Tollense warriors PCA (1250 BC) [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Peterski

10-25-2017, 12:04 PM

Mlukas PCA shows genetically Slavic people in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in 1250 BC:

7 "Slavs" + 1 "Balt" vs. 9 "Germanics". And 3 more Southern mercenaries:
(WEZ16 does not count, because it is an older sample from ca. 2900 BC)

http://physical-anthropology.info/pca3.png

http://physical-anthropology.info/pca3.png

https://s1.postimg.org/4y9gr0djjh/pca.png

https://s1.postimg.org/9owld20c3h/pca2.png

More about that battle:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?212321-Bronze-age-Tollense-river-battle-site&p=4451352&viewfull=1#post4451352

Peterski

10-25-2017, 12:11 PM

Bronze Age (ca. 1250 BC) Wezlin (Tollense battlefield) individuals:

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

WEZ57 - Med cluster
WEZ54 - Med cluster
WEZ53 - Balkan cluster

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

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

Phenotype SNPs from Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/phenotype-snps-for-bronze-age-german-warriors/

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 12:56 PM

Muh clusters will reveal nothing significant whatsoever, direct lineages will. Nor do they prove nativeness of Slavs in that area, as great majority came during recent, historically documented period.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 12:58 PM

as great majority came during recent, historically documented period.

Wrong because the migration of Slavs to this area is not historically documented.

The only historically documented migration of Slavs is that to the Balkans.

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 01:10 PM

Wrong because the migration of Slavs to this area is not historically documented.

The only historically documented migration of Slavs is that to the Balkans.
Most of the modern-day Poland was decribed as being inhabited by East Germanic tribes around the 1st century AD and after. Not even going to talk about Germany.
Yet you think that proto-Slavs were inhabiting not only Poland, but parts of Germany more than 1000 years earlier? Not only is this completely unsupported by history, archaeology and ancient DNA (the one we have from 2nd-5th century Poland, for example), but Slavic languages would have diverged far earlier if that was the case, and we would not have the level of mutual intelligibility we have today.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 01:13 PM

Peterski

10-25-2017, 01:20 PM

Yet you think that proto-Slavs were inhabiting not only Poland, but parts of Germany more than 1000 years earlier? Not only is this completely unsupported by history, archaeology

The battle took place in 1250 BC. Please check what cultures occupied East Germany at that time. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was the borderland between Nordic Bronze Age and Lusatian culture.

It only makes sense that the battle was fought between those two populations.

I will post a map, wait a bit.

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 01:28 PM

Actually a Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age migration from Poland to the east is confirmed by archeology. Lusatian-Pomeranian population migrated and participated in the formation of Zarubintsy culture.

These genetically Slavic-like Welzin-Tollense warriors must be from the Lusatian culture.

This area (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) was a borderland between Lusatian and Nordic Bronze Age. The battle was most likely fought between "Lusatians" on one side, and "Nordics" on the other.

And again- even if ancestors of proto-Slavs lived there, there was nearly a thousand years of discontinuity.

Those clusters will not prove anything, unlike direct lineages. And remember, deeper evidence suggests that this was not an ordinary battle, but a raid conducted on a large trading convoy which was dealing with copper and tin, so this means combatants could have come from anywhere.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 01:33 PM

Let's wait for Y-DNA analysis by Genetiker. Here is where the battle took place:

For me it is obvious, that it was fought between "Lusatians" and "Nordics":

https://i.imgur.com/EyHgjzZ.png

Peterski

10-25-2017, 01:49 PM

so this means combatants could have come from anywhere.

But they did not come from anywhere. We have isotope analysis which shows this.

Isotope analysis is for showing geographical origins of ancient individuals. And it detected two major clusters, as well as some outliers who came from other places (these major clusters are surely Nordic Bronze Age and Lusatian, while genetically Med individuals came from the south).

It is painfully obvious that it was a battle between Nordic Bronze Age and Lusatian "cultures". And as you can see, one group is genetically similar to modern Poles, the other to Germanics.

there was nearly a thousand years of discontinuity.

Only if we assume that East Germanic tribes replaced descendants of Lusatian population.

That's not what prof. Kostrzewski claimed.

His theory was that Germanic bands only migrated across Poland on their way south. Lusatian population was not replaced by them but stayed in the area, and later Proto-Slavs originated from it.

Even you admitted that Wielbark culture was multi-ethnic and Goths were only one part of it.

So basically you agree with prof. Kostrzewski. Preliminary Y-DNA and autosomal results of Wielbark samples also seem to support the hypothesis about the multi-ethnic character of that culture.

At least one of Wielbark individuals from Kowalewko is very Eastern shifted autosomally.

and ancient DNA (the one we have from 2nd-5th century Poland, for example)

Wrong. DNA from Wielbark culture shows that it was not a homogeneous population.

Vadim Verenich posted autosomal results of Wielbark individuals from Kowalewko:

Kow45 - autosomally Slavic (closest population: "Ukrainian West"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=253369&viewfull=1#post253369

Kow55 - autosomally Slavic-Germanic mix (closest pop.: "East German"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252860&viewfull=1#post252860

Kow25 - autosomally Germanic (closest pop.: "Central Dutch"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252863&viewfull=1#post252863

Peterski

10-25-2017, 02:03 PM

Those clusters will not prove anything, unlike direct lineages.

Clusters indicate a lot, but of course I'm waiting for confirmation based on direct lineages.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 02:15 PM

Most of the modern-day Poland was decribed as being inhabited by East Germanic tribes

So what? Most of Russia is described as being inhabited by Slavic people.

But you still have Finno-Ugric and other minorities scattered everywhere:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/russia_ethnic94.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Fenno-Ugrian_people.png/300px-Fenno-Ugrian_people.png

Another thing is that not all "ethnic labels" applied by Ancient authors have to be correct. Tacitus when describing some tribes hesitates whether to count them as Germanic or not. He wasn't sure. Roman knowledge about this area was limited, they didn't have spies everywhere.

Loki

10-25-2017, 05:30 PM

Dick

10-25-2017, 05:50 PM

I wonder if one of them are S2077

Hevo

10-25-2017, 05:51 PM

Yeah, this makes sense. It's from before the start of the volkerwanderung, before the Nordic/Germanic peoples moved southwards into the European continent from their Scandinavian and ultimately Hyperborean origin.

Indeed. Technically, those warriors could have not been Proto-Germanics or Proto Balts/Slavs because 1250 BC predates the existence of these groups. It's possible that these warriors were part of closely related groups. Their Y-haplogroups will shed some light on their origins.

Kelmendasi

10-25-2017, 05:53 PM

They will probably find R1a and maybe some I1 or I2

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 05:56 PM

Are you always schizophrenic like this when you are in disagreement? Thumbing down, posting multiple responses to same point, even posting visitor messages on profiles of those members who thumbed me up.

But they did not come from anywhere. We have isotope analysis which shows this.

Isotope analysis is for showing geographical origins of ancient individuals. And it detected two major clusters, as well as some outliers who came from other places (these major clusters are surely Nordic Bronze Age and Lusatian, while genetically Med individuals came from the south).

It is painfully obvious that it was a battle between Nordic Bronze Age and Lusatian "cultures". And as you can see, one group is genetically similar to modern Poles, the other to Germanics.
Yet your explanation of it being border quarrel is nonsensical.
Firstly, because areas of certain archeological cultures are subject to reinterpretations and are not nearly as stable as borders of modern states.
Secondly, lots of tin ingots and lots of copper (not coming from armament or similar) were found on the battlefield. No one carries this to the battle, but trades it.
Thirdly, there were skeletons of women and children found as well, and they are someone whom you never take to the battle.

It is painfully obvious that a large caravan (which could have come from distant lands) which traded tin and copper (famous Amber Road is nearby) was attacked near the Tollense river by a warband that could literally be from anywhere.

Even you admitted that Wielbark culture was multi-ethnic and Goths were only one part of it.

So basically you agree with prof. Kostrzewski. Preliminary Y-DNA and autosomal results of Wielbark samples also seem to support the hypothesis about the multi-ethnic character of that culture.
Yes, I did say so. However, preliminary Y-DNA results don't seem to show Slavic influence at all.

At least one of Wielbark individuals from Kowalewko is very Eastern shifted autosomally.
And my countrymen are shifted more towards Gagauz, Bulgarians and southern Germans (with whom we share no recent ancestry) than towards Bosnians, with whom we share tons and tons of recent common ancestry, so what? You and similar Davidski fuckwit fanboys are taking it quite like a Holy Scripture.

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 05:59 PM

Yeah, this makes sense. It's from before the start of the volkerwanderung, before the Nordic/Germanic peoples moved southwards into the European continent from their Scandinavian and ultimately Hyperborean origin.
No, not at all. Germanic peoples are by paternal lineages generally mix of R1 (R1b-U106, R1a-Z284, plus some other branches) Indo-European invaders from the east, plus I1 which came only during the late Neolithic. "Hyperborean origins" are nothing more than a fairy tale, descendants of true Scandinavian natives do not live in greatest frequencies there anymore.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 06:00 PM

Indeed. Technically, those warriors could have not been Proto-Germanics or Proto Balts/Slavs because 1250 BC predates the existence of these groups. It's possible that these warriors were part of closely related groups. Their Y-haplogroups will shed some light on their origins.

How so? Wasn't the Nordic Bronze Age a Proto-Germanic culture?

which traded tin and copper (famous Amber Road is nearby)

The Amber Road did not exist at that time, during the Bronze Age.

Kelmendasi

10-25-2017, 06:03 PM

No, not at all. Germanic peoples are by paternal lineages generally mix of R1 (R1b-U106, R1a-Z284, plus some other branches) Indo-European invaders from the east, plus I1 which came only during the late Neolithic. "Hyperborean origins" are nothing more than a fairy tale, descendants of true Scandinavian natives do not live in greatest frequencies there anymore.
Did I1 form in Europe during the Neolithic from I in Europe or from I peoples somewhere else?

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 06:12 PM

The Amber Road did not exist at that time, during the Bronze Age.
It didn't, but amber was traded between Baltic area and southern Europe from at least 16th century B.C.

Did I1 form in Europe during the Neolithic from I in Europe or from I peoples somewhere else?
It is still unclear. What is known, though, is that it probably formed from an extremely bottlenecked I clade which experienced founder effect after switching to agriculture. Earliest I1 was found in Neolithic Hungary, alongside G2a's.
It is completely sure that it did not form in northern Europe as was thought earlier.

Kelmendasi

10-25-2017, 06:15 PM

It didn't, but amber was traded between Baltic area and southern Europe from at least 16th century B.C.

It is still unclear. What is known, though, is that it probably formed from an extremely bottlenecked I clade which experienced founder effect after switching to agriculture. Earliest I1 was found in Neolithic Hungary, alongside G2a's.
It is completely sure that it did not form in northern Europe as was thought earlier.
I'd say that it did probably originate in Europe although in central Europe as suggested by the I1 found in Hungary

Loki

10-25-2017, 06:20 PM

No, not at all. Germanic peoples are by paternal lineages generally mix of R1 (R1b-U106, R1a-Z284, plus some other branches) Indo-European invaders from the east, plus I1 which came only during the late Neolithic. "Hyperborean origins" are nothing more than a fairy tale, descendants of true Scandinavian natives do not live in greatest frequencies there anymore.

Forget about the Hyperborean part, it was added for spice. The rest you should agree with.

Loki

10-25-2017, 06:21 PM

It is completely sure that it did not form in northern Europe as was thought earlier.

You are too "completely sure" about things it seems, you come across as biased.

Peterski

10-25-2017, 06:21 PM

Earliest I1 was found in Neolithic Hungary, alongside G2a's. It is completely sure that it did not form in northern Europe as was thought earlier.

That is wrong, there is also I1 from Gotland, about as old as that from Hungary:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

Ülev

10-25-2017, 06:23 PM

Below is a map of confirmed instances of I-M26 found in prehistoric remains. Lots of others could have potentially been added -- ancestral clades, closely related sister clades, and ones where the coverages is insufficient to determine whether it is indeed M26 (or L672 L160 etc.) But we decided to err on the side of being conservative.

Going chronologically, we have M26 in what is now Sweden, at the Motala site, at 7730 BP (Before Present). These were Hunter/Gatherers.

http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/06/ancient-dna-provides-new-understanding.html

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 06:24 PM

Forget about the Hyperborean part, it was added for spice. The rest you should agree with.
In general, yes, although people tend to underestimate the size of proto-Germanic settlement in northern Germany, limiting it to a puny patch of land near Danish border.

You are too "completely sure" about things it seems, you come across as biased.
I am completely sure based on ancient DNA, not on my own opinions. I never cared how do I come across, only if what I say is true or not.

Kelmendasi

10-25-2017, 06:26 PM

That is wrong, there is also I1 from Gotland, about as old as that from Hungary:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/
Interesting, could of migrated from central Europe though

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 06:32 PM

That is wrong, there is also I1 from Gotland, about as old as that from Hungary:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

No, this is totally Genetiker's own interpretation of the sample, unsupported by any other source. He is known for blatant sci-fi, such as R1b in Gravettian Europe (it took long to convince him otherwise), "White Gods of Peru", and similar. Among other things, he wanted to prove there was I1 in pre-Neolithic Scandinavia.

Mesolithic Scandinavia was packed to the brim with I2a1b and I2a1a-L1287 (one I2c-L597 in Motala).

Hevo

10-25-2017, 06:37 PM

How so? Wasn't the Nordic Bronze Age a Proto-Germanic culture?

Nordic Bronze Age is considered as Pre-Proto Germanic. Proto-Germanic is generally agreed to have begun about 500 BC in Jastorf Culture. (Although there are still some discussions)

Peterski

10-25-2017, 06:38 PM

No, this is totally Genetiker's own interpretation of the sample

No, others independently confirmed these calls as far as I know.

Genetiker is biased but not when it comes to analyzing genetic data.

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 06:42 PM

No, others independently confirmed these calls as far as I know.

Genetiker is biased but not when it comes to analyzing genetic data.

No. Both Skoglund (2013) and Gunther (2017) analyzed Stora Forvar samples and reported absolutely none of them as I1.

aherne

10-25-2017, 07:06 PM

I think at that age they were still late "Indo-Europeans" (Aryans). Just think of it: people around spoke Germanic before Grimm's Law and Balto-Slavic before Winter/RUKI law. The Lausitz culture area people most likely spoke an intermediate form in what was at that time just a dialect continuum that stretched from steppes to Ireland. Still a single ethnic group at that time...

Dick

10-25-2017, 07:31 PM

And my countrymen are shifted more towards Gagauz, Bulgarians and southern Germans (with whom we share no recent ancestry) than towards Bosnians, with whom we share tons and tons of recent common ancestry, so what? You and similar Davidski fuckwit fanboys are taking it quite like a Holy Scripture.It's a shame that some use dna as a political tool by using cherrypicked samples to divide obvious ethnic kin. A southwest slav will have Much more southwest slav "autosmal relatives" on 23AM than either Romanians and Bulgarians or other balkan nations. It should be just a hobby of interest nothing more.

Dick

10-25-2017, 07:48 PM

So there wasn't a battle?

cosmoo

10-25-2017, 07:57 PM

So there wasn't a battle?
There was a battle, but it was not as interpreted by OP (border quarrel). It was most probably a large-scale attack on caravan route (the goods were seemingly very well-protected).

Peterski

10-26-2017, 11:00 AM

Muh clusters will reveal nothing significant whatsoever, direct lineages will.

So far we have 4 samples of Y-DNA from Early Medieval Poland:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?225194-Y-DNA-in-Early-Medieval-Poland

Summary of Y-DNA from Early Medieval Polish samples (tested so far):

ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
GO_1, Gniezno (1000-1200 AD), R1b1a2-L150.1
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26

As you can it is nowhere near 100% R1a as some people probably expected.

So ether Proto-Slavs were much more diverse in terms of Y-DNA haplogroups than you think, or the area of Poland was not as depopulated during the Migration Period as you think.

Peterski

10-26-2017, 12:28 PM

Early Slavic homelands:

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

http://slavicchronicles.com/history/antes-and-sclavenes-around-500-ad-according-to-jordanes/

https://i0.wp.com/slavicchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/mapa.png?fit=815%2C483

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

https://s8.postimg.org/i8lftihjp/Expansion.png

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

https://s24.postimg.org/cc2rleys5/Urheimat.png

Lucas

10-26-2017, 01:47 PM

Polako PCA

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/tollense-valley-bronze-age-warriors.html

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yvHaAqTg--g/WfHMXKgF9AI/AAAAAAAAGLE/4XnXXO9pp-YAETU6nixx7KqyMADyA8WewCLcBGAs/s1600/Tollense_Valley_warrirors_PCA.png

Polako PCA with added WEZ numbers and cluster names.

http://physical-anthropology.info/pca-polako1.png

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

http://physical-anthropology.info/PCA-polako-nofinns.png

Lucas

10-26-2017, 02:06 PM

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

http://physical-anthropology.info/ward-tree.png

Lucas

10-26-2017, 02:28 PM

WEZ kits on Gedmatch, K36 values

http://physical-anthropology.info/wez.jpg

Lucas

10-26-2017, 06:49 PM

Bigger clusters on Davidski PCA

I think it was invasion of furious proto-Slovenians and proto-Hungarians who wanted to conquer Mecklemburg:)

http://physical-anthropology.info/pca4.png

XenophobicPrussian

10-27-2017, 09:52 PM

Bigger clusters on Davidski PCA

I think it was invasion of furious proto-Slovenians and proto-Hungarians who wanted to conquer Mecklemburg:)

http://physical-anthropology.info/pca4.png
This is irrelevant. All this PCA, with only those few ethnicities, and d-stats show is these people from Mecklenburg contributed very recently and more to these populations. It's ignoring all the stuff in Slovenians/Hungarians/etc that isn't in high amounts among French, Irish, Estonians, Scandinavians, etc. Davidski only included these specific populations in the PCA for a reason.

These Mecklenburg people had a 100% derived rate of OCA2, meaning they all had a vast majority chance of getting blue eyes. No groups of Hungarians or Slovenians are similar to that.

Despite Litvin's weird propaganda trying to tie these people to Slavs, they were most autosomally similar to modern Scandinavians and Germans, just as the nearby Wielbark people were. Slavs came from the east and conquered/mixed with these people. All the d-stats and closeness of this limited PCA show is that these guys are more direct descendants of Slavs than they are modern Germanic people.

https://s1.postimg.org/7h8suzlydp/welzin-thetruth.jpg

On a seperate note, I suspect the 2 Basque and Iberian like individuals were not mercenaries from southern Europe(very unlikely in 1600 BC when travel was extremely limited), but proto-Celtic mercenaries from southern Germany or France, and formerly Celtic areas(France to Austria) have shifted more north today autosomally with the Germanic and Slavic expansions. Maybe the guy on this forum who keeps raving about Basques being the original Celts was right. Another theory is Europe remained genetically divided by caste that late, but I doubt that.

Dick

10-27-2017, 10:03 PM

This is irrelevant. All this PCA, with only those few ethnicities, and d-stats show is these people from Mecklenburg contributed very recently and more to these populations. It's ignoring all the stuff in Slovenians/Hungarians/etc that isn't in high amounts among French, Irish, Estonians, Scandinavians, etc. Davidski only included these specific populations in the PCA for a reason.

These Mecklenburg people had a 100% derived rate of OCA2, meaning they all had a vast majority chance of getting blue eyes. No groups of Hungarians or Slovenians are similar to that.

Despite Litvin's weird propaganda trying to tie these people to Slavs, they were most autosomally similar to modern Scandinavians and Germans, just as the nearby Wielbark people were. Slavs came from the east and conquered/mixed with these people. All the d-stats and closeness of this limited PCA show is that these guys are more direct descendants of Slavs than they are modern Germanic people.

https://s1.postimg.org/7h8suzlydp/welzin-thetruth.jpg

On a seperate note, I suspect the 2 Basque and Iberian like individuals were not mercenaries from southern Europe(very unlikely in 1600 BC when travel was extremely limited), but proto-Celtic mercenaries from southern Germany or France, and formerly Celtic areas(France to Austria) have shifted more north today autosomally with the Germanic and Slavic expansions. Maybe the guy on this forum who keeps raving about Basques being the original Celts was right. Another theory is Europe remained genetically divided by caste that late, but I doubt that.

I ran one of the "Slavic warrior" Kit numbers on Gedmatch. On Eurogenes his single pop is Polish, on other calcs Icelandic.

Peterski

11-28-2017, 02:18 PM

And remember, deeper evidence suggests that this was not an ordinary battle, but a raid conducted on a large trading convoy

That was old hypothesis, now there are new findings:

https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article171024374/Fernhandel-provozierte-groesste-Schlacht-der-Bronzezeit.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fgeschichte%2Farticle 171024374%2FFernhandel-provozierte-groesste-Schlacht-der-Bronzezeit.html&sandbox=1

Several conclusions based on these new findings:

1) Types of arrows used in battle indicate that some warriors came from the East (this type of arrow was rare in the West),

2) People from a few cultures took part in the battle: Nordic Bronze Age, Lüneburg from the west, Lusatian culture from the east.

3) One army marched from the west and while crossing the bridge, was ambushed from the east. The defeated western army was then being chased by easterners over at least 2,5 kilometers. The victors buried their deads, while the defeated ones left them behind.

4) This German article calls it "the greatest battle of the Bronze Age".

So it will be easy to distinguish DNA of people from one army and those from the other army.

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

That was Bronze Age Tannenberg, West vs. East: :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DavvCuOJs