Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 606

Thread: How far has Central European Bronze and Iron Ages pushed to the North?

  1. #591
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    What Sögel-Wohlde was for the Ingveaonics is Hilversum/Wessex for the Istvaeonics:

    https://www.wikipe.wiki/wiki/nl/Wessex-cultuur


  2. #592
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeyP37 View Post
    On the YTree basal U106 without subclade is found in Pomerania, Sweden, and two provinces of Spain that were settled by Goths. I'm not here to debate any cultural links between the pre-Germanic population and the south, but that U106 formed in the north, in the Single Grave Cultures.
    R-Z156 looks typical a subclade that could be connected with Hilversum/Wessex culture.....(^^^^^).

    Ian Mc Donald

    R-Z156 exhibits very different frequencies. This comes in the context of our ancient DNA burial in Unetice-culture Prague. It is largely absent from eastern Europe, except for a handful of results near the Black Sea that I have previously suggested arise from the dissolution of the Unetice culture and subsequent migration along trade routes to the east. For R-DF98, these can be traced all the way around the Black Sea, potentially as far as Iran. R-Z156 is also rare in north-eastern Europe and Scandinavia. It exhibits high relative frequencies in southern Europe (27% of R-U106, although R-U106 it is still rare overall) and in north-central Europe and the British Isles, particularly France and the island of Ireland. This is consistent with most R-Z156 dissolving out of the Unetice culture and into the Tumulus culture, then spreading westwards into the Celtic Nations with the Celtic migrations. R-Z156 is rare in England compared to the rest of the British Isles, corroborating the fact that this includes an indigenous population of Britons pushed out by later Germanic migrations. This may be a much stornger statement than it appears, as the high French percentage means that we expect a lot of R-Z156 in the British Isles to be sourced from the Norman conquest and later Norman and Aquitainian interaction, partly undoing this Brittano-Germanic divide.
    Last edited by Finn; 07-22-2021 at 05:21 PM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     Trelvern (08-30-2021)

  4. #593
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post

    Both pretty sure connected with Gata-Wieselburg, Danube area, most western outskirt of the Carpathians.

    An add
    The Gata Wieselburg people obviously bypassed the Uneticians in EBA:

    The direct Scandinavian access to the Carpathian basin and the Transdanubian plains that was opened up by the Unetice collapse c. 1600 BC increased importance in the sixteenth century BC as signs of contact appear with tell settlements in the Koszider period (Fĺrdrup-Hajdu ́sámso Sögel metalwork) and the earliest Middle Danube tumulus groups in Bronze Age B1 (Valsřmagle metalwork). What we see here may be the consolidation of the eastern route, the extension of which now went as far as the Aegean, where Baltic amber was included in the extraordinary shaft grave assemblages of Mycenae [143–146].

    Halfway between southern Scandinavia and the Carpathian–Transdanubian crossroads, the Nebra hoard, with its twin sets of Hajdu ́sa ́mson-derived weaponry made of Mitterberg copper and perhaps even tin from Cornwall [40,41], marks the place where the eastern route branched in two. One of these branches was a westerly itinerary along the River Elbe to the Sögel-Wohlde region of north-west Europe, while a north-easterly and similarly riverine itinerary headed towards the Baltic Sea, crossing over to the Danish isles and Scania. In Scandinavia, these changes concurred with formation of a new social order, identified by an emblematic style among prominent warriors in the incipient NBA.

    This period saw the first rush of construction of large burial mounds [122,123], erected as monuments to commemorate individual founders of this warrior class who carried Valsřmagle-type gear. Crucially in NBA IB, Italian AATV copper is faintly discernible among the copper provenances in the Bronze Age dataset. This development signals the onset of changes that came to full fruition after c. 1500–1450 BC.

    In NBA II (1500–1300 BC), British copper is no longer detectable in the dataset. This may mean that the sea-based trade between southern Scandinavia and the British Isles had declined or ceased and that Italian AATV copper had seized dominance (see S1 Fig), which is in accor- dance with established knowledge [7,8]. This takeover coincided with establishment of the full-grown NBA, with burial mounds by the thousand and a unifying metalwork style that branded the upper social echelon of men and women in distinct yet shared ways. This tie-up with a prevailingly western riverine and land-based route now connected the NBA region with the South German Tumulus culture and the first transalpine amber traffic. Abundant finds of Baltic amber in the rich mound burials of the South German Tumulus region [147] indicate a major shift in alliances and trading routes. Material culture wise, there are several similarities between the classic NBA II and the South German Tumulus group e.g. [5,50]. Baltic amber was now travelling across the Alps and likely passed through Val Camonica to the Po valley, continuing from there to Apulian coastal entrepots like Roca Vecchia [119,148,149] in South Italy.
    Shifting networks and mixing metals: Changing metal trade routes to Scandinavia correlate with Neolithic and Bronze Age transformations
    June 2021PLoS ONE 16(6)(e0252376.):1-42 Follow journal
    Last edited by Finn; 07-29-2021 at 06:51 AM.

  5. #594
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    The disadvantage of a forum is that the info is bit by bit...nevertheless when I compare.

    Koch 2020:
    Within the CWC area, the dialect shift that Ringe at al.2002 envision for Pre-Germanic on purely linguistic evidence has an analogue in archaeology. ~2500 BC the Beaker phenomenon entered the CWC area from the west and henceforth interacted and partly fused with CWC in West-central Europe, in a zone extending as far east as the Middle Danube.
    Linguistically, these developments suggest an intensification of contacts towards Pre-Italo-Celtic and reduction of contacts with Pre- Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian. Now confronting the evidence that most CG words are not detectable as loanwords, it seems likely that Pre- Germanic and Pre-Italo-Celtic simply continued to be close long into the Bronze Age.
    Nřrgaard e.a. 2021:
    The direct Scandinavian access to the Carpathian basin and the Transdanubian plains that was opened up by the Unetice collapse c. 1600 BC increased importance in the sixteenth century BC as signs of contact appear with tell settlements in the Koszider period (Fĺrdrup-Hajdu ́sámso Sögel metalwork) and the earliest Middle Danube tumulus groups in Bronze Age
    One of these branches was a westerly itinerary along the River Elbe to the Sögel-Wohlde region of north-west Europe
    Kuzmenko 2011:

    Archaeological findings do not contradict the assumption about the formation of Italic innovations on the territory of modern northwestern Germany and about the existence of Italo-Germanic and Italo-Celtic contact zones on the northern and southern borders of the proposed Proto-Italic homeland. They indicate the existence of archaeological cultures which differ both from the cultures which were traditionally connected with the ancestors of the Germanic peoples and from the Celtic cultures. The archaeological correspondence to the region where Proto-Italic was being formed shows that this could be the culture of Sögel-Wohlde (1800–1000 BC) and other preceding archaeological cultures of the area.
    Combined with this pretty recent Hungarian study from 2020 the picture is imo getting more and more clear:

    Bringing Down the Iron Curtain
    Paradigmatic change in research on the Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe?


    Study of complex networks and mobility


    Interregional interactions expanded considerably during the Early Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, and new networks were built in new directions that contributed significantly to the later developments of the Bronze Age in Hungary. According to the preliminary analysis of the Early Bronze Age we may say that major shifts can be noted in the interaction networks of the central regions of the Carpathian Basin during the 3rd millennium BC, specifically during the roughly 500 years preceding the onset of the Bronze Age. In the Early Bronze Age (between 2500/2400 and 2000 BC), we can observe a transformation that probably grew out of the contact of a southern, Balkan, and a north- -western and central European network within the Carpathian Basin. From this time onward, contact with the north-west and the south assumed a greater importance, with the Danube acting as the main axis of communication. The background of these connections, an invisible world of concepts, ideas and innovations, can be revealed through thorough analyses, in which network studies play a key role.


    (Sögel Wohlde in red by Finn)

    Beside movement of ideas, studies of human mobility also have a long tradition in interpreting the observed changes in the archaeological record. The close of the Copper Age and the onset of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin was explained by the arrival of population groups from the east (Pit-grave/Yamnaya culture) and from the west (Bell Beaker groups), who also brought with them the technology and know-how of bronze metallurgy which gave the period its name (Patay 1938: 32–34). Following the start of palaeoenvironmental studies during the 1990s, the probable impact of the changes in the region’s climate and vegetation, as well as the possible socio-economic transformations in their wake, were considered as potential factors stimulating changes in settlement patterns, such as the abandonment of the flourishing Middle Bronze Age tell settlements, or for explaining the widespread distribution of ceramic styles or vessel types (such as bell beakers and bowls with interior decoration) and funerary rites (kurgans or tumuli) across vast territories of Europe (Sherratt 1991; Heyd 2007). However, the possibility of migrations should not be automatically rejected, especially in view of the later, Migration period and early medieval history of the Carpathian Basin and recent aDNA data (Alt et al. 2014; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2015). Migration is indeed an important social strategy, often used both individually and by communities to solve their problems and better their situation. A basic question remains: Who moved: people, objects or ideas?


    Two recent case studies provide interesting data regarding mobility. The first is connected to the Yamnaya communities. The tradition of erecting burial mounds is a widespread phenomenon in south-east Europe during the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age, not restricted to one archaeological culture. The kurgan burials of eastern Hungary have provided a wealth of exciting new information (Pető and Barczi 2011, Horváth et al. 2013). The radiocarbon dates for the Sárrétudvari kurgan gave a date in the 4th/3rd millennium cal BC and indi-cated three distinct burial phases. The stable iso- tope analyses yielded some surprising results. As it turned out, the earliest burials were of individuals who grew up in the Sárrétudvari area, because there was nothing to prove that they had been immigrants. In contrast, recent analyses indicated that the individuals interred in the later burials had grown up in a higher-lying, wetter region.

    The parallels of the grave pottery suggested a possible connection with the Livezile/Ampoiţa group living in the nearby Apuşeni Mountains in Transylvania. An international research team argued for a potential connection to the sites under discussion, in the knowledge that no comparative skeletal remains from Transylvania were available at that time (Gerling et al. 2012). According to more recent research, the stable isotope analyses once again yielded some surprising results. Six human individuals from four Transylvanian sites were selected for 87Sr/86Sr and δ18O isotopic analyses. Although the data set is far too small to gain answers on a statistically signifi-cant basis, in the light of this complementary data set it can be assumed that the isotopic outliers from Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom do not agree with the results from the selected Transylvanian sample sites. So our questions remain unanswered (Gerling and Ciugudean 2013).

    Another case study is the Bell Beaker population in central Hungary. Bohemian and German samples indicate the presence of women arriving from as far away as 200 km, suggesting a practice of exogamous marriage. In the light of stable isotope analyses of samples from six burials from the Budapest region, the results show a complex picture of locals and incomers (Fig. 3), including non-local men and women (Price et al. 2004; Kulcsár 2011). Our new research project continues these analyses, focusing on communities in whose case the traditional explanation for the widespread distribution of a particular ceramic style or funerary rite was the appearance of new (‘foreign’) population groups, as in case of Bell Beaker and Tumulus cultures (P. Fischl et al. 2015; Kiss 2016; Kiss et al. in press).

    Networks are also important factors in modern archaeological research. Cooperation between re-searchers in the countries of Central Europe (Fig. 4) has provided new perspectives in understanding prehistoric social contacts, and the Bronze Age ‘Europe without walls’. Ongoing studies concerning settlement, bronze metallurgy, bioarchaeological and network analysis, provide a more complex picture of the regional and temporal dynamics of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC in the Carpathian Basin.
    Not to mention the two concrete Sögel-Wohlde cases: the princes of Fallingbostel and the chieftain of Drouwen (see previous postings here) that are without doubt related to this context!
    Last edited by Finn; 07-30-2021 at 09:17 AM.

  6. #595
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Rostock is on the Baltic coast and that area is what I include in my perception of "Northern Europe". I mean it is right across Denmark for one and the entire region (or latitude even) to me has always been closer to the north in a cultural and genetic sense so I personally would not consider it Central Europe, at least not in historical terms.

    A U106 origin there would actually corroborate my take rather than dispute to be honest as it is quite a distance away from the core Unetice region, where the U106 sample was found.
    Just a few months later and the scenario of Unetician/ middle Danubian EBA people, incl. R1b U106, spread to the North Sea Coast and founded the Sögel-Wohlde culture, the 'kickstart of the Nordic Bronze Age' has become more likely!

    Synopsis:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....330#post796330


    I made some bet with Angles, about some kind of Dutch beer....mmm I guess I deserve a nice Sancerre now Angles!
    Last edited by Finn; 08-30-2021 at 07:28 AM.

  7. #596
    Registered Users
    Posts
    764
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Just a few months later and the scenario of Unetician/ middle Danubian EBA people, incl. R1b U106, spread to the North Sea Coast and founded the Sögel-Wohlde culture, the 'kickstart or the Nordic Bronze' has become more likely!

    Synopsis:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....330#post796330


    I made some bet with Angles, about some kind of Dutch beer....mmm I guess I deserve a nice Sancerre now Angles!
    The Unetice samples in the article don't exactly look like a U106 hotbed though right. Where are the other lineages which were prominent with the Uneticeians who by your estimates replaced like half of the paternal lineages in Northern Europe?

    Sell or no sell: Single Grave / Beakers north of the lower Rhine already had U106 amongst the L51 derived haplogroups present in the region.

    Davidski's comments from a while back suggested he had seen U106 amongst P312 with upcoming Bell Beaker samples from the big swamp and he seems quite confident that U106 was quite prevalent amongst the SGC (and probably Beakers north of the Rhine/Vecht), and I see no reason doubting that confidence as it makes tons of sense from all angles really.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (08-30-2021),  JoeyP37 (08-30-2021)

  9. #597
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,934
    Sex
    Location
    Brittany
    Nationality
    French
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-U106>DF98>BY650
    mtDNA (M)
    K1a

    France Bretagne Trégor France Bretagne Kroaz Du
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    R-Z156 looks typical a subclade that could be connected with Hilversum/Wessex culture.....(^^^^^).

    Ian Mc Donald
    I am U106/Z381/Z156/DF98/S1911...BY650

    Is this map from SNP tracker correct?
    I guess it is not.Capture d’écran 2021-08-30 ŕ 09.42.13.png

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Trelvern For This Useful Post:

     Finn (08-30-2021)

  11. #598
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    The Unetice samples in the article don't exactly look like a U106 hotbed though right. Where are the other lineages which were prominent with the Uneticeians who by your estimates replaced like half of the paternal lineages in Northern Europe?

    Sell or no sell: Single Grave / Beakers north of the lower Rhine already had U106 amongst the L51 derived haplogroups present in the region.

    Davidski's comments from a while back suggested he had seen U106 amongst P312 with upcoming Bell Beaker samples from the big swamp and he seems quite confident that U106 was quite prevalent amongst the SGC (and probably Beakers north of the Rhine/Vecht), and I see no reason doubting that confidence as it makes tons of sense from all angles really.
    Crucial is the remark of Iain that the Bohemian early CW R1b U106 comes close to the 'proband' the earliest R1b U106. He originates it in Czech or surrounding area. No Rostock, no Scania.....

    By the way Bell Beaker live in the Dutch areqs mostly on sandy heights (some along the dunes) like the Veluwe and Hondsrug not in swamps

    One Dutch BB R1b U106 would not disturb this all..because then it must be an East Beaker offshoot? And I don't think there was a founder effect of R1b U106 along the Dutch BB, at least no indices. It's saillant that British BB have no R1b U106 and as they are probably a Dutch BB derivative....or were BB R1b U106 not welcome a board?

    The fact that from the Unetician/ middle Danube area there was a real migration to the North Sea Coast (Sögel-Wohlde) and that hotspot area of R1b U106 fully correspondences with the Sögel Wohlde area are illustrating.....
    Last edited by Finn; 08-30-2021 at 12:20 PM.

  12. #599
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,783
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Finn ^^ I am always amazed by your propensity to withhold from sources that you yourself cite only what is best for you and to carefully avoid anything that might be embarrassing. Thus what McDonald himself writes about Z18 (which is, I remind you, the most specifically Scandinavian subgroup of U106).

    R-U106 probably formed some time between about 3200 BC and 2950 BC. I suspect somewhere close to 3050 BC. Depending on the exact time, it may already have been present in the initial migrant population, or our R-U106 ancestor may have been born during this migration period. Either way, it formed before the Corded Ware A horizon swept much of Europe, so it was early on in the migration.

    I suspect that the first few generations of R-L151 remained tied together at the start, but that they parted ways somewhere very close to the Czech Republic, around 2900 BC. The first indication of geographical differences we see in R-U106 is R-Z156, and we have a descendant R-Z156 as part of the Unetice Culture appearing later in that millennium in Prague itself. So I suspect the nascent R-Z156 and the ancestors of R-S1688 (and its downstream R-U198) were left to their own devices in what is now the Czech Republic, while most of the rest of R-L151 kept pushing west. This is very approximate, because we don't sample many of the surrounding nations well.

    In that westward expansion, I suspect that the ancestors of R-Z18 took the most northerly passage, ending up in the Battle Axe culture of southern Scandinavia.
    Whatever may be, in any case, the future developments of this history, they alone do not hold the keys to the genesis of the Norse Bronze, nor of the Germanic linguistic family. As for the obsession that gives this discussion thread its title, there is nothing new to say about it. It's a set idea, that's all. By the way, I'm sure David already knew the results of the Czech study when he sent you packing by accusing your "wild imagination".
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (08-30-2021),  JMcB (08-30-2021),  JoeyP37 (08-30-2021)

  14. #600
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,940
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Trelvern View Post
    I am U106/Z381/Z156/DF98/S1911...BY650

    Is this map from SNP tracker correct?
    I guess it is not.Capture d’écran 2021-08-30 ŕ 09.42.13.png
    I don't think so R1b U106 seems not to become past the source of the Weser, that's too southern imo.
    Last edited by Finn; 08-30-2021 at 08:33 AM.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (08-30-2021),  Trelvern (08-30-2021)

Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 93
    Last Post: 07-23-2020, 05:39 PM
  2. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 07-08-2020, 07:59 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-22-2020, 03:10 PM
  4. Impact of Unetice or Central European Bronze Age!?
    By Finn in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2018, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2017, 05:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •