Four of the samples from the recent
Frei et al. paper on human mobility in prehistoric southern Scandinavia are in my
Global25 datasheets. Their genomes were published along with
Allentoft et al. back in 2015. So I thought it might be interesting to check whether their strontium isotope ratios correlated with their genomic profiles.
In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below, RISE61 is a subtle outlier along the horizontal axis compared to the other three Nordic ancients, as well as a Danish individual representative of the present-day Danish gene pool. Also note that RISE61 shows the most unusual strontium isotope ratio (0.712588). The PCA was run with an online tool freely available
here.
To help drive the point home, here's a figure from Frei et al., edited by me to show the positions of RISE47, RISE61 and RISE71. If RISE276 was also in this graph, he'd be sitting well under the "local" baseline, in roughly the same spot along the vertical axis as RISE47.
Interestingly, RISE61 belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417, while RISE47 and RISE276, who appear to have been locals, both belong to R1b-M269. My guess is that RISE61 was a recent migrant from a more northerly part of Scandinavia dominated by the Battle-Axe culture (BAC). The BAC population was probably rich in R1a-M417 because it moved into Scandinavia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe via the East Baltic. This is what Frei et al. say about RISE61 and his burial site:
The double passage grave of Kyndeløse (Fig 1, S1 File) located on the island of Zealand yielded 70 individuals as well as a large number of grave goods, including flint artefacts, ceramics, and tooth and amber beads. We conducted strontium isotope analyses of seven individuals from Kyndeløse encompassing a period of c. 1000 years, indicating the prolonged use of this passage grave. The oldest of the seven individuals is a female (RISE 65) from whom we measured a “local” strontium isotope signature ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.7099). Similar values were measured in five other individuals, including adult males and females. Only a single individual from Kyndeløse, an adult male (RISE 61) yielded a somewhat different strontium isotope signature of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.7126 which seems to indicate a non-local provenance. The skull of this male individual revealed healed porosities in the eye orbits, cribra orbitalia, a condition which is possibly linked to a vitamin deficiency during childhood, such as iron deficiency.
By the way, RISE47 was buried in a flat grave, which suggests that he was a commoner. RISE276 was found in a peat bog in Trundholm, where the famous Trundholm sun chariot was discovered (see
here). He may have been a human sacrifice.
Citation...
Frei KM, Bergerbrant S, Sjögren K-G, Jørkov ML, Lynnerup N, Harvig L, et al. (2019)
Mapping human mobility during the third and second millennia BC in present-day Denmark. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0219850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219850
See also...
Commoner or elite?
Who were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age?
They came, they saw, and they mixed
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245@Drago
Galley graves are from TRB period. They’re reused in later periods
No, TRB built passage graves, the gallery graves are an LN/EBA thing (in Scandinavia).
N.B.: The material culture of EH III seamlessly evolves into that of Middle Helladic I, which, in turn, seamlessly evolves into that of MH II and later into the “Shaft Grave period”, which starts NOT in LH I as it was believed until 1950s, but in MH III, i.e. 1800 BC in higher chronology and 1700 BC in lower. The tholos tradition is not the predecessor of the shaft grave tradition, it is its exact contemporary, with the earliest tholoi starting in Messenia also in MH III ,as the first shaft graves were starting in the Argolid around the same time. The distinction is geographical.
The changes that happened in the MH III and LH I periods (chariots, wealth accumulation, appearance of material from the Baltic, Crete, Anatolia, distinct type of Mycenaean weaponry, etc.) NOW are certain to have appeared “gradually”, after the excavation of MH III tholos and settlement assemblages and most important, Grave Circle B shaft graves, the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline.
Aegean prehistorians have not really been interested into “which ethno-linguistic group came when and where and whence” type of questions for a long time now, not because they are clueless but because they believe that there are more interesting questions to ask in archaeological analysis. For the minority who still think about these issues, who are mostly linguists rather than archaeologists, the evidence I summarised above might indicate the following:
A)For the proponents of the “Luwian hypothesis”, i.e. scholars who believe that a Luwian-like language was one of the pre-Greek indigenous languages spoken in Greece (and perhaps Crete).
A.1.) A pre-Greek Luwian-like substratum was the language of the the EH I and II cultures of southern Greece, in this case a hiatus following final Neolithic in southern Greece would fit the general picture better. Greek-speakers must have come from Anatolia with the Lefkandi 1/Kastri Group and later infiltrating Peloponnese in EH III (i.e. 2400-2200). In this case Greek & perhaps Armenian would have to be in Anatolia EBA I, the former migrating westward, the latter staying in the east.
PROBLEM: No evidence for a Greek-like substratum in any of the western Anatolian MBA toponyms. The Lefkandi 1/Kastri/Anatolian assemblage does *not* really reach Macedonia and the Balkans, which is problematic in terms of Phrygian, which is very close to Greek and for the later northern Greek dialects including ancient Macedonian. Wilusa (Troy) having Alaksandu in the LBA doesn’t mean much for the EBA mobility, and can be explained by Trojan LBA contact with the Mycenaeans.
A.2.) The Luwian might have come with the Lefkandi 1/Kastri/Anatolian group in 2400-2200 BC, which would work nicely in terms of Anatolian linguistics. But then the arrival of the Greek-speakers would indeed be needed to be pushed down further towards
EITHER:
A.2.1.) The start of the MH (i.e. 2100/2000), perhaps together with the appearance of the tumuli. PROBLEM: The earliest tumuli already start in EH III, there is no material cultural evidence for an MH arrival from elsewhere. Some Adriatic cultural contact seem to be present in northwestern Peloponnese already in EH III, but nothing that could point at large scale migration. Greek in EBA Adriatic would be linguistically problematic anyway.
OR:
A.2.2.) The start of the “Shaft Grave Period”. PROBLEM: As stated above, the EH III-MH I-II-III material continuity is too strong, the accumulation of wealth in two different regions that starts around MH III is now certain to have been gradual rather than sudden. The impact of Crete is far more important than any other element in the Early Mycenaean period’s wealth accumulation and social stratification.
B)For scholars who do not buy the Luwian hypothesis:
B.1.) Greek was already the language spoken in EBA southern Greece, the pre-Greek substratum is earlier Neolithic.
B.2) The non-Luwian pre-Greek substratum comes from the culture of EH I-II, the EH III cultural change should be assigned to Greek speakers. PROBLEM: same problems as A.1 above.
@Moktimelsko
All this is a presentation of the Anatolian hypothesis from the supporters of the eternal autochthonism of IE in Anatolia and Greece. In general, propaganda outdated views by ignoring data. The Greek theme conducted by local archaeologists mainly that the for obvious reasons almost all autochthonist.
@ Moktimelsko
Many thanks for your input
“Some scholars, therefore, see a population movement here, i.e. those who had already come slightly up north during the Lefkandi 1/Kastri Group phenomenon, now at the start EH III destroyed the Peloponnesian EH II sites, eventually from northern Aegean/Anatolia.”
That’s what I suspected.
“because they believe that there are more interesting questions to ask in archaeological analysis. For the minority who still think about these issues, who are mostly linguists rather than archaeologists, the evidence I summarised above might indicate the following:”
Agree; however understanding mobility & how people interacted is also interesting ; when not analysed in isolation. It surely adds to the wealth of information
“the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline.”
Well it seems we now have 3.;)
Thanks again for the details
The text writenby Moktimelsko is not valid with him in the scientific world, no one agrees. The accepted scientific truth is only what I wrote.
@zardos "I think Tumulus to Urnfield is one of those cases were its possible to argue for continuity rather than a strong break."
The violence is essence emerged the Urnfield culture. Who knows what happened there, the Urnfield culture has produced expansion in the course related to her population without a change of this population, mostly peaceful. However, the external impulse was also, while this time, the expansion of the Cordoned Ware culture from the East that people will pay highly influenced the Sea Peoples. The Tollense war shows that events were not peaceful everywhere.
One of the problems is that in the Mediterranean and Near East, cultural and material affiliations might not always be as close to ethnic identities as they are in the North. Especially not, if we deal with a minority-elite invasion.
Bell Beakers should make us cautious in this respect, considering that the culture was spread over two quite different groups of people with different genetic profiles of which one conquered the other in a later phase of the culture.
"The changes that happened in the MH III and LH I periods (chariots, wealth accumulation, appearance of material from the Baltic, Crete, Anatolia, distinct type of Mycenaean weaponry, etc.) NOW are certain to have appeared “gradually”, after the excavation of MH III tholos and settlement assemblages and most important, Grave Circle B shaft graves, the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline."
So what if it was more like an infiltration and the conquest in a step by step fashion, with the Greek speaking units getting the upper hand at some point for the whole region? There is no need for a sudden appearance of Greek-speaking elites in the whole region, or is there?
The tribal affiliations of early Greeks, and even later ones, always point to the North and Phrygian too is much more likely to have come from Europe to Asia rather than vice versa.
"The Tollense war shows that events were not peaceful everywhere."
That's what I was saying. There was conflict and change within the TC culture leading to Urnfield with external influences being not as strong as in the preceding major transitions. But this change resulted in the demic diffusion of TC/UFC groups in virtually all directions. One was going North, resulting in Tollense, others went South, resulting in disruptions in the Eastern Mediterranean - again others went to Italy etc.
@Moktimelsko
Thanks for that summary.
@capra internetensis
That is not good summary, he deliberately bypasses mainstream version accepted by the scientific world. It's like is
- in end of EH III to Greece come Luwians (Minyans), which destroy it and create Minyans Middle Helladic culture MH together with the local tribes.
- at the end of the MH III to Greece come the Achaeans and create Mycenaean civilization in Late Helladic period LH together with the local tribes.
The subtleties of both processes are of course unknown now. But of course in no way the Greeks could not live in Greece, in the III Millennium BC even in the time of Herodotus the Greeks were essentially a minority in Greece, he clearly reports that most of the peoples of Greece is not Greek in origin, and some even speak languages of pre-Greek (Pelasgian). Naturally, this would not have been possible if the Greeks had lived in Greece for more than a thousand years.
He disagrees with in advance the wrong version rejected by science
The "Luwians in Greece" is pure speculation. Almost no Luwic substrate is found among the early Greek language, and if anything it seems like Mycenaeans and Luwians had relatively late contacts, with the Greeks playing an aggressive role against the Luwian states subdued by the Hittites, as known from cuneiform accounts. It's more likely there existed a certain non-IE population between both Asia Minor and the Greek side of the Aegean that became absorbed by the incoming IE speakers from either direction, and their last refuge was Crete.
Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans.
"The "Luwians in Greece" is pure speculation."
No, absolutely not speculation. This is based on linguistical, sourced and archeological facts.
" if anything it seems like Mycenaeans and Luwians had relatively late contacts, with the Greeks playing an aggressive role against the Luwian states subdued by the Hittites"
It is time Troyan war, here is the speak about pre-Myceaen time.
"Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans."
The unwarranted assumption.
Welzin warriors.
One is from the Baltic states, one is from Spain or Italy, one is a Celt (similar to modern French), then most of them are Polish-like I guess.
@Davidski "I wonder if the Germans are holding back the Tollense battle paper"
Have they started writing it at all? Maybe they're the sort of guys like the Aegean archaeologists according to Moktimelsko, believing that there are more interesting questions to solve than ethnic origins and identity.
Anyhow, I'm kind of glad that, even though the largest part of my ancestry is German, my nationality is not, and I was born and raised elsewhere, LOL. So the German war crimes are not really my issue, I can easily distance myself from them.
I think a few of the Polish posters here told me pops in central Europe had Baltic_Corded Ware ancestry before the Slavs. Congrats, you were right, I was wrong. I admit when I'm wrong
The local population represented in the battle I guess are a partial ancestor of modern Polish/western Slavs. They look like a Baltic_Corded Ware+Hungary BA mix.
Then, they also recruited mercenaries from: Spain or Italy, Gaul/Celt, and Baltic.
That's really fascinating. This kind of contact-organization and large battle, goes against the idea that before the Roman empire people in Europe outside the Mediterranean were primitives. It seems there were some powerful kings/clans in Bronze age Europe who had big armies.
Crap! Scratch that. I don't how much Baltic_Corded Ware there is in them. When you use the most HG-rich Hungary BA samples it disappears.
" It seems there were some powerful kings/clans in Bronze age Europe who had big armies."
Hardly. The Roman army was strong, but there were no kings in the Republic. Kings and clans are not necessary for big armies to exist.
"Hungary BA", must be an ethno-lingustic group who was widespread in Bronze age central Europe. The differences between Celts/Hallstatt, Hungary BA, and Baltic BA are pretty big. They make Bronze age northern Europe look more diverse than it is today.
@Archi,
You're right. All I mean, is that there seems to have been some organization. The organization can be done by kings, a republic, whatever. Mainland Europe was not unfamilar with large scale war fare which requires a lot of organization. Obviously, Julis Caesar easily conquered them.
6.6161"
Welzin_BA_Germany:WEZ58
Varna,40.4
Romania_HG,35.4
Yamnaya_Samara,24
Tisza_LN,0.2
3.2343"
Hungary_BA:I1504
Tisza_LN,39.8
Yamnaya_Samara,24.5
Romania_HG,16.2
Varna,14.1
Lepenski_Vir:I5407,5.4
I forget if I1504 dates to 1000 BC or 2000 BC. Whatever the case we're seeing the same people group living in both Bronze age Hungary & Germany who contributed some ancestry to modern western Slavs.
They're a fascinating group in European variation. Because they don't exactly fit as being northern European or southern European. They had only 25% Yamnaya but lots of WHG.
@Samuel Andrews
You can't insult people in the comments here, even if you have a point to some degree. Surely there's a better way to communicate your point.
Yamnaya EEF WHG ANE
WEZ15 23.7 35.8 28.6 11.7
WEZ59 23.3 35.9 30.5 10.2
They're farmer ancestry is from Danube/Lengyel/Hungary farmers. So, I'd say this population originated in modern Hungary. They have 40% Central Euro HG ancestry! More HG than farmer.
@Archi & Drago
Cut it out. Act like adults.
Welzin BA main cluster are interesting in G25. Something like present day South Slavs/Hungarians in the drift dimensions that distinguish Baltic_BA, but they have less Yamnaya related ancestry and more EEF+WHG than present day South Slavs/Hungarians (as noted above).
Much the Hungary BA really.
Images: https://imgur.com/a/kIm34l8
So, if you assume some degree of continuity, I think there's a good question of how you get from these populations to those like present day North East, South East and East-Central Europe. It seems like you need a small dose of extra CHG/Yamnaya related ancestry (and there are various plausible sources for this all over the place, so I wouldn't want to wager a guess)? A kind of mirror population of how Welzin BA are displaced towards WHG+EEF.
@ Leron
“Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans.”
I was under the impression that Minoans are from Crete
Apart from a few trade outposts; I don’t think “Minoans” lived in the mainland. The identity of those on the mainland before the 2300 BC tumult’s is more difficult to discern. Could be pre-Greeks or earlier Greeks. Going back further; the other main demographic shifts occurred way back in 3300 BC
@ Matt
“So, if you assume some degree of continuity, I think there's a good question of how you get from these populations to those like present day North East, South East and East-Central Europe. ”
The indications are there isn’t population continuity; & that Modern Slavs are an expansion from a truncated core of that former expansive cline.
@Drago: Greek was richly infused by a pre-IE language within the mainland. There’s a set of toponyms shared in Crete, Asia Minor and mainland Greece that points to a common cultural origin, despite the Minoans in Crete developing a more advanced civilization than the others around them. I believe it has a slow infiltration, including absorption of the older population to a great degree, which makes the cultural demographics difficult to discern.
@ Leron
You mean the -nth- & -ss- ? Perhaps
But the similarities between mainland & Crete are broad; not specific. Hence it is wrong to consider mainland Greece as Minoan
Maybe, most dead soldiers cluster with Hungary BA people because they lost the battle.
I don't think they were native to Germany. Their ancient roots are in southeast Europe, specifically Hungary. They had Danube farmer & central European hunter gatherer ancestry. They had no Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice ancestry. Not native to Germany.
Halberstatdt_BA, the redhead with Y DNA R1a from 1300 BC East Germany, probably represents the native population of Bronze age Germany. He's mostly of Corded Ware Germany origin. My guess is the battle was between his people & an invading army from Poland or Hungary.
Speaking about Tollense: surprisingly, there are no good English-language documentaries about Tollense(There are some in German, but I don't speak German). That's weird, since the topic is fascinating. I wonder whether they want to release the documentary simultaneously with the aDNA paper.
Some notes on Unetice:
1. A major feature of Untice is the re-establishment of the Elbe-Danube communication axis via Bohemia and Moravia that had shaped the Central European EN. The Baden expansion, replacing Lengyel and related Pannonian cultures northwards, had interrupted this axis and resulted in the Baden - epi-Lengyel (TRB/GAC) antagonism. This antagonism culminated in the violent destruction of Baden-influenced Salzmünde by the GAC/Bernburg coalition around 3,100 BC. The subsequent entrance of Steppe populations (CWC) remained confined to the Elbe basin and was as such also not conducive to re-establishing the Elbe-Danube axis. Arrival of BBs, which incorporated a substantial Iberian element, in Pannonia, Bohemia and MES paved the way towards re-establishing the link, but it only became fully functional again during the Unetice period.
2. Unetice's genesis has remained somewhat mysterious to me. Apparently, proto-Unetice arose south of MES. OTOH, recent excavations of the Pömmelte henge (at the Elbe-Saale confluence) point towards a smooth transition towards Unetice in MES. E.g., Pömmelte has delivered jars that were clearly Unetice-like in shape, but decorated in typical MES BB style. Pömmelte is otherwise intriguing for demonstrating an apparently peaceful co-habitation of CWC, BB, and the GAC-derived Schönfeld Culture during the 24th-22nd cBC. A main Unetice feature is the re-appearance of longhouses – an EEF tradition alien to CWC and also BB, but preserved by the Schönfeld Culture. Culturally, Unetice appears to have been an amalgamation of various traditions, including CWC, BB, Schönfeld, possibly also Baden, plus a hefty dose of Troad influence (obvious when it comes to bronze metalurgy, and very likely as concerns socio-politics).
3. Unetice's economic base appears to have been channelling Cornish (possibly also Erzgebirge) tin towards the E. Mediterranean - an area devoid of tin ressources- via said Elbe-Danube link. In addition, Unetice also traded Baltic amber to the WC Mediterranean (though not yet to the E. Mediterranean). It appears to have been quite effective in establishing a trade monopoly on tin, and a techonological monopoly on producing tin bronzes. Unetice's richness in tin bronzes, and the presence of Unetice-manufactured bronces such as halberds around the amber-rich Baltic Sea, contrasts markedly with the scarcity of bronze finds in EBA SW Germany.
4. I don't think that Unetice's collapse around 1600 BC is just by co-incidence contemporary to the Thera eruption. It is by now well evidenced that the Thera eruption caused the demise of the Minoan civilisation (of seven major urban settlements on Crete, only one, Knossos, survived that eruption) and facilitated the rise of Myceneae. The Thera tsunami appears to have devastated coastal areas (including ports, ships, warehouses etc.) as far as Sicily and the Levante, and certainly meant a major disruption of long-range trade networks. It apparently also lead to several „volcanic winters“. Around 1600 BC, we don't only see a collapse of Unetice, but also a major crisis in Egypt, the Hittite conquest of Babylon, and eventually even the disappearance of the IVC.
5. After 1600 BC, previously monopolised flows of raw materials suddenly reach new markets. One example is Cornish tin, previously restricted to the Unetice sphere and the Danube/Pontic/ Aegaean, now also appearing in SW Germany (Tumulus Culture) and Scandinavia. Another example is Baltic amber, pre-1600 BC mostly absorbed by Unetice, during the MBA finding its way to Mycenaeae and Egypt. I suppose that similar post-1600 BC diversifications of raw material provision also took place elsewhere along the EBA Cornwall-Aegaean-IVC trade link, e.g. towards Ethiopia, Arabia, SEA or China.
Thanks Frank
Where you place this Tollensee battle; in terms of culture / history
@Angantyr
Do you have any details about the burial site/grave of RISE94, the Battle-Axe sample from Viby, Sweden?
@ Davidski
Apologies for changing the issue, but I´ve got news. It seems that this week results from Rakhigarhi's ancient DNA will be published, and it also seems they have samples from another site near Rakhigarhi which is called Farmana for a forthcoming publication. They are launching a new project called 'Reconstructing the population history and domestication patterns in prehistoric India'.
You can see a brief information here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5o9rfyk
Yep, I've heard. Let's hope the paper isn't based on one low coverage sample.
@Carlos Aramayo @Davidski
I'm afraid the expectations on Rakhigarhi's paper are overrated. I'm afraid there will happen few samples.
@rozenfag "Speaking about Tollense: ..."
Not only that. For more than twenty years, no one had even made anthropological measurements of the Tollensee people.
@ Zardos
To wrap up about Germanic; I will simply state that there’s something very wrong with the Copenhagen model; just like their entire steppe model
ADNA from Historic Germanic groups shows them to be I2a2, U106 & I1.
There's definitely some R1a there too. One of the Iron Age samples from southeast Norway belongs to it, and then plenty of Vikings do as well.
So what language did the R1a Norwegian speak?
@Drago: I think we will detect no huge but still significant structure between regional and tribal groups in Germanics.
Even modern Germanic regions show structure, especially in the y-chromosome.
Since some of this structure can be attributed to different waves from Central Europe, timing and relations are important.
Now R1a especially in Norway could be interpreted as an older stratum derived from CW/BA most likely, but probably thats wrong.
Landscape and subsistence pattern was different too and the winners are more likely to take the best spots. A lot could be done with more aDNA data points.
A slow shift of yDNA could be digested without a language shift. A sudden impact like Corded Ware or BB in Britain rather not.
Since Schönfelder culture was mentioned once again, is there any aDNA available? Cant recall it right now.
Yeah perhaps Nordic & East Germanic were different to Suebic groups
It has always been like this. At the beginning that was only one tribe bearing that name.
“The original term Sclaveni would seem to be a real tribal name (with a typical -eni plural ending).” - P.M. Barford, The Early Slavs, Culture and Society in Early Medievial Europe, The British Museum Press, London, 2000, c.29.
The name starts to adjust for parts of Poland from XII century, for Russians and Ukrainians just from XVIII century.
It's not hard to guess who are the first one if you have basic knowledge about European history.
@Davidski
Unfortunately I don't have much info about RISE94. The Allentoft 2015 supplementary material states "grave 26:1" which probably is an identity assigned by archaeologist Mats P. Malmer in one of his publications. I wish the'd use the identities assigned by the Swedish National Heritage Board instead.
A picture of his skull is probably shown in this thesis, but the only information about him there is that he was probably killed by a strike to his head, after having survived two previous head wounds: https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/2e3a602e-5601-4e77-9700-6b291060cba6
@Angantyr
Nice! A pro Battle-Axe warrior probably!
Post a Comment