In the Bronze Age, northern Europe was thought to be a sparsely-populated place, just tiny villages and isolated farms amid dense forest.
Yet there has been recently uncovered the site of a huge battle which took place there about 3200 years ago between armies of thousands of warriors armed with bronze weapons. Analysis of the teeth of the dead shows that most came from hundreds of miles away. And thrse were not farmers in a dispute, they were professional warriors.
Considering the tiny population size of the time this was an immense clash. It is completely contradictory to the general idea of what northern Bronze Age Europe was like. What on Earth was going on?
What would we speak right now if the other side won?
Robert Thomas
We have no idea because those cunts didn't leave a record.
Grayson Collins
It was most likely a clash between Proto-Scandis and Urnfield(Slavs, Balts, Celts, Germanics)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I had a couple of cold ones.
Christian Sullivan
No, that's insane. Proto-Scandis would equal Proto-Germanics in that era.
Urnfield was Celtic, not Slavic.
Dominic Perry
How do you figure that?
Daniel Sullivan
>Proto-Scandis would equal Proto-Germanics in that era. Nordic Bronze Age? >Urnfield was Celtic, not Slavic. Didn't they gather samples that fit into Polish/Russian populations?
Alexander Gomez
Even some individuals were genetically more similar to Slavs than to Western Europeans, that doesn't make Urnfield "Slavic". Culturally and linguistically it is fair to assume that it was not Slavic.
Owen Martinez
this
there is some interestingly complex Nordic bronze age artifacts that tend to get overlooked when considering the region in that period. But while there's a tendency to perpetuate classical disdain for the region in the iron age and then project this into the even less understood bronze age there isn't really anyway forward without some sort of written record or steady evidence of more complex civilizations than previously expected.
so there you go, it's interesting but it doesn't explain much
Tyler Clark
>Even some individuals were genetically more similar to Slavs than to Western Europeans, that doesn't make Urnfield "Slavic". Culturally and linguistically it is fair to assume that it was not Slavic. Sure. But what if it was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic? Lusatian was surely some form of Proto-Balto-Slavic. Maybe even Proto-Slavic.
Jeremiah Lewis
The study on Tollense DNA isn't out I think? I've never seen it. They've only released some information that some of the skeletons were like Eastern and Southern Europeans. There is no point trying to link those to Urnfield.
Henry Wood
>Native American 1.2%
The fuck am I reading?
Jaxon White
Yeah, it could have been multi-cultural/ethnic, but given that Urnfield's direct successor culture was Hallstatt, I'm sure the Celtic/Western cultural aspect would have been dominant.
Nathan Ross
genetics associated with those groups
the whole profile is kind of pointless, it doesn't even list haplogroup
Lucas Thomas
Here we go again with the Polish fringe ultranationalist pseudoscience.
Lusatians could have been Urnfield Celtic with a Corded Ware Satemic substratrum. That would make perfect sense, fringe nonsense about Slavs doesn't since there is marginal Proto-Celtic or Proto-Germanic influence in Slavic languages. Slavic languages look native to Belarus.
Jack Sanders
>Yeah, it could have been multi-cultural/ethnic, but given that Urnfield's direct successor culture was Hallstatt, I'm sure the Celtic/Western cultural aspect would have been dominant. Of course. But Urnfield was more of a "confederation" I think. To the East and Central you have proto Baltics and Slavs and to the West and Central you have people that became Celts.
Christian Williams
You seem mad.
Lincoln Hughes
>to the East and Central you have proto Baltics and Slavs Proto-Balto-Slavs would have been further east with Trzciniec culture and its descendant cultures, although that's not to say that there wasn't Balto-Slavic influence in Urnfield.
Christopher Morgan
Reality isn't decided by what Polish nationalists think should be true
Samuel Allen
there's really no reason to make a distinction like "Celtic" in 1250 B.C. Peter Berresford Ellis believed there was a dialect continuum from early Latin to Gaulish in northern Italy and surrounding areas around 600 B.C. in the the book Celt and Roman: The Celts of Italy, which while I haven't heard too much about otherwise he provides a good deal of evidence for
Jeremiah Campbell
That's why I said Celtic/Western.
Carson Cox
So what I gather from this thread is that Tollense was a battle between Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic people with Mediterranean mercenaries on the Celt side.
Tyler Young
I don't see why Mediterraneans would bother to travel that far
>Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland and Scandinavia. “This is not a bunch of local idiots,” says University of Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. “It’s a highly diverse population.”
The eastern European mercenaries make sense as it's quite close to Germany but obviously there's a deeper underlying reason for the presence of the Mediterraneans related to the Bronze Age collapse.
Aiden Hall
Geez, that entire period of time is such a fucking mystery, I'm very intrigued by this now.
Juan Adams
Neither by what people like you think. And thank god for that, because I still see no evidence on your part.
If you think Slavs don't come from Corded Ware, then you're simply stupid.
Jacob Thomas
Balto-Slavs come from a specific subset of Corded Ware in Belarus, not the entirety of it.
Michael Torres
Corded Ware were Satem speakers. >Balto-Slavs come from a specific subset of Corded Ware in Belarus, not the entirety of it. Pripet marshes is an outdated nonsense perpetuated by pseudo-science of 20th century.
Original Lusatian culture was Proto Balto-Slavic.
James Brown
>autosomal data >"doesn't even list haplogroup"
Sharing technical jargon with the hoi polloi was a mistake.
Charles Morris
Lusatian culture was Germanic actually
Michael Edwards
It wasn't. At least not the early stage of it. The core population was most likely Germanised, but wasn't of Germanic origin.
Anthropology finds connection between population of that era and modern population. Not to mention the "non-germanic" diet of Goths and Vandals on Vistula region.
Ryan Scott
If you want to look for Germanic trace, go for Wielbark. Then again, their diet differs from that of rest Germanics, not to mention Vikings settling in Poland during medieval era.
