Do Hallstat Celts have some role in the formation of West Germanic ethnicities?

did ancient germans have more R1b over I1
R1b-U152 looks like a pure gallic-celtic marker
I have no idea, about this matter.
It seems Norse Speaker Germanics/Scandos had I1 and as 2nd HG, R1A-Norse.
The Germanics, ancestors of West German nations, seems to have had both I1 and I2b and R1B-U106.
There is also R1B-U106 in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark, but no one knows if that is not from the Holy Roman Empire/Frankish Empire activity, in the area.
Also, the Norse Germanics could have mixed with West Germanics, in that area, from South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark.

Maybe some people from Germany,which is the richest EU country, currently, will start to do more serious research, regarding their history.
Do not think is so hard or expensive to search Germanic and Celtic sites from Austria and Germany and analyze the bones found there.
What I know is that in Tyrol R1B-U152 is even 60% in some places.
 
I have no idea, about this matter.
It seems Norse Speaker Germanics/Scandos had I1 and as 2nd HG, R1A-Norse.
The Germanics, ancestors of West German nations, seems to have had both I1 and I2b and R1B-U106.
There is also R1B-U106 in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark, but no one knows if that is not from the Holy Roman Empire/Frankish Empire activity, in the area.
Also, the Norse Germanics could have mixed with West Germanics, in that area, from South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark.

Maybe some people from Germany,which is the richest EU country, currently, will start to do more serious research, regarding their history.
Do not think is so hard or expensive to search Germanic and Celtic sites from Austria and Germany and analyze the bones found there.
What I know is that in Tyrol R1B-U152 is even 60% in some places.

At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.

At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.
 
At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.

At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.

So, you think Germanic was R1b ?

R1b-U106 , is old in frisian lands, and austria ............I cannot recall, which is the older area for this marker
 
At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.

At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.
If you would be so kind, could you provide more information about that, if you have, normally :) ?
It looks very interesting to me.
 
So, you think Germanic was R1b ?

R1b-U106 , is old in frisian lands, and austria ............I cannot recall, which is the older area for this marker

I have no clue, but of the three haplogroups I mentioned all except I1 seem to be locally confined. Scandinavians in general should be to a significant extent pre-Germanic IMHO. I see North-Western Germany as a speculative core area based on the toponymy, with most early Germanic dialects probably wiped out by endless internal warring and foreign invaders. West Germanic is only the latest layer from the far north.
 
If you would be so kind, could you provide more information about that, if you have, normally :) ?
It looks very interesting to me.

Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Germanic_terms_derived_from_Proto-Celtic


This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.

neg-ins.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet
 

Attachments

  • neg-ins.jpg
    neg-ins.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 48
Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Germanic_terms_derived_from_Proto-Celtic


This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.

neg-ins.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet

it means very little..........its like the recent paper i presented on the illyrian helmet.........100% made in the Peloponnese by Greeks and sold to macedonians, epirotes etc. The Corinthian helmet was the preferred helmet in greece (also made in the Peloponnese)
the Negau helmet could have been taken from the north or sold along the amber trails ..................
 
Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Germanic_terms_derived_from_Proto-Celtic


This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.

neg-ins.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet
Thank you very much for providing this information.
I have looked at the terms from ProtoGermanic taken from ProtoCeltic and these terms are clearly confirming that ProtoCelts and ProtoGermanic people were living together.
 
I know that are Celtic names of the places, in both Germany and Austria.
In Germany, are more of those, in Austria, are fewer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_toponymy#Germany
However, taking only the name places of Celtic origin in Germany, to try to obtain an estimation of the influence that some Celtic ethnicities had at the formation of the German nation, think would be very misleading.
The influence of Celtic ethnicities in the formation of the German nation should be quite significant, I think.
 
An interesting article from Washington Post suggests Hallstat Celts left a strong genetic ancestry in Bavaria and Austria:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-irish/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f44c7dd36ccc

Bavaria and West Austria people,as genetics seems more similar to some Old Kelts from Ireland, than SE English people:
imrs.php

On this map, the most common point of Germanics countries to Ireland (BA Rathlin?) is centered around Hessen and South Saxony, not far from the Liechtenstein cave (hotspot of I2a2). Not close to E-Bavaria and Austria!
 
Just some info, to confirm that West German nations formed from Germanics and Celtic tribes:
In Wurtemberg West, R1B-P312 clades are 45%, from the paternal lines.
R1B-S21 makes 18% of the paternal lines in Wurtemberg West.
More detailed:
R1B-U152 makes 21%, R1B-DF27 - 12 %, R1B-L21 6% and generic clades of R1B-P312 another 6%.
In South Baden, R1B-L21 makes even 15% of the paternal lines.

Think that Germany was actually the Urheimat of the Celts, Celts being allied to Germanic tribes from Germany and dwelling in the dense woods from Germany.

It would be good to distinguish between Germanics formation where and when from the today Germany, still a bit unlevel today.
 
What have we todate?
- a first R1b-U106 in Sweden, was RISE98 I think, Battle Axe, 2275/2032 BC according to someones. The Oostwood one is a bit younger. Battle Axe is often associated with CWC but here I think this man was borderline, or we have to accept that Battle Axe was a bit different from CWC. The date is still interesting, in absence of an older one.
- @ Mihaitzateo: NO, aside W-Austria, U106 is not denser in SW Germany than in North: it's the opposite: it's very NW! (Center: Frisia) - in Scandinavia U106 seems western too, and arrived after other post-L51 R1b in SE or N- Scandinavia. The Austrian ones could be the result of an early splitted branch from Bohemia of the original group, with founder effect, or very later an arrow-tip army from N-Germanics during the V?lkerwanderung; but Germans were relatively soon in the surroundings (9/8 BC), pushing the Celtic Boians out of W-Bohemia, close to Austria. The linguistic germanization here could have been short, overwhelmed later by Latine or other tongues. The permanent germanization of the southern parts of today German speaking areas took effect very later. Austria doesn?t seem to me the initial source of U106 of North. ATW it?s current people?s Haplos.
- I repeat here, spite today rather western gravity center, the U106 density in Benelux shows clearly a downward gradiant from Frisia to Wallonia and NE France. Its' almost sure that during the Belgae pre-Germanics period, the dominant R1b was not U106 but P312 descendants, L21 among them the first ones maybe, before the U152 rising during and after BB times. Its only later, I think, that U106 got southwards towards Belgium, France and SW Germany. Everywhere U106 (today) seems a Germanics "import", on mainland and in Britain.
 
- The bulk of R-U106 seems arrived in North later than the core of CWC R1a; where came it from? Hidden somewhere ? Maybe in N-Bohemia and Thuringen/Saale valley, near the ? metallic mounts ? at Unetice times, becoming later an element among the ? Rich Tumuli ? culture before Urnfields, seemingly distinct from the Baviera Tumuli (proto-Celts?) which pushed later towards SW Poland via S Bohemia and Moravia, at the Lusacian culture dawn; if present around the Saale, they (U106) had the occasion to move northwards along the Elbe, what match the today maxima of R-U106. The density of L11* without L51 in Northern Europe/Britain could mark a demographically stagnant situation where a tiny group lost its few previous L51*, did not develop immediatelty at this stage and vegetated somewhere there before to flourish. I cannot imagine it was part of the big flow of L51 which gave us P312, L21, U152 and DF27, and I cannot imagine it came from too far south? but U106 is not by force the northernmost clade of R1b L11 ; the post P312 DF19 and L238 of current time seems showing northern subclades of P312 in North (Scandinavia, UK, Germany for the most) ; I think it shows that L51, even if not dense, were present in Northern Europe independantly from the alleged unique demographic boom of L51 in West, so it?s surely not a back move from SW Europe. But this could confirms U106 vegetated some time in between all these subclades of P312 before to emerge. Mountainous regions fit good enough. Or why not U106 the denser subclade of L11 in North, along some rare northern P312 (DF19, L238) ? Only more ancient DNA can tell us.


- dates : U106 Took the strongside after the CWC retreated? Or was already part of the move on the flanks ? The ancient presence of U106 in Sweden in Battle Axe Culture along with one Y-R1a Z645 (not too precise ?) could confirm contacts with CWC Y-R1a ; interistingly Eurogenes pretends the Battle Axe R1b U106 man clusters among today Norwegians, the R1a man among today Russians and Mordovians ; it could confirm the mixing between both sources was not yet achieved and that the most of U106 were close but apart from CWC R1a.
. The today distribution in East-Germany is weaker, but Maciamo shows some non negligible scores in Central East-Germany, spite more recent historical events that could have changed the previous situations (Slavs colonization in Middle Age). The Elbe axis from Saale region, a rich region, could confirm the possibility of a force position for U106 people as a ? Germanic-launcher ? before mixing and evolution of their language. They could have launched the Elp (1800/1500 BC) culture in the N-Netherlands as proposed Northerner, and it could this lately that they mixed seriously with others, a lot of Y-I1 among them and some remnants of CWC R1a people their old neighbours, less than the first ones passed into Scandinavia. The Battle Axe R1b brethren had been assimilated by CWC R1a, I think, and the final elaboration of Germanic langage took place later with the Rich Tumuli descendants as promotors because they were numerically strong enough. When we look at current pops, Norwegians are the most provided for R1a, and the details show R1a is stronger in Central and Central North than in South ; Sweden has least ; Denmark has even least. In East-Germany, a lot of R1a is younger and Slavic (M458), not in direct links with the Scandinavian Z284 which corresponds surely to CWC input. So the initial Germanics, spite a mix, had few R1a, more I1 and even more R-U106, IMO.
- Concerning the linguistic aspect, first Celts would have had less lasting contacts to first Germanics than had first Italics, according to some scholars and based on original basic language ; they would have been later contacts, after long time break away, and as a dominant culture, giving only specialized vocabulary to Germanics in a vertical way (up-down). So I think they were not the IE element which became Germanic by input of CWC and TRBK LN substrata. I think that in the Celto-Italic couple, Celtic dialects were very more western centered before Hallstatt, when Italics were staying later in Central Europe around Hungary, Croatia, parts of Austria, maybe even northernmost close to Moravia. It?s even possible that proto-Celts and proto-Italics had been deeply separated before coming back later in contact around Austria at Hallstatt stage (Qw- → P mutation?)
&- possible explanation : scholars say Celtic, Italic and Germanic have been part of the north block of I-E dialects, with a special position of Germanics because of their specific contacts with some Satem languages (CWC?) and later with Baltic, itself a Satem one ; and among the Belgae tribes, someones are clearly Celtic, other Germanic and other undetermined ; for the undetermined one, Kuhn (and partly Meid) have supposed a language close to Italic or proto-Italic whose traces are found in the toponymic substratum of the great Belgia (NE France until Seine river, SW Germany, Benelux) ; the term ?German? would have been from this language, not from Germanics or Celtic ; as it?s sensible to think some old dialects more intermediary have been lost by time, it isn?t stupid, and could explain the proximity of Italic with Germanic. Could proto-Italic have been even closer to the ?without-CWC-substrata? of proto-Germanic? This old NW extension of proto- or rather ?pan-Italic? dialects area could explain some proximities. Because spite the proximity Celtic-Italic, and the Germanic-Balto-Slavic one, it seems to me these ?pan-Italics? (or proto-) could have kept separated proto-Celtic from proto-Germanic for a while (pure speculation here).
That said, plain Italics languages show some strong phonetic differences compared to Germanics and Celts, even Balto-Slavic, concerning PIE *Bh, *Gh, *Dh B.I., surely by Central and SE Europe
people influences.
Today we are seeing Italics people as southern ones (their clothes in Italy at the Imperial times) but earlier some of them were surely closer to Celts and to people of the North even in their clothings if I rely on some affirmations (multicolour squares or kind of tartan sometimes, as a whole ?barbarian-look? dress and tattooings, similar burying, if we look at Veneti, pertaining to pan-Italic world).
 
put order in my brain diarrhea.
linguistically: I think BA R1b-U106 was the bearers of the pre-proto-Germanic, it's to say the IE basis, a dialect surrounded by other families of IE, then not so differentiated than later. But Elp C and others of these periods are to early for the well defined Germanics, even for the proto-Germanics, and U106 is not = "equal" = Germanics, only a "teacher" of IE.
I don't know if I can rely on, but some maps show in 700 BC Germanics core centered on Denmark, S-Sweden and N-Germany, and Frisia was germanized only between 500 and 250 BC? later than N-Poland by instance.
so Germanics is born in North by a mix where U106 met numerous Y-I1 end various Y-R1a (CWC+new ones?) without speaking of less dense haplos; is this which made it so special phonetically, or the odd traits were there already in the IE dialect transmitted to them?
ATW it seems Germanics had the same mix, but with different percentages here and there. Maciamo was right.
I remember the IA in Denmark saw a new physical type, akin to coon's "Iron Keltic" type BUT more pure. future Teutons and Cimbers? their type could be come from Austria (Hallstatt? damned!) but why not from Bohemia, so close. Austria could please to someones here. But auDNA, phenotypes and Y-haplo's are not so tightly linked; and this type, 'nordic-like' in a broad sense, is not the subtype dominant todate among the Scandinavian or N Germany 'nordic' ones; to date, we have only 2 old U106, very sooner than IA and Hallstatt.
 
@Northerner:
The Penguin historic map of 1988 on Wiki waked me. You're right: in 750 BC there were not plain Germanics in Frisia, not more in Poland, spite some extension in NE Germany.
Perhaps, an IE pop of northern tumuli from E-Saxony and Czechia could have spoken one of this kind of continuum of archaic dialects with strong links to pan-Italics (B.Sergent and others), maybe a diagonal band of dialects between Flanders and Austria, and U106 among some of them. With cristallization of Celtic and Italic (first) and Germanic (after) the tribes speaking them have been swallowed for a part bit after bit in Belgia by Celts getting North and Germanics getting South. so it would be lately enough than well defined Celts came in contact with Germanics, rather still northernly; but later than the IA ages?
AS you say the roman Germany name is a bag name for unkown people. Among them, so called tribes of Germany, not only old Belgia, there were still some tribes speaking these archaic dialects, strong in Y-U106?
the ancient well defined ethnies with their changing frontiers were born by the absorbsion of more numerous but littler ethnies not so well differentiated, them and their intermediary dialects of ancient continuum.

Culture: it seems the Celts have been some time the "teachers" of the Germanics, but the strength changed side, and they retreated in front of the Germanics; but culturally, the material found among the germanic new owners of their lands in S-C Germany was still of La T?ne style, so celtic.
 
@Moesan:
I am a in FB group with paternal lines from Germany.
I can tell for sure that in most of Germany R1B-P312 paternal lines are making more than R1B-U106.
So those should be from assimilated Celtic/Gaulish ethnics. In Austria, there are places where R1B-U152 makes even more than 50% of the paternal lines.
In Germany, most R1B-P312 is of R1B-U152 variant and there are also R1B-DF27 and R1B-L21. So, clearly, some Celtic tribes were assimilated as Germans.
I think the Roman Empire historians are calling "Germans" the tribes that were living on the land of Germany.
The genetic testing tells that those tribes were Germanic and Celtic speakers.Now Celtic speakers were a group of ethnicities which was from Britain and Ireland till in SE Europe, so we cannot expect too much common genetics on autosomal testing.
However, on autosomal testing Germans are scoring closer to the British people than they score to the French people.

It seems Celtic and Germanic tribes from current land of Germany were living together and had West German as common language, which later lead to the Celtic ethnics being assimilated as German ethnics.
In Alsatia/South Baden R1B-L21 is making 15% of the paternal lines, so this is a very interesting thing to research.

A mention, no one doubts French people are descending from mostly some Celtic tribes but it seems the Hallstatt Celtic tribes were different, in genetics, from the French Celtic tribes, being more closed to British Celts, than to French Celts.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/09/celtic-vs-germanic-europe.html?m=1

At it can be seen Germans are scoring not far from Hallstatt sample that was used to make this map.
Actually, they are scoring closer to Hallstatt People (which should have been Celtic ethnics) than Brits,Irish or French.

Celto-Germanic_PCA.png

There is also an AngloSaxon sample, which were people from current land of Germany, Saxony which is scoring very remote from current days Germans.
This map is rather suggesting that Hallstatt Celts gave more genetics to current day Germans, than the originally Germanic speakers tribes did.
 
Last edited:
It would be needed a serious research to see how much from the Hallstatt Celtic culture and life style it still present at today Germans.
 
Bylany is really at the fringe of Hallstatt. What's needed are the elite samples from Austria, Switzerland etc. .

As I mentioned earlier, West Germanics were immigrants from Scandinavia and when they arrived not much was left of the Celts. West Germanic dialects were heavily influenced by Italic languages.
 
@Moesan:
I am a in FB group with paternal lines from Germany.
I can tell for sure that in most of Germany R1B-P312 paternal lines are making more than R1B-U106.
So those should be from assimilated Celtic/Gaulish ethnics. In Austria, there are places where R1B-U152 makes even more than 50% of the paternal lines.
In Germany, most R1B-P312 is of R1B-U152 variant and there are also R1B-DF27 and R1B-L21. So, clearly, some Celtic tribes were assimilated as Germans.
I think the Roman Empire historians are calling "Germans" the tribes that were living on the land of Germany.
The genetic testing tells that those tribes were Germanic and Celtic speakers.Now Celtic speakers were a group of ethnicities which was from Britain and Ireland till in SE Europe, so we cannot expect too much common genetics on autosomal testing.
However, on autosomal testing Germans are scoring closer to the British people than they score to the French people.

It seems Celtic and Germanic tribes from current land of Germany were living together and had West German as common language, which later lead to the Celtic ethnics being assimilated as German ethnics.
In Alsatia/South Baden R1B-L21 is making 15% of the paternal lines, so this is a very interesting thing to research.

A mention, no one doubts French people are descending from mostly some Celtic tribes but it seems the Hallstatt Celtic tribes were different, in genetics, from the French Celtic tribes, being more closed to British Celts, than to French Celts.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/09/celtic-vs-germanic-europe.html?m=1

At it can be seen Germans are scoring not far from Hallstatt sample that was used to make this map.
Actually, they are scoring closer to Hallstatt People (which should have been Celtic ethnics) than Brits,Irish or French.

Celto-Germanic_PCA.png

There is also an AngloSaxon sample, which were people from current land of Germany, Saxony which is scoring very remote from current days Germans.
This map is rather suggesting that Hallstatt Celts gave more genetics to current day Germans, than the originally Germanic speakers tribes did.

I agree for the most with what you wrote here.
My question was: are we speaking of the influence of Celts in the making of first Germans (genesis apparently around Denmark), or of the later infuences of later Celts on so called Germanic tribes in C and S Germany, closer to our era? And what kind f influence? Language? Demic? Artefacts? The whole package?
Sure today Germans, more in South and West, have a lot of P312 sons, no surprise; a lot of them are Celts (and undetermined Belgae) partly germanized.
Hallstatt? Surely some cultural influence? But the swords found in Europe at those times were often very distinctly distributed and the IA swords of Denmark, if I don't mistake, were homogenous and different from the multiple types of the diverse Celts, ressembling to a found of N- Italy, I think. To be checked, this story of swords, I'm not sure, and after lost the notes of old Harold PEAKE I have not found yet something serious on the net for types. For jewellery and some artefacts, sure, the Germans have been influenced by IA Celts, before becoming as good artists as them. I think both have had some input of Scythian art too, but I am not competent.
concerning auDNA and the Eurogenes map I saw: it's a "worked" PCA, but I 've some confidence in it nevertheless. The Hallstatt Celts were surely closer to the Central Europe of the time. N surprise if they were closer to East French and South German people of today. The British Celts had absorbed from a side some more Iberia Neolithic people with some local WHG, and on another side they have ancestry from more Northern pops since BB's. So less input from SE or CE. If you look at the PCA, Medieval Germans are closer to 'north', to 'anglo-saxon' and today Scandinavians, as are 'north-dutch'; logical. Closer to genuine Germanics. But here again, today Belgian are even closer than 'german' and 'english IA' are not farther than 'german' from 'hallstatt' . If NW French or better, Bretons, had been put on this PCA they would have been closer too, than 'E-france'. A caution: Eurogene PCA exagerate the N-S difference and flatten the W-E one...
Aside: 1/4 of the higher statute of Celtic Hallstatt tombs have a new type, found also in Moravia and in Silesia: higher statured than the Keltic noble type, higher skulled, more dolicho wiht higher faces, lower orbits and compressed temporals, more brutal I think (I would see here some return of old 'br?nn-like' input, more present in east): all the way, it was a strangers introgression in the elites, from East I think: famous 'Illyrians' or?... they don't look like the IA dolicho's of Denmark, themselves closer to IA Celts. But this concerns only an elite and doesn't have too great input onto auDNA of the pop. This new type of men almost disappeared later in La T?ne.
Personally, I think the La T?ne Celts have had a total influence because they are become part of the S and SW German people, even genetically (along Rhaetians?). Before it was maybe rather a cultural influence of Hallstatt.
the Hallstatt contacs have been through between people, I think. The post-La T?ne contacts have taken place very very later in N Germany (300 BC? even later?) before the Germanics expansion at the depends of Celts.
 
Bylany is really at the fringe of Hallstatt. What's needed are the elite samples from Austria, Switzerland etc. .

As I mentioned earlier, West Germanics were immigrants from Scandinavia and when they arrived not much was left of the Celts. West Germanic dialects were heavily influenced by Italic languages.

I think the Hallstatt Celts samples from Austria are clustering more closer to the current day Germans, than Hallstatt Celts from Bylany.
 

This thread has been viewed 25868 times.

Back
Top