PDA

View Full Version : R1b-U106 from Únětice Culture 2200–1700 BC



Pages : [1] 2

rms2
02-22-2018, 12:37 AM
The final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738), appeared in Nature today.

One of the new samples was an R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC.

He was buried with a bronze hair ring, a bone awl, and some flints.

Jan_Noack
02-24-2018, 09:51 AM
Did they analyse the samples any finer than U106 ? or is this not possible? I was interested in "1881–1646 calBCE, BB_The_Netherlands, De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland, Lat/Long: 52.733563 5.096183", as I'm part of a small group of U106/S1688/By11542 some with paper trails back a 500 - 800 years to ancestry lies close by (Kent, Brabant, near Calais). However a LOT of U106 live around Holland today.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/05/09/135962.DC1/135962-1.pdf lines 1893-1905 is interesting

edited to add : line 460 I4070/skeleton 230 barrow I-M7: 1881–1646 calBCE
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMEA104408069

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB23635

Interesting that find "R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC." probably predates Oostwoud.

Radboud
02-24-2018, 10:35 AM
Did they analyse the samples any finer than U106 ? or is this not possible? I was interested in "1881–1646 calBCE, BB_The_Netherlands, De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland, Lat/Long: 52.733563 5.096183", as I'm part of a small group of U106/S1688/By11542 some with paper trails back a 500 - 800 years to ancestry lies close by (Kent, Brabant, near Calais). However a LOT of U106 live around Holland today.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/05/09/135962.DC1/135962-1.pdf lines 1893-1905 is interesting

Interesting that find "R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC." probably predates Oostwoud.

I7196= R1b-U106>Z381>Z156>S497/Z304.

The U106 sample from Oostwoud is still R1b-U106. Experts from R1b-U106 project are going to check the files of these samples if they can narrow it down.

rms2
02-24-2018, 02:04 PM
Genetiker and some of the other guys with sufficient computer power are analyzing the samples from Olalde et al to see if they can squeeze from them some SNP calls further downstream.

Genetiker's progress can be monitored here (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/y-snp-calls-for-bell-beaker-genomes/).

He'll get to I7196 eventually.

Jan_Noack
02-25-2018, 12:12 AM
delete- too far off topic

Bollox79
02-25-2018, 10:48 AM
Genetiker and some of the other guys with sufficient computer power are analyzing the samples from Olalde et al to see if they can squeeze from them some SNP calls further downstream.

Genetiker's progress can be monitored here (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/y-snp-calls-for-bell-beaker-genomes/).

He'll get to I7196 eventually.

Yeah I7196 is in my group at the higher levels Z304 etc... as you can see in my signature etc. I know the U106 yahoo group sure has plans to tease a few more SNPs out of raw data similar to what they did for 6drif-3 and 3drif-16... if it's possible.

rms2
02-25-2018, 05:34 PM
Did you all catch this post (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=355210&viewfull=1#post355210) from Alex Williamson?

Bollox79
02-25-2018, 05:56 PM
Did you all catch this post (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=355210&viewfull=1#post355210) from Alex Williamson?

I know now rms2! Thanks for the heads up :-)!

Finn
02-27-2018, 07:44 AM
The final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738), appeared in Nature today.

One of the new samples was an R1b-U106 male, I7196, from a Únětice Culture burial site at Jinonice in the Czech Republic dated to 2200-1700 BC.

He was buried with a bronze hair ring, a bone awl, and some flints.


This looks no coincidence,
Finn [1] "distance%=0.9722"

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

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

In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex.

By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely un disturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together. But, if the Drouwen has shown that the tumulus was surrounded by a ring-ditch some 30 metres in diameter argues that in life he must have had local authority.

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

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

https://www.mupload.nl/img/ibw8aqor.png

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

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

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

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

https://www.mupload.nl/img/my8ewhzuy.png


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

Wrap up Vandkilde :

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

Finn
02-27-2018, 09:45 PM
One add from Prof. L. Kooijmans:

''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

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

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

The Elp/Sögel Wohlde culture in red:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ctxwba53bji6u.png

Bollox79
02-28-2018, 07:05 AM
One add from Prof. L. Kooijmans:

''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

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

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

The Elp/Sögel Wohlde culture in red:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ctxwba53bji6u.png

Yes Finn... you can add that some U106 in Italy is from the Longobard migation aka the 5 U106 guys at Szolad and the one who is kin with some others (no Y-DNA though for them) in Collegno ;-). The two they got below Z381 for were L48 and a few more under that I think... I wonder if there is raw data that we can look at to try and get more reads...

Cheers,
Charlie

Radboud
03-01-2018, 10:45 AM
The Uneitce derived Sögel-Wohlde warriors are most probably the cause of a founder effect of R1b U106. That was after the BB period (Sögel-Wohlde, Elp is about 1700 BC). So this was to late for the BB spread and 'take over' on the Isles.



It's possible that they are responsible for the ''southern subclades'' of R1b-U106 like Z156 in NW Europe.( Or atleast some lineages of Z156) But I doubt that the Sogel warriors are the cause of the founder effect of R1b-U106 as a whole. Imo, ''northern subclades'' like L48 or Z18 participated in the expansion into Scandinavia/Northern Germany before the expansion of these warriors. We must not forget that R1b-U106 was present in the Nordic_LN/ Battle Axe period . There is no evidence he had links with Unetice culture or even Bell Beakers.

We need more samples to solve this mystery. Ancient dna from the Sogel warriors would be nice. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-01-2018, 11:02 AM
It's possible that they are responsible for the ''southern subclades'' of R1b-U106 like Z156 in NW Europe.( Or atleast some lineages of Z156) But I doubt that the Sogel warriors are the cause of the founder effect of R1b-U106 as a whole. Imo, ''northern subclades'' like L48 or Z18 participated in the expansion into Scandinavia/Northern Germany before the expansion of these warriors. We must not forget that R1b-U106 was present in the Nordic_LN/ Battle Axe period . There is no evidence he had links with Unetice culture or even Bell Beakers.

We need more samples to solve this mystery. Ancient dna from the Sogel warriors would be nice. :)

"The land of origin of the Winnili, the ancient name of the Lombards (or Longobards or Langobards), is traditionally held to have been Scania, in modern Scandinavia. Long ago the Longobards left this region and migrated to northern Germany, where they were recorded as one of the Germanic tribes between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD. This was the start of a long migration lasting more than five centuries, in constant search of new and richer lands"

http://www.longobardinitalia.it/index.php/en/pre-italian-origins-archaeology-and-legend

"The Germanic tribes seem to have originated in a homeland in southern Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway, with the Jutland area of northern Denmark, along with a very narrow strip of Baltic coastline). They had been settled here for over two thousand years following the Indo-European migrations...........The Langobards (or Langobardi) originated in and above northern Silesia (now western Poland) as part of the Suevi confederation of tribes. It is possible that they, like the Goths, had earlier origins in southern Scandinavia and were forced to migrate due to population expansion. They were also known by their original ethnic name, the Winnili ('Winn' probably being Germanic for 'striving' and 'being victorious', added to an 'il/el' diminutive suffix and a Latin plural, '-il', producing something along the lines of 'the little tribe that succeeds in fighting' or 'the little winners'). The later name of that part of the tribe that apparently migrated out of Scandinavia was the Langobards, or 'hound clan'. Their founder is sometimes named as Sceafa Longbeardum, the Sceaf of Angeln who perhaps is confused with an early Langobard ruler of the same name, or hints at an early connection between the two tribes during (or before) their sojourn on the southern Baltic coastline in the first and second centuries AD."


http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyLombards.htm

Finn
03-01-2018, 11:25 AM
It's possible that they are responsible for the ''southern subclades'' of R1b-U106 like Z156 in NW Europe.( Or atleast some lineages of Z156) But I doubt that the Sogel warriors are the cause of the founder effect of R1b-U106 as a whole. Imo, ''northern subclades'' like L48 or Z18 participated in the expansion into Scandinavia/Northern Germany before the expansion of these warriors. We must not forget that R1b-U106 was present in the Nordic_LN/ Battle Axe period . There is no evidence he had links with Unetice culture or even Bell Beakers.

We need more samples to solve this mystery. Ancient dna from the Sogel warriors would be nice. :)

Thanks!

Just some thoughts....

Eastern Bell Beakers and Unetice/Tumulus are partly overlapping area's just different timing LN/EBA or MBA and LBA.

Rise 98 Scania Sweden is the first R1b U106, if I'm well from a dried up subbranche, the timing of Rise 98 is more latest phase Bell Beaker (Barbed Wire Beaker) than Battle Axe.

Oostwoud could perfectly fit in the Tumulus movement.

This recent publication gives the tremendous impact of the Sögel Wohlde on the "Northern Plain" / Southern Scandinavia, there are difference between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Sögel Wohlde, but they are gradual.

I guess that it's undeniable that there was in the Elp culture area a big founder effect. The Sögel Wohlde Warriors are almost ideal for a full force founder effect.

What would be another candidate for a founder effect?

See especially page 124/125:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

PS in this respect NE Netherlands are close to Nordic Bronze Age....

Radboud
03-01-2018, 01:32 PM
Thanks!

Just some thoughts....

Eastern Bell Beakers and Unetice/Tumulus are partly overlapping area's just different timing LN/EBA or MBA and LBA.


Rise 98 Scania Sweden is the first R1b U106, if I'm well from a dried up subbranche, the timing of Rise 98 is more latest phase Bell Beaker (Barbed Wire Beaker) than Battle Axe.


Rise98 is quite mysterious to me. Based on it's grave and burial, it's not a typical Battle Axe grave either indeed, but there is no evidence of a Bell Beaker association either.(Barbed Wire Beakers included) Here is some information about it's grave:


Lilla Bedinge in southern Scania comprises the largest known cemetery associated with the Swedish Battle Axe Culture. The site, extending over an area of about 240×30 m, is located only about 1 km from the present day coast line. The majority of the at least 14 identified and excavated flat earth inhumations graves are located on a NE–SW oriented moraine embankment, whereas four of the graves are found on the flatter grounds to the SE. The site also includes a number of Late Bronze Age cremation graves, and two other find spots for BAC inhumation graves are known in the nearby region....

Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes)

Some additional information from Michal:



It should be indeed quite easy to distinguish between CWC and BB, but only when comparing the typical CWC and BB burials. However, in this specific case of Grave 49 from Lilla Bedinge, all we can securely say about its cultural identity is that this is not a typical Corded Ware (Battle Axe) burial by any standards. In fact, if Allentoft et al. were strongly convinced that this is a typical Battle Axe grave (like they were in the case of another Swedish burial in Viby that turned out to be R1a-M417), they wouldn’t mark this sample as “Battle Axe/Nordic LN” (while classifying the Viby remains simply as “Battle Axe”).

Firstly, Grave 49 included no grave goods that would indicate any strong association with CWC/BA. More specifically, there was no corded pottery at all. Also, quite importantly, there were no battle axes, even though this particular skeleton (RISE98) belonged to a male person. As pointed out by JeanM in her above post, “the only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton” (and it should be noted that RISE98 was a southern skeleton).

Secondly, the CWC graves were rarely containing more than two people. By contrast, there are as many as seven people buried in Grave 49, including four adults and three children.


Thirdly, both the CWC and BB people were usually buried lying on their sides, while the skeletons from Grave 49 were found in the sitting crouched position, facing south-west, which hardly resembles a position typical for Corded Ware.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=90395&viewfull=1#post90395

Genetically, I remember Rise98 was positioned between CWC and BB on a PCA, but that was like 2-3 years ago. We have more samples from both BB and CWC, so perhaps it's position will change.

Finn
03-01-2018, 01:55 PM
Indeed!!

There is elsewhere on Anthrogenica a discussion on the BB/CW mixtures in relationship to the British Beaker. May be Rise 98 is also related to this???

And about the timing of Rise 98, wiki about BB:


In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.

Finn
03-01-2018, 06:50 PM
"The land of origin of the Winnili, the ancient name of the Lombards (or Longobards or Langobards), is traditionally held to have been Scania, in modern Scandinavia. Long ago the Longobards left this region and migrated to northern Germany, where they were recorded as one of the Germanic tribes between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD. This was the start of a long migration lasting more than five centuries, in constant search of new and richer lands"

http://www.longobardinitalia.it/index.php/en/pre-italian-origins-archaeology-and-legend

"The Germanic tribes seem to have originated in a homeland in southern Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway, with the Jutland area of northern Denmark, along with a very narrow strip of Baltic coastline). They had been settled here for over two thousand years following the Indo-European migrations...........The Langobards (or Langobardi) originated in and above northern Silesia (now western Poland) as part of the Suevi confederation of tribes. It is possible that they, like the Goths, had earlier origins in southern Scandinavia and were forced to migrate due to population expansion. They were also known by their original ethnic name, the Winnili ('Winn' probably being Germanic for 'striving' and 'being victorious', added to an 'il/el' diminutive suffix and a Latin plural, '-il', producing something along the lines of 'the little tribe that succeeds in fighting' or 'the little winners'). The later name of that part of the tribe that apparently migrated out of Scandinavia was the Langobards, or 'hound clan'. Their founder is sometimes named as Sceafa Longbeardum, the Sceaf of Angeln who perhaps is confused with an early Langobard ruler of the same name, or hints at an early connection between the two tribes during (or before) their sojourn on the southern Baltic coastline in the first and second centuries AD."


http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalyLombards.htm

Indeed John,


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


Longobards etc are part of this (iron age/migrationperiod/earlymiddleages)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-01-2018, 08:07 PM
Indeed John,



Longobards etc are part of this (iron age/migrationperiod/earlymiddleages)

From an article "800 years of Human Sacrifice in Kent"

"Use of the site begins in earnest with six ring-ditch barrows during the Early Bronze Age (2200-1500 cal BC). These were poorly preserved and yielded few interesting finds. People then leave the barrows in peace for several centuries and don’t return to the site in any serious way until the Late Bronze Age shortly before 1000 cal BC. And that’s when the weirdness starts......"

I found this particularly interesting regarding the "victims" :-

"At least 24 people end up in sacrificial pits between 1000 and 800: males and females, ages 6 to 55. ....... Andrew Millard of Durham University analysed all suitable teeth from 25 individuals. Here’s the geographical breakdown of the sacrificial victims’ area of origin:

36% local
32% southern Norway or Sweden
20% western Mediterranean
12% indeterminate

"More than half of the victims are foreigners."

https://aardvarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/900-years-of-human-sacrifice-in-kent/

Finn
03-01-2018, 08:27 PM
From an article "800 years of Human Sacrifice in Kent"

"Use of the site begins in earnest with six ring-ditch barrows during the Early Bronze Age (2200-1500 cal BC). These were poorly preserved and yielded few interesting finds. People then leave the barrows in peace for several centuries and don’t return to the site in any serious way until the Late Bronze Age shortly before 1000 cal BC. And that’s when the weirdness starts......"

I found this particularly interesting regarding the "victims" :-

"At least 24 people end up in sacrificial pits between 1000 and 800: males and females, ages 6 to 55. ....... Andrew Millard of Durham University analysed all suitable teeth from 25 individuals. Here’s the geographical breakdown of the sacrificial victims’ area of origin:

36% local
32% southern Norway or Sweden
20% western Mediterranean
12% indeterminate

"More than half of the victims are foreigners."

https://aardvarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/900-years-of-human-sacrifice-in-kent/

Ok, and what does this say about the current discussion R1b U106, the founder effect around continental North Sea in the MBA due to Unetice/Tumulus culture?

I sincerely don't believe that the raw sketches I present are covering all phenomenons! History is seldom a straight forward lineair proces more often messy, with setbacks, paradoxes.....

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-01-2018, 10:36 PM
Ok, and what does this say about the current discussion R1b U106, the founder effect around continental North Sea in the MBA due to Unetice/Tumulus culture?

I sincerely don't believe that the raw sketches I present are covering all phenomenons! History is seldom a straight forward lineair proces more often messy, with setbacks, paradoxes.....

I think what it does say is what you suggest and that things could be more complex than we appreciate in terms of early population movements at least on a smaller scale. Whether this relates directly in any way to the distribution of U106 I don't know but obviously people were regularly crossing the North Sea, both ways, long before the Anglo Saxon period.

Finn
03-01-2018, 10:48 PM
Of course....but when we declare everything as ultimate complex, we see only foggy things....

Based on the genetic samples and archeological knowledge we could at least make an attempt to reconstruct the past....always in knowledge that's not the same as THE past (the past is simply past and shall never return ;)

That said I'm very interested in arguments against my statements in previous postings here....it stays surprisingly silent...

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-02-2018, 05:01 AM
Of course....but when we declare everything as ultimate complex, we see only foggy things....

Based on the genetic samples and archeological knowledge we could at least make an attempt to reconstruct the past....always in knowledge that's not the same as THE past (the past is simply past and shall never return ;)

That said I'm very interested in arguments against my statements in previous postings here....it stays surprisingly silent...


I thought it was interesting though as a way to illustrate that population movements across the North Sea and around Europe didn't begin with the Romans, Anglo Saxons and Vikings, (which should be obvious) although they maybe obscure the fine detail from earlier periods because of their larger scale.
If U106 was in Scandinavia during the Nordic bronze age there appears no logical reason to me that it couldn't have been in parts of Britain also around the late bronze age or early iron age. People were obviously being transported from Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. Were they slaves or early settlers? I'm not suggesting that was in any great numbers. :)

Radboud
03-02-2018, 07:40 AM
Indeed!!

There is elsewhere on Anthrogenica a discussion on the BB/CW mixtures in relationship to the British Beaker. May be Rise 98 is also related to this???

And about the timing of Rise 98, wiki about BB:

Is there evidence that there were BB settlements in Sweden? I have only heard about the exchange of goods between Jutish Bell Beakers and other Scandinavian communities. I am interested in Scania, because the grave is from that region.

Finn
03-02-2018, 08:09 AM
Is there evidence that there were BB settlements in Sweden? I have only heard about the exchange of goods between Jutish Bell Beakers and other Scandinavian communities. I am interested in Scania, because the grave is from that region.

https://www.academia.edu/2464050/Prescott_and_Glřrstad_Slettabř_Europe_s_northernmo st_beaker._The_BBC_in_Norway_from_black_box_to_his torical_watershed

Radboud
03-02-2018, 08:52 AM
https://www.academia.edu/2464050/Prescott_and_Glřrstad_Slettabř_Europe_s_northernmo st_beaker._The_BBC_in_Norway_from_black_box_to_his torical_watershed

Thank you, but I cannot find anything about Bell Beaker settlements in Sweden. Sweden received flint resources from their Bell Beaker neighbors though.

Btw, I have also read more about the barbed wire decoration in Sweden. According to the shape the tradition is most likely derived from the Single Grave culture ( a Corded Ware), though part of the decoration may point at a Bell Beaker hybrid.
But: "The subject is difficult due to the fact that Late Neolithic pottery is insufficiently studied, and so far chronological groupings are not distinguishable."

Barbed Wire in the northern Netherlands comes after a period of Veluwe Style and Epimaritime Beakers. This tradition is not necessarily equal to Scandinavian Barbed Wire.

Finn
03-02-2018, 09:00 AM
Thank you, but I cannot find anything about Bell Beaker settlements in Sweden. Sweden received flint resources from their Bell Beaker neighbors though.

Btw, I have also read more about the barbed wire decoration in Sweden. According to the shape the tradition is most likely derived from the Single Grave culture ( a Corded Ware), though part of the decoration may point at a Bell Beaker hybrid.
But: "The subject is difficult due to the fact that Late Neolithic pottery is insufficiently studied, and so far chronological groupings are not distinguishable."
Barbed Wire in the northern Netherlands comes after a period of Veluwe Style and Epimaritime Beakers. This tradition is not necessarily equal to Scandinavian Barbed Wire.

Nope indeed, Scania Beakers are most probably Jutish derived:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461957108101240?journalCode=ejaa

And in the Dutch situation there were blurred lines between CW and BB.....

At least as Precott has also shown they were very mobile and used the seas! No doubt they reached Scania.....

Finn
03-02-2018, 09:02 AM
And keep in mind the majority of R1b U106 is after the BB, it did come with Unetice/Tumulus.

Radboud
03-02-2018, 09:34 AM
Nope indeed, Scania Beakers are most probably Jutish derived:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461957108101240?journalCode=ejaa


Well, there is only evidence of commerical contacts. Not sure if Scania Bell Beakers exist, because there is no evidence of BB settlements in Sweden.



And keep in mind the majority of R1b U106 is after the BB, it did come with Unetice/Tumulus.

Maybe. Personally, I agree with Iain McDonald's posts on Yahoo R1b-U106 forums. Subclades like R1b-Z156 might have indeed spread with Unetice/Tumulus, but I strongly doubt that other subclades like L48 and Z18 were part of this spread. I believe that they were already in Scandinavia/Northern-Germany before these mentioned cultures.



As some of you may have been following on Anthrogenica ( https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&highlight=I7196 ), our new U106 ancient burial from Prague has now been further refined to:
U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z306 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894
Being S1894+ myself, this obviously makes me very happy. I've been very lucky to have two out of the five early U106+ burials be R-S1894. However, it also raise some interesting possibilities for everyone else. I should point out that the S1911 and S1894 assignments are made from single reads, but that's normally ok providing one is not searching for novel variants and provided the read quality is ok.

These are still very early days for understanding this burial and the context in which he was found. Perhaps the most important factor here is the date of the burial. Carbon dating hasn't (as far as I can work out) been performed. Contextually, the site has been given a date of between 2200 BC and 1700 BC in the Olalde publication, and we have to assume from the R-S1894 haplogroup that the burial lies towards the end of this period.

This is interesting in the context of the age and spread of the older U106 branches. This burial closest U106 individual to an existing lineage that we know of: the Swedish (RISE98), Dutch (Olalde) and York (Roman) burials are all many centuries more recent than their most-recent known haplogroups, and don't give us great constraints on the ages of haplogroups. I had dated S1894 to between 2545 BC and 1231 BC, with a best guess of 1866 BC. Clearly, if this burial is S1894+, the real date must be in the earlier part of this timeframe. This pushes back the most likely dates of all the haplogroups around it. The following are guideline ages for the youngest each clade is likely to be (i.e. we can be 95% confident the true ages are older than these dates):
R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC
R-L11/L151/P311: before 2560 BC
Better constraints for U106 and L11 come from RISE98 and other ancient burials.

The Y-STR difference between the R-S1894 and R-L11 ancestral values is:
DYS492=12->13 @ Z2265
DYS464c=17->16 @ Z156
DYF395s1=15-16 -> 16-16 @ DF98
DYS557=16->15 @ DF98
DYS607=14 @ S1911
DYS511=12->11 @ S1894
DYS552=24->25 @ S1894 [exact location questionable]
The expected timeframe for this set of mutations is much shorter, only about 500 years. The discrepancy may be due to missing back mutations in this dataset, and is hopefully something we can explore better in the coming months. However, it points to a relative absence of STR mutations between the R-Z156 MRCA and R-Z304's, and a relative surfeit between the R-Z304 MRCA and R-DF98's, with implications for the time periods between these clades. The relative proximity of the R-Z306 SNPs Z8161, Z305 and Z306 (respectively hg38 positions 20404882, 20443277 and 20625892) could indicate an origin in a single event, but I've no idea how likely this is.

Any implications for the migration history of these branches can only be guesswork at this stage, particularly for someone with no archaeological background like myself. It will take time to ruminate and fully understand what these sources are telling us. However, we can derive some pointers for the origins and spread of U106 from this man.

The western Czech Republic is very much the eastern boundary of the modern R-U106 and R-L11 bulk distributions. Myres et al. (2007) notes a 28% R-M269 frequency and a 14% R-U106 frequency in the Czech Republic, part of a declining trend heading eastwards. Without any evidence of R-U106 basal clades or a substantial modern R-U106 population to the east of Prague, it's hard to imagine the R-U106 common ancestor lived much further east.

The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic. Hence, taken with the ancient R-P312 burials and modern R-S1194 distribution, I'd posit the R-L11 MRCA living somewhere across the north coast of Germany. However, I hasten to add that similar extrapolation would not have predicted a R-S1894 burial in Prague!

Geographically, the R-Z156 clade lies towards the southern extent of the R-U106 distribution. One possible reason for this could be that R-Z156 found itself as part of the group that founded the Unetice culture, differentiating it from the Corded Ware culture. Whether this was via the Nitra culture or not, I don't know.

If this is the case, the predominant spread of R-Z156 (and potentially other R-U106 clades) westwards would probably come with incorporation into the Tumulus culture, and we see a very significant increase in the number of R-U106 clades (indicating a population explosion) around the same time. It would also explain some of the sporadic eastern European R-Z156 results we have: unlike other major eastern R-U106 groups (which mostly show descent from Sweden or Germany during Gothic or post-Roman times), eastern R-Z156 populations seem to have a more ancient origin that may tie into the trade links of the Unetice culture and its descendants.

Again, these are some of the questions we hope to probe better with statistical analysis in the coming year or so. The analyses here are very much early opinions and rough calculations rather than established fact.

Finn
03-02-2018, 09:53 AM
Well, there is only evidence of commerical contacts. Not sure if Scania Bell Beakers exist, because there is no evidence of BB settlements in Sweden.




Maybe. Personally, I agree with Iain McDonald's posts on Yahoo R1b-U106 forums. Subclades like R1b-Z156 might have indeed spread with Unetice/Tumulus, but I strongly doubt that other subclades like L48 and Z18 were part of this spread. I believe that they were already in Scandinavia/Northern-Germany before these mentioned cultures.

Ok when BB British and Dutch BB are almost the same why isn't there any R1b U106 in the British Bell Beaker context?
Why does R1b U106 does show a founder effect in the "Elp-culture" area?

In other words BB was the culture before Unetice/Sögel Wohlde......BB Beaker British doen't show any R1b U106 so a previous culture doesn't seem likely.

Radboud
03-02-2018, 10:30 AM
Ok when BB British and Dutch BB are almost the same why isn't there any R1b U106 in the British Bell Beaker context?

Well, why isn't there any R1b-U106 in the Bell Beaker context until around 1700 BC in The Netherlands? This could also point to a CWC origin.



Why does R1b U106 does show a founder effect in the "Elp-culture" area?


Was there even a founder effect to begin with in this area? There are a number of different U106 subclades in that area, which are also found over a range of other Germanic-speaking countries. It's unlikely the Sogel warriors are responsible for most subclades.

Finn
03-02-2018, 10:47 AM
Well, why isn't there any R1b-U106 in the Bell Beaker context until around 1700 BC in The Netherlands? This could also point to a CWC origin.

Was there even a founder effect to begin with in this area? There are a number of different U106 subclades in that area, which are also found over a range of other Germanic-speaking countries. It's unlikely the Sogel warriors are responsible for most subclades.

Oostwoud? Let's take the posting of Rafc:


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.


From your quote above:

group that founded the Unetice culture

The Northern Plain, that also consist of North Dutch (above the Rhine/Ijssel) is not automatically CW, it's also Sögel Wohlde. SO Unetice influenced both Northern Germany, Southern Scandinavia and North Dutch.

The timing speaks against a BB spread (little to early).

The intermingling BB/CW is also a interesting aspect.....(see other current postings here).

Based on u.a. Mac Donald you can see that the line between Northern Netherlands and Jutland R1b U106 is most settled and most divers.

Radboud
03-02-2018, 11:17 AM
Oostwpud? Let's take the posting of Rafc:



From your quote above:


The Northern Plain, that also consist of North Dutch (above the Rhine/Ijssel) is not automatically CW, it's also Sögel Wohlde. SO Unetice influenced both North German, Southern Scandinavia and North Dutch.


I meant that there is also still a possibility that R1b-U106 had ultimately his origins within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic because of the lack of U106 in Bell Beakers and other factors. It's also interesting that U106 doesn't show up Czech/Eastern Beakers, but then it suddenly shows up in Unetice culture. Lack of samples? Maybe, but it supports McDonald's theory.



The intermingling BB/CW is also a interesting aspect.....(see other current postings here).


Yeah this could be crucial for R1b-U106 and possibly R1b-P312 lineages like DF99 imo.



Based on u.a. Mac Donald you can see that the line between Northern Netherlands and Jutland R1b U106 is most settled and most divers.

I thought the highest diversity of R1b-U106 is in Germany, but perhaps that is an outdated view. McDonald and other experts never mentioned a founder effect in that area though.

Finn
03-02-2018, 11:45 AM
Prague regio is the heartland of Unetice so a good possibility!
NW Germany is also part of R1b U106 "founder effect" area.....

Radboud
03-02-2018, 01:08 PM
Prague regio is the heartland of Unetice so a good possibility!
NW Germany is also part of R1b U106 "founder effect" area.....


Founder effect or not, exactly which clades and what time period R-U106 did come to this region is still uncertain.

Finn
03-03-2018, 06:59 AM
Founder effect or not, exactly which clades and what time period R-U106 did come to this region is still uncertain.

I guess I these matters we always have a ranche of uncertainty....
But with this new sample combined with the sample and the spread we see, is that that the Unetice-people caused an initial spread of R1B U106 makes sense.
Latest works from archeologist stress the tremendous impact of the Unetice and Tumulus culture on the Nordic Bronze Age.
Through a founder effect the R1B U106 flourished in the Nordic Bronze Age, so that it much later on came to be seen as a Germanic marker.....
Because of this origin and spread, a kind of “proto-Celtic” movement it’s understandable that some scientist came with the Northwest (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock) block theory.
See this old posting from Tomenable replace Hallstatt by Unetice ;)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6939-R1b-U106-were-the-True-Celts-and-Belgae-(my-opinion)&p=151506&viewfull=1#post151506

Radboud
03-03-2018, 07:26 AM
I guess I these matters we always have a ranche of uncertainty....
But with this new sample combined with the sample and the spread we see, is that that the Unetice-people caused an initial spread of R1B U106 makes sense.
Latest works from archeologist stress the tremendous impact of the Unetice and Tumulus culture on the Nordic Bronze Age.
Through a founder effect the R1B U106 flourished in the Nordic Bronze Age, so that it much later on came to be seen as a Germanic marker.....
Because of this origin and spread, a kind of “proto-Celtic” movement it’s understandable that some scientist came with the Northwest (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock) block theory.
See this old posting from Tomenable replace Hallstatt by Unetice ;)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6939-R1b-U106-were-the-True-Celts-and-Belgae-(my-opinion)&p=151506&viewfull=1#post151506

I asked McDonald about your theory and he replied:



U106 must predate the Unetice Culture by quite some time. The recent finding was closely down my line:
L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900
so all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. We know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. The Unetice would be a second population expansion, which is attested by a second glut of SNP branching at about the corresponding time - further analysis should be able to show which branches of U106, now that we know what to look for.

I had been looking at the Elp Culture as the origin Z156 into western Europe, but it now looks like that was the wrong tack. It may well be that the Elp culture acted as the springboard to spread many U106 clades into western Europe, but we'd have to look in detail at which clades have both a spread around that time and a geographical migration from east to west. That's part of the plan for the next few months.

The Tumulus culture seems much more likely to be responsible for widespread U106 dispersal to further flung places like Brittany and the British Isles, and we'll be looking for signatures of this.

More "northern" lineages like L48, Z18 and some of the minor clades probably ended up in the Nordic Bronze Age cultures, and followed their diversification. I'd expect a lot of Germanic origins among these branches.

Finn
03-03-2018, 08:21 AM
Thanks Radboud, I appreciate you have asked Mac Donald.

I have seen some works of him and I’m impressed by the facts and figures.

His linkages with archeology and history as shown in your posting are quite thin.....

Up until now we don’t have any Bell Beaker in NWEurope with R1b U106.

Mac Donald states that pre-Unetice culture, lets call it Eastern Bell Beaker, was getting loaded with R1B U106.
We now know for certain, see posting 1 here, that Unetice contained R1b U106.

Than we have two samples in the NW Europe,
The oldest one is Lilla Beddinge in Scania. About 2000 BC. It’s automatically labeled as CW/Battle Axe. From its grave we do know that’s not a classic Battle Axe type. A kind of B.B./CW mix if you want to label it is more the case, remember your posting;

“Thirdly, both the CWC and BB people were usually buried lying on their sides, while the skeletons from Grave 49 were found in the sitting crouched position, facing south-west, which hardly resembles a position typical for Corded Ware.”

Outmost southwest Sweden was at that time EBA part of the network set up by B.B.

Second we have Ooostwoud, about 1800 BC, here was the conclusion Elp culture:
“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. ”

So when Mac Donald’s makes up his mind he most probably comes to the conclusion that his Southern route as explained by him in may 2016 is the right one. But with an add.

We see that the heartland of R1b U106 is Central Europe, Czech and wider area, that’s also the breeding ground of Eastern Bell Beaker, Unetiice, Tumulus.

In the Bronze Age this was, corresponding with a cultural influence, upstreamed to NW Europe, better said to the area of the Nordic Bronze Age annex Elp culture.

So the mainstream is from Central Europe to NW Europe during the Bronze Age.

In the Iron Age and Migration Age we get a reflux, people rooted in the Nordic Bronze Age, went to other parts of Europe there they spread R1B U106. So in let’s take the Austrian case you can have R1b U106 rooted in Unetice and R1b U106 rooted in the Germanic influence of the migration Age.

Hopefully Mac Donald can make sense of all those subclades, older and newer lines, flux and reflux!

But as a whole his posting contains openings for my view that Unetice is the breeding ground, from there it spread to NW Europe in the Bronze Age.

Radboud
03-03-2018, 09:25 AM
But as a whole his posting contains openings for my view that Unetice is the breeding ground, from there it spread to NW Europe in the Bronze Age.

His post shows that Unetice is possibly one of the breeding grounds of R1b-U106 with a ''southern character'', but MacDonald mentioned ''we know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. The Unetice would be a second population expansion, which is attested by a second glut of SNP branching at about the corresponding time''

So I think it comes down to this:

- R-U106 originated within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic.

- "Northern" lineages like L48, Z18 and some of the minor clades participated in the first expansion to Scandinavia.

- Lineages with a ''southern character'' like Z156 were part of a group that founded the Unetice culture, differentiating it from the Corded Ware culture.

This is also supported by modern sporadic eastern European R-Z156 results. Unlike other major eastern R-U106 groups (which mostly show descent from Sweden or Germany during Gothic or post-Roman times), eastern R-Z156 populations seem to have a more ancient origin that may tie into the trade links of the Unetice culture and its descendants.

- The ''southern'' subclades participated in the second expansion to NW Europe with Unetice/Tumulus culture.

Admittedly, this scenario looks somewhat simplistic as some subclades of R1-Z156 could have also parcipated in the first expansion and vice versa.

Finn
03-03-2018, 10:39 AM
His post shows that Unetice is possibly one of the breeding grounds of R1b-U106 with a ''southern character'', but MacDonald mentioned ''we know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. The Unetice would be a second population expansion, which is attested by a second glut of SNP branching at about the corresponding time''

So I think it comes down to this:

- R-U106 originated within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic.


That’s a large region, and not pointed or coherent. Prague, Central Europe, is in the Eastern Bell Beaker, Unetice etc context ok.

But the Baltic of NE European region, so around the Baltic Sea, is very low in R1b U106, when it’s the case it’s most probably connected with the Ostsiedlung so a bunch of Dutchman, North Germans etc that went East in the Middle Ages!

But how on earth can the Baltic region be the breeding ground of R1B U106? What’s the connection....???

Finn
03-03-2018, 10:48 AM
Basically the point is that the connection with CW and R1bU106 is primarily based on Lilla Beddinge!
But that is proven not a undoubtfull Battle Axe, to put it mildly.

So what’s the connection between R1b U106 and CW?
And by that I don’t mean the probable influence from CW in East Bell Beaker, Unetice etc.

Bollox79
03-03-2018, 11:04 AM
I like that you guys are discussing since I'm related to that Unetice guy as much as Dr. McDonald (he and I are clade-mates... to the S1894 actually!)... you can see the SNPs I share with the Gladiator 6drif-3 in my signature! I think we need more samples in relation to U106... but I think you guys are on the right track overall and I agree with most of it!

Radboud
03-03-2018, 11:49 AM
But the Baltic of NE European region, so around the Baltic Sea, is very low in R1b U106, when it’s the case it’s most probably connected with the Ostkolonisation, so a bunch of Dutchman, North Germans etc that went East in the Middle Ages!

But how on earth can the Baltic region be the breeding ground of R1B U106? What’s the connection....???

The region is between Prague and the Baltic Sea, so the regions are Northern/Eastern-Germany and Western Poland.



Basically the point is that the connection with CW and R1bU106 is primarily based on Lilla Beddinge!
But that is proven not a undoubtfull Battle Axe, to put it mildly.

So what’s the connection between R1b U106 and CW?
And by that I don’t mean the probably influence from CW in East Bell Beaker, Unetice etc.

No, the suggestion between a connection CW and R1b-U106 is not primarily based on Lilla Beddinge. It's based on combined evidence like the lack of R1b-U106 in Eastern BB's, the big population boom that diversified U106 very early on etc.

To make it more clear about the suggestion:


The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic.

Hard evidence is lacking as we do not have any R1b-U106 in a genuine CWC. So keep in mind that this scenario and/or ancestral region of R1b-U106 is temporally and it can change. ;)

Finn
03-03-2018, 12:04 PM
You make it unnecessary difficult.

In this publication, Mac Donald suggest two routes a Northern route through NE Europe, a southern route through Central Europe, it’s not both but either one of them.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-overview-2016.pdf
The northern route looks nonsensical to me. Up until now no R1b U106 found in Corded Ware around the Baltic. And afterwards no single trace. He states in this publication that most R1b U106 in these area are from pretty recent lines, read Ostsiedlung.
So no single proof!

The southern route, through Central Europe has, see previous postings the best cards, and has a proven connection with the Nordic Bronze Age!

Radboud
03-03-2018, 03:12 PM
In this publication, Mac Donald suggest two routes a Northern route through NE Europe, a southern route through, it’s not both but either one of them.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-overview-2016.pdf
The northern route looks nonsensical to me. Up until now no R1b U106 found in Corded Ware around the Baltic. and afterwards no single trace. He states in this publication that most R1b U106 in these area are from pretty recent lines, read Ostsiedlung.
So no single proof!


McDonald suggested two routes of L11 to Europe yes, but this was like in 2016. I am more interested in his current views than a few years ago. As you can see, things have changed.




The southern route, through Central Europe has, see previous posting the best cards, and has a proven connection with the Nordic Bronze Age!

There are some serious problems with your scenario:

- As I have stated before, we have zero R1b-U106 in BB's until 1700 BC, more importantly eastern Bell Beakers.

- There was no founder effect in the Elp & Unetice Culture, there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass.

- The sample from Unetice culture is L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started.

- The earliest R1b-U106 ancient sample is from Sweden, there is no evidence that he was associated with CWC, but there is no evidence he was some sort of CWC/BB mix either. ( Based on his grave and burial)


These points lead to a more northern origin of R1b-U106.

Finn
03-03-2018, 03:34 PM
McDonald suggested two routes of L11 to Europe yes, but this was like in 2016. I am more interested in his current views than a few years ago. As you can see, things have changed.




There are some serious problems with your scenario:

- As I have stated before, we have zero R1b-U106 in BB's until 1700 BC, more importantly eastern Bell Beakers.

- There was no founder effect in the Elp & Unetice Culture, there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass.

- The sample from Unetice culture is L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started.

- The earliest R1b-U106 ancient sample is from Sweden, there is no evidence that he was associated with CWC, but there is no evidence he was some sort of CWC/BB mix either. ( Based on his grave and burial)


These points lead to a more northern origin of R1b-U106.

So in fact you only know that R1b U106 is Nordic and how it got there and by whom is a big mystery? Or do you suppose that the R1b U106 originated in the Nordic Bronze Age?

Finn
03-03-2018, 03:50 PM
My scenario has no single problem:
- again and again I stated that BB was to early for a spread in NW Europe;
- we know that Unetice did have R1B U106 and that Unetice people migrated to NW Europe (fact)
- we have a sample in Lille Beddinge, origin unclear, not CW, the possibility of a Unetice outlier is not imaginair, during the Bronze Age there were close ties between Southern Scandinavia and Central Europe also in elite marriages etc.
- the Oostwoud sample is from 1800 BC and is connected with Elp/ Unetice/ Central Europe.

So all fingers point at a Central Europe-NW Europe connection, still you ignore it without a plausible counter narrative!

Radboud
03-03-2018, 04:28 PM
So in fact you only know that R1b U106 is Nordic and how it got there and by whom is a big mystery? Or do you suppose that the R1b U106 originated in the Nordic Bronze Age?

No? What makes you think that? I never suggested R1b-U106 has a Nordic origin.




My scenario has no single problem:
- again and again I stated that BB was to early for a spread in NW Europe;


What do you mean exactly? You do realise that BB & CWC peoples migrated to NW Europe before the Sogel warriors etc right?



- we know that Unetice did have R1B U106 and that Unetice people migrated to NW Europe (fact)


As I stated before: ''The sample from Unetice culture is L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. ''

Let's take a look at the updated ages of these subclades:

R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC

In other words, it's very unlikely that Unetice is responsible for the bulk of R1b-U106 subclades. Let alone that it's the ''smoking gun''.



- we have a samle in Lille Beddinge, origin unclear, not CW, the possobility of a Bell Beaker ontlier is not impossible, during the Bronze Age there were close ties between Southern Scandinavia and Central Europe also in elite marriages etc.


There is no evidence. It's even less likely that Rise98 is a Unetice outlier.



So all fingers point at a Central Europe-NW Europe, still you ignore it without a counter plausible narrative!


There are still some serious issues with your scenarios. I already showed that Unetice Culture is not the smoking gun for R1b-U106. However, I did not ignore the Central Europe- NW Europe. I already mentioned in my earlier posts it's possible that it's one of the breeding grounds for some subclades of U106.

So considering the lack of R1b-U106 in BB's and other stuff, I think we should look at CWC for the origin of R1b-U106. Alternatively, Baltic BB's are also a possibility or some unknown steppe-derived group we know nothing about? Who knows.

So where do you think R1b-U106 had it's origins?

Finn
03-03-2018, 05:08 PM
No? What makes you think that? I never suggested R1b-U106 has a Nordic origin.




What do you mean exactly? You do realise that BB & CWC peoples migrated to NW Europe before the Sogel warriors etc right?



As I stated before: ''The sample from Unetice culture is L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. ''

Let's take a look at the updated ages of these subclades:

R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC

In other words, it's very unlikely that Unetice is responsible for the bulk of R1b-U106 subclades. Let alone that it's the ''smoking gun''.



There is no evidence. It's even less likely that Rise98 is a Unetice outlier.



There are still some serious issues with your scenarios. I already showed that Unetice Culture is not the smoking gun for R1b-U106. However, I did not ignore the Central Europe- NW Europe. I already mentioned in my earlier posts it's possible that it's one of the breeding grounds for some subclades of U106.

So considering the lack of R1b-U106 in BB's and other stuff, I think we should look at CWC for the origin of R1b-U106. Alternatively, Baltic BB's are also a possibility or some unknown steppe-derived group we know nothing about? Who knows.

So where do you think R1b-U106 had it's origins?

You suggest this:

These points lead to a more northern origin of R1b-U106.
Without a clear explanation. There is no sample of R1B U106 in CW in the Baltic, Norhern Poland, Northern Plain with R1b U106 so how you can build on that? How can NE Europe be a breeding place of R1b U106 explain that to me....Up until now mission impossible (no evidences).

I can not pinpoint the origin of R1b U106 that would be a tour the force�� I did not say it’s a smoking gun, but I consider this culture as an important bearer of R1b U106. Most probably origin of it is more eastward/ Steppe, but that’s no more or less than a guess. I only state Unetice did have R1b U106 and this culture it heirs influenced NW Europe, inclusive Southern Scandinavia, very heavily.

That Unetice has R1b U106 is a recent sample and may be Mac Donald has not taken this in fully account yet.

Up until now, at least in his publications on the net, he considers Lilla Beddinge as Battle Axe. Wrong!

So given the facts and samples we now know, Unetice is mot probably the main deliverer of R1b U106 to NW Europe.

Simple statements that “there are difficulties”, without explainations, only deliver circular statements, not progress...

Radboud
03-03-2018, 05:53 PM
You suggest this:

Without a clear explanation. There is no sample of R1B U106 in CW in the Baltic, Norhern Poland, Northern Plain with R1b U106 so how you can build on that? How can NE Europe be a breeding place of R1b U106 explain that to me....Up until now mission impossible (no evidences).

Even looking at ''northern'' L48 and Z18 subclades makes a strong R1b-U106 association with Unetice Culture/Central-Europe doubtful.
I simply gave solid points why there are some serious issues with your Central-European scenario as you failed to address them. It makes a more northern origin of U106 likely.

Btw, regions like Eastern-Germany/West Poland are not part of NE Europe. As I stated before, there is no hard evidence that R1b-U106 was indeed in CWC. More samples are needed as we have very few samples from these regions.




I did not say it’s a smoking gun, but I consider this culture as an important bearer of R1b U106. Most probably origin of it is more eastward/ Steppe, but that’s no more or less than a guess. I only state Unetice did have R1b U106 and this culture it heirs influenced NW Europe, inclusive Southern Scandinavia, very heavily.


Alright, but it doesn't necessary mean that Unetice is responsible for most subclades.

So let's take a look at this sample again:

L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900

''so all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. ''

So where did these SNP's occurred? Bell Beaker culture? There is no R1b-U106 in BB's, so I guess we have to look elsewhere or we just need more samples from Eastern Bell Beaker settlements. But so far, other options are also on the table.

Finn
03-03-2018, 07:50 PM
Even looking at ''northern'' L48 and Z18 subclades makes a strong R1b-U106 association with Unetice Culture/Central-Europe doubtful.
I simply gave solid points why there are some serious issues with your Central-European scenario as you failed to address them. It makes a more northern origin of U106 likely.

Btw, regions like Eastern-Germany/West Poland are not part of NE Europe. As I stated before, there is no hard evidence that R1b-U106 was indeed in CWC. More samples are needed as we have very few samples from these regions.




Alright, but it doesn't necessary mean that Unetice is responsible for most subclades.

So let's take a look at this sample again:

L11 > U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900

''so all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. ''

So where did these SNP's occurred? Bell Beaker culture? There is no R1b-U106 in BB's, so I guess we have to look elsewhere or we just need more samples from Eastern Bell Beaker settlements. But so far, other options are also on the table.

Ok let’s finish with a kind of tentative conclusion:we suppose, based on (recent) samples, and archeological knowledge that Unetice people, inclusive R1b U106, influenced NW Europe in the Bronze Age.

If this is for all subclades is the case we don’t know, more samples are needed....

Unetice is indeed also former East Germany like Sachsen-Anhalt. The ancestors or sourced for Unetice are the Eastern Bell Beaker but there are most probably more sources also in genetical sense.

uintah106
03-03-2018, 08:58 PM
I would add this. The start date of Unetice is as early 2300 b.c..The western most group is in lower saxony. Early Nordic bronze age weapons were Unetice imports.

Tomenable
03-04-2018, 12:53 AM
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=358504&viewfull=1#post358504

Cofgene
03-04-2018, 02:58 AM
Mr CTS2509+ - https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703599 - aka SZO010 appears to have some meaningful SNPs downstream of CTS2509. In my 1st test mapping run I am seeing Z8172>CTS2509>FGC13489.FGC13482> a shared SNP with Bartol - N23903. This is the "Italian" branch under CTS2509. From the Alps down to Sicily. Guess I better get the BAM viewer up tomorrow and look at what I created.

Now to do a rerun with different versions of the software and see what comes out the other end. Others are welcome to do do their own analysis!

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 05:55 AM
Mr CTS2509+ - https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703599 - aka SZO010 appears to have some meaningful SNPs downstream of CTS2509. In my 1st test mapping run I am seeing Z8172>CTS2509>FGC13489.FGC13482> a shared SNP with Bartol - N23903. This is the "Italian" branch under CTS2509. From the Alps down to Sicily. Guess I better get the BAM viewer up tomorrow and look at what I created.

Now to do a rerun with different versions of the software and see what comes out the other end. Others are welcome to do do their own analysis!

Thanks for sharing and keep it coming... :-)... as I'm interested in anything U106 with the older samples... was wondering if anyone could get a hold of the raw data of the U106 from Szolad and Collegno and tease out anymore SNPs under Z381 or CTS2509 etc etc...

I'm Z156 and other SNPs under U106 so isn't directly in my area of U106 - instead in L48 area... but if any of the Z381 guys turn out to be Z156 (another major subgroup under Z381) that would be interesting... and if not... would make L48 look that much more "Northern" as Dr. McDonald views that large sub group currently...

I also think Mr. Maddi who is U106 and a member of that Italian branch (he owns/runs the U106 Yahoo forum I think)... and was curious if any of those FGC SNPs could be found in those samples...

Finn
03-04-2018, 07:56 AM
The region is between Prague and the Baltic Sea, so the regions are Northern/Eastern-Germany and Western Poland.


Admitted a wild guess but it would be no surprise to me if CW (Czech) had some influence on the Unetice people.

My AuDNA k29 contains 14% Baltic.

And:
http://www.newhistorian.com/signs-of-exogamy/6554/

Finn
03-04-2018, 08:22 AM
Thanks for sharing and keep it coming... :-)... as I'm interested in anything U106 with the older samples... was wondering if anyone could get a hold of the raw data of the U106 from Szolad and Collegno and tease out anymore SNPs under Z381 or CTS2509 etc etc...

I'm Z156 and other SNPs under U106 so isn't directly in my area of U106 - instead in L48 area... but if any of the Z381 guys turn out to be Z156 (another major subgroup under Z381) that would be interesting... and if not... would make L48 look that much more "Northern" as Dr. McDonald views that large sub group currently...

I also think Mr. Maddi who is U106 and a member of that Italian branch (he owns/runs the U106 Yahoo forum I think)... and was curious if any of those FGC SNPs could be found in those samples...

From the old Frisii to the the Cimbri in Jutland many suppose a kind of “Celtic” influence. In the the Bronze Age the Unetice/Tumulus/ Urnfield cultures with a major hub in Central Europe rolled over in NW Europe.

Olalde 2.0? The Tumulus Phenomenon And The Genomic Transformation Of Northwest Europe ;)

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 10:15 AM
Admitted a wild guess but it would be no surprise to me if CW (Czech) had some influence on the Unetice people.

My AuDNA k29 contains 14% Baltic.

And:
http://www.newhistorian.com/signs-of-exogamy/6554/

Finn remember both U106 Gladiators from Eboracum (York) had more affinity with Baltic populations than the other Gladiators...

Cofgene
03-04-2018, 11:08 AM
Thanks for sharing and keep it coming... :-)... as I'm interested in anything U106 with the older samples... was wondering if anyone could get a hold of the raw data of the U106 from Szolad and Collegno and tease out anymore SNPs under Z381 or CTS2509 etc etc...

I'm Z156 and other SNPs under U106 so isn't directly in my area of U106 - instead in L48 area... but if any of the Z381 guys turn out to be Z156 (another major subgroup under Z381) that would be interesting... and if not... would make L48 look that much more "Northern" as Dr. McDonald views that large sub group currently...

I also think Mr. Maddi who is U106 and a member of that Italian branch (he owns/runs the U106 Yahoo forum I think)... and was curious if any of those FGC SNPs could be found in those samples...

FGC13489.FGC13482 are from Maddi. This branch is off of a level up from where the other Italian samples lie.

The other WGS U106 results are going to be looked at between work trips

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 05:49 PM
FGC13489.FGC13482 are from Maddi. This branch is off of a level up from where the other Italian samples lie.

The other WGS U106 results are going to be looked at between work trips

Thanks for your work Cofgene ;-).

Finn
03-05-2018, 03:39 PM
Thanks for sharing and keep it coming.....

Ok, see:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6489-R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a-(R1b-S497)-a-native-Celtic-branch-of-R1b1a1a2a1a1-(R1b-U106)&p=359141&viewfull=1#post359141

Cofgene
03-12-2018, 01:19 AM
Mr CTS2509+ - https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703599 - aka SZO010 appears to have some meaningful SNPs downstream of CTS2509. In my 1st test mapping run I am seeing Z8172>CTS2509>FGC13489.FGC13482> a shared SNP with Bartol - N23903. This is the "Italian" branch under CTS2509. From the Alps down to Sicily. Guess I better get the BAM viewer up tomorrow and look at what I created.

Now to do a rerun with different versions of the software and see what comes out the other end. Others are welcome to do do their own analysis!
Back on the road again but

https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703601 was run by Thomas Krahn and that analysis is present at http://genomes.yseq.net/WGS/SRR6703601/ We are looking at U106>Z18>Z17>Z372 for this sample.

For https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703603 this looks like Z381>L48>Z30>Z2>Z1

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 02:05 AM
Back on the road again but

https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703601 was run by Thomas Krahn and that analysis is present at http://genomes.yseq.net/WGS/SRR6703601/ We are looking at U106>Z18>Z17>Z372 for this sample.

For https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR6703603 this looks like Z381>L48>Z30>Z2>Z1

Cofgene,

Do the file names directly correspond to the samples from the cemetery? I.e. is SZO010 actually the grave/sample labeled 10? Reason I ask is that sample 10 isn't listed in the haplogroup chart... but Szolad 2 and 4 are and are U106... leaving 15, 16, and 23... as U106 in that chart at least.

Also thanks for running these as it is important for U106 as a group to know if there was any Z156 among these Northern European Lombards... or if it is all L48 or Z18...

R.Rocca
03-12-2018, 03:23 AM
Curious to see Z156+ in a Bohemian Unetice sample. It brought me back to the days of DNA-Forums (2008) when I was mentioning how L48 seemed more common in the core Germanic speaking areas whereas U106+L48- seems less so as a percentage of overall U106 in non-traditional Germanic areas.

When we discovered Z156, it became apparent that its history may also have been older than the Germanic expansions. Here is what I said in 2012:


U106 in Italy is of interest because unlike many other areas, it seems lower in L48. Someone that posts here anonymously donated the funds to help test Z156 and the suspicion is that most samples (including yours) will be Z156+.


The thinking is that "perhaps" Z156 in Italy might be pre-Germanic expansion, "perhaps" related to Hallstatt or "perhaps" even earlier."

https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10449.60;wap2

As you history buffs know, Bohemia means "Land of the Boii" which were a Celtic tribe.

rms2
03-12-2018, 04:28 PM
Since the Boii were a late Iron Age Celtic tribe, it would be interesting to see some y-dna from them.

In his book, The Ancient Celts, Barry Cunliffe says the prevalence of cremation among the Boii was a characteristic that distinguished them from other Celtic tribes that settled in northern Italy, but that they did practice inhumation, as well (p. 73).

alexfritz
03-12-2018, 04:49 PM
Since the Boii were a late Iron Age Celtic tribe, it would be interesting to see some y-dna from them.

In his book, The Ancient Celts, Barry Cunliffe says the prevalence of cremation among the Boii was a characteristic that distinguished them from other Celtic tribes that settled in northern Italy, but that they did practice inhumation, as well (p. 73).

existing already is in fact isotopic-data from boii samples both czech(bohemia) and monte bibele in italy;
http://www.academia.edu/8466901/_Celtic_migrations_Fact_or_fiction_Strontium_and_o xygen_isotope_analysis_of_the_Czech_cemeteries_of_ Radovesice_and_Kutn%C3%A1_Hora_in_Bohemia
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258882637_Nebringen_Munsingen_und_Monte_Bibele_-_Zum_archaologischen_und_bioarchaometrischen_Nachw eis_von_Mobilitat_im_43_Jahrhundert_v_Chr
22077

vettor
03-12-2018, 05:05 PM
existing already is in fact isotopic-data from boii samples both czech(bohemia) and monte bibele in italy;
http://www.academia.edu/8466901/_Celtic_migrations_Fact_or_fiction_Strontium_and_o xygen_isotope_analysis_of_the_Czech_cemeteries_of_ Radovesice_and_Kutn%C3%A1_Hora_in_Bohemia
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258882637_Nebringen_Munsingen_und_Monte_Bibele_-_Zum_archaologischen_und_bioarchaometrischen_Nachw eis_von_Mobilitat_im_43_Jahrhundert_v_Chr
22077

I doubt anyone would dispute that the celts where not in central and southern germany for a long time and their "encroachment" into western alps helvetic lands and also eastern alps illyrian lands began in the late bronze-age..........but does one know how long these celts have been in central ( and czech ) and southern germany.

it seems to me that there was resistance by celts early on the germans from the north and that is why the germans first moved east instead of south or west

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 10:51 PM
Curious to see Z156+ in a Bohemian Unetice sample. It brought me back to the days of DNA-Forums (2008) when I was mentioning how L48 seemed more common in the core Germanic speaking areas whereas U106+L48- seems less so as a percentage of overall U106 in non-traditional Germanic areas.

When we discovered Z156, it became apparent that its history may also have been older than the Germanic expansions. Here is what I said in 2012:





https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10449.60;wap2

As you history buffs know, Bohemia means "Land of the Boii" which were a Celtic tribe.

Rocca,

Awesome to hear from you as I know you have been banging on in the Y-DNA area for a long time ;-). I only arrived at the scene when Z304 led to DF98 (within a month or two of DF98 being discovered and linked to Wettin etc)... but have since been glued to Dr. McDonald's side and all that as this ancient DNA stuff is like a freakin' time machine! I explain it to the average person not really interested in it and they give me a bit of a blank look and it makes me want to smack them a bit... did you hear what I said... closest thing to a TIME MACHINE looking back in the past to help prove or disprove hypothesis (such as a possible Longobard/Lombard migration!!).

Also glad you guys apparently found a ton of L2 among the Bell Beakers? How's the situation on that? Do you have a summary for what the current thinking is for migration/movement?

Yes the discovery of a Z156er among the Bohemian Unetice is huge for that group - not to mention even bigger for both myself and Iain at S1900/1894 (that is where he and I split in fact!). I immediately looked up what I could find on that Unetice site - a lot of it is in Czech and doesn't make much sense in translation - though not every grave had bronze items though our S1894 did and that was considered a prestige item considering the whole bronze working taking off and Unetice having it's culture centered on that and trade. I found an academic paper on the growth and then collapse of the bronze producing network in Unetice lands and the deforestation resulting from processing of that and tin... and the scarce sources of tin after mining the surface/easy stuff... and also just plain over-population from the exspanion of Unetice soceity from their control(?) of bronze producing and that collapse probably led to movement westward. I see you caught on to the reason why I want to know if any z156 was found among those Lombards... to see where it was...

Dr. Iain had been real busy of late, but we had a quick message to each other: "We do need more ancient results, but this Unetice guy is really important because he's so close to the R-S1894 founder. The timings involved make it almost certain that R-S1894 was founded in the Unetice culture and, with it, probably all with way back to R-Z156. The Unetice crash you pointed out to me would be the catalyst for moving west (but surprisingly not east), which could well be around R-S4004. Certainly not much after R-S1894, in any case."

A quick look at evidence for movement after the "crash" shows movement West, but not East... I have found a couple good papers on this stuff, but I don't have access so I'm hoping Iain can get access...

There certainly is a "Southern" early trend in Z156... of which you are speaking in your post ;-). All the data seems to support it... as any Z156 found in Scandinavia generally seems to be after the fact... later in the SNP tree ;-). As always we need more data, but this is a great start for our S1894 group!

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 11:03 PM
Here is a bit of some interesting stuff I found on the Unetice collapse and sent to Dr. Iain ;-):

"After 700 years of existence and prosperity, the Únětice culture disappeared in
a few decades. Why this happened is intriguing. The considerable economic prosperity of UC tribes was mainly based on the Neolithic package typical of Central Europe, i.e. diversified agriculture including the cultivation of several cereals and pulses,and animal husbandry- mainly cattle and pigs. Moreover, these tribes had a pottery industry and were involved in a long - distance trade network, from Northern to Southern Europe, in which mainly prestige/luxury goods (e.g. amber, furs, gold...) were exchanged. More than anything else, the UC tribes were the first bronze producers of Central Europe, an activity providing wealth and power to their elite as well as labor for some of its populations.

Despite this, this culture suddenly disappeared without obvious reasons. No archaeological evidence has been found which is consistent with some of the usual explanations of social collapses, such as war, disease or natural disaster. Moreover, a few decades after its disappearance, new cultures - the Tumulus culture on the west and the Trzciniec culture on the east - appeared in the region formerly occupied by followers of the UC. Consequently, we favor an endogenous explanation of the UC collapse. We have argued that this collapse was primarily
a result of the lack of natural resource sustainability due to economic activity (economic growth). Elsewhere (Tisdell andSvizzero, 2018), we have described how the natural resource base of agriculture (in the post-classical UC period) altered adversely as a result of agricultural practices. Increasing populations also placed additional pressures on agriculture. As a result, the agricultural surplus (the main source of the economic surplus) available to UC people fell, at least in Silesia,
and probably in many other areas. This appears to have contributed to the
depopulation of some UC settlements and had adverse social and cultural consequences as well (Tisdell and Svizzero, 2018).

In this article, we have focused on endogenous development as a contributor to the
disappearance of the UC, namely the increasing scarcity of raw materials (and natural resources) for the production of bronzes. We have demonstrated that bronze production, the hallmark of the UC as well as its source of power, was also its weakness. This is so because in order to produce bronze, UC people were using placer tin (either obtained directly or indirectly) which was rapidly exhausted or became extremely scarce. Furthermore, the production of 19 bronze required huge quantities of wood and charcoal which led, after a few centuries, to the
deforestation of much of the UC area and those areas from which it obtained copper supplies. Unsustainable use of these natural resources (for bronze production) may have contributed to the collapse of the UC culture. This, together with falling agricultural productivity, is not easily reversed and may well have resulted in the abandonment of UC settlements(Tisdell and Svizzero, 2018)."

Having trouble trying to figure out which paper I found this from though ;-)... I think it was from Queensland Uni...

Edit: This is a similar paper - Unetice collapse due to the "Dutch Disease" or aka harm from large increases in a country's (or culture?) income...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serge_Svizzero/publication/299210789_The_collapse_of_the_Unetice_culture_econ omic_explanation_based_on_the_Dutch_disease/links/56efbd2708ae375c7244dee8/The-collapse-of-the-Unetice-culture-economic-explanation-based-on-the-Dutch-disease.pdf

R.Rocca
03-22-2018, 07:12 PM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

MitchellSince1893
03-22-2018, 08:18 PM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

2350 BC +/- 150 years. Does that make him the oldest known U106?

R.Rocca
03-22-2018, 09:32 PM
2350 BC +/- 150 years. Does that make him the oldest known U106?

That's correct, the oldest U106 and only one in a Bell Beaker sample.

MitchellSince1893
03-22-2018, 09:45 PM
That's correct, the oldest U106 and only one in a Bell Beaker sample.

U106 in Bell Beaker Wow. Is this something you found? If so, congratulations on making this huge discovery!

It looks like Iain McDonald was on to something when he said U106 originated between Prague and the Baltic.

Radovesice, Czech Republic is located 30 miles North northwest of Prague.

R.Rocca
03-22-2018, 09:56 PM
U106 in Bell Beaker Wow. Is this something you found? If so, congratulations on making this huge discovery!

It looks like Iain McDonald was on to something when he said U106 originated between Prague and the Baltic.

Radovesice, Czech Republic is located 30 miles North northwest of Prague.

Yes, found I found it today. It will be big news for the U106 folks I'm sure.

slievenamon
03-22-2018, 10:46 PM
That's correct, the oldest U106 and only one in a Bell Beaker sample.

Congratulations! Thank you for your research.

alan
03-23-2018, 12:00 AM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

Where did this info emerge from? Also do you have details of the burial?

Bollox79
03-23-2018, 12:18 AM
Yes, found I found it today. It will be big news for the U106 folks I'm sure.

Cheers Rocca! It's huge news indeed... added to a S1894/S1900 Unetice sample from a wealthy burial ground East of Prague (Jinonice - Prague 5 district) added to the U106+ samples (L48 and Z18 in Szolad) found not only in the Szolad and Collegno cemeteries, but now apparently via converted BAM files we are finding samples AED 106 and ALH 1 from the Bavarian paper also U106+ and possibly Z156+. AED 106 was first found to be U106+ and then apparently S376+ which is the equivalent of Z305 in the series of SNPs Z305/306/307 below Z156. ALH 1 was found U106+ and Z306+...

Some big developments for U106 if all the reads are good etc etc... and all this just show cases how much we can learn from ancient and medieval samples if the right testing is done on them ;-).

R.Rocca
03-23-2018, 12:59 AM
Where did this info emerge from? Also do you have details of the burial?

It emerged from my computer :D

I'm doing some more analysis of the Olalde samples.

Finn
03-23-2018, 07:17 AM
It emerged from my computer :D

I'm doing some more analysis of the Olalde samples.

Congrats Rocca!!!

Makes most probably a nice R1b U106 link in the "Czech" "Oder river" BB EBA connections.......Or surprise?

I'm curios Rocca.....

alan
03-23-2018, 07:48 AM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

That’s a bit of a game changer. Although the no of samples before he was found is considerabe enough to suggest U106 was rare or localised in the beaker era, this places both the earliest P312 and U106 found so far in beaker. That’s unlikely to be a coincidence

alan
03-23-2018, 07:50 AM
It emerged from my computer :D

I'm doing some more analysis of the Olalde samples.
Brilliant work.

alan
03-23-2018, 08:45 AM
this could be taken to back the ideas that U106 was in beaker and perhaps was largely plying the lesser used Oder route which only grew in importance at the end of the beaker era and Unetice. It’s dangerous to build a model on a single find but if L11 really was a minor beaker lineage around the Oder then that means both are together in the culture perhaps 400 years after their TMRCA! That is very important.

How did that happen? That surely has implications for the entire pre- beaker L11 story c 3000-2550BC. It still remains that most of the earliest distribution of L11xP312 makes sense in they were around the upper Oder and gained access to the Moravian gate by the end of the beaker period. I would also say it suggests that L11 as a whole at one time.

Despite the cultural guise not being beaker, it’s hard to ignore that Csepel L11 guy was located on an island where an oddball beaker outpost that is thought to be derived from Moravian beaker is located. Was he simply absorbed into a new culture that arrived on the island? That is speculative but it does point back towards the Czech Republic where the U106 guy Richard just uncovered is located. So it does tend to suggest that zone was at or close to where L11 was c 2550BC when the beaker culture formed. If so then for how long and how did 2 branches of L11 remain together so many centuries after their MRCA?

My current favoured option is they were a new influx to the Czech/German area from a Carpathian Poland as the people their had accrued a lot of beaker like traits by 2600BC that CW people in Germany, Slovakia and Czechoslovakia did not have. Indeed the CW people of Moravia and Slovakia seem to have been late arrivals displaced from Germany around the time of the arrival of beaker people and buried in the classic R1a associated CW way. So a fresh influx west from Carpathian Poland makes most sense to explain the sudden appeance of beaker culture and L11

wlk
03-23-2018, 08:45 AM
>Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+.

Thank you for your work.

Question - is there a BAM-file for sample I7288 available for download somewhere?

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:57 AM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

How confident are you that I7288 really was U106? Not very, from the sound of things.

R.Rocca
03-23-2018, 12:25 PM
How confident are you that I7288 really was U106? Not very, from the sound of things.

I should have said there are "very few reads for R1b". It is a lower read sample than most Olalde samples, but it is not in the "useless train wreck" category that ATP3 is. Given that 20 miles away another U106 shows up in the culture immediately following Bell Beaker (Unetice), this finding seems pretty logical.

R.Rocca
03-23-2018, 12:32 PM
>Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+.

Thank you for your work.

Question - is there a BAM-file for sample I7288 available for download somewhere?

It could be found here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB23635

rms2
03-23-2018, 05:12 PM
I should have said there are "very few reads for R1b". It is a lower read sample than most Olalde samples, but it is not in the "useless train wreck" category that ATP3 is. Given that 20 miles away another U106 shows up in the culture immediately following Bell Beaker (Unetice), this finding seems pretty logical.

Okay, if you're sure. It didn't sound like you were very confident, with one M269-level read and then one Z9, and U106 isn't exactly common in BB thus far. I would have been less surprised by some other kind of P312, but if you say it's good, it's good.

R.Rocca
03-23-2018, 05:24 PM
Okay, if you're sure. It didn't sound like you were very confident, with one M269-level read and then one Z9, and U106 isn't exactly common in BB thus far. I would have been less surprised by some other kind of P312, but if you say it's good, it's good.

BTW, I added this sample to the oldest P312 vs U106 map I created earlier and it falls within the U106 zone. This sample wasn't radiocarbon dated, but it could well be that this signals the first genetic shifts that led to the formation of Unetice.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RGQV96ErhMg29ydPzWbW8DFfPdeE8v9C&usp=sharing

Finn
03-23-2018, 05:43 PM
BTW, I added this sample to the oldest P312 vs U106 map I created earlier and it falls within the U106 zone. This sample wasn't radiocarbon dated, but it could well be that this signals the first genetic shifts that lead to the formation of Unetice.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RGQV96ErhMg29ydPzWbW8DFfPdeE8v9C&usp=sharing


@Rocca that's a nice draw, exactly the zone in which R1b (U106) intensified during the Bronze Age. This was the cultural and obviously also genetical Bronze Age intermixture zone.... And even shows the link with Hungary that still is some deep down layer in some modern NW Europeans....

Thanks for your research:thumb:

Finn
03-23-2018, 05:48 PM
Drawing by Rocca, genetics in Bronze Age

https://www.mupload.nl/img/xr5qfc7.png

Intermixture zone in Bronze Age:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/wvljiuhah.png

Looks no coincidence to me.....

Finn
03-23-2018, 07:39 PM
And a perfect place to starts/spread the Bronze Age...with copper and tin on the spot.....(although most admit closer to the Elbe than the Oder).

https://www.mupload.nl/img/kg7t6h1.png

alan
03-23-2018, 08:19 PM
What I really want to know is why both of the L151 main lineages appear earliest in a culture that even y full indicates is 250 years younge than their MCRA. The implication is that L11 derivatives stayed to near each other and probably in the same culture from 2800-2550BC. If they moved any sort of distance in that period they moved together. Alternatively they moved when L11 was still a small clan within a century or two of their common ancestor

R.Rocca
03-23-2018, 08:27 PM
Here is another one guys...

Bell Beaker Hungary sample I4178 is Z18+. This is a much better sample and is also P312-, L2- and Z2103- which is what's been found in other Eastern Bell Beaker samples. He is also positive for L51 equivalent Y410, but this is a low quality SNP.

MitchellSince1893
03-23-2018, 08:56 PM
Here is another one guys...

Bell Beaker Hungary sample I4178 is Z18+. This is a much better sample and is also P312-, L2- and Z2103- which is what's been found in other Eastern Bell Beaker samples. He is also positive for L51 equivalent Y410, but this is a low quality SNP.

Just some more details on U106>Z18+ I4178. He's also 2350 BC =/- 150 years. Located at the Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő site on Csepel Island, Hungary.

alan
03-23-2018, 10:10 PM
Frustratingly the earliest U106 and P312 being in beaker just deepens the mystery of the pre-beaker incubator culture of L11 and early P312 and U106. Personally I think beaker is a late wave west c. 2600-2550BC from easternmost CW or hybrid groups who remained at the interface between the north Carpathian/forest steppe interface where the substrate GAC/TRB for 200-250ys after the main wave of CW had headed west. In steppe terms their ancestors were very Yamnaya like according to Davidski, not a wave that had fork or long halted in an area with a large Balkans farmer substrate. It has to be said a lot of that also describes what has been said of CW. The main difference appears to be the beakers had a greater degree of mixing with those GAC/TRB type farmers but that could relate to the fact beaker culture formed 250 years later than CW

MitchellSince1893
03-23-2018, 10:20 PM
Frustratingly the earliest U106 and P312 being in beaker just deepens the mystery of the pre-beaker incubator culture of L11 and early P312 and U106. Personally I think beaker is a late wave west c. 2600-2550BC from easternmost CW or hybrid groups who remained at the interface between the north Carpathian/forest steppe interface where the substrate GAC/TRB for 200-250ys after the main wave of CW had headed west. In steppe terms their ancestors were very Yamnaya like according to Davidski, not a wave that had fork or long halted in an area with a large Balkans farmer substrate. It has to be said a lot of that also describes what has been said of CW. The main difference appears to be the beakers had a greater degree of mixing with those GAC/TRB type farmers but that could relate to the fact beaker culture formed 250 years later than CW

As I mentioned previously L11 (or immediate ancestors/descendants) could have been hanging out in the Balanova Culture and made a quick move to Central Europe.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/c6/67/7ec667e8dacde3dfda04fac3770dd396.png

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:23 PM
Just some more details on U106>Z18+ I4178. He's also 2350 BC =/- 150 years. Located at the Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő site on Csepel Island, Hungary.

Now that's kind of a weird bunch.

I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

I2787 Y-DNA: R1b-Z2105 2458–2202 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) The highest steppe dna of any Bell Beaker sample

I4178 Y-DNA: R1b-Z18 2500–2200 BC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna

A couple of different kinds of I2a, one with no steppe dna, the other with pretty good steppe dna, an R1b-Z2105 loaded with steppe dna, and an R1b-U106 with pretty good steppe dna.

Interesting.

The Csepel Island folks were big time horse breeders.

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:47 PM
Now that's kind of a weird bunch.

I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

I2787 Y-DNA: R1b-Z2105 2458–2202 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) The highest steppe dna of any Bell Beaker sample

I4178 Y-DNA: R1b-Z18 2500–2200 BC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna

A couple of different kinds of I2a, one with no steppe dna, the other with pretty good steppe dna, an R1b-Z2105 loaded with steppe dna, and an R1b-U106 with pretty good steppe dna.

Interesting.

The Csepel Island folks were big time horse breeders.

Elsewhere on Csepel Island at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary):

Proto-Nagyrev (the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev):

I7040 (2500-2200 BC) 11-12 year-old female, mtDNA K1a4b

I7041 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7043, y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA H1b1

I7042 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna I2a1, mtDNA H

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

Two Bell Beaker results from the same site:

I7044 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2109, mtDNA U5b1d1b

I7045 (2500-2200 BC) 40-50 year old female, mtDNA T2c1d+152

rms2
03-23-2018, 11:28 PM
I guess I might as well keep going.

Only a few miles away at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:

I2364 (2470-2060 BC) female, no grave goods, mtDNA U5a2b

I5015 (2461-2211 BC) female, one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug, mtDNA H1aj

I2365 (2465-2205 BC) male, one bell beaker, one urn, one bowl, and one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug; y-dna R1b-L2, mtDNA V3

Looks like Budapest is seriously interesting when it comes to Bell Beaker R1b-L23:

R1b-Z2103: Z2105 and Z2109

R1b-L11: U106 (Z18) and P312 (L2)

Not to mention the Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106.

Bollox79
03-24-2018, 12:01 AM
Here is another one guys...

Bell Beaker Hungary sample I4178 is Z18+. This is a much better sample and is also P312-, L2- and Z2103- which is what's been found in other Eastern Bell Beaker samples. He is also positive for L51 equivalent Y410, but this is a low quality SNP.

Thanks again Rich!!!! You are the man... finally some more ancient U106 and this time in Beaker burials... now there are two! Just interesting all around! Here is a pdf on the cemetery for the Z18 I found real quick... http://www.academia.edu/15192879/Bell_Beaker_Cemetery_and_Settlement_and_Settlement _at_Szigetszentmikl%C3%B3s_First_Results

Bollox79
03-24-2018, 12:03 AM
Now that's kind of a weird bunch.

I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

I2787 Y-DNA: R1b-Z2105 2458–2202 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) The highest steppe dna of any Bell Beaker sample

I4178 Y-DNA: R1b-Z18 2500–2200 BC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna

A couple of different kinds of I2a, one with no steppe dna, the other with pretty good steppe dna, an R1b-Z2105 loaded with steppe dna, and an R1b-U106 with pretty good steppe dna.

Interesting.

The Csepel Island folks were big time horse breeders.

Yes quite the interesting bunch ;-).

Some description of these graves I found...

Grave 49 (I2741, GEN 20): Male individual lying of his left side, in contracted position.
The rectangular shaped grave pit, oriented northeast–southwest, was enclosed by a
round ditch. Grave goods include a Bell Beaker, a bowl, a stone wrist-guard and a
dagger. The radiocarbon date for this individual is:
I2741/GEN_20, Grave 49: 2458–2154 calBCE (3835±35 BP, Poz-83641) [I2a1a1 + H1+16189]

Grave 133 (I2786, GEN 56): Male individual lying of his left side, in contracted
position. The rectangular shaped grave pit, oriented northeast–southwest, was enclosed
by a round ditch. Grave goods include a bowl, a jug, and a stone silex. The radiocarbon
date for this individual is:
I2786/GEN_56, Grave 133: 2459–2206 calBCE (3850±35 BP, Poz-83639) [I2a2a + I1]

Grave 552 (I4178, GEN 58): Male individual lying on his left side, in contracted
position. The rectangular shaped grave pit, oriented northeast–southwest, was enclosed
by a round ditch. Grave goods include a Bell Beaker, and a bowl.
I4178/GEN_58/Grave552: 2500-2200 BCE [U106-Z18 (I add the U106 Z18 bit) + J1c1b1a]

Grave 688 (I2787, GEN 59): Male individual lying of his left side, in contracted
position. The rectangular shaped grave pit, oriented northeast–southwest, was enclosed
by a round ditch. Grave good include a small jar. The radiocarbon date is:
I2787/GEN_59/Grave 688: 2458–2202 calBCE (3840±35 BP, Poz-83640) [R1b1a1a2a2 (Z2103) + T2b]

spruithean
03-24-2018, 12:15 AM
Interesting. Clearly I1 had vacated these areas by this time?

Certainly nice to see some more ancient U106 individuals indeed.

rms2
03-24-2018, 12:19 AM
Yeah, the weird thing is what must have happened next, because U106 is inversely related to Italo-Celtic speakers and is more closely related to Germanic speakers, while P312 is more closely connected to Italo-Celtic speakers. Yet many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic. Unetice, on the other hand, has been connected to both Germanic and Celtic.

spruithean
03-24-2018, 01:15 AM
Yeah, the weird thing is what must have happened next, because U106 is inversely related to Italo-Celtic speakers and is more closely related to Germanic speakers, while P312 is more closely connected to Italo-Celtic speakers. Yet many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic. Unetice, on the other hand, has been connected to both Germanic and Celtic.

This just gets more interesting as we go along! It'll be really interesting to see what other haplogroups show up in aDNA in these ancient sites. I'm a little behind with all these new findings. I certainly have a lot to catch up on!

rms2
03-24-2018, 01:51 AM
As I mentioned previously L11 (or immediate ancestors/descendants) could have been hanging out in the Balanova Culture and made a quick move to Central Europe.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/c6/67/7ec667e8dacde3dfda04fac3770dd396.png

I'm thinking Budzhak, since they came from the NW Black Sea coast, where Mikhailovka preceded them and were their ancestors. Mikhailovka had burial rites like Bell Beaker, including stone cists, cromlechs, and anthropomorphic stelae. Budzhak beakers were a lot like bell beakers.

22277 22278

MitchellSince1893
03-24-2018, 02:24 AM
I'm thinking Budzhak, since they came from the NW Black Sea coast, where Mikhailovka preceded them and were their ancestors. Mikhailovka had burial rites like Bell Beaker, including stone cists, cromlechs, and anthropomorphic stelae. Budzhak beakers were a lot like bell beakers.

22277 22278

Yeah, I keep going back and forth between a Budzhak/Kemi Oba/Mikhailovka southern source vs a straight shot from Yamanya-Samara/Balanova northern source. The similarity in arrowheads makes the former more appealing, while the red heads in Udmurtia, eastern U152 folks, and L23 in Samara makes the later appealing. Another possibility is a combination of the two...i.e. a far eastern (Samara/Balnova) source that swings through Kemi-Oba/Mikhailovka and Budzhak region before entering Central Europe.

rms2
03-24-2018, 02:34 AM
Ivanova has Budzhak crossing the Carpathians via the Tisza River valley, which puts them at the scene of the crime.

Finn
03-24-2018, 06:25 AM
Yeah, the weird thing is what must have happened next, because U106 is inversely related to Italo-Celtic speakers and is more closely related to Germanic speakers, while P312 is more closely connected to Italo-Celtic speakers. Yet many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic. Unetice, on the other hand, has been connected to both Germanic and Celtic.

Ar you sure, until the end of the Roman period, large parts of NW Europe spoke Celtic, the big migration spread German from outmost Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia to the rest of NW Europe....so that inverse is not true.

Finn
03-24-2018, 07:20 AM
Yeah, the weird thing is what must have happened next, because U106 is inversely related to Italo-Celtic speakers and is more closely related to Germanic speakers, while P312 is more closely connected to Italo-Celtic speakers. Yet many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic. Unetice, on the other hand, has been connected to both Germanic and Celtic.

And wat happened next? That was the topic of our endless dispute ;) :argue: (the Baltics remember ;)

BB 'Czech'/Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield the pre-proto-Celts had an tremendous impact on the populations of NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age, from the EBA beginning (Lilla Beddinge), MBA (Oostwoud) until the end. So they can be identified as the bearers of R1b U106 that brought this haplotype to NW Europe and Scandinavia. I guess that becomes more and more clear now.....

http://i67.tinypic.com/2r4s76t.png

alan
03-24-2018, 10:57 AM
I guess I might as well keep going.

Only a few miles away at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:

I2364 (2470-2060 BC) female, no grave goods, mtDNA U5a2b

I5015 (2461-2211 BC) female, one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug, mtDNA H1aj

I2365 (2465-2205 BC) male, one bell beaker, one urn, one bowl, and one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug; y-dna R1b-L2, mtDNA V3

Looks like Budapest is seriously interesting when it comes to Bell Beaker R1b-L23:

R1b-Z2103: Z2105 and Z2109

R1b-L11: U106 (Z18) and P312 (L2)

Not to mention the Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106.

A melting pot. Many aspects of Csepel beaker culture are way different from the beaker norm. They seem to have been a far outpost in a sea of other peoples and absorbed a lot of exotic traits. They may well have been crucial in sending riding horses back upstream to the main body of beaker folk. Maybe that was the whole point of the beaker outpost being set up thrrr by Moravian beaker folk? The DNA would seem to me to suggest the riding horses were obtained from Z2103 derived folks some of whom were then absorbed into the beaker community at Csepel. Certainly the society on the island was such that it wasn't dominated by a single lineage like was common in most of the beaker world. Csepel island sounds like an early trading emporium where the social rules of other areas did not apply.

alan
03-24-2018, 11:06 AM
Yeah, I keep going back and forth between a Budzhak/Kemi Oba/Mikhailovka southern source vs a straight shot from Yamanya-Samara/Balanova northern source. The similarity in arrowheads makes the former more appealing, while the red heads in Udmurtia, eastern U152 folks, and L23 in Samara makes the later appealing. Another possibility is a combination of the two...i.e. a far eastern (Samara/Balnova) source that swings through Kemi-Oba/Mikhailovka and Budzhak region before entering Central Europe.

I think Kemi-Oba/Mikhailovka have far too much evidence - including their crania- of Balkans farmer admixture to match the prevailing non-steppe part of the beaker autosomal signal. A route more through the forest steppe makes more sense

alan
03-24-2018, 11:37 AM
A yline that moved into another well populated area could lose all trace of its original autosomal signal within say 150 years? However I think the classic beaker signal at least gives us a clue where P312 or perhaps all L11 was and was not from c2700BC-2550BC. I think a location or long slow movement west through areas and cultures with a Balkans type farmer element can be ruled out. However we also can rule out L11 being part of the big CW wave west c. 2800-2750BC. That does narrow down options dramatically if you think about it. It does tend to support what ancient DNA is showing: L11 came straight from the steppe as a late wave or even a late trickle. It was holed up on the steppe and didn't move west until some point after the departure of the big R1a CW wave west and the appearance of beaker c2550BC, and it moved from a place and by a route that avoided Balkans farmer genes.

rms2
03-24-2018, 01:33 PM
Ar you sure, until the end of the Roman period, large parts of NW Europe spoke Celtic, the big migration spread German from outmost Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia to the rest of NW Europe....so that inverse is not true.

It is true that the modern frequency of R1b-U106 is inversely proportional to Italo-Celtic. U106 attains its highest frequencies among Germanic speakers and declines precipitously as one enters Italo-Celtic speaking areas.

Dienekes summed it up well a few years ago.



The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html

rms2
03-24-2018, 01:38 PM
And wat happened next? That was the topic of our endless dispute ;) :argue: (the Baltics remember ;)

BB 'Czech'/Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield the pre-proto-Celts had an tremendous impact on the populations of NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age, from the EBA beginning (Lilla Beddinge), MBA (Oostwoud) until the end. So they can be identified as the bearers of R1b U106 that brought this haplotype to NW Europe and Scandinavia. I guess that becomes more and more clear now.....



I am not at all convinced U106 had much to do with Celts, pre-Proto or otherwise.

Finn
03-24-2018, 02:06 PM
It is true that the modern frequency of R1b-U106 is inversely proportional to Italo-Celtic. U106 attains its highest frequencies among Germanic speakers and declines precipitously as one enters Italo-Celtic speaking areas.

Dienekes summed it up well a few years ago.



http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html

I don't deny that R1b U106 is a major haplo type in the (West) Germanic world. No doubt! But IMO you and other (especially curly prow) take it to absolute.

First of all this doen't not imply that R1b U106 equals Germanic.

And it doesn't take in account that R1b U106 had a life before anyone heard of the verb or culture Germanic. The Romans were the first to use that for tribes above the Rhine.

R1b U106 was, see the Oostwoud sample (1800 BC!!!!) and Lilla Beddinge (2000 BC!!) already part of the Frisian/ North Dutch and Scania population before is was a part of the Germanic culture. It's pretty well a possibility that what you call "Italo-Celtic" initially shaped the North Dutch world. With the Germanic migration, early middle ages this began to change.

The use of R1b U106 is Germanic needs explanation. Because it was also part of the (proto) Celtic world.

I think that what we see is that with the findings in BB Czech/ Unetice etc we can even state that R1b U106 is largely spread by the proto- Celts and that the Germanic world inherited this haplotype. In the Germanic world it became a prosperous Y-DNA line. But R1b U106 was already settled in the later on called Germanic area's before the use of the word/verb/culture Germanic!


Many people thing to much in clusters, kind of monolithic thought, as if Germanic or Celtic is something coherent. Intermingling is more often the case....

Finn
03-24-2018, 02:08 PM
I am not at all convinced U106 had much to do with Celts, pre-Proto or otherwise.

No there are only findings lately in Bell Beaker Czech and Unetice but nothing to do with pre-proto Celts....dream on RMS2!

rms2
03-24-2018, 02:15 PM
No there are only findings lately in Bell Beaker Czech and Unetice but nothing to do with pre-proto Celts....dream on RMS2!

I think you're dreaming, Finn.

How did U106 make the big switcheroo from "Pre-Proto-Celtic" to Germanic by the first century BC?

22291

rms2
03-24-2018, 02:26 PM
. . .

I think that what we see is that with the findings in BB Czech/ Unetice etc we can even state that R1b U106 is largely spread by the proto- Celts and that the Germanic world inherited this haplotype. In the Germanic world it became a prosperous Y-DNA line. But R1b U106 was already settled in the later on called Germanic area's before the use of the word/verb/culture Germanic!




I completely disagree. R1b-U106 was already in Scandinavia by the 3rd millennium BC in Nordic Battle Axe. Its distribution shows no signs of any association with Celtic speaking peoples; in fact, its frequency declines precipitously in Italo-Celtic-speaking regions and attains its highest frequencies in Germanic-speaking areas.

Unetice was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. There is no real evidence that everywhere it occurred its practitioners were Celtic speakers or pre-Proto-Celtic speakers. They could have been pre-Proto-Celtic speakers in some places, pre-Proto-Germanic speakers in others, and pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers in still others.

I guess we'll know for sure when we start getting some y-dna test results from actual Celts . . . but wait a minute, we do have some from Hinxton, England, and they weren't U106.

Finn
03-24-2018, 02:39 PM
I think you're dreaming, Finn.

How did U106 make the big switcheroo from "Pre-Proto-Celtic" to Germanic by the first century BC?

22291

Let's call (for easy use) the BB Czech/ Unetice/ Tumulus/Urnfield cultures "proto Celtic". R1b U106 was, now without doubt, part of these cultures (besides some other lines).

The proto Celts brought R1b U106 to Scania (2000 BC) and North Dutch (1800 BC). During the Bronze Age the proto Celts fused and shaped the flourishing Nordic Bronze Age of the German Northern Plain and Southern Scandinavia.

About 500 BC Nordic Bronze Age and it's network collapsed. About 300 BC we see even fences between nowadays Niedersachsen and Westfalia to keep Hallstatt/La Tene on distance.

At that time in this relative 'isolation' the actual Germanic development began in outmost Northern Germany/ Southern Scandinavia, more often identified with the Jastorf culture.

These were the first actual Germans! These Germans (with mostly 'Nordic' Z18/Z9 like R1b U106 lines) began to spread to broad parts of NW Germany.

In the most western parts of Friesland (Westergo) the "proto-celts" had to deal with a severe population decline (in more eastern parts this was less the case), Germans with Nordic R1b U106 lines influenced deeply this area's!

So the history of R1b U106 (and subclades) and Germanic is complicated, but in the end they meet each other and they lived happily ever after;)

Finn
03-24-2018, 02:46 PM
I completely disagree. R1b-U106 was already in Scandinavia by the 3rd millennium BC in Nordic Battle Axe. Its distribution shows no signs of any association with Celtic speaking peoples; in fact, its frequency declines precipitously in Italo-Celtic-speaking regions and attains its highest frequencies in Germanic-speaking areas.

Unetice was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. There is no real evidence that everywhere it occurred its practitioners were Celtic speakers or pre-Proto-Celtic speakers. They could have been pre-Proto-Celtic speakers in some places, pre-Proto-Germanic speakers in others, and pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers in still others.

I guess we'll know for sure when we start getting some y-dna test results from actual Celts . . . but wait a minute, we do have some from Hinxton, England, and they weren't U106.

You know that Lilla Beddinge sample has an admixture connection with BB Czech! Seen through the perspective of the Rocca research this is a remarkable thing!

Oostwoud is very clear connected with Tumulus, no need to explain.

Prof Schrijver placed the Frisian language before and during the Roman time very clear in the Celtic corner.

Your view is getting outdated rms2 time for refreshment!

rms2
03-24-2018, 02:57 PM
No one made a switch, let's call (for easy use) the BB Czech/ Unetice/ Tumulus/Urnfield cultures "proto Celtic".

Let's not. There is no proof of that.

First off, one kind of iffy - but okay - U106 in Czech Bell Beaker (alongside a boatload of L2's) does not make Czech Bell Beaker predominantly U106. One U106 in Czech Unetice a few hundred years later doesn't make Czech Unetice predominantly U106, nor does it make Czech Unetice "pre-Proto-Celtic".

As I said, Unetice was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. We don't know what language or languages Unetice people spoke. The best guess is that they spoke some kind of Indo-European, but it was probably of different varieties.



R1b U106 was, now without doubt, part of these cultures (besides some other lines).

We know that it was in Bell Beaker to some extent, in Nordic Battle Axe in Sweden, in Unetice, and in what may have been Elp.

We also know there were Germanic Lombards by the 6th century AD who were R1b-U106.



The proto Celts brought R1b U106 to Scania (2000 BC) and North Dutch (1800 BC) . . .

Well, you are the first person I have ever heard make that claim. There is no evidence of Celts of any kind in Scania. Sorry.

And you are assuming that (possibly Elp) U106 in Oostwoud was a "Proto-Celt". There is no reason whatsoever to do that, and you have no proof or even any evidence of any kind.

You don't get to make your case on bald assertions.

It's pretty convenient to claim that U106 was "Proto-Celt" but switched over to Germanic so early that such a claim is of no practical importance (and not likely to be true).

rms2
03-24-2018, 03:14 PM
By the way, according to their own oral tradition, later set down in writing by Paul the Deacon in the 8th century, the Lombards came from southern Sweden.

Finn
03-24-2018, 03:15 PM
Let's not. There is no proof of that.

First off, one kind of iffy - but okay - U106 in Czech Bell Beaker (alongside a boatload of L2's) does not make Czech Bell Beaker predominantly U106. One U106 in Czech Unetice a few hundred years later doesn't make Czech Unetice predominantly U106, nor does it make Czech Unetice "pre-Proto-Celtic".

As I said, Unetice was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. We don't know what language or languages Unetice people spoke. The best guess is that they spoke some kind of Indo-European, but it was probably of different varieties.



We know that it was in Bell Beaker to some extent, in Nordic Battle Axe in Sweden, in Unetice, and in what may have been Elp.

We also know there were Germanic Lombards by the 6th century AD who were R1b-U106.



Well, you are the first person I have ever heard make that claim. There is no evidence of Celts of any kind in Scania. Sorry.

And you are assuming that (possibly Elp) U106 in Oostwoud was a "Proto-Celt". There is no reason whatsoever to do that, and you have no proof or even any evidence of any kind.

You don't get to make your case on bald assertions.

It's pretty convenient to claim that U106 was "Proto-Celt" but switched over to Germanic so early that such a claim is of no practical importance (and not likely to be true).



1. About the Celtic influence on the language in North Dutch before the German migration, see Schrijver in:
https://boydellandbrewer.com/frisians-and-their-north-sea-neighbours.html

2. You know that Lilla Beddinge is not to label Battle Axe, no prove. LN/EBA is the only agreeable label.

3. See all recent literature from VandKilde, Kristiansen etc about the Nordic Bronze Age, bottom line is that Unetice and Tumulus cultures and people influenced the Nordic Bronze Age quite heavily.

4. R1b U106 has diverse subclades we see some of them in BB Czech, Unetice so indeed it's possible that some people from this lines, like that one in Oostwoud 1800 BC initially spoke a kind of Celtic and after the Germanic migration to Friesland spoke Germanic or better said Germanic with a Celtic accent we call pre-Old Frisian.

rms2
03-24-2018, 03:34 PM
1. About the Celtic influence on the language in North Dutch before the German migration, see Schrijver in:
https://boydellandbrewer.com/frisians-and-their-north-sea-neighbours.html

Not really relevant. By 700 BC (well before Die Völkerwanderung) Germanic speakers had pushed to the Rhine. We know the actual Bell Beaker men in the mounds at Oostwoud were all R1b-P312. So, whatever their language, it looks like P312 was there first.



2. You know that Lilla Beddinge is not to label Battle Axe, no prove. LN/EBA is the only agreeable label.

Lilla Beddinge is a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery. There is no good reason to deny RISE98 that except the desire to do so.

Sweden has no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts whatsoever. None. The closest thing to it is some barbed wire decoration (a stylistic influence) on some Swedish Corded Ware ceramics.



3. See all recent literature from VandKilde, Kristiansen etc about the Nordic Bronze Age, bottom line is that Unetice and Tumulus cultures and people influenced the Nordic Bronze Age quite heavily.

And you know for sure what language all of the people of those cultures spoke and that most of the men were U106?



4. R1b U106 has diverse subclades we see some of them in BB Czech, Unetice so indeed it's possible that some people from this lines, like that one in Oostwoud 1800 BC initially spoke a kind of Celtic and after the Germanic migration to Friesland spoke Germanic or better said Germanic with a Celtic accent we call pre-Old Frisian.

We see one U106 thus far in Czech BB and one U106 thus far in Czech Unetice (naturally, there will no doubt be more) and no real proof what language they spoke. We also see a U106 in Sweden in Nordic Battle Axe in the 3rd millennium BC.

It looks to me like U106 ended up in far northern Europe along the North Sea coast and the shores of the Baltic and was in on the very genesis of early Germanic.

On the other hand, there is no indication U106 had much if anything to do with Italo-Celtic and, subsequently, Celtic.

Finn
03-24-2018, 03:39 PM
Let's not. There is no proof of that.

First off, one kind of iffy - but okay - U106 in Czech Bell Beaker (alongside a boatload of L2's) does not make Czech Bell Beaker predominantly U106. One U106 in Czech Unetice a few hundred years later doesn't make Czech Unetice predominantly U106, nor does it make Czech Unetice "pre-Proto-Celtic".

As I said, Unetice was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. We don't know what language or languages Unetice people spoke. The best guess is that they spoke some kind of Indo-European, but it was probably of different varieties.



We know that it was in Bell Beaker to some extent, in Nordic Battle Axe in Sweden, in Unetice, and in what may have been Elp.

We also know there were Germanic Lombards by the 6th century AD who were R1b-U106.



Well, you are the first person I have ever heard make that claim. There is no evidence of Celts of any kind in Scania. Sorry.

And you are assuming that (possibly Elp) U106 in Oostwoud was a "Proto-Celt". There is no reason whatsoever to do that, and you have no proof or even any evidence of any kind.

You don't get to make your case on bald assertions.

It's pretty convenient to claim that U106 was "Proto-Celt" but switched over to Germanic so early that such a claim is of no practical importance (and not likely to be true).

As said I used "protoCeltic" as a kind of umbrella term for easy not for accurat use.....

Lille Beddinge is still doubtful,a connection with the BB Czech/ Unetice is quit possible.
Oostwoud is Tumulus!

Something keeps you stubborn Rms2, because in some way you use two measurement. When it comes to a connection from Lilla Beddinge with the Baltics you are very liberal in reasoning. But a possible connection with BB Czech/Unetic, meets immediately a sceptic mind.

Also the label R1b U106=Germanic looks almost holy for you.

:confused:

rms2
03-24-2018, 03:50 PM
As said I used "protoCeltic" as a kind of umbrella term not for easy not for accurat use.....

Lille Beddinge is still doubtful,a connection with the BB Czech/ Unetice is quit possible.

No, Lilla Beddinge is a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, and thus far no Bell Beaker burials, settlements or artifacts have ever been found in Sweden.



Oostwoud is Tumulus!

Well, the U106 burial was evidently not Bell Beaker.



Something keeps you stubborn Rms2, because in some way you use two measurement. When it comes to a connection from Lilla Beddinge with the Baltics you are very liberal in reasoning. But a possible connection with BB Czech/Unetic, meets immediately a sceptic mind.

It's called evidence. The U106 at Lilla Beddinge, a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, died around 2300 BC (give or take). It's possible that what he has in common with the U106 in Czech BB is a common ancestral origin in Corded Ware, if the guys who believe Bell Beaker evolved from Corded Ware are right. But there is no reason to think Bell Beaker people went to Sweden. There is just no evidence of that.



Also the label R1b U106=Germanic looks almost holy for you.

:confused:

Not holy, just sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious.

Look at the Italo-Celtic regions of Europe. They are where U106 fades to almost nothing, being most frequent closest to the Germanic-speaking borders.

Even if all of U106 once spoke Chinese, they evidently switched to Germanic extremely early and spread with the spread of Germanic.

Finn
03-24-2018, 03:54 PM
Not really relevant. By 700 BC (well before Die Völkerwanderung) Germanic speakers had pushed to the Rhine. We know the actual Bell Beaker men in the mounds at Oostwoud were all R1b-P312. So, whatever their language, it looks like P312 was there first.


[QUOTE]Lilla Beddinge is a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery. There is no good reason to deny RISE98 that except the desire to do so.


Yep proved by one vague needle, in my region there are dolmens with Bronze age findings...doesn't make them TRB. The proof is not without many many doubts! In fact you can't state this on a reasonable way....



Sweden has no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts whatsoever. None. The closest thing to it is some barbed wire decoration (a stylistic influence) on some Swedish Corded Ware ceramics.


Sweden was connected with the BB network and later on Unetice/ Tumulus, especially along the coast right in front of the Oder! The Oder= highway to BB Czech and Unetice area.


And you know for sure what language all of the people of those cultures spoke and that most of the men were U106?


I was not there.... I did my statements based on latest literature.


We see one U106 thus far in Czech BB and one U106 thus far in Czech Unetice (naturally, there will no doubt be more) and no real proof what language they spoke. We also see a U106 in Sweden in Nordic Battle Axe in the 3rd millennium BC.


IMO you miss the pattern of BB Czech/Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield....they were interconnected.


It looks to me like U106 ended up in far northern Europe along the North Sea coast and the shores of the Baltic and was in on the very genesis of early Germanic.


The Baltics are lower in R1b U106 than Palermo ;) Guess who brought the R1b U106 to the Oostwoud shores of the North Sea....yes Tumulus! And later my Saxons, Jutes and Norwegian ancestors.


On the other hand, there is no indication U106 had much if anything to do with Italo-Celtic and, subsequently, Celtic.

So Schrijver and his research is fake?

Radboud
03-24-2018, 04:06 PM
1. About the Celtic influence on the language in North Dutch before the German migration, see Schrijver in:
https://boydellandbrewer.com/frisians-and-their-north-sea-neighbours.html

2. You know that Lilla Beddinge is not to label Battle Axe, no prove. LN/EBA is the only agreeable label.


Strictly speaking, Nordic_LN is the only agreeable label because RISE98 it's age falls within the LN period I, this period was relatively stable and it is still related to the preceeding Neolithic periods. LN period II has more overlap with the Nordic Bronze Age though.

These two findings Z9 and Z18 in the Czech/Hungarian Bell Beakers are very interesting, although I wonder if someone can confirm these results. But if this is true, then the Bell Beaker scenario for R1b-U106 is back on the table. This doesn't necessary mean that R1b-U106 was a Proto-Celtic marker though.

rms2
03-24-2018, 04:16 PM
The Oder is not in Sweden. Thus far no Bell Beaker burials, settlements or artifacts have ever been found in Sweden. "The Baltics", by which I guess you mean Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are not the same thing as the Baltic coast.

I didn't say Schrijver and his research are fake, and, besides, I don't think he makes any claims about U106 and Italo-Celtic.

Suppose for a moment you are right, Finn, and all of U106 was once "pre-Proto-Celtic" speaking. After all, many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker with the spread of Italo-Celtic, and we now know there was some U106 in Bell Beaker.

Even if that is so, evidently U106 became Germanic speaking so early that it took no part in the spread of Italo-Celtic beyond east central Europe and instead eventually spread with the expansion of Germanic speakers.

Actually what the finding of U106 in Bell Beaker makes me think is that Bell Beaker people were not universally Italo-Celtic speakers. Perhaps some of them were: primarily those that went west and northwest. But perhaps Bell Beaker people spoke as-yet unknown Indo-European dialects that only evolved into early Italo-Celtic and early Germanic later.

I think it's pretty obvious that U106 had little to do with the development and spread of Italo-Celtic.

Finn
03-24-2018, 05:26 PM
Strictly speaking, Nordic_LN is the only agreeable label because RISE98 it's age falls within the LN period I, this period was relatively stable and it is still related to the preceeding Neolithic periods. LN period II has more overlap with the Nordic Bronze Age though.

These two findings Z9 and Z18 in the Czech/Hungarian Bell Beakers are very interesting, although I wonder if someone can confirm these results. But if this is true, then the Bell Beaker scenario for R1b-U106 is back on the table. This doesn't necessary mean that R1b-U106 was a Proto-Celtic marker though.

My point is Radboud there is not evidence to pinpoint Rise98 to a culture. There is simply not enough evidence to state this as a kind of certainty.
And than I consider it strange that people who want to have proof are labeling Rise98 as Battle Axle without much proof.....

And indeed when it's verified it doen't only makes the Bell Beaker scenario possible but also the close connected Unetice and Tumulus cultures. I don't say it's necessity but a possibility. It makes a scenario more possible that BB-CZ/Unetice/Tumulus was loaded with R1b U106. Archeologist state that there was a interconnectedness between Unetice/Tumulus of Central Europe and NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia Bronze Age. And linguist like Schrijver state likewise (NW Europeans like the old Frisii spoke Celtic). So with some associative thought it's not an idee fixe!

Finn
03-24-2018, 05:39 PM
The Oder is not in Sweden. Thus far no Bell Beaker burials, settlements or artifacts have ever been found in Sweden. "The Baltics", by which I guess you mean Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are not the same thing as the Baltic coast.

Take a map and see the mound of the Oder and draw a line straight ahead to the North indeed the beaches of Scania! So a hitchhike.
Beside that some archeologist like Vandkilde did mention the appearance of Barbed Wire Beaker there is no single reason why in nearby Denmark there where lots of BB's on the west side and the mounding of the Oder(leading to the Czech Beakers) on the south side why should they totally avoid Scania. What sense does this make. Even when BB are found in the more Northern parts of Norway. Scania was not some isolated area....


Scania, the Oder, Czech (in blue the R1b U106 sample BB Czech, Unetice, Scania)

https://www.mupload.nl/img/5s7z85dbqnc.png


I didn't say Schrijver and his research are fake, and, besides, I don't think he makes any claims about U106 and Italo-Celtic.


When he is just than you must at least except the possibility that the Celtic language was something that the Unetice/Tumulus migrants like the Oostwoud sample 1800 BC brought with them.


Suppose for a moment you are right, Finn, and all of U106 was once "pre-Proto-Celtic" speaking. After all, many scholars over the years have connected Bell Beaker with the spread of Italo-Celtic, and we now know there was some U106 in Bell Beaker.

Even if that is so, evidently U106 became Germanic speaking so early that it took no part in the spread of Italo-Celtic beyond east central Europe and instead eventually spread with the expansion of Germanic speakers.

Actually what the finding of U106 in Bell Beaker makes me think is that Bell Beaker people were not universally Italo-Celtic speakers. Perhaps some of them were: primarily those that went west and northwest. But perhaps Bell Beaker people spoke as-yet unknown Indo-European dialects that only evolved into early Italo-Celtic and early Germanic later. I think it's pretty obvious that U106 had little to do with the development and spread of Italo-Celtic.

I never said that it's black or white. Not one track minded. Of course some R1b U106 people for example in the Jastorf culture, belonged about 500 BC most probably to the early German speakers. But some R1b U106 in Friesland could at the same time (500 BC) belong to the Celtic speakers.

rms2
03-24-2018, 05:41 PM
What I find interesting and enlightening about the finding of U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker is the expansion of what we know about Kurgan Bell Beaker and R1b-L23.

Now we have P312, U106, and Z2103 in Kurgan Bell Beaker, and an R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev close to a BB burial site on Csepel Island, and all with a lot of steppe dna.

We need a massive research paper on Corded Ware and Yamnaya, one that includes Corded Ware in Moravia and the Netherlands, and Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin, to try and tie all this together.

Oh, and it should include Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, Maikop, and probably a number of other steppe cultures that fed into Yamnaya, as well.

A321son
03-25-2018, 12:04 AM
Forgive me, but after a few years hiatus, I thought I would get back up to speed with R-U106 given the recent ancient dna being reported. I've read quite a few posts here and I get the impression that there is a bit of group think getting in the way of objectivity. My questions:

1) Why are people associating haplogroups with prehistoric cultures? Aren't the Neolithic dna results making it clear that a lot of sites are a mix of haplogroups which themselves are found in more that one culture?
2) How can be anyone draw any firm conclusions about the origin of R-U106 based on 5 results? The estimated population of Europe about 2500 BC was getting closer to 8 million people. Five results will not give you any statistical representations of that population.
3) With millions of people being buried or cremated, how can anyone say that a few hundred skeletons, from a period of thousands of years, defines the original genetic composition of a particular area?

I guess my point is that being definitive about anything is more of a sign of personal agenda rather than objectivity.

That said I find the ancient dna results to be groundbreaking. First of all, Villabruna 1 shatters the notion that R-U106, R-P312 etc. were Bronze Age imports to western Europe. Until we have lots of ancient dna on record, the point of origin can be anywhere from the Atlantic to the Volga. Second, the Carpathian basin also figured significantly with early R-U106. And thirdly, the Elbe-Oder corridor may have been well populated with early R-U106 before being later overwhelmed by competing haplogroups from the south and east.

I look forward to a lot more ancient R-U106 finds.

alan
03-25-2018, 01:01 AM
[QUOTE=R.Rocca;368675]It emerged from my computer :D

I see the period of beaker and Unetice where both P312 and U106 were close the together as a possible explanations for this early sharing of vocab between ancestors of the Celts and Germans. It includes core vocab to do with core aspects of war, power, social structure and religious beliefs.
https://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic

The U106’s maybe later took this vocab north with them and injected it into my a separate battle axe culture IE branch. I’ve always had the feeling that Germanic is a hybrid of two IE languages as well as a considerable non IE substrate. Some of the nonIE substrate is shared only with Celtic too and current genetic evidence would tend to suggest that shared substrate is from GAC/TRB.

alan
03-25-2018, 01:22 AM
What I find interesting and enlightening about the finding of U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker is the expansion of what we know about Kurgan Bell Beaker and R1b-L23.

Now we have P312, U106, and Z2103 in Kurgan Bell Beaker, and an R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev close to a BB burial site on Csepel Island, and all with a lot of steppe dna.

We need a massive research paper on Corded Ware and Yamnaya, one that includes Corded Ware in Moravia and the Netherlands, and Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin, to try and tie all this together.

Oh, and it should include Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, Maikop, and probably a number of other steppe cultures that fed into Yamnaya, as well.
Inspired by al this discussion I had a good read of some recent stuff online about Old Podolia straddling Ukraine, Moldova, SE Poland etc c 3500-2500BC looking for strong hints of proto-beaker traits in the myriad of cultures there. I could not find anything that showed such traits coming together as well as the stuff I read on malopolska. I don’t have any prefered outcome or biases on the exact geographical location or cultural identity of where a proto beaker population were located so that is an honest assessment and opinion on it. I see Malopolska as the most convincing stepping stone between beaker and the steppe. It seems to be unique as a CW area that continued to feel flow from the steppes long after early CW had departed west. In fact it may be that even calling them CW is dubious by 2600BC

MitchellSince1893
03-25-2018, 05:19 AM
Now that's kind of a weird bunch.

I2741[/B] Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

A couple of different kinds of I2a, one with no steppe dna, the other with pretty good steppe dna, an R1b-Z2105 loaded with steppe dna, and an R1b-U106 with pretty good steppe dna.

Interesting.

The Csepel Island folks were big time horse breeders.

I2a1a1 is also found in Portugal I4229=CDM3, Bell Beaker(?), 2289-2135 calBCE; CM364, CM9B, Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic
I4229
mtDNA: U5a2+16362
Y-DNA: I2a1a1

Maybe folks were coming to Csepel Island from great distances to do some "horse trading"

It's interesting that so far, Csepel Island area of Hungary is the southernmost point for ancient L11 subclades. If this was a major meeting place, then could it be the source of eastern Bell Beaker culture as a combination BB style pottery imports from the west and Yamnaya and/or Corded Ware y-dna from the East/North. i.e. the L11 men obviously exist before this but they don't become recognizable as BB until they come to Csepel Island where their eastern practices (e.g. burial rites) are melded with western artifacts. Before this they indistinguishable from Yamanya or Corded Ware men.

It reminds me of homestyles in the US. Prior to the 1940s few people lived in ranch style homes and then from the late 1940s to late 1960s they were very popular...the "ranch home culture" was born. In the 1950s 9 out of every 10 new homes built were ranch style. The home buyers had the same dna as before, but their new culture/neighborhoods looked quite different from the previous ones a few years earlier.

Finn
03-25-2018, 12:07 PM
[QUOTE=R.Rocca;368675]It emerged from my computer :D

I see the period of beaker and Unetice where both P312 and U106 were close the together as a possible explanations for this early sharing of vocab between ancestors of the Celts and Germans. It includes core vocab to do with core aspects of war, power, social structure and religious beliefs.
https://www.academia.edu/377059/The_Precursors_of_Celtic_and_Germanic

The U106’s maybe later took this vocab north with them and injected it into my a separate battle axe culture IE branch. I’ve always had the feeling that Germanic is a hybrid of two IE languages as well as a considerable non IE substrate. Some of the nonIE substrate is shared only with Celtic too and current genetic evidence would tend to suggest that shared substrate is from GAC/TRB.

When the spread to NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia of R1bU106 was connected with BB 'Czech"/ Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield they were probably not the groups/tribes that brought the pre-proto Germanic language to Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia:

Schrijver:

Germanic as a separate branch of Indo-European arose as a result of contact with Balto-Finnic (more particularly, probably as a result of Indo-European–Finno-Saamic bilingualism and a subsequent switch to Indo-European, which as a result became Germanic; chapter V.2–3).
• The early break-up of Proto-Germanic into West and North- Germanic was probably engineered when speakers of a lost northern European language (or languages) with a peculiar vowel and consonant system came into contact with Germanic, to which they ultimately switched. A lost language with a sound system with very similar properties was probably involved in turning Finno-Saamic into Proto-Saami. The absorption of this group of languages accompanied the spread of Finno-Saamic in Finland and in central and northern Sweden and Norway, and the spread of Germanic in southern Scandinavia and pre- sumably the northern German plain, including the northern part of the Netherlands (chapter V.4).
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages.pdf

But R1b U106 was already settled in Northern Germany/ Southern Scandinavia when the Jastorf culture (600 BC) began, so they were a kind of "early adopters".

Jan_Noack
03-25-2018, 09:31 PM
Forgive me, but after a few years hiatus, I thought I would get back up to speed with R-U106 given the recent ancient dna being reported. I've read quite a few posts here and I get the impression that there is a bit of group think getting in the way of objectivity. My questions:

1) Why are people associating haplogroups with prehistoric cultures? Aren't the Neolithic dna results making it clear that a lot of sites are a mix of haplogroups which themselves are found in more that one culture?
2) How can be anyone draw any firm conclusions about the origin of R-U106 based on 5 results? The estimated population of Europe about 2500 BC was getting closer to 8 million people. Five results will not give you any statistical representations of that population.
3) With millions of people being buried or cremated, how can anyone say that a few hundred skeletons, from a period of thousands of years, defines the original genetic composition of a particular area?

I guess my point is that being definitive about anything is more of a sign of personal agenda rather than objectivity.

That said I find the ancient dna results to be groundbreaking. First of all, Villabruna 1 shatters the notion that R-U106, R-P312 etc. were Bronze Age imports to western Europe. Until we have lots of ancient dna on record, the point of origin can be anywhere from the Atlantic to the Volga. Second, the Carpathian basin also figured significantly with early R-U106. And thirdly, the Elbe-Oder corridor may have been well populated with early R-U106 before being later overwhelmed by competing haplogroups from the south and east.

I look forward to a lot more ancient R-U106 finds.

I was interested in this before DNA became affordable o even possible and have been waiting for this time to come, I have never spent any time before looking at the movement of DNA to follow migratory movements but it seems like, with a few more results, we should be able to put forward some hypothesis based on sufficient evidence.
I doubt we would ever have that statistical representation of the populations, but it does say a LOT that the skeletons were at some place , and not as yet at others - even individual ones. It means that , U106 for example, was HERE at about this time.
I concur that re U106, so far, there is not enough results to put forward any hypothesis , and so far, those suggested, while being possible, tend to fit in with the already accepted hypothesis of population movements based on previously known archaeological (like pottery and sword grave goods and body positioning) . However although there are (as expected by neolithic times) a mix of haplogroups in cultures at specific places at specific periods, these haplogroups are finite and fairly limited in number. I would hope that we may (depending on DNA results from more finds being possible, and more refined as well with luck) be able to trace these back in time to more specific or even individual haplogroups and find their origins. The associated grave goods should help identify the time if needed, as well as the lifestyle to the limited extent possible for us viewing from such a distant time.
My personal hypothesis so far is that U106 likely evolved in the Oder/Elbe corridor up to Sth Sweden, having pre U106, come from the Volga regions,and then travelled southwards and westwards along the Atlantic coats to Frisian-Dutch_Belgian_Flanders and Kent areas . As stated above this is not based on much and involves a lot of personal preference as well as the tiny no of facts .
Another possibility, I do not know how viable as I have never seen it put forward as a hypothesis, is that U106 evolved at two regions completely independently. That is , the mutation occurred north of the Carpathians, and around the top of the Oder/Elbe/ bottom of Sweden corridor in populations (probably from the same source) probably spreading westward along two separate corridors. I have wandered, how likely it is that similar mutations occur in completely independent populations, although this has never been suggested.

rms2
03-25-2018, 11:44 PM
. . .

That said I find the ancient dna results to be groundbreaking. First of all, Villabruna 1 shatters the notion that R-U106, R-P312 etc. were Bronze Age imports to western Europe. Until we have lots of ancient dna on record, the point of origin can be anywhere from the Atlantic to the Volga . . .


Villabruna was R1b-L754, not even L389, let alone P297. He was a lone R1b-L754 hunter-gatherer found north of the headwaters of the Adriatic, so not all that far west. Villabruna belonged to an autosomal cluster populated almost entirely by I2a hunter-gatherers.

Subsequent to Villabruna, no R1b-M269 is found in central or western Europe until Bell Beaker. The only type of R1b that has shown up there after Villabruna and prior to Bell Beaker has all been R1b-V88, which, of course, is P297-.

So Villabruna shatters nothing and was probably a dead end, if not the ancestor of R1b-V88.

Until Vucedol in the Copper Age, there is no sign of R1b-L23 and steppe dna in Europe west of the Dniester. Until Bell Beaker in the Copper Age, there is no sign of R1b-L11, also accompanied by steppe dna, in Europe west of the Dniester.

Finn
03-26-2018, 09:23 AM
I'm curios which language the Unetice spread to NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia, please comment the following quote:


The Indo-European demic diffusion model supports the origin of Pre-Balto-Slavic in north-central Europe, with Únětice and Mierzanowice/Nitra groups as its potential homeland, from a common North-West Indo-European parent language (expanded through East Bell Beaker). Proto-Lusatian is therefore the best candidate for its initial development, and Lusatian for its eastern expansion, before its separation into its two main dialects (or maybe three, if Baltic is to be divided in two branches).

https://indo-european.eu/tag/unetice-en/

So combined with Schrijver (2014), Unetice brought in EBA a Northwestern European Indoeuropean parent language to NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia, where it during/ at the end of the Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age 'fused' or was swiped away by Indo-European–Finno-Saamic (proto Germanic) influences from the North?

MMMMM?????:confused:

Finn
03-26-2018, 12:11 PM
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10134-Origins-of-Germanic&p=309881&viewfull=1#post309881

and


The Precursors of Celtic and Germanic
Adam Hyllested
University of Copenhagen
It is well known that Germanic has quite a few Celtic loanwords (see, e.g., Birkhan 1970, Rübekeil
2002, Schumacher 2007). However, Celtic and Germanic also share lexical material exclusive to
these branches that predates most of the sound laws defining them.
It is often hard to determine whether a given form is borrowed or inherited from PIE: thus,
Casaretto (2004: page num. fn. 1051) on PGmc. *ru-no- ‘secret’ vs. PCelt. *ru-na- ‘magic spell;
secret’: “Ob diese Parallellität Lehnbeziehungen oder ein gemeinsames Erbe reflektiert, ist
unsicher”; Olsen (1988: 13) on PGmc. *gislo- ‘hostage’ vs. PCelt. *geistlo- id.: “It is not certain
whether the Gmc. examples are inherited or Celtic loanwords”; Karsten (1927: 126) on PGmc.
*arbja- vs. PCelt. *orbios ‘heir’ and PGmc. *aiţa- vs. PCelt. *oito- ‘oath’: “… kan likasĺ vara
antingen urbesläktat med eller lĺn …”; and Ringe (2006: 296): “There are also quite a few words
shared only by Celtic and Germanic, which might or might not be loanwords …”.
As already noted by Lane (1933), Krahe (1954) and Polomé (1954, 1983), such “Celto-
Germanicisms” pertain to certain semantic spheres. On closer inspection, it turns out that these
spheres may generally be boiled down to:
a) religion, superstition and illnesses
b) warfare and equestrian terminology
(many of those associated with hostility or evilness can be placed in either category)
Only 10 of the about 80 Celto-Germanic lexemes cannot be placed in the above-mentioned
categories, and, with a couple of exceptions, even these are typical culture-words. Such a
distribution militates against the possibility of a Celto-Germanic genetic subgroup (and the
existence of Italo-Celtic need not be refuted on this basis); instead, it seems to reflect a cultural
unity between speakers of the early IE dialects in Northern Europe that later evolved into Proto-
Celtic and Proto-Germanic.
Most of the items in question look old and probably represent regional IE innovations (the
most famous example being *u ot-i/o- in derivatives meaning ‘prophet’, ‘shamanic wisdom’ etc.;
Meid 1991: 25-26; Watkins 1995: 118), while others may have been taken over from the same third
source (Polomé 1983: 284). Remarkably, about 25 of them are shared with Balto-Fennic
languages, suggesting a larger Pre-Celtic/Pre-Germanic/Balto-Fennic continuum.
Linking reconstructed prehistoric languages to archaeological findings is always risky
business, but we may tentatively fix this cultural unity in time and space in Eastern Central
Europe around 2000 BCE, when the pre-Celtic Únetice culture in the present-day Czech
Republic bordered late, possibly pre-Germanic, varieties of the Corded Ware culture. This
scenario is compatible with the conclusions reached by Kristiansen & Larsson 2005 (Kristian
Kristiansen p.c.).

http://www.pies.ucla.edu/WeCIEC/hyllested_a_2009f.pdf

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:16 PM
I don't think it's accurate to label all of Unetice "pre-Celtic". As you saw in what you quoted in your prior post, different IE languages have been attributed to Unetice. It was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. Its people probably spoke different IE dialects in different places. I don't think there is any real good reason to associate U106 with any kind of Celts, pre or otherwise, and lots of good reasons not to.

BTW, I guess you've noticed that these days, whenever they dig up any Migration Period Germans, at least some of them turn out to be U106.

Finn
03-26-2018, 12:59 PM
I don't think it's accurate to label all of Unetice "pre-Celtic". As you saw in what you quoted in your prior post, different IE languages have been attributed to Unetice. It was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. Its people probably spoke different IE dialects in different places. I don't think there is any real good reason to associate U106 with any kind of Celts, pre or otherwise, and lots of good reasons not to.

BTW, I guess you've noticed that these days, whenever they dig up any Migration Period Germans, at least some of them turn out to be U106.

No doubt I stay very interested in the history of Germanic language and culture.....

And partly due to the fact that Dutch is my 'public language', lower Saxon 'my privat' language, and English and (High) German my 'reading' languages. So pretty much German affinities.

But I'm no Nordicist, and I doubt if beneath some claims R1b U106 = Germanic there are sometimes (not every time and by every one) Nordicist claims.

I sincerly think that my region, NW Europe around the North Sea, was heavily influenced by a kind of (pre or proto or whatever label) Celtic people (BB Czech/Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield)/ culture and became Germanized in the late iron age, early middle ages......And yes indeed R1b U106 played a part in these Celtic migration/influence AND Germanic migration/influence!

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:05 PM
...And yes indeed R1b 106 played a part in these Celtic migration/influence AND Germanic migration/influence!

I disagree with the Celtic part, although I could be wrong.

Honestly, I don't think it matters much, because by the time it counted for anything, U106 was pretty thoroughly Germanic.

If we find much if any U106 among the ancient Gauls, the ancient Irish, or the ancient Celtic Britons, then it will matter, but I really sincerely doubt that's going to happen.

Finn
03-26-2018, 01:19 PM
I disagree with the Celtic part, although I could be wrong.

Honestly, I don't think it matters much, because by the time it counted for anything, U106 was pretty thoroughly Germanic.

If we find much if any U106 among the ancient Gauls, the ancient Irish, or the ancient Celtic Britons, then it will matter, but I really sincerely doubt that's going to happen.

I think it's because another kind of perception by the word Celt.

May be by the word Celt you think about your Irish ancestors.....(but I can't look in your mind). And or the Gauls, Britons etc.

For me stands pre or proto or real Celt for Bronze Age (pre/proto) and Iron Age (no pre or proto) cultures and people with their heartland in Central Europe.

So indeed the cluster BB Czech/ Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield (pre and proto) and Hallstatt/La Tene (no pre or proto).

I'm convinced you and my definition can both be used..... (may be my definition is that of a continental german ;)

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:27 PM
I doubt there was much if any U106 among the Celts in what is now Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, etc., either. I think it spread with the expansion of the Germans at the Celts' expense, mainly after the Romans had weakened them. Before then, the Celts did a pretty good job of keeping the Germans back, out of western and southern Europe.

Finn
03-26-2018, 01:31 PM
I disagree with the Celtic part, although I could be wrong.

Honestly, I don't think it matters much, because by the time it counted for anything, U106 was pretty thoroughly Germanic.

If we find much if any U106 among the ancient Gauls, the ancient Irish, or the ancient Celtic Britons, then it will matter, but I really sincerely doubt that's going to happen.


The Tumulus influence in combination with R1b U106 in NW Europe simply can't be no longer denied!

A. Because of the Oostwoud sample (about 1800 BC) releated to the Unetice-Tumulus culture, in my region called Elp or Sogel-Wohlde (to make it simple.....).

B. In archeology is stated about this culture:


Fokkens:
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors."


The later on Germanic influence in combination with R1b U106 looks evident.

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:41 PM
The Tumulus influence in combination with R1b U106 in NW Europe simply can't be no longer denied!

A. Because of the Oostwoud sample (about 1800 BC) releated to the Unetice-Tumulus culture, in my region called Elp or Sogel-Wohlde (to make it simple.....).

B. In archeology is stated about this culture:

You're assuming a lot, Finn. There is no evidence the Oostwoud U106 was Unetice, none at all, and barely any to regard him as Tumulus either. Maybe he represents a first intrusion of Elp into Friesland, hardly a Celtic stronghold.

And again, Unetice cannot be confidently called pre-Celtic. It probably had a little something to do with the development of several IE language subfamilies, including Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Let's see what happens when skeletons that can be confidently attributed to the Celts are tested for y-dna. That has already begun with the Hinxton Celts, both of whom were R1b-L21 and not U106.

Maybe they'll eventually get around to testing men like the Hochdorf Prince (http://www.keltenmuseum.de/English/The-Celtic-Museum/) and the Lavau Prince (https://www.livescience.com/50069-celtic-prince-tomb-uncovered.html), then we'll see.

Finn
03-26-2018, 01:47 PM
Elp culture

Wiki:


The Elp culture (c. 1800—800 BCE)[1] is a Bronze Age archaeological culture of the Netherlands having earthenware pottery of low quality known as "Kümmerkeramik" (also "Grobkeramik") as a marker. The initial phase is characterized by tumuli (1800–1200 BCE), strongly tied to contemporary tumuli in Northern Germany and Scandinavia, and apparently related to the Tumulus culture (1600–1200 BCE) in Central Europe. This phase was followed by a subsequent change featuring Urnfield (cremation) burial customs (1200–800 BCE).

Part of the "Nordwestblock", it is situated to the north and east of the Rhine and the IJssel (named after the village of Elp at 52°53′N 6°39′E), bordering the Hilversum culture to the south and the Hoogkarspel culture in West Friesland that, together with Elp, all derive from the Barbed Wire Beakers culture (2100–1800 BCE) and, forming a culture complex at the boundary between the Atlantic and the Nordic horizons.

First the dead were buried in shallow pits and covered by a low barrow. At the end of the Bronze Age they were cremated and the urns were gathered in low barrows. Family burials occurred only in the later stages.

The culture is known for featuring the longhouse, housing people and animals in one and the same building. This construction shows an exceptional local continuity until the twentieth century, still being the normal type of farm in the lowlands of north-western Europe and the Netherlands. The local tradition of concentrating on raising cattle was persisted by the Saxons and the Frisians, whose houses were perched on the natural hillocks in the moist plains, while all other Germanic people practiced sedentary agriculture.[2] Going back to the roots of this tradition, it is generally assumed that its origins lay somewhere in the Bronze Age, between 1800 and 1500 BCE. Probably this change was contemporary to a transition from the two-aisled to the three-aisled farm as early as 1800 BCE. This development bears comparison with what we know from Scandinavia, where the three-aisled house also develops at the same time.[3]

Within the Northern Bronze Age context, many important reasons are mentioned to the custom of storing cattle inside a building and, moreover, inside the proper house. This could point to a new emphasis on milk production and making cheese, especially since drinking milk was made possible by a gene against lactose intolerance, first to emerge amongst neolithic Northern European populations.[4] Cattle stalling was necessary to avoid cows giving less milk in cold conditions (Sherratt, 1983; Zimermann, 1999, 314; Olausson 1999, 321). Social exchange and a role in the supernatural would have been important as well (Fokkens 1999), supported by, for instance, stacks of cowhides in graves and the offerings of animals attested in both Sweden and Denmark (Rasmussen 1999: 287). Protection against cattle raids would fit the circumstances—proven by grave goods, rock engravings and hoards—of a strong martial ideology in this era (Fokkens 1999).

These complicated cultural-economic networks that preclude precise ethnic (and thus linguistic) differentiation, supports the maintenance of late contacts between the languages ancestral to Germanic and Celtic, assuming a position of Proto-Celtic to the north of the Hallstatt culture – as supported by the known homelands of La Tčne culture.[5][6]

The culture came to an end with the advent of the Hallstatt culture.

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

Finn
03-26-2018, 01:54 PM
You're assuming a lot, Finn. There is no evidence the Oostwoud U106 was Unetice, none at all, and barely any to regard him as Tumulus either. Maybe he represents a first intrusion of Elp into Friesland, hardly a Celtic stronghold.

And again, Unetice cannot be confidently called pre-Celtic. It probably had a little something to do with the development of several IE language subfamilies, including Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Let's see what happens when skeletons that can be confidently attributed to the Celts are tested for y-dna. That has already begun with the Hinxton Celts, both of whom were R1b-L21 and not U106.

Maybe they'll eventually get around to testing men like the Hochdorf Prince (http://www.keltenmuseum.de/English/The-Celtic-Museum/) and the Lavau Prince (https://www.livescience.com/50069-celtic-prince-tomb-uncovered.html), then we'll see.

You don't have to be a language whiz kid to read this about Oostwoud:

"zijn onder een tweetal Bronstijd tumuli gevonden"


https://collectie.huisvanhilde.nl/pdf/FAR_Oostwoud.pdf

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:58 PM
Like I said, let's see what happens when more skeletons that can be confidently attributed to the Celts are tested for y-dna (the actual Celts, not the maybe or the Finn-thinks-they-are Celts).

Meanwhile, they keep finding U106 among Migration Period Germans, which cannot be interpreted any other way than as supporting the contention that U106 is primarily a major Germanic lineage.

And U106 drops off drastically as one enters the lands historically inhabited by the Celts.

Finn
03-26-2018, 02:03 PM
Like I said, let's see what happens when more skeletons that can be confidently attributed to the Celts are tested for y-dna.

Meanwhile, they keep finding U106 among Migration Period Germans, which cannot be interpreted any other way than as supporting the contention that U106 is primarily a major Germanic lineage.

And U106 drops off drastically as one enters the lands historically inhabited by the Celts.

Come on Rms2 I never doubt the Germanic R1b U16. So let's be fair.

And be open for the fact hat other people, based on well known sources, can provide reliabe information although it's obviously the information that does not always fit in your frame.....

rms2
03-26-2018, 02:11 PM
Come on Rms2 I never doubt the Germanic R1b U16. So let's be fair.

And be open for the fact hat other people, based on well known sources, can provide reliabe information although it's obviously the information that does not always fit in your frame.....

I think you are arguing something that isn't likely to be true, and, even if it were, would not matter, because by the time it counted for anything, U106 was so thoroughly Germanic that its frequency drops like a rock in the lands historically inhabited by Italo-Celtic speakers.

If U106 was such a big time Italo-Celtic group, why did it apparently not spread to the places to which Italo-Celtic spread? Why does it not only look like a haplogroup spread during the Migration Period by Germanics, which I and others have said for years, but now it's showing up in the skeletons of actual Migration Period Germans?

Some folks can read the brand name on the sledgehammer without having to be hit over the head with it.

Finn
03-26-2018, 02:19 PM
I think you are arguing something that isn't likely to be true, and, even if it were, would not matter, because by the time it counted for anything, U106 was so thoroughly Germanic that its frequency drops like a rock in the lands historically inhabited by Italo-Celtic speakers.

If U106 was such a big time Italo-Celtic group, why did it apparently not spread to the places to which Italo-Celtic spread? Why does it not only look like a haplogroup spread during the Migration Period by Germanics, which I and others have said for years, but now it's showing up in the skeletons of actual Migration Period Germans?

Some folks can read the brand name on the sledgehammer without having to be hit over the head with it.

One thing at the time.

Can we agree that:

- the Oostwoud sample is R1b U106;
- that this sample is found beneath a Tumulus;
- that it belongs to the Tumulus culture of EBA;

(- that is represent a kind of subculture in the Elp culture namely the Hoogkarspel culture:


The so-called Hoogkarspel culture is an important part of the Elp culture, a culture of the Bronze Age dating from approx. 1800-800 BC. In the 1960s remains were found of a tumulus behind the Hoogkarspel water tower, and remains of an agricultural settlement were discovered in the 1970s, dating from 1000 BC. Two periods are identified, Hoogkarspel-I (1400-1100 cal BC) and Hoogkarspel-II (800-400 cal BC).[2] Earthenware found in the area is divided into old and young, following the influential publication by R. W. Brandt in 1988.[3])

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoogkarspel )

Correct me if I'm wrong and why....

rms2
03-26-2018, 02:28 PM
A tumulus is simply a burial mound. I'm not sure the Oostwoud U106 can be confidently assigned a culture. It doesn't look like he belonged to Bell Beaker. He might have belonged to Elp, and his burial was in Friesland, not a place known as a Celtic stronghold.

I'm not sure why it is so vital to you to make U106 some kind of pre-Celtic when there is no real evidence of that. If U106 was among the earliest of the pre-Celts, why is it so sparse in the lands historically inhabited by the Celts? When it does show up there, it not only looks like it was brought by Migration Period Germans or their descendants, but we now have U106 from the actual skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

Finn
03-26-2018, 02:35 PM
A tumulus is simply a burial mound. I'm not sure the Oostwoud U106 can be confidently assigned a culture. It doesn't look like he belonged to Bell Beaker. He might have belonged to Elp, and his burial was in Friesland, not a place known as a Celtic stronghold.

I'm not sure why it is so vital to you to make U106 some kind of pre-Celtic when there is no real evidence of that. If U106 was among the earliest of the pre-Celts, why is it so sparse in the lands historically inhabited by the Celts? When it does show up there, it not only looks like it was brought by Migration Period Germans or their descendants, but we now have U106 from the actual skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

The Dutch Bell Beakers didn't use Tumuli.

About the change between the Beakers and the Tumuli, again the quote of Kooijmans:
Fokkens:
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

This culture is connected with Unetice/Tumulus of Central Europe, at that time present in Lower Saxony, neigbouring region of the North Dutch.

So let's agree about the basic assumption: that it's most likely that Oostwoud=Tumulus. And that R1b U106 was part of the Tumulus movement to NW Europe. Just that. Part II is the relevance of that.....
When Im wrong about that please explain why.

Finn
03-26-2018, 03:14 PM
Part II what's the relevance of this all.

When the Elp culture is an offshoot of the Unetice/Tumulus culture. And if it can be connected with Oostwoud R1b U106, than the relevance is that about 1800 BC R1b U106 travelled along the Unetice-Tumulus culture to NW Europe.

The relevance: already in EBA R1b U106 travelled from Central Europe to NW Europe. Further research or samples can learn if this caused a founder effect in the Elp region, North Dutch, NW Germany, Denmark, nowadays R1b U106 hotspot too, coincidence or not?

The relevance is also that the people that migrated from Central Europe to NW Europe, the Unetice culture spoke a language that influenced this area. i’m curios what kind of language was this Northwest Indo European or pre Celtic or it’s one and the same?

Finn
03-26-2018, 04:17 PM
some background info about the Oostwoud sample (I guess Radboud comes with a supplement too ;)


Supplement info from Olalde:


In the Early Bronze Age, between 1900 and 1700 BCE probably, at 20 m distance, a
second burial mound (Tumulus I) was raised in which two skeletons have been interred,
probably in the already existing barrow (skeletons 230 and 231). Both skeletons were
buried in a manner typical for the Middle Bronze Age, stretched on their backs. Both
are dated between 1880 and 1650 calBCE (3440±40 BP, GrA-17225 and 3450±BP,
GrA-17226). The burial mound was surrounded by a circle of 80 cm wide pits with a
diameter of approximately 20 m. Probably at the same time a 35 m long alignment of
almost identical pits was dug in connection with the older mound (Tumulus II). The
stratigraphy of the arable land, the graves and the pit circles and alignments demonstrate
that the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn burial mounds constituted a small persistent place, a burial
ground that was used intermittently but consistently, probably by several generations of
a local group of inhabitants.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/05/09/135962.DC1/135962-1.pdf

Helves
03-26-2018, 04:44 PM
Finn I have to say you are rather fast about making the assumption of the connection and language(proto-Celtic) of the Unetice and Oostwoud samples despite it being a stretch, but you are heavily doubting that the Scanian man buried in a Battle Axe cemetery actually might be part of the Swedish/Norwegian Battle Axe culture?

Finn
03-26-2018, 04:48 PM
Finn I have to say you are rather fast about making the assumption of the connection and language(proto-Celtic) of the Unetice and Oostwoud samples despite it being a stretch, but you are heavily doubting that the Scanian man buried in a Battle Axe cemetery actually might be part of the Swedish/Norwegian Battle Axe culture?

There is more reason to doubt the belonging of Rise 98 to Battle Axe than Oostwoud to Elp-Tumulus ;)

Elp/Sögel Wohlde is a Unetice derivative so not to far fetched.

See page 20 and further:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf


The second ques- tion involves the relationship between the so-called Sögel-Wohlde burial tradition, i.e. the male burials found from around the Lüneburg Heath to the vi- cinity of Aarhus, and the Valsřmagle burial tradi- tion, i.e. the male graves found north of Aarhus, on the Danish Isles and in southernmost Sweden (for more detailed discussions about the two di er- ent burial traditions see chapter 3).


Bergmann (1952:22f) was the rst to suggest that there is a chronological distinction between the two dagger types. He claimed that the Wohlde type blade must be the oldest blade type in Low- er Saxony, an idea that was based on his belief that they were imported from southern Germany.


Ebbe Lomborg has conducted many impor- tant studies about the Late Neolithic and the Mid- dle Bronze Age chronology (Lomborg 1960, 1969 & 1973). In his study from 1960 he argues that the Sögel and Wohlde blades are contemporary, and are found together with imports from the Tumu- lus culture. Lomborg argues that the Valsřmagle objects are contemporary with the latest Wohlde blades (Lomborg 1960:137 ). In 1969 Lomborg pub-
lished one more important article that dealt with the chronology of Period I, with a focus on the re- lationship between Periods I and II. In this article he focuses on the artefact assemblages thought to belong to the ‘real’ Nordic Bronze Age culture, i.e. the Fĺrdrup and Valsřmagle assemblages. Based on the fact that the two di erent assemblages are not found together and that they have complete- ly di erent decoration styles, he argued that the Fĺrdrup assemblage belongs to the early Period I and the Valsřmagle assemblage belongs to the late Period I. The Sögel-Wohlde phase is seen to be long- er than both Fĺrdrup and Valsřmagle, and there- fore is regarded as contemporary with both artefact assemblages (Lomborg 1969:96-108). The so-called Lřve horizon is considered to belong to the early part of Period II (Lomborg 1969:109-199). Later, in his chronological work on int daggers from 1973, Lomborg separated the Sögel and Wohlde phases (Lomborg 1973:154).


In an article published in 1996 Sicherl argued that both the Sögel and the Wohlde blades originated in the middle Danube area. He places the blades in Pe- riod IA, however, and equates the phase to Br B/Br B1, which in Vandkilde’s terminology is Period IB.


Ethelberg (2000:142 ) argues against a synchro- nous development in all of southern Scandinavia for the Bronze Age. He has argued against Vandkil- de’s conclusion that Valsřmagle and Sögel-Wohlde artefacts are contemporary. He agrees with Lomborg and some of the other earlier researchers’ hy- pothesis that Wohlde blades are later than the Sögel blades. He claims that such innovations do not nec- essarily need to be simultaneous in di erent areas. Ethelberg’s point is that the closer one is to the cen- tre of an innovation, the earlier the novelty will be incorporated. As Schleswig (and Lower Saxony) is connected to the Continent he argues that the Con- tinental news can be seen here earlier than in oth- er Scandinavian regions. Ethelberg argues that the Sögel-Wohlde culture is both earlier and contem- porary with the Valsřmagle (the Nordic Bronze Age culture), and that the Sögel-Wohlde started by c. 1800 BC in Schleswig. He bases this mainly on four radiocarbon dates, one each from Rastorf and Luttum, county Verden, Lower Saxony, and from Flensburg and Sörup, county Schleswig-Flens- burg, Schleswig-Holstein.8 Ethelberg also objects to Vandkilde’s interpretation of the Baven mound, arguing that the Sögel dagger was found in a sec- ondary position and is therefore not relevant for this discussion. He also concludes that the Lisbjerg hoard is an accumulated hoard and consequently is not relevant.
Vogt (2004) bases her analysis on dagger blades from a large part of Europe, from the Carpathians to Scandinavia. She has divided the area into nine di erent geographical zones and uses the chron- ological levels created by Lichardus/Vladár for the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathi- an Basin (levels 6-14) as a base for her chronologi- cal discussions. The sword and dagger blades are divided into two strata: the genus and the series. Then, the genus and the series are followed from the Carpathian Basin and north. The focus for Vogt is always the blade and its di erent classi cations. She argues that both the Sögel and Wohlde blades derive from the Carpathian Basin. In contrast to Vandkilde she argues that the Sögel blade is old- er than the Wohlde blade, but that there is a short transition phase (Vogt 2000:11 ).


etc etc

rms2
03-26-2018, 05:00 PM
The Dutch Bell Beakers didn't use Tumuli . . .

Yes, they did, Finn.

There were two burial mounds (tumuli) at Oostwoud. The older of the two contained the P312 Beaker burials. The more recent one contained the U106 man and a female buried on their backs without artifacts, non-Beaker style.

Even what you quoted from Olalde et al mentions a second burial mound, meaning there were two. Besides, it says this on page 29 of the Supplementary Info:


. . . two burial mounds were excavated at Oostwoud-Tuithoorn, with additional research in 1963, 1966 and 1978.

Finn
03-26-2018, 05:23 PM
Yes, they did, Finn.

There were two burial mounds (tumuli) at Oostwoud. The older of the two contained the P312 Beaker burials. The more recent one contained the U106 man and a female buried on their backs without artifacts, non-Beaker style.

Even what you quoted from Olalde et al mentions a second burial mound, meaning there were two. Besides, it says this on page 29 of the Supplementary Info:

Ok your point.

But the supplement info of Olaide (done by Prof Fokkens) shows:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=370513&viewfull=1#post370513


...the Oostwoud sample is from burial II and is very clear. No other label than Elp-Tumulus, timing, way of burying. No doubt

Counter info?

rms2
03-26-2018, 05:30 PM
Elp maybe. Pre-Celtic, Proto-Celtic? Nah.

Finn
03-26-2018, 05:37 PM
Elp maybe. Pre-Celtic, Proto-Celtic? Nah.


hear hear! Elp is an Unetice-Tumulus derivative....by some considered as Pre-Celtic.

Radboud
03-26-2018, 05:42 PM
There is more reason to doubt the belonging of Rise 98 to Battle Axe than Oostwoud to Elp-Tumulus ;)

Elp/Sögel Wohlde is a Unetice derivative so not to far fetched.

See page 20 and further:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Oostwoud I4070 is dated 1881–1646 calBCE, so it seems it's bit to old to be part of the Tumulus Culture proper(ca 1600-1200). Could have been part of Unetice Culture though. However, even the Tumulus Culture is not considered as ''Proto-Celtic''. Urnfield or/and Hallstatt Culture are considered as the Proto-Celtic homeland.

Finn
03-26-2018, 05:51 PM
Oostwoud I4070 is dated 1881–1646 calBCE, so it seems it's bit to old to be part of the Tumulus Culture proper(ca 1600-1200). Could have been part of Unetice Culture though. However, even the Tumulus Culture is not considered as ''Proto-Celtic''. Urnfield or/and Hallstatt Culture are considered as the Proto-Celtic homeland.

I said Unetice-Tumulus,

Read this work page 20 and further, this gives absolutely a very good and fine context!

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

A time line person of Oostwoud is the Sögel-Wohlde warrior of Drouwen:
https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

And why was the Unetice elite attracted to go from Lower Saxony into North Dutch.....mostly amber:

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

rms2
03-26-2018, 05:54 PM
I think the part of Britain now known as England (Angle Land) is instructive. We know it was once inhabited by Celtic-speaking peoples. We also know that R1b-L21 arrived there with Kurgan Bell Beaker. Both of the Iron Age Hinxton Celts, whose skeletons were recovered in a part of England now very high in R1b-U106, were R1b-L21.

We know from history, archaeology and linguistics that the progress of the Germanic Anglo-Saxons in carving Germanic-speaking England out of Celtic-speaking Britannia was from the southeast to the west and northwest. The relative modern distributions of R1b-L21 (primarily Celtic) and R1b-U106 (primarily Germanic) reflect this (note the differences in frequency in the shadings of the two maps).

22350 22351

I think that U106 map exaggerates the frequency of U106 a bit. I don't think it gets higher than 30% anywhere in Britain, but I could be wrong.

alan
03-26-2018, 06:36 PM
I think the part of Britain now known as England (Angle Land) is instructive. We know it was once inhabited by Celtic-speaking peoples. We also know that R1b-L21 arrived there with Kurgan Bell Beaker. Both of the Iron Age Hinxton Celts, whose skeletons were recovered in a part of England now very high in R1b-U106, were R1b-L21.

We know from history, archaeology and linguistics that the progress of the Germanic Anglo-Saxons in carving Germanic-speaking England out of Celtic-speaking Britannia was from the southeast to the west and northwest. The relative modern distributions of R1b-L21 (primarily Celtic) and R1b-U106 (primarily Germanic) reflect this (note the differences in frequency in the shadings of the two maps).

22350 22351

I think that U106 map exaggerates the frequency of U106 a bit. I don't think it gets higher than 30% anywhere in Britain, but I could be wrong.

I don’t think anyone sensible doubts that P312 is the bedrock of the pre-Roman Celtic world in a genetic sense and also brought the west IE or Celto-Italic linguistic base on which the shifts that created the Celtic branch could easily spread through contact and the trickle of movement without huge further movements. Many of the areas which spoke Celtic at the dawn of classical history show no signs of large movements into their territories in the period 1000-0BC.

Personally I think a drift towards a separate Celtic branch evolved early - in the later beaker era and start of the bronze Age c 2300-2200 BC. I think the attempt to date Celtic later by words for iron etc is naive and irrational when you see that archaeology shows NW and west-central European elites furiously interacting and v rapidly sharing innovations through the Bronze Age. They clearly rapidly shared the words for innovations too. They elites probably constantly intermarried too and elite women may have had a major influence on the dialects of their offspring.

It’s also clear Celtic society had a top down trait in demographic terms so whatever the elite did would be spread to lower ranks within a few decade including inlguistic shifts. Those elites can be seen to be desperate to keep up with trends and innovations in metalwork etc and I suspect the same is true in linguistic innovations. There is no need to seek invasions to explain minor linguistic shifts when you have a backdrop of hugely competitively emulative trade and status obsessed elites across Bronze Age central and NW Europe.

Ceasing to follow further innovations seems to coincide with ceasing to to take part in the great interaction game.

alan
03-26-2018, 07:09 PM
Elp maybe. Pre-Celtic, Proto-Celtic? Nah.

It’s surely part of the pre-proto Germanic branch of perhaps that NW block idea of a dead branch between Celtic and Germanic.

At the dawn of history the big block of a Celtic speakers was Gaul with a narrow tail projecting east along the Danube etc. No one knows for sure if the tail is the origin zone or a late thrust from Gaul but the best studies of Celtic place and tribe names in ancient sources show that they largely correspond to Gaul, parts of Iberia and the isles with only a thin tail going along the Danube/Alps/Carpathians and beyond which look suspiciously like they relate to west to east and south movements from Gaul that are recorded in early history.

The evidence for Celtic speakers is very very minimal east of the Rhine and much north of the Danube/Carpathians is poor so it’s all speculative or based on interpretation of passing remarks by classical historians, the meaning of which is uncertain.

What is solid ground is that Celtic is the only known language in northern and Central France. Switzerland, Belgium, the Rhineland, upper Danube and the isles at the dawn of history. That is the solid block of Celtic without any other languages to confuse matters. Beyond that there were Celtic speakers but they were in a zone with other competing languages.

alan
03-26-2018, 07:34 PM
hear hear! Elp is an Unetice-Tumulus derivative....by some considered as Pre-Celtic.

I don’t think the old fashioned idea of Unetice-Tumulus-Urnfield- Hallstatt C as sort of Celtic ethnogenesis makes much sense. The core of these are on the periphery of the main block of a Celtic speakers and little of no trace in many Celtic speaking areas. It seems much more likely that Celtic developed in the areas where P312 beaker descendants had almost no other R y line rivals or other IE competitors.

Germanic (a very weird branch of IE) seems to have developed out of a complex hybrid of P312 Rhenish beaker elements moving along the North Sea coats, easternmost fringe beaker/unetice U106 folk moving to the Oder/Elbe, epi-CW and battle axe substrates and a nonIE speaking element.

The correlation of areas where P312 totally dominates over any other R Y lines with the historical location of Celto-Italic branch is one of the most striking yDNA-linguistic correlations in Europe. Germanic is much more complex and messy

Finn
03-26-2018, 07:42 PM
I don’t think the old fashioned idea of Unetice-Tumulus-Urnfield- Hallstatt C as sort of Celtic ethnogenesis makes much sense. The core of these are on the periphery of the main block of a Celtic speakers and little of no trace in many Celtic speaking areas. It seems much more likely that Celtic developed in the areas where P312 beaker descendants had almost no other R y line rivals or other IE competitors.

Germanic (a very weird branch of IE) seems to have developed out of a complex hybrid of P312 Rhenish beaker elements moving along the North Sea coats, easternmost fringe beaker/unetice U106 folk moving to the Oder/Elbe, epi-CW and battle axe substrates and a nonIE speaking element.

The correlation of areas where P312 totally dominates over any other R Y lines with the historical location of Celto-Italic branch is one of the most striking yDNA-linguistic correlations in Europe. Germanic is much more complex and messy


From as early as the first century AD, learned Romans knew of more than one group of people living in north-western Europe beyond their Empire's Gallic provinces whose names contained the element that gives us modern "Frisian". These were apparently Celtic-speaking peoples, but that population was probably completely replaced in the course of the convulsions that Europe underwent during the fourth and fifth centuries. While the importance of linguistically Germanic Frisians as neighbours of the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Saxons and Danes in the centuries immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West is widely recognized, these folk themselves remain enigmatic, the details of their culture and organization unfamiliar to many.

From Schrijver in:
https://boydellandbrewer.com/frisians-and-their-north-sea-neighbours.html

With the appereantly influences from Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield and probably also in some extent to Hallstatt and La Tene.....

rms2
03-26-2018, 07:53 PM
From as early as the first century AD, learned Romans knew of more than one group of people living in north-western Europe beyond their Empire's Gallic provinces whose names contained the element that gives us modern "Frisian". These were apparently Celtic-speaking peoples, but that population was probably completely replaced in the course of the convulsions that Europe underwent during the fourth and fifth centuries. While the importance of linguistically Germanic Frisians as neighbours of the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Saxons and Danes in the centuries immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West is widely recognized, these folk themselves remain enigmatic, the details of their culture and organization unfamiliar to many.


How did that replacement shake out? Friesland is now the epicenter of R1b-U106.

And what y-dna haplogroup is showing up in the skeletons of Migration Period Germanics?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13823-More-U106-found-in-Bavarian-medieval-samples&p=368164&viewfull=1#post368164

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13543-Understanding-6th-Century-Barbarian-Social-Organization-and-Migration-through-Paleoge&p=352317&viewfull=1#post352317

alan
03-26-2018, 07:54 PM
I don't think it's accurate to label all of Unetice "pre-Celtic". As you saw in what you quoted in your prior post, different IE languages have been attributed to Unetice. It was a pan-European Bronze Age phenomenon. Its people probably spoke different IE dialects in different places. I don't think there is any real good reason to associate U106 with any kind of Celts, pre or otherwise, and lots of good reasons not to.

BTW, I guess you've noticed that these days, whenever they dig up any Migration Period Germans, at least some of them turn out to be U106.

Yes and it only takes a little light reading into Unetice for it quickly to come clear (stated in recent literature) that it has some zones where the people buried in a beaker fashion (the southern part of the Unetice zone) and others where they buried in an epi-CW fashion (the east and north of the Unetice zone).

It So there was at the very least two ethnic groups in a Unetice core from the beginning, probably corresponding to some very remote embrionic pre-proto Celtic and pre proto Germanic division. I would say that only the south-western part of Unetice in the. Czech Republic and Bavaria were pre proto Celtic while the part in east central Germany, Slovakia and Poland ( and any expansion from those areas) likely related to other groups including one that fed into pre-proto Germanic and likely linked to U106.

Finn
03-27-2018, 06:29 AM
How did that replacement shake out? Friesland is now the epicenter of R1b-U106.

And what y-dna haplogroup is showing up in the skeletons of Migration Period Germanics?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13823-More-U106-found-in-Bavarian-medieval-samples&p=368164&viewfull=1#post368164

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13543-Understanding-6th-Century-Barbarian-Social-Organization-and-Migration-through-Paleoge&p=352317&viewfull=1#post352317

It shaked out that the Nordic R1bU106, like Z18, prevailed. That’s why Mac Donald stated that the Netherlands has the most Z18 outside of Scandinavia.

The replacement was differentiated. Most in the Western part of Friesland and along the coast, lesser in the inland and in East-Friesland nowadays Germany.

That’s why my father and I got a Anglo Saxon AuDNA, that comes close to Denmark and West Norway.

Finn
03-27-2018, 06:39 AM
Yes and it only takes a little light reading into Unetice for it quickly to come clear (stated in recent literature) that it has some zones where the people buried in a beaker fashion (the southern part of the Unetice zone) and others where they buried in an epi-CW fashion (the east and north of the Unetice zone).

It So there was at the very least two ethnic groups in a Unetice core from the beginning, probably corresponding to some very remote embrionic pre-proto Celtic and pre proto Germanic division. I would say that only the south-western part of Unetice in the. Czech Republic and Bavaria were pre proto Celtic while the part in east central Germany, Slovakia and Poland ( and any expansion from those areas) likely related to other groups including one that fed into pre-proto Germanic and likely linked to U106.

Thanks Alan I’m interested in some literature about this!
My first impression is that this split looks kind of artificial. The North Dutch and Lower Saxon Unetice groups shared many features with the Bavarian groups. so I don’t know if this supposed split is so strict.

Nordic Bronze Age interaction (in blue):
https://www.mupload.nl/img/iu3v12r97.png

Bollox79
03-27-2018, 08:14 AM
Considering the current topic of conversation (sort of - I'm commenting on mainly the distribution of L48 and Z18 - mainly Nordic groups of U106 - and more the more Southern (compared to L48/Z18) distribution of Z156) here is some info. There IS a clear difference in modern testers and distribution, but I'm not sure how to interpret it now since I think Z156 has been found in those Bavarian (So the cemeteries around that area were described as a meeting area of Longobardi (we now know some about their make up at those two Lombard cemeteries), Alamanni, Thuringi, and another tribe or two I'm forgetting... maybe Franks - though they say the grave goods at Alternerding were a bit different or more "Eastern" than typical Frankish good - but at least one from memory - Northern European woman buried at Alternerding - aed1119 - had grave goods labeled Frankish-Alamannic... but I think it's safe to say we have Z156 in at least aed106 and alh 1. Not sure how to interpret that yet as I want to see if more turns up around there (or in the other three samples if someone better with the tech stuff looks at them) and also to see if there are any SNPs downstream of the Z305 series for which ALH 1 might be positive and is a fairly good sample at 12.8 gb. The Longobard cemetery in Szolad is roughly the same time period (Bavarian graves were about 480 - 510 with some to 530 AD) and Longobards were from memory about mid 500s before they moved on to N. Italy? Keep in mind both groups were made up of U106 and haplogroup I guys... but Longobards had (in the ones we could get downstream SNPs as they were all Z381) only L48 and Z18 and no Z156. A small sample size, but two sample sets that can be associated with a time and place and perhaps loosely with cultures...

For the record guys... I've gotten to the point that this stuff is just really cool like a detective game about my own past (male line) and now I don't care so much where the data takes us... as long as it's interesting. So far it is... but it's still not clear... I added up the Z156 in the U106 DNA project (considering bias and what not - also I only added one or two to the value if say a large family had five kits in a small group that makes the data a bit bias if I add that as 5 and didn't add kits there were United States or unknown or blank for origin etc).

Since we have a clear Z156er (and all the way down to where Iain and I match at S1894/S1900 which is overwhelmingly present in the Isles per our DF98 group - for now - might change if we find a bunch of it in Bavaria and along the Rhine in older samples) in Unetice... I think Z156 as a group had a different story to L48 and Z18 guys - even the tree explosions of SNPs look different if you look at Dr. Iain's pdf on DF98 where he lists all the SNPs at the beginning. Z156 and DF96 and DF98 took off before many of L48s subgroups (maybe we can link L48 to migration?) - Z18 like is sat around for a while and then took off. I think with trying to figure out their paths and the early days of U106 you guys need to keep one eye on the SNP tree and one eye on the stuff you are discussing (which is great - through debate we can come to conclusions etc or explore different ideas). Here is a picture of that snp tree I'm talking about. Considering what you guys are discussing i.e. early days U106 - what do you think when you look at the tree? 22355

Z156+ kits in the U106 DNA project currently ;-).

Spain = 3
Scotland = 36
England = 83
France = 15
United Kingdom = 15
Ireland = 40
Italy = 1
Germany = 50
Austria = 2
Belgium = 7
Portugal = 1
New Zealand = 2
Switzerland = 1
Greece = 1
Netherlands = 5
Sweden = 11
Norway = 5
Poland = 7
Denmark = 3
Hungary = 2
Wales = 4
Estonia = 1
Finland = 5
Mexico = 1
Jamaica = 1
Brazil = 1

Bollox79
03-27-2018, 08:23 AM
Thanks Alan I’m interested in some literature about this!
My first impression is that this split looks kind of artificial. The North Dutch and Lower Saxon Unetice groups shared many features with the Bavarian groups. so I don’t know if this supposed split is so strict.

Nordic Bronze Age interaction:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/iu3v12r97.png

This looks very similar to the amber trade map I found for Unetice - EBA trade with Wessex Culture and Great Britain is different than MBA trade with the North. Picture here: 22356

It seems the amber trade - in a general sense - moved West from the EBA to the MBA just like we are assuming come cultures did...

Finn
03-27-2018, 10:59 AM
This looks very similar to the amber trade map I found for Unetice - EBA trade with Wessex Culture and Great Britain is different than MBA trade with the North. Picture here: 22356

It seems the amber trade - in a general sense - moved West from the EBA to the MBA just like we are assuming come cultures did...

Fascinating map Bollox!!!

Nowadays you still can find Amber on the Isle of Ameland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameland)(very big pieces until 5,5 kilogram!!!)

See:
https://ameland.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/reuzenbrok-barnsteen-op-strand-ameland-gevonden/
https://dier-en-natuur.infonu.nl/diversen/106551-barnsteen-op-het-strand-van-de-waddeneilanden.html
(sorry in Dutch buth the pictures are clear)

Ameland lays on the mounding of the Hunze, and the source of the Hunze lays next to Drouwen....from the Sogel Wohlde/Elp warrior Tumulus....no coincidence to me!

From the Cambridge site:


The classic phase of the Únětice Culture in Bohemia (c. 2050/2000–1800/1750 BC) was characterised by an extraordinary increase in amber, which disappeared abruptly when the phase ended. Subsequently, amber mainly occurred in the northern Carpathian Basin in the Mad'arovce-Větěrov cultural complex (Ernée 2013). The absence of amber in the former Únětice region after 1600 BC is particularly worth noting.

Obviously the expanding from Unetice to the North Sea area was to gain control on the amber trade!

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/armies-in-the-early-bronze-age-an-alternative-interpretation-of-unetice-culture-axe-hoards/B513FF389674EA20F20A91795CD99232/core-reader

Finn
03-27-2018, 12:20 PM
Considering the current topic of conversation (sort of - I'm commenting on mainly the distribution of L48 and Z18 - mainly Nordic groups of U106 - and more the more Southern (compared to L48/Z18) distribution of Z156) here is some info. There IS a clear difference in modern testers and distribution, but I'm not sure how to interpret it now since I think Z156 has been found in those Bavarian (So the cemeteries around that area were described as a meeting area of Longobardi (we now know some about their make up at those two Lombard cemeteries), Alamanni, Thuringi, and another tribe or two I'm forgetting... maybe Franks - though they say the grave goods at Alternerding were a bit different or more "Eastern" than typical Frankish good - but at least one from memory - Northern European woman buried at Alternerding - aed1119 - had grave goods labeled Frankish-Alamannic... but I think it's safe to say we have Z156 in at least aed106 and alh 1. Not sure how to interpret that yet as I want to see if more turns up around there (or in the other three samples if someone better with the tech stuff looks at them) and also to see if there are any SNPs downstream of the Z305 series for which ALH 1 might be positive and is a fairly good sample at 12.8 gb. The Longobard cemetery in Szolad is roughly the same time period (Bavarian graves were about 480 - 510 with some to 530 AD) and Longobards were from memory about mid 500s before they moved on to N. Italy? Keep in mind both groups were made up of U106 and haplogroup I guys... but Longobards had (in the ones we could get downstream SNPs as they were all Z381) only L48 and Z18 and no Z156. A small sample size, but two sample sets that can be associated with a time and place and perhaps loosely with cultures...

For the record guys... I've gotten to the point that this stuff is just really cool like a detective game about my own past (male line) and now I don't care so much where the data takes us... as long as it's interesting. So far it is... but it's still not clear... I added up the Z156 in the U106 DNA project (considering bias and what not - also I only added one or two to the value if say a large family had five kits in a small group that makes the data a bit bias if I add that as 5 and didn't add kits there were United States or unknown or blank for origin etc).

Since we have a clear Z156er (and all the way down to where Iain and I match at S1894/S1900 which is overwhelmingly present in the Isles per our DF98 group - for now - might change if we find a bunch of it in Bavaria and along the Rhine in older samples) in Unetice... I think Z156 as a group had a different story to L48 and Z18 guys - even the tree explosions of SNPs look different if you look at Dr. Iain's pdf on DF98 where he lists all the SNPs at the beginning. Z156 and DF96 and DF98 took off before many of L48s subgroups (maybe we can link L48 to migration?) - Z18 like is sat around for a while and then took off. I think with trying to figure out their paths and the early days of U106 you guys need to keep one eye on the SNP tree and one eye on the stuff you are discussing (which is great - through debate we can come to conclusions etc or explore different ideas). Here is a picture of that snp tree I'm talking about. Considering what you guys are discussing i.e. early days U106 - what do you think when you look at the tree? 22355

Z156+ kits in the U106 DNA project currently ;-).

Spain = 3
Scotland = 36
England = 83
France = 15
United Kingdom = 15
Ireland = 40
Italy = 1
Germany = 50
Austria = 2
Belgium = 7
Portugal = 1
New Zealand = 2
Switzerland = 1
Greece = 1
Netherlands = 5
Sweden = 11
Norway = 5
Poland = 7
Denmark = 3
Hungary = 2
Wales = 4
Estonia = 1
Finland = 5
Mexico = 1
Jamaica = 1
Brazil = 1


Ok, may be the Dutch case makes some things clear.

Mac Donald (2015):


The Netherlands shows some interesting
departures from the surrounding countries. It has
the highest Z18 fraction outside Scandinavia. It
has substantial numbers of minor lineages. It has
a surprisingly large U198 population, but a very
small Z156 population. It has the Germanic lack
of L47, but while Germany and Belgium have
large Z331 populations, Z30 dominates in the
Netherlands instead.


Z18= influx of the Saxon, Angles, Jutes, Norwegians in the early middle ages/migration time.
Z156= small but there, the BA influx, disminished in the Roman period (population decline in Western parts Dutch)).

Where can I find U198 in your tree? Nordic or BA??

Bollox79
03-27-2018, 12:59 PM
Ok, may be the Dutch case makes some things clear.

Mac Donald (2015):



Z18= influx of the Saxon, Angles, Jutes, Norwegians in the early middle ages/migration time.
Z156= small but there, the BA influx, disminished in the Roman period (population decline in Western parts Dutch)).

Where can I find U198 in your tree? Nordic or BA??

Hmm the U198 part of Z301 I'm not terribly familiar with... I think it's that smaller bit branching off of Z301 next to L48 as I read somewhere L48 and U198 make up like half the U106 samples? I don't know how up-to-date that statement is though... you can get a good idea of U198 and it's composition if you go to the U198 DNA project at FTDNA and just scan over the samples that are positive for it and there MDKA? Branching of subgroups in U198 here: http://meekdna.com/U198dna/P0_overview.html

Dr. Iain's tree found here in his House of Wettin pdf - the Wettin portion is not updated yet/blank - he's currently working on that ;-). http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/kings-cluster-draft.pdf

rms2
03-27-2018, 01:15 PM
Please delete. Wrong thread!

rms2
03-27-2018, 01:26 PM
It shaked out that the Nordic R1bU106, like Z18, prevailed. That’s why Mac Donald stated that the Netherlands has the most Z18 outside of Scandinavia.

The replacement was differentiated. Most in the Western part of Friesland and along the coast, lesser in the inland and in East-Friesland nowadays Germany.

That’s why my father and I got a Anglo Saxon AuDNA, that comes close to Denmark and West Norway.

So you're saying the replacement was one kind of U106 replacing a different kind of U106? Sorry if I find that doubtful.

I'm guessing it was U106 replacing non-U106.

Finn
03-27-2018, 01:32 PM
So you're saying the replacement was one kind of U106 replacing a different kind of U106? Sorry if I find that doubtful.

I'm guessing it was U106 replacing non-U106.

Yep Kain and Abel ;)

BA lines were in severe decline, Nordic lines were in a upheal. Especially in Westergo (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westergo#/media/File:Westergo.jpg), the stronghold of the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes-Nores!

Map by archeologist Nicolay (2006):
https://www.mupload.nl/img/0k32lplx4.png

PS and of course there were other Y-DNA lines!! But Oostwoud showed R1b U106 was there about 2250 ybp migration time!!!

rms2
03-27-2018, 03:26 PM
. . .

PS and of course there were other Y-DNA lines!! But Oostwoud showed R1b U106 was there about 2250 ybp migration time!!!

One at least.

Radboud
03-27-2018, 06:59 PM
I said Unetice-Tumulus,

Read this work page 20 and further, this gives absolutely a very good and fine context!

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

A time line person of Oostwoud is the Sögel-Wohlde warrior of Drouwen:
https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

And why was the Unetice elite attracted to go from Lower Saxony into North Dutch.....mostly amber:

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

Your scenario is possible yes.

The thing is: There is no sufficient evidence to associate this Oostwoud U106 sample with a specific culture. Otherwise Olade and co would have mentioned it. It's less mysterious than the RISE98 fellow though!

About R1b-U198, here is an old post of Mcdonald from 2016. I am not sure what to think about R1b-U198. It seems to be relatively prevalent in Western Germanic countries, but it does not seem to comprise more than about 2% to 3% of the male population in these specific countries. (Except The Netherlands maybe?)

''
Dear all,
I have updated my overview of U106, which can be found in the Files section of the forum, in the Age Analysis folder. It can also be found here:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html
for those who don't have access.
This version tones down some of the migration and cultural assignments that the previous version did. Going forward beyond this document, I hope to bring these back as I have a chance to analyse the new data.
The document also includes:
* General testing advice that I've previously placed on the forum;
* My overview of the Y chromosome and its regions
* Detailed description of the age analysis methods I use
* An updated graphical interpretation of the U106 tree
* Updated geographical distribution of U106 clades
* Updated archeaological DNA maps
* Updated TMRCA histograms for European populations
For my next update, which likely will be some months away, I intend to expand on this last part. These will hopefully help me track some of the migrations throughout Europe that have happened throughout history. Some of these migrations also show up in the graphical interpretation, e.g. the large number of SNPs formed in the ~500 AD period within Z326 and Z2 are strongly suggestive of a Germanic origin, supported by the formation of Z326, FGC924 and Z8 around the location of the earliest Germanic tribes. Similar arguments can be used to ascribe a pre-/proto-Celtic origin to Z156 and U198. There should be more details to come on these kind of things in the future!
For now, however, I have to return to my first love: DF98!"
''
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6713-Up-dated-overview-of-U106-by-Iain-Mcdonald

Finn
03-27-2018, 07:24 PM
Similar arguments can be used to ascribe a pre-/proto-Celtic origin to Z156 and U198.


Good info Radboud, kind of confirmation!!


There is no sufficient evidence to associate this Oostwoud U106 sample with a specific culture.


Supplement of Olalde done by Fokkens:


In the Early Bronze Age, between 1900 and 1700 BCE probably, at 20 m distance, a
second burial mound (Tumulus I) was raised in which two skeletons have been interr/ed,
probably in the already existing barrow (skeletons 230 and 231). Both skeletons were
buried in a manner typical for the Middle Bronze Age, stretched on their backs. Both
are dated between 1880 and 1650 calBCE (3440±40 BP, GrA-17225 and 3450±BP,
GrA-17226). The burial mound was surrounded by a circle of 80 cm wide pits with a
diameter of approximately 20 m. Probably at the same time a 35 m long alignment of
almost identical pits was dug in connection with the older mound (Tumulus II). The
stratigraphy of the arable land, the graves and the pit circles and alignments demonstrate
that the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn burial mounds constituted a small persistent place, a burial
ground that was used intermittently but consistently, probably by several generations of
a local group of inhabitants.


That's not Bell Beaker..... the beginning of EBA, so an Unetice outlier (as discussed above) an impuls for the start of the Elp culture.
I could say: what else?
Have you also seen in the Amber-Unetice map published by Bollox that Oostwoud (and North Holland area) also has known Amber finds....

It's all too obvious Radboud!

rms2
03-27-2018, 07:38 PM
A "Unetice outlier" at Oostwoud? Hardly.


Similar arguments can be used to ascribe a pre-/proto-Celtic origin to Z156 and U198.

What arguments are those?

Finn
03-27-2018, 07:59 PM
A "Unetice outlier" at Oostwoud? Hardly.


You mentioned that the distance Baltics- Oostwoud was a "summer day hitchhike". The distance from core Unetice to Oostwoud is compared to that a short trip ;)

I see no problems with a Unetice outlier to this area, especially with the amber finds in Oostwoud area.

Needless to say for Rms2 is the world still one dimensional; R1b U106 is CW/ Batte Axe= Germanic. Solamente End of discussion....

rms2
03-27-2018, 10:04 PM
You mentioned that the distance Baltics- Oostwoud was a "summer day hitchhike". The distance from core Unetice to Oostwoud is compared to that a short trip ;)

The point now is that there is nothing particularly Unetice about the Oostwoud U106 and the woman who was buried with him.



I see no problems with a Unetice outlier to this area, especially with the amber finds in Oostwoud area.

I would see no problems with an ancient Egyptian pharaoh buried there, if he were inside a pyramid, mummified ancient Egypt style, and there were hieroglyphics painted on the walls.

The point is you can't make the Oostwoud U106 Unetice just because you want to and a single U106 has been found in Czech Unetice so far.



Needless to say for Rms2 is the world still one dimensional; R1b U106 is CW/ Batte Axe= Germanic. Solamente End of discussion....

You are the one fixated on manufacturing a Proto-Celtic origin for U106 out of thin air.

Finn
03-28-2018, 02:20 AM
Quite simple Rms2, about 1800-1600 BC was North Dutch influenced by Unetice. The Sögel-Wohlde phase is to be linked to Unetice. It’s the ‘kickstart’ of the ELp culture. The things we see, the grave, the way they are buried, and the timing, from Oostwoud makes it no exception to that. But correct me if i’m wrong.

rms2
03-28-2018, 01:18 PM
I disagree, and I see no evidence to connect U106 with any kind of Celts, pre, proto, or otherwise. If U106 was ever connected with Celts, it was small potatoes and vanished quickly into the bulk of the Germanic-speaking population, so that U106 is only a small minority haplogroup in those lands that held onto their Celtic language and culture longest and which are commonly regarded as clearly historically Celtic.

Finn
03-28-2018, 01:46 PM
I disagree, and I see no evidence to connect U106 with any kind of Celts, pre, proto, or otherwise. If U106 was ever connected with Celts, it was small potatoes and vanished quickly into the bulk of the Germanic-speaking population, so that U106 is only a small minority haplogroup in those lands that held onto their Celtic language and culture longest and which are commonly regarded as clearly historically Celtic.

Rms2 you act like a football player that is called (in German) "Ausputzer" (sweeper).

R1b U106 had a long life before pre or proto German rms2, in the slipstream of BB Czech, Unetice etc there are very clear indices that there was spread of some R1b U106 lines (most probable Z156 and U198).

You can't state it's small or big potatoe in the Netherlands is for example Z156 relative small but U198 relative big....(Mac Donald)

We will see what time and new samples will bring...

Ukases (R1b U106 is per definition and one and only pre/proto Germanic) from somewhere in Virginia won't prevent that ;)

rms2
03-28-2018, 01:59 PM
The problem, Finn, is that there is no real evidence that U106 had much if anything to do with the evolution of Celtic language and culture.

Your evidence is that we have one U106 thus far in Czech Unetice and one U106 in Oostwoud who might have belonged to Elp but who pretty clearly didn't belong to Steppe Bell Beaker.

First, Unetice cannot be clearly connected to early Celtic, at least not to Celtic alone. Second, Friesland, where Oostwoud is, cannot be clearly connected to early Celtic speakers either so that the Oostwoud U106 can be confidently called an early Celt.

So, what evidence you do have is very shaky at best. Then there is the great mass of evidence that contradicts what you are saying, like U106's clear close association with Germanic speakers, its rapid decline as one enters historically Italo-Celtic regions, its presence in Sweden in the 3rd millennium BC in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, the fact that it is now appearing in growing numbers in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans, etc.

Finn
03-28-2018, 02:11 PM
The problem, Finn, is that there is no real evidence that U106 had much if anything to do with the evolution of Celtic language and culture.

Your evidence is that we have one U106 thus far in Czech Unetice and one U106 in Oostwoud who might have belonged to Elp but who pretty clearly didn't belong to Steppe Bell Beaker.

First, Unetice cannot be clearly connected to early Celtic, at least not to Celtic alone. Second, Friesland, where Oostwoud is, cannot be clearly connected to early Celtic speakers either so that the Oostwoud U106 can be confidently called an early Celt.

So, what evidence you do have is very shaky at best. Then there is the great mass of evidence that contradicts what you are saying, like U106's clear close association with Germanic speakers, its rapid decline as one enters historically Italo-Celtic regions, its presence in Sweden in the 3rd millennium BC in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, the fact that it is now appearing in growing numbers in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans, etc.


You forget Rocca stated that there was R1b U106 in BB Czech too....

I don't want to fall in claims about labels. Buth there are indices that BB Czech, Unetice (both the case) and later on came from these area's Tumulus and Urnfield (R1b U106 Lichtenstein Cave!) (https://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupil38/on-the-lichtenstein-cave). Yes in some sense pre or proto Celtic.

It's far far to short to cut of these developments fully from the spread of R1b U106.


You can't sincerly hold these kind of position any longer.

Or do you have an agenda?

The Battle Axe finding is still not without discussion and is very doubtfull.

The Germanic spread of R1b U106 is out of question! But there are thousands of years before that rms2.

Let's finish now and let others speak....:)

rms2
03-28-2018, 02:30 PM
You forget Rocca stated that there was R1b U106 in BB Czech too....

And one in Csepel Steppe BB, too, which makes me think not all BB was Italo-Celtic speaking, since there is little to connect U106 with Italo-Celtic. Probably Steppe BB people spoke different IE dialects that had not yet progressed as far as early Italo-Celtic.

Evidently U106 did not spread with the people who spread Italo-Celtic. If it had, it would be showing up in greater frequency in those places.



I don't want to fall in claims about labels. Buth there are indices that BB Czech, Unetice (both the case) and later on came from these area's Tumulus and Urnfield. Yes in some sense pre or proto Celtic.

You are just saying that as if it were self-evidently true, which is what constitutes a bald assertion. You are not supporting it with any facts. For you, the presence of U106 once thus far in Czech BB and once thus far in Czech Unetice is enough to make U106 pre or proto-Celtic. For me, it's not enough, since there is nothing that happened afterward that connects U106 to early or later Celts.



It's far far to short to cut of these developments fully from the spread of R1b U106.


Nobody is cutting anything from the spread of U106. I just do not think U106 had much if anything to do with the development and spread of Celtic. It is just simply not true that one Czech BB + one Czech Unetice = Pre or Proto-Celtic.



You can't sincerly hold these kind of position any longer.

Yes, I can, and I do. And I will continue to hold my opinion on this until some kind of convincing evidence to the contrary comes along.

Meanwhile, U106 keeps showing up in Migration Period Germans.



Or do you have an agenda?

Oh, blah. Can I not disagree with you without having some sinister purpose? Is it an insult to U106er's everywhere to be associated with ancient Germans rather than ancient Celts?



The Battle Axe finding is still not without discussion and is very doubtfull.

RISE98 was found in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden, a country with no kind of Celtic connection and no trace of Bell Beaker burials, settlements or artifacts.

What is a thousand times more dubious than his connection to Nordic Battle Axe is U106's connection to Italo-Celtic.



The Germanic spread of R1b U106 is out of question! But there are thousands of years before that rms2.

Let's finish now and let others speak....:)

The real question is the Proto-Celtic spread of U106, which thus far is seriously doubtful.

Finn
03-28-2018, 03:16 PM
And one in Csepel Steppe BB, too, which makes me think not all BB was Italo-Celtic speaking, since there is little to connect U106 with Italo-Celtic. Probably Steppe BB people spoke different IE dialects that had not yet progressed as far as early Italo-Celtic.

Evidently U106 did not spread with the people who spread Italo-Celtic. If it had, it would be showing up in greater frequency in those places.






You are just saying that as if it were self-evidently true, which is what constitutes a bald assertion. You are not supporting it with any facts. For you, the presence of U106 once thus far in Czech BB and once thus far in Czech Unetice is enough to make U106 pre or proto-Celtic. For me, it's not enough, since there is nothing that happened afterward that connects U106 to early or later Celts.



Nobody is cutting anything from the spread of U106. I just do not think U106 had much if anything to do with the development and spread of Celtic. It is just simply not true that one Czech BB + one Czech Unetice = Pre or Proto-Celtic.



Yes, I can, and I do. And I will continue to hold my opinion on this until some kind of convincing evidence to the contrary comes along.

Meanwhile, U106 keeps showing up in Migration Period Germans.



Oh, blah. Can I not disagree with you without having some sinister purpose? Is it an insult to U106er's everywhere to be associated with ancient Germans rather than ancient Celts?



RISE98 was found in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden, a country with no kind of Celtic connection and no trace of Bell Beaker burials, settlements or artifacts.

What is a thousand times more dubious than his connection to Nordic Battle Axe is U106's connection to Italo-Celtic.



The real question is the Proto-Celtic spread of U106, which thus far is seriously doubtful.

This comes close to tautology. When the label pre or proto Celt is the problem....than I will explain it in another way.

In other words is what I state is that before the Germanic spread in the Iron Age early Middle Ages there was a spread during the whole Bronze Age from Central European Bronze Age cultures. The R1b U106 samples of these Central European Bronze Age cultures are getting more. And therefore also the indices of the possibilities of Bronze Age spread....to NW Europe incl. Southern Scandinavia.

R1b U106 didn’t wait until Jastorf :)

rms2
03-28-2018, 04:39 PM
It didn't wait until Jastorf, but it also wasn't Pre or Proto-Celtic.

I remember a few years ago over on Eupedia there was a guy who argued that the "true Celts" were all R1a. That was before there was much if any ancient dna. He based his argument on an area of France that had about 5 or 6% R1a (woo-hoo!).

Finn
03-28-2018, 05:06 PM
It didn't wait until Jastorf, but it also wasn't Pre or Proto-Celtic.

I remember a few years ago over on Eupedia there was a guy who argued that the "true Celts" were all R1a. That was before there was much if any ancient dna. He based his argument on an area of France that had about 5 or 6% R1a (woo-hoo!).

First of all the label pre or proto Celtic is not crucial for me....no pro's or contra's about. It was the case or it wasn't. I do know that Central European Bronze Age cultures played a crucial part in Northern Europe. That's, seen the state of art in the history about the Nordic Bronze Age not weird....

Still some questions:
When it's pre Celtic, proto Celtic, and Celtic for you Rms2? What kind of cultures?
And when Schrijver (2017) had got a point the Frisians spoke a Celtic language in the Roman period, how diid it got there pure acculturation? No possible link with previous migrations?

rms2
03-28-2018, 05:20 PM
First of all the label pre or proto Celtic is not crucial for me....no pro's or contra's about. It was the case or it wasn't. I do know that Central European Bronze Age cultures played a crucial part in Northern Europe. That's, seen the state of art in the history about the Nordic Bronze Age not weird....

Still some questions:
When it's pre Celtic, proto Celtic, and Celtic for you Rms2? What kind of cultures?
And when Schrijver (2017) had got a point the Frisian spoke a Celtic language in the Roman period, how diid it got there pure acculturation? No possible link with previous migrations?

I used to think all or most of Steppe Bell Beaker was speaking early Italo-Celtic, but with U106 showing up in some of it, I'm rethinking that, because it's pretty plain U106 did not spread in any numbers with Italo-Celtic. Perhaps only the portion of Steppe Bell Beaker that went west and northwest and was mainly P312 spoke early Italo-Celtic, and Steppe Bell Beaker between the Baltic and Prague, with U106 (and perhaps the P312 clades DF19, DF99 and L238), was speaking some other IE dialect, one that went into early Germanic and/or early Balto-Slavic.

I don't know to what extent Friesland ever was Celtic speaking. If it was, then I think probably the Celtic-speaking population was mainly P312, and U106 arrived with Germanics, the Oostwoud U106 notwithstanding. The Oostwoud U106 looks like the bleed-over from a culture (Elp maybe) that contributed to the formation of early Germanic. Certainly Friesland was on the frontier between Celtic speakers and early Germanic speakers. I don't think it's safe to put it entirely in the Celtic camp and chalk up anything found there to the Celts.

Where is the ancient U106 among the Gauls or the Irish? As I said before, where is it among people who can confidently be called Celts?

Finn
03-28-2018, 05:45 PM
I used to think all or most of Steppe Bell Beaker was speaking early Italo-Celtic, but with U106 showing up in some of it, I'm rethinking that, because it's pretty plain U106 did not spread in any numbers with Italo-Celtic. Perhaps only the portion of Steppe Bell Beaker that went west and northwest and was mainly P312 spoke early Italo-Celtic, and Steppe Bell Beaker between the Baltic and Prague, with U106 (and perhaps the P312 clades DF19, DF99 and L238), was speaking some other IE dialect, one that went into early Germanic and/or early Balto-Slavic.

I don't know to what extent Friesland ever was Celtic speaking. If it was, then I think probably the Celtic-speaking population was mainly P312, and U106 arrived with Germanics, the Oostwoud U106 notwithstanding. The Oostwoud U106 looks like the bleed-over from a culture (Elp maybe) that contributed to the formation of early Germanic. Certainly Friesland was on the frontier between Celtic speakers and early Germanic speakers. I don't think it's safe to put it entirely in the Celtic camp and chalk up anything found there to the Celts.

Where is the ancient U106 among the Gauls or the Irish? As I said before, where is it among people who can confidently be called Celts?

Still no clue what you consider pre, proto, Celtic, but ok.

Schrijver did reconstruct the Celtic language of the Frisians because based on pre- Old Frisian het stated that it was a language of people that learn to speak German but kept their Celtic accent (in short). In this it showed affinities with Old English (same kind of case).

About the origins of Germanic he wrote another book, his conclusion:

Germanic as a separate branch of Indo-European arose as a result of contact with Balto-Finnic (more particularly, probably as a result of Indo-European–Finno-Saamic bilingualism and a subsequent switch to Indo-European, which as a result became Germanic; chapter V.2–3).

See:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages.pdf

How to combine this with your statement:

I used to think all or most of Steppe Bell Beaker was speaking early Italo-Celtic, but with U106 showing up in some of it, I'm rethinking that, because it's pretty plain U106 did not spread in any numbers with Italo-Celtic. Perhaps only the portion of Steppe Bell Beaker that went west and northwest and was mainly P312 spoke early Italo-Celtic, and Steppe Bell Beaker between the Baltic and Prague, with U106 (and perhaps the P312 clades DF19, DF99 and L238), was speaking some other IE dialect, one that went into early Germanic and/or early Balto-Slavic.


About the Frisian situation I guess it's more reasonable to link it with the Bronze Age influences of Central Europe.....According to Fokkens the beginning Elp (Sogel-Wohlde) ment most probably immigration of Bronze Age cultures from Central Europe. Between 2000 BC and 0 there were some post Beaker chances, the situation, and the language either, was not static.

rms2
03-28-2018, 06:53 PM
I think it likely that some sort of early Italo-Celtic spread with western Steppe Bell Beaker and then somehow Celtic developed among the same people, perhaps as a trade lingua franca.

I explained what I think about Friesland: it was a place on the frontier between Celtic speakers and Germanic speakers. If there were Celtic speakers there, I doubt the males were predominantly U106. U106 came in with Germanic speakers. The Oostwoud U106 was an early bleed-over from a culture (Elp maybe) that probably contributed to the genesis of early Germanic. We have to expect such exceptions and bleed-overs along a language frontier.

Finn
03-28-2018, 07:32 PM
I think it likely that some sort of early Italo-Celtic spread with western Steppe Bell Beaker and then somehow Celtic developed among the same people, perhaps as a trade lingua franca.

I explained what I think about Friesland: it was a place on the frontier between Celtic speakers and Germanic speakers. If there were Celtic speakers there, I doubt the males were predominantly U106. U106 came in with Germanic speakers. The Oostwoud U106 was an early bleed-over from a culture (Elp maybe) that probably contributed to the genesis of early Germanic. We have to expect such exceptions and bleed-overs along a language frontier.

Mmmm doubtful when Schrijver is correct the German language was 1800 BC in an embryonic development in Scandinavia....not in Oostwoud.

Oostwoud early Elp is related to Unetice, the description of Fokkens in the supplement of Olalde correspondents with this. No questions marks. Very low chance that a embryonic Germanic speaker from Scandinavia went through the Unetice network and settled in Oostwoud....

A Unetice language is more probable....more chance that’s connected with a kind of ‘Unetice’ Indo European that intermingled with Finno Saamic that turned into Germanic. That went southwards and became the leading language of Jastorf.

I guess we only can agree to disagree Rms2.

rms2
03-28-2018, 07:39 PM
Mmmm doubtful when Schrijver is correct the German language was 1800 BC in an embryonic development in Scandinavia....not in Oostwoud.

Celtic did not develop in Oostwoud either. I didn't say the Oostwoud U106 was speaking German. I said he was probably a bleed-over along a language frontier from a culture that probably contributed to the genesis of early Germanic.

If all those genuine Steppe Bell Beaker men buried crouched on their left sides Steppe Bell Beaker style in the older of the two mounds at Oostwoud had been U106 rather than P312, then you might have an argument.



Oostwoud early Elp is related to Unetice, the description of Fokkens in the supplement of Olalde correspondents with this. No questions marks. Very low chance that a embryonic Germanic speaker from Scandinavia went through the Unetice network and settled in Oostwoud....

Fokkens doesn't say that the Oostwoud U106 belonged to Elp or that Elp is related to Unetice. You are saying that.

Good grief!



A Unetice language is more probable....more chance that’s connected with a kind of ‘Unetice’ Indo European that intermingled with Finno Saamic that turned into Germanic. That went southwards and became the leading language of Jastorf.

I guess we only can agree to disagree Rms2.

We agree on agreeing to disagree.

Let me know when U106 stops showing up in Migration Period Germans and starts showing up in genuine ancient Celts.

Finn
03-28-2018, 08:02 PM
You can crawl like an eel but to relate every R1bU106 to a pre/proto/ Germanic speaker will be a dead end street....

Of course especially the more Nordic lines (it the end also related to the Bronze Age influences) spread with Jastorf and the big migration!!! So agree on that.....

But some subclades (Z156/ U198 lines according to Mac Donald) R1b U106 area already now to be related to the Bronze Age Cemtral European cultures and the spread of it.

So multidimensional in stead of one dimensional.

But now a big point behind this! Good day!!

rms2
03-28-2018, 08:09 PM
You can crawl like an eel but to relate every R1bU106 to a pre/proto/ Germanic speaker will be a dead end street....

We are not talking about every individual U106. We are speaking in general terms about an entire y-dna haplogroup. That's an important distinction.

And you can lay there like a haggis, but it won't transform U106 into Pre or Proto-Celtic. ;)



Of course it the more Nordic lines spread with Jastorf and the big migration!!! So agree on that.....

That's because there is actual evidence of a strong connection between U106 and Germanic. No such thing exists for U106 and Celtic or Italo-Celtic.



But any subclades R1b U106 area already now to be related to the Bronze Age Cemtral European cultures and the spread of it.

So multidimensional in stead of one dimensional.

But now a big point behind this! Good day!!

Bronze Age cultures are one thing, Pre or Proto-Celtic is another. I don't see the evidence for much if any connection between U106 and Celtic, and I've already said why (more than once).

Finn
03-28-2018, 08:14 PM
We are not talking about every individual U106. We are speaking in general terms about an entire y-dna haplogroup. That's an important distinction.

And you can lay there like a haggis, but it won't transform U106 into Pre or Proto-Celtic. ;)
That's because there is actual evidence of a strong connection between U106 and Germanic. No such thing exists for U106 and Celtic or Italo-Celtic.
Bronze Age cultures are one thing, Pre or Proto-Celtic is another. I don't see the evidence for much if any connection between U106 and Celtic, and I've already said why (more than once).

I think I wasn't clear enough. But I rest my case.

rms2
03-28-2018, 08:17 PM
I think you're one of the good guys, Finn, I really do, so I hope my arguing with you doesn't make you mad or offend you. I enjoy your obvious intelligence and your good nature.

I kind of have an idea in the back of my mind that you really are so into your Germanic heritage that you enjoy having me argue you out of the whole Proto-Celtic thing.

:beerchug:

Finn
03-29-2018, 06:50 AM
I think you're one of the good guys, Finn, I really do, so I hope my arguing with you doesn't make you mad or offend you. I enjoy your obvious intelligence and your good nature.

I kind of have an idea in the back of my mind that you really are so into your Germanic heritage that you enjoy having me argue you out of the whole Proto-Celtic thing.

:beerchug:

Hahah thanks! I think: Yankee meets Jan-Kees ;) (did you know that's the origin of the word Yankee? ;)

Yep I'm into the Germanic heritage. So when Jean M came at first whit the Celtic heritage of the old Frisii as described by Schrijver my reaction was:crazy:

But the nice thing of history is when you dig a little further you sometimes get surprised.....:bounce:

Bronze Age is a very interesting time rms2!:thumb:

Radboud
03-29-2018, 07:08 AM
A "Unetice outlier" at Oostwoud? Hardly.



What arguments are those?

That R1b-U106 Oostwoud doesn't have to be a recent migrant from Central-Europe, this sample could also have been in this region(Netherlands/ NW Germany) before the expansion of Sogel warriors etc. There is no clear association with Unetice or Tumulus.

I am not sure, keep in mind that this is an old post and his view has probably changed. Honestly, I think we should drop the labels Pre/Proto Celtic and Germanic for subclades like R1b-U198 and Z156. They are to old to be called Proto-Celtic or Proto Germanic. The younger subclades of U198 and Z156 could have been easily of Proto-Germanic origin and vice versa. However, if we look at the medieval Bavarians and Lombards, we can see alot of U106 there and some of them look like fresh Scandinavians and U106 is very common in modern Germanic speakers, so it's hard to believe that U106 was popular in Pre/Proto-Celts.

Imo, U106 was an important player for the formation of Proto-Germanic, but it's still not certain which group(s) are responsible for the spread of U106 to Northern Germany/Scandinavia. We have now the unverified Z9/Z18 from Czech & Hungarian Bell Beakers which was unexpected, but we cannot ignore the U106 from the Late Neolithic I period in Sweden either. There are still several scenarios. Perhaps it was a combination of Bell Beakers/Unetice/CWC/Unknown derived Steppe groups? :P Hard to tell at this point.

Finn
03-29-2018, 10:43 AM
That R1b-U106 Oostwoud doesn't have to be a recent migrant from Central-Europe, this sample could also have been in this region(Netherlands/ NW Germany) before the expansion of Sogel warriors etc. There is no clear association with Unetice or Tumulus.

I am not sure, keep in mind that this is an old post and his view has probably changed. Honestly, I think we should drop the labels Pre/Proto Celtic and Germanic for subclades like R1b-U198 and Z156. They are to old to be called Proto-Celtic or Proto Germanic. The younger subclades of U198 and Z156 could have been easily of Proto-Germanic origin and vice versa. However, if we look at the medieval Bavarians and Lombards, we can see alot of U106 there and some of them look like fresh Scandinavians and U106 is very common in modern Germanic speakers, so it's hard to believe that U106 was popular in Pre/Proto-Celts.

Imo, U106 was an important player for the formation of Proto-Germanic, but it's still not certain which group(s) are responsible for the spread of U106 to Northern Germany/Scandinavia. We have now the unverified Z9/Z18 from Czech & Hungarian Bell Beakers which was unexpected, but we cannot ignore the U106 from the Late Neolithic I period in Sweden either. There are still several scenarios. Perhaps it was a combination of Bell Beakers/Unetice/CWC/Unknown derived Steppe groups? :P Hard to tell at this point.

Radboud, there are indeed two options for Oostwoud, 'immigrant' or 'indigenous'.

The option indigenous would mean acculturation because Fokkens description doesn't correspondent with a Bell Beaker grave (LN/EBA) 'Both skeletons were buried in a manner typical for the Middle Bronze Age, stretched on their backs. Both are dated between 1880 and 1650 calBCE.' We have no reason to state that R1b U106 is originated in Friesland. So when it's not an Elp/ Unetice/ Tumulus immigrant it has it's roots in the Bell Beakers.....can we consider the possibility that R1b U106 was already in BB time in North Dutch. And as they jumped across the North Sea why we don't have British Beakers with R1b U106.

Imo the BB wave from central Europe to the Rhenish/Dutch Beakers is to early.....just an assumption.....

Second option is immigrant. Is this realistic? And what culture did spread about 1800 BC?
Then the fingers point at Unetice. The importance for the "Uneticians"? Clearly amber! If I interpret the information well than amber was for them as glistening things for a magpie.....

Ok in the case of the Drouwen Tumulus chieftain grave it's more obvious, but a "MBA way" of burying correspondences with Unetice/Tumulus I guess (not contrair).

And than what's Germanic? When Schrijver has a case than the origins lay in some Indo-European-Saami/Finnic amalgam.
This needs a Indo European and a Finnish-Saami component.
Saami and R1b U106, I guess not.
So when it's the case that R1b U106 was a Germanic front runner, than it brought in the Indo European component.
This can be BB, Unetice, Tumulus.....or?

Things get more clear when we speak about proto German and German. Than is a more or less communis opinion that we must look at Jastorf, Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavian (what still is a broad area). At that the Iron Age R1b U106 was already long settled in Southern Scandinavia and the North German Plain, so it became indeed a major player in the spread of the Germanic language and culture.

rms2
03-29-2018, 12:14 PM
I'm not a linguist, but, honestly, I've never heard that early German was influenced by Finno-Ugric. I'd always heard it had influences from Balto-Slavic and Celtic and that there was evidence of some sort of non-IE substrate (more so than in any other IE language family) that no one could identify. I've always taken that to mean that early German evolved somewhere in the middle ground between Balto-Slavic on the east and Celtic on the west and that the non-IE substrate must have been the language(s) of the hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers who inhabited those lands before the arrival of Indo-Europeans.

Finn
03-29-2018, 12:19 PM
Neither do I, here his thesis about Germanic:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/

(safe to download no tricky things)

Pylsteen
03-29-2018, 12:26 PM
I remember that recently linguist Hyllested has written about possible Finnic borrowings into Germanic (and vice versa).

lgmayka
03-29-2018, 02:52 PM
...by the time it counted for anything, U106 was so thoroughly Germanic that its frequency drops like a rock in the lands historically inhabited by Italo-Celtic speakers.
Clade TMRCAs show this statement to be clearly false.

First, let's agree on what it's supposed to mean.
- "Thoroughly Germanic" must refer to clearly Germanic peoples, speaking a Germanic language or proto-Germanic itself. Linguists tell us that no one can be considered "thoroughly Germanic" until about 500 B.C.
- "It counted for anything" refers to any people or nation large enough to place on a map (except a very detailed one), or common enough to occur multiple times in a sampling (except a very detailed one).
Thus, the cited statement asserts, in extremely pejorative terms, that R-U106 people would not have appeared on high-level maps or turned up repeatedly in samples until 500 B.C.

We already know that the statement is false. R-U106 has indeed turned up multiple times in samples considerably older than 500 B.C. It obviously did "count for" something much earlier than the Germanic era.

But just to confirm, I counted the number of different R-U106 clades (https://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/) in existence 2500 years ago (by YFull's reckoning): 120. Since small tribes/villages tend to coalesce to a single Y-DNA lineage over time, the count of 120 clades suggests that a large number of small tribes/villages--or a smaller number of larger tribes/towns--carried R-U106 in 500 B.C. Clearly, any reasonable map of Europe at that time would have had to show either a significant region with majority R-U106, or an even larger region with a significant R-U106 minority. Any reasonable sampling of Europe at that time would have turned up multiple R-U106 samples.

In contrast, let's consider a couple of clades for which the cited statement could apply with reasonable accuracy.
- R-L260 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/) began to diverge 4600 ybp, but every R-L260 man today descends from one man living in 500 B.C.
- R-CTS11962 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS11962/) likewise began to diverge 4600 ybp, yet every R-CTS11962 man today descends from two men living in 500 B.C. (the progenitors of R-L1029 and R-YP515).
- I-Y3120 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120/) began to diverge 3800 ybp, but every I-Y3120 man today descends from one man living in 500 B.C.
A reasonable sample of Europe taken in 500 B.C. might well have missed these clades, and a high-level map might well have omitted them. And indeed, none of these clades has shown up in ancient DNA dated that old.

Put bluntly, it is utterly absurd to claim that R-U106 was not on the European map until the Germanic migrations. By 500 B.C., 120 R-U106 clades existed, and many of them were flourishing.

Radboud
03-29-2018, 02:57 PM
And than what's Germanic? When Schrijver has a case than the origins lay in some Indo-European-Saami/Finnic amalgam.
This needs a Indo European and a Finnish-Saami component.
Saami and R1b U106, I guess not.
So when it's the case that R1b U106 was a Germanic front runner, than it brought in the Indo European component.
This can be BB, Unetice, Tumulus.....or?

Things get more clear when we speak about proto German and German. Than is a more or less communis opinion that we must look at Jastorf, Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavian (what still is a broad area). At that the Iron Age R1b U106 was already long settled in Southern Scandinavia and the North German Plain, so it became indeed a major player in the spread of the Germanic language and culture.

Here is a map from Jean M(:() about the origins of Proto-Germanic last year.

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14802&d=1490913382


I am not a linguist, but I remember that around 1/3 of Germanic lexicon is of non-IE origin. Probably influences from TRB and GAC cultures.

rms2
03-29-2018, 03:08 PM
...by the time it counted for anything, U106 was so thoroughly Germanic that its frequency drops like a rock in the lands historically inhabited by Italo-Celtic speakers.


Clade TMRCAs show this statement to be clearly false.

Baloney.

We were talking about U106 as "Proto-Celtic". That was the context of the discussion.

"By the time it counted for anything" clearly means by the time such ethno-linguistic classifications can be confidently determined. And by that time, that is, by the time Germanic can be differentiated from Celtic, U106 was closely connected with Germanic speakers rather than Celtic speakers.

Thus, there is no real evidence of a close connection between U106 and early Celtic speakers or even Italo-Celtic speakers.




First, let's agree on what it's supposed to mean.

Evidently we don't agree on what it's supposed to mean. Since I am the one who wrote it, I get to tell you what I meant.



- "Thoroughly Germanic" must refer to clearly Germanic peoples, speaking a Germanic language or proto-Germanic itself. Linguists tell us that no one can be considered thoroughly Germanic until about 500 B.C.

Finn and I were arguing not about already established Germanic but about Pre and Proto-Celtic, i.e., whether or not U106 was closely associated with peoples speaking very very early forms of Celtic.



- "It counted for anything" refers to any people or nation large enough to place on a map (except a very detailed one), or common enough to occur multiple times in a sampling (except a very detailed one).
Thus, the cited statement asserts, in extremely pejorative phrasing, that R-U106 people would not have appeared on high-level maps or turned up repeatedly in samples until 500 B.C.

That's not it at all. You misunderstood. I explained what I meant above.



We already know that the statement is false. R-U106 has indeed turned up multiple times in samples considerably older than 500 B.C. It obviously did "count for" something much earlier than the Germanic era.

Wrong. What I wrote is true. You misunderstood it.



. . .

Put bluntly, it is utterly absurd to claim that R-U106 was not on the European map until the Germanic migrations of the first millennium A.D.

That would be absurd, but nobody said that. Good grief.

rms2
03-29-2018, 03:12 PM
I remember that recently linguist Hyllested has written about possible Finnic borrowings into Germanic (and vice versa).

Could be right. I merely said I never heard of that before. What I read indicated that early Germanic arose someplace where contact with both Celtic and Balto-Slavic was possible.

alan
03-30-2018, 09:42 PM
Neither do I, here his thesis about Germanic:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/

(safe to download no tricky things)

That was an incredible read. I don't agree with every part of it it but most of it is very very clever detective work.

dsm
03-30-2018, 10:19 PM
Neither do I, here his thesis about Germanic:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/

(safe to download no tricky things)

My browser & firewall blocks this site. I think that (from memory) it is regarded as a pirate copy site (i.e. unauthorised copies of documents made available). Am not game to add it as an exclusion so have to pass up what could be a good read.

Doug M

Finn
03-31-2018, 06:53 AM
My browser & firewall blocks this site. I think that (from memory) it is regarded as a pirate copy site (i.e. unauthorised copies of documents made available). Am not game to add it as an exclusion so have to pass up what could be a good read.

Doug M

Just send a PM I hope this will do (for other interested people I could do like wise).

Finn
03-31-2018, 07:45 AM
We were talking about U106 as "Proto-Celtic". That was the context of the discussion.

"By the time it counted for anything" clearly means by the time such ethno-linguistic classifications can be confidently determined. And by that time, that is, by the time Germanic can be differentiated from Celtic, U106 was closely connected with Germanic speakers rather than Celtic speakers.

Thus, there is no real evidence of a close connection between U106 and early Celtic speakers or even Italo-Celtic speakers.



Put bluntly, it is utterly absurd to claim that R-U106 was not on the European map until the Germanic migrations. By 500 B.C., 120 R-U106 clades existed, and many of them were flourishing.

I guess that we have three intermingled issues: genetics, timelines and languages.

The question is can (pre and proto-) Celtic be identified with R1b U106.

We can assume that about 2500 BC R1b U106 was part of BBCzech and Unetice.

First question is, is what is pre/proto Celtic? And can this possible be connected with R1b U106.

The most strict definition is that Celtic is restricted to area's influenced by Hallstatt/La Tene culture:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/eleh93iev3.png

Is it reasonable to connect this with some R1b U106 lines? Yes from Austria to Belgium its presumable that some R1b U106 lines are connected with this cultures.


When we look at a proto Celtic culture, the Urnfield culture comes in mind. You see large parts of NW continental Europe influenced by it, even large parts in which some scientist presume the core of the Germanic language (500 BC) in the North German region.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/za7n3b66.png

Again it's presumable seen the central European link that R1b U106 subclades 'travelled' with this culture to NW Europe.

When we look at a pre Celtic culture like Unetice, it's core region correspondences partly with BB Czech, even then it's presumable that Unetice spread some R1b U106.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/5fne4d2yp749p.png

I don't see it's a 1:1 or necessity, and probably not suitable for every subclade, but its a possibility......so I agree with lgmayka.

rms2
03-31-2018, 01:03 PM
No, the most strict definition is NOT that "Celtic is restricted to area's [sic] influenced by Hallstatt/La Tene culture". Celtic is, by the most strict definition, a subfamily in the Indo-European family of languages. The idea that it began with Hallstatt/La Tene is a matter of controversy.

Even if Hallstatt were originally responsible for the spread of Celtic (which I doubt), if U106 were closely connected to it, why then did U106 not spread with it in any numbers into places like Iberia, Gaul, the British Isles and Ireland?

Amber maps: great. We all know amber always means Proto-Celtic!

When I look at Urnfield, Proto-Celtic culture does not come to mind.

We're going to have to wait for some ancient dna from people who can confidently be identified as Celts, Finn.

Everyone with good sense agrees with lgmayka's statement that ". . . it is utterly absurd to claim that R-U106 was not on the European map until the Germanic migrations". (I think it was actually a quote from Captain Obvious.) The problem with that statement is that no one was claiming otherwise, so it was pointless.

But being present in Europe before the Germanic migrations isn't the same thing as being Proto-Celtic.

This constant drumbeat of "U106 was Proto-Celtic" is really getting old.

rms2
03-31-2018, 01:17 PM
As I have said several times already - and have been grossly misinterpreted - by the time it counted for anything, that is, by the time Celtic and Germanic peoples can be clearly identified and distinguished one from the other, U106 was very closely tied to the latter.

So, even if, in the dim Bronze Age past, some few of them were Pre or Proto-Celtic, they made the switch to Germanic very early, so that U106 did not spread in any appreciable numbers with the spread of Celtic peoples.

That is why the frequency of U106 drops like a rock as one enters historically Celtic-speaking lands and why U106 is turning up in the old bones of Migration Period Germans, and will probably turn up in the bones of some of the Vikings, as well.

rms2
03-31-2018, 01:42 PM
New ad from Ancestry DNA:

22409

;)

JMcB
03-31-2018, 03:54 PM
Neither do I, here his thesis about Germanic:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/03/peter-schrijver-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages/

(safe to download no tricky things)

Thanks for the tip, Finn! It looks like an interesting read.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-31-2018, 04:06 PM
New ad from Ancestry DNA:

22409

;)

Some Scots having fun. Stereotypes don't always fit. :)

22411

rms2
03-31-2018, 04:14 PM
Some Scots having fun. Stereotypes don't always fit. :)

22411

Those particular Scots (as a group) have a pedigree that is pretty easily traced, and they aren't claiming to be Celts. They are identifying with the Norse Vikings who settled in the Orkney Islands, which haven't always belonged to the modern nation of Scotland.

Finn
03-31-2018, 04:57 PM
New ad from Ancestry DNA:

22409

Hahahah!:thumb::thumb: suits well! 2*

Finn
03-31-2018, 05:15 PM
As I have said several times already - and have been grossly misinterpreted - by the time it counted for anything, that is, by the time Celtic and Germanic peoples can be clearly identified and distinguished one from the other, U106 was very closely tied to the latter.

So, even if, in the dim Bronze Age past, some few of them were Pre or Proto-Celtic, they made the switch to Germanic very early, so that U106 did not spread in any appreciable numbers with the spread of Celtic peoples.





That is why the frequency of U106 drops like a rock as one enters historically Celtic-speaking lands and why U106 is turning up in the old bones of Migration Period Germans, and will probably turn up in the bones of some of the Vikings, as well.


The last thing I would do is to steal you identity rms2!I forgive you that I suppose to look like a Bayer in Lederhosen.....and my wife in Dirndl look?

On topic.

This is a good research how we still use 19th century concepts for Urnfield:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/honorary/rebay-salisbury/publications-1/Sorensen-Rebay%202008%20Urnfield.pdf

But this story doesn't stay in the nineteenth century and it concepts!
https://indo-european.eu/2018/03/the-origins-of-the-tumulus-culture-proto-lusatian-and-potential-proto-balto-slavic-origins/

R1b U106 fits in that story (like it fits also in the German story later on).

rms2
03-31-2018, 05:33 PM
I think I'll drop out of this conversation, Finn. I remember when I was the admin for the L21 Project, there were some of my L21 guys who really wanted to be Germanic. They were always trying to find ways to make L21 Germanic, despite the evidence. I would explain the evidence to them, but I always added that I was talking about the haplogroup as a whole, in general terms, and not about each and every individual L21. The haplogroup as a whole, in general, is one thing. Individuals are another. Could there be parts of L21 here and there that were Germanic and never Celtic, represented today by a small number of their modern descendants? Sure. Why not?

I see the same sort of thing going on within U106. Most U106 guys seem to like the very obvious association of their haplogroup with Germanic. Others, however, really want it to be Celtic, and some even want it to be Celtic and never Germanic. I can think of one very extreme case of that, which I believe is still going on, but I won't bore everyone by recounting it.

So, could there be some parts of U106 that were Celtic and never Germanic, parts that are represented today by a small number of their modern descendants? Sure. Why not?

alan
03-31-2018, 06:02 PM
I think the splitting of Celtic theories into the extremes of the old style Unetice-tumulus-urnfield-Hallstatt-LaTene Versus the Celtic from Iberia model is a problem and a mistake. The out of Iberia theory is just plain wrong but the other old style theory is only part of the story and probably has the wrong emphasis.

In its classic state it just doesn’t work either as Unetice, tumulus, urnfield only appear as influences in most of the earliest known Celtic world and when it comes to Hallstatt and La Tene the strong impression that only influences on metalwork still applies to a large amount of the Celtic world where pottery, burial and settlement types do not correspond to those seen in the Hallstatt or La Tene cores.

I think Celtic is more complex because, with a baseline of italo-Celtic from beaker times and a pattern of constant elite interaction (almost certainly reflecting intermarriage) plainly visible in the spread of metalwork fashions, the shifts that led to Celtic from Italo-Celtic were a small thing that could have spread in a friendly way one by one in very gradual shared shifts across 1000+ years. The pattern seen c2400-1000BC across most of the later Celtic zone looks very much like friendly contact without the sort of abrupt changes across all spheres of life of the sort that would indicate invasion. I think the invasive stage of an already long formed Celtic zone was late and wasdirected mainly south and south-east in Europe and is recorded by classical historians. I don’t think that model works well elsewhere or earlier.
,

alan
03-31-2018, 06:16 PM
In some ways it’s a waste of breath trying to prove who spoke want once you get down to dialect level. There is and never will be data old enough to prove this. Temperate Europe’s exact dialect history 2500-600BC will never be known. Reconstructing the genetic history is finally possible with ancient DNA retrieval advances but anything but very broad brush model on languages will never be possible.

Finn
03-31-2018, 06:25 PM
I see the same sort of thing going on within U106. Most U106 guys seem to like the very obvious association of their haplogroup with Germanic. Others, however, really want it to be Celtic, and some even want it to be Celtic and never Germanic. I can think of one very extreme case of that, which I believe is still going on, but I won't bore everyone by recounting it.


I guess that's no matter of choice or association.... I think that "over association" prevents a clear sight on history. R1b U106 has, even in general, a pre-Germanic history, and partly this can be connected with Bronze Age Central European cultures, by some associated with pre-proto Celtic cultures, when this was for some R1b U106 in Friesland/ North Dutch or even the Lowlands in general the case, what's the problem?

Finn
03-31-2018, 06:37 PM
The pattern seen c2400-1000BC across most of the later Celtic zone looks very much like friendly contact without the sort of abrupt changes across all spheres of life of the sort that would indicate invasion.

My impression is not very friendly or without invasions, I suppose that in North Dutch the Unecetians want to get control of the amber route.

Again 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 was an immigration of Sögel warriors."

The Drouwen grave lays at the source of a river that is connected with the North isles where you can find amber. I guess when the Sögel warriors paved the way, the later on Bronze Age cultures rooted in Central Europe like Tumulus and Urnfield (just labels!) staid interested and connected.....

As said even the Roman Age Frisians spoke according to Schrijver (2017) a Celtic language. Is suppose this is to be connected with the developments in the Bronze Age......

alan
03-31-2018, 08:38 PM
But look at the largest block of Celtic speakers noted in the earliest historical sources with no other complications like other languages nearby or substrates or adstrates like Germanic, Ligurian and non IE languages. That ‘only-Celtic’ block is basically Gallia Celtica (the SeIne to the Loire and the western Alps) and also the isles. Now overlay that block with Unetice, Tumulus, urnfiels and even the core areas of the clearly invasive major Hallstatt and La Tene burials and settlements (not just metalwork influences in a native looking context) and it varies from a a total mismatch to a partial overlap. the model in its purest form (put together by Old School OCD suffering German archaeologists with an obsession with typological chronology of artefacts in the pre radiocarbon era) just doesn’t work. Neither does the Koch view because Iberia was a hotchpotch of IE and non IE languages

alan
03-31-2018, 10:25 PM
My take on this all is that the very earliest roots of the German branch - early pre-proto German was located adjacent to pre proto Celtic newly broken off from Italo-Celtuc 2200BC or so in east central Europe. it possibly originated in a peripheral Beaker group heavily mixed with CW people around the Oder who were unimportant until amber routes from Scandinavia to the south via the Moravian gates opened during Unetice.. There was an element of important apparently high status vocab that went into both pre proto stages of Celtic and Germanic (but no other languages) before the shifts that define them had taken place and that imo is likely due to U106 being located close to P312 In the beaker and early unetice phases.

However that was a long way off from proto Germanic and it appears to me that proto Germanic formed much later in somewhere like Scandinavia where pre proto Germanic groups (U106 fits the bill) migrated north up the Oder in the early Nordic Bronze Age and their dialect then undertook a lot of the strange effects and vocab that created proper proto-Germanic under the influence of other languages including non-IE ones. At a later point they expanded south again spreading full on proto Germanic south and west in the Iron Age.

It is possible that some of the U106 proto Germanic people didn't make that journey north to Scandinavia and remained elsewhere on the amber route. They probably diverged in some lost dialect that never underwent the sort of shifts that created proto germanic or were absorbed or wiped out by other grouos.

I am not an asolutist on yDNA - dialect correlation and think there were a small U106 element in the Celtic world and I also suspect northern Denmark and western Norway had P312 lineages derived from Rhenish beaker who became absorbed into the proto Germanic genesis. But there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of U106 today comes from the 500BC-500AD Germanic expansion phase while most P312 relates to the Celtic speakers.

Finn
04-01-2018, 06:20 AM
My take on this all is that the very earliest roots of the German branch - early pre-proto German was located adjacent to pre proto Celtic newly broken off from Italo-Celtuc 2200BC or so in east central Europe. it possibly originated in a peripheral Beaker group heavily mixed with CW people around the Oder who were unimportant until amber routes from Scandinavia to the south via the Moravian gates opened during Unetice.. There was an element of important apparently high status vocab that went into both pre proto stages of Celtic and Germanic (but no other languages) before the shifts that define them had taken place and that imo is likely due to U106 being located close to P312 In the beaker and early unetice phases.

However that was a long way off from proto Germanic and it appears to me that proto Germanic formed much later in somewhere like Scandinavia where pre proto Germanic groups (U106 fits the bill) migrated north up the Oder in the early Nordic Bronze Age and their dialect then undertook a lot of the strange effects and vocab that created proper proto-Germanic under the influence of other languages including non-IE ones. At a later point they expanded south again spreading full on proto Germanic south and west in the Iron Age.

It is possible that some of the U106 proto Germanic people didn't make that journey north to Scandinavia and remained elsewhere on the amber route. They probably diverged in some lost dialect that never underwent the sort of shifts that created proto germanic or were absorbed or wiped out by other grouos.

I am not an asolutist on yDNA - dialect correlation and think there were a small U106 element in the Celtic world and I also suspect northern Denmark and western Norway had P312 lineages derived from Rhenish beaker who became absorbed into the proto Germanic genesis. But there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of U106 today comes from the 500BC-500AD Germanic expansion phase while most P312 relates to the Celtic speakers.

Agree but I guess there were two parts of the North European amber route, one connected with the Baltic Sea, in which the Oder could play a part. That could well be the route of the Z18 like Northern R1b U106?

Another to the North Sea. That could well be the Z156/ U198?

When Schrijver is right the "Uneticians" end their heirs brought in a kind of "indo European" to NW Europe. When about 500 BC, due to weather conditions, Southern Scandinavians went southwards to the North German plain they brought with them the Indo-European-Uralic/Finnic amalgam.....we later on call German.

German spread mostly around the big migration. So it could well be the case that Z156 (still there in the Netherlands) and U198 (still a major subclade in the Netherlands) were in decline (the population partly migrated) and the incoming Nordic Z18 line prevailed (at most in coastal Friesland). Would be a fit to me.

Finn
04-01-2018, 07:39 AM
New ad from Ancestry DNA:

22409

;)

Rms2 do you also have one in Celtic druid style?:D

You drived out my NW Celtic results in the...Germanic/Celtic admixture.....:boink:

finndad

North-West-Germanic,70.8
North-West-Celtic,24.8
North-East-Euro-HG,4
South-East-Euro,0.4

finnmom

North-West-Germanic,55
Central-Euro-4kya,18.4
North-West-Celtic,17.6
North-East-Euro-HG,5.2
Early-Baltic,3.8

Finn

North-West-Germanic,63
Central-Euro-4kya,32.4
North-East-Euro-HG,4.6

Taken with salt, the general conclusion is still: coastal North Dutch is most germanic (dad) in the inland we get some more Bronze Age pop up (mom).

With thanks to Tomenable and Skitbo, nice job guys!

PS for my mom is 3,8% is early Baltic, that's only Rise598, David: "RISE598 is a Late Bronze Age sample from a bog burial near the present-day Lithuanian/Polish border. This individual clusters close to Unetice samples from the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland, as well as present-day Poles, which, at least to me, makes good sense."

Bollox79
04-01-2018, 12:30 PM
Agree but I guess there were two parts of the North European amber route, one connected with the Baltic Sea, in which the Oder could play a part. That could well be the route of the Z18 like Northern R1b U106?

Another to the North Sea. That could well be the Z156/ U198?

When Schrijver is right the "Uneticians" end their heirs brought in a kind of "indo European" to NW Europe. When about 500 BC, due to weather conditions, Southern Scandinavians went southwards to the North German plain they brought with them the Indo-European-Uralic/Finnic amalgam.....we later on call German.

German spread mostly around the big migration. So it could well be the case that Z156 (still there in the Netherlands) and U198 (still a major subclade in the Netherlands) were in decline (the population partly migrated) and the incoming Nordic Z18 line prevailed (at most in coastal Friesland). Would be a fit to me.

I have been following the discussion ;-). I think now based on the fact that we found a couple U106 in Bell Beaker (so not a major lineage, but it's there) and also in Unetice... that has led me (and Dr. Iain) to look for reasons why it would have moved from the East and the Czech Unetice areas and Eastern Bell Beakers areas (though I haven't read much about that yet). The collapse of Unetice economy after about 700 years of boom (deforestation, population > agriculture output, and lack of easily mined copper for bronze prod.) they probably migrated West (and possibly other ways too, but we are more interested in the Westward movement!). Also the amber trade etc and water ways I assume would be the easiest ways to move?

Based on what I know of U106 overall and that fact that some of the subgroups of Unetice were in Germany (Lower Saxony comes to mind) by I'd say the MDA (I'd have to check that all this is mixed up in my brain!)... did they change into or adopt tumulus? Anyway... because a lot of the migration Germanic tribes appear to have come from Upper Germany (Lombards, Alamanni, Franks... Alamanni were up North or a bit West (but not over the Rhine) and pushed down by the Franks)... and we now have two migration papers with U106 in them (and all of those guys came from the north based on their automsomal - the 5 U106 guys from Bavarian either cluster in NE Germany/Prussia or Norway/Denmark/North Netherlands)... I'd say we really need more samples from along the Rhine in Iron Age and Roman age and Migration age remains - and also from Northern Germany - to see when U106 was there, and which cultures it was in, and how long it's been there since if it's been there since MBA times (and then moved around after that)... it could have been a part of more than one culture, but we won't know till we dig up the remains and test them ;-). I get the feeling there is a lot of it in Northern Germany and along the Rhine ;-). In order to assign it a culture we really need the burials to be in a concrete burial context - like the Longobard cemetery (though those scholars are still hesitant to say for sure they were in fact Longobards - but I think it's safe to say they were up in Northern Germany near the Baltic and one Germanic name is as good as another - though there does seem to be a bit of a difference in that they were L48 and Z18 - not Z156)... and the Baiuvarii cemeteries are harder to assign to a tribal label, but we can try looking at the autosomal results and noticing that near one of the U106 guys a female with "Frankish-Alamanni" brooches/grave goods is buried... and the history of that area and the burial places they were buried - they were 100% on the late Roman/Early Migration time frame and the men were carrying Roman style military swords (we know how that goes roughly spatha - migration era swords - into the later Viking and Germanic swords?) and were buried with Roman goods along with their own cultural goods. It's a good cemetery to do this type of research in even if the area was known as a "mixture" of different tribes. We can clearly see an Eastern influence (Gothic and also Hun - some of the grave goods are Ostrogothic and the elongated skulls come from the East). I was reading the book by Heather called Empires and Barbarians and he mentioned that right around this period is when lavish furnished inhumations take off - possibly heavily influenced by the Huns (as they apparently buried a lot of gold with burials?). Also some of the big, furnished burials of the early Franks had a knock on effect/trickle down for later furnished burials. This is interpreted as there is some social instability after the Roman infrastructure collapsed and there was competition - local etc... in grave good display of power.

Anyway the important point is we can assign those 5 U106 guys to that transitional period just based on their grave goods and the nature of the grave yards they are buried in... especially Alternerding (I still have to read up on those other two cemeteries). If one of these transitional guys from the North (so not local I'd bet - we have yet to see isotopes though) is into my group of DF98 or DF96 (I asked Alex to look at the one from Altheim with the large BAM file to see if he could find a DF96 read because I thought I saw a couple from running the BAM)... and they match with the York Gladiators - it makes it more likely in my mind some of those York guys (or at least 6drif-3 and 3drif-16) were auxiliaries and/or POWs. I have to research what wars were going on around the time of both 3drif-16 (he was more 100-200 AD) and 6drif-3 (he was more 200-300s AD)...

Ok I'm rambling, but burial context and overall context is important ;-). We need that for every burial if we can... and I'm excited for the future because the group that did the Longobard and Bavarian papers have many more samples all from the migration period and I'm sure we will see more ;-).

Cheers!

Bollox79
04-01-2018, 12:50 PM
Also I'm very much focused on the Migration period because we have the Wettin family with a paper trail going back at least to almost 900s AD... we enough of these burials in Germany (areas of Frankish power) and good enough reads on the Y-DNA... there is no reason we can't connect them... and find out what the brother group of S18823 (that is the Wettin side) - S1911 (that's my group and has a Norman family in it in the Duttons and Warburtons) was doing and who it's connected to... with enough samples we might be able to connect them. That can be done back past the early medieval ages if we can get the Iron age samples, and into the LBA and MBA etc... I personally am more interested in the medieval and ancient history of these groups than my more modern matches. Those will come in time hopefully ;-). I'll work on that later!

I dream of the day when we see a paper the size of Olaide or the newest one everyone is talking about (South Asian one?) on Migration era remains (with Roman era remains and after-the-migration era remains for comparison)!

Finn
04-01-2018, 01:10 PM
I have been following the discussion ;-). I think now based on the fact that we found a couple U106 in Bell Beaker (so not a major lineage, but it's there) and also in Unetice... that has led me (and Dr. Iain) to look for reasons why it would have moved from the East and the Czech Unetice areas and Eastern Bell Beakers areas (though I haven't read much about that yet). The collapse of Unetice economy after about 700 years of boom (deforestation, population > agriculture output, and lack of easily mined copper for bronze prod.) they probably migrated West (and possibly other ways too, but we are more interested in the Westward movement!). Also the amber trade etc and water ways I assume would be the easiest ways to move?

Based on what I know of U106 overall and that fact that some of the subgroups of Unetice were in Germany (Lower Saxony comes to mind) by I'd say the MDA (I'd have to check that all this is mixed up in my brain!)... did they change into or adopt tumulus? Anyway... because a lot of the migration Germanic tribes appear to have come from Upper Germany (Lombards, Alamanni, Franks... Alamanni were up North or a bit West (but not over the Rhine) and pushed down by the Franks)... and we now have two migration papers with U106 in them (and all of those guys came from the north based on their automsomal - the 5 U106 guys from Bavarian either cluster in NE Germany/Prussia or Norway/Denmark/North Netherlands)... I'd say we really need more samples from along the Rhine in Iron Age and Roman age and Migration age remains - and also from Northern Germany - to see when U106 was there, and which cultures it was in, and how long it's been there since if it's been there since MBA times (and then moved around after that)... it could have been a part of more than one culture, but we won't know till we dig up the remains and test them ;-). I get the feeling there is a lot of it in Northern Germany and along the Rhine ;-). In order to assign it a culture we really need the burials to be in a concrete burial context - like the Longobard cemetery (though those scholars are still hesitant to say for sure they were in fact Longobards - but I think it's safe to say they were up in Northern Germany near the Baltic and one Germanic name is as good as another - though there does seem to be a bit of a difference in that they were L48 and Z18 - not Z156)... and the Baiuvarii cemeteries are harder to assign to a tribal label, but we can try looking at the autosomal results and noticing that near one of the U106 guys a female with "Frankish-Alamanni" brooches/grave goods is buried... and the history of that area and the burial places they were buried - they were 100% on the late Roman/Early Migration time frame and the men were carrying Roman style military swords (we know how that goes roughly spatha - migration era swords - into the later Viking and Germanic swords?) and were buried with Roman goods along with their own cultural goods. It's a good cemetery to do this type of research in even if the area was known as a "mixture" of different tribes. We can clearly see an Eastern influence (Gothic and also Hun - some of the grave goods are Ostrogothic and the elongated skulls come from the East). I was reading the book by Heather called Empires and Barbarians and he mentioned that right around this period is when lavish furnished inhumations take off - possibly heavily influenced by the Huns (as they apparently buried a lot of gold with burials?). Also some of the big, furnished burials of the early Franks had a knock on effect/trickle down for later furnished burials. This is interpreted as there is some social instability after the Roman infrastructure collapsed and there was competition - local etc... in grave good display of power.

Anyway the important point is we can assign those 5 U106 guys to that transitional period just based on their grave goods and the nature of the grave yards they are buried in... especially Alternerding (I still have to read up on those other two cemeteries). If one of these transitional guys from the North (so not local I'd bet - we have yet to see isotopes though) is into my group of DF98 or DF96 (I asked Alex to look at the one from Altheim with the large BAM file to see if he could find a DF96 read because I thought I saw a couple from running the BAM)... and they match with the York Gladiators - it makes it more likely in my mind some of those York guys (or at least 6drif-3 and 3drif-16) were auxiliaries and/or POWs. I have to research what wars were going on around the time of both 3drif-16 (he was more 100-200 AD) and 6drif-3 (he was more 200-300s AD)...

Ok I'm rambling, but burial context and overall context is important ;-). We need that for every burial if we can... and I'm excited for the future because the group that did the Longobard and Bavarian papers have many more samples all from the migration period and I'm sure we will see more ;-).

Cheers!

Thanks Charlie. I wish I could respond in Dutch, would be much easier to write longer postings ;)

The Longobards are a nice example and there are probably more Germanic tribes that reached south central Europe.
They began in Scania, of our Rise 98 and ended up in Northern Italy. Of course they brought some Nordic lines with them!

https://www.mupload.nl/img/f80e8w1fwwftd.52.56.png

The Netherlands are a case in this respect to, the Bronze Age population, clearly influenced by Unetice and their heirs, shrinked. And were replaced by Germanic influences. In both cases could (different lines of) R1b U106 play a part.....

^^^^ you see my parents result my fathers ancestors are mostly coastal (Frisian) so the area were the Bronze Age population shrinked and moved away in Roman times. Saxons/Chauci, Jutes, Norwegians (Z18 etc) rolled over (70% of dads auDNA)! My mother comes from more inland mostly from around the part Hondsrug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondsrug)/Drenthe of the Sogel Warrior Tumulus.....and indeed a substantial part of her auDNA can be traced to Bronze Age central Europe.

In both cases Bronze and iron age R1b U106 played a part!

Radboud
04-01-2018, 01:24 PM
I asked Williamson if I7288 was derived for Z9. This was his reply:



I have taken a look at I7288. It is possible it could belong to Z9, but there isn't much supporting that claim. None of the kits have good coverage. That kit has particularly bad coverage. I checked out about 20,000 SNPs on my tree in haplogroups P312 and U106 and all I found was four SNPs with positive results, one of which was actually mixed ancestral and derived.

R-L21/S145>DF13>DF21/S192>S971>Z3000/S951>Z3006>BY3157 23607561-G-A 1A
R-L21/S145>DF13>DF21/S192>FGC3903/S5201>Z246>DF25>L1402>FGC23105 FGC23115 22437420-G-T 1T
R-M269>U106/S21>Z2265>Z381/S263>Z301/S499>L48>Z9 S268/Z9 6788390-C-T 1T
R-L21/S145>DF13>ZZ10>Z253>Z2534>Z2185>Z2186>L1066>BY411 M2268/Y539/S23267/Z4948 21562790-C-A 1A 1C

My guess is that the Z9 result is likely just deamination, which happens for aDNA, and results in spurious C->T (and G->A in results) mutations. There's really nothing here.

So even though it's possible he belonged to Z9, there is not much to back it up and it could have been a result of deamination. I did not ask about the Z18 in the Hungarian BB, but I think it would be a similar story.

rms2
04-01-2018, 01:48 PM
That one was also recovered at Radovesice amidst several R1b-L2's. He could have been Z9, but it seems more likely he was another L2.

Bollox79
04-01-2018, 01:52 PM
I asked Williamson if I7288 was derived for Z9. This was his reply:



So even though it's possible he belonged to Z9, there is not much to back it up and it could have been a result of deamination. I did not ask about the Z18 in the Hungarian BB, but I think it would be a similar story.

That's the other thing... in that we need to be careful about the quality of the reads/results etc because if they are wrong then the data is not good. That is why I asked Alex to take a look at ALH 1 (who MIGHT be something under Z305-307?) before I get TOO excited... for future papers looking at the Y-DNA data I really hope they take the petrous bone and get as many reads as possible so we can use the results. I know that new paper that just came out has some weird Y-DNA results (like U106 way East at a very early time - unlikely!). For the Z18 result it would probably matter about the quality of the sample. Similar to the Bavarian guys for now... a U106+ results may be the best we can get (maybe a bit more with the files that are about 1 gb?) as one was not even 500mb... but ALH 1 had good coverage so fingers crossed ;-).

For any future papers I hope for maximum coverage when it comes to the Y-SNPs. It's not a matter of if we can figure it out... only a matter of when ;-).

Bollox79
04-01-2018, 01:54 PM
Thanks Charlie. I wish I could respond in Dutch, would be much easier to write longer postings ;)

The Longobards are a nice example and there are probably more Germanic tribes that reached south central Europe.
They began in Scania, of our Rise 98 and ended up in Northern Italy. Of course they brought some Nordic lines with them!

https://www.mupload.nl/img/f80e8w1fwwftd.52.56.png

The Netherlands are a case in this respect to, the Bronze Age population, clearly influenced by Unetice and their heirs, shrinked. And were replaced by Germanic influences. In both cases could (different lines of) R1b U106 play a part.....

^^^^ you see my parents result my fathers ancestors are mostly coastal (Frisian) so the area were the Bronze Age population shrinked and moved away in Roman times. Saxons/Chauci, Jutes, Norwegians (Z18 etc) rolled over (70% of dads auDNA)! My mother comes from more inland mostly from around the part Hondsrug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondsrug)/Drenthe of the Sogel Warrior Tumulus.....and indeed a substantial part of her auDNA can be traced to Bronze Age central Europe.

In both cases Bronze and iron age R1b U106 played a part!

Yes Finn... looking at the map - and remembering that the Burgundians settled around Worms and there is a bit of a hotspot there for DF98... I want some good reads of those Y-SNPs ;-p. I hope the quality of the Longobard paper sets the stage for future ones - with perhaps a bit more focus on the Y-DNA in some of the future ones ;-). The fact that they did their autosomal and tried to predict kinship is awesome ;-).

Bollox79
04-01-2018, 03:20 PM
and by extension guys (I know this thread is about the U106 in Unetice - but we are still discussing U106 just at a bit of a later date after Westward movement?)... Reading some more of Peter Heather's Empire and Barbarians... there is the argument (or really discussion on the archaeology of it all) about what exactly any Germanic migration really was. Was it really a MIGRATION? Was it a smaller number (compared to the populations where they settled) of elite burials who signify migration and then local emulation - which has been argued as a trickle down effect from the furnished graves that start popping up in the 400s into the transitional stage? He states that separating a local Gallo-Roman emulation from an immigrating (elite?) Frank is perhaps impossible per the grave goods and burial rites because these can be adopted by locals, but I think it can be proved one way or another similar to what they did in the Longobard paper in that first or second generation migrants have autosomal DNA that is not local i.e. the Northern Europeans in these burial grounds ;-).

He later goes on to comment that the fact that the furnished burials did become very important where German language spread, but not nearly as common South of the Loire... means perhaps it was more of a migration thing (but I think the genetics are more important here to prove it as a migration!).

The archaeology is where it gets interesting that as Heather says in his opinion, that many of these "furnished graves" can be seen as an "archaeological reflection of the allocation of due rewards to Clovis' followers (and possibly those of his successors also)."

I'm excited to see archaeology combined with aDNA ;-).

rms2
04-01-2018, 05:55 PM
I asked Williamson if I7288 was derived for Z9 . . .

So even though it's possible he belonged to Z9, there is not much to back it up and it could have been a result of deamination. I did not ask about the Z18 in the Hungarian BB, but I think it would be a similar story.

I went ahead and asked him about I4178, that Hungarian Kurgan Bell Beaker who was possibly Z18. Alex gave me permission to quote him on it:



I don't have any confidence in calling I4178 as R-U106 > Z18. There's only one read and it is a G > A mutation at the last position. This sort of mutation is typical of damaged aDNA. I can provide you a list of a dozen other calls for this kit that are downstream of L51 that are also supported by just one read and they're all from different branches. As it is, I'm not even sure he belongs to R-L51.

The other R1b sample from the same site as I4178 was R1b-Z2105 (I2787). The remaining males (I2741 and I2786) were both I2a.

So, I think we are back to there being no U106 thus far in Kurgan Bell Beaker or maybe a couple of iffy chances that there might have been some.

Radboud
04-01-2018, 07:56 PM
I went ahead and asked him about I4178, that Hungarian Kurgan Bell Beaker who was possibly Z18. Alex gave me permission to quote him on it:



The other R1b sample from the same site as I4178 was R1b-Z2105 (I2787). The remaining males (I2741 and I2786) were both I2a.

So, I think we are back to there being no U106 thus far in Kurgan Bell Beaker or maybe a couple of iffy chances that there might have been some.

Thanks for sharing, so we can conclude that it's far from certain that these samples are derived for Z9 and Z18. I guess we have to put Bell Beaker scenario for R1b-U106 back in the freezer.

We have a huge paper with so many Bell Beaker samples from different regions and U106 still fails to show up. We cannot blame this fact on ''lack of samples'' anymore. We truly need some samples from Baltic Bell Beakers though, this could be the place for U106. However, if turns out there is also a shitload of P312 lineages in these Baltic Bell Beaker samples, then it's safe to say that U106 was not an important lineage in Bell Beakers.

rms2
04-01-2018, 08:02 PM
Thanks for sharing, so we can conclude that it's far from certain that these samples are derived for Z9 and Z18. I guess we have to put Bell Beaker scenario for R1b-U106 back in the freezer.

We have a huge paper with so many Bell Beaker samples from different regions and U106 still fails to show up. We cannot blame this fact on ''lack of samples'' anymore. We truly need some samples from Baltic Bell Beakers though, this could be the place for U106. However, if turns out there is also a shitload of P312 lineages in these Baltic Bell Beaker samples, then it's safe to say that U106 was not an important lineage in Bell Beakers.

I agree. One would think U106 would be showing up, if it were part of Kurgan Bell Beaker. It very well could have been part of Kurgan Bell Beaker on the Baltic, as you say. Nothing from Baltic KBB has been tested, so that's the logical conclusion.

I don't know what else to think unless U106 was a minor group in Corded Ware at the time or came in from the steppe a little later than P312 did. Somehow it made it into Czech Unetice, but that doesn't tell us where it was before that (except we know it was in Sweden a couple of centuries before showing up in Unetice).

alan
04-01-2018, 08:52 PM
Beaker Denmark hasn't been sampled for some reason but it's thought to be a Rhenish offshoot. If U106 turned up there it would be a surprise.

Finn
04-02-2018, 08:56 AM
I think the splitting of Celtic theories into the extremes of the old style Unetice-tumulus-urnfield-Hallstatt-LaTene Versus the Celtic from Iberia model is a problem and a mistake. The out of Iberia theory is just plain wrong but the other old style theory is only part of the story and probably has the wrong emphasis.

In its classic state it just doesn’t work either as Unetice, tumulus, urnfield only appear as influences in most of the earliest known Celtic world and when it comes to Hallstatt and La Tene the strong impression that only influences on metalwork still applies to a large amount of the Celtic world where pottery, burial and settlement types do not correspond to those seen in the Hallstatt or La Tene cores.

I think Celtic is more complex because, with a baseline of italo-Celtic from beaker times and a pattern of constant elite interaction (almost certainly reflecting intermarriage) plainly visible in the spread of metalwork fashions, the shifts that led to Celtic from Italo-Celtic were a small thing that could have spread in a friendly way one by one in very gradual shared shifts across 1000+ years. The pattern seen c2400-1000BC across most of the later Celtic zone looks very much like friendly contact without the sort of abrupt changes across all spheres of life of the sort that would indicate invasion. I think the invasive stage of an already long formed Celtic zone was late and wasdirected mainly south and south-east in Europe and is recorded by classical historians. I don’t think that model works well elsewhere or earlier.
,


At 1800-1600 BC North Dutch contained a major stronghold of the Unetice culture.

JJ Butler:

In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex.
By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely undisturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together.

Compared with this:

A closer inspection of the numerous graves, however, provides a completely different picture. Burial structures and grave goods reflect a strictly hierarchical society from as early as 2000 BC (Figure 2; Schwarz 2014; Knoll & Meller 2016). At the top of the social pyramid were the distinctive, so-called ‘princely graves’, such as those found at Leubingen and Helmsdorf. In contrast to the usual crouched burials, the ‘princes’ were buried in a supine position. Their elevated status was demonstrated by a standardised ensemble of gold jewellery consisting of hair-rings, pins and a bracelet, for at least a century between the Leubingen and Helmsdorf burials (Figure 3; Meller 2014: 628–40). Their roles as commanders, rulers and warriors followed an earlier pattern evidenced by unusually large numbers of daggers, halberds and axes in the graves (Hansen 2010: 83–85). This high-status group was followed by a second tier of individuals whose graves did not always contain weapons and who were characterised by far less gold (represented by gold hair-rings, a distinctive feature known since the Bell Beaker Culture) (Meller 2014: 616–28). The third tier included only a few burials containing axes and daggers, while the fourth tier consisted of graves characterised by bronze goods, often in the form of one or two pins. The two bottom tiers contained burials with ceramic vessels only, or completely unfurnished graves (Schwarz 2014: 719–25).

https://www.mupload.nl/img/kv651pa97.png

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/armies-in-the-early-bronze-age-an-alternative-interpretation-of-unetice-culture-axe-hoards/B513FF389674EA20F20A91795CD99232/core-reader

Conclusion The Drouwen chieftain tumulus belonged to the highest ranks graves of the Unetice network.