The Celts were G2a2b2a1b L497 ( Hallstatt Y-DNA from Mitterkirchen, Upper Austria 700

[MOESAN]

If I wanted to talk about Mtdna H1 I would have said so. No. What I am telling is that the second best thing about sampling ALL the bones/teeth that ever existed and sequence them (tens of thousands) for full genome (Not doable right now) is doing Nm dental traits studies. And the best ones were made, lo and behold to bell beakers and if I had to choose a few it would be the ones done by Geneva University by Desideri and Marie Besse. What does it say?

Bell beakers were made in Iberia by infusion of Iberia Late neolithic and Chalcolithic people. Then they move to rest of Europe had no local population contribution for a wide, wide range where they moved to. Not in South France, Switzerland, North Italy, or even the the Csepel group in HUngary. and never got any influx back from what is called the Eastern group. What is the eastern group? the only other place were BB toke local population contribution which was in bohemia (Czech) were they took CWC women (apparently loads of them). And from that point on there is no more Nm dental t studues as far as I know.

This is what we all know (or should). From this point on, everyone can drink the cool aid one likes and believe the fantasy he likes. Is just part of the game.

« technical »point
I red Desideri'spapers. By the way she has a very good classical 'cromagnoid'face (not capelloid/brünnoid).
Some metrcis methodssupporters think non-metric traits in craniology are not the besttool to associate-discriminate pops because they (would) need verybig samples, being based on « familial » traits not toofrequent in any pop ; I don't know concerning dentalnon-metrics.
Desideri's work isprecise, but some of her conclusions are contradicted by her ownprecise analysis. Some comparisons separate local groups of BB, CWC,Unetice, LN... Other group the diverse localities result, giving theimpression of an homogenous pop when it is not exactly the case. Itdoesn't prevent to draw some conclusions.
Don't simplify toomuch the case :
- inCzechia/Bohemia, the males-females pooled localities show BB and CWCwere mingled together spite the global mean is not the very same.Only the Unetice sites are clearly aside spite not very far ; inHungary, the BB would show some affinity with southwesternersaccording to Desideri, and clearly are dsitnct from all the othercultures pops of Hungary ; in Spain, S-France and Switzerlandthere is not clear cut between BB and other (but she says otherauthors found metrical differences for some of the BB sites comparedto others.
- when males andfemales are pooled separatelyit's the BB males who seem at theintersection of BB females and CWC females ; the CWC males arenevertheless the closer to BB males spite they are a bit closer toUnetice : Unetice is very more homogenous, without greatdifferences between males and females, confirming the geographicalhomogeneity and perhaps a CWC males input.
- when comparingonly the BB sites, the Bohemia ones, spite separated, clustertogether, only one, not to far, cluster with ONE site in France ;as a whole N-Spain, S-France, Switzerland are spred and mingled, thelone site of Hungary among them.
With the reserves wecan do about sample and non-metric dental analysis, we can see theDesideri's result are not so straight away as someones could believe.She conclude herself there was seemingly a signal ofsouthwestern pops in Switzerland and Hungary, when at the opposite,Bohemia doesn't show an impressive arrival of newcomers fromSouthwest, what is not to say there was NO newcomer at first.


I think that in itsrelative heterogeneity (but less than other BBs region!!!) Bohemiadoesn't provide great difference between the BB and CWC pops shestudied, only some possible diversity in origin for some of thewomen.
What is sure is thatBB pops cannot be put all of them in the same bag. Concerning'mediter' tendancies, they existed in Switzerland and S-France longago before BB phenomenon.
I add theheterogeneity found among pops of N-Spain and S-France BB is – forme – linked more to the non-metric methodology used than to truegenetic differences.
I 'm still doubtfulabout a huge colonization from SW-Iberia at BB times, but I canmistake as everybody.

 

[Sile]

If I wanted to talk about Mtdna H1 I would have said so. No. What I am telling is that the second best thing about sampling ALL the bones/teeth that ever existed and sequence them (tens of thousands) for full genome (Not doable right now) is doing Nm dental traits studies. And the best ones were made, lo and behold to bell beakers and if I had to choose a few it would be the ones done by Geneva University by Desideri and Marie Besse. What does it say?

Bell beakers were made in Iberia by infusion of Iberia Late neolithic and Chalcolithic people. Then they move to rest of Europe had no local population contribution for a wide, wide range where they moved to. Not in South France, Switzerland, North Italy, or even the the Csepel group in HUngary. and never got any influx back from what is called the Eastern group. What is the eastern group? the only other place were BB toke local population contribution which was in bohemia (Czech) were they took CWC women (apparently loads of them). And from that point on there is no more Nm dental t studues as far as I know.

This is what we all know (or should). From this point on, everyone can drink the cool aid one likes and believe the fantasy he likes. Is just part of the game.

So you are saying that you know of no marker that brought BB from Iberia to Germany.
If so, then the BB potters was just a style learnt by German BB from some Iberian BB traders.

so, you have either the gallics of central germany creating this BB
or
the ligurs of southern France creating this BB

I cannot see a BB created by proto-Portuguese and taking it firstly to brittany france to then go to central europe ...............was there a migration from iberia to germany?

The franco-cantbrian H1 mtdna is younger than what has been found in early neolithic central germany

 

[Olympus Mons]

« technical »point
I red Desideri'spapers....
I 'm still doubtfulabout a huge colonization from SW-Iberia at BB times, but I canmistake as everybody.

Sile,
I only really trust Nonmetric dental because It really correlates well with dna. And Desideri means Nm dental trait and not crania/skeleton.

No, no. they are the experts and spend a lot of time in it. So add their work to what we already know. Things like oldest carbon & AMS dating for bell beaker in Zambujal Portugal, clear dating evolution on north spain, etc.
This is what she clearly says:

“the emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the southern sphere resulted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe.
The biological impact was recorded to at least Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary. Thus, the Bell Beakers – small groups of individuals equipped with their material culture and know-how – formed the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of
the phenomenon. - the situation in the eastern sphere is more complex.”

Then,

“The southern Bell Beakers are quite similar and the Swiss
populations can be strongly linked to their morphology. They form a highly uniform group. The
eastern Bell Beakers show a certain cohesion that seems, however, to have been less isolated”

Then,

“ Nevertheless, women - Corded Ware and Bell Beaker – were differentiated from the local populations, probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy”


So, anyone can play the story it really likes… but at this point in time facts are very clear. And those facts are in accordance with what we know.

 

[MOESAN]

Sile,
I only really trust Nonmetric dental because It really correlates well with dna. And Desideri means Nm dental trait and not crania/skeleton.

No, no. they are the experts and spend a lot of time in it. So add their work to what we already know. Things like oldest carbon & AMS dating for bell beaker in Zambujal Portugal, clear dating evolution on north spain, etc.
This is what she clearly says:

“the emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the southern sphere resulted from the displacement of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe.
The biological impact was recorded to at least Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary. Thus, the Bell Beakers – small groups of individuals equipped with their material culture and know-how – formed the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of
the phenomenon. - the situation in the eastern sphere is more complex.”

Then,

“The southern Bell Beakers are quite similar and the Swiss
populations can be strongly linked to their morphology. They form a highly uniform group. The
eastern Bell Beakers show a certain cohesion that seems, however, to have been less isolated”

Then,

“ Nevertheless, women - Corded Ware and Bell Beaker – were differentiated from the local populations, probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy”


So, anyone can play the story it really likes… but at this point in time facts are very clear. And those facts are in accordance with what we know.

I red Desideri more than a time. I don't deny the input of southwestern females in BBs but the diverse BBs settlements did not show the same picture (read Desideri)one with another and the statement CWC and BB (Germany) practiced exogamy AT SOME LEVEL doesn't mean all their wives came FROM ELSEWHERE nor the exo wives came FROM FAR, nor these exo wives came FROM IBERIA or South, right? I 'm longing to more Megaliths auDNA too.
Wait and see for more data in other places (Netherlands, UK...) with other means than non-metric dental traits.

 

[Olympus Mons]

Cool Aid

I red Desideri more than a time. I don't deny the input of southwestern females in BBs but the diverse BBs settlements did not show the same picture (read Desideri)one with another and the statement CWC and BB (Germany) practiced exogamy AT SOME LEVEL doesn't mean all their wives came FROM ELSEWHERE nor the exo wives came FROM FAR, nor these exo wives came FROM IBERIA or South, right? I 'm longing to more Megaliths auDNA too.
Wait and see for more data in other places (Netherlands, UK...) with other means than non-metric dental traits.

Moesan,
Like I said, at the end of the day, anyone can take the cool aid it really likes. Thats what having so little data allows. Anyone lives in whatever fantasy land it chooses to. Including myself and you I suppose. Take, BB. Earlier dating, cranial and non-metric Dental traits, haplotype diversity of Mtdna H and replacement of female mtdna Sequencing BB dispersal from Iberia (even following their route within Iberia El portalon, etc), even the clear case that anthropological changes in a region being overall Demic diffusion not cultural (as is the new paradigm) etc, etc.. nope not enough. there is always room for doubt. by those standards, what anthropological assertion is a robust one? - None!
Again. Cool aid. Its just fine.

 

[MOESAN]

Moesan,
Like I said, at the end of the day, anyone can take the cool aid it really likes. Thats what having so little data allows. Anyone lives in whatever fantasy land it chooses to. Including myself and you I suppose. Take, BB. Earlier dating, cranial and non-metric Dental traits, haplotype diversity of Mtdna H and replacement of female mtdna Sequencing BB dispersal from Iberia (even following their route within Iberia El portalon, etc), even the clear case that anthropological changes in a region being overall Demic diffusion not cultural (as is the new paradigm) etc, etc.. nope not enough. there is always room for doubt. by those standards, what anthropological assertion is a robust one? - None!
Again. Cool aid. Its just fine.

I like your form of humor!
If you are, I'm not living in any fantasy land. I'm rather measured in my affirmations and speak more about doubts that about certitudes. By the way I think that you and me are more here in a BBs trip than in a Celts and Y-G2a thread, I hope other will excuse both os us!
Reread Desideri if you rely on her. She concludes that Central Europe BBs - except Hungary: one site only - are distinct from other BBs ; the moves she supposes from Iberia to other lands concern France, Switzerland and Hungary. When we read in details, things are not so clear, far from it! One can conclude in a move of people (maybe females) from a western mediterranean region in these last regions, not North Central Europe. In which proportions? But our question is the Celts, Y-R1b, linked in some way to Germany and West-Central Europe BBs at this stage of our knowledge because we have NOTHING about Iberian BBs, neither for Y-haplos nor auDNA. Look at autosomes of North Central Europe BBs: not homogenous but all far from the Today Iberian situation and farther from the Chalco Iberians we have to date. I think it's very possible that supposed first BBs from S-Iberia colonized other lands, even some Germany ones, but I doubt they could have had a strong demographic input inheritedfrom on Iberian pops. What is not to say a pop very close to them has not participated in the demic building of Western Europe: the question is: in what proportions according to places and when? All the way I bet (not science, "bet") a lot of supposed BB issued mt-DNA was already present in Western Europe before the BBs daybreak. Maybe the same element? same people? But we speak of BBs and their later input, not of their possible ancestors.

 

[Olympus Mons]

I Still don't get it

I like your form of humor!
If you are, I'm not living in any fantasy land. I'm rather measured in my affirmations and speak more about doubts that about certitudes. By the way I think that you and me are more here in a BBs trip than in a Celts and Y-G2a thread, I hope other will excuse both os us!
Reread Desideri if you rely on her. She concludes that Central Europe BBs - except Hungary: one site only - are distinct from other BBs ; the moves she supposes from Iberia to other lands concern France, Switzerland and Hungary. .... of Western Europe: the question is: in what proportions according to places and when? All the way I bet (not science, "bet") a lot of supposed BB issued mt-DNA was already present in Western Europe before the BBs daybreak. Maybe the same element? same people? But we speak of BBs and their later input, not of their possible ancestors.

Moesan,
Lets get the record straight (at least my straight, dont know yours). Some that might read us here surely get confused.
a. I dont care about Desideri. I care about NonMetric dental traits studies. Because craniometrics can indeed be influence by enviromental changes but not really Nm Dental traits. these are a pretty good proxy for Genetics. And studies apply to vast amount of samples and lots of different places. - And do not cost a million dollars on a fancy lab in Harvard run by a guy called Reich.

b. You seem to think that Central European beakers were "very" important. That bohemia group that Desideri talks about. Why do you think so? Actually and in truth they are only Bell beakers ISH. I called it Half breeds. And, most important and first of all, you forget the first rule while looking at, any, BB phenomenon - The further away from the ocean the more sparse and isolated and not that populated the bell beaker settlement is. so, Central European BB... is nothing. its bullshit in the big picture. Now BBish and CWC influencing Unetice and having impact that is a different story.

C. Yes, BB Iberia (which we actually have no genome from) was BB stock that travelled to South France, Switzerland, North Italy, etc. And by cultural similitude one can safely say most Atlantic facade BB settlements. That can be fairly accepted, and that is what desideri states. dont confuse the issue. We dont know what happen from the Elbe up, and baltic BB, etc. Maybe just the eastern BB and not at all the Iberia BB had impact on the north Europe. But in truth, by end 3rd millennia we should start to call them something else and just state that BB were the ones that come out of Iberia and lasted for a millennia.

d. Celtic. again Nm dental t. Mallory Anctil just a couple weeks ago. La tene, halstaatt and british Celtic: Not the same people. From there all is valid.

 

[MOESAN]

Moesan,
Lets get the record straight (at least my straight, dont know yours). Some that might read us here surely get confused.
a. I dont care about Desideri. I care about NonMetric dental traits studies. ... d. Celtic. again Nm dental t. Mallory Anctil just a couple weeks ago. La tene, halstaatt and british Celtic: Not the same people. From there all is valid.

My last post concerning BBs in this thread. I'm ready to keep on in a specific BBs thread because we're invading the present thread in some way. I think you don't get my points. Concerning dental traits, could you let me know the diverse studies you have at hand for I can make my opinion. Thanks beforehand.

 

[Olympus Mons]

My last post concerning BBs in this thread. I'm ready to keep on in a specific BBs thread because we're invading the present thread in some way. I think you don't get my points. Concerning dental traits, could you let me know the diverse studies you have at hand for I can make my opinion. Thanks beforehand.

Yes, Make sense.
Regarding Nmetric Dental, there are a lot that one must really read. Like Mallory Anctil about celts and one of the best "NONMETRIC DENTAL TRAIT DISTRIBUTION IN THE NEOLITHIC POPULATIONS OF SOUTHWESTERN SIBERIA" from A.V. Zubova.

This latest if shows how Karelia (8000bc) and Latvia Mesolithic very specific dental traits, suddenly are found as far on the other side of the urals to Samara, in Vengerovo-2a, (close to Urals in the baraba forest) in a specific population that was different from the Afontova gora and different from Populations from Baikal.
Actually is seen in later periods in south turkeministan near lake Mergan.

Its really on par with the latest findings and models .

I may open a thread on it... No more of off topic here. You are right.

 

[MOESAN]

@Olympus Mons
Thanks! I red the paper of Mallory Anctil; interesting to show differences (as all Nmetric teeth surveys) but not to weight them and to provide clues concerning admixture and interpops exchanges; in my opinion it's the whole question in discrete traits without huge and numerous multi-places samples; here only 4 very remote sites or pooled close sites)

 

[Olympus Mons]

@Olympus Mons
.... here only 4 very remote sites or pooled close sites)

Yes. But 4 remote sites and lots and lots of samples. These days we make huge amounts of inferences based on a SINGLE Adna sample, that for all I know could even been the son of a girl snatched 4,000 miles away.

Nm dental traits are a good proxy. actually very good. for instance see these (but there are others) that show how accurate it is at differentiating populations. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25711463

 

[MOESAN]

@OlympusMOns
Thanks I 'll read this when possible.
Concerning the "lots and lots" of sample I red in M. Anctil:
Yorksh: 31 - Switz: 33 - Hallst: 30 - Ital: 31 - it's not so huge I think.
He avowed familial proximity of close tombs (they are removed in auDNA studies) -
+ "... Fixed or largely invariant traits are removed as well, because they provide no useful information for identifying differences among samples, and can result in negative MMD (Mean Measure Divergence). The later later is a statistical artefact that has no "biological meaning" (citation)..."]: so this kind of study exagerates the differences at the cost of ressemblances, so can perturb (for me) the weighting and understanding of differences. Not to say these studies are of no worth; otherwise I would not read them.

I never take seriously a state made upon short numbers in haplo's states; here I agree with you. In autosomal DNA we don't need too huge samples at the contrary - except the elite DNA can be very unstable from generation to generation in old times.

 

[MOESAN]

Man, I dont get it.
Bell beaker - No, BB were a very tight Genetic group sprung out of Iberia (and kept on being a tight group for all its BB period). This is what the best proxy for dna we have (see j. Desideri) Non metric dental traits. It also tells us that in bohemia BB toke CWC females and... dont know the rest, sorry.

Celts- In a less then a month old paper ANCIENT CELTS: MYTH, INVENTION OR REALITY? DENTAL AFFINITIES AMONG CONTINENTAL AND NON-CONTINENTAL CELTIC GROUPS from Mallory Anctil it looks like, yes, Celts were just a generalization of diferent (genetically) people learning to speak the same language and sharing traits.

Anyone wants to trash Non metric Dental traits as a proxy for Population DNA ?... bring it on!

No fighting here.
Just to say that the term "different pops" is not too precise: "different" like purely unrelated one to another, or distinct substrata mixed with a more or less homogenous NEWpop (the dominant one, bringing with its culture and power? Even metric old surveys and Ancients descriptions told us the Celtic lands were not settled by indentical pops. So here, metric and non-metric doesn't contradict one another. The question is: has it been moves or almost no moves and if moves, in what proportions? metrics about Celtic (surely ELITES) of Iron Age in West showed some degree of heterogeneity but also some COMMON elements everytime everywhere in the IA Celtic mixt, from Germany-France to Ireland. It seems that in the Isles, the Bronze Age pops were stayed on the the mix pre-Round Barrows/Round-Barrows with EVEN THERE some variations in the mixt. I think we lack still more geographically spred data in dental non-metrics. In the survey alleged we have only 3 supposed Celtic places. BTW I noticed they said the Italian IA sample (Villanovian of South-Italy?) was the most remote opposed to the 3 others.
Wording is important. If we rely on the conclusions of the Armenian study of dental NM traits about Armenia, Caucasus and Steppes, we could think as easily all these Steppic pops were quasi identical to Armenians (but Armenians were distinct within them!); I'm not ready to swallow these generalisations, or I 'll need some liquid (not water!). All the way, I thank you for the informations you posted to me.
Just to say I admit the validity of some conclusions but they don't answer all my questions.