Was R1b-U106 in Scandinavia&Frisia caused by Tumulus Culture proto-Celtic migrations?

[Asturrulumbo]

It has been proposed that R1b-U106 was diffused during the Iron Age Hallstatt Culture. I think it may have been earlier, in the Bronze Age, more specifically with the expansion of the Tumulus Culture.
Here's what the Celtic Encyclopedia has to say about the Tumulus Culture:

The Tumulus Culture was recognized for its use of the single grave with a covering mound. The warriors of the Tumulus Culture were highland horse-riding cattle-herders and lived in fortified villages. Like their predecessors the Unetice, the Tumulus Culture was well-situated to receive stimuli from other regions via the established overland trade routes.
Between BC 1800 to BC 1200, Unetice-Tumulus, highland warriors began to appear in the west of Europe. They were well-armed and they spread the use of the tumulus from Bohemia to the Rhine north of the Main, then into Switzerland, Belgium, Britain and Ireland. The tumulus was in vogue for most of Europe during the Middle Bronze Age.
The tumuli of the Tumulus Culture were very similar to those of the Goidel, Unetice, Wessex and Aremorican in form but in content and number they were quite different. Grave evidence has shown that the four groups were different cultures practising a similar Burial style.
The Bavarian group was recognized for its long swords with solid hilts. Excavation of the tumuli of Hungary exposed battle axes, while the Danube groups were noted for sickle-shaped dress pins and baked clay altars with decorations of horn, boats and triangles. the tumuli of eastern France revealed bodies lying in their back in an east-west direction with the head toward the rising sun. Grave goods included pottery with designs reminiscent of the older wooden cups. Boars were an important part of the grave goods in France. In the north, objects of sun worship have been found.
The early tumulus graves contained inhumed bodies but later graves contained cremated bodies as the transition to the Urnfield Culture began. The gods were shown as symbols rather than abstracted images. The sun god was represented by the sun wheel or the left-facing swastika of the Kurgan culture, which was used by the Celts and others from India to Ireland. The fire goddess was represented by the triangle or the right-facing swastika.
The people of the Tumulus Culture developed a profitable bronze industry in weapons, jewelry and tools. During BC 15th-12th centuries, Tumulus-Urnfield warriors raided east through Thrace and Illyria, crossed the Strait of Bosporus to Anatolia, then wreaked havoc in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.
The Egyptians referred to this group as the Sea Peoples and many of them worked as mercenaries for the Phoenicians who were developing their commercial trade route throughout the Mediterranean and into the Atlantic. They were described as ferocious warriors who wore their hair in a very stiff style.

Alright, so, ¿why have the Tumulus culture as a canditate for the northern spread of U106? There are many reasons. First of all, there are archaeological reasons: R1b1a, a haplogroup sometimes assumed to have gotten to W. Europe more from the southwest than the northwest, probably thus entered Northern Europe from the south. The northern expansion of the Tumulus culture could be seen as just that (it could have had a Founder Effect in those areas), as the earlier Unetice Culture was more localized around Bohemia. The Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures also saw expansions to the north, but what I believe is a telling point against these cultures is that if theirs was the expansion, it would also have brought R-S28 to the mix, and that haplogroup is meagre in Scandinavia and almost absent in Frisia:

There is also linguistic evidence: The placing of the Germanic branch within Indo-European has been something of a headache among linguists, as says the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture:

The position of Germanic is difficult to determine. Any
tree with Germanic included has many characters that do
not fit. Excluding Germanic allows trees (...) where the overwhelming majority of characters do fit.
It is also noteworthy that the lexical data from Germanic points
in a different direction, as it were, than the morphological
data. They attribute this "dual allegiance" as evidence that
pre-Germanic began to develop with the "Satem Core" (more particularly
paired with Balto-Slavic) but moved away from
that group early on (before many of the special innovations
defining that core group had developed) and into contact
with the western groups of ltalic and Celtic from which it
borrowed a number of distinctive vocabulary items sufficiently
early that these borrowings cannot be distinguished from true
cognates. (They recognize that these "undetectable borrowings"
are worrisome for their model, and of course any other
that relies on lexical equations.)

Seeing the Tumulus Culture as proto-Italo-Celtic, or as proto-Celtic that only very recently broke with Italic, would solve this problem.
What do you think?

[Taranis]

Let me say this, I personally always had the idea that U106 originated in the Nordic Bronze Age.

Regarding the linguistic position of Germanic, I absolutely agree about the 'hybrid' nature: you have a very old connection with the Balto-Slavic languages (which predates the Centum-Satem split), but beyond that it is a Centum language just like Celtic and Italic. You also have a sizable share of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic probably stemming from iron age contact with (the probably Proto-Gaulish speaking) Celts of Hallstatt. The question is, what happened in between?

What I find peculiar about R1b-U106 is the "hole" around the Harz mountains, which in turn corresponds with the highest concentrations of I2b. We interestingly see such a makeup there in the vicinity of the Harz mountains in the samples from Lichtenstein Cave from circa 1000 BC (Urnfield Culture): mostly I2b, and one sample of R1b-U106 and one of R1a, respectively. I always thought such a makeup would be totally non-representative of the actual makeup, but what if not?

[Asturrulumbo]

Regarding the linguistic position of Germanic, I absolutely agree about the 'hybrid' nature: you have a very old connection with the Balto-Slavic languages (which predates the Centum-Satem split), but beyond that it is a Centum language just like Celtic and Italic. You also have a sizable share of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic probably stemming from iron age contact with (the probably Proto-Gaulish speaking) Celts of Hallstatt. The question is, what happened in between?

Very true. First of all, one has to note the dispute currently lurking on whether PIE was Centum or Satem. I would say Centum, due to Tocharian being Centum. Satem in Balto-Slavic may possibly (possibly) be due to Iranian influence, for example. Now then, the relationship of Germanic with Italic and Celtic is basically lexical, which probably confirms it as a superstrate rather than a genetic relationship. Also note that if these Germanic borrowings are purely from the Hallstatt period, it would be hard to also explain its relationship with Italic.

What I find peculiar about R1b-U106 is the "hole" around the Harz mountains, which in turn corresponds with the highest concentrations of I2b. We interestingly see such a makeup there in the vicinity of the Harz mountains in the samples from Lichtenstein Cave from circa 1000 BC (Urnfield Culture): mostly I2b, and one sample of R1b-U106 and one of R1a, respectively. I always thought such a makeup would be totally non-representative of the actual makeup, but what if not?

Indeed, the I2b concentration around the Harz mountains may have been even higher earlier, before Hallstatt Celts probably "filled" the R1b "hole" with R-S28.
Edit: I did some further research on the cave you mentioned, and I think we should also take into account that those buried there were related.

[Taranis]

Very true. First of all, one has to note the dispute currently lurking on whether PIE was Centum or Satem. I would say Centum, due to Tocharian being Centum. Satem in Balto-Slavic may possibly (possibly) be due to Iranian influence, for example.

I would argue that technically, PIE was neither. Proto-Indo-European had a total of 15 different stop sounds, which are usually displayed as shown below:

*t, *d, *dh
*p, *b, *bh
*k, *g, *gh
*k´, *g´, *g´h
*kw, *gw, *gwh

What the Centum-Satem split is all is the treatment of the sounds *k´, *g´, *g´h (also called 'palatovelars'). In the centum languages (Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek, Tocharian) these are merged with *k, *g and *gh (the so-called 'plain' velars). In the Satem languages (Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic) these are turned into s-like sounds. It is obvious though that the original state cannot have been *k, *g and *gh or *s/*z-like sounds, because both Centum and Satem languages have words that all correspond to *k, *g, *gh and *s in Proto-Indo-European. The general dating for this sound shift is usually in the late 3rd to early 2nd millennium BC. This is because the oldst attested Centum language (Mycenean Greek) is attested from the mid-2nd millennium BC and it obviously has already merged *k´, *g´, *g´h with *k, *g, *gh (this must have obviously been a development the predated Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italic and Proto-Greek or happened at a very early stage).

I should also mentioned a quick word on the Anatolian languages. They are in my opinion the first branch of IE to diverge, and they probably predate the Centum-Satem split, and as a result should be technically considered neither Centum nor Satem.

Now then, the relationship of Germanic with Italic and Celtic is basically lexical, which probably confirms it as a superstrate rather than a genetic relationship. Also note that if these Germanic borrowings are purely from the Hallstatt period, it would be hard to also explain its relationship with Italic.

The problem is that the "bottom end" of Proto-Germanic is very hard to grasp, unlike with Proto-Celtic or Proto-Italic. The problem is that the First Germanic Sound Shift (also called Grimm's Law) which is the unifying feature of all Germanic languages, occurs relatively late. The traditional approach was after 500 BC, but modern estimates put even later, into the 1st century BC. This means it is very hard to grasp what innovations Proto-Germanic did between it's divergence from PIE (and Centumization) and the occurence of Grimm's Law.

What I can tell you with certainty is that Proto-Germanic did not do the *p > *kw before *kw shift that occured in both Celtic and Italic (otherwise the English word for 'five' wouldn't be 'five').

My opinion is that this suggests some kind of very long isolation (possibly during the bronze age).

I'm not sure if the Nordic Bronze Age culture matches this condition, however. And I am not quite convinced that R1b-U106 matches the Nordic Bronze Age, either.

[Asturrulumbo]

What I can tell you with certainty is that Proto-Germanic did not do the *p > *kw before *kw shift that occured in both Celtic and Italic (otherwise the English word for 'five' wouldn't be 'five').

*p> *kw in Italic only occurred in the second syllable, this suggests to me that it was either by Celtic influence or an independent change, and thus the hypothetical Proto-Italo-Celtic language would still probably maintain the PIE *p (see also the maintaining of *p in Lusitanian)

[Taranis]

*p> *kw in Italic only occurred in the second syllable, this suggests to me that it was either by Celtic influence or an independent change, and thus the hypothetical Proto-Italo-Celtic language would still probably maintain the PIE *p (see also the maintaining of *p in Lusitanian)

Umm, no. I admit that may have been confusing, but look closely what I said: *p > *kw before *kw (ie, another *kw in the same word, for example *penkwe > *kwenkwe ). I agree however that *p in Proto-Italic was otherwise untouched.

Regarding Lusitanian, I unfortunately don't know if it is attested if Lusitanian did execute this "Italo-Celtic" sound law because I cannot think of a single attested Lusitanian word that would show this. What is clear however is that Lusitanian retained the *p of Proto-Indo-European (unlike the Celtic languages).

In the Germanic languages, *p was completely untouched until the First Germanic Sound Shift took place, when it was shifted to *f.

Anyways, I'm not sure you saw this earlier, but I added this:

I'm not sure if the Nordic Bronze Age culture matches this condition, however. And I am not quite convinced that R1b-U106 matches the Nordic Bronze Age, either.

[Asturrulumbo]

Umm, no. I admit that may have been confusing, but look closely what I said: *p > *kw before *kw (ie, another *kw in the same word, for example *penkwe > *kwenkwe ). I agree however that *p in Proto-Italic was otherwise untouched.

Regarding Lusitanian, I unfortunately don't know if it is attested if Lusitanian did execute this "Italo-Celtic" sound law because I cannot think of a single attested Lusitanian word that would show this. What is clear however is that Lusitanian retained the *p of Proto-Indo-European (unlike the Celtic languages).

In the Germanic languages, *p was completely untouched until the First Germanic Sound Shift took place, when it was shifted to *f.

Ah, but such a specific sound shift was much less probable to happen (be aware that in any case we would only be talking of a somewhat superficial superstrate). But do note that the proposed relationship is based on lexical terms, not phonology.

[Asturrulumbo]

And I am not quite convinced that R1b-U106 matches the Nordic Bronze Age, either.

In my opinion, no. Look at the very high amount of U106 around Austria. If this were due to a later Germanic migration, then there would be a much greater amount of I2b. The same applies for Belgium and Frisia.
Edit: I meant I1, not I1b

[Taranis]

Ah, but such a specific sound shift was much less probable to happen (be aware that in any case we would only be talking of a somewhat superficial superstrate). But do note that the proposed relationship is based on lexical terms, not phonology.

Oh, yes. Lexical items is a good point. They would obviously predate the First Germanic Sound Shift (also easily by long time) so this would be absolutely viable.

In my opinion, no. Look at the very high amount of U106 around Austria. If this were due to a later Germanic migration, then there would be a much greater amount of I2b. The same applies for Belgium and Frisia.

I've always been bugged up if you will by the Austrian U106 peak. As of lately I have been pondering on a connection with the Migrations Period as you said, but before I favoured that it actually is older. Of course, I must add that the situation with U106 raises a question in regard for Britain: is all British U106 of Germanic origin (this is something that one must ask as a consequence)? If U106 isn't wholly Germanic, then at least some of it could have arrived together with U152, which would explain why U152 and U106 correlate so well. Conversely, the problem is that U152 can obviously NOT have arrived with the Anglo-Saxon invasions because it is extremely rare in the original Anglo-Saxon homelands. However, as Dubhthach pointed out, the geography of Britain would have promoted a similar dispersal pattern for U152 and for U106 if they arrived separately with the Hallstatt Celts and the Anglo-Saxon invasion, respectively.

[Asturrulumbo]

Oh, yes. Lexical items is a good point. They would obviously predate the First Germanic Sound Shift (also easily by long time) so this would be absolutely viable.



I've always been bugged up if you will by the Austrian U106 peak. As of lately I have been pondering on a connection with the Migrations Period as you said, but before I favoured that it actually is older. Of course, I must add that the situation with U106 raises a question in regard for Britain: is all British U106 of Germanic origin (this is something that one must ask as a consequence)? If U106 isn't wholly Germanic, then at least some of it could have arrived together with U152, which would explain why U152 and U106 correlate so well. Conversely, the problem is that U152 can obviously NOT have arrived with the Anglo-Saxon invasions because it is extremely rare in the original Anglo-Saxon homelands. However, as Dubhthach pointed out, the geography of Britain would have promoted a similar dispersal pattern for U152 and for U106 if they arrived separately with the Hallstatt Celts and the Anglo-Saxon invasion, respectively.

I would say that U106 is around 30% Celtic in Britain. Any more would not explain why it's completely absent in Wales while U152 (undoubtedly Celtic), which is much less frequent in Britain, does have some frequency in Southern Wales.
Edit: Actually, now I think about it, it could be more: Wales is dominated by R1b-L21, and I believe that haplogroup arrived a bit later, with the Atlantic Bronze Age. And U152, too, probably arrived to Britain even later (with the Hallstatt culture), so it may be as high as 50%, perhaps. Of that, maybe half or a bit more arrived during the initial Tumulus expansion and the rest with the Hallstatt Culture.

[zanipolo]

IMO , since the austrians only began after 1000AD, you need to find who the ancients where. the only site I found was

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...0celts&f=false

Since we know that the Taurisci and Carni where gallic-celtic tribes living in Noricum, we can assume that they where U152 ........well this does not make sense if U106 is in Noricum ( western Austria ) at present.

did the northern illyrians of pannonia ( next to noricum ) have U106 ?
did the raeti have U106 along with G2a?
did the Veneti really be in noricum from 500BC to 1025 BC ? ....did they have U106? there is only 10-15% of U106 there now

We do know that the Bavarians settled in Austria as the austria language to this day is a bavarian dialect.

I guess that the celts of southern Germany where always U106 , when they migrated eastward , they populated the western Austrian lands. They also must be part of the alemanni people.

The slavs and avars of austrian lands had no U106 that I can see.

I was told U106 is slightly older than U152


To conclude - The celts in the ancient bronze and iron ages where not a culture but purely a linguistic people and the ligurian celts where u152 and the germanic celts where u106

[Asturrulumbo]

IMO , since the austrians only began after 1000AD, you need to find who the ancients where. the only site I found was

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...0celts&f=false

Since we know that the Taurisci and Carni where gallic-celtic tribes living in Noricum, we can assume that they where U152 ........well this does not make sense if U106 is in Noricum ( western Austria ) at present.

did the northern illyrians of pannonia ( next to noricum ) have U106 ?
did the raeti have U106 along with G2a?
did the Veneti really be in noricum from 500BC to 1025 BC ? ....did they have U106? there is only 10-15% of U106 there now

We do know that the Bavarians settled in Austria as the austria language to this day is a bavarian dialect.

I guess that the celts of southern Germany where always U106 , when they migrated eastward , they populated the western Austrian lands. They also must be part of the alemanni people.

The slavs and avars of austrian lands had no U106 that I can see.

I was told U106 is slightly older than U152


To conclude - The celts in the ancient bronze and iron ages where not a culture but purely a linguistic people and the ligurian celts where u152 and the germanic celts where u106

But we are talking about much earlier times; about 1400 BC, and in those days the Proto-Celts were centred around Bohemia and Bavaria, the Little Pannonian Plain and Austria along the Danube, northern Switzerland and eastern France, and were gradually expanding to the north. What makes me think that U106 emerged around Austria is its high concentration there. U152 probably appeared in what is now Northern Switzerland, and then spread with the Hallstatt and La Tene expansions.
About G2a, it may have been that it expanded to Britain and Scandinavia with these expansions... And yes, the Raeti probably did have some U106 in my opinion.

[zanipolo]

But we are talking about much earlier times; about 1400 BC, and in those days the Proto-Celts were centred around Bohemia and Bavaria, the Little Pannonian Plain and Austria along the Danube, northern Switzerland and eastern France, and were gradually expanding to the north. What makes me think that U106 emerged around Austria is its high concentration there. U152 probably appeared in what is now Northern Switzerland, and then spread with the Hallstatt and La Tene expansions.
About G2a, it may have been that it expanded to Britain and Scandinavia with these expansions... And yes, the Raeti probably did have some U106 in my opinion.

I was wrong, vienna was in Pannonia and not in Noricum. pannonia in the bronze age was all Illyrian tribes.
Vienna was called Vindobona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindobona

Since Perego ( archeologist) in 2010 found the earliest veneti around the adriatic area to be not earlier than 1025BC , and the veneti gathered amber from the aestiii in Carnuntum to bring to ateste ( este) where it was sailed to Meleda ( Mljet) or Stagno ( Ston ) and there sold to the Phoenicians, then your time of 1400BC can only be Illyrian people in the centre of U106 in Vienna area.

Granted next came the celts , then the germanic Macromanni, Cotini and Quadi tribes.

So, my guess is to only look at these germanic tribes for the Vienna area to gather this info on U106. I cannot see who else stayed there for such a long time to ensure this high percentage of U106.

[Asturrulumbo]

I was wrong, vienna was in Pannonia and not in Noricum. pannonia in the bronze age was all Illyrian tribes.
Vienna was called Vindobona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindobona

Since Perego ( archeologist) in 2010 found the earliest veneti around the adriatic area to be not earlier than 1025BC , and the veneti gathered amber from the aestiii in Carnuntum to bring to ateste ( este) where it was sailed to Meleda ( Mljet) or Stagno ( Ston ) and there sold to the Phoenicians, then your time of 1400BC can only be Illyrian people in the centre of U106 in Vienna area.

Granted next came the celts , then the germanic Macromanni, Cotini and Quadi tribes.

So, my guess is to only look at these germanic tribes for the Vienna area to gather this info on U106. I cannot see who else stayed there for such a long time to ensure this high percentage of U106.

But the Veneti were, in my opinion, an Illyrianized para-Italic population, and I think it could be possible that some U106 was indigenous to Italy (ie. not brought by Germanic peoples)... Anyway, I insist, U106 could not be purely Germanic; look at Britain, for example: It's found in the same frequencies as in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons, but they obviously did not completely replace the earlier populations.

[Taranis]

I was wrong, vienna was in Pannonia and not in Noricum. pannonia in the bronze age was all Illyrian tribes.
Vienna was called Vindobona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindobona

Since Perego ( archeologist) in 2010 found the earliest veneti around the adriatic area to be not earlier than 1025BC , and the veneti gathered amber from the aestiii in Carnuntum to bring to ateste ( este) where it was sailed to Meleda ( Mljet) or Stagno ( Ston ) and there sold to the Phoenicians, then your time of 1400BC can only be Illyrian people in the centre of U106 in Vienna area.

Sorry, but the town name 'Vindobonna' is not Illyrian but Celtic('Windo-' = white, an 'Bonn-' = foundation/basis/footing/sole, compare the town 'Bonn').

Granted next came the celts , then the germanic Macromanni, Cotini and Quadi tribes.

So, my guess is to only look at these germanic tribes for the Vienna area to gather this info on U106. I cannot see who else stayed there for such a long time to ensure this high percentage of U106.

The Marcomanni and Quadi were Germanic, yes, but the Cotini were Celtic. Tacitus refers to them explicitly as Gaulish.

As for the Venetic language, I would refer to their language as 'Para-Italic' too.

But the Veneti were, in my opinion, an Illyrianized para-Italic population, and I think it could be possible that some U106 was indigenous to Italy (ie. not brought by Germanic peoples)... Anyway, I insist, U106 could not be purely Germanic; look at Britain, for example: It's found in the same frequencies as in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons, but they obviously did not completely replace the earlier populations.

This is a very good point, in my opinion.

[zanipolo]

Sorry, but the town name 'Vindobonna' is not Illyrian but Celtic('Windo-' = white, an 'Bonn-' = foundation/basis/footing/sole, compare the town 'Bonn').

I agree with you. I was trying to point out that Vienna began after the celts arrived ( I read it was the Vinid celtic tribe ) and not while the illyrians where there in 1400BC

The Marcomanni and Quadi were Germanic, yes, but the Cotini were Celtic. Tacitus refers to them explicitly as Gaulish.

Ok, correct the cotini was gallic tribe , I must be thinking about the Osi tribe instead.

As for the Venetic language, I would refer to their language as 'Para-Italic' too.

Agree, especially since its ( veneti) neighbours used it as well, like the carni and Histri tribe ( carni where gallic celts)

[zanipolo]

But the Veneti were, in my opinion, an Illyrianized para-Italic population, and I think it could be possible that some U106 was indigenous to Italy (ie. not brought by Germanic peoples)... Anyway, I insist, U106 could not be purely Germanic; look at Britain, for example: It's found in the same frequencies as in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons, but they obviously did not completely replace the earlier populations.

I agree they ( veneti) where illyrian , but the surrounding tribes which became veneti where originally a ligurian-gallic people.

I see where you are saying that U106 commenced in the Pannonia/noricum area ( from other internet sites ), but its strange that this U106 only travelled in a north-west direction into frisian lands. Frisians who where at that time very similar in language and customs to the saxons.
It is a possibility, but its strange if its true.

[Asturrulumbo]

I agree with you. I was trying to point out that Vienna began after the celts arrived ( I read it was the Vinid celtic tribe ) and not while the illyrians where there in 1400BC

I don't understand what you mean by saying the Illyrians were along the Upper Danube in 1400 BC, I don't think they were ever there. And the mainstream hypothesis for the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians is that they originated in the West Balkans during the Early Bronze Age (in the West Balkans, this meaning the 19th-16th centuries BC):

Though it continues to be much debated, it continues to be still the view of some archaeologists that the spread of metal in the Danube lands was marked by a large-scale migration of new people into the area from steppes of Western Asia and the Black Sea region. Moreover, many believe that this was the only major population movement in the area, the later Aegean migrations that marked the end of the Bronze Age (1200 BC) being merely a southward shift of Balkan and Lower Danube communities towards the Aegean and Near East. The three phases of the Bronze Age in the western Balkans, Early Bronze 1900/1800-1600/1500 BC, Middle Bronze 1600/1500-c. 1300 BC, and Late Bronze to c. 1200 BC, appear to be later and less sophisticated versions of those in the Danube basin, the Eastern Balkans and the Carpathians, all of which reached full development by the end of the third millennium. Archaeologist currently believe that a gradual formation of local cultures and ethnic groups they are judged to represent took phase during the latest phase of the stone age (Eneolithic), and that these were consolidated rather than curtailed by the arrival of newcomers from the east. It is also suggested, though not uncontested, that these newcomers were Indo-European speakers. A symbiosis between these and the existing communities resulted in the formation of the principal tribal groups of what are now called the Paleo-Balkan peoples. On this, it is suggested, there is warrant to base the hypothesis of an unbroken continuity in population from the Early Bronze Age down to the first historical records of Balkan peoples. In this equation the principal regional groups defined by characteristics of their material culture are then identified with historical groups thus: East Balkan Bronze Age represents Thracians, the Balkano-Danubian the "Proto-Daco-Moesians", and the West Balkan the Illyrians.

John Wilkes, The Illyrians

I see where you are saying that U106 commenced in the Pannonia/noricum area ( from other internet sites ), but its strange that this U106 only travelled in a north-west direction into frisian lands. Frisians who where at that time very similar in language and customs to the saxons.
It is a possibility, but its strange if its true.

Frisians, Saxons... Those people didn't exist in the middle Bronze Age, nor were there Germanic peoples in Frisia yet:

Red = Settlements before 750 BC
Orange = New settlements after 750 BC until 1 AD
Yellow = New settlements until 100 AD
Green = New settlements after 100 AD
Also, I don't necessarily propose that U106 emerged around Vienna, I propose it emerged somewhere along the upper Danube (its high frequency around Vienna may simply be that it was not later replaced by U152 with the Hallstatt/la Tene expansions)

[zanipolo]

I don't understand what you mean by saying the Illyrians were along the Upper Danube in 1400 BC, I don't think they were ever there. And the mainstream hypothesis for the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians is that they originated in the West Balkans during the Early Bronze Age (in the West Balkans, this meaning the 19th-16th centuries BC):

John Wilkes, The Illyrians

You asked about the high U106 area around Vienna in the 1400BC.
I said, the area in ancient times was called pannonia and around 1400BC it had illyrian tribes ( the northern border was the danube river).

If you think this U106 originated later ( which is wrong because its stated its older then U152) , then it could be gallic-celtic .

I have wilkes book, what page do you refer to?

Frisians, Saxons... Those people didn't exist in the middle Bronze Age, nor were there Germanic peoples in Frisia yet:

Red = Settlements before 750 BC
Orange = New settlements after 750 BC until 1 AD
Yellow = New settlements until 100 AD
Green = New settlements after 100 AD
Also, I don't necessarily propose that U106 emerged around Vienna, I propose it emerged somewhere along the upper Danube (its high frequency around Vienna may simply be that it was not later replaced by U152 with the Hallstatt/la Tene expansions)

True in that frisian and saxon are after Roman empire, but are we not looking at modern haplotype numbers or not!

Also the cimbri tribe from danish lands stopped there ( upper danube - Pannonian/noricum lands ) as well as the Boii tribe

[Asturrulumbo]

You asked about the high U106 area around Vienna in the 1400BC.
I said, the area in ancient times was called pannonia and around 1400BC it had Illyrian tribes ( the northern border was the danube river).

But Pannonia (if by that you mean the Pannonian Plain) is a huge area: To say it had Illyrian tribes in 1400 BC (such as in Belotić and Bela Crkva)does not mean all of it had them but only in its far southern portion, and to the south there were also Illyrian settlements (such as Pod) in the more mountainous areas. In contrast, the northern portion of Pannonia (such as Viena) was inhabited by the Tumulus Culture, usually thought to be pre-Proto-Celtic.

If you think this U106 originated later ( which is wrong because its stated its older then U152) , then it could be gallic-celtic .

No, I do not think U106 originated later, all the contrary. I said U106 was pre-Proto-Celtic.

I have wilkes book, what page do you refer to?

Pgs. 33-34.

True in that frisian and saxon are after Roman empire, but are we not looking at modern haplotype numbers or not!

The fact that we are looking at modern haplotypes doesn't mean they all come from the most recent migration. Frisians and Saxons could have merely assimilated earliert U106 populations, as well as bring some U106 of their own.

[zanipolo]

But Pannonia (if by that you mean the Pannonian Plain) is a huge area: To say it had Illyrian tribes in 1400 BC (such as in Belotić and Bela Crkva)does not mean all of it had them but only in its far southern portion, and to the south there were also Illyrian settlements (such as Pod) in the more mountainous areas. In contrast, the northern portion of Pannonia (such as Viena) was inhabited by the Tumulus Culture, usually thought to be pre-Proto-Celtic.

I refer to Northern pannonia near the Colapis valley . there where Illyrian tribe like the Colapiani who lived east of the venetic ( linguitic) Catari tribe . There is also the illyrian Azali and Breuci tribes and below them the Japodes tribe. Then there is also the Scordisci who strabo says they are celtic , but appian includes them as Illyrian

PANNONIA, in ancient geography a country bounded north and east by the Danube, conterminous westward with Noricum and upper Italy, and southward with Dalmatia and upper Moesia. It thus corresponds to the south-western part of Hungary, with portions of lower Austria, Styria, Carniola, Croatia, and Slavonia. Its original inhabitants (Pannonii, sometimes called Paeonii by the Greeks) were of Illyrian race.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...tribes&f=false

pre - celtic would infer another residing culture

[Asturrulumbo]

I refer to Northern pannonia near the Colapis valley . there where Illyrian tribe like the Colapiani who lived east of the venetic ( linguitic) Catari tribe . There is also the illyrian Azali and Breuci tribes and below them the Japodes tribe. Then there is also the Scordisci who strabo says they are celtic , but appian includes them as Illyrian

PANNONIA, in ancient geography a country bounded north and east by the Danube, conterminous westward with Noricum and upper Italy, and southward with Dalmatia and upper Moesia. It thus corresponds to the south-western part of Hungary, with portions of lower Austria, Styria, Carniola, Croatia, and Slavonia. Its original inhabitants (Pannonii, sometimes called Paeonii by the Greeks) were of Illyrian race.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...tribes&f=false

pre - celtic would infer another residing culture

Alright, I found a map containing the Illyrian tribes you mention, and none of them are where there is a great concentration of U106, nor anywhere near Vienna:

Where I mean is the unusual concentration of U106 is around the Little Hungarian Plain, that is, the Pannonian Plain (which does not correspond to the Roman Province of the same name) northwest of the Transdanubian Mountains, and south of it in the Alps, and west of it along the Upper Danube.

[zanipolo]

Alright, I found a map containing the Illyrian tribes you mention, and none of them are where there is a great concentration of U106, nor anywhere near Vienna:

Where I mean is the unusual concentration of U106 is around the Little Hungarian Plain, that is, the Pannonian Plain (which does not correspond to the Roman Province of the same name) northwest of the Transdanubian Mountains, and south of it in the Alps, and west of it along the Upper Danube.

ok, who do you think resided in the upper pannonian area ( vienna) in 1400 BC..............hope you do not think it was the celts.!

THE PANNONIAN-VENETIC GODDESS LOUZERA HAVING identified Libera in the Cadore situla (162) on epigraphic and linguistic grounds, I sought help on the religious side of the question from Dr. Warde Fowler
Above, not earlier than 1025BC , besides venetic refers to language and not people

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...nnonia&f=false
Above, the Osi who spoke pannonian according to tacitus

maybe its part of the veterov culture, which had links with mycene

[Asturrulumbo]

ok, who do you think resided in the upper pannonian area ( vienna) in 1400 BC..............hope you do not think it was the celts.!

THE PANNONIAN-VENETIC GODDESS LOUZERA HAVING identified Libera in the Cadore situla (162) on epigraphic and linguistic grounds, I sought help on the religious side of the question from Dr. Warde Fowler
Above, not earlier than 1025BC , besides venetic refers to language and not people

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...nnonia&f=false
Above, the Osi who spoke pannonian according to tacitus

maybe its part of the veterov culture, which had links with mycene

Alright, so from what I read, there was a mixture of Celts and Veneti in the time of Roman expansion. The Venetic language is most related to Italic (though with Illyrian influences), so, adhering to the Italo-Celtic theory that the Terramare Culture was proto-Italic, one may think that U106 could have originated around 1500 BC or earlier before or during the Tumulus/Unetice migrations into the Po valley.
In 1400 BC, "Celts" did not really exist... Early Proto-Celtic could be more appropriate.

[zanipolo]

Alright, so from what I read, there was a mixture of Celts and Veneti in the time of Roman expansion. The Venetic language is most related to Italic (though with Illyrian influences), so, adhering to the Italo-Celtic theory that the Terramare Culture was proto-Italic, one may think that U106 could have originated around 1500 BC or earlier before or during the Tumulus/Unetice migrations into the Po valley.
In 1400 BC, "Celts" did not really exist... Early Proto-Celtic could be more appropriate.

so, what is this 1400BC u106 people that where in upper-pannonia that migrated to dutch lands. What do other net sites say

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...nonica&f=false