# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Unetice culture was clearly multi-ethnic

## Tomenable

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:*



*RISE145 (Polwica, Greater Poland), Unetice culture:*



*RISE150 (Przeclawice, Lower Silesia), Unetice culture:*



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

----------


## Ukko

No surprise as it has the appearance of an trade organisation.

----------


## bicicleur

where did Unetice originate? was it Bohemia?

----------


## Tomenable

I think in Poland - RISE431 from Poland (Łęki Małe) was described as "proto-Unetice".

I could not upload it because it was in the wrong format, but I guess it would be like RISE139 and RISE145, not like RISE150.

By the way, RISE139 and RISE145 are very similar autosomally to many of modern Poles.

----------


## Tomenable

And *I0116* (Unetice sample from Esperstedt in Germany) is more similar to Przeclawice than to Chociwel and Polwica:

----------


## Tomenable

*And here is my result (I'm from Greater Poland - the same region as RISE145):*

IMO my result is very similar to those two Bronze Age results (RISE139 and RISE145):



I uploaded my genome to GEDmatch and tried all calculators.

I got very interesting results with PuntDNAL K15 calculator.

I'm apparently close to Poles, Swedes and Norwegians - but very far from South Germans:

*Single Population Sharing:

# Population(source) Distance*

*1 Polish 2.06
2 Swedish 4.03
3 Norwegian 6.35*
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94
7 Scottish 8.18
8 Austrian 8.36
9 Orcadian 8.57
10 Irish 8.96
11 Russian 9.03
12 Hungarian 9.25
13 Mordovian 9.39
14 English 9.55
15 Karelian 10
16 Finnish 11.06
17 Lithuanian 11.07
18 Croatian 11.26
19 Utahn_White 12.85
*20 South_German 13.53*

I wonder if other native Wielkopolans also get similar DNA Land and GEDmatch results.

----------


## Fluffy

Interesting interesting...

----------


## Maciamo

It could be that the two more Slavic samples are descended from the Corded Ware (which was later overrun by Unetice), while the two more Northwest European samples represent the new wave associated with the Proto-Celts and Proto-Germans (mostly R1b, but visibly also I2, like the I0116 sample).

----------


## Sile

> It could be that the two more Slavic samples are descended from the Corded Ware (which was later overrun by Unetice), while the two more Northwest European samples represent the new wave associated with the Proto-Celts and Proto-Germans (mostly R1b, but visibly also I2, like the I0116 sample).


Proto-celt ?................first and oldest celt is Lepontic as stated by scholars

Lepontic is Swiss and north-italian

Bichon is I2a in switzerland ...............ancient remendello samples are all 100% I2a 

logic states , that "celtic" should be associated with I2a before any R1b



I would even place G2a between I2a and R1b ..............so it would read I2a then G2a

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Proto-celt ?................first and oldest celt is Lepontic as stated by scholars
> 
> Lepontic is Swiss and north-italian
> 
> Bichon is I2a in switzerland ...............ancient remendello samples are all 100% I2a 
> 
> logic states , that "celtic" should be associated with I2a before any R1b
> 
> 
> ...



Sile, 
I don't understand why some are so Olymply ignored. Mallory clearly showed a couple weeks ago that the several proto celtic did not have a Genetic linkage, for instance with the celtics in the UK. Or even La tene with hallstatt...

I truly think there will come a time when "Celtic" is drop and the structure of those settlements will be recognized as per what they were.

----------


## Tomenable

"North Slavic" component - despite its name - is actually also common among Balts and Scandinavians (both ancient and modern). For example RISE98 who was probably a Proto-Germanic speaker (the oldest U106 known to date) scores 43% North Slavic:

https://s11.postimg.io/pxw0yvftv/RISE98.png

A better name for "North Slavic" would be "Balto-Slavic" or "Northeast European *minus* Finnish" (that's what it really is).

RISE98 in DNA Land scores 46% of "Northeast Euro" component, including 43% of "North Slavic" and 2.5% of "Finnish".

However, "Northwest Euro" component was more dominant in RISE98, he scores 50% of this component in DNA Land:



By comparison, a modern Austrian German from Lavanttal scores only 25% of "Northwest Euro", less than me (36%):

He is almost as much "North-East Euro" as me, less "North-West Euro", but much more "Southern Euro" than me:

My combined Southern European score is 9.5%, while this Austrian German has 24.2% (18% + 6.2% Sardinian):

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

----------


## MarkoZ

> For example RISE98 who was probably a Proto-Germanic speaker


 :Rolleyes:

----------


## Tomenable

*MarkoZ* - Nordic Bronze Age culture is associated with Proto-Germanic speakers:

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

Especially in the region of Scania, where that RISE98 guy lived / was buried:

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

If RISE98 lived before PGMc developed, then he could speak Pre-Proto-Germanic.

----------


## MarkoZ

> *MarkoZ* - Nordic Bronze Age culture is associated with Proto-Germanic speakers:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age
> 
> Especially in the region of Scania, where that RISE98 guy lived / was buried:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scania
> 
> If RISE98 lived before PGMc developed, then he could speak Pre-Proto-Germanic.


No. If he was an Indo-European speaker he would have spoken a dialect very close to the proto-language. Proto-Germanic is an iron age phenomenon.

----------


## Tomenable

*MarkoZ,*




> Proto-Germanic is an iron age phenomenon.


Source?

*Maciamo,*




> Northwest European samples represent the new wave associated with the Proto-Celts and Proto-Germans


I've been told that modern Swedes have similar scores to RISE98 in DNA Land.

That is, roughly equal Northwest and Northeast European + a small bit of Southern.

R1b-U106 has not been found in Bell Beaker, it rather came along another route.

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

*PS:* I also uploaded Rathlin Island genome (Early Bronze Age Ireland) to DNA Land.

Wait a moment, I have to take a screenshot and I will post it.

*Edit:*

Here it is - Rathlin 1 genome (I guess that he could be a Pre-Proto-Celtic speaker?):

https://s18.postimg.io/mya56j6jt/Rathlin_1.png

----------


## Tomenable

*Rathlin 1 ("Pre-Proto-Celtic"):*

Northwest Euro - 77%
Northeast Euro - 21%
Kalash - 2%

*RISE98 ("Pre-Proto-Germanic"):*

Northwest Euro - 50%
Northeast Euro - 46%
Sardinian - 3%
Ambiguous - 1%

Differences are obvious, and you can see that Northwest Euro is a more Celtic component in its origin.

Proto-Germanics in Scandinavia were more intermediate between North-West and North-East Europe.

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

By comparison an Ancient Balt (I suppose that he was West Baltic - Old Prussian - rather than East Baltic):

*RISE598 (Late Bronze Age; Sudovia region; most certainly a Baltic-speaker):

*Northeast Euro - 100%

He was buried near modern Polish-Lithuanian border, in a region historically called Sudovia (Yotvingia):

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

RISE598 is so far the only ancient who scores 100% "North Slavic" (= Northeast Euro minus Finnish):

https://s21.postimg.io/iaa9n28yv/RISE598.png

----------


## Tomenable

I will upload some ancient genomes to GEDmatch (including these three - RISE98, Rathlin 1 and RISE598).  :Smile: 

Unless they were already uploaded by someone else before (but in case of RISE598, I don't think that it was).

----------


## MarkoZ

It gets better and better: Celtic in Ireland around 2,000 BC and Germanic in Scandinavia around 3,000 BC. I suggest you do some rudimentary reading before wasting more time on a subject you apparently know nothing about. Plugging ancient genomes into calculators for designed modern day populations is dubious enough as it is -- thinking the results tell you something about those ancient cultures' linguistic features is not even pseudoscience anymore.

----------


## Tomenable

^^^ Have you read Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" ??? There is a theory that Bell Beaker Folks spoke Pre-Proto-Celtic.

Rathlin Island skeletons were probably people of the *Food Vessel culture*, which descended from *Bell Beaker culture*.

In any case, Bronze Age Irish samples are genetically very similar to Iron Age Insular Celts, as well as to modern-day Irish.

So either they spoke Celtic, or Celtic was introduced later but as a cultural process, with not much of a population turnover.

In Ireland ancient DNA suggests a turnover (replacement) between Neolithic and Bronze Age; then continuity to present-day.

There was no any Post-Bronze replacement in Ireland (only admixtures from outside, but the "core population" is the same).

----------


## Tomenable

There was a* total population replacement* in Ireland between the Middle Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age.

Neolithic Irish were most genetically similar to modern Sardinians *(!)*, but Bronze Age Irish - to modern Irish.

----------


## MarkoZ

> ^^^ Have you read Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" ???


I prefer books written by specialists. And so should you.

There's no way insular Celtic would be so similar to Gaulish if they separated 2,000 BC.




> or Celtic was introduced later but as a cultural process, with not much of a population turnover.


This.

----------


## Tomenable

But some form of Indo-European speech - and probably very similar to Celtic - was spoken in Bronze Age Ireland.

A good analogy is what happened later in Gaul. Celtic (Gaulish) was replaced by Italic (Latin) after the Roman conquest. However, both of these languages were IE and - actually - quite closely related (both descended from Proto-Italo-Celtic branch of IE).

Some form of Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic was also spoken in Bronze Age Ireland, later replaced by another form of it.

----------


## MarkoZ

> But some form of Indo-European speech - and probably very similar to Celtic - was spoken in Bronze Age Ireland.
> 
> A good analogy is what happened later in Gaul. Celtic (Gaulish) was replaced by Italic (Latin) after the Roman conquest. However, both of these languages were IE and - actually - quite closely related (both descended from Proto-Italo-Celtic branch of IE).
> 
> Some form of Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic was also spoken in Bronze Age Ireland, later replaced by another form of it.


Impossible to know for sure. 'Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic' is hardly a thing and the substrata in Brythonic and Gaelic don't look very Indo-European at all. Pictish was classified by Hamp as non-Indo-European, although I'm not sure how definitive this is. At the very least there is a strong pre-IE stratum.

----------


## ElHorsto

> By comparison, a modern Austrian German from Lavanttal scores only 25% of "Northwest Euro", less than me (36%):
> 
> He is almost as much "North-East Euro" as me, less "North-West Euro", but much more "Southern Euro" than me:
> 
> My combined Southern European score is 9.5%, while this Austrian German has 24.2% (18% + 6.2% Sardinian):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavanttal


Lavanttal seems to be located in a region where the Slovene minority lives. Are you sure this "Austrian" is not one of them?

----------


## Taranis

> *MarkoZ* - Nordic Bronze Age culture is associated with Proto-Germanic speakers:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age
> 
> Especially in the region of Scania, where that RISE98 guy lived / was buried:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scania
> 
> If RISE98 lived before PGMc developed, then he could speak Pre-Proto-Germanic.





> No. If he was an Indo-European speaker he would have spoken a dialect very close to the proto-language. Proto-Germanic is an iron age phenomenon.


Pre-Proto-Germanic would refer to the language stage of Proto-Germanic before Grimm's Law came into effect. And yes, it would have been a language much closer to PIE (or late PIE, to be accurate). Euler1 wrote an extensive book on the issue, even if I disagree with his conclusion that Grimm's Law occured so late (here I would agree with you that it was near the start of the iron age).




> I prefer books written by specialists. And so should you.
> 
> There's no way insular Celtic would be so similar to Gaulish if they separated 2,000 BC.
> 
> This.


The Insular Celtic scenario is wrong. To cite Matasovic2 (a Croatian celtologist), Insular Celtic is a language area. All of the 'old' Celtic languages (Primitive Irish, Common Brythonic, Gaulish, Galatian, Lepontic, Celtiberian, Gallaecian) were all fairly similar to each other.




> Impossible to know for sure. 'Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic' is hardly a thing and the substrata in Brythonic and Gaelic don't look very Indo-European at all. Pictish was classified by Hamp as non-Indo-European, although I'm not sure how definitive this is. At the very least there is a strong pre-IE stratum.


Pictish was a P-Celtic language, similar to Brythonic and Gaulish. See Forsyth3 for reference.

1_Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen_,'Language and Origin of the Germanic peoples'
(Wolfram Euler, 2009).

2_Insular Celtic as a Language Area_ (Ranko Matasovic, 2007)

3_Languages of Pictland_ (Katherine Forsyth, 1997)

----------


## Tomenable

> Lavanttal seems to be located in a region where the Slovene minority lives. Are you sure this "Austrian" is not one of them?


Good question. I'm not sure.

He might be a Germanized Carinthian Slovene. I will ask him whether he identifies as a Slovene or a German.

*Here is another Austrian (with ancestry from Southern Austria) - posted on Anthrogenica:
*
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post184999
*
Southern Euro* - 36.2%
Northeast Euro - 32%
Northwest Euro - 26%
Near Eastern - 4.5%
Ambiguous - 1.1%*

His Northeast Euro is entirely "North Slavic" (no any Finnish).

***His Southern European seems to be diverse - it includes:

*Balkan - 15%
**Ambiguous South Euro - 3.3%**
Sardinian - 4.5%
Ambiguous Southwest Euro - 2.4%
**Mediterranean Islander - 11%
*
His Near Eastern is labelled as *"Central Indoeuropean"*. Here are reference populations for this component:

*Central Indoeuropean:
*
*Includes:* Abkhasian in Abkhazia; Armenian in Armenia; Georgian/Megrels in Georgia; Iranian in Iran; Druze in (Carmel) Israel; Balkar, Chechen, Kumyk, Lezgin, North Ossetian and Adygei in (Caucasus and 5 other sites) Russia and Turkish in (Adana, Aydin, Balikesir, Istanbul, Kayseri, Trabzon and 1 other site) Turkey

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> ^^^ Have you read Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" ??? There is a theory that Bell Beaker Folks spoke Pre-Proto-Celtic.
> 
> Rathlin Island skeletons were probably people of the *Food Vessel culture*, which descended from *Bell Beaker culture*.
> 
> In any case, Bronze Age Irish samples are genetically very similar to Iron Age Insular Celts, as well as to modern-day Irish.
> 
> So either they spoke Celtic, or Celtic was introduced later but as a cultural process, with not much of a population turnover.
> 
> In Ireland ancient DNA suggests a turnover (replacement) between Neolithic and Bronze Age; then continuity to present-day.
> ...


I personally would argue that R-P312 were non-IE originally (para-IE at most, Vasconic imo) and was already there and in Iberia.

----------


## Maciamo

> Here it is - Rathlin 1 genome (I guess that he could be a Pre-Proto-Celtic speaker?):
> 
> https://s18.postimg.io/mya56j6jt/Rathlin_1.png



Rathlin 1 looks amazingly simiar to RISE150 and especially I0116. The percentages of NW European and North Slavic are almost identical. That confirms what I wrote about Unetice being the source of Western European R1b. It is true that no R1b has been found in Unetice so far, but in all fairness we only have two Y-DNA samples from this culture. I am certain that there will be plenty of R1b. We already know that R1b (P51, P312 and S28) was in central Europe shortly before Unetice, in what is described as the Bell Beaker culture, but which I maintain wasn't really a culture in the ethnic sense, just a trade network for pottery and other artefacts that turn up in the archaeological record. The DNA evidence is clear. Unetice genomes either look like late Corded Ware ones (Scandinavian-Baltic looking) or like Bronze Age Irish ones (Pre-Proto-Celtic R1b).

----------


## davef

> Good question. I'm not sure.
> 
> He might be a Germanized Carinthian Slovene. I will ask him whether he identifies as a Slovene or a German.
> 
> *Here is another Austrian (with ancestry from Southern Austria) - posted on Anthrogenica:
> *
> http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post184999
> *
> Southern Euro* - 36.2%
> ...


This grouping is rather odd, don't you agree? It puts the Druze and Iranians in the same boat. I could be wrong and maybe perhaps there is a connection I'm unaware of but still, aren't levantines and Iranians significantly different from each other, genetically?

Surprising Southern European score for the austrian

----------


## berun

> ^^^ Have you read Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" ??? There is a theory that Bell Beaker Folks spoke Pre-Proto-Celtic.


Very dubious. Such theory must face the fact that Bell Beakers were also in place of lusitanian-galaic, vasconian, iberian, aquitanian and so. So it's like the theoey of IE from Anatolia.

----------


## MOESAN

> ^^^ Have you read Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" ??? There is a theory that Bell Beaker Folks spoke Pre-Proto-Celtic.
> 
> Rathlin Island skeletons were probably people of the *Food Vessel culture*, which descended from *Bell Beaker culture*.
> 
> In any case, Bronze Age Irish samples are genetically very similar to Iron Age Insular Celts, as well as to modern-day Irish.
> 
> So either they spoke Celtic, or Celtic was introduced later but as a cultural process, with not much of a population turnover.
> 
> In Ireland ancient DNA suggests a turnover (replacement) between Neolithic and Bronze Age; then continuity to present-day.
> ...



Just a detail but heavy: what if newcomers, I-E too but more precisely Celtic speaking, arrived bearing roughly the same autosomes because coming from close regions spite later?

----------


## Tomenable

My results with GEDmatch Archaic DNA matches (segments >1.0 cM & 100 SNPs):

I'm most similar to BR2 from Bronze Age Hungary (Kyjatice culture, 1270-1110 BC):

https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png

What is also interesting is that I am more similar to Clovis Anzick than to Kennewick Man - what does it mean? After all, both of those Paleo-Americans had some ANE admixture, and Europeans also have it - but why is my ANE (assuming that this similarity is due to shared ANE ancestry) more similar to ANE of Clovis than to ANE of Kennewick?

Could it be simply because Clovis lived 4000 years before Kennewick (= Kennewick's genome had more of America-specific genetic drift and America-specific natural selection?). Or maybe a Clovis-like population back-migrated from Alaska to Eurasia and their genes eventually reached as far west as Eastern Europe?):

And when it comes to WHG, I have more in common with Loschbour than with La Brana:

----------


## LeBrok

> My results with GEDmatch Archaic DNA matches (segments >1.0 cM & 100 SNPs):
> 
> I'm most similar to BR2 from Bronze Age Hungary (Kyjatice culture, 1270-1110 BC):
> 
> https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png
> 
> What is also interesting is that I am more similar to Clovis Anzick than to Kennewick Man - what does it mean? After all, both of those Paleo-Americans had some ANE admixture, and Europeans also have it - but why is my ANE (assuming that this similarity is due to shared ANE ancestry) more similar to ANE of Clovis than to ANE of Kennewick?
> 
> Could it be simply because Clovis lived 4000 years before Kennewick (= Kennewick's genome had more of America-specific genetic drift and America-specific natural selection?). Or maybe a Clovis-like population back-migrated from Alaska to Eurasia and their genes eventually reached as far west as Eastern Europe?):
> ...


And did you notice that you are more like Stuttgart farmer than Loschbour HG?

----------


## Moi-même

> What is also interesting is that I am more similar to Clovis Anzick than to Kennewick Man - what does it mean? After all, both of those Paleo-Americans had some ANE admixture, and Europeans also have it - but why is my ANE (assuming that this similarity is due to shared ANE ancestry) more similar to ANE of Clovis than to ANE of Kennewick?


Use the "Are Your Parents Related?" tool on gedmatch's main page, enter the Anzick Boy (F999919) then try it with the Kennewick man (F999970).

As you see, the Kennewick man is so inbreeded that it is as good as if he ha only half a genome to begin with, of course the Anzick boy who has a much more healthy heterozygoty will have almost twice as much chance to match anyone.

----------


## holderlin

> It gets better and better: Celtic in Ireland around 2,000 BC and Germanic in Scandinavia around 3,000 BC. I suggest you do some rudimentary reading before wasting more time on a subject you apparently know nothing about. Plugging ancient genomes into calculators for designed modern day populations is dubious enough as it is -- thinking the results tell you something about those ancient cultures' linguistic features is not even pseudoscience anymore.


Alan? I noticed the use of dubious again.

Euro IE languages are generally historically attested much later than their Asiatic cousins. This doesn't necessarily correlate to when the languages were spoken e.g. proto-Italo-Celtic was almost certainly spoken before Indic based on the archaism that it shares with Hittite.

It's definitely speculation to say that this or that 2000 BC horizon is Proto-Celtic or Germanic, but to say that it's impossible shows that it's actually you who doesn't know anything of the subject.

----------


## holderlin

> Very dubious. Such theory must face the fact that Bell Beakers were also in place of lusitanian-galaic, vasconian, iberian, aquitanian and so. So it's like the theoey of IE from Anatolia.


There's dubious again wtf. 

No it is nothing like Anatolian PIE.

----------


## holderlin

It's funny, I was going to ask Tomenable if he had Raithlin right when I saw RISE150 and I0116. 

This is me belaboring my early departure of Celto-Italic theory.

Notice the Finnish in Karelia and Samara, then look at RISE150 and I0116, which are more Southern than RISE139 and 145. We see relatively high Finnish. We also high Finnish in Raithlin.

And in RISE98 we see the same signature, but pushed a little east. Germanic appears be ancestral to Balto-Slavic, yet it shares a great number of similarities with Celto-Italic, and it's Centum. RISE98 is close to what I would expect a "celto-Italicized" Balto-Slav to look like, and given all the data I would expect him/her to speak something that sounds like a proto-Germanic. This is also consistent with a Unetice overtaking of Corded Ware.

I do think we're seeing main European IE branches develop in these samples.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Alan? I noticed the use of dubious again.
> 
> Euro IE languages are generally historically attested much later than their Asiatic cousins. This doesn't necessarily correlate to when the languages were spoken e.g. proto-Italo-Celtic was almost certainly spoken before Indic based on the archaism that it shares with Hittite.
> 
> It's definitely speculation to say that this or that 2000 BC horizon is Proto-Celtic or Germanic, but to say that it's impossible shows that it's actually you who doesn't know anything of the subject.


What archaism does 'Proto-Italo-Celtic' share with Hittite?

----------


## Tomenable

I used Felix Immanuel's "Ancient Calculator":




> Ancient Calculator
> 
> Ancient Calculator will tell you how much percentage of DNA and/or compound segments is shared between an ancient DNA and the autosomal file. *In other words, it tells your total percentage of shared ancestors in each others pedigree.* The tool includes 59 ancient DNA which allows to compare any autosomal file with ease. It supports FTDNA, 23andMe and Ancestry files.


Here are my results for Copper-Bronze Age and younger samples (I added cultures):

Bronze Age BR2 comes first again (1/5 - 1/4 of shared ancestry):

BR2 - 22,36% - Kyjatice, Hungary
RISE98 - 15,40% - Battle Axe (?)***
RISE493 - 14,90% - Karasuk
RISE505 - 14,45% - Andronovo
RISE511 - 11,70% - Afanasievo
RISE150 - 11,49% - Unetice
RISE174 - 11,38% - Iron Age Sweden
RISE497 - 10,53% - Karasuk
RISE495 - 10,48% - Karasuk
RISE552 - 9,95% - Yamnaya
RISE523 - 9,86% - Mezhovskaya
RISE395 - 9,68% - Sintashta
RISE500 - 9,07% - Andronovo
RISE496 - 8,68% - Karasuk
RISE479 - 7,38% - Vatya
RISE548 - 6,71% - Yamnaya
RISE577 - 6,70% - Unetice
IR1 - 6,67% - Mezocsat culture
RISE499 - 6,38% - Karasuk
RISE569 - 6,33% - Bell Beaker 
BR1 - 6,31% - Mako culture
RISE509 - 6,10% - Afanasievo
RISE502 - 5,87% - Karasuk
RISE503 - 5,80% - Andronovo
CO1 - 5,65% - Baden culture
RISE00 - 5,49% - CW Estonia
RISE94 - 5,46% - Battle Axe
RISE504 - 4,88% - Kytmanovo
RISE97 - 4,49% - Battle Axe
RISE601 - 3,02% - Iron Age Siberia
RISE602 - 2,91% - Iron Age Siberia

And here Neolithic and Mesolithic samples from Europe (nothing is closer than BR2):

NE1 - 20,49% - ALP culture, Hungary
LBK - 20,04% - see below****
Loschbour - 16,83% - WHG Luxembourg
Motala12 - 8,45% - SHG Sweden
KO1 - 7,38% - Hungarian HG
NE7 - 6,97% - Lengyel culture
La Brana - 6,70% - WHG Spain
NE6 - 6,47% - LBK culture
NE5 - 5,56% - Late ALP culture
Ajvide 58 - 1,83% - Pitted Ware
Gökhem 2 - 1,75% - TRB Sweden

***It is not certain whether RISE98 was one of Battle Axe people. According to Artmar: 




> RISE98 wasn't buried in Battle-Axe rite - only on burial site used previously by Battle-Axe people.


****Is it Stuttgart, another LBK, or some composite created from several LBK samples?

----------


## Sloven-Vened

> I'm most similar to BR2 from Bronze Age Hungary (Kyjatice culture, 1270-1110 BC):


Small village Kyjatice is not in Hungary, but in Slovakia. Majority territory of Kyjatice culture is in Slovakia, but in Hungary too.

Coincidentally I discussed yesterday with archeologist Alexander Botoš from museum in Rimavska Sobota about genetic reseach of Kyjatice culture and about rying ground (prehistory cemetery) in village Kyjatice. Now dot exist genetic research of Kyjatice culture from Slovakia - I am sad  :Sad: .

You can visit museum in Rimavska Sobota and see material culture of Kyjatice culture 

Kyjatice culture, wikipedia
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sk&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fsk.wik ipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKyjatick%25C3%25A1_kult%25C3%2 5BAra&sandbox=1

Museum in Rimavska Sobota
http://www.gmmuzeum.sk/stalaex.htm
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sk&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gmmuzeum.sk%2Fstalaex.htm&edi t-text=&act=url

Museum in Rimavska Sobota on map
http://www.gmmuzeum.sk/kontakt.htm

Magical open-air museum in village Kyjatice
kyjatice-03-500.jpghttp://www.regionmalohont.sk/wp-cont...ice-03-500.jpg

*Museum in Rimavska Sobota (Slovakia)*



> _Extremely rich collection of archeology is presented by four larger whole. Prehistoric and early-medieval development of the region provides a chronological overview of archaeological finds from the appearance of the man after the beginnings of Slavic settlement, with an emphasis on the younger Stone Age, Celts and La Tene culture and Roman period, represented by the findings of the Germanic Quadi and the Vandals. Bronze Industry is represented by products Pilinskas Kyjatice and culture, with an emphasis on jewelery, making tools and weapons. Pilinskas Kyjatice and culture are presented findings housing type and presenting findings dip method of burying. In 2000, the permanent exhibition expanded the whole divine triad of Včeliniec and its people, dead Eneolithic Baden culture (2300-1900 BC. L.). On a European scale is a unique findings depicting the way of life and the burial rite of the then people._


http://www.gmmuzeum.sk/stalaex.htm

----------


## Tomenable

^ As for Kyjatice culture, it seems that it had some demographic links with Lusatian culture.

I have read that Kyjatice culture developed from a mixture of Lusatian and Gava groups:

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

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

^ Too bad, that we don't have any good-quality autosomal samples from Lusatian culture.

----------


## MarkoZ

> The Insular Celtic scenario is wrong. To cite Matasovic2 (a Croatian celtologist), Insular Celtic is a language area. All of the 'old' Celtic languages (Primitive Irish, Common Brythonic, Gaulish, Galatian, Lepontic, Celtiberian, Gallaecian) were all fairly similar to each other.


I did not imply whether I thought the relationship between Brythonic and Gaelic was areal or genetic. Matasovic still contraposes insular and continental Celtic in his newer publications, so I'm not sure what your point is if it's not entirely about semantics. He's also much more cautious in his pronouncements. You'll have to explain where you derive your confidence from. 




> Pictish was a P-Celtic language, similar to Brythonic and Gaulish. See Forsyth3 for reference.


Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.

----------


## MarkoZ

> This doesn't necessarily correlate to when the languages were spoken e.g. proto-Italo-Celtic was almost certainly spoken before Indic based on the archaism that it shares with Hittite.


A single archaism retained in several Indo-European languages is hardly conclusive. Your pet theory around a branch generally rejected by historical linguists needs more precise evidence to be considered anything but 'dubious'.

----------


## Taranis

> I did not imply whether I thought the relationship between Brythonic and Gaelic was areal or genetic. Matasovic still contraposes insular and continental Celtic in his newer publications, so I'm not sure what your point is if it's not entirely about semantics. He's also much more cautious in his pronouncements. You'll have to explain where you derive your confidence from.


If you look at the modern Insular Celtic languages (e.g Irish, Breton and Welsh) and compare them with the better-known extinct Continental Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), that concept is useful. My point is that the earliest attestations of Goidelic and Brythonic were essentially "Continental Celtic" in their character, meaning that the "Insularity" was a later innovation, which is exactly what Matasovic argues in the paper I cited. Matasovic makes a comparison with the medieval Balkans: "_the absence of a sharp sociolinguistic division between high and low va- rieties of the languages in contact. In medieval Balkans, the languages of the lowlands Slavic agriculturalists, and those of the highland pastoralists speaking various forms of Balkan Romance and Proto-Albanian were of roughly equal status. Similar social patterns exist in other regions where areal phenomena have spread, e.g. in the Arnhem Land of Australia._" Matasovic points out that there is no independent evidence for the existence of such a "substrate language" (commonly thought to be Afroasiatic), which is supposed to have influenced the Insular Celtic languages.




> Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.


That doesn't prevent Forsyth from being very accurate in her analysis. She dubbs the language of northern Britain during the Roman period 'Pritenic', and uses that term to distinguish it from the later Pictish language spoken during the early Middle Ages. To quote her (p26): "Rivet and Smith have remarked on the essential unity of place names throughout Britain in the Roman period. We have the same roots and formations recurring north and south, sometimes even the same names (Ituna, Alauna, Dumnonii), a cohesion which extends to the Celtic-speaking areas of the continent, too."

If you distrust Forsyth because she's a historian, I recommend that you read the original sources (Tacitus' _Agricola_ and Ptolemy's _Geography_). If Britain was seemingly entirely Celtic throughout by 100 AD, where are the non-Indo-Europeans by 400 AD supposed to come from?

----------


## Sloven-Vened

> where did Unetice originate? was it Bohemia?


*English wikipedia:* Czech Únětická kultura, is an archaeological culture at the start of the Central European Bronze Age, dated roughly to about 2300–1600 BC. The eponymous site for this culture, the village of Únětice, is located in the central Czech Republic, northwest of Prague. Today, this archaeological culture is known from Czech Republic and Slovakia from about 1,400 sites, from Poland (550 sites) and Germany (about 500 sites and loose finds locations).

_ In Czech language wikipedia about Unetice culture:_ The eastern border of occupied territory in its largest heyday accounted Slovak river Zittau.

The largest number archeological objects of Unetice culture is in Slovakia.

----------


## Tomenable

Samples of ancient DNA from the following will be published soon:

- South Baltic Mesolithic
- Kunda & Narva cultures
- South Baltic Corded Ware
*- Trzciniec culture*

----------


## Armoricain

> Samples of ancient DNA from the following will be published soon:
> 
> - South Baltic Mesolithic
> - Kunda & Narva cultures
> - South Baltic Corded Ware
> *- Trzciniec culture*


I am in a hurry to see whether I-M253 will be present in all these new samples;
especially among the mesolithic ones.

----------


## Tomenable

> Here are my results for Copper-Bronze Age and younger samples (I added cultures):
> 
> Bronze Age BR2 comes first again (1/5 - 1/4 of shared ancestry):
> 
> BR2 - 22,36% - Kyjatice, Hungary
> (...)


And here is what Shaikorth wrote on Anthrogenica:




> *looks like BR2 descendants contributed to modern Poles pretty much more than to anyone else in Europe, similarly to how Rathlin Bronze Age's closest genealogical descendants were Irish and Welsh. This was verified in Cassidy et al.* (...)
> 
> *BR2 population's direct descendants survived better in Poland than anywhere else*, but that population likely isn't the only ancestor of modern Poles. (...)


Michał added:




> *it is modern Poland where the closest relatives of BR2 have somehow managed to survive*, although they were strongly admixed with an unknown (but genetically distinct) population


Here is a map from Cassidy et al. which was mentioned by Shaikorth:

http://s22.postimg.org/5y9hc69ip/br2.jpg



Here a broader picture:

----------


## Tomenable

^ Kyjatice people - such as BR2 - were partially descended from people of the Lusatian culture.

It is possible, that similarity of Poles and BR2 is due to shared ancestry from Lusatian population.

Unfortunately, we don't have any good-quality ancient DNA samples from the Lusatian culture.

If we had such a sample, then probably I would share even more with that sample than with BR2.

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

Another theory is that people of Trzciniec culture were partially descended from BR2-like populations.

And Trzciniec seems to be the direct ancestors of Slavs and Balts (but let's wait for official publication).

----------


## LeBrok

> And here is what Shaikorth wrote on Anthrogenica:
> 
> 
> 
> Michał added:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a map from Cassidy et al. which was mentioned by Shaikorth:
> ...


Always surprised me we a strong connection to Welsh population and Italians, and this is without any Y DNA connection, almost. It drops quicker for Germanics than for Balkans.
From all the ancient samples I have strongest connection to Hungarian BR2. It makes sense for me.

----------


## Sloven-Vened

> ^ Kyjatice people - such as BR2 - were partially descended from people of the Lusatian culture.
> It is possible, that similarity of Poles and BR2 is due to shared ancestry from Lusatian population.
> Unfortunately, we don't have any good-quality ancient DNA samples from the Lusatian culture.
> If we had such a sample, then probably I would share even more with that sample than with BR2.


People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup

You ca see this interesting link
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

----------


## Tomenable

> From all the ancient samples I have strongest connection to Hungarian BR2. It makes sense for me.


You too, Brutus?  :Smile: 

Yeah it seems that most of Poles have a strong connection to this BR2.




> Always surprised me we a strong connection to Welsh population and Italians


*Here is what Shaikorth supposes:*




> BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.

----------


## LeBrok

> Yeah it seems that most of Poles have a strong connection to this BR2.


 It doesn't look like it was really related to CW expansion. More like something local before CW, Or strong selection for Balto/Slavic, East Germanic or East Celtic, or whatever proto was for these before the split 2,000 BC?





> *Here is what Shaikorth supposes:*
> 
> 
> _BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution._


Makes sense, my second higher was one of the Hungarian Neolithic guys, NE1, IIRC.


_BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh (...). Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution._

----------


## Tomenable

> my second higher was one of the Hungarian Neolithic guys, NE1, IIRC.


Same here. I got 22,36% with BR2 and 20,49% with NE1.

----------


## MOESAN

> Forsyth is a historian, not a linguist. For reference, Eric P. Hamp and Isaac Graham still classify Pictish as non-Indo-European - both of them certainly authorities in their respective fields. Matasovic refers to Pictish as possibly Indo-European, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.


_Which Pictish? It seems there are traces of 2 languages (I have not too much details) in the same areas: one is not too well understood; but what is sure is that the most illustrated one in toponymy is clearly a Brittonic Celtic language._

----------


## Sile

> People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup
> 
> You ca see this interesting link
> http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
> http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png


IIRC in the last 2 years of genetic papers, that town/area was dominated by ydna of G2a and H2 ( ydna) in the early neolithic period .

----------


## Volat

> People from Lusatian culture are R1a haplogrup. R1a is the most typical Slavic haplogrup
> 
> You ca see this interesting link
> http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539586
> http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png




Earliest R1a in Europe are found in Karelia (Mesolithic) and late Neolithic (border of Russian and Belarus). R1a came in Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, eastern Germany from the east. We need more evidence to support the claim. It will be coming soon.

----------


## MOESAN

All that is following is brain sudation. Only to put more knowledged people to react (old trick!)
I don't know if anyone can make sound conclusions to date concerning Y-haplos.
I'm not too well knowledged but the Lusacian question is a bit complicated; it's post Unetice, and followed in W-Poland a Tumuli culture came there from Bohemia through Moravia with something evocating Celts or Italics. The burying aspect does not provide easy conclusion because the alternance inhumation/cremation was very common at those times; based upon urns, one could evocate one of close "Hungarian" cultures which could have penetrated the new Tumuli area; The Urnfileds culture which show some proximity to Lusacian culture could have resulted of these contacts + maybe fusions? The subsequent rather Italic cultures which reached Italy could have had strong contacts with this POSSIBLE fusion/osmosis, I think here firstly in Veneti, the Osco-Umbrians could have been influenced later by the Veneti. It's based upon archeology, always discutable; at these times the Celts and Italics or their immediate "fathers" were close enough concerning things, as clothes; Italics were not already trying to sunbathe. I did not red anything about languages in Lusacian territories. In fact linguistically proto-Italics or even Italics seem having been in contact with Germanics, even Slavs at some stage and after cutting off from proto-Celts, and archeologically they show links with Hungary/Pannonia later cultures, roughly said. I remember the so called 'Illyrian' toponymy in Lusacian territories without traces in the Illyricum. Could it have been in fact a proto-Dalmatian/Venetic which was at the center of the Lusacian culture??? I recall too B. Sergent thinks the North-West I-Ean pre-celtic pre-germanic had meta-italic traits for the little which can be analysed: the true first Urnfields people could have spoken some dialect of proto/or eraly-Italic before to influence culturally (religion?) other people (principally Celts)? concerning Y-haplos, we have very few for Unetice (I forgot, have to go to look at) I guess some Y-I2a2 lignages from Hungary could have been envolved in the process of Lusacian creation - who knows to date? Unstrut culture had strong Y-I2a2 in Liechstenstein cave but the track could have been different - and all that is later than Unetice, sorry for the very thread.

----------


## Tomenable

> Lavanttal seems to be located in a region where the Slovene minority lives. Are you sure this "Austrian" is not one of them?


You were right, he is Slovenian.

His ethnicity is given as Koroških, which means Carinthian Slovene, but his results look also very Austrian:
(even when "using 3 populations approximation", he is still getting only Austrian + Austrian + Austrian)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post3927768




> This calculator looks impressingly good!
> 
> # Population Percent 
> 1 NE_European 55.91 
> 2 Mediterranean 27.17 
> 3 Caucasian 9.92 
> 4 SW_Asian 4.9 
> 5 S_Indian 0.8 
> 6 Omo_River 0.43 
> ...

----------


## Tomenable

*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.

----------


## Tomenable

> 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)."_

----------


## Northener

> 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/threads...western-Europe

----------


## Edward_J

BR2 was Y-Haplo J2a correct?

----------


## MOESAN

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!)

----------


## Angela

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...re14317-s1.pdf

----------


## Northener

> 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....

----------


## Northener

> 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:*
> 
> 
> 
> *RISE145 (Polwica, Greater Poland), Unetice culture:*
> ...


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.




Unetice on R1b U106 maps:



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:

----------


## Sile

> *By the way:*
> 
> There is this 70-year-long dispute whether the Führer was Austrian or German... 
> 
> 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

----------


## Northener

> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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,

----------


## MOESAN

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?)

----------


## MOESAN

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.

----------


## Northener

> 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/publica..._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 *s*uch 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?

----------


## Northener

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.

----------

