New R1a map

The problem is that R1a is higher in Auvergne than in Rhône-Alpes and Provence, two regions where the Burgundians settled

The burgundians settled in western switzerland and west of that into france, i think its dijon country

They never reached provence
 
Depends on what you believe..I believe that R1a was in eastern germans, scandinavian tribes prior to any 'slavic" movements and that these east german migrations "picked up" other haplotype on the migration journey.
If as people think these East german tribes had no R1a and where entirely I , then the haplotypes in italy and southern france would indicate that no germanic people settled there as I is minimal.

East germanic tribes, would be in dominace R1a and I1 , mix in the gothic and vandal types into the migratory mix and what do we have.

If R1a was indeed spread by Corded Ware, which seems all too likely since it has been found in Corded Ware sites (Eulau), then it stands to reason that it was present as far west as the Rhine as early as the Copper Age. My opinion is that there may be a minor Celtic component to R1a, which would explain the levels in Auvergne and also Cantabria. But, until we have a closer resolution of the local R1a subclades in these regions, we will not know for certain.
 
Depends on what you believe..I believe that R1a was in eastern germans, scandinavian tribes prior to any 'slavic" movements and that these east german migrations "picked up" other haplotype on the migration journey.
If as people think these East german tribes had no R1a and where entirely I , then the haplotypes in italy and southern france would indicate that no germanic people settled there as I is minimal.

East germanic tribes, would be in dominace R1a and I1 , mix in the gothic and vandal types into the migratory mix and what do we have.

I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category
 
I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category

was not the parisi tribe in paris area also in england and that it came from norway?
 
I don't believe that R1a is either "slavic" or East Germanic. There are a lots of unexplained R1a in western Europe like that found in the Pasiegos or the Parisian R1a (9,5%). Auvergne fits in this category

I'd like to ask it the other way around: why should there be no Celtic R1a? After all, the Celts were obviously an Indo-European people, and even if we only assume that Proto-Celtic spread by the way of a small warrior elite somehow took over the copper age or bronze age trade netwroks in the Atlantic region, then there should be some R1a in Western Europe.
 
I'd like to ask it the other way around: why should there be no Celtic R1a? After all, the Celts were obviously an Indo-European people, and even if we only assume that Proto-Celtic spread by the way of a small warrior elite somehow took over the copper age or bronze age trade netwroks in the Atlantic region, then there should be some R1a in Western Europe.

I absolutely agree. Proto Celtic could have been spread by a small groups of R1a aristocrats warrior from Central Europe. I don't believe that the Proto Celts speakers were exclusively R1a but I'm pretty sure that R1a was a major haplogroup among tribes such as Boii, Cantabri, Astures, Arverns, Parisii and Halsttat Celts.
R1b could have been there well before the arrival of Celtic languages as the Basque R1b shows.
 
Scythians primary R1a M-17
Scythians,
Clavdius. Olympiodoros, Πρισκος of Byzantium, write about them.
they cognate Scythians as Goths, Scythian and Goth is same for them,
compare also the Great Scythia of Balkans, where Herodotus places the Getae,
compare also that Getae are mentioned far to North of Iran where R1a M-17 is enough,
a queen that moved from east of Caspian sea to Balkans, from there to Norway,

that R1a M-17 in his way west bring mess and carry other HG with him,


Celts, maybe did not moved from North but from South,
Maybe they moved from minor asia to Central Europe,
the only that can help us is Grammar,
example how Past tense is Formed? or how cases forms etc,
the Pass of Celts to Europe might be Before Hettit or same time,


Luca Cavalli-Sforza Piazza claima that Kurgan and Yamnaa was not a Scythian but a minor Asian culture,

the move west of Scythians must be connected with the split of P-Q languages,

the only problem in that is Caucasus M-17 Turkic speaking,

meaning that Scythians probably as Getae entered balkans from North and stop at Dinaric Alps a Celto Illyrian area, and find exit to Scandinavia,
After fall of Roman empire they pushed them shelfs more west reaching Brittish Isles,
with a chance to carry I Hg with them.

Isolated r1a M17 exist also in Spain,

so the possibility that Minor asian R1b (or R1a) moved from Balkans to Kurgan Yamnaa etc ,
and from there moved west and an about 2000 - 1000 BC entrance from North of R1a that pushed R1b might be possible,
also the case of R1b not Be so IE as we believe (only some subclades).
also a HG that is not searched is J2 the south corridor from France to India.

a probably inner name of Dutch Deutsch Dacian of what Greek called Thracian-Getae and what Latins named Germanic.
 
Last edited:
If R1a was indeed spread by Corded Ware, which seems all too likely since it has been found in Corded Ware sites (Eulau), then it stands to reason that it was present as far west as the Rhine as early as the Copper Age. My opinion is that there may be a minor Celtic component to R1a, which would explain the levels in Auvergne and also Cantabria. But, until we have a closer resolution of the local R1a subclades in these regions, we will not know for certain.

yes , I believe it was the corded ware and it stayed north of the danube and west of the dniepr initially.

it would have been a germanic , celtic-germanic and nordic strain after leaving the caspian sea area
 
Thanks for all the helpfull responses!

I understand that tracing my ancestry back 1000ish years is hard (if not impossible!) but my DNA results and 12th century documentation seems to give me the most solid lead yet. I'd be curious to know what group the small french R1a subclade belongs to...

Would I be mistaken in thinking that R1a needs a lot of more research as far as understanding and discovering new subclades is concerned?

Thanks again!
TCR1AG
 
read from post #4 of this thread, it caould be from the east germanic burgundians

I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question.

I am wondering on what study the Auvergne frequency of ~5% R1a is based. I am also wondering how that was extrapolated to the big ~5% shaded area in France.

What was the sample size? Seems to me we should know these things before we get too excited.
 
I absolutely agree. Proto Celtic could have been spread by a small groups of R1a aristocrats warrior from Central Europe. I don't believe that the Proto Celts speakers were exclusively R1a but I'm pretty sure that R1a was a major haplogroup among tribes such as Boii, Cantabri, Astures, Arverns, Parisii and Halsttat Celts.
R1b could have been there well before the arrival of Celtic languages as the Basque R1b shows.

The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.
 
R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

The frequency of R1b P312 in Austria is quite problematic if we assume that R1b P312 spread from Central Europe to western Europe.


The high frequency of R1b P312 in former non IE area (Basque country, Aquitania, Iberia...) is quite problematic too


Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

There are distributions of R1a in western Europe (Northern Spain, île de France) that aren't explained by Germanic or Slavic migrations. A celtic origin is just a solution among other. Can we discuss it on this thread?
 
The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

I think that the case for R1a being connected indeed with the Proto-Indo-Europeans is fairly solid. At least, I would say that the connection with Corded Ware and R1a is pretty obvious: it wasn't in Europe before the Corded Ware period. Which is why I want to ask: what alternative is there realistically to the Kurgan hypothesis? I don't see one, at least if you realize that PIE must have been a language of the Copper Age.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with all that is there is really nothing in the distribution of the ancient Celtic homelands relative to the modern distribution of R1a to justify it, except the assumption that R1a is somehow responsible for the origin of all Indo-European languages.

R1b clearly dominates in the old homelands of the Celts; further than that, R-P312 and its subclades dominate in the old homelands of the Celts. R1a is scarce. What there is of it can often be accounted for historically, e.g., Norwegian Vikings in Scotland, Slavs in central and southern Europe.

I am still wondering upon what kind of sample size from what study or studies we are basing our excitement over this French aberration (small as it is) of around 5% R1a.

Notice that R1a is so scarce in western Europe (the old stomping ground of the Celts) that a finding of around 5% in one rather de-populated area of France gets everyone in a tizzy of "Kurgan" ecstasy.

what is the homeland of the celts?

do you mean piedmont and south swiss area for its R1b or its mix with the illyrians in noricum and its R1a?
 
what is the homeland of the celts?

do you mean piedmont and south swiss area for its R1b or its mix with the illyrians in noricum and its R1a?

No, I don't have in mind those old 19th and early 20th century maps showing an oval blob in Central Europe with arrows sticking out of it marking the supposed "invasion" paths of the Iron Age Celts. Are there any archaeologists who still subscribe to such a thing? I doubt it.

What I had in mind when I mentioned the ancient homelands of the Celts was pretty much all of western Europe, from the Rhine-Danube region to the Pillars of Hercules and on to Ireland and northern Scotland.

The formation of the Celts as an ethno-linguistic group probably took a thousand years or more and was a complex process involving trade and the need to communicate over a wide area. The idea that it was imposed from above by some sort of predominantly R1a "elite" just doesn't make much sense, given the evidence.
 
The frequency of R1b P312 in Austria is quite problematic if we assume that R1b P312 spread from Central Europe to western Europe.


The high frequency of R1b P312 in former non IE area (Basque country, Aquitania, Iberia...) is quite problematic too




There are distributions of R1a in western Europe (Northern Spain, île de France) that aren't explained by Germanic or Slavic migrations. A celtic origin is just a solution among other. Can we discuss it on this thread?

It is very likely the Basques, etc., were once predominantly G2a and have only become mostly R1b via admixture, as they have come to resemble their predominantly R1b neighbors. We see a similar phenomenon among the Ossetians, who speak an Iranian language and were probably once mostly R1a, but who are now mostly G2a like their Caucasian neighbors.

You can't really use the frequency of a y haplogroup in a given area to judge whether or not it came from there or was once very frequent there. One has to look at haplotype variance and the SNP trail. Judging strictly by frequency, one would expect all kinds of R1b to be showing up at Neolithic sites in western Europe, yet that is clearly not happening. The oldest R1b yet found in Europe dates to about 1,000 BC (Bronze Age).

The tiny percentages of R1a found in western Europe are mostly explicable by historic references. Why strain credulity by explaining them as "kurgan elites"?

The Romans, with their advanced civilization and advanced administrative, political, and military systems were unable to impose their language on all of their empire. The Germanic barbarians, the Vikings, and the Normans were even less able to impose their languages on the people they conquered. How likely then is an "elite dominance" model for the transmission of early Indo-European languages? Not very.

Ever notice how horse-riding steppe nomad incursions throughout history fizzle - linguistically, genetically and otherwise - at the Hungarian Plain?
 
No, I don't have in mind those old 19th and early 20th century maps showing an oval blob in Central Europe with arrows sticking out of it marking the supposed "invasion" paths of the Iron Age Celts. Are there any archaeologists who still subscribe to such a thing? I doubt it.

What I had in mind when I mentioned the ancient homelands of the Celts was pretty much all of western Europe, from the Rhine-Danube region to the Pillars of Hercules and on to Ireland and northern Scotland.

The Classical 19th/20th century of idea of the origin of the Celts in the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene comes from the correlation between archaeological culture of the Gauls and the Celtic languages. That these people of Hallstatt and La-Tene spoke a Celtic language is beyond doubt (it is a favourite question I often ask, if Hallstatt was not Celtic, what was it then? Germanic? Etruscan? Slavic? none of this makes any sense).

I think, a part of the "Celtic" problem is the detour that early 2000s genetics brought into the discussion. By saying that R1b was indigenous to Western Europe, and by saying that the large-scale genetic makeup of Western Europe was basically unchanged since the end of the last ice age except for a few minor additions, it was to argue that Indo-European languages had to spread without large-scale immigration, and that a spread from the culture of Hallstatt and La-Tene was without any basis.

The formation of the Celts as an ethno-linguistic group probably took a thousand years or more and was a complex process involving trade and the need to communicate over a wide area. The idea that it was imposed from above by some sort of predominantly R1a "elite" just doesn't make much sense, given the evidence.

If we however acknowledge that R1b is not native to Western Europe, which it clearly isn't, we must argue for some kind of large scale population replacement, either through invasion or immigration, in Western Europe, and that point the idea of an invasion is not that far-fetched. Also, there is enough archaeology to argue for discontinuities in Western Europe, especially when and how the Beaker-Bell Culture came to an end.

I mean, I know of the so-called "stelae people" hypothesis, but does it really make sense? Does it make sense for people from Crimea to migrate by sea all the way to western Portugal, without leaving much evidence, and then spreading the Proto-Celtic language from there across all of Western Europe? Does it really make sense to assume Proto-Celts or Proto-Indo-Europeans were in North Africa and Sardinia?
 
It is very likely the Basques, etc., were once predominantly G2a and have only become mostly R1b via admixture, as they have come to resemble their predominantly R1b neighbors. We see a similar phenomenon among the Ossetians, who speak an Iranian language and were probably once mostly R1a, but who are now mostly G2a like their Caucasian neighbors.

You can't really use the frequency of a y haplogroup in a given area to judge whether or not it came from there or was once very frequent there. One has to look at haplotype variance and the SNP trail. Judging strictly by frequency, one would expect all kinds of R1b to be showing up at Neolithic sites in western Europe, yet that is clearly not happening. The oldest R1b yet found in Europe dates to about 1,000 BC (Bronze Age).

The tiny percentages of R1a found in western Europe are mostly explicable by historic references. Why strain credulity by explaining them as "kurgan elites"?

The Romans, with their advanced civilization and advanced administrative, political, and military systems were unable to impose their language on all of their empire. The Germanic barbarians, the Vikings, and the Normans were even less able to impose their languages on the people they conquered. How likely then is an "elite dominance" model for the transmission of early Indo-European languages? Not very.

Ever notice how horse-riding steppe nomad incursions throughout history fizzle - linguistically, genetically and otherwise - at the Hungarian Plain?

I have two issues here: the Basques have almost no G2a, less than the average Iberians or average French. The second is that we know that R1a was in Europe since the Copper Age. What - other than a magic barrier of some kind at the Rhine - should have prevented people carrying it from moving to Western Europe within the past 4000 or so years?
 

This thread has been viewed 165960 times.

Back
Top