland is a possible homeland of Proto-Slavs during the Late Bronze Age, even if later they all emigrated to the east (remember that the Zarubintsy culture was created by "Polish" immigrants from the west - from Lusatian-Pomeranian cultures).
> ...


ok, but it is not usefull to label the northern group as Slavic, the date is to old for that
the northern group has more CW than the southern group, who is more BB
and early Slavs probably also had quite some CW
but that is where similarities stop
if Slavs have some Polish origin, it is more probable southern Poland than northern
I think northern Ukraine is a more likely origin

----------


## Tomenable

Bicicleur,

I don't know why do you think that it was a battle between a "southern" and a "northern" groups?

I rather see it as a battle between a "western" and an "eastern" group. Of course genetically, North-Western Europeans are "more southern" than North-Eastern Europeans, due to having more of Neolithic admixture.

So Nordic Bronze Age would be genetically more "southern" than Lusatian culture. Just like modern Germans are genetically more "southern" than modern Poles, as explained long ago by Davidski on hi blog:

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2014...rope-than.html

But geographically, of course Poles are more eastern, not more southern.

Genetic "southernness" vs. "northernness" is only about the amount of ENF vs. HG.

Here is a good map showing the amount of Northern Euro admixtures in K36:



This includes the following admixtures:

North_Atlantic	
French	
North_Sea
Central_Euro
East_Central_Euro	
Fennoscandian	
Eastern_Euro	
Volga-Ural

----------


## Lukas

First version of PCA with WEZ and Ancients. This time Wielbark and early Slavs added. RISE569 position is clearly in WEZ-Germanic and Wielbark cluster so I didn't group them it in early Slav cluster...

The olive cluster is modern North Slav.

After adding those samples WEZ53 was shifted from Austria proximity to Balkan cluster...

----------


## Lukas

Polako PCA
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/1...-warriors.html

----------


## Tomenable

Early Slavic homelands:

1) According to Jordanes and Procopius (ca. 500 AD):

http://slavicchronicles.com/history/...g-to-jordanes/



2) Expansion of Slavs into Finno-Ugric and Baltic lands:



3) Alternative Proto-Slavic homelands (all possible areas):

----------


## bicicleur

> Bicicleur,
> 
> I don't know why do you think that it was a battle between a "southern" and a "northern" groups?
> 
> I rather see it as a battle between a "western" and an "eastern" group. Of course genetically, North-Western Europeans are "more southern" than North-Eastern Europeans, due to having more of Neolithic admixture.
> 
> So Nordic Bronze Age would be genetically more "southern" than Lusatian culture. Just like modern Germans are genetically more "southern" than modern Poles, as explained long ago by Davidski on hi blog:
> 
> http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2014...rope-than.html
> ...


If I recall well, it was the isotope study that distinguished a local northern group and a southern group from Bohemia/Southern Germany/The Carpathian Basin.
Furthermore south-north makes much more sense than east-west because the battle was on a road connecting the Baltics with the south.
Comparing anciant DNA with modern populations cannot be done straightforward.

----------


## Lukas

Polako PCA with added WEZ numbers and cluster names.



Polako PCA without Finn outliers (Karelians, Verpsians, Komis, I didn't have them on my PCa also because they are far away from WEZ).

----------


## berun

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.

----------


## Lukas

Ward's tree with values from second PCA (without Vepsians, Karelians, Komis).

----------


## Lukas

WEZ kits on Gedmatch, K36 values

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.


 I was thinking about this too. Perhaps we are witnessing ethnogenesis of Germanics, when "nordics" mixed with celts?

----------


## davef

> WEZ kits on Gedmatch, K36 values


Wow, the first guy is quite Iberian (WEZ16)

----------


## Promenade

> No. Early Slavs were an Iron Age society, not Bronze Age. They had iron-made weapons.


I didn't say that Early Slavs were a bronze age society, I said that the Early Slavs were more primitive than the Bronze age cultures that preceded them. Being from the Iron Age doesn't necessarily make them more advanced either since it is only a single facet of a society and Iron tools only becomes more useful over bronze when you are able to make it into steel. Don't take my word for it though, head down over to your nearest museum and see it with your own eyes. The pottery made by the Bronze age people was decorated with unique patterns while the Slavic pottery lacks any artistic features and looks very crude. In fact the Slavic pottery looks ten thousand years older despite being a couple thousand years more recent. The abodes of Bronze age people were also much larger and more sophisticated with the great fortifications built by Bronze age peoples not being replicated by the Slavs until around the 9th century AD. I don't believe these statements are controversial either, but well known by those in the community. If Slavs are indeed directly descended from these groups there must have been some kind of awful catastrophe where their material culture was not just inhibited, but reversed to significant degree, similar to the state of western Europe after the fall of Rome or Greece after the Dorian invasion.

----------


## Promenade

> Wow, the first guy is quite Iberian (WEZ16)


He's not from the battle though, he is the individual from the Neolithic era

----------


## LeBrok

> WEZ kits on Gedmatch, K36 values


Thanks for posting them. :) Are the red/bold and normal kit numbers meaning two groups of people? Classified according to isotope level? Or supposed West/East division?

----------


## davef

> He's not from the battle though, he is the individual from the Neolithic era


Why is he part of this study?

----------


## berun

Following the Celtic thread the Urnfield/Lusatian culture gave way to the Puchov culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%BAchov_culture

in its area the Romans found the Celtic Cotini in actual Ruthenia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotini

just a typical case where mountains keep ancient languages, as by Julius' times these Celts were surrounded by Germanic tribes. If equating Urnfield / Lusatian with Celtic... the Slavs would be the third team in Poland and Belarus after Germanics. 

Quite awesome the expansion of Celts, from Galicia to Ruthenia, from Scotland to Andalusia, but now in few dying enclaves.

----------


## Lukas

> Thanks for posting them. :) Are the red/bold and normal kit numbers meaning two groups of people? Classified according to isotope level? Or supposed West/East division?


No:) Simply some were copied by me directly after upload so the font was red in Gedmatch. I should change it I know.

----------


## LeBrok

> No:) Simply some were copied by me directly after upload so the font was red in Gedmatch. I should change it I know.


Ok. Do you know which samples could potentially belong to different groups of warriors according to strontium and lead level?

----------


## Lukas

No. I don't check it. Maybe it is in PDF suplemental? https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de.../100001279.pdf

----------


## LeBrok

> No. I don't check it. Maybe it is in PDF suplemental? https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de.../100001279.pdf


I found it and made two sets based on low and high strontium level. The two groups turned genetically almost identical. The invaders where from close by. Same general population. Probably a power struggle within one ethnic group.

----------


## LeBrok

I have run 20 samples of Wez group through GedMatch today. All samples turned to be of very low quality. There is not even one decent to make sure what we are exactly looking at. In such instance we are getting "false positive" readings. It means that a sample can "pretend" to be something else. In this case the genetic material could have belonged to one ethnic group, but the readings place them all over northern Europe. We could deal with brother's DNA, or people born in one village, who died in this battle, but with such limited genetic material, one now plots like "slavic" and the other "germanic". This is how crazy it is when we are dealing with small pieces of DNA.

Anyway, the best thing to do with so many bad samples is to add them together to build one average individual, or two if this battle was among different "races".
I divided samples in 2 groups. One with lowest level of strontium and the other with highest. About 6 samples each group. Well, they were almost the same. Maybe growing up 100 km apart, to accommodate for a different strontium level, but still belonging to same ethnic group.

 High Strontium

Low Strontium

Germany, Tollensee Valley
LBA, 1.25kya
Germany, Tollensee Valley
LBA, 1.25kya

Run time
2.52

Run time
2.67

 S-Indian
1

S-Indian
1

 Baloch
2

Baloch
4

 Caucasian
6

Caucasian
9

 NE-Euro
56

NE-Euro
53

 SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

 Siberian
1

Siberian
0

 NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

 Papuan
1

Papuan
0

 American
0

American
1

 Beringian
0

Beringian
0

 Mediterranean
29

Mediterranean
29

 SW-Asian
2

SW-Asian
1

 San
0

San
1

 E-African
0

E-African
0

 Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

 W-African
1

W-African
1



Taking under consideration low quality of samples and only 6 in each group, we are dealing with same ethnic group individuals.

----------


## LeBrok

Here is the average individual composed of 20 low quality samples. Beside are samples from CW, Unetice, medieval Slav, modern german and polish. I think the BA average guy is the closest to modern Northern German and somewhat close to modern Pole and medieval Slav, though it was most likely a population, which doesn't exist anymore. We can see at this time period evolution of CW/Unetice type of genome towards more modern one of this region. It was probably a population who started like Unetice and mixed with more southern type, like BA Baden. Who knows, maybe already some Celtic influence mixed in at this time?

Average
Wez

M107790
I0118

M453254
Rise154

T253390
I0806 Rib-DF27
F999954
Rise569

T005824
Sunghir6







Germany, Tollensee Valley
LBA, 1.25kya

Germany LN
CW like

Unetice EBA K1a4a1 -
3.9kya

Germany, Quedlinburg
2431-2150BC Bell Beaker
Czechy, Brandysek
1,400 ya

Russia, 200 km NE from Moscow
1040-1220 AD, Slav





Run time
 2.63

Run time
11.67

Run Time
4.06

Run time
4.05

Run time
9.14

Run time
13.62

Modern North German
Modern Polish

S-Indian
 1

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
1

Baloch
 4

Baloch
12

Baloch
14

Baloch
13

Baloch
7

Baloch
7

Baloch
9

Baloch
7

Caucasian
 7

Caucasian
7

Caucasian
4

Caucasian
9

Caucasian
8

Caucasian
11

Caucasian
8

Caucasian
10

NE-Euro
 54

NE-Euro
49

NE-Euro
54

NE-Euro
50

NE-Euro
58

NE-Euro
57

NE-Euro
53

NE-Euro
57

SE-Asian
 0

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

Siberian
 1

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
1

Siberian
0

Siberian
1

NE-Asian
 0

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

Papuan
 0

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

American
 0

American
-

American
1

American
-

American
-

American
0

American
1

American
1

Beringian
 0

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
2

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Mediterranean
 29

Mediterranean
30

Mediterranean
27

Mediterranean
27

Mediterranean
26

Mediterranean
22

Mediterranean
27

Mediterranean
22

SW-Asian
 1

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
1

SW-Asian
1

San
  0

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0

San
0

E-African
 0

E-African
-

E-African
0

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
0

E-African
0

Pygmy
 0

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

W-African
 1

W-African
0

W-African
-

W-African
0

W-African
0

W-African
0

W-African
0

W-African
0

----------


## Angela

Excellent, LeBrok,

This is exactly the type of analysis which was needed.

----------


## berun

WEZ16 is clearly identified as an outlier as he "realy" was, he was a LBK buried on the site a millenia before the battle. That is known even with the low quality of the samples...

----------


## halfalp

We can make an inference that. For knowing that the Tollensee Valley is an economic and strategic point, those two groups have to know the geography and geopolitic of the land at their time. This is very unlikely that we deal with a local group and an immigrant group, more about a fight between two kings and their clients for the control of the the Tollensee Valley, in that case dna cant really help us, except if we assume, that in ancient times, every fight is the result of local vs migrants, wich doesn't make really sens.

----------


## halfalp

So apparently, according to wikipedia, they believe that those were immigrants because of an isotope related with millet consumption, so they assumed that it came from south, from the Alps precisely. The stuy is in german so i cant read it, but it was already discussed on eupedia last year.

----------


## bicicleur

> We can make an inference that. For knowing that the Tollensee Valley is an economic and strategic point, those two groups have to know the geography and geopolitic of the land at their time. This is very unlikely that we deal with a local group and an immigrant group, more about a fight between two kings and their clients for the control of the the Tollensee Valley, in that case dna cant really help us, except if we assume, that in ancient times, every fight is the result of local vs migrants, wich doesn't make really sens.


the economical value of the Tollense valley was zero, but it was an important strategic road
I mentioned several times in this thread, that this road was one of the few - maybe the only - to cross the swamps when coming from south to the Baltic
these swamps were created after LGM when the icecaps melted but the terrain was not drained yet
all river valeys in this area, most of them runing in northwest direction were broad swamps and upto the Middle Ages all roads crossing these rivers were strategic, very often guarded by fortified castles

EisrandlagenNorddeutschland.jpg
extent of the icecaps during 3 last GMs

Sandur_Skaftafell_Iceland.jpg
landscape when the icecap melts : a sandur

----------


## halfalp

> the economical value of the Tollense valley was zero, but it was an important strategic road I mentioned several times in this thread, that this road was one of the few - maybe the only - to cross the swamps when coming from south to the Baltic these swamps were created after LGM when the icecaps melted but the terrain was not drained yet all river valeys in this area, most of them runing in northwest direction were broad swamps and upto the Middle Ages all roads crossing these rivers were strategic, very often guarded by fortified castles EisrandlagenNorddeutschland.jpg extent of the icecaps during 3 last GMs Sandur_Skaftafell_Iceland.jpg landscape when the icecap melts : a sandur


 This was certainly one of the first Amber road of history, so its economic purpose is completely in topic i believe.

----------


## bicicleur

> This was certainly one of the first Amber road of history, so its economic purpose is completely in topic i believe.


yes, and the road was running north-south
the first study about the Tollense valley dealt only with isotopes and no DNA
if I recall well their conclusion was a local northern group and a southern group from Bohemia/the Carpathian Basin

----------


## halfalp

> yes, and the road was running north-south
> the first study about the Tollense valley dealt only with isotopes and no DNA
> if I recall well their conclusion was a local northern group and a southern group from Bohemia/the Carpathian Basin


Actually it was, a local group and a northern alpin, millet eating group if i understand well.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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?

----------


## MOESAN

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.

----------


## Sile

> 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

----------


## MOESAN

> 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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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/thread...l=1#post522534

----------


## MOESAN

> Check post 71 and 72, you might like it. :)
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=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.

----------


## Northener

> 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? 







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?

----------


## Promenade

> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## berun

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.

----------


## Angela

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.

" 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.



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."




 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)." 



 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).




 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.



 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.*

----------


## olarsson

Are there any results considering y-haplogroups?

----------


## Lukas

Probably too damaged genomes. In another case Genetiker would publish it:)

----------


## Lukas

His Admixture k14 of WEZ
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...rrior-genomes/




> The Tollense valley warriors are genetically similar to the Late Neolithic Nordic samples, the German Bell Beaker samples, and the Unetice samples. The one Tollense valley sample dated to 2960 BC is similar to other Middle and Late Neolithic samples from Western and Central Europe.


Part of his run

----------


## bicicleur

[QUOTE=mlukas;522905]His Admixture k14 of WEZ
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...rrior-genomes/



Part of his run

strange is that most of them lack the teal CHG-like component

----------


## berun

Good observation, the green share in CW and Unetice only is keept by 3 Tolenseans... population replacement????

----------


## bicicleur

> 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

----------


## berun

or their origin was somewhere without teal by then: Balkans? North Italy?

----------


## LeBrok

> 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?

----------


## berun

I know, but not so bad if everybody recognises two armies, and the paper set goodly the neolithic sample in a neolithic DNA environment... by the way bad quality affecting only teal? you can try to count how many chances per million are for it.

----------


## LeBrok

> I know, but not so bad if everybody recognises two armies, and the paper set goodly the neolithic sample in a neolithic DNA environment... *by the way bad quality affecting only teal?* you can try to count how many chances per million are for it.


Statistically, it skips smaller admixtures more than bigger ones. For example, if teal is 5% of DNA but only10% of genome is recovered from these ancient guys, it has bigger chance than not, not to have the teal in it, or sub 0.5% and not going to show much on the graph.

----------


## bicicleur

> Statistically, it skips smaller admixtures more than bigger ones. For example, if teal is 5% of DNA but only10% of genome is recovered from these ancient guys, it has bigger chance than not, not to have the teal in it, or sub 0.5% and not going to show much on the graph.


I don't know how much of the genomes they recovered, but 10 % would be enough, that would be 300 million pairs.
But I guess they have less.
If I understand well, what they present now are only preliminary results, based on novel techniques.
I hope they'll come up with more later.
And afaik they are still digging on the site.

----------


## berun

> Statistically, it skips smaller admixtures more than bigger ones. For example, if teal is 5% of DNA but only10% of genome is recovered from these ancient guys, it has bigger chance than not, not to have the teal in it, or sub 0.5% and not going to show much on the graph.


If DNA is damaged percents could be keept almost the same, percents don't rely on rough quantities but on relation of quantities... by the way it's quite absurd, take this imaginary exemple, in USA there are 15 cities with 2 million inhabitants being a 5% black american, North Korea bombs all such cities killing 90% of the population, and only in 3 cities the Black Americans survive, it wouldn't be sound?

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't know how much of the genomes they recovered, but 10 % would be enough, that would be 300 million pairs.
> But I guess they have less.
> If I understand well, what they present now are only preliminary results, based on novel techniques.
> I hope they'll come up with more later.
> And afaik they are still digging on the site.


I'm not sure, it was just hypothetical examples. Possibly they have much less, so low that it brings "statistical instabilities".

----------


## LeBrok

> If DNA is damaged percents could be keept almost the same, percents don't rely on rough quantities but on relation of quantities... by the way it's quite absurd, take this imaginary exemple, in USA there are 15 cities with 2 million inhabitants being a 5% black american, North Korea bombs all such cities killing 90% of the population, and only in 3 cities the Black Americans survive, it wouldn't be sound?


Have it your way, and instead seeing unreliable samples making faulty readings, you see them as a good proof of "conspiracy of steppe invasion".

----------


## berun

where I said steppe in this thread? you are guessing about my thinking but you fail

----------


## Lukas

I made my first ADMIXTURE run ever... Modern and ancient samples from Tollense study, without few outliers.


```
Altai Altai
Chimp Chimp
Denisovan Denisova
MezE MezE
Vi_merge Vi_merge
Mbuti.DG S_Mbuti-2
Mbuti.DG S_Mbuti-1
Mbuti.DG S_Mbuti-3
Mota mota
Ust_Ishim Ust_Ishim
Clovis Anzick
hg19ref Href
Kennewick kennewick
Kostenki14 Kostenki14
MA1 MA1
AG2 AG2
```

It is K=7 run. PC1 is WHG/SHG component clearly. Only PC5 is hard to describe.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Among moderns we have first Finns, than Kargopol Russian, then Poles.

Pop
ID
pc1

SHG
I0012
0.999940

SHG
I0013
0.999940

SHG
I0014
0.999940

SHG
I0015
0.999940

SHG
I0017
0.999940

Switzerland_HG
Bichon
0.999940

WHG
I0585
0.999940

WHG
I1507
0.999940

SHG
I0011
0.999935

WHG
Loschbour
0.659030

EHG
I0211
0.401437

EHG
I0124
0.323709

EHG
I0061
0.317327

WEZ
WEZ58
0.260612

WEZ
WEZ63
0.245046

Europe_LNBA
RISE479
0.242848

WEZ
WEZ59
0.230516

WEZ
WEZ83
0.228483

WEZ
WEZ15
0.226258

WEZ
WEZ71
0.220320

WEZ
WEZ24
0.218805

Europe_LNBA
I1502
0.217195

Steppe_Eneolithic
I0433
0.205120

Steppe_Eneolithic
I0122
0.200773

WEZ
WEZ61
0.188813

WEZ
WEZ40
0.186621

WEZ
WEZ77
0.178748

WEZ
WEZ74
0.174627

Europe_LNBA
RISE371
0.171417

WEZ
WEZ64-1
0.169515

WEZ
WEZ56
0.168114

WEZ
WEZ48
0.163429

WEZ
WEZ51
0.151123

WEZ
WEZ39
0.146486

finnish
Finnish2
0.141444

finnish
FIN002
0.141235

Europe_LNBA
I1504
0.140552

finnish
Finnish1
0.139796

finnish
FIN001
0.138663

Unetice_EBA
I0804
0.138568

WEZ
WEZ16
0.135605

russian
HGDP00903
0.134682

Europe_EN
I1499
0.132474

russian
HGDP00881
0.132012

russian
HGDP00882
0.131986

russian
HGDP00898
0.129098

WEZ
WEZ53
0.127044

WEZ
WEZ35-2
0.126865

russian
HGDP00895
0.126131

polish
Polish2
0.124640

russian
HGDP00883
0.124156

Europe_MNChL
I0560
0.121844

russian
HGDP00885
0.120691

russian
HGDP00901
0.120451

russian
HGDP00886
0.120210

russian
HGDP00892
0.119975

polish
Polish8
0.118276

russian
HGDP00891
0.117579

russian
HGDP00902
0.117569

russian
HGDP00884
0.117416

polish
Polish5
0.117117



WEZ16 has on the contrary 51% of Euro Neolithic (pc7) component (check spreadsheet and sort columns).

----------


## MOESAN

I think we already have enough DNA to evit a too big distorsion in respective proportions; that said individuals in Tollense show great differences within the sample. A part could be put on the account of poor DNA sample, but that said, as a whole, even arbitrary (or not) grouped together, the mean group show even in Genetiker higher %s of WHG AND EEF than preceding CHL and BA cultures of the area, the ones with apparently high level of Steppics. So the lower level or absence of CHGlike is not a too big surprise and is surely not only a statistical accident. Genetiker founds more EHGlike (dark blue) than the survey; I have no element nor knowledge to discuss it. What pop could explain this: a less steppic one, more "autochtonous", with an EEF pop lixed with HG's; the possible excess of EHGlike could be, exageration or not of Genetiker, due to a rather Northern HG's pop, kind of SHG, maybe rich in Y-I2a2 and Y-I1. Y haplos could help here, for sure. I suppose the pre-IE or at least pre-Steppics pops of Central Europe at these times had seen a continual increase in HG's auDNA at the cost of Farmers DNA, but here we maybe have a more southern one (more Y-I2a2 + Y-?) but also more EEF, more WHG, kind of proto-Lusacian input, and a more northern one, more SHGlike, (more Y-I1 + Y-?) with less EEF; all the way, these two pops could have been close enough in means, and not descendants of Steppics nomads? spite it seems weird at those times. The more northern one could be the remnants of East TRBK people??? and incorporated, later, in the Germanics genesis. Their apparent lack of CHG seem discarding direct demic link with post-Unetice.
All that is very fragile, it's true. Guessing and no more to date.

----------

