Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 150

Thread: Large-Scale Migration into Southern Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age.

  1. #76
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Yes, it would be interesting. What ancient DNA do we have?
    We know U106 expanded as early as 4,6 ka, and when checking the distribution map, the conclusion at first sight would be they were proto-Germanic.
    But maybe if we would have maps with distributions of the major subclades, we could come to other conclusions.
    I guess what we basically can see, is the occurrence of a genetic Nordwestblock.


    This is of course originally from linguistics and coined by German linguist Kuhn (1962) and the Belgian linguist Gysseling.





    Why can could we call them also in genetic sense a Nordwestblock? That's because they occupy a position on the G25 PCA which is in the utterly NW corner even beyond the modern day outmost NW population: the Irish!





    Two of them are related to R1b U106 (beneath Z156), that is most probably related to Tumulus spread. Even nowadays the NW-block area is the R1b U106 hotspot.


    Of course all tentative, we need more samples, and there is much more to say about it, nevertheless I guess the Nordwestblock is with regard to the Dutch samples what we basically can detect.

  2. #77
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    IMO...........la Tene celts came from france alsace area ......................halstatt celts came from Bavaria and czech lands ....................I doubt they are the exact same ethnicity especially since there is over 400 years of difference between the 2 cultures

    We also need to know how many of these celts are associated with the celt capital near frankfurt germany ...that is Glauberg
    Time is not synonym of change in everyplace, and change is not synonym of replacement or introgression everytime.
    It seems 3/4 of the Hallstatt elite was similar to the first elite layer itself not too different from LaTène elites, at the physical aspect.
    From Alsace/Elsass? Rather the center of LaTène was around Rhine river (Hessen).
    Celts were not veru centralised, so ONE capital would be surprising.
    But I have to study the Glauberg question.

  3. #78
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,490

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Time is not synonym of change in everyplace, and change is not synonym of replacement or introgression everytime.
    It seems 3/4 of the Hallstatt elite was similar to the first elite layer itself not too different from LaTène elites, at the physical aspect.
    From Alsace/Elsass? Rather the center of LaTène was around Rhine river (Hessen).
    Celts were not veru centralised, so ONE capital would be surprising.
    But I have to study the Glauberg question.
    If as you say the Hessen area ............then Glauberg in nearby ..............I do not doubt that, that is, that area of Germany and Eastern-France had a role in La Tene

    Halstatt is near Vienna , it clearly shows celts from eastern Bavaria and modern Czech lands
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-Z282

  4. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    878


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    If as you say the Hessen area ............then Glauberg in nearby ..............I do not doubt that, that is, that area of Germany and Eastern-France had a role in La Tene
    Halstatt is near Vienna , it clearly shows celts from eastern Bavaria and modern Czech lands
    Die hallstattzeitliche Bevlkerung wurde etwa ab 450 v. Chr. durch Zuwanderung keltischer Bevlkerungselemente aus dem keltischen Kerngebiet (Sdwestdeutschland und Ostfrankreich) assimiliert. Inwieweit die Menschen der lteren Eisenzeit (Hallstattzeit), benannt nach dem berhmten obersterreichischen Grberfeld und Salzbergbau von Hallstatt, bereits Kelten waren, ist nach wie vor umstritten.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

    The Eastern Hallstatt groups being largely ruined by the Scythian and Thraco-Scythian incursions, its just after this raids and collapse, that typical Celts come down:
    Als am Beginn des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Gruppen keltischer Krieger auch in den Ostalpenraum vordrangen, wandelten sich erneut die innenpolitischen Verhltnisse in Krnten.
    https://www.keltenwelt.at/content/ke...rste-haupstadt

    Groups like Frg and Kalenderberg were in all likelihood independent political-ethnic units and their Celtic character is everything but proven, even on the contrary. Its being just provent that they had close ties with Western Celts.

  5. #80
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    If as you say the Hessen area ............then Glauberg in nearby ..............I do not doubt that, that is, that area of Germany and Eastern-France had a role in La Tene
    Halstatt is near Vienna , it clearly shows celts from eastern Bavaria and modern Czech lands
    Hallstatt seems come from East for the future KNOWN Celtic core, and surely on foreign eastern impulse, it's was not very Celtic by origin, BUT it send cultural modficiations among the Celtic world, and Celtic Hallstatt was no more the original Hallstatt, only kind of consequences of it in my view of things.

  6. #81
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,002


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Time is not synonym of change in everyplace, and change is not synonym of replacement or introgression everytime.
    It seems 3/4 of the Hallstatt elite was similar to the first elite layer itself not too different from LaTène elites, at the physical aspect.
    From Alsace/Elsass? Rather the center of LaTène was around Rhine river (Hessen).
    Celts were not veru centralised, so ONE capital would be surprising.
    But I have to study the Glauberg question.
    It's a rule of great importance in population genetics, but too often forgotten.

    Much too much theorizing and making absolute pronouncements based on incredibly flimsy to no evidence whatsoever in this thread for my liking.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  7. #82
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,490

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum
    The Eastern Hallstatt groups being largely ruined by the Scythian and Thraco-Scythian incursions, its just after this raids and collapse, that typical Celts come down:
    https://www.keltenwelt.at/content/ke...rste-haupstadt
    Groups like Fr�g and Kalenderberg were in all likelihood independent political-ethnic units and their Celtic character is everything but proven, even on the contrary. Its being just provent that they had close ties with Western Celts.
    this is the early Noricum map

    before the romans change the Rhaetia province to include the vindelica province into Rhaetia.

    The attached map has Vienna under pannonia at the time .......later maps placed Vienna under Noricum.

    The current capital of Slovenia was under Illyria at the time.

    AEmona

  8. #83
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Time is not synonym of change in everyplace, and change is not synonym of replacement or introgression everytime.
    It seems 3/4 of the Hallstatt elite was similar to the first elite layer itself not too different from LaTène elites, at the physical aspect.
    From Alsace/Elsass? Rather the center of LaTène was around Rhine river (Hessen).
    Celts were not veru centralised, so ONE capital would be surprising.
    But I have to study the Glauberg question.
    Sometimes the "golden oldie" archeologist have hit the nail on the head.


    When I read this, I was astonished.....so to the core with what we are talking about here!


    It's a long quote but as it contributes very specific to the topic, I took the freedom.


    C.F.C. Hawkes, The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe to the Mycenean Age (1940) 275-277 passim:


    West of the Elbe, on the heaths of the Emsland and Drenthe, the complex of Single-grave and Beaker cultures, formed as above described (p. 259), lasted on into the Middle Bronze Age without assimilation to the Germanic province of culture. Despite its incorporation of the old Huns’-bed megalith folk, its affinities were rather with the Rhineland, and shared rather with the Beaker folk of Britain than with the Germans towards and beyond the Elbe mouth. In fact, Holland and North-West Germany are to be reckoned with the territories of the Tumulus cultures whose rise into the Middle Bronze Age has already been partly described further south. Their history in Bavaria and beyond was repeated on the Swabian uplands of Württemberg, where the Bronze Age barrow folk look back to Corded-ware origin and on to a potent sequel in the Iron Age; it was repeated again in the whole region of Hessen towards the Middle Rhine and the territory of the persisting Adlerberg culture (p. 302) along the Rhine itself; and again further south-west in Alsace, where the great barrow-concentrations of the Forest of Haguenau answer closely to those of Württemberg; and leads us over into France on the one hand by Lorraine, on the other by the Jura and the uplands of Burgundy.

    The irruption in these quarters of barrow-building warriors of Corded-ware stock into France has been sketched above (p. 311), and it was in the period round about 1400 B.C. that their emergence to full Bronze Age status—that of the ‘Bronze Age III’ of the French chronology of Joseph Déchelette—begins to be perceptible. Their westward diffusion is indeed obscure, but the group that had created the brilliant Breton culture (p. 312) was now in its heyday, and further south the Middle Bronze Age of the Charente comes to show marked affinities to that of the Rhine. In all South-West and much of Central France, it is true, the old Chalcolithic culture still clung to its caves and degenerate megaliths, while in the south the same conservatism was modified both from North Italy and slightly from Spain, and more strongly by the Rhône culture (p. 310), the maturity of which from far down the Rhône up into Switzerland probably falls within the Middle Bronze Age. The balance between Chalcolithic and true Bronze Age cultures in France was on the whole loosely formed, and much play has been made with the conception of the Chalcolithic peoples as Ligurian on one side, Iberian on the other.

    The question remains how far the Celts who from North France and the Lower Rhine came in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages to invade the British Isles may have been treading paths already trodden by their own kin within the centuries covered by this book. It is a difficult question to answer; but the position can at least be clarified by considering the peoples who went to make up the Middle Bronze Age civilization of these islands in due relation to the progenitors of the Celts on the Continent. How, then, in the first place were the Continental Celts engendered?
    The centre of gravity of the expanded Celtic world of the Iron Age comprised, broadly speaking, South-West Germany (with the Swiss plateau) and Eastern France, and it is here too that linguistic evidence, headed by that of Celtic river-names, points to the most ancient currency of Celtic speech, with the important modifications that the greater weight lies on the east rather than the west of the Rhine, and that as well as South-West also North-West Germany is to be included. Now, in the earlier prehistory of these lands of the Rhine basin we have above pointed out the importance of the great movement of ‘Westernization’ in later Neolithic times, which replaced their original Danubian culture by the Michelsberg representative of the Western Neolithic (p. 137).
    ….


    Thus the substratum for the Bronze Age became predominatingly Western instead of Danubian as it was in the Aunjetitz province further east. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the aboriginal element, descended, no doubt, from Mesolithic times, that seems recognizable in the long-lived tradition of finger-printed coarse pottery. Before the Bronze Age opened, there had been two major additions to these basic constituents: the Bell-beaker folk from the South-West, and the Corded-ware warriors from Central Germany. The former spread all down the Rhine and well away to the east of it, while the latter fused with them in the Rhine valley and as far as Holland and the north-west of Germany, and also spread west and south-west to form the Barrow cultures of the east of France, to enter into the formation of the Rhône culture, and to run out still further west, most notably to create the Early Bronze Age culture of Brittany (pp. 310–14). Till towards the end of the second millennium, no further intrusions into any part of these territories are to be detected.

    On their Alpine side, they marched with North Italy and the recruitment-areas of the immigrants responsible for the Indo-European essentials of Italic language: philological connexions between Italic and Celtic tongues are close, and as well as their Indo-European essentials, substratum contributions may also need allowing for from Western Neolithic and aboriginal sources common to both sides of the Alps. On the east, their frontier is clearly that dividing the Aunjetitz area from the Tumulus cultures that from Bavaria and Thuringia westwards grew up outside its immediate orbit. And it is, in fact, in those Tumulus cultures, formed on a Western and aboriginal Neolithic substratum by the mixed Corded-ware and Beaker peoples, that the prime element in the Celts is to be sought, running southwest to include the people of the Rhône culture, west to the outlying group in Brittany, and north to include the mixed Beaker and Barrow peoples of the Lower Rhine, Holland, and North-West Germany, where between the Weser and the Elbe ran their frontier with, the Germanic population of the Northern lands.

    Both these two wings, the Breton and the Northern, are of especial importance for Britain. When intrusion did come to disturb the West European Tumulus-culture area towards the end of the second millennium, it was that of the Urnfield peoples of the Late Bronze Age, with their main impulse in the forceful expansion of the Lausitz folk (p. 362). Indeed, it is often held that until this Urnfield contribution to the West had been made, it is improper to consider the Celts as a fully formed entity: the Tumulus peoples of earlier Bronze Age times can be called no more than proto-Celts. But, to take first the Northern or Lower Rhenish wing of their distribution, this was reached by the Urnfield movement late and in considerably modified form; and since it was from here that, in the Late Bronze Age and later, Britain received some of her most important drafts of Celtic immigrants, it is needful to realize that those immigrants seem to be drawn—to start with at any rate—rather from a Lower Rhenish population set in motion by the Urnfielders’ approach, than from one already altered by their admixture.

    Further, the contemporary advance of the Germans from the Elbe towards the Weser and the Rhine should also have set the Tumulus population here in motion; and in the Late Bronze Age immigrations of Celts into North Britain, and above all Ireland, there is a good deal to suggest an origin in this quarter rather than anywhere further south or west, without anything specifically referable to a contribution from the Urnfielders. So it becomes highly relevant to recall that the composition of these Lower Rhenish and North-West German Tumulus folk, blended, as we have seen, of Beaker, Corded-ware, and Single-grave people on a substratum closely akin to the Bell-urn and Neolithic B elements in Britain (pp. 271–2), can hardly be taken as anything but virtually identical with that of the Beaker immigrants who passed over to Britain in the early second millennium from this very quarter. In other words, if the Rhenish Tumulus people were Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should be said of the Rhenish Beaker immigrants into Britain—that is, in any case, the B2 and A Beaker peoples of our sixth chapter (pp. 268, 273). Similarly, if the Rhône culture and their neighbours are Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should hold good for the Early Bronze Age invaders of Brittany, and if for them, then also for the dissident group of them who crossed over to make the Early Bronze Age culture of Wessex (p. 316).

    Bronze Age Britain, then, should be admitted Celtic to a like if not the same extent as the Continental West of the Tumulus cultures. For, as well as the Beaker immigrants, we have considerable affinities with the Continent in Neolithic substrata: on the one hand, in the Western people of our Neolithic A; on the other, in those of Neolithic B and their counterparts on the other side of the Narrow Seas, whose kinship may be supposed to go back to Mesolithic times. And if abroad the history of the spread of Celtic civilization westward is mainly that of the ‘Celticization’ of the Western and aboriginal peoples who had clung so long to Chalcolithic culture and the megalithic religion, the analogous process in the British Isles did not wait for the Celtic immigrations of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: it was an affair in the first instance of the Bronze Age—begun by the northward and westward roving of groups of the Beaker folk, and maintained by the people we know from the food-vessel and its derivative classes of pottery, into and through the Middle Bronze Age. This will become clearer if we consider briefly the formation of the Middle Bronze Age in the British Isles and the cultural balance which it so distinctively represents.

    The Age has long been regarded as one of fusion between the descendants of Beaker immigrants and Neolithic natives, and though both have turned out to consist of more complex population-groups than was formerly suspected, the period was certainly one in which these groups settled down in unity together. The commonly accepted symbol of this is the cinerary urn wherein the cremated remains of the dead came to be deposited, for the most part under barrows in the Early Bronze Age tradition introduced by the immigrants. But whereas the rite of cremation in the south of Britain is apparently the contribution of the Breton invaders of Wessex, responsible also for the practice of placing a pygmy offering-cup in the grave, yet the urn itself is to the outlying group in Brittany, and north to include the mixed Beaker and Barrow peoples of the Lower Rhine, Holland, and North-West Germany, where between the Weser and the Elbe ran their frontier with, the Germanic population of the Northern lands.

  9. #84
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Sometimes the "golden oldie" archeologist have hit the nail on the head.


    When I read this, I was astonished.....so to the core with what we are talking about here!


    It's a long quote but as it contributes very specific to the topic, I took the freedom.


    C.F.C. Hawkes, The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe to the Mycenean Age (1940) 275-277 passim:

    Thanks Northerner; I have to read it again and weigh it. Other scholars could disagree but I would be amazed it a good pound of truth wouldn't reside in this analysis.

  10. #85
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    sorry Northerner:
    I would be amazed it a good pound of truth wouldn't reside in this analysis.
    not IT but IF !!!

  11. #86
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    08-12-16
    Posts
    278

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-BY188570
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2a6

    Ethnic group
    Hainaut Belgium and Quebec Canada
    Country: USA - California



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flann Fina View Post
    Yes, it is a bit disappointing. Unfortunately, that’s the way it seems to go with I1. Personally, I wasn’t expecting very much for the Bronze Age, considering where they tested but the lack of IA samples was a little surprising to me. A lot will depend on where they sampled and when. So hopefully, we’ll still be able to learn something by seeing where I1 wasn’t during the time periods in question. Once the details are finally released.

    In case anyone is interested I looked at the BAM file for the single I1 sample and it has poor coverage. I looked at over 50 SNPs downstream of the I1 subclade branch including all of the phyloequivalent SNPs for I-DF29 and they all had no reads. I looked at 100 phyloequivalent SNPs at the I1 branch level and only 3/100 (L840, Z2850, Z2871) had reads. They were all single reads and derived reads.

  12. #87
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    @Northerner

    some quickly elaborated thoughts until more knoledge:
    As you have already understood, I try to look at things from far, not trying to go too deep into details ; I try to make kind of general sketche.
    SGC from Halle ? OK ? But Halle is not Central Europe when you look at a map.
    I never write the Y-U106 went down from Scandinavia at SGC times, it was rather the opposite (so I was agreeing with you).
    My thought was : Y-R1b-U106 as a whole took a more northern route than other R1b-L11 ; they could have been dense (no basis for now, it’s true) among the so called « rich tumuli culture » (SE East Germany and N Bohemia) just before Urnfields time, in a post-Unetice site ; BTW this « Rich Tumuli » culture was distinct of the Bavaria « (simple) Tumuli » since long ago ; not the very same ethny.
    Concerning Germanics my today religion is they became typical Germanic speakers rather in an area situated between North Germany and Southern Scandinavia, when they were already mixed with other haplos like Y-R1a-Z284 and Y-I1a pop’s (Jastorf times ?) ; it’s maybe this last osmosis of pop’s which sent the typical Germanic linguistic mutations, spite it isn’t completely sure. Before they could have spoken kind of NW block I-E inherited from post-BB cultures, as it’s the case of Celtic and other western I-E dialects (< BB’s). There were no clear linguistic cut at the margins between different but very close cultures , except maybe, between the most of northwestern ones and the CWC core where could have been spoken kind of a partly satemised dialect ? The greater divergences came progressively later ; but here were are still in the fog of linguistic history.
    We have to be cautious even in a harmless hypothesis. The today distribution of Y-haplo’s is not the ancient one ; I wait for the new paper about Britain BA/IA data for Y-haplo’s ; to date I hold the position Y-U106 was almost absent of Britain before Germanic colonisation, except if it came at the Wessex culture time with partial Lower-Rhine ties (could this explain the not too weak presence of U-106 in Wales, Cornwall and even northern Brittany, for a part in place of Viking or Saxon input??? to be proven).
    The today distribution of U106 mimics well enough the Germanics moves in Europe, in N-W, in N-E, in S ; almost in each of their places we find Y-R1b-U106, Y-R1a and Y-I1 in high enough proportions, even if not always with the same averages of course (some Y-I1 were here and there in North before, and did not take part in the Germanic genesis at first)… So, the Y-U106 map was surely not the same as today.
    & : I don’t say all local Y-I1, local Y-R1a and Y-R1b-U106 took part in the primary Germanic genesis – some of them were covered later by the re-expansion of well achieved Germanics.
    And the so called Cis-Germani of Romans before our era were rather Gauls and Belgae among whom it seems there were Celts, some old NW Block heirs (spoken even in some tribes of Rhaetia) and maybe some true Germanic tribes ; (I suspect Y-R1b-U152 had already some strength there) ; we have no text to prove it, only tribes names, and sometime uncertain toponymy ; archeology is of help but not decisive ; if true, only the more northern proto-Germanic speaking people became later « well done » Germanic speakers. As Belgae were supposed to be come lately at IA from near Bohemia and East-Bavaria (I don’t know if this hypothesis is up to date), it isn’t surprising some Y-U106 could have passed then .
    &: funny : the Fr. HUBERT thought Germanics differentiated from other western I-Eans by contacts with what he called Karpodaces (« Illyrian »-like for him at a time that scholars believed in an allover presence of « Illyrians » associated to Urnfields and Lusace) ; ATW these contacts could have found birth around Moravia/Bohemia and SE East Germany : not a too bad bet for an Y-U106 stronghold not too far at one time (I wait more data)?
    ATW yes, Elp northern tumuli culture seems associated to « climbing » sets of tumuli U-106 bearers into Scandinavia, proto-Germanic speakers.
    It’s a pity we have so few ancient Y-R1b-U106 yet.
    & : Iain MacDonald’s were of mixed Gaelic-Viking stock spite the male ligne is supposed to be Celtic, but are we sure ?

  13. #88
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    @Northerner:
    ridicule doesn't kill!
    Let's forget my last sentance and poor Iain macDonald: I reread and saw I misinterpreted one of your posts: you were not speaking of the Clan of Somerled (Y-R1a & R1b BTW) but of the Y-Haplo analyst !!!

  14. #89
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    @Northerner
    I try to answer to your #83 - just my today thoughts.



    [West of the Elbe, on the heaths of the Emsland and Drenthe, the complex of Single-grave and Beaker cultures, formed as above described (p. 259), lasted on into the Middle Bronze Age without assimilation to the Germanic province of culture. Despite its incorporation of the old Huns’-bed megalith folk, its affinities were rather with the Rhineland, and shared rather with the Beaker folk of Britain than with the Germans towards and beyond the Elbe mouth.]


    I am not sure we could speak of Germanic province at those early times ; I consider we had a chain of close enough cultures with a gradient between rather pure BB of South and West almost until Rhine valley and rather pure CWC of East between Weser and Elbe. It’s possible the cords decorated beakers of Rhine mouth were the reflect of the BB/CWC interplaying ? I know physical anthropology/typology is not in the wind, but the BB’s of southern Britain around 2200 BC showed a majority of ‘dinaric’ types and a minority of the Coon’s ‘corded’ types, a robust ‘borreby’ type presenting in between percentages : this last one was part of a preceding layer of pop surely incorporated in both cultures at first ; but these different respective weights in the pop could show the original demic CWC contribution west the Weser was rather weak then (it’s true CWC practicised exogamy). BTW this Britain BB pop was still more mingled than « purely » mixed, what push me to think SGC was at the origin rather a CWC marginal subset culturally and demicly.
    Already the first CWC settlements of CWC in the Netherlands showed they were not the so bald invaders someones believe, they left the better places to preceding TRB people there, at the beginning at least.


    [The irruption in these quarters of barrow-building warriors of Corded-ware stock into France has been sketched above (p. 311), and it was in the period round about 1400 B.C. that their emergence to full Bronze Age status—that of the ‘Bronze Age III’ of the French chronology of Joseph Déchelette—begins to be perceptible.Their westward diffusion is indeed obscure, but the group that had created the brilliant Breton culture (p. 312) was now in its heyday, ...]
    I never read typical CWC put heavily their foot into France (Gaul). I was just aware of a culture spanning the Channel, the denser around Wessex and Brittany around 1900/1700 BC, seemingly in relation with Lower Rhine, so a post-BB’s thing close to previous slightly CWCised BB’s of southern Britain and Lower Rhine at the pop (elites?) level. Speaking of the so called and distinct proto-Celtic tumuli beginning around 1400 BC, they were dense in eastern today France, but reached Aremorica only a bit later, and not so densely as it seems. The link is very possible if we consider the 1400 BC datations have been made before radiocarbon datations (I don’t know).


    [Before the Bronze Age opened, there had been two major additions to these basic constituents: the Bell-beaker folk from the South-West, and the Corded-ware warriors from Central Germany. The former spread all down the Rhine and well away to the east of it, while the latter fused with them in the Rhine valley and as far as Holland and the north-west of Germany, and also spread west and south-west to form the Barrow cultures of the east of France, to enter into the formation of the Rhône culture, and to run out still further west, most notably to create the Early Bronze Age culture of Brittany…]


    I doubt the demic weight of original CWC people was high in the final mix of eastern France, and so, later in Armoric EBA, according to this text. At the archeological level, I avow I don’t know how much has been inherited from the CWC culture, and I’m not sure EBA of Armoric had tight links with eastern France EBA. It had rather links with the Channel and Atlantic ocean (later).


    [The question remains how far the Celts who from North France and the Lower Rhine came in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages to invade the British Isles may have been treading paths already trodden by their own kin within the centuries covered by this book. It is a difficult question to answer; but the position can at least be clarified by considering the peoples who went to make up the Middle Bronze Age civilization of these islands in due relation to the progenitors of the Celts on the Continent. How, then, in the first place were the Continental Celts engendered?]


    It’s OK. The okam razor evidence at least, not many arguments against that. BB’s children in some way.


    [The centre of gravity of the expanded Celtic world of the Iron Age comprised, broadly speaking, South-West Germany (with the Swiss plateau) and Eastern France, and it is here too that linguistic evidence, headed by that of Celtic river-names, points to the most ancient currency of Celtic speech, with the important modifications that the greater weight lies on the east rather than the west of the Rhine, and that as well as South-West also North-West Germany is to be included.]


    I exclude North-West germany as a primary cradle for well evolved Celts.The CWC weight in North Germany was higher than in South-West. And spite based on little, it seems that the I-E dialects spoken there stayed non-Celtic long enough time, spite they were not by force inherited from CWC’s. Celtic was surely a cousin language, but had undergone specific evolutions, and perhaps not only the P- loss (BI conservation of –mn- in place of -mn- > -vn- ? To be confirmed, it’s just an affirmation I relay). I cannot affirm where Celtic was born, West or East of Rhine, : no real clue, I don’t know is more recent studies have been made on this point of toponymy, what I can read now is oppositions between contradictory thesis. I jts think true Celtic was not born so far in North, spite the concerned pop's were close one to another by recent enough ancestry, if not identical (diff in CWC weight and in substrata.

    I 'ii try to finish later my "comments".

  15. #90
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    @Moesan

    I guess you fail to notice something. In the North Dutch/ NW Germanic case there was a Tumulus influence.

    The Ydna of some of the BA and IA West Frisian sample is a -related- line beneath Z156. Iain Mc Donald (R1b U106 specialist) supposes that these lines are connected with Tumulus spread ( MBA 1600 BC>).

    The specific R1b U106 samples have an autosomal admixture like the nowadays Irish!

    That leads for the North Dutch and NW Germany case to the conclusion that it had an Tumulus elite warrior influx. An elite influx that had over generations a deep impact (better survival rate, better reproduction possibilities). See the founder effect of R1b U106 in these area.

    But this was a "Tumulus" topping with a big "SGC/BB substrate".

    Hawkes:
    West of the Elbe, on the heaths of the Emsland and Drenthe, the complex of Single-grave and Beaker cultures, formed as above described (p. 259), lasted on into the Middle Bronze Age without assimilation to the Germanic province of culture. Despite its incorporation of the old Huns’-bed megalith folk, its affinities were rather with the Rhineland, and shared rather with the Beaker folk of Britain than with the Germans towards and beyond the Elbe mouth.
    IMO Germanic has not to be taken literally her, it's not accurat in that time indeed, it's the later on Jastorf area.

    Was this a specific Tumulus spread and was there an influx of Tumulus warriors. The most eminent Broze Age archeologist of the Netherlands had that conviction.

    Prof. Harry Fokkens (1998)
    The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture represented an immigration of Sögel warriors.
    Prof. Jay Butler (1986):
    3.1. Drouwen and Sögel: the Early Bronze Age*
    In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex. By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely undisturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together. But, if the Drouwen warrior’s grave goods are exotic, the fact that he was buried there under a monumental tumulus (a recent excavation by J.N. Lanting, in October 1985,has shown that the tumulus was surrounded by a ring-ditch some 30 metres in diameter) argues that in life he must have had local authority.

    *Butler thought the Drouwen grave was from EBA but in fact, based on the razor of the warrior, it was MBA.

    This was the influx of a Tumulus warrior elite. They were founding for the Elp/Hoogkarspel (=explicit West Friesland) culture.

    So basically this is a Tumulus spread represented in archeology and genetics!
    Last edited by Northener; 24-11-21 at 18:23.

  16. #91
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It's a rule of great importance in population genetics, but too often forgotten.

    Much too much theorizing and making absolute pronouncements based on incredibly flimsy to no evidence whatsoever in this thread for my liking.

    Archeological evidence was already there for a Tumulus influx in NW Europe.

    Now we see that this Tumulus spread had in the West Frisian case a link with Y-DNA R1b U106 (beneath Z156), and autosomal in a "nowadays Irish" position.

    No rocket science.

    Nevertheless Nordicist will never accept this, because Frisians (incl BA and IA) were Germanics and Germanics came from Scandinavia ('Urheimat'). Basta.

    I guess not!
    Last edited by Northener; 24-11-21 at 19:59.

  17. #92
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    [On the east, their frontier is clearly that dividing the Aunjetitz area from the Tumulus cultures that from Bavaria and Thuringia westwards grew up outside its immediate orbit. And it is, in fact, in those Tumulus cultures, formed on a Western and aboriginal Neolithic substratum by the mixed Corded-ware and Beaker peoples, that the prime element in the Celts is to be sought, running southwest to include the people of the Rhône culture, west to the outlying group in Brittany, and north to include the mixed Beaker and Barrow peoples of the Lower Rhine, Holland, and North-West Germany, where between the Weser and the Elbe ran their frontier with, the Germanic population of the Northern lands.]


    We don’t know everything. I doubt strongly that the CWC part has been heavy in the game. We have not enough Y-haplo’s of these groups formed at the margins of primarily rather well separated cultures. Even Y-R1b-U106 bearer were seemingly marginal among the northern BB’s, at least on the data we have at hand to date. We are doing suppositions based on some places where were found mixes of y-Haplo’s which doesn’t check our postulats « CWC = Y-R1a », « BB = Y-R1b(P312) » and so on. These places are rather on the fringes of the different cultures or in regions of interpenetrated settlements what was more frequent than supposed before, not in their core, seemingly at least before more clues. I think it’s a mistake taking all ‘barrows’ culture of the time as close ethnies ; they had a lot of I-E common roots but already had diverged and underwent different histories with different substrata. And I think the post-BB ‘s part was very heavier than the northern barrow ‘s one in Lower Rhine lands.


    [Both these two wings, the Breton and the Northern, are of especial importance for Britain. When intrusion did come to disturb the West European Tumulus-culture area towards the end of the second millennium, it was that of the Urnfield peoples of the Late Bronze Age, with their main impulse in the forceful expansion of the Lausitz folk (p. 362). Indeed, it is often held that until this Urnfield contribution to the West had been made, it is improper to consider the Celts as a fully formed entity: the Tumulus peoples of earlier Bronze Age times can be called no more than proto-Celts. But, to take first the Northern or Lower Rhenish wing of their distribution, this was reached by the Urnfield movement late and in considerably modified form; and since it was from here that, in the Late Bronze Age and later, Britain received some of her most important drafts of Celtic immigrants, it is needful to realize that those immigrants seem to be drawn—to start with at any rate—rather from a Lower Rhenish population set in motion by the Urnfielders’ approach, than from one already altered by their admixture…]


    I’m tempted to agree with him here ; IMO Celts were already there before IA. I place their « birth » around BA, after the northern BB’s of Chalcolithic had begun to divide themselves and their groups of close dialects into more individualised languages, future Lusitanian, Ligurian, Celtic, Italic, Venetic and post-Alt-Europäisch of North and why not an Irish and Pictish pre-Celtic stratum? What kind of Celtic around the Netherlands of today? I don’t know. In fact I doubt the bulk of supposed first Celtic (Proto-Gaelic? Not by force) which entered the Isles were come from Lower-Rhine mouth only; northern Gaul is as evident if not more, without speaking of Armoric. Agree too that Urnfields were intruders, they added people to form mixes here an there but pushed some tribes to flee before them. Their input in the Isles seems light, maybe uniquely cultural, already it was light enough in N-W continental Europe, I think. I doubt the vaste territory attributed to them has seen a common language spread and a level demic input of them; a religious aspect is to be taken in account in top of tribes moves. So yes Celtic speakers could have moved to Britain without any Urnfield input,. The Gaelic evolution of Celtic is very distinct of the Brittonic one for some details; we could even think the differentiation began soon by isolation and think that the British BB’s already had Gaelic, as wondered Henri Hubert. Nevertheless scholars thought first Celtic of Ireland was closer to other Celtic dialects. The modern evolution could be the result of a pre-Celtic substratum of BB ‘s period? So we couldn’t be sure of the true Celtic nature of the EBA people of Lower Rhine? But at the contrary, their followers of M-LBA could have been well formed Celts whose Qw- dialect was turned into Gaelic by the substratum...

  18. #93
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Further, the contemporary advance of the Germans from the Elbe towards the Weser and the Rhine should also have set the Tumulus population here in motion; and in the Late Bronze Age immigrations of Celts into North Britain, and above all Ireland, there is a good deal to suggest an origin in this quarter rather than anywhere further south or west, without anything specifically referable to a contribution from the Urnfielders. So it becomes highly relevant to recall that the composition of these Lower Rhenish and North-West German Tumulus folk, blended, as we have seen, of Beaker, Corded-ware, and Single-grave people on a substratum closely akin to the Bell-urn and Neolithic B elements in Britain (pp. 271–2), can hardly be taken as anything but virtually identical with that of the Beaker immigrants who passed over to Britain in the early second millennium from this very quarter. In other words, if the Rhenish Tumulus people were Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should be said of the Rhenish Beaker immigrants into Britain—that is, in any case, the B2 and A Beaker peoples of our sixth chapter (pp. 268, 273). Similarly, if the Rhône culture and their neighbours are Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should hold good for the Early Bronze Age invaders of Brittany, and if for them, then also for the dissident group of them who crossed over to make the Early Bronze Age culture of Wessex (p. 316).


    I have answered concerning proximity, but not indentity of the Lower Rhine tribes with more southern tumuli tribes spite a high % of common ancestry, and about the first set of Tumuli people of Armoric linked with Wessex and Lower Rhine too; some scholars say it would have been Lower-Rhine to Wessex and Armoric, and not Armoric to Wessex or others at that time. BTW the first rich Tumuli expansion in Armoric was more northern and coastal, and it had been followed by a poorer Tumuli stage more spread and into inside regions of Armoric with a flattened hyerarchy: assimilation and loss of wealth? Agree that northern Tumuli people of Lower Rhine could be proto-Celts (in the sense of same ancestors but without the specific innovations leading to accomplished Celtic); only pronostics. But I deny this status to the more northern “Dutch” Tumuli around Weser towards Elbe still with the same cautions about our knowledge.

  19. #94
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Further, the contemporary advance of the Germans from the Elbe towards the Weser and the Rhine should also have set the Tumulus population here in motion; and in the Late Bronze Age immigrations of Celts into North Britain, and above all Ireland, there is a good deal to suggest an origin in this quarter rather than anywhere further south or west, without anything specifically referable to a contribution from the Urnfielders. So it becomes highly relevant to recall that the composition of these Lower Rhenish and North-West German Tumulus folk, blended, as we have seen, of Beaker, Corded-ware, and Single-grave people on a substratum closely akin to the Bell-urn and Neolithic B elements in Britain (pp. 271–2), can hardly be taken as anything but virtually identical with that of the Beaker immigrants who passed over to Britain in the early second millennium from this very quarter. In other words, if the Rhenish Tumulus people were Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should be said of the Rhenish Beaker immigrants into Britain—that is, in any case, the B2 and A Beaker peoples of our sixth chapter (pp. 268, 273). Similarly, if the Rhône culture and their neighbours are Celtic or proto-Celtic, the same should hold good for the Early Bronze Age invaders of Brittany, and if for them, then also for the dissident group of them who crossed over to make the Early Bronze Age culture of Wessex (p. 316).


    I have answered concerning proximity, but not indentity of the Lower Rhine tribes with more southern tumuli tribes spite a high % of common ancestry, and about the first set of Tumuli people of Armoric linked with Wessex and Lower Rhine too; some scholars say it would have been Lower-Rhine to Wessex and Armoric, and not Armoric to Wessex or others at that time. BTW the first rich Tumuli expansion in Armoric was more northern and coastal, and it had been followed by a poorer Tumuli stage more spread and into inside regions of Armoric with a flattened hyerarchy: assimilation and loss of wealth? Agree that northern Tumuli people of Lower Rhine could be proto-Celts (in the sense of same ancestors but without the specific innovations leading to accomplished Celtic); only pronostics. But I deny this status to the more northern “Dutch” Tumuli around Weser towards Elbe still with the same cautions about our knowledge.
    Why deny that, what is the difference between Lower Rhine and for example the North Dutch Drouwen MBA Tumulus?

    It was archeologist Sprockhoff that related the Sögel-Wohlde Kreis between Ems (NE Dutch) and Weser (NW Germany) to the "proto- Celts' in his words Urkelten or Nordkelten. Clearly the ancestors of the Nordwestblock. But Moesan knows better, based on?

  20. #95
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    I don't find any clue about the Celtic influence in Frisian tongue. The proximity with Old English can have other sources. I don't know but I just noted some phonetic traits of Frisian which evok Northern Germanic languages rather than northwestern continental Germanic languages (maintain of S- and F- at beginning of words, and apparently RECENT evolution of ancient TH- into T- and not D-. But we can also posit that more recent waves of northern Germanics flowed into northern Frisia, what could support a formerly less Germanic nature of old Frisia...
    &: thiese phonetic tendancies can survive later changes in frontiers between languages: the Z- and V- of western Germanics could be the result of ancient Belgae input among other Celts and Germanics too (also some dialects of S-W England, Devon and Somerset?), and it lacks in Frisian.

  21. #96
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I don't find any clue about the Celtic influence in Frisian tongue. The proximity with Old English can have other sources. I don't know but I just noted some phonetic traits of Frisian which evok Northern Germanic languages rather than northwestern continental Germanic languages (maintain of S- and F- at beginning of words, and apparently RECENT evolution of ancient TH- into T- and not D-. But we can also posit that more recent waves of northern Germanics flowed into northern Frisia, what could support a formerly less Germanic nature of old Frisia...
    &: thiese phonetic tendancies can survive later changes in frontiers between languages: the Z- and V- of western Germanics could be the result of ancient Belgae input among other Celts and Germanics too (also some dialects of S-W England, Devon and Somerset?), and it lacks in Frisian.
    First of all let's not mix up things.

    The Tumulus spread to the North Dutch is not differentiated from the Rhine area, the source is clearly from the Hessen and Rhine Main area. So where you see differentiation I can't detect them. Even archeologist like Sprockhoff place it within the "proto-Celtic" range. As such it's Celtic or Germanic are anachronistic in this respect. I only deny the Scandic Germanic origin meme. Mind you: self declared Nordicist like Sprockhoff didn't consider the area between Rhine and Weser proto-Germanid, why being more Nordicist than the Nordicist? Ok when there is a source or a reason for it than ok. But I want to see a source Moesan.....

    As for Frisian meanwhile it's pretty mainstream that the Frisian area had an Anglo-Saxon influx during the early middle ages. Just like on the Isles. I guess this was decisive.

    I see no urge to turn the clock more than 100 years back in history and archeology writing Moesan.....

  22. #97
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I don't find any clue about the Celtic influence in Frisian tongue. The proximity with Old English can have other sources. I don't know but I just noted some phonetic traits of Frisian which evok Northern Germanic languages rather than northwestern continental Germanic languages (maintain of S- and F- at beginning of words, and apparently RECENT evolution of ancient TH- into T- and not D-. But we can also posit that more recent waves of northern Germanics flowed into northern Frisia, what could support a formerly less Germanic nature of old Frisia...
    &: thiese phonetic tendancies can survive later changes in frontiers between languages: the Z- and V- of western Germanics could be the result of ancient Belgae input among other Celts and Germanics too (also some dialects of S-W England, Devon and Somerset?), and it lacks in Frisian.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...lts_and_Romans

  23. #98
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Why deny that, what is the difference between Lower Rhine and for example the North Dutch Drouwen MBA Tumulus?

    It was archeologist Sprockhoff that related the Sögel-Wohlde Kreis between Ems (NE Dutch) and Weser (NW Germany) to the "proto- Celts' in his words Urkelten or Nordkelten. Clearly the ancestors of the Nordwestblock. But Moesan knows better, based on?

    I gave you my thoughts with my knowledge which evolves by time (not too quickly, it's true); I have to read more about the Netherlands and periphery of those times (with their own changes BTW); Frisia changed more than a time between Mesolithic and last IA without speaking of Middle Ages; What I see todate is the still alive partial opposition between Southern Netherlands and Northern Netherlands, even after the Great "Germanics Wanderings" and the modern way of life; somebody may tell me: changes occurred since proto-History; OK. Thoughts are thoughts as long as there is not proofs to support my ones. I'm ready to change when I know more.

  24. #99
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,454

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Rare e-fgc7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Posted by rafc from anthrogenica
    For e-v13's in the forum
    The central european La tene band
    400-200 BCE Czech_IA_LaTene
    320-200 BCE Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast
    320-180 BCE Hungary_IA_LaTene
    650-500 BCE Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug


    Source:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4

    P.s
    Side note
    personally for me nice to know the i12608
    H3ap
    Individual this lady is from late bronze age britain
    900 bc wiltshire
    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe[U]

  25. #100
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    13-12-21
    Posts
    1


    Country: United Kingdom



    2 members found this post helpful.

    Full article

    Full article linked on David Reich's site.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •