Genetic study Large-Scale Migration into Southern Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age.

Here a PCA to underscore my last comment:
"F?zesabony-Cluster" how I called it completely overlaps with "Scythians" - here more Scythian samples, quite revealing:

Haplogroups-British-Paper14.jpg


https://ibb.co/TWJJQBM

The MDA Scythians are clearly influenced by BGR_EBA and Aegeans, that's why they are the only ones plotting outside of the usual range, even more South Eastern than the J2b sample cluster. The Thraco-Scythians from Hungary are just G?va-like.
 
What do you mean when you use La Tene celts ?..................as La Tene origin/centre is in Switzerland.
Are you saying these "swiss" celts are the same as Halstatt celts ......even though there is more than 400 years difference in time

Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).
 
Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).


Can you guarantee that halstatt celts circa 1000BC in or near Vienna Austria are the same people as La Tene Swiss celts circa 450BC ?...................more than 500 years apart in time

or you saying.............they both originate near the celtic capital of Glauberg near Frankfurt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg
 
Just to split hairs;
La Tène site in Switzerland is only the place where the first traces of Latene cuture has been discovered. I think it isn't the place of origin nor the center of gravity of this culture which was more northernly centered (Eastern France, Central-Soutwestern Germany).

By the way the two Nijmegen (Central-East Dutch) samples were most probably also La Tene related:

From this paper (google translate):
6.6. Sub-conclusion
There are many similarities between the burials in the Dutchriver area, and those in the Marne-Moselle region. Notable are the position of the body (stretched on the back), the appearance of burial mounds and long beds, the fact that children are underrepresented in the grave file, the presence of double graves and last but not least: the grave goods. The grave goods sets are particularly similar with regard to the jewellery, but the northern French Marne pottery has also been found in the river area.
However, it is also clear that there are differences between the two regions. Certain elements from the Marne-Moselle region do not occur in the Netherlands at all. You will hardly find grave goods made of animal material or glass here. It also applies the other way around: pewter and amber beads are more common here than in northern France. Furthermore, there are no secondary burial rituals in the Netherlands, and the clear northwest orientation – which is almost always used in France – can only be seen in a few cases in the Netherlands.
It seems that the burial ritual in the Dutch river area was indeed influenced by the use in the Marne-Moselle region. It is currently difficult to say whether this was a question of immigrants or takeover by the local population: one does not have to exclude the other. Perhaps this is a mixture of immigration and readmission. Certain elements from northern French usage have been adopted, certain elements have been omitted. Some elements have also been adapted: for example, not all individuals in the river area are laid out stretched out on their backs – others are placed on their stomach or side, for example. In addition, some influences from Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur can also be seen (the use of burial mounds and long beds, and the appearance of certain jewellery).
 
How much inhabitation was there in the peat area?

By the way, I'm quite sure that Pannonian Bronze Age samples being included and there seem to be a range of clusters ordered like pearls on a necklace. So it should be possible, especially by using older samples, to get an idea of a shift from the Eastern Central European/Pannonian sphere with Urnfield.

On thing is clear as glass the spread of R1b U106 in the North Dutch/ Frisian area-it's nowadays hotspot- already began before the Germanic spread as it was already related to the Tumulus spread!


I guess this shows some "familiarity"
- 2000 BC Jimonice/Unetice (DF98) (proto-Tumulus),
- 1700 BC Oostwoud West-Friesland Elp/ Hoogkarspel(Z381)= Tumulus spread (Elp/Hoogkarspel is Tumulus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture
- 200 BC Uitgeest West-Friesland IA Frisian (Z381/ Z304)

in archeological sense it has some support, not the least by good Bronze Age Archeologists like Prof. Fokkens (Leiden University) or Prof. JJ Butler (University Groningen).


Fokkens and Butler about Elp/Sögel/Tumulus spread.


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.
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.
This was the influx of a Tumulus warrior elite. They were founding for the Elp/Hoogkarspel (=explicit West Friesland) culture. The samples fit in this picture. This was the real Tumulus spread nothing more nothing less.
 
this should be interesting maybe they are based
on the remains from the future british paper:unsure:


ISOTOPIC AND GENETIC EXPLORATIONS OF CROSS-CHANNEL CONNECTIVITY IN BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE KENT
Madeleine Bleasdale1, Claire-Elise Fischer1, Lindsey Büster1, Jane Evans2, JacquelineMcKinley3, David Reich4, Ian Armit11 University of York, UK2 National Environmental Isotope Facility, British Geological Survey, UK3 Wessex Archaeology, UK4 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, USA

Persistent long-distance networks of connectivity between Britain and the Continent have been evidenced archaeologically through shared aspects of material culture. During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, cross-channel exchanges resulted in the formation of abroad, common cultural entity on both sides of the Channel: the “Manche—Mer du Nord(MMN) complex”. Such interactions persisted during the Iron Age, becoming more visible in the Late Iron Age, when new continental imports (e.g. Mediterranean pottery) reached southern Britain. Lastly, as the Roman provinces expanded, textual sources frequently evoke resources originating from northwestern France and southern Britain.Existing sources demonstrate that, rather than being a barrier, the channel was adynamic maritime axis during the Bronze and Iron Age. Nevertheless, reconstructing the nature of cross-channel interactions remains challenging. In recent years, aDNA has confirmed movements between the Continent and Britain (Fischer et al., 2018), and strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and oxygen (ẟ18O) isotope measurements of tooth enamel have identified potential migrants in southern Britain (McKinley et al., 2014).This paper synthesizes existing and new multi proxy data at a regional-scale, focusing on sites from Kent, including Margetts Pit and Cliffs End Farm. Given its proximity to the Channel, Kent is an important locale for exploring cross-channel connections. Indeed,several individuals from Cliffs End Farm have already yielded isotope measurements demonstrating they spent their childhood outside of Britain. New aDNA analysis targeting individuals from Cliffs End Farm and elsewhere has now identified the continent, and perhaps France as a potential point of origin for incoming individuals.The revaluation of pre-existing data, combined with new analysis demonstrate that Kent was an important crossroads between continental Europe and Britain throughout the Bronze and the Iron Ages. Our study also highlights the strength of multi-proxy approaches for reconstructing the timing and tempo of mobility, and individual life histories.


file:///C:/Users/HP%20PRO/Downloads/abstract_1465.pdf
 
Can you guarantee that halstatt celts circa 1000BC in or near Vienna Austria are the same people as La Tene Swiss celts circa 450BC ?...................more than 500 years apart in time

or you saying.............they both originate near the celtic capital of Glauberg near Frankfurt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

My post was just about origin and spread of the LaTène C.
Surely for more than a reason « Celts » of LaTène were not exactly the same as « Celts » of western Hallstatt. I have just now not enough clues to be sure of anything. La Tène people occupied other places than Hallstatt people, and I said already I thought Hallstatt was impulsed by a partly foreign elite, whose importance drowned progressively later, or was « reduced » by force (?).
But the LaTène settlements, if not the same, has been placed for the most not far from the preceding Hallstatt ones. The economy changed, more based on breeding and with other geographic connexions, and the hierarchy was flattened with « princes » replaced by more numerous chieftains (according to my readigs at least) ; I cannot say more ; these changes did not need by force foreigners from remote places : return to ancient habits, revenge of people clans or cans sets left on the road side when the « ancient new » economy raised before to fall down ?
BTW I’m wondering now if among Barbarians the habits of building huge life centers controlling access routes are not an heritage of the Tells post-Neolithic cultures with wide span hierarchies, when the less hierarchical system reflected a more ancient and more « steppic » stage with kind of more « compressed » warriors elite at the level of social differences ?
 
On thing is clear as glass the spread of R1b U106 in the North Dutch/ Frisian area-it's nowadays hotspot- already began before the Germanic spread as it was already related to the Tumulus spread!


I guess this shows some "familiarity"
- 2000 BC Jimonice/Unetice (DF98) (proto-Tumulus),
- 1700 BC Oostwoud West-Friesland Elp/ Hoogkarspel(Z381)= Tumulus spread (Elp/Hoogkarspel is Tumulus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture
- 200 BC Uitgeest West-Friesland IA Frisian (Z381/ Z304)

in archeological sense it has some support, not the least by good Bronze Age Archeologists like Prof. Fokkens (Leiden University) or Prof. JJ Butler (University Groningen).


Fokkens and Butler about Elp/Sögel/Tumulus spread.


Harry Fokkens (1998)

Jay Butler (1986)

3.1. Drouwen and Sögel: the Early Bronze Age

This was the influx of a Tumulus warrior elite. They were founding for the Elp/Hoogkarspel (=explicit West Friesland) culture. The samples fit in this picture. This was the real Tumulus spread nothing more nothing less.


Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???
 
My post was just about origin and spread of the LaTène C.
Surely for more than a reason « Celts » of LaTène were not exactly the same as « Celts » of western Hallstatt. I have just now not enough clues to be sure of anything. La Tène people occupied other places than Hallstatt people, and I said already I thought Hallstatt was impulsed by a partly foreign elite, whose importance drowned progressively later, or was « reduced » by force (?).
But the LaTène settlements, if not the same, has been placed for the most not far from the preceding Hallstatt ones. The economy changed, more based on breeding and with other geographic connexions, and the hierarchy was flattened with « princes » replaced by more numerous chieftains (according to my readigs at least) ; I cannot say more ; these changes did not need by force foreigners from remote places : return to ancient habits, revenge of people clans or cans sets left on the road side when the « ancient new » economy raised before to fall down ?
BTW I’m wondering now if among Barbarians the habits of building huge life centers controlling access routes are not an heritage of the Tells post-Neolithic cultures with wide span hierarchies, when the less hierarchical system reflected a more ancient and more « steppic » stage with kind of more « compressed » warriors elite at the level of social differences ?

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
 
I wonder from where this N sample will come
I20509 N1a1a1a1a1a1a N-CTS8428*(xB189,Y20413,A14018,A917,Y21046,
Britain ? Croatia ? Maybe slovenia
Or somewhere else
:unsure:
 
maybe Croatia as other N ydna have been found in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krk
Today it is very rare in modern croatia
Source: wikipedia

Haplogroup's N subclades are rare in Croatia (0.6%-2.2%).[6][8] It is very frequent in the Far East, like Siberia and China, while in Europe in Finns (60%) and in the Baltic countries (45%). Unusually for European populations, another central Asian-Siberian haplogroup P (i.e. Q) was found in unusually high frequencies due to founder effect in the islands of Hvar (14%) and Korčula (6%).[3]

P.s
But maybe it was more present in bronze age time who knows
 
Last edited:
Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???

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.

Haplogroup-R1b-S21.png


But maybe if we would have maps with distributions of the major subclades, we could come to other conclusions.
 

Attachments

  • Haplogroup-R1b-S21.png
    Haplogroup-R1b-S21.png
    71.2 KB · Views: 177
Have we a lot of Y-Haplo's for these places and times? I would be interested.
For U106 I think it was the IE launcher in North, at a time its dialects were stayed closer to the Celtic-Italic group. So kind of northwestern IE (akin to BB's dialects vaste group?) on the way to proto-Germanic. It's maybe the mix made around Denmark/Scania (with CWC inherited Y-R1a + "natives" Y-I1) which definitively produced Germanics, later, when the links with post-BB's/western BA/IA were broken, all that simplified of course???

There are no Single Grave R1b U106 samples. There are no NW BB R1b U106 samples. So Nordic and IE? Strictly based on the found samples....I guess not.

The earliest R1b U106 sample is from early Corded Ware Bohemia (2900-2800 BC). At that time the Single Grave Culture in the range North Dutch-Jutland appeared (2850 BC).


Egfjord (2021) in his paper about Single Grave:
Based on archaeological indicators, the origin of the SGC migration could point towards central Germany, the Halle region [13], and it must have been substantial and continuous, as the forests disappeared within a few generations. Once the SGC had established their territory in central and western Jutland it seems likely that they expanded into areas possibly still populated by late TRB groups in northern and eastern Jutland, as well as the Danish islands [16].

So when R1b U106 was part of SGC it was Central Europe> Jutland (not the reverse).Halle is core (later on) Unetice.

For the rest we have 1 read R1b U106 from a BB in Augsburg Bavaria (about 2400 BC). And of course Rise98 Lille Beddinge Scania 2000 BC, that's a rare kind of pre kind of subbranche of R1b U106, we only find in places that are very remote of NW Europe.

And the Unetice culture(Prague/Jimonice) sample 2000 BC (DF98), Elp-Hoogkarspel culture (Oostwoud, West Friesland 1700 BC, Z304) and from the paper West Friesland IA ('Aak' Uitgeest 200 BC, Z304). These ones all belong to the subbranches beneath Z156. That's the line Iain mc Donald suspects of belonging to Tumulus spread.

R1b U106 knows a nodus in the old NW block area, it correlates somewhat with the Elp/Tumulus spread around the North Sea. And has also a recognizable spread in Rhine-Main area, more central European area's (more than in Sweden). So even nowadays we can recognize the Tumulus spread.





It's up to you if you call this (proto) Germanic, when you associate the Tumulus folk with the original Germani cisrhenani. Yes imo this is kind of proto Germanic indeed...


Bu I guess this is differentiated from the Jastorf area!

My hypothesis (assumption) is that based on the Celtic paper the samples from Nijmegen, Zeeland and also West-Friesland come genetically (and also in linguistic sense!?) close to the 'original' Germani Cisrhenani.


Wiki:
As for the historicity of Caesar's account of the arrival of the Germani from beyond the Rhine, Wightman (1985) distinguishes two main scenarios:


Arrival in remote prehistory, as early as Urnfield times*, long before the development of Germanic as a separate linguistic phylum, and predating the arrival of the Belgae with the spread of the La Tène Culture after 500 BC.
Derivation of both Belgae and Germani out of the Hunsrück-Eifel culture found near the Moselle river. "The left-bank Germans would then be people who went northward across the Ardennes rather than westwards to the Marne".[1]


* may be already MBA/ Tumulus times!


It is possible that these original Germani on the Lower Rhine were, in modern terminology, Celtic-language speaking, and not Germanic language-speaking. The name Germani in antiquity cannot be assumed to imply linguistic unity, let alone the use of Germanic languages according to the modern definition (Indo-European languages which underwent the first Germanic soundshift).


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


Correspondences with their position in the G25 PCA
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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 Bev?lkerung wurde etwa ab 450 v. Chr. durch Zuwanderung keltischer Bev?lkerungselemente aus dem keltischen Kerngebiet (S?dwestdeutschland und Ostfrankreich) assimiliert. Inwieweit die Menschen der ?lteren Eisenzeit (Hallstattzeit), benannt nach dem ber?hmten ober?sterreichischen Gr?berfeld 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 Verh?ltnisse in K?rnten.

https://www.keltenwelt.at/content/keltische-hauptstädte-frög-als-kärntens-erste-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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 44758 times.

Back
Top