PDA

View Full Version : The problem of the whole Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene Celtic image



alan
09-03-2013, 02:46 PM
I just thought I would kick of a thread on this with a short post. I believe there has been a real problem in terms of the way Celtic genesis has been portrayed and how it tends to exist in the public imagination. The whole Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene obsession when it comes to the Celts derives from a very long lasting and only recently redressed attempt to shoe horn the central European archaeological sequence and systems onto the whole of Europe. This partly derives from the model of the Celts that was derived from this model. It always created the impression that people should identify Celtic with the central European archaeology and this led archaeologists for a very long period to look for echos of that outside the central European core in other areas including the isles. This, and the fact that the classical world was closer to those areas and more impacted by them has led to overidentification of the image of the Celts with central Europe.

I think the general public's image of the Celts has been distorted by this too. In reality many of the areas where the word Celt or early indications of Celtic speaking are located are peripheral to the core of the urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene heartlands including most of the tribes that actually have the word Celt in their name as well as A large part of the area known as Gallia Celtica, much of which was on the periphery of these central European influences. The old image of waves of central European Celts from the urnfield period onwards has a bad pedegree leading back to some racialist and colonialist type views of the past and the Hollywood type idea of the Celts created in Classical accounts of what was probably a crisis period of collapse of the west central European chiefdoms when their were societal upheavals and they kind of 'went a Viking' and intruded into the classical world.

However, this is probably not the general story of the Celtic peoples and although some people see it as a peak of Celtic power it was probably really only a feature of part of the Celtic world and in some ways the beginning of the end for the Celts. That is only the story of a specific subset of the the Celts and is not really the backstory or heritage of the Celts further removed from the classical world where Celticity is apparently older and owes little to these old style waves of Celtic invaders with arrows coming from blobs in the Alps that we see in older books. Archaeologists have dismissed this view for a long time now but I think the public imagination of this is still rather stuck in old books or less scholarly modern books that perpetuate this myth. A lot of what people seem to want to relate to in terms of central European Celts in early history is not really the deeds of their ancestors but rather those of distant cousins in central Europe who they may have not shared an ancestor with since the beaker period. Some people will take a while to adjust to this concept and will continue to identify with classically attested events, artefacts and sites etc of the central European Iron Age but the reality they relate to very distant cousins not ancestors unless your ancestors were central Europeans. That is the reason I never use central European Celtic things in my avatar etc.

TigerMW
09-12-2013, 10:45 PM
... A lot of what people seem to want to relate to in terms of central European Celts in early history is not really the deeds of their ancestors but rather those of distant cousins in central Europe who they may have not shared an ancestor with since the beaker period. Some people will take a while to adjust to this concept and will continue to identify with classically attested events, artefacts and sites etc of the central European Iron Age but the reality they relate to very distant cousins not ancestors unless your ancestors were central Europeans. That is the reason I never use central European Celtic things in my avatar etc.

Agreed. I think we have a tendency to project and over-generalize. When we read of what the Greeks and Romans wrote and look at the artifacts of the elite we are not seeing the whole picture. If our genetics tell us anything, R1b was around and spread along the Atlantic fringe as well as Central Europe by the classical timeframe. The odds are good they had started making inroads a good two thousand years before the Greeks and Romans as we know them existed.

If we look back to the Bell Beakers, I wouldn't say we could call them Celts. I notice another blogger has started referring to some semblence of people in this timeframe as Germano-Italo-Celts or something like that. They could well have been Indo-European of speech and culture, but not necessarily. To say more than that about people in the Early Bronze Age is a bit of a stretch. Its hard to say how these branches evolved, branched out, re-integrated and branched out again and again in a patchy fashion.

alan
09-13-2013, 12:05 AM
I think old books have tended to see ethnogenesis as waves or event or a scorched earth horizon. That is an inheritance of 19th and earlier 20th century attitudes. While anti-migrationism should not be returned too, neither should we return to those old ideas which are far too simplistic and do not fit the archaeological record in much of the Celtic speaking world. Probably in reality languages like Celtic slowly evolved out of west IE or Celto-Italic or something along these lines and the distinction was blury at the edges. Celtic is after all just a group of shared sound shifts. These shifts could have happened at almost any time in the Bronze Age. We can see that the P-Q shift spread aerially with only a minimum of movement - iif it originated in the Alps its spread was not accomplished by invasions of Alpine warriors across later P-Celtic speaking western Europe. People tend to look to places like Switzerland and Austria as part of the Celtic heartland because the eponymous sites of La Tene and Hallstatt are loctated there but in fact these were the margins where a number of non-Celtic languages existed side by side with Celtic. The evidence of Celtic placenames is actually poor in Central Europe and in general east of the Rhine and much north of the Danube. That could be simply down to distance from classical civilisations but we cannot assume that because this applies not only to classical references but also to surviving placenames. It is entirely possible that Celtic was never spoken in those areas or that the Celts expanded west to east into those areas. I dont know if the Atlantic Celts origin idea is correct but it is hard to disprove and it has put at least the concept that Hallstatt and La Tene was the originator of the language to bed.

The truth is we have no real way of telling what people were speaking in central Europe in the Bronze Age. The problem is that people tend to characterise the continental Celts by their first appearances in classical histories. The name Celt probably came from Med. contact with tribes of that name in Iberia and was generalised. A great deal of Gallia Celtica was within an area that had the weakest Hallstatt and La Tene influences. To me these cultures are not really cultures anyway. They are just reference terms for convenience. I think of them more as the rise of the standing of certain chiefdoms at certain times and places due to finding themselves at wealthy nodes and the prestige of those chiefdoms leading to emulation and influence in a wider area. The whole Bronze Age looks like that too - a shifting of who had wealth and prestige dependent on all sorts of factors but mainly to do with shifting and rising and falling of what chiefdoms were at the right node and the right time to become wealthy and have access to exotica and materials. So, much of the elite behavour was based on metals, trade and exotica.

It would be easy to see shifting and contantly changing patterns of dialect influence along these lines if there was already a basic west IE base there from the copper age. I am more inclinded recently to think that the final changes that led to Celtic were post-beaker but based on a beaker west IE that meant that all they were were shifts, nothing profound. Those changes were just some sound shifts and really putting an ethnicity on them is sort of circular if the ethnicity is defined by those dialects. The reality is they were the same people before and after the sound shifts that marked Celtic out as a separate language. People often do not like these kind of explanations and prefer the hollywood versions but I am certain they have been misled by old texts.

Even seeing Celts in Unetice is problematic given that its distirbution is rather eastern and included areas with little certainty of Celts being present. They might be associated with the Urnfield-Atlantic connection. They are often treated like they are opposites but in fact the Urnfield culture was extremely influential on the Atlantic Bronze Age albeit the latter had some of its own conservatisms in terms of burial, ritual and settlement. It kind of needs both of them to explain the distribution of Celtic.


Agreed. I think we have a tendency to project and over-generalize. When we read of what the Greeks and Romans wrote and look at the artifacts of the elite we are not seeing the whole picture. If our genetics tell us anything, R1b was around and spread along the Atlantic fringe as well as Central Europe by the classical timeframe. The odds are good they had started making inroads a good two thousand years before the Greeks and Romans as we know them existed.

If we look back to the Bell Beakers, I wouldn't say we could call them Celts. I notice another blogger has started referring to some semblence of people in this timeframe as Germano-Italo-Celts or something like that. They could well have been Indo-European of speech and culture, but not necessarily. To say more than that about people in the Bronze Age is a stretch. Its hard to say how these branches evolved, branched out, re-integrated and branched out again and again in a patchy fashion.

alan
09-13-2013, 12:21 AM
I should point out that looking for a simplistic horizon for Celtic is not just a problem for Atlantic Celts. French archaeologists also do not adhere to any sort of Hubert-style invasion of France from central Europe in general and many of the influences like urnfield are just seen as influences rather than sharp invasive changes. Its clearly a much more subtle process than that and we shouldnt be fooled by exceptional periods such as the exodus from Gaul into Italy and eastern Europe in classical times. That was probably caused by the final collapse of the old social structures based on trade hierarchies at the end of the Hallstatt D period (this kind of collapse had happened at the end of Hallstatt C in the north-west) and the rise of more land based wealth and aggression for territory rather than control of trade. I think our classically inspired image of the Celts is based on this late phase but this is probably misleading. Kind of the Celts going a Viking phase. Prior to this phase and throughout the Bronze Age probably a better comparison would be with the Med. states who were based on trade control and who main agressions were probably over maintaining that and expanding it.

rms2
09-13-2013, 12:46 AM
I think a lot depends on your take on where and how Celtic or Italo-Celtic originated. Anthony's theory has it developing as a consequence of contact between Beaker Folk and Yamnaya herders in what is now Hungary and spreading from there into Austria and Bavaria, where he thinks Proto-Celtic evolved.



The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.
(From The Horse The Wheel and Language, page 367.)

Curious
09-13-2013, 02:23 AM
I think old books have tended to see ethnogenesis as waves or event or a scorched earth horizon. That is an inheritance of 19th and earlier 20th century attitudes. While anti-migrationism should not be returned too, neither should we return to those old ideas which are far too simplistic and do not fit the archaeological record in much of the Celtic speaking world. Probably in reality languages like Celtic slowly evolved out of west IE or Celto-Italic or something along these lines and the distinction was blury at the edges. Celtic is after all just a group of shared sound shifts. These shifts could have happened at almost any time in the Bronze Age. We can see that the P-Q shift spread aerially with only a minimum of movement - iif it originated in the Alps its spread was not accomplished by invasions of Alpine warriors across later P-Celtic speaking western Europe. People tend to look to places like Switzerland and Austria as part of the Celtic heartland because the eponymous sites of La Tene and Hallstatt are loctated there but in fact these were the margins where a number of non-Celtic languages existed side by side with Celtic. The evidence of Celtic placenames is actually poor in Central Europe and in general east of the Rhine and much north of the Danube. That could be simply down to distance from classical civilisations but we cannot assume that because this applies not only to classical references but also to surviving placenames. It is entirely possible that Celtic was never spoken in those areas or that the Celts expanded west to east into those areas. I dont know if the Atlantic Celts origin idea is correct but it is hard to disprove and it has put at least the concept that Hallstatt and La Tene was the originator of the language to bed.

The truth is we have no real way of telling what people were speaking in central Europe in the Bronze Age. The problem is that people tend to characterise the continental Celts by their first appearances in classical histories. The name Celt probably came from Med. contact with tribes of that name in Iberia and was generalised. A great deal of Gallia Celtica was within an area that had the weakest Hallstatt and La Tene influences. To me these cultures are not really cultures anyway. They are just reference terms for convenience. I think of them more as the rise of the standing of certain chiefdoms at certain times and places due to finding themselves at wealthy nodes and the prestige of those chiefdoms leading to emulation and influence in a wider area. The whole Bronze Age looks like that too - a shifting of who had wealth and prestige dependent on all sorts of factors but mainly to do with shifting and rising and falling of what chiefdoms were at the right node and the right time to become wealthy and have access to exotica and materials. So, much of the elite behavour was based on metals, trade and exotica.

It would be easy to see shifting and contantly changing patterns of dialect influence along these lines if there was already a basic west IE base there from the copper age. I am more inclinded recently to think that the final changes that led to Celtic were post-beaker but based on a beaker west IE that meant that all they were were shifts, nothing profound. Those changes were just some sound shifts and really putting an ethnicity on them is sort of circular if the ethnicity is defined by those dialects. The reality is they were the same people before and after the sound shifts that marked Celtic out as a separate language. People often do not like these kind of explanations and prefer the hollywood versions but I am certain they have been misled by old texts.

Even seeing Celts in Unetice is problematic given that its distirbution is rather eastern and included areas with little certainty of Celts being present. They might be associated with the Urnfield-Atlantic connection. They are often treated like they are opposites but in fact the Urnfield culture was extremely influential on the Atlantic Bronze Age albeit the latter had some of its own conservatisms in terms of burial, ritual and settlement. It kind of needs both of them to explain the distribution of Celtic.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu all over again. This is reminding me of those discussions about how R1b had to be the Atlantic modal haplotype because it was most common around the Atlantic fringe, whereas there are other explanations.

IMO, Celtic language and culture survive to some extent today on the Atlantic fringe only because those places are furthest from the Germanic tribes that obliterated Celtic culture in the area where it evolved. I think there's quite good continuity from Hallstatt to Le Tene to Celtic Gaul and to some extent from Gaul to Britain starting around the time of a big population influx into Britain around 3200 BP. Less so, I think, in Iberia, which was never completely Celtic, according to the Romans. The Romans talked about Celts streaming down from the Alps into northern Italy at an early date, and later Roman writers talked about Celtic tribes in the areas that are now Switzerland and parts of West Germany being pushed out by incoming German tribes a little over 2000 years ago. Some of those Celtic tribes invaded the territories of Celtic tribes in Gaul that had treaties with Rome, which was the main excuse Julius Caesar gave for expanding the Roman presence in Gaul. If there are still some Celtic (and not Breton) place names in France and not in Switzerland, it's because the Germanic wave pushed the Celts out of their original homeland long before washing over post-Roman Gaul.

I know that for some reason a lot of the British folk who don't much care for their Welsh and Irish neighbours nevertheless like to think of "insular Celts" evolving their language and culture locally, and possibly being descended from ice age British reindeer, but the reality seems to be that old Welsh wasn't much different from Gaulish. I think Celtic culture in Britain probably came into being as a result of the IE expansion finally hitting Britain in the form of a lot of Celts storming in and wiping out most of the existing male lineages. I think Gaelic can be accounted for by the probability that, for geographic reasons, the Celtic entry into Ireland involved smaller numbers, so the language of the incomers was more affected by the existing population. Although in the long run, they ended up with a typical Celtic "heroic" culture with warriors riding around in chariots, if you can believe the old Irish myths. If the Irish heroes sound somewhat like the Greek heroes in the Odyssey, I think that's because both groups of stories both reflect IE warrior culture.

TigerMW
09-13-2013, 03:51 AM
... I think there's quite good continuity from Hallstatt to Le Tene to Celtic Gaul and to some extent from Gaul to Britain starting around the time of a big population influx into Britain around 3200 BP.
...
If there are still some Celtic (and not Breton) place names in France and not in Switzerland, it's because the Germanic wave pushed the Celts out of their original homeland long before washing over post-Roman Gaul....
This is not what I understand as the traditional view about Germanic incursions south and west. Are you saying France and Switzerland were over run with Germanic tribes prior to the fall of the Roman Empire?

If U106 is an indicator of Germanic expansion, we might note there isn't a lot of U106 in France proper. Perhaps, I just don't understand what you are saying.

rms2
09-13-2013, 11:34 AM
Probably the main reason the Germans were able to advance as they did during the Migration Period was because the Romans had broken the Celtic power in Gaul, which was really the epicenter of the Celtic world, rather than Germany or Austria. The Celts used to provide a substantial buffer between the Mediterranean world and the Germans, but after the Romans conquered Gaul, Celtic power was hollowed out, and the Germans were able to push south and west.

I don't think there was any great influx of Celts from the Continent into the Isles 3200 years ago. At least, I have never heard of one.

The Irish don't speak Gaelic because the Celts got there in smaller numbers. It is likely they speak Gaelic both because Gaelic is a Q-Celtic language, older than the P-Celtic of the Britons and Gauls, and because Ireland was at the western edge of the known world: the switch from the hard "k" sound of Q-Celtic to the "p" of P-Celtic just never caught on there.

It seems likely to me the Beaker Folk introduced an early form of Q-Celtic to the Isles during the Bronze Age. Later, behind them, on the Continent, the innovation of P-Celtic occurred, eventually becoming the rage in Britain but never quite catching on in Ireland or Iberia.

Regarding U106 as a proxy for Germanic expansion (and I think it's a good one), look at the places where language change occurred: England, Austria, southern and western Germany, the German-speaking parts of Switzerland, the Dutch and Flemish-speaking parts of the Low Countries. In those places you find plenty of U106. In France, which retained its Latinate language despite taking its name from the Germanic Franks, not so much.

alan
09-13-2013, 11:55 AM
What big population influx around 1200BC is that? There is almost no evidence of an influx in that period and very little evidence in most of the isles of any influx in the Iron age other than metalwork. There are only a few exceptions to this such as around the Parisi territories and a few related chariot type burials further north and later the Belgic areas in the south. Otherwise we do not find continental burial or house types in the isles and indeed across much of the west. You cant just look at metalwork types alone as an indicator of spread of peoples because metalwork trends have constantly spread across Europe and into the isles from the very beginning of metal use. To right of most of this as trade but highlight the later period as indicative of migration is irrational. The process of spread of metalwork and fashions was constant from the beaker period to the Romans. Most of it just looks like busniness as usual in the late Bronze and Iron Ages in the isles with local type burial and house types continuing albeit the people were using the latest fashions. I think a model of contant low level trickle of movement across 2500-0BC is much more rational and in keeping with the evidence than huge waves in late prehistory.


I'm getting a sense of deja vu all over again. This is reminding me of those discussions about how R1b had to be the Atlantic modal haplotype because it was most common around the Atlantic fringe, whereas there are other explanations.

IMO, Celtic language and culture survive to some extent today on the Atlantic fringe only because those places are furthest from the Germanic tribes that obliterated Celtic culture in the area where it evolved. I think there's quite good continuity from Hallstatt to Le Tene to Celtic Gaul and to some extent from Gaul to Britain starting around the time of a big population influx into Britain around 3200 BP. Less so, I think, in Iberia, which was never completely Celtic, according to the Romans. The Romans talked about Celts streaming down from the Alps into northern Italy at an early date, and later Roman writers talked about Celtic tribes in the areas that are now Switzerland and parts of West Germany being pushed out by incoming German tribes a little over 2000 years ago. Some of those Celtic tribes invaded the territories of Celtic tribes in Gaul that had treaties with Rome, which was the main excuse Julius Caesar gave for expanding the Roman presence in Gaul. If there are still some Celtic (and not Breton) place names in France and not in Switzerland, it's because the Germanic wave pushed the Celts out of their original homeland long before washing over post-Roman Gaul.

I know that for some reason a lot of the British folk who don't much care for their Welsh and Irish neighbours nevertheless like to think of "insular Celts" evolving their language and culture locally, and possibly being descended from ice age British reindeer, but the reality seems to be that old Welsh wasn't much different from Gaulish. I think Celtic culture in Britain probably came into being as a result of the IE expansion finally hitting Britain in the form of a lot of Celts storming in and wiping out most of the existing male lineages. I think Gaelic can be accounted for by the probability that, for geographic reasons, the Celtic entry into Ireland involved smaller numbers, so the language of the incomers was more affected by the existing population. Although in the long run, they ended up with a typical Celtic "heroic" culture with warriors riding around in chariots, if you can believe the old Irish myths. If the Irish heroes sound somewhat like the Greek heroes in the Odyssey, I think that's because both groups of stories both reflect IE warrior culture.

alan
09-13-2013, 12:09 PM
The Celts in Gaul even before the Romans had advanced their society and were in many places living in oppida towns rather than forts, operating a market economy and had in some cases ditched kings in exchange for more advanced governance structures. The Germans were essentially backwards peripheral peoples with a relatively primative society. Its a recurring theme in early history that much more advanced peoples moving away from barbarism tend to be toppled by backwards elements on their periphery. This happened several times in ancient Mesopotamia too. However, they usually end up taking up a lot of the culture of the majority and become absorbed even if they hold power.

There is no doubt in my mind that in Britain heavy Romanisation and dependence on the army followed by repeated removal of huge amounts of fighting men to the continent to fight imperial wars put the Britons in a hopeless situation except in the north and west where they were not so Romanised. The late Celtic speaking areas of Britain such as most of Devon, Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, Pennines, much of Scotland look remarkably similar to the areas that were least Romanised, almost an inverse of the map of Roman villas. It is clear that for many centuries the Anglo-Saxons were mostly conquering the Romanised Britons while making little permanent dent into the liitle Romanised villa-free areas of Britain. I still believe that it was the Romans and not the Anglo-Saxons who killed off Celtic in much of lowland England.


Probably the main reason the Germans were able to advance as they did during the Migration Period was because the Romans had broken the Celtic power in Gaul, which was really the epicenter of the Celtic world, rather than Germany or Austria. The Celts used to provide a substantial buffer between the Mediterranean world and the Germans, but after the Romans conquered Gaul, Celtic power was hollowed out, and the Germans were able to push south and west.

I don't think there was any great influx of Celts from the Continent into the Isles 3200 years ago. At least, I have never heard of one.

The Irish don't speak Gaelic because the Celts got there in smaller numbers. It is likely they speak Gaelic both because Gaelic is a Q-Celtic language, older than the P-Celtic of the Britons and Gauls, and because Ireland was at the western edge of the known world: the switch from the hard "k" sound of Q-Celtic to the "p" of P-Celtic just never caught on there.

It seems likely to me the Beaker Folk introduced an early form of Q-Celtic to the Isles during the Bronze Age. Later, behind them, on the Continent, the innovation of P-Celtic occurred, eventually becoming the rage in Britain but never quite catching on in Ireland or Iberia.

Regarding U106 as a proxy for Germanic expansion (and I think it's a good one), look at the places where language change occurred: England, Austria, southern and western Germany, the German-speaking parts of Switzerland, the Dutch and Flemish-speaking parts of the Low Countries. In those places you find plenty of U106. In France, which retained its Latinate language despite taking its name from the Germanic Franks, not so much.

alan
09-13-2013, 12:15 PM
When you say the language of the incomers was more effected by the local population in Ireland, that makes no sense. It is in Ireland that the most archaic Celtic survived. The Irish Gaelic on the Ogham inscriptions is a pretty pure form of Celtic. It is P-Celtic that is the altered form. In general Celtic has only a low amount of non-IE borrowings, far less than are found in Germanic.



What big population influx around 1200BC is that? There is almost no evidence of an influx in that period and very little evidence in most of the isles of any influx in the Iron age other than metalwork. There are only a few exceptions to this such as around the Parisi territories and a few related chariot type burials further north and later the Belgic areas in the south. Otherwise we do not find continental burial or house types in the isles and indeed across much of the west. You cant just look at metalwork types alone as an indicator of spread of peoples because metalwork trends have constantly spread across Europe and into the isles from the very beginning of metal use. To right of most of this as trade but highlight the later period as indicative of migration is irrational. The process of spread of metalwork and fashions was constant from the beaker period to the Romans. Most of it just looks like busniness as usual in the late Bronze and Iron Ages in the isles with local type burial and house types continuing albeit the people were using the latest fashions. I think a model of contant low level trickle of movement across 2500-0BC is much more rational and in keeping with the evidence than huge waves in late prehistory.

TigerMW
09-13-2013, 03:38 PM
This is not what I understand as the traditional view about Germanic incursions south and west. Are you saying France and Switzerland were over run with Germanic tribes prior to the fall of the Roman Empire?

If U106 is an indicator of Germanic expansion, we might note there isn't a lot of U106 in France proper. Perhaps, I just don't understand what you are saying.

As RMS noted, we think U106 is somewhat patchy in Switzerland and related to the Germanic speaking areas. However, overall Switzerland looks like it has quite a bit more P312 than U106, at least double, mostly U152.

Curious
09-13-2013, 04:19 PM
This is not what I understand as the traditional view about Germanic incursions south and west. Are you saying France and Switzerland were over run with Germanic tribes prior to the fall of the Roman Empire?

If U106 is an indicator of Germanic expansion, we might note there isn't a lot of U106 in France proper. Perhaps, I just don't understand what you are saying.

I'm saying that, according to Roman writers of the day, Germanic tribes overran what is now Switzerland but not Gaul prior to the Roman conquest of Gaul. The Romans already held an area of southern France, which they referred to as 'the Province", and Caesar argued that the incursion of displaced Celtic tribes could threaten the Province and clearly did threaten some Gaulish tribes, so he argued that an invasion of those threatened tribes was necessary in order to stabilize Rome's borders. I think Caesar would have gotten along well with modern Americans.

[[[Mikewww/Moderator 09/13/2013: I don't know how useful it is to criticize historical figures but, please, let's try to stay away from modern peoples and let's try to stay on topic with the Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene Celtic progression as it might relate to R1b.
I would address this last point to all: What's important in this section of Anthrogenica is how this relates to R1b, not generally the pro's or con's of any ancient society.]]

rms2
09-13-2013, 04:20 PM
. . . I still believe that it was the Romans and not the Anglo-Saxons who killed off Celtic in much of lowland England.

I agree completely, and I would extend that to the continental Celts, as well, i.e., it was the Romans and not the Germans who broke the power of the Celts and devastated their society, culture, and language. The Romans went after the Celts because the former never quite got over the shock, terror, and humiliation of the sack of Rome in 390 BC.

rms2
09-13-2013, 04:28 PM
When you say the language of the incomers was more effected by the local population in Ireland, that makes no sense. It is in Ireland that the most archaic Celtic survived. The Irish Gaelic on the Ogham inscriptions is a pretty pure form of Celtic. It is P-Celtic that is the altered form. In general Celtic has only a low amount of non-IE borrowings, far less than are found in Germanic.

I also pointed that out in my earlier post and would add that Irish society preserved a very archaic IE legal system and many archaic IE customs, some of which have no parallels except in Indian society.

Curious
09-13-2013, 04:32 PM
What big population influx around 1200BC is that? There is almost no evidence of an influx in that period and very little evidence in most of the isles of any influx in the Iron age other than metalwork. There are only a few exceptions to this such as around the Parisi territories and a few related chariot type burials further north and later the Belgic areas in the south. Otherwise we do not find continental burial or house types in the isles and indeed across much of the west. You cant just look at metalwork types alone as an indicator of spread of peoples because metalwork trends have constantly spread across Europe and into the isles from the very beginning of metal use. To right of most of this as trade but highlight the later period as indicative of migration is irrational. The process of spread of metalwork and fashions was constant from the beaker period to the Romans. Most of it just looks like busniness as usual in the late Bronze and Iron Ages in the isles with local type burial and house types continuing albeit the people were using the latest fashions. I think a model of contant low level trickle of movement across 2500-0BC is much more rational and in keeping with the evidence than huge waves in late prehistory.

As for the coming of the Bronze Age to Britain, I believe it's commonly referred to as the Urnfield culture, with burial practices switching to cremation, etc. It was a major cultural shift that I think argues for a major population displacement. Of course, one could argue that it has little in common with the IE expansion, other than the use of bronze, and the Celts may not have arrived in Britain until the coming of the Iron Age about 1500 years later. Developments in Iron Age Britain certainly seem to me to be something that one could link to the Hallstatt/La Tene/Gaulish continuum. Although that's putting the date of Celtic arrival rather late for the total displacement of non-IE languages unless one posits a large scale invasion that replaced most male lineages, as the dominance of R1b and the view that it's the signature of the IE expansion westward. My main point was that, regardless of however and whenever Celtic language and culture arrived in Britain, I see it as a final manifestation of the IE expansion into western Europe. The Celtic languages are, after all, IE languages. I think we can all agree on that. And I can picture a branch of the IE language developing in the Alpine regions of Europe, spreading west and north into Gaul and Britain and eventually being pushed out of the area in which it developed. That fits with what the Romans had to say about the spread of Germanic tribes and the resulting effect on Celtic tribes living to the east of Gaul and north of Italy.

Curious
09-13-2013, 04:35 PM
When you say the language of the incomers was more effected by the local population in Ireland, that makes no sense. It is in Ireland that the most archaic Celtic survived. The Irish Gaelic on the Ogham inscriptions is a pretty pure form of Celtic. It is P-Celtic that is the altered form. In general Celtic has only a low amount of non-IE borrowings, far less than are found in Germanic.

I know that's the common view, but I don't necessarily think it's proven. Even if correct, some version of a Celtic language did arrive in Ireland from the continent, after having ultimately derived from Proto-Indoeuropean by way of Proto-Celtic. (Politically incorrect comments removed.)

Curious
09-13-2013, 04:37 PM
I also pointed that out in my earlier post and would add that Irish society preserved a very archaic IE legal system and many archaic IE customs, some of which have no parallels except in Indian society.

That may be because the Irish culture wasn't impacted by Romans and Anglo-Saxons in the way that the British were.

Curious
09-13-2013, 04:45 PM
As RMS noted, we think U106 is somewhat patchy in Switzerland and related to the Germanic speaking areas. However, overall Switzerland looks like it has quite a bit more P312 than U106, at least double, mostly U152.

I'm not sure how that's an argument against displacement. We have more R1b in Ireland than we do further east, but the geneticists are quite certain that its origins are to the east, perhaps in Anatolia. I think I'm simply applying the same argument that some used in other threads to support the idea that current distribution doesn't prove where something came from.

TigerMW
09-13-2013, 05:07 PM
I'm not sure how that's an argument against displacement. We have more R1b in Ireland than we do further east, but the geneticists are quite certain that its origins are to the east, perhaps in Anatolia. I think I'm simply applying the same argument that some used in other threads to support the idea that current distribution doesn't prove where something came from.

You are the one arguing that "Germanic tribes overran what is now Switzerland."
I guess it depend on what you mean by "overran" but there is not a great deal of genetic support to say there was a majority population displacement or anything like that.

Please be careful about potentially mis-applying arguments against frequency to detect origin. That is specific to ancent origins. The later and later into historical periods we go, populations have grown to sizes where they are harder to displace. There are also cultural changes that may have reduced polygamy and other hegemony advantages. Even if we are talking about England, and even if there was a period of amplification (driven by Anglo-Saxon apartheid some assert), we still see quite a bit of L21.

In the case of U152 vis a vis U106 in Switzerland, at least from the study results I've seen, U152 maintained a clear population proportional advantage. Do you have different information? Are you arguing that U152 has Germanic origins from the north?

I do agree that Germanic expansions had a significant impact on Switzerland. I'm not arguing there was no impact.

Curious
09-13-2013, 08:27 PM
I guess my main issue is that if we see R1b as the signature of IE expansion, when did it arrive (presumably with the Celts) in Britain? Not before the start of the Bronze Age 3200 years ago, certainly, and probably not later than the arrival of the Iron Age in Britain 500 years later (I notice a typo in one of my earlier posts, since it reads 1500 years, but it's too late for me to edit that post now). And noting the proximity of France to Britain, I don't think it's likely that the Celts were in France too many centuries before they arrived in Britain. So, either the Celtic culture evolved later than I would have thought or its homeland is to the east of modern France, and I would have expected it to persist in its homeland until German tribes pushed it westward, just as Caesar described. If the Hallstatt culture isn't Celtic and was located just to the east of the Gauls, what sort of culture do you think it was?

TigerMW
09-13-2013, 09:28 PM
Curious, my real question to you from post #7 below:

If there are still some Celtic (and not Breton) place names in France and not in Switzerland, it's because the Germanic wave pushed the Celts out of their original homeland long before washing over post-Roman Gaul....

This is not what I understand as the traditional view about Germanic incursions south and west. Are you saying France and Switzerland were over run with Germanic tribes prior to the fall of the Roman Empire?
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1291-The-problem-of-the-whole-Urnfield-Hallstatt-La-Tene-Celtic-image&p=13584&viewfull=1#post13584

The real question is a timing question. Do you think major Germanic incursions occurred south and west before the fall of the Roman Empire? I am not familiar with that, but I have no problem with U106 being south (or southeast for that matter) before the Romans got there. I was just trying to inject R1b genetics into it somehow since that is what this category of the forum is about. I have no problem with seeing U106 coming into Switzerland with Germanic expansions either.

TigerMW
09-13-2013, 09:56 PM
I guess my main issue is that if we see R1b as the signature of IE expansion, when did it arrive (presumably with the Celts) in Britain? Not before the start of the Bronze Age 3200 years ago, certainly, and probably not later than the arrival of the Iron Age in Britain 500 years later (I notice a typo in one of my earlier posts, since it reads 1500 years, but it's too late for me to edit that post now). And noting the proximity of France to Britain, I don't think it's likely that the Celts were in France too many centuries before they arrived in Britain. So, either the Celtic culture evolved later than I would have thought or its homeland is to the east of modern France, and I would have expected it to persist in its homeland until German tribes pushed it westward, just as Caesar described
What's the reference or quotes to Caesar that you are going on?


... If the Hallstatt culture isn't Celtic and was located just to the east of the Gauls, what sort of culture do you think it was?
I don't know that we have much reason to think the Hallstatt people, or at least parts of them, weren't speaking Celtic. This is well after the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware timeframes and Proto-Celtic could easily have been around by then if our IE linguists' cladistics estimates are correct.

Hallstatt areas cover a pretty broad span anyway, right?

Why would we say that Hallstatt folks were east of the Gauls when the Gauls that the Romans saw weren't even around yet? I don't know if this is 100% true, but...
"Archaeologically, the Gauls were bearers of the La Tène culture" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul

I'm trying understand your main issue. What data or hypothesis do you see in conflict and what's the conflict?

We don't really know when or where the first discernible Celtic was spoken and who spoke it. We don't know if R1b was in that culture, but we do know R1b of some type was found in Kromsdorf in a Beaker type grave so he definitely could have been in the vicinity of Proto-Celtic, and some how or another P312 types of R1b ended up being thick in Celtic speaking lands and present in some Germanic lands along with U106.

alan
09-13-2013, 10:23 PM
Sorry but cremation was not brought to Britain by urnfielders. It was already the norm long before that period so it wasnt possible for this to spread with urnfield culture. There is virtually no evidence of actual urnfield movements into Britain. There were strong metalwork influences in the isles from central Europe in the urnfield period but there had always been influences radiating from there since metal started being used. I dont think you will see people arguing for Hallstatt invasions in the isles either in modern books because again it looks like trade and contact simplied continued but there is a lack of anything continental looking beyond metalwork influences.


As for the coming of the Bronze Age to Britain, I believe it's commonly referred to as the Urnfield culture, with burial practices switching to cremation, etc. It was a major cultural shift that I think argues for a major population displacement. Of course, one could argue that it has little in common with the IE expansion, other than the use of bronze, and the Celts may not have arrived in Britain until the coming of the Iron Age about 1500 years later. Developments in Iron Age Britain certainly seem to me to be something that one could link to the Hallstatt/La Tene/Gaulish continuum. Although that's putting the date of Celtic arrival rather late for the total displacement of non-IE languages unless one posits a large scale invasion that replaced most male lineages, as the dominance of R1b and the view that it's the signature of the IE expansion westward. My main point was that, regardless of however and whenever Celtic language and culture arrived in Britain, I see it as a final manifestation of the IE expansion into western Europe. The Celtic languages are, after all, IE languages. I think we can all agree on that. And I can picture a branch of the IE language developing in the Alpine regions of Europe, spreading west and north into Gaul and Britain and eventually being pushed out of the area in which it developed. That fits with what the Romans had to say about the spread of Germanic tribes and the resulting effect on Celtic tribes living to the east of Gaul and north of Italy.

rms2
09-14-2013, 01:55 AM
In his Gallic Wars, Caesar said that the Helvetii of Switzerland were braver than most Gauls because they engaged in constant battles with the Germans, but he did not say the Germans pushed them out of their own territory. Instead, the Helvetii tried to migrate into Gaul because they felt constrained and confined within the boundaries of their own territory, and also because their chief, Orgetorix, had hatched a plot to make the Helvetii the hegemons of all Gaul.

Caesar does give an account of how the Gallic tribes the Arverni and the Sequani hired Ariovistus and his Germans as mercenaries in their struggle against the Gallic Aedui. The Germans decided to stay, brought in more of their relatives, and made a nuisance of themselves (sound familiar?). The Aedui appealed to Rome for help. Caesar eventually massacred most of Ariovistus' followers and drove Ariovistus and the rest across the Rhine.

Of course, now we're venturing off into the weeds and getting away from Alan's original topic.

Curious
09-14-2013, 02:48 AM
....

I'm trying understand your main issue. What data or hypothesis do you see in conflict and what's the conflict?



My main issue is that I see Proto-Celtic culture as being more likely to have evolved into Celtic in central Europe and to have moved west than for that to have happened in the area that became known as Gaul. But, whatever. As you say, we don't really know when or where the first discernible Celtic was spoken and who spoke it.

MacEochaidh
09-14-2013, 04:57 AM
My main issue is that I see Proto-Celtic culture as being more likely to have evolved into Celtic in central Europe and to have moved west than for that to have happened in the area that became known as Gaul. But, whatever. As you say, we don't really know when or where the first discernible Celtic was spoken and who spoke it.

Remember that Q-Celtic is older than P-Celtic and that the only evidence of Q-Celtic is in Ireland and Iberia. There is no evidence of Q-Celtic in Central Europe.

rms2
09-14-2013, 01:41 PM
There are two contrasting points of view on the origins of the Celts, as far as I know. The first is David Anthony's view, which represents the Central European origin school of thought (probably better than it has been represented in the past). Here it is again:



The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.
(From The Horse The Wheel and Language, page 367.)

The other view is that of John Koch and, I think, Barry Cunliffe, the Celtic From the West idea, which has Celtic arising as a lingua franca along the Atlantic seaboard as a consequence of Bronze Age trading networks.

Both views are championed by some impressive experts in linguistics and archaeology. Hard for us peasants to know who is right.

alan
09-14-2013, 01:57 PM
The problem with that traditional idea of Celtic origins is that the evidence is far better for Celtic in what was later Gaul, the isles and Iberia if you look at the more reliable modern studies. The central European evidence consists of a thin tail around the Danube and adjacent but there it is often mixed with other non-Celtic peoples. I am not saying that it can be shown that Celtic wasnt present there but it will forever remain hypothetical whereas the Celtic areas that became part of the Roman empire can clearly be seem to form a cohesive large block of Celtic speakers. That at least is not in doubt. I would add to that that much of this large certainly Celtic block does not look like its Celticity owes much to actual invasions of central Europeans in the Urnfield, Hallstatt or even La Tene periods. No doubt a chunk of the first two were Celtic and that pretty well all of the last but its best to concentrate on the big block we know was Celtic speaking.

That large block which includes Atlantic Iberia, France, Belgium, Switerland and the isles all became Celtic but they do not share a common denominator in terms of clear evidence of invasions during the Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene sequence of cultures so its clear that Celticity frequently does not come from these old simplistic late prehistoric invasive models. Read Iron Age communities in Britain by Cunliffe and you will quickly see that the idea of invasions in these phases is very poorly supported except perhaps the Arras and Belgic cultures. Most of Britain saw little change other than the spread of some metalwork - that is indeed the pattern of the whole Bronze Age.

That is why a model for the main block of clealry Celtic speaking areas of intial establishment of west IE elites in the beaker period followed by constant non-invasive contact with modest largely friendly gene flow over the next 2000 years is far more likely to be closer to the picture of how the Celtic sound shifts spread. As I said, the people were the same before and after the sound shifts to their dialects which made them Celtic. Sure in some areas like parts of Italy and eastern Europe, Turkey etc it was the classic invasion but that is all outside the main core consolodated older block of Celtic speakers. Within that block the invasive model does not work and the model I just posited above for a gradual shift from west IE speaking elites into distinct dialects like Celtic through friendly interaction - something that really does fit the archaeological record.

The question remains as to when and where the final shifts that created Celtic evolved. I think that is extremely unlikely to have been Iberia given that Lusitanian dominated much of Portugal and that this area did not join the Atlantic Bronze Age network until significantly later than the northern Atlantic area.

I think it can be concluded without much doubt that

1. The shifts to Celtic have to be dated between the end of the beaker period and the Hallstatt C period i.e. 2000-800BC.

2. They have to be placed somewhere north of the Ligurian area, east of the Lusitanian area and somewhere where all of the places that appear Celtic at the start of history could be influenced from.

3. The initial spread of the shift across its main block must be seen as an aerial one across interacting west IE elites rather than invasive in order to fit the archaeological record.


That to me is the basic box into which the solution will be found. Within this box we need to look to periods which can explain the whole wide spread of Celtic languages across much of western and west-central Europe. Mallory seems to think the linguistic evidence fits better a later Bronze Age timeframe. I am leaning more towards that. I think the outstanding period would be around 1200BC when Urnfield and the Atlantic Bronze age formed twin networks of influence that jointly cover most of the later Celtic speaking world. One thing I have learned reading into those networks is that they should not be seen as oppositional. The Atlantic network put its own spin on things and had its own traditions of burial and settlement but almost all the influences on metalwork etc came through it emulating and putting its own spin on urnfield ideas. They were clearly intensely interacting with each other albeit not in an invasive way. I think that period probably saw the rise of the shifts that formed the Celtic dialect and it spread across both the Urnfield and Atlantic networks.

I dont think it is terrible important or even possible to recover where exactly the shift first happened as it is after all simply some dialect shifts that didnt change the people involved. They were the same people before and after the shift. However, I am curious to know if the shifts are a clue in themself. What caused the shift? I would like to speculate that it was a substrate effect, perhaps caused by the entering of west IE into areas which had non-IE elements. I would look for that sort of effect to have taken place somewhere that had previously been peripheral to the IE metal elites of the beaker and early-mid Bronze Age but which became encorporated into the lUrnfield networks and was in a position to be influential on the trade network at that time. Or maybe it arose on the interface between Urnfield and Atlantic networks where different dialects met. That division c. 1200BC ran across from centre-west France to around Paris and along the coast to the Rhine. There was a mixed zone along the boundary. Whatever way we spin it, both the Atlantic and Urnfield networks must have come to be Celtic speaking.

The other way to look at it is what the sound shifts that define Celtic are. Do they speak for themselves in terms of the likely cause. Is there any suggestion of the sort of substrate that would cause these shifts - problems in pronouncing some sounds like the dropping of the initial P (which is not related to the Q-P shift by the way). I would like to see a linguists speculations on the likely cause of the shifts and substrate that define Celtic.



My main issue is that I see Proto-Celtic culture as being more likely to have evolved into Celtic in central Europe and to have moved west than for that to have happened in the area that became known as Gaul. But, whatever. As you say, we don't really know when or where the first discernible Celtic was spoken and who spoke it.

alan
09-14-2013, 02:00 PM
There is also evidence for q-Celtic in Gaul according to many linguists including Koch although it is smaller.


Remember that Q-Celtic is older than P-Celtic and that the only evidence of Q-Celtic is in Ireland and Iberia. There is no evidence of Q-Celtic in Central Europe.

rms2
09-14-2013, 02:06 PM
Of course, the emphasis of this subforum is y-dna and, more specifically, R1b. When you say that before and after the Celtic speech arrived (or arose) in the West the "same people" were in place, I am taking that to mean "as a whole".

But what about y-dna?

I tend to think some significant y-dna changes accompanied the advent of Celtic, like the spread of P312 and its subclades. What of that?

alan
09-14-2013, 02:52 PM
What I am getting at is that west IEs or Italo-Celtic speakers may have been all over western and central Europe since the beaker period. These beaker elite's descendants may have remained essentially in charge thereafter - the evidence being the sharp patterning of P312 clades which awould not fit waves of invasions but rather fits a 'first in' advantage that was never shaken off - an advantage that is even bigger when you are on an island and have naval ability that central European groups could not challenge.

The spread of dialect that defines Celtic may have been through elite interaction among a subset of those west IE / Italo-Celtic elites in the later Bronze Age without invasions or change of elite. Celtic is only defined by a few shifts, nothing profound. An Italo-Celt elite whose dialect shifts slightly to fall into the Celtic definition is still the same elite. Its just a linguistic definition based on a few shifts, nothing profound.

The really big event in terms of language change that must have involved people migrating was possibly much earlier much bigger shift from non-IE to west IE/Italo-Celtic, possible due to the beaker people.

The shift to Celtic is comparatively minor and much easier to envisage as happening through elite interaction rather than migration. Given the patrilocal nature of society and lack of evidence of invasions in many areas, this non-invasive shifting of dialect probably took place as kings and traders met, craftsmen moved about, proto-druids met up in international assemblies, wives were exchanged between nobles, human dowries exchanged, nobles fostered each other children, hostages were given etc, all classic celtic alliance making systems that are essentially non-invasive. That would amount to a contant trickle process and something like that fits far better into the archaeological record which indicates constant interaction in terms of metalwork etc but basic retention of local traditions.

So, my model is initial first in beaker settlement of early Italo-Celtic elites across Europe followed thereafter by contant interaction between subsets of these elites. The latter process would have made dialects evolve in parallel in areas and times of most intense interaction.


Of course, the emphasis of this subforum is y-dna and, more specifically, R1b. When you say that before and after the Celtic speech arrived (or arose) in the West the "same people" were in place, I am taking that to mean "as a whole".

But what about y-dna?

I tend to think some significant y-dna changes accompanied the advent of Celtic, like the spread of P312 and its subclades. What of that?

alan
09-14-2013, 03:19 PM
I think the best way of characterising these views is

1. Traditional late Bronze Age/Iron Age invasion waves - pretty well discredited as the PRIMARY spreader of Celtic in its core areas.

2. Koch's model-still not generally approved of by many linguists or by most archaeologists with a good handle on linguistics - including Mallory.

Both models seem to take us to that weird extreme of Iberia vs central Europe as if nothing lay in between - weirdly like the same odd tendency to go to these opposite extreme in terms of genetics.

While there is no doubt that model 1 doesnt work, I do not believe Koch's model as it stands works either. He ignores things like the fact that Lusitanian related dialects were strong on the Portuguese coast until Roman times and that Celtic looks like a partial overlay. He also ignores the fact that while the Atlantic interactions in the north between Britain and the NW seaboard continued from c. 2500BC into the iron age, Iberia was largely isolated from this and didnt rejoin nerworking with the north Atlantic until c. 1000BC and was actually late, by a couple of centuries compared to the north. to join what is defined as the late Bronze Age 'Atlantic Bronze Age'. Koch seems to have a poor grasp on the archaeology at times. It is pretty preposterous to think Celtic emerged in Iberia and in the brief period c. 2000-1000BC when it linked up to the north Atlantic (after a 1000 year plus gap since the later beaker period) and somehow Celticised the north Atlantic and then central Europe. Also, when looked at in detail the network largely involved British metalwork and scrap reaching Iberia and not the opposite. Its a complete non-starter as the model currently stands.

If an Atlantic model for the spread of the Celtic dialectal shifts happened in the Atlantic Bronze Age area then the only possibility is it happened in northern France. However, that is also unlikely as it doesnt really extend far enough to alone explain the distribution of Celtic. The Atlantic Bronze Age was essentially a maritime , initially the isles and the Atlantic-channel areas of France and Belgium, network that was the reciever of central European innovations and ideas and put their own spin on these ideas before further trading them. It was strongly under the influence of central European ideas in the urnfield period although it hung onto older ritual, burial and house type traditions. It seems to have been a conduit which eventually extended indirectly those central European ideas and objects down to Iberia. That is based on recent papers and books on the subject, some of which I have posted. It is wrong to see the Atlantic and Urnfield cultures as oppositional as the former was very in touch with the latter.

The sound shifts involved in changing Italo-Celtic to Celtic probably occurred in this interaction zone between the north Atlantic and central Europe. This was most internse in the Urnfield-Atlantic Bronze phase c. 1200-700BC but that sort of interaction was already under way in the Unetice-Wessex-Armorican interaction phase many centuries earlier. So, its impossible to pinpoint exactly when the shifts happened. It may have been a very gradual convergence process spread out across the whole period 2000-800BC. In that period there is a pattern of constant interaction but little evidence of invasion. So, that is why I see the arrival of Celto-Italic or something like that in the beaker period as involving arrival of new groups with first-in advantage but I see the emergence of the minor shifts that define Celtic as more of a non-invasive interaction and low level friendly human movement (probably largely female).

As an aside, the increase of haplogroup H in the beaker period in central Europe could be an echo of a complex of marriage aliances that may have been an important tool in the sealing of network deals etc. I would expect some sort of similar pattern to have continued in the Bronze Age too although the lineages involved may have changed.

There are two contrasting points of view on the origins of the Celts, as far as I know. The first is David Anthony's view, which represents the Central European origin school of thought (probably better than it has been represented in the past). Here it is again:



The other view is that of John Koch and, I think, Barry Cunliffe, the Celtic From the West idea, which has Celtic arising as a lingua franca along the Atlantic seaboard as a consequence of Bronze Age trading networks.

Both views are championed by some impressive experts in linguistics and archaeology. Hard for us peasants to know who is right.

alan
09-14-2013, 03:50 PM
To put it very simply, when you have what were probably minority elites who seemed to rule more by control of prestige goods than territorial war, the YDNA advantage is probably gained by whoever first gets there, especially on islands. Power was probably based on knowlege, skills and alliances more than anything that could simply be stolen like land. In maritime areas that would also have included naval technology which made them almost impossible to challenge by inland peoples.

Once these elites were established the main flow of DNA caused by the subsequent operating of trade networks may well have been mtDNA although elite fosterage for alliance etc was another method of cementing alliances and may have meant a small trickle of Ydna. I am not sure Bronze Age elites would happlily let their best craftsmen move away but traders may have had enclaves and posts abroad so that could mean another trickle of yDNA. Overall though I think in the isles and other coastal areas along the channel where trading and wealth essentially meant boats, they would have been almost impossible to challenge. That is probaby the secret of L21 domination in the isles. You cannot just rock up from central Europe to the channel coast and magically have the maritime skills that the coastal people there have developed over millenia. Like I have posted before, we should probably look at these beaker and successor elites rather more along the lines of the trading based powers of the Med. The main power struggles would potentially have been over trade domination and there could have been sea battles etc. Saying that, boat technology would make a model of localised elites controlling legs of a relay type network rather than major long sea journeys. I tend to imagine that a lot of warfare would have been quite local between or even within the local clans who held control of their part of the larger relay networks. The pattern probably varied depending on where you were on a network, if you had ore, if you were near to communication nodes like the coast or major rivers. When you had no local ore then surplus from agriculture would have been more important in order to trade.

rms2
09-14-2013, 10:24 PM
I really think you have three alternatives now.

1. The old traditional interpretation is Iron Age: the Celts spread west with Hallstatt and La Tene. As you said, it doesn't have too many adherents anymore, although there are a few.
2. Anthony's view (or close) of a Bronze Age spread of Proto-Celtic, with the Beaker Folk as primary early vector. (This view was held earlier by Hubert and others.)
3. Koch's Celtic-from-the-West view.

@Alan

I'm not sure I understand your view vis-a-vis y-dna, and especially P312 and subclades. Let me see if I am getting this right.

1. Beaker Folk spread throughout western and central Europe, carrying both Italo-Celtic and P312.

2. In the North, outside Italy, the speech makes a shift to Proto-Celtic, but without any corresponding invasion, migration or change in the y-dna.

So, the initial y-dna shift from the haplogroups prominent in the Neolithic Period, like I2, G2, etc., to P312 began in the Bronze Age with the advent of the Beaker Folk. It probably did not involve wholesale conquest and slaughter, but elites whose advantages gave them a reproductive edge that eventually led to the overwhelming percentages of P312 (and subclades) we see in the places inhabited mostly by the Celts. Once in place, the shift from Italo-Celtic to Proto-Celtic occurred easily enough without any invasion or major population changes.

Right?

If it is, then I think you are basically in Anthony's camp.

rms2
09-14-2013, 10:41 PM
I really think you have three alternatives now.

1. The old traditional interpretation is Iron Age: the Celts spread west with Hallstatt and La Tene. As you said, it doesn't have too many adherents anymore, although there are a few.
2. Anthony's view (or close) of a Bronze Age spread of Proto-Celtic, with the Beaker Folk as primary early vector. (This view was held earlier by Hubert and others.)
3. Koch's Celtic-from-the-West view.

@Alan

I'm not sure I understand your view vis-a-vis y-dna, and especially P312 and subclades. Let me see if I am getting this right.

1. Beaker Folk spread throughout western and central Europe, carrying both Italo-Celtic and P312.

2. In the North, outside Italy, the speech makes a shift to Proto-Celtic, but without any corresponding invasion, migration or change in the y-dna.

So, the initial y-dna shift from the haplogroups prominent in the Neolithic Period, like I2, G2, etc., to P312 began in the Bronze Age with the advent of the Beaker Folk. It probably did not involve wholesale conquest and slaughter, but elites whose advantages gave them a reproductive edge that eventually led to the overwhelming percentages of P312 (and subclades) we see in the places inhabited mostly by the Celts. Once in place, the shift from Italo-Celtic to Proto-Celtic occurred easily enough without any invasion or major population changes.

Right?

If it is, then I think you are basically in Anthony's camp.

I wanted to add something I just remembered. With the old traditional view (#1 above) of an Iron Age Hallstatt/La Tene spread of the Celts, there was a racial component: the true Celts were supposed to be tall, blond "Nordics" who imposed their language and culture on older native populations. In Britain, those natives were mostly little, short, dark, longheaded "Iberians": a blend of Neolithic settlers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. I suspect there was an element of geopolitics in this interpretation, as well. It enabled English and other writers to dismiss the inhabitants of the Celtic Fringe as something less than "true Celts" or "true Aryans". One still hears an echo of that in the works of the "Celto-Skeptics" and perhaps in the writings of a few of those who like the whole "Basque Fishermen" idea.

Webb
09-14-2013, 11:26 PM
I wanted to add something I just remembered. With the old traditional view (#1 above) of an Iron Age Hallstatt/La Tene spread of the Celts, there was a racial component: the true Celts were supposed to be tall, blond "Nordics" who imposed their language and culture on older native populations. In Britain, those natives were mostly little, short, dark, longheaded "Iberians": a blend of Neolithic settlers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. I suspect there was an element of geopolitics in this interpretation, as well. It enabled English and other writers to dismiss the inhabitants of the Celtic Fringe as something less than "true Celts" or "true Aryans". One still hears an echo of that in the works of the "Celto-Skeptics" and perhaps in the writings of a few of those who like the whole "Basque Fishermen" idea.

So why can't it be a little of each. I posed a question on a different thread and you focused on my use of the term "classical" but not on my real question. If according to classical sources the Boii invaded the Po Valley and displaced the Etruscans, and we have a pocket of U152 there with a smattering of DF27 and very little L21. Whereas classical sources state that celts invaded Iberia and we have a list of the various Celtic tribes and in Spain we have large amounts of DF27 and descent amounts of L21, but virtually no U152. In Ireland we have Celtic culture and language and L21, but very little DF27 and U152. So how is this possible? How could some celts be predominately U152 in one place, predominately DF27 in another and predominately L21 somewhere else? The only thing I can come up with is different waves who changed genetically but were still culturally and linguistically similar, or there is no true Celt.

rms2
09-14-2013, 11:31 PM
So why can't it be a little of each. I posed a question on a different thread and you focused on my use of the term "classical" but not on my real question. If according to classical sources the Boii invaded the Po Valley and displaced the Etruscans, and we have a pocket of U152 there with a smattering of DF27 and very little L21. Whereas classical sources state that celts invaded Iberia and we have a list of the various Celtic tribes and in Spain we have large amounts of DF27 and descent amounts of L21, but virtually no U152. In Ireland we have Celtic culture and language and L21, but very little DF27 and U152. So how is this possible? How could some celts be predominately U152 in one place, predominately DF27 in another and predominately L21 somewhere else? The only thing I can come up with is different waves who changed genetically but were still culturally and linguistically similar, or there is no true Celt.

Well, I think what you have is the spread of Proto-Celtic or, as Alan says, Italo-Celtic, and P312. After that, the subclades arose in various locations and went where we now see them. Various tribes could have been predominantly one thing or another, which seems likely, since tribes were just extended kinship groups.

So, you had Celts already in place throughout western and west central Europe who were mostly P312+. The subclades came later and grew to different proportions in different places.

The shared or common factor was P312.

alan
09-15-2013, 01:09 AM
That is a perfect summary of what I think. Shifting to a completely new language branch definately needed a movement even if it was not a big one initially. However, evolving separate dialects within zones is a much smaller change and IMO doesnt require more than a strong degree of interaction within that zone.

I dont think the detail of exactly when, where and how long the dialect took to form will ever be totally recoverable. Based on the presence of non-Celtic languages I think Celtic probably emerged across a broad zone that included the northern half of France, west-central Europe and the isles which were pretty well consistantly interacting throughout the Bronze Age from 2000BC. The initial post-beaker period of interaction was between Unetice-Armorica-Wessex and other less rich cultures in the same basic zone. I am not sure at that stage what the language was, if it was fully Celtic as yet. On balance I have my doubts. The interaction continued across the same sort of areas. There was a peak in interaction in the period c. 1200-700BC before a drop off.

However, it is complicated by Urnfield. Urnfield spread into areas further south although its linguistic impact on southern France and eastern Iberia does not seem to have been effective in terms of celticisation there as Iberian and Ligurian are recorded there at the dawn of history. Even the Villanovan branch in Italy corresponds with later Etruscan areas to a significant degree although in that particular case it might just be bad luck and the Etruscans might be an overlay. Nevertheless, it is interesting that in many areas the Urnfield expansion was not a successful long term vehicle for Celtic. There are a lot of areas that were clearly Celtic speaking at the dawn of history but didnt have strong indicators of urnfield intrusion. So, Urnfield is a bit of a mystery. I am not convinced that it represents a migration but rather new religious ideas - ideas which were probaby new to some areas but not new to areas that already cremation like the isles.


I really think you have three alternatives now.

1. The old traditional interpretation is Iron Age: the Celts spread west with Hallstatt and La Tene. As you said, it doesn't have too many adherents anymore, although there are a few.
2. Anthony's view (or close) of a Bronze Age spread of Proto-Celtic, with the Beaker Folk as primary early vector. (This view was held earlier by Hubert and others.)
3. Koch's Celtic-from-the-West view.

@Alan

I'm not sure I understand your view vis-a-vis y-dna, and especially P312 and subclades. Let me see if I am getting this right.

1. Beaker Folk spread throughout western and central Europe, carrying both Italo-Celtic and P312.

2. In the North, outside Italy, the speech makes a shift to Proto-Celtic, but without any corresponding invasion, migration or change in the y-dna.

So, the initial y-dna shift from the haplogroups prominent in the Neolithic Period, like I2, G2, etc., to P312 began in the Bronze Age with the advent of the Beaker Folk. It probably did not involve wholesale conquest and slaughter, but elites whose advantages gave them a reproductive edge that eventually led to the overwhelming percentages of P312 (and subclades) we see in the places inhabited mostly by the Celts. Once in place, the shift from Italo-Celtic to Proto-Celtic occurred easily enough without any invasion or major population changes.

Right?

If it is, then I think you are basically in Anthony's camp.

alan
09-15-2013, 01:14 AM
As rich said, the common denomenator is P312. Shortly after that SNP, the main clade divisions must have emerged and are geographically patterned. The P312 wave probably gave birth to the subclades on the move. They probably spread Italo-Celtic or something like that. After P312 Italo-Celts were spread around western and central Europe it was probably no great leap for a few shifts to make them Celtic speakers in some areas. Perhaps the Celtic speaking areas simply shared a common substrate that drove their dialects in that direction.


So why can't it be a little of each. I posed a question on a different thread and you focused on my use of the term "classical" but not on my real question. If according to classical sources the Boii invaded the Po Valley and displaced the Etruscans, and we have a pocket of U152 there with a smattering of DF27 and very little L21. Whereas classical sources state that celts invaded Iberia and we have a list of the various Celtic tribes and in Spain we have large amounts of DF27 and descent amounts of L21, but virtually no U152. In Ireland we have Celtic culture and language and L21, but very little DF27 and U152. So how is this possible? How could some celts be predominately U152 in one place, predominately DF27 in another and predominately L21 somewhere else? The only thing I can come up with is different waves who changed genetically but were still culturally and linguistically similar, or there is no true Celt.

rms2
09-15-2013, 10:45 AM
I guess the controversy over the Lusitanian language in the Iberian peninsula has some bearing on this topic. Some, like Prosper, argue that, although Indo-European, Lusitanian is not Celtic and is closer to Italic than Celtic. Others, like Koch and Wodtko, argue that it is a Celtic dialect. I am not expert enough to say who is right, but it is interesting.

rms2
09-15-2013, 12:29 PM
I wanted to add something I just remembered. With the old traditional view (#1 above) of an Iron Age Hallstatt/La Tene spread of the Celts, there was a racial component: the true Celts were supposed to be tall, blond "Nordics" who imposed their language and culture on older native populations. In Britain, those natives were mostly little, short, dark, longheaded "Iberians": a blend of Neolithic settlers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. I suspect there was an element of geopolitics in this interpretation, as well. It enabled English and other writers to dismiss the inhabitants of the Celtic Fringe as something less than "true Celts" or "true Aryans". One still hears an echo of that in the works of the "Celto-Skeptics" and perhaps in the writings of a few of those who like the whole "Basque Fishermen" idea.

Here is a classic example of the old traditional view of an Iron Age Hallstatt/La Tene spread of Celtic and the "Aryan" component of it. It's from H.G. Wells', The Outline of History (original, 1920; reprint 1971, pp. 229-231):



These short dark Iberian tribes (and the Basques also if they were a different race) were thrust back westward, and conquered and enslaved by slowly advancing waves of taller and fairer Aryan-speaking peoples coming southward and westward through Central Europe, who are spoken of as the Celts. Only the Basque resisted the conquering Aryan speech. Gradually these Celtic-speakers made their way to the Atlantic, and all that now remains of the Iberians is mixed into the Celtic population. How far the Celtic invasion affected the Irish population is a matter of debate at the present time; in that island the Celts may have been a mere caste of conquerors who imposed their language on a larger subject population. The same may be true of Spain. It is even doubtful if the north of England is more Nordic than pre-Celtic in blood. There is a sort of short dark Welshman, and certain types of Irishmen, who are Iberians by race. The modern Portuguese are also largely of Iberian blood.

This old viewpoint is a matter of historiography and, I think, is the ultimate source of the R1b-in-the-Franco-Cantabrian-Ice-Age-Refuge idea, but that is matter for another thread, I guess.

alan
09-15-2013, 01:35 PM
I dont think it should be as controversial as is sometimes make out. Its clear Lusitanian doesnt have the shifts that define Celtic like the loss of the initial P. The only way it can be defined as Celtic is to change the definition of Celtic or place it in some category like Para-Celtic. Whatever its definition I think Koch has reversed the logical conclusion that Celtic cannot have spread from a place like the Portuguese coast because they spoke Lusitanian there. The Portuguese coast was pretty isolated from the rest of Atlantic and central Europe after the beaker period and up to 1000BC so its not surprising that an archaic dialect that probably was present since beaker times existed there. However, the bottom line is they remained speaking Lusitanian into the historic period, long after Celtic was known elsewhere so I think its irrational to look at Portugal as the origin of actual Celtic speaking. Portugal could theoretically have had a very early role in the spread of some sort of as yet undifferentiated Celto-Italic type dialect in the beaker period given the strong and early beaker culture there. However, after that it became isolated and not in a position to spread any more developed form of the language. It only really came out of that isolation c. 1000BC when north Atlantic influences reached the area. Even then Celtic remained like a patchy overlay in Portugal.

It is also interesting to consider that whatever substrate influenced the shifts towards Celtic does not seem to have been acting on the Celto-italic languages of Italy, southern France and southern and Atlantic Iberia given the presence of Italic, Ligurian and Lusitanian there. Perhaps this is another indicator that Celtic emerged somewhere else where the substrate was not the same. I think that is a thought worth looking into more. The areas where non-Celtic Celto-Italic dialects seem to exist have a Cardial Neoiithic substrate. The areas where only Celtic is attested had a non-Cardial substrate of the northern/central European Neolithic types.

Much of the later definately Celtic speaking areas also either lacked a Corded Ware substrate or that culture was very early eclipsed by beaker. So, it seems unlikely to me that Corded Ware substrate was important. Maybe the lack of a Corded substrate of any significance or duration is what is significant.

So, there is a possibility that rather than spread from one point to another that Celtic emerged quickly due to a common substrate effect on Celto-Italic beaker peoples when they moved into areas with a northern Neolithic substrate and a lack of a corded ware substrate of any duration. That would describe most of the later Celtic speaking areas where no other Italo-Celtic languages are present. Certainly the largest block of Celtic speakers with no other languages recorded locally consists of northern half of Gaul and adjacent parts of west-central Europe and the isles. Those areas do indeed largely fit the model of a beaker Celto-Italic group arriving in areas where substrate was of a northern Neolithic origin and there was no or only a very brief corded ware phase. If the substrate theory is right then there is no single origin point for Celtic. T

Note though that a substrate model that expains incipient Celtic features across a zone with a similar substrate does not mean that the model of parallel development and convergence by elite contact is incorrect. They can both be part of the story.





I guess the controversy over the Lusitanian language in the Iberian peninsula has some bearing on this topic. Some, like Prosper, argue that, although Indo-European, Lusitanian is not Celtic and is closer to Italic than Celtic. Others, like Koch and Wodtko, argue that it is a Celtic dialect. I am not expert enough to say who is right, but it is interesting.

alan
09-15-2013, 01:52 PM
Well P312 destroyed the idea of radical differences between U152 and the rest who used to be lumped into M269*. So, that is a dead deal.

The racial thing based on classical sources in simple to explain IMO. Descriptions of light hair, red hair, tallness etc was always very much relative to Ancient Greeks, Romans etc. There is an element of truth in it but it was relative and in reality they were probably no different to the Irish, Scots etc of today. A group of crowd of people from those areas will still stand out like a sort thumb in Athens or Rome as they are much fairer skinned, lighter eyed and even though not very blonde they still tend to have lighter shades of hair than the locals, a sprinkling of gingers etc and while indiduals could be swapped between the countries and pass, there is no doubt that a group of people would stand out as foreigners from the north. For some reason in the 19th century they tried to stereotype people into uber-nordic or Iberia where in reality the average isles person doesnt look like either of those extremes but instead have our own distinctive mix of pale skin, often light eyes, middling hair colours and middling height. I have no reason to think that the Celts were any different in classical times.



Here is a classic example of the old traditional view of an Iron Age Hallstatt/La Tene spread of Celtic and the "Aryan" component of it. It's from H.G. Wells', The Outline of History (original, 1920; reprint 1971, pp. 229-231):



This old viewpoint is a matter of historiography and, I think, is the ultimate source of the R1b-in-the-Franco-Cantabrian-Ice-Age-Refuge idea, but that is matter for another thread, I guess.

Webb
09-15-2013, 02:38 PM
I also believe Koch argued that Tartessian was the earliest form of Celtic. I think most scholars do not agree with him, however. Please note my avatar if interested. It is in honor of my norwiberian-Celtic heritage. Joke. Although keep in mind that I coined the term Norwiberian, in case it rises in popularity.

alan
09-15-2013, 04:03 PM
Even if he is correct that Tartessian was Celtic c. 600BC, its still too late in time to actual indicate it originated there. All iscriptions tends to indicate is the arrival of influences from Med. civilisations with writing scripts or historians. The other thing Koch ignores is the archaeology of Tartessos or Huelva which overwhelmingly is indicative of Med. networking. I know there is one famous hoard that included north Atlantic Bronzes but the big picture is this was very much a Med. trading site and its a very very unlikely spot to have been in or close to the origin point of Celtic. Trade from the north Atlantic may have arrived briefly but the overall picture seems to have absolutely no bearing on the spread of Celtic. Koch seems to not figure in the archaeology. I know archaeology doesnt have all the answers but the evidence from Huelva is utterly dominated with trade links along the Med. rather than with the Celtic world. I think it is more likely that Celtic speakers settled nearby muscled into the area. I am more convinced that Celtic sound shifts may have spread down Atlantic Iberia from the north during the Atlantic Bronze Age phase and effectively transformed the language of some of the Lusitanian type speaker's elites into Celtic without any major population movement.

http://www.uhu.es/pablo.hidalgo/docencia/registro/archivos/ljsanchez/the%20precolonial%20phoenician%20emporium%20of%20h uelva.pdf

While it is possible some sort of Italo-Celtic language with beaker roots could have been in the Tatressos area, it was not a very strong beaker spot and a whole lot of things like Argaric influences etc lies in between the beaker period and 1000BC when the evidence at Huelva commences. Certainly the area was largely linked into a Med. network with areas like Sardinia, Greece, Phoenicia etc for centuries and it was not in a position to influence or be the origin of Celtic sound shifts elsewhere in the Celtic world. It would be fair to say that although new influences and contacts coming from the Atlantic Bronze Age groups in Atlantic France and beyond c. 1000-800BC effected Atlantic Iberia, the material culture of Huelva shows such contact as minimal compared to contacts along the Med. It seems pretty well impossible to link the wider spread of Celtic with Tartessian.

However, I do think there is an interesting story to the pockets of clear Celticity in Atlantic Iberia and its pattern in relation to Lusitanian language traces. It seems likely to me that the Celticising influences came north to south down the Atlantic with the Atlantic Bronze Age and that that is the origin of the Celtic language in the area. It is interesting that the Atlantic Bronze Age seems to have made its biggest impact in the NW of Iberia and the SW corner too and not on the Lusitanian lands in between.

I also believe Koch argued that Tartessian was the earliest form of Celtic. I think most scholars do not agree with him, however. Please note my avatar if interested. It is in honor of my norwiberian-Celtic heritage. Joke. Although keep in mind that I coined the term Norwiberian, in case it rises in popularity.

rms2
09-15-2013, 07:45 PM
Well P312 destroyed the idea of radical differences between U152 and the rest who used to be lumped into M269*. So, that is a dead deal.

The racial thing based on classical sources in simple to explain IMO. Descriptions of light hair, red hair, tallness etc was always very much relative to Ancient Greeks, Romans etc. There is an element of truth in it but it was relative and in reality they were probably no different to the Irish, Scots etc of today. A group of crowd of people from those areas will still stand out like a sort thumb in Athens or Rome as they are much fairer skinned, lighter eyed and even though not very blonde they still tend to have lighter shades of hair than the locals, a sprinkling of gingers etc and while indiduals could be swapped between the countries and pass, there is no doubt that a group of people would stand out as foreigners from the north. For some reason in the 19th century they tried to stereotype people into uber-nordic or Iberia where in reality the average isles person doesnt look like either of those extremes but instead have our own distinctive mix of pale skin, often light eyes, middling hair colours and middling height. I have no reason to think that the Celts were any different in classical times.

I agree that new developments and data for y-dna have shattered the old R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge thing, and that the Romans wrote about what stood out to them about the physiognomy of various barbarians, but there is more to it than that. The view reflected in what I quoted from H.G. Wells is not something he made up. He got it from 19th and early 20th century scholars. It was the idea of what Wells called the "Dark White" or "Mediterranean" population that spread over western Europe, including the British Isles, after the last Ice Age. I believe that view colored early population genetics. When R1b was found to be commonplace across western Europe, and especially when the Basques were discovered to be largely R1b, - bingo! - science had found its aboriginal Iberians.

This idea forms the background for Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British. When I get time I'll pull out that book and post some quotes to show what I mean. Here's a bit more from H.G. Wells' The Outline of History:



These new people were a darkish, fine-featured people; they were the first comers of a race, the Mediterranean, dark-white or Iberian race, which is still the prevailing race in southern Europe. Their communities extended northward with the spread of the forests to replace the steppes, and the wane of the hunters, some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago (p. 83).

Before the expansion of the Aryans from their lands of origin southward and westward, the Iberian race was distributed over Great Britain, Ireland, France, Spain, North Africa, South Italy and in a more civilized state, Greece and Asia Minor. It was closely related to the Egyptian. To judge by its European vestiges it was a rather small human type, generally with an oval face and a long head. It buried its chiefs and important people in megalithic chambers - i.e., made of big stones - covered over by great mounds of earth; and these mounds of earth, being much longer than they are broad, are spoken of as the long barrows. These people sheltered at times in caves, and also buried some of their dead therein; and from traces of charred, broken, and cut human bones, including the bones of children, it is inferred that they were cannibals (p. 229).

alan
09-15-2013, 08:42 PM
I remember there was a corner in my university library that was full of 19th to mid 20th century books on the subject of physical anthropology etc. They would seem racist in modern terms and were a product of their time.

I suppose autosomal DNA has shown the exaggeration of these Victorian ideas about the isles population too. All the northern countries including the Celtic fringe cluster together on the autosomal map of Europe. Its only in very very close detail that further division appears in the isles. However on a European scale they cluster very close and do not cluster with the Med.

I think Maciamo produces the most understandable autosomal maps. I have seen other spins on this but they make a lot less sense compared to archaeology than Maciamo's


My guess is the core bulk of the north-west European component is the remanant of the Mesolithic of western, central and northern Europe - the eastern European hunters may have been different. Some of it moved about later the Germanics but that seems to me to have just been minor shuffling and it was clearly a major component much earlier - more than half the DNA across all of northern Europe.

There is a Med. component too which surely has to be considered Neolithic in origin. It is around a quarter in the isles. It has both a south-north and west-east cline. Again some of it probably also relates to east-west movements along the Med. in much later historically recorded times.

The other components are unclear to me but some are probably copper age. The Gedrosian one is interesting in that it in that it does have some resemblance to R1b. Like R1b it looks split into two by being reduced, probably by later Slavic expansion in the areas in between in eastern Europe. However, I have little doubt that this component was once more of a consistant cline, still represented to some degree although reduced. The contribution of about 10-15% in the isles is in line with the sort of expectations I would have for a copper age intrusion into an already well populated area. My feeling is that component goes all the way back to the R* phase.


I agree that new developments and data for y-dna have shattered the old R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge thing, and that the Romans wrote about what stood out to them about the physiognomy of various barbarians, but there is more to it than that. The view reflected in what I quoted from H.G. Wells is not something he made up. He got it from 19th and early 20th century scholars. It was the idea of what Wells called the "Dark White" or "Mediterranean" population that spread over western Europe, including the British Isles, after the last Ice Age. I believe that view colored early population genetics. When R1b was found to be commonplace across western Europe, and especially when the Basques were discovered to be largely R1b, - bingo! - science had found its aboriginal Iberians.

This idea forms the background for Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British. When I get time I'll pull out that book and post some quotes to show what I mean. Here's a bit more from H.G. Wells' The Outline of History:

Curious
09-15-2013, 09:37 PM
I remember there was a corner in my university library that was full of 19th to mid 20th century books on the subject of physical anthropology etc. They would seem racist in modern terms and were a product of their time.

I suppose autosomal DNA has shown the exaggeration of these Victorian ideas about the isles population too. All the northern countries including the Celtic fringe cluster together on the autosomal map of Europe. Its only in very very close detail that further division appears in the isles. However on a European scale they cluster very close and do not cluster with the Med.

I think Maciamo produces the most understandable autosomal maps. I have seen other spins on this but they make a lot less sense compared to archaeology than Maciamo's


My guess is the core bulk of the north-west European component is the remanant of the Mesolithic of western, central and northern Europe - the eastern European hunters may have been different. Some of it moved about later the Germanics but that seems to me to have just been minor shuffling and it was clearly a major component much earlier - more than half the DNA across all of northern Europe.

There is a Med. component too which surely has to be considered Neolithic in origin. It is around a quarter in the isles. It has both a south-north and west-east cline. Again some of it probably also relates to east-west movements along the Med. in much later historically recorded times.

The other components are unclear to me but some are probably copper age. The Gedrosian one is interesting in that it in that it does have some resemblance to R1b. Like R1b it looks split into two by being reduced, probably by later Slavic expansion in the areas in between in eastern Europe. However, I have little doubt that this component was once more of a consistant cline, still represented to some degree although reduced. The contribution of about 10-15% in the isles is in line with the sort of expectations I would have for a copper age intrusion into an already well populated area. My feeling is that component goes all the way back to the R* phase.

I guess one of the main things I was thinking on this subject was that, since the Celtic languages are IE, and the IE folk were bronze age, the Celts wouldn't have entered Britain or Ireland at least until the bronze age entered those islands, and possibly later. If they introduced either the bronze age or the iron age to Britain and/or Ireland, and if R1b is the signature Y dna of the Celts, and in fact of the IE expansion westward, I think R1b wouldn't have become as dominant as it did in Britain and Ireland unless the Celts arrived as conquerers, in which case R1b could spread and expand quite rapidly through an existing neolithic population, just as it has apparently spread through the Native North American population in much more recent times. So you could have a pre-Roman "Celtic" population that was primarily mesolithic and neolithic but also primarily R1b in Y haplotype. Does that seem logical?

alan
09-15-2013, 11:56 PM
I think we should be thinking of the main settlement phase as being in the mode of people speaking fully developed Celtic. The settlement phase probably happened when languages were still in some sort of Celto-Italic phase or someting like that. The development of different dialects was probably down to a mixture of differing substrates and also close trade networking etc.

I dont think the idea of largescale conquering is really appropriate in the Bronze Age. Polities were probably very small. Power seemed to lie in control of trade and prestige goods. More importantly if P312 only dates to around 2500BC or even 3000BC then in the big expansion beaker phase c. 2500BC the numbers must have been tiny compared to the locals. The locals had the same basic weapons - long bows and flint arrows etc so there was no overwhelming technological military advantages. Copper axes and knives were probably little better than flint. It is far more likely that beaker P312 groups were permitted to settle and that most of their early goods were presitige items rather than hugely practical. In fact the archaeology almost demands that. The obvious reason why they would have been permitted is metalworking and networks.

That permited settlement may have turned out to be a trojan horse when the prestige these settlers possessed may have ecclipsed the traditional local leaders in any given area where the beaker people settled. This process could have taken a couple of centuries by which time they were stronger in numbers, the weapons were more varied and bronze rather than copper and control of metal may have been a much bigger deal. If conflict arose they would have been in a strong position by then but not initially.

So, I think the idea of waves of warriors conquering territories is extremely unlikely in terms of the initial spread of P31. Actually the entire set up of the temperate north-west European societies from the beaker period for a long time after seems to have been a very steep pyramid with a small elite controlling prestige goods. This sort of society seems to have only really finally fallen at the end of the Hallstatt D period and start of the La Tene era when a more territorial outlook and a wider warrior class has been surmissed by some. It probably no coincidence that the associations of the Celts with violent large scale invasions to seize non-Celtic territories appears at this time when the last flourish of the old system, the Hallstatt D super-rich west Alpine chiefdoms, collapsed. However, the archaeology does not give the impression that this was the norm prior to this.

I think people get the wrong ideas about 'barbarian' Europe based on later periods. Indeed, in the beaker period the most important weapon, the bow and arrow, was a distinctly non-heroic warrior sort of choice although probably the only practical one for a small minority settling among vastly larger local populations. Probably more for self defence and deterent than anything showy. Probably each beaker groups was a very small scale affair of as small local branch clan in in a vastly larger local population. They probably fought among themselves and between clans for control of the prestige good trade but not whole populations. They probably only very slowly morphed into an elite over all of society over many centuries. In fact the fact they remained aloof from the local population is probably shows by the incredible domination of P312 in western Europe. That is not suggestive of an inclusive structure that let the locals take part. They seem to have morphed from welcomed specialists to an exclusive elite who slowly outbred the other male lineages over several millenia. That sort of model would also mean only modest autosomal impact - a lot of men descended from very few men who married locally.




I guess one of the main things I was thinking on this subject was that, since the Celtic languages are IE, and the IE folk were bronze age, the Celts wouldn't have entered Britain or Ireland at least until the bronze age entered those islands, and possibly later. If they introduced either the bronze age or the iron age to Britain and/or Ireland, and if R1b is the signature Y dna of the Celts, and in fact of the IE expansion westward, I think R1b wouldn't have become as dominant as it did in Britain and Ireland unless the Celts arrived as conquerers, in which case R1b could spread and expand quite rapidly through an existing neolithic population, just as it has apparently spread through the Native North American population in much more recent times. So you could have a pre-Roman "Celtic" population that was primarily mesolithic and neolithic but also primarily R1b in Y haplotype. Does that seem logical?

Curious
09-16-2013, 03:07 AM
I think that if and when we finally have a body of Y dna evidence from neolithic, bronze age and early iron age Britain and Ireland, it will be interesting to see what story that tells.

rms2
09-16-2013, 11:31 AM
Once again quoting from H.G. Wells' The Outline of History to set the stage for my comments:


These new people were a darkish, fine-featured people; they were the first comers of a race, the Mediterranean, dark-white or Iberian race, which is still the prevailing race in southern Europe. Their communities extended northward with the spread of the forests to replace the steppes, and the wane of the hunters, some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago (p. 83).

Before the expansion of the Aryans from their lands of origin southward and westward, the Iberian race was distributed over Great Britain, Ireland, France, Spain, North Africa, South Italy and in a more civilized state, Greece and Asia Minor. It was closely related to the Egyptian. To judge by its European vestiges it was a rather small human type, generally with an oval face and a long head. It buried its chiefs and important people in megalithic chambers - i.e., made of big stones - covered over by great mounds of earth; and these mounds of earth, being much longer than they are broad, are spoken of as the long barrows. These people sheltered at times in caves, and also buried some of their dead therein; and from traces of charred, broken, and cut human bones, including the bones of children, it is inferred that they were cannibals.

These short dark Iberian tribes (and the Basques also if they were a different race) were thrust back westward, and conquered and enslaved by slowly advancing waves of taller and fairer Aryan-speaking peoples coming southward and westward through Central Europe, who are spoken of as the Celts. Only the Basque resisted the conquering Aryan speech. Gradually these Celtic-speakers made their way to the Atlantic, and all that now remains of the Iberians is mixed into the Celtic population. How far the Celtic invasion affected the Irish population is a matter of debate at the present time; in that island the Celts may have been a mere caste of conquerors who imposed their language on a larger subject population. The same may be true of Spain. It is even doubtful if the north of England is more Nordic than pre-Celtic in blood. There is a sort of short dark Welshman, and certain types of Irishmen, who are Iberians by race. The modern Portuguese are also largely of Iberian blood (pp. 229-231).


Is Wells' description of the Neolithic inhabitants of the Isles, and of western Europe in general, accurate? Were they basically little people with fine features, oval faces, and long heads? These were the megalithic "long barrow" people, according to Wells.

The only megalithic tomb I know of that thus far has yielded any ancient y-dna is the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte, not far from Paris. The two male skeletons from there tested I-M26 (I2a1a, predicted from STR haplotypes).

http://goo.gl/maps/299ot

I know the Paleolithic Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers were supposed to be tall and rugged. What about the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers? The same?

So, these small long barrow people must have been Neolithic settlers or their descendants, right?

alan
09-16-2013, 03:04 PM
It quite funny the way they claimed to know the colouring of the Neolithic people. A lot in terms of build and bone/skull structure could have been down to diet. However, it is broadly still true that the early Neolithic people in the isles seem to have been smaller and long headed than the early Bronze Age peoples. Whether that is significant or diet or a bit of both is unclear.

We dont know their colouring but I am not so sure we can be sure they were very dark. Places like Ireland and the west highlands of Scotland have some of the highest rates of light eyes in the world. Dark eyes are dominant so unless the Neolithic contribution was ultimately far smaller than normally assummed, it is hard to see how these areas could have retained light eyes if the Neolithic farmers were predominanty dark eyed.

My feeling is that by the time they reached places like Ireland the original farmers genes had probably already been diluted by mixing with hunters. I know the present idea of avoidance of hunters has been claimed for LBK but there is a long period between LBK and the final thrust of farming into northern Europe so a lot may have changed. I wouldnt let one Sardinian-like TRB guy put me off that view.

One thing we do know is the farmers suffered a downturn a few generations after settling Ireland and abandoned things like the large rectangular houses. Maybe they suffered a severe setback at a time when there was still a significant number of hunter-gatherers around. I do know that in some areas of Ireland it seems like they looked to different types of land and could have easily lived side by side without disturbing each other much for a considerable time unless the hunters abandoned their separate lifestyle.

I have always thought that after an initial phase of using a preconceived continental blueprint, the farmers and hunters may have merged albeit with the farmers material culture the visible one. There are certain very broad changes after the early Neolithic in Ireland, such as the abandoning of rectangular continental type houses for round houses or more ephemeral settlements, that could suggest that. The evidence of course is too scarse to show this. However, if the early farmers preferred the lighter soils above the drift areas and hunters focussed on the alluvial areas along rivers then the evidence for hunter-gatherers may be largely hidden under very deep flood deposits. Also on the coast the early Neolithic coincided with the maximum marine transgression which means that any coastal hunter-fisher settlement below that high water line will have been washed away. I think that this combination of factors may be giving the impression of less overlap between farmers and hunters than there really was.

That all said, the farmers must have made some genetic impact. There is after all 20-30% of Med. component in the isles and it seems likely that a large chunk, although not all, could have come from Neolithic farmers. Interestingly it is heavily outnumber by the north-west European component which is 50-60%. I dont think in a place like Ireland that the majority component could possibly have come from historic period settlements and to me this is likely mostly down to the hunter-gatherer substrate and/or the hunter-gatherer DNA already absorbed by the Neolithic people en-route.


Once again quoting from H.G. Wells' The Outline of History to set the stage for my comments:



Is Wells' description of the Neolithic inhabitants of the Isles, and of western Europe in general, accurate? Were they basically little people with fine features, oval faces, and long heads? These were the megalithic "long barrow" people, according to Wells.

The only megalithic tomb I know of that thus far has yielded any ancient y-dna is the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte, not far from Paris. The two male skeletons from there tested I-M26 (I2a1a, predicted from STR haplotypes).

http://goo.gl/maps/299ot

I know the Paleolithic Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers were supposed to be tall and rugged. What about the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers? The same?

So, these small long barrow people must have been Neolithic settlers or their descendants, right?

rossa
09-16-2013, 03:48 PM
Once again quoting from H.G. Wells' The Outline of History to set the stage for my comments:


Only the Basque resisted the conquering Aryan speech. Gradually these Celtic-speakers made their way to the Atlantic


Is Wells' description of the Neolithic inhabitants of the Isles, and of western Europe in general, accurate? Were they basically little people with fine features, oval faces, and long heads? These were the megalithic "long barrow" people, according to Wells.

The only megalithic tomb I know of that thus far has yielded any ancient y-dna is the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte, not far from Paris. The two male skeletons from there tested I-M26 (I2a1a, predicted from STR haplotypes).

http://goo.gl/maps/299ot

I know the Paleolithic Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers were supposed to be tall and rugged. What about the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers? The same?

So, these small long barrow people must have been Neolithic settlers or their descendants, right?


Is he saying Celts and Aryans are the same? Also why do Basques get such emphasis in the first place; do they really look that different or is it just the language?

alan
09-16-2013, 04:22 PM
Most of what he said was just total guesswork influenced by attitudes of the time. These old books are interesting but kind of useless today when we have better information.


Is he saying Celts and Aryans are the same? Also why do Basques get such emphasis in the first place; do they really look that different or is it just the language?

rms2
09-17-2013, 12:40 AM
Is he saying Celts and Aryans are the same? Also why do Basques get such emphasis in the first place; do they really look that different or is it just the language?

Wells was using the word "Aryan" the way we use "Indo-European" today.

Basques got - and get - a lot of emphasis because of the unfounded belief that they comprise a Paleolithic remnant of some kind, primarily because they speak a non-Indo-European language.

rms2
09-17-2013, 12:50 AM
It quite funny the way they claimed to know the colouring of the Neolithic people . . .

Wells' thinking was that there was a sort of generalized, middling race of human beings stretching from the Mediterranean to Anatolia and the Caucasus, a sort of "basic default human", if you will. This is what he described as the "dark white", "Mediterranean", or "Iberian" race. He believed it spread into the Isles following the last Ice Age, but the skeletal characteristics he ascribed to the bodies in the megalithic tombs and long barrows would seem to be more appropriate to Neolithic settlers from the Near East.

Wells based his ideas about coloring, I think, on observations of people belonging to what was called the "Mediterranean race" in his day. As you can see from what I quoted from him above, he (and he wasn't alone) attributed any Mediterranean-looking Welshman or Irishman to descent from prehistoric "Iberians".

MacEochaidh
09-17-2013, 02:35 AM
Wells' thinking was that there was a sort of generalized, middling race of human beings stretching from the Mediterranean to Anatolia and the Caucasus, a sort of "basic default human", if you will. This is what he described as the "dark white", "Mediterranean", or "Iberian" race. He believed it spread into the Isles following the last Ice Age, but the skeletal characteristics he ascribed to the bodies in the megalithic tombs and long barrows would seem to be more appropriate to Neolithic settlers from the Near East.

Wells based his ideas about coloring, I think, on observations of people belonging to what was called the "Mediterranean race" in his day. As you can see from what I quoted from him above, he (and he wasn't alone) attributed any Mediterranean-looking Welshman or Irishman to descent from prehistoric "Iberians".

It all comes down to people seeming to have a need to explain Irish people like my father and grandmother; black hair, dark brown eyes. My grandmother was from Derry, but I have Kehoe and Byrne cousins in Wexford with the same coloring. I grew up in a large Irish neighborhood in San Francisco, and we had many dark haired, dark eyed Irish from all over Ireland. Some terms I've seen are North-Atlantid and Paleo-Atlantid.

I can tell you, I don't expect this to ever end. My Dad's type of Irish, and even me with dark hair and hazel eyes, will continue to baffle people forever. I remember a Miss Ireland with black hair and dark brown eyes being interview on American TV for St. Patricks Day and the bulk of the interview was on her coloring. She was beautiful, but not "Irish" as far as they were concerned. Idiots!

rossa
09-17-2013, 03:57 AM
It all comes down to people seeming to have a need to explain Irish people like my father and grandmother; black hair, dark brown eyes. My grandmother was from Derry, but I have Kehoe and Byrne cousins in Wexford with the same coloring. I grew up in a large Irish neighborhood in San Francisco, and we had many dark haired, dark eyed Irish from all over Ireland. Some terms I've seen are North-Atlantid and Paleo-Atlantid.

I can tell you, I don't expect this to ever end. My Dad's type of Irish, and even me with dark hair and hazel eyes, will continue to baffle people forever. I remember a Miss Ireland with black hair and dark brown eyes being interview on American TV for St. Patricks Day and the bulk of the interview was on her coloring. She was beautiful, but not "Irish" as far as they were concerned. Idiots!

I think that kind of stuff is down to the stereotype of Irish people being pasty skinned, freckled red heads which isn't an accurate reflection to begin with.

rms2
09-17-2013, 08:04 AM
If you look at the results of that Harvard study of 10,000 Irishmen that Alan has posted elsewhere before, you will see that by far most of them were fair-skinned and light eyed. The Mediterranean-looking Irishman, at least according to that study, is a relative rarity. Various shades of brown hair were and are common, and, as I recall, the study said that red hair "reaches its world maximum" (I think those were the words) in Ireland.

avalon
09-17-2013, 08:40 PM
I think the whole "Iberian" thing is basically down to Tacitus' description of the Welsh (Silures) as being dark complexioned and having crossed over from Spain at an earlier time. As we know, physical anthropology was quite fashionable during the 19th/early 20th century and Victorian writers looked to physical traits to help them explain British and Irish origins. They didn't have DNA like we do so they relied on whatever they knew from history, archaeology, classical sources and anthropology. The physical anthropology stuff may seem crude and racist to modern eyes but it really was just a product of the times.

So when John Beddoe spent years carrying out observations throughout Britain in the 1860/70s and noticed that there were still some dark Welshmen, dark haired Cornish and dark haired Irish then lo and behold you have the traditional view of ancient "Iberians" being over run by tall, fair haired Celts. I should point out that this traditional view was accepted by Welsh writers/scholars of the period including Sir John Rhys, Wyn Griffiths and Rhys Davies.

On a personal note, I do believe there is some truth to Tacitus' observation of the Welsh. I myself have very dark, almost black hair and brown eyes inherited from my Welsh grandmother. I have met quite a few Welsh people of similar colouring and this is supported by a Univeristy of Aberystwyth study from 1958 which said the "Native" Welsh were predominately dark haired with relatively high levels of brown eyes.

I have also met plenty of Irish people with very dark hair and blue eyes, to me this is a common Irish look and I believe the Harvard Study showed that dark brown hair is the most common hair colour in Ireland at 40%. The difference in England is that dark brown/black hair is at lower frequencies than in the Celtic fringe and mid/light brown and fair hair are more common in England.

Having said all this, the modern population of the Isles is so mixed that physical differences are becoming less and less obvious. You have millions of English people with recent Irish, Welsh and Scottish ancestry and also in Wales there are large numbers of people with recent English ancestry.

avalon
09-17-2013, 08:50 PM
It quite funny the way they claimed to know the colouring of the Neolithic people. A lot in terms of build and bone/skull structure could have been down to diet. However, it is broadly still true that the early Neolithic people in the isles seem to have been smaller and long headed than the early Bronze Age peoples. Whether that is significant or diet or a bit of both is unclear.

We dont know their colouring but I am not so sure we can be sure they were very dark. Places like Ireland and the west highlands of Scotland have some of the highest rates of light eyes in the world. Dark eyes are dominant so unless the Neolithic contribution was ultimately far smaller than normally assummed, it is hard to see how these areas could have retained light eyes if the Neolithic farmers were predominanty dark eyed.



I know it doesn't prove anything but Otzi the Iceman was brown eyed. My hunch has always been that the "darker" elements amongst Isles people is a Neolithic remnant and that the Hunter-Gatherer element was more likely to be pale skinned and as an early adaption to a northern climate.

Also, I wonder if the genetics of hair colour, eye colour and skin tone are each a bit different?

alan
09-17-2013, 09:55 PM
One thing I think Beddoes did that greatly exaggerated the difference between east and west was that he counted flat/light brown hair in his 'fair' totals and shades darker than mid brown in his dark totals with the middle as neutral The result is that it gives a false impression of a very fair east and dark west. In fact in the vast majority of cases its really down to what shade of brown hair is more common. In the west mid to dark is more common and in the east mid to mousey is more common. Britain in general everywhere among adults tends to be dominated by shades of brown hair and the extremes of Black and flaxen are relatively rare except in pockets. have seen some statistics that show that real blond hair is very rare everywhere among adults in Britain and most of the blondes are out of a bottle.

I also would not rule out some of this being down to the lightening effect of hair in sunnier regions. There is definitely an element of the darker shades of brown hair combined with ultra pale complexion combination being a result og the dull climate. Moved to a sunnier climate, especially a very sunny one, brown hair quickly lightens by a shade or two and mid brown hair can become quite light within a matter of weeks. It used to happen to me every good summer that I spend a lot of time outside - I would become ruddier with more mousey hair while in winter after cutting my hair would return to mid-brown and my skin would return to its corpse-like best. I have noticed this effect on a more long term basis among British or Irish Australians who are ruddier and more light haired than members of the same family who have remained in rainy climes and remained paler but darker haired.




I think the whole "Iberian" thing is basically down to Tacitus' description of the Welsh (Silures) as being dark complexioned and having crossed over from Spain at an earlier time. As we know, physical anthropology was quite fashionable during the 19th/early 20th century and Victorian writers looked to physical traits to help them explain British and Irish origins. They didn't have DNA like we do so they relied on whatever they knew from history, archaeology, classical sources and anthropology. The physical anthropology stuff may seem crude and racist to modern eyes but it really was just a product of the times.

So when John Beddoe spent years carrying out observations throughout Britain in the 1860/70s and noticed that there were still some dark Welshmen, dark haired Cornish and dark haired Irish then lo and behold you have the traditional view of ancient "Iberians" being over run by tall, fair haired Celts. I should point out that this traditional view was accepted by Welsh writers/scholars of the period including Sir John Rhys, Wyn Griffiths and Rhys Davies.

On a personal note, I do believe there is some truth to Tacitus' observation of the Welsh. I myself have very dark, almost black hair and brown eyes inherited from my Welsh grandmother. I have met quite a few Welsh people of similar colouring and this is supported by a University of Aberystwyth study from 1958 which said the "Native" Welsh were predominately dark haired with relatively high levels of brown eyes.

I have also met plenty of Irish people with very dark hair and blue eyes, to me this is a common Irish look and I believe the Harvard Study showed that dark brown hair is the most common hair colour in Ireland at 40%. The difference in England is that dark brown/black hair is at lower frequencies than in the Celtic fringe and mid/light brown and fair hair are more common in England.

Having said all this, the modern population of the Isles is so mixed that physical differences are becoming less and less obvious. You have millions of English people with recent Irish, Welsh and Scottish ancestry and also in Wales there are large numbers of people with recent English ancestry.

alan
09-17-2013, 10:02 PM
I would broadly agree that that seems probable and does seem to be supported by the autosomal clusters as per Eupedia. However, if the farmers were still fully Med. when they arrived in the isles then their impact is surprisingly low at 20-30%. The much higher NW European scores even, perhaps especially, in places like Ireland suggests that there is a large Mesolithic survival. That could either have been absorbed locally or had already been absorbed en-route to the isles or a bit of both. On the other hand a recent survey of natural hair colour found the Irish to be lighter than Poles despite the fact they have a slightly lower autosomal Med. input according to the Eupedia maps.


I know it doesn't prove anything but Otzi the Iceman was brown eyed. My hunch has always been that the "darker" elements amongst Isles people is a Neolithic remnant and that the Hunter-Gatherer element was more likely to be pale skinned and as an early adaption to a northern climate.

Also, I wonder if the genetics of hair colour, eye colour and skin tone are each a bit different?

rms2
09-18-2013, 12:02 PM
I think the whole "Iberian" thing is basically down to Tacitus' description of the Welsh (Silures) as being dark complexioned and having crossed over from Spain at an earlier time. As we know, physical anthropology was quite fashionable during the 19th/early 20th century and Victorian writers looked to physical traits to help them explain British and Irish origins. They didn't have DNA like we do so they relied on whatever they knew from history, archaeology, classical sources and anthropology. The physical anthropology stuff may seem crude and racist to modern eyes but it really was just a product of the times . . .

I think Tacitus' description of the Silures was part of it, but most of it had to do with what you described above regarding physical anthropology. The bodies exhumed from the megalithic tombs and long barrows fit the "Mediterranean" profile, so they were classed as "Iberians". There may be a certain amount of truth to what Wells had to say, if in fact his "Iberians" were really Neolithic settlers or the descendants of Neolithic settlers whose own antecedents had come from the Near East.

One of the reasons the Beaker Folk were regarded as a "Folk" and not merely as the purveyors of new fashions in pottery, metallurgy, and burial rites is because they were so physically different from their Neolithic predecessors.

avalon
09-18-2013, 07:52 PM
I think Tacitus' description of the Silures was part of it, but most of it had to do with what you described above regarding physical anthropology. The bodies exhumed from the megalithic tombs and long barrows fit the "Mediterranean" profile, so they were classed as "Iberians". There may be a certain amount of truth to what Wells had to say, if in fact his "Iberians" were really Neolithic settlers or the descendants of Neolithic settlers whose own antecedents had come from the Near East.

One of the reasons the Beaker Folk were regarded as a "Folk" and not merely as the purveyors of new fashions in pottery, metallurgy, and burial rites is because they were so physically different from their Neolithic predecessors.

That's right, I'd forgotten that physical anthropology wasn't just about pigmentation, it was also to do with build and head shape. Beaker skulls were supposed to be "broad headed" as I recall.

One thing I have never understood is why Hunter Gatherers were supposed to be larger and more robust than later Neolithic people. Surely, the farmers would have had better diets with greater food abundance?

I think I would agree on the general point that only a very small number of indigenous Brits and Irish could pass themselves off as "Mediterranean" looking, I think it's more that some of them are just noticeably darker than the average north European.

alan
09-18-2013, 08:17 PM
In northern Europe the hunters had a very protein based diet compared to cereals etc. Its well known that higher protein diets tend to make a populations bigger and the same population will shrink in stature when switched to a carbohydrate based one. The worst diet was the bread based one like working class Britain in the 19th century in towns where people ate little else but bread and tea. The diet of potatoes, milk and oats with some fish more typical of Ireland and Scotland in the 19th century led to them being noticeably taller in that period. Its also been noted by several anthropological studies ranging from Beddoes to the more scientific harvard survey that the west of Ireland and west highlands of Scotland had taller and heavier people in that period than the east of those countries. That is contrary to some expectations. Interestingly it was also found that more light eyes were present in the west than the east of Scotland, also contrary to expectations although the east had lighter hair. The harvard study in Ireland also found that the west coast Irish were fairer skinned and frecklier than in the east. The same study reckoned that the large Irish skulls could not be attributed to the classic Neolithic populations and the closest similar skulls came from northern Europe. The same study found red hair to by higher in the west of Ireland.

So, there could be a case of some sort of taller, large skulled, light eyed, fair skinned population element with a tendency to darker or red hair in the more Gaelic parts of Ireland and Scotland that is very hard to attribute to the Neolithic Med. element. Indeed, the Med. autosomal component is much lower than the north-west European component by a factor of 2 or even 3. So, it is mighty hard not to conclude that a Mesolithic component wasnt absorbed. In Ireland I would potentially place that in the period when the initial period of farmers with a preconceived socio-economic and cultural template feel away after a relatively brief period of success.



That's right, I'd forgotten that physical anthropology wasn't just about pigmentation, it was also to do with build and head shape. Beaker skulls were supposed to be "round headed" as I recall.

One thing I have never understood is why Hunter Gatherers were supposed to be larger and more robust than later Neolithic people. Surely, the farmers would have had better diets with greater food abundance?

I think I would agree on the general point that only a very small number of indigenous Brits and Irish could pass themselves off as "Mediterranean" looking, I think it's more that some of them are just noticeably darker than the average north European.

avalon
09-19-2013, 12:38 PM
In northern Europe the hunters had a very protein based diet compared to cereals etc. Its well known that higher protein diets tend to make a populations bigger and the same population will shrink in stature when switched to a carbohydrate based one. The worst diet was the bread based one like working class Britain in the 19th century in towns where people ate little else but bread and tea. The diet of potatoes, milk and oats with some fish more typical of Ireland and Scotland in the 19th century led to them being noticeably taller in that period. Its also been noted by several anthropological studies ranging from Beddoes to the more scientific harvard survey that the west of Ireland and west highlands of Scotland had taller and heavier people in that period than the east of those countries. That is contrary to some expectations. Interestingly it was also found that more light eyes were present in the west than the east of Scotland, also contrary to expectations although the east had lighter hair. The harvard study in Ireland also found that the west coast Irish were fairer skinned and frecklier than in the east. The same study reckoned that the large Irish skulls could not be attributed to the classic Neolithic populations and the closest similar skulls came from northern Europe. The same study found red hair to by higher in the west of Ireland.

So, there could be a case of some sort of taller, large skulled, light eyed, fair skinned population element with a tendency to darker or red hair in the more Gaelic parts of Ireland and Scotland that is very hard to attribute to the Neolithic Med. element. Indeed, the Med. autosomal component is much lower than the north-west European component by a factor of 2 or even 3. So, it is mighty hard not to conclude that a Mesolithic component wasnt absorbed. In Ireland I would potentially place that in the period when the initial period of farmers with a preconceived socio-economic and cultural template feel away after a relatively brief period of success.

Thanks, it's worth remembering the impact that diet can have on build, even in modern times. We're not just talking about genetic inheritance.

On the whole Med autosomal component thing, even allowing for Beddoe's observations not being fully scientific and slightly exaggerated, I believe his raw data showed that the "darkest" areas were in Wales, Cornwall/Devon and SW Ireland (Counties Cork and Kerry). Certainly, Northern England had higher frequencies of light eyes than the Southern England and Wales. Broadly speaking it looks like SW Britain and SW Ireland may have more of a Neolithic component, although I am making big assumptions about the colouring of Neolithic people.

Gray Fox
09-19-2013, 06:00 PM
Thanks, it's worth remembering the impact that diet can have on build, even in modern times. We're not just talking about genetic inheritance.

On the whole Med autosomal component thing, even allowing for Beddoe's observations not being fully scientific and slightly exaggerated, I believe his raw data showed that the "darkest" areas were in Wales, Cornwall/Devon and SW Ireland (Counties Cork and Kerry). Certainly, Northern England had higher frequencies of light eyes than the Southern England and Wales. Broadly speaking it looks like SW Britain and SW Ireland may have more of a Neolithic component, although I am making big assumptions about the colouring of Neolithic people.

Perhaps some of the Neolithic Med input was from a later arriving source? Groups of people who actually had intermingled with the Iberians, probably in the form of DF27 and sub clades, introduced this Mediterranean component to the places that you listed. Though practically scarce in most British or Irish regions, DF27 does have a stronger presence in the areas you mentioned. Though as Alan stated earlier, it seems the northern European component absorbed a good percentage of the darker features. My avatar being a good example (Y-dna cousin from Devon).

rms2
09-20-2013, 11:25 AM
Getting back to Wells, who was the source of the whole "dark white", "Mediterranean", "Iberian" commentary (although he was merely reflecting the views of many of the scholars of his generation), the reason for the idea that these people were swarthy is because their skeletons appeared to fit a Mediterranean profile, i.e., they were like those of Mediterranean people: relatively short in stature, gracile, and dolichocephalic. Since Mediterraneans tend to be darker than northern Europeans, the assumption was that the people whose remains were exhumed from the long barrows and megalithic tombs in Britain and Ireland must have been swarthy, as well.

Ancient autosomal dna would tell the story, if any is ever recovered from the bodies of Wells' British "Iberians".

The Beaker Folk, however, were generally larger and stockier than the long barrow people and had rounder skulls. I have never seen any speculation regarding their complexions or hair and eye color.

The Beaker Brymbo Man (http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/heritage/brymbo_man/bm_evidence.htm) of Wales, for example, was about 5'8", relatively tall for the Bronze Age, and had a stocky, muscular build.

R.Rocca
09-20-2013, 12:09 PM
There is a big problem with the comparisons of ancient people to modern people. A pre-print from an upcoming study which builds on their previous work:

Recent ancient DNA studies have provided new evidence for prehistoric population structure associated with the contentious transition to an agricultural lifestyle in Europe. In this study, we infer human population structure and history in Holocene Europe by generating ancient genomic sequence data from 9 Scandinavian individuals associated with the foraging Pitted Ware Culture and the agricultural Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB ). We obtained up to 1.1x coverage of the genomes for the nine individuals allowing direct comparisons of the two groups. We show that the Neolithic Scandinavian individuals show remarkable population structure corresponding to their cultural association. Looking beyond Scandinavia, we integrate this data with ancient genomes from Southern Europe and find that the Tyrolean Iceman from an agricultural context is most similar to Scandinavian individuals from a farming context, whereas Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers are most similar to Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, opposite to what would have been predicted from their geographical origins. This finding shows that among these individuals, lifestyle is the major determinant of genetic ancestry rather than geography.

Comparisons with modern populations reveal a latitudinal relationship where Southern European populations such as Sardinians are closely related with the genetic variation of the agricultural groups, whereas hunter-gatherer individuals appear to have the closest relationship with Baltic populations such as Lithuanians and present-day Scandinavians. Our results also demonstrate that while Middle Eastern populations are not the most similar to Neolithic farmers, this observation can be explained by African-related admixture in more recent times for Middle Eastern groups, which, once accounted for, reveals that the other major component of their ancestry resembles Neolithic farmers. While present-day Scandinavian populations are intermediate between the two groups, consistent with admixture, they appear genetically slightly closer to Neolithic hunter-gatherers than Neolithic farmers. This suggests a model where initial colonization by agricultural populations was followed by later admixture with hunter-gatherer populations or gene flow from other regions.

rms2
09-20-2013, 04:40 PM
Certainly H.G. Wells and the scholars of his time made a lot of assumptions about race. Since the skeletons of the long barrow people were Mediterranean-looking, they figured the long barrow people must have looked like contemporary Mediterraneans, i.e., relatively swarthy when compared with most contemporary northern Europeans.

I wonder about the comment about lifestyle versus geography, however. If the antecedents of Scandinavian Neolithic farmers came up from southern Europe, then it should be no surprise that they show the greatest genetic affinity to the "Ice Man". If the antecedents of Scandinavian hunter-gatherers had come from the FC Ice Age Refuge, then it should be no surprise that they most closely resemble Iberian hunter-gatherers. But that hardly makes geography irrelevant.

avalon
09-21-2013, 06:39 AM
Perhaps some of the Neolithic Med input was from a later arriving source? Groups of people who actually had intermingled with the Iberians, probably in the form of DF27 and sub clades, introduced this Mediterranean component to the places that you listed. Though practically scarce in most British or Irish regions, DF27 does have a stronger presence in the areas you mentioned. Though as Alan stated earlier, it seems the northern European component absorbed a good percentage of the darker features. My avatar being a good example (Y-dna cousin from Devon).

I don't know much about DF27, I gather it is fairly recently discovered, so I wonder if we have enough data about this subclade in the Isles? Is there perhaps a Maritime Bell Beaker link?

I would also echo R Rocca's comments about comparing modern with ancient populations. I myself am guilty of making broad assumptions about the pigmentation of ancient populations but in all likelihood each wave of migrants to the Isles throughout prehistory probably carried a variety of physical traits.

avalon
09-21-2013, 06:53 AM
The Beaker Folk, however, were generally larger and stockier than the long barrow people and had rounder skulls. I have never seen any speculation regarding their complexions or hair and eye color.



I think some of the old physical anthropology studies speculated that that broad-headed went with lighter hair and dolicecephaly went with darker hair based on observations of 19th/20th century populations. But, as entrenched as they were in the traditional view as per HG Wells, we should take these views with caution.

rms2
09-21-2013, 12:01 PM
I think some of the old physical anthropology studies speculated that that broad-headed went with lighter hair and dolicecephaly went with darker hair based on observations of 19th/20th century populations. But, as entrenched as they were in the traditional view as per HG Wells, we should take these views with caution.

I remember reading some old stuff - can't remember where - that said the Beaker Folk were mostly "Alpine Dinaric", which was regarded as a sub-race of the White or "Caucasian" race. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race) is the Wikipedia article on the "Dinaric Race", which quotes some unnamed, probably early 20th or late 19th century source as follows:



The vertical height of the cranium is high. Eyes are set relatively close and the surrounding tissue defines them as wide open. The iris is most often brown, with a significant percentage of light pigmentation in the Dinaric population. The nose is large, narrow and convex. The face is long and orthognathic, with a prominent chin, and also wide. The form of the forehead is variable, but not rarely it is bulbous. The hair color is usually dark brown, with black-haired and blond individuals in minority, blondness being the characteristic of the more Central European, morphologically similar Noric race (a race intermediate between Nordic and Dinaric races). The skin is lacking the rosy color characteristic for Northern Europe as well as the relatively brunet pigmentation characteristic for the southernmost Europe and on a geographical plane it is of medium pigmentation and often it is variable.

As far as the Beaker Folk go, I have never read anything about their supposed pigmentation or hair or eye color, but the "Alpine Dinaric" classification would have been based on their skeletons, especially the skull.

rms2
09-21-2013, 12:27 PM
Here is part of what Carleton S. Coon had to say about the Beaker Folk in his influential The Races of Europe:




While the earliest Metal Age culture was being carried westward through the Mediterranean by sea, other agencies conveyed it overland into central Europe. As before, the main highroad was the Danube Valley, but this time the center of earliest diffusion was not Bohemia, but Hungary. A series of crania from Bodrogkeresztür in that country56 are uniformly dolichocephalic, with the highest individual cranial index, out of more than fifty examples, only 76. This is too low for Danubians of the usual Neolithic type, and one suspects a movement from the northeast of peoples of Corded origin. The common presence of copper battle-axes, red ochre, tumulus burials, and other south Russian cultural traits in Copper Age sites in Hungary57 would tend to confirm this deduction. In the west Corded people brought the first metal to Switzerland, and in this case crania of definitely Corded type are involved.sup>58

The inhabitants of Yugoslavia during the Copper Age were, like those of Hungary, also uniformly dolichocephalic.59 Unfortunately, here also we have no further information of racial significance. As one approaches the mouth of the Danube, however, this dolichocephalic uniformity disappears. Four skulls from Russe in Bulgaria, include one male of Corded type, a mesocephalic male, and two brachycephalic females.60

From this evidence, such as it is, we may deduce that the people who brought copper into the Danube Valley at the close of the Neolithic period came from two centers, southern Russia and the Caucasus, and Anatolia, by way of Troy. The chief carriers were the Corded people or some others equally dolichocephalic, while brachycephals from Asia Minor were of little importance from the racial standpoint.

While Copper Age civilization was thus spreading westward along the Danube and the lands to the north, a countermovement in the form of the Bell Beaker invasion travelled eastward from the Rhine to the Danube, and as far as Poland and Hungary. The remains of these Bell Beaker people occupy single graves or groups of graves, rather than whole cemeteries; they were apparently wandering traders, trafficking in metals, for their gold spirals have been found in Danish graves of the corridor-tomb period. They were thus in all likelihood rivals of the Battle-Axe people in their search for amber.

It is not known how they went from Spain to central Europe. Sporadic finds in France and northern Italy suggest the Rhône-Rhine and the Brenner Pass routes as alternatives.61 In neither case is the evidence very satisfactory, and neither excludes the other. From the Rhine Valley as a center, Bell Beaker expeditions moved eastward into Bohemia, Austria, Poland, and Hungary; those who took part in these movements were eventually absorbed into the local populations. The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people, who invaded England and Scotland as the first important carriers of metal.

The Bell Beaker physical type is known to us from sixty or more skulls from scattered burials in Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Hungary.62 Of these, about one-third are truly brachycephalic, while the others are, almost without exception, mesocephals. In the Rhine country around Wörms, three-fourths or more of the Bell Beaker crania are brachycephalic; in Austria, one finds an equally high ratio; but in Bohemia and Poland the high brachycephaly becomes less frequent, and at Tököl in Hungary, in a series of ten crania, four are mesocephalic and six are dolichocephalic.63

So high is the mesocephalic ratio, and except for Hungary, so infrequent the truly long-headed crania associated with this type, that the mesocephals are clearly one branch of the main type, and not the product of local mixture with long heads. Morphologieally, the mesocephals are essentially Bell Beaker.

The series of skulls from the Rhineland, including nine adult males, is the most suitable for comparison (see Appendix I, col. 21). It is identical in the cranial index mean with that of Furst's forty-four male Bronze Age skulls from Cyprus, which have already been studied, and which have been called Dinaric. The Rhenish crania are a little larger in vault dimensions, and particularly in height; hut are almost identical facially. Morphologically, the two groups are also similar, but the Bell Beaker group is more extreme in many ways; the browridges are often heavy, the general ruggedness frequently greater. The faces are characteristically narrow, the orbits medium to high, the nasal skeleton high and aquiline; the occiput frequently flat. The stature for six males reached the high mean of 177 cm.

The deviation of the Rhenish Bell Beaker skulls, such as it is, from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Dinaric form, lies in a Borreby direction. It is, therefore, more than likely that the invaders mixed with the descendants of the earlier Neolithic brachycephals, whose territory stretched along the North Sea coast from southern Sweden to Belgium. On the whole, however, at the period represented by the Wörms crania, the eastern or Dinaric element was the more important.

The Spanish Bell Beaker problem now stands in a somewhat clearer light than before. The Dinaric type, with which the Rhenish Bell beakers are associated, is one which entered the western Mediterranean by sea from the east, and eventually moved, by some route yet to be determined in an accurate manner, to the north, and eventually to central Europe. The paucity of brachycephals in Spain may be due to the paucity of remains of this culture in general. It is still possible, one might add, that certain North African elements became involved in the Bell Beaker racial type, but such an accretion is unnecessary and hardly likely.

The Bell Beaker people were probably the first intrusive brachycephals to enter the Austrian Alps, and the mountains of northeastern Bohemia, for the push of Lake Dwelling Alpines southeastward toward the Balkans happened later in the Bronze Age. It is, therefore, possible that the present Dinaric populations of the Dinaric Alps and the Carpathians may be derived in part from this eastward irvasion. The small numbers and scattered burial habits of the Bell Beaker people on the more densely populated plains of Europe must have made them of much less ethnic importance there than in the mountains.

In their Rhineland center, the more numerous Bell Beaker people had constant relationships with the inhabitants of Denmark, who were still burying in corridor tombs. Furthermore, the Corded people, one branch of whom invaded Jutland and introduced the single-grave type of burial, also migrated to the Rhine Valley, and here amalgamated themselves with the Bell Beaker people, who were already in process of mixing with their Borreby type neighbors. The result of this triple fusion was a great expansion, and a population overflow down the Rhine, in the direction of Britain.


The Races of Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V7.htm)

alan
09-21-2013, 02:52 PM
What amazed me was the height of the Croghan iron age bog body found a year two ago in Ireland. He was estimated at 6ft 6 or something like that. I have never heard of that sort of height before in a prehistoric burial. Its still a huge height by today's standards and he must have been almost a freak at the time. Unfortunately dna is destroyed by the acid bog conditions.

As well as the Croghan and Clontycavan man (the wee guy with the spiked hair) bog burials recently discovered, another cam to light recenently and is called the Cashel bog man. This paper has appeared on the net

http://www.academia.edu/3209378/The_bog_body_from_Cashel_Bog_Co._Laois


Getting back to Wells, who was the source of the whole "dark white", "Mediterranean", "Iberian" commentary (although he was merely reflecting the views of many of the scholars of his generation), the reason for the idea that these people were swarthy is because their skeletons appeared to fit a Mediterranean profile, i.e., they were like those of Mediterranean people: relatively short in stature, gracile, and dolichocephalic. Since Mediterraneans tend to be darker than northern Europeans, the assumption was that the people whose remains were exhumed from the long barrows and megalithic tombs in Britain and Ireland must have been swarthy, as well.

Ancient autosomal dna would tell the story, if any is ever recovered from the bodies of Wells' British "Iberians".

The Beaker Folk, however, were generally larger and stockier than the long barrow people and had rounder skulls. I have never seen any speculation regarding their complexions or hair and eye color.

The Beaker Brymbo Man (http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/heritage/brymbo_man/bm_evidence.htm) of Wales, for example, was about 5'8", relatively tall for the Bronze Age, and had a stocky, muscular build.

alan
09-21-2013, 03:42 PM
I have often been struck how close Coon often comes to modern ideas even without the benefit of the kind of data we now have.

It is interesting that a small group retained a particular type at least initially given that they were spread all around Europe and would have at least largely married locally. I think the secret is really that it was a family trait rather than a racial one and the spread of that family probably corresponds to all or most of the L11-P312/U106-L21/U152/DF27/L2/DF13 etc etc close packed group of clades that may have all happened within a couple of centuries. The fit of the suggested central dates of these close with with beaker is of course very striking. They seem to basically tell of one rapidly expanding extended family or clan who scattered across Europe when there were still few of them hence the strong geographical patterning even in the first generation of SNP defined clades below P312. Its clearly an amazing story that the human aspect of is only slowly coming to light thank to DNA.

Regarding the beaker type, I believe that it is a most likely a hybrid type where small skulled local farmers have combined with a larger skulled type. Somewhere like the Balkans seems most likely to me to be the origin of the type. The look is really a bit like a scaled up dolichomorphic type when seen from the front with the back of the head looking sliced off. It not a thick set bullet headed sort of look some people think. I think the serbian tennis player novak djokovic is probably close to the type in terms of cranial aspects.

http://www.becauseiamfabulous.com/wp-content/uploads/Novak-Djokovic-Wearing-Dolce-And-Gabbana-Winter-Whites-Gala-.jpg



Here is part of what Carleton S. Coon had to say about the Beaker Folk in his influential The Races of Europe:

Fire Haired
09-21-2013, 03:51 PM
I have often been struck how close Coon often comes to modern ideas even without the benefit of the kind of data we now have.

It is interesting that a small group retained a particular type at least initially given that they were spread all around Europe and would have at least largely married locally. I think the secret is really that it was a family trait rather than a racial one and the spread of that family probably corresponds to all or most of the L11-P312/U106-L21/U152/DF27/L2/DF13 etc etc close packed group of clades that may have all happened within a couple of centuries. The fit of the suggested central dates of these close with with beaker is of course very striking. They seem to basically tell of one rapidly expanding extended family or clan who scattered across Europe when there were still few of them hence the strong geographical patterning even in the first generation of SNP defined clades below P312. Its clearly an amazing story that the human aspect of is only slowly coming to light thank to DNA.

Regarding the beaker type, I believe that it is a most likely a hybrid type where small skulled local farmers have combined with a larger skulled type. Somewhere like the Balkans seems most likely to me to be the origin of the type. The look is really a bit like a scaled up dolichomorphic type when seen from the front with the back of the head looking sliced off. It not a thick set bullet headed sort of look some people think. I think the serbian tennis player novak djokovic is probably close to the type in terms of cranial aspects.

http://www.becauseiamfabulous.com/wp-content/uploads/Novak-Djokovic-Wearing-Dolce-And-Gabbana-Winter-Whites-Gala-.jpg

U know the estimated for R1b1a2a1a2 S116/P312 is only 5,500-4,00 years old and having the original form is very rare. So R1b1a2a1a2 S116 mainly spread probably 4,000ybp an after so in the bronze age not during Bell Beaker culture. All of my opinon is here R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts in western Europe (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1350-Spread-of-R1b1a2a1a-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-in-western-Europe)

alan
09-21-2013, 04:29 PM
IMO bell beaker is the only culture widespread enough to explain the distribution of P312 and its early subclades. The dates depend on who is estimating them and certainly several estimates come in bang on the beaker period. We also of course know that an m269xU106, probably P312, beaker man was buried at Kromsdorf c. 2500-2600BC. He could have been an L11* man but that doesnt matter as the variance of all L11 is very similar to all P312. The second R1b guy there probably would have been a male relation. So this all strongly indicates that beaker is associated with the spread of R1b and in all probability, given the lack of P312*, L11* etc that this is associated with the main P312 subclades.


U know the estimated for R1b1a2a1a2 S116/P312 is only 5,500-4,00 years old and having the original form is very rare. So R1b1a2a1a2 S116 mainly spread probably 4,000ybp an after so in the bronze age not during Bell Beaker culture. All of my opinon is here R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts in western Europe (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1350-Spread-of-R1b1a2a1a-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-in-western-Europe)

Fire Haired
09-21-2013, 05:11 PM
IMO bell beaker is the only culture widespread enough to explain the distribution of P312 and its early subclades. The dates depend on who is estimating them and certainly several estimates come in bang on the beaker period. We also of course know that an m269xU106, probably P312, beaker man was buried at Kromsdorf c. 2500-2600BC. He could have been an L11* man but that doesnt matter as the variance of all L11 is very similar to all P312. The second R1b guy there probably would have been a male relation. So this all strongly indicates that beaker is associated with the spread of R1b and in all probability, given the lack of P312*, L11* etc that this is associated with the main P312 subclades.

Yes understand that but orignalley they would not have had R1b. 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b. Including 22 from Trellis southwestern France 5,000ybp!!!!! were P312 is about 70-80% today. Showing R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 had not made it that far west by 5,000ybp which is late Neloithic. Also Bell Beaker form what i have heard may have begun in Iberia so ur talking about a migration from the west. R1b1a2a1a L11 had to take a migration from the east and would have begun around the end of Bell Beaker culture. R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116* is also very rare. So u need to look at deeper subclades like in central Europe R1b1a2a1a2b S28 is only estimated to be 3,500-5,000ybp that points to migration probably after Bell Beaker culture. So R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 probably did not spread during the time of Bell Beaker culture so that is not an explanation. Orignally Bell beaker would have had no R1b.

Did Bell Beaker culture ever extend to Denmark no. So how do u explain so much R1b1a2a1a1 S21 in Denmark and why is it so connected with the spread of Germanic languages. R1b1a2a1a L11 descendants did not spread during Bell Beaker culture so once again the huge junk of western Europe ruled by Bell Beaker does not explain the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11.

The Bell bEaker R1b totally defends my view to. That is exactly what i would excep because R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts would have arrived in that area of Europe about 5,000-4,500ybp. I think they conquered and adopted Bell Beaker culture. Then later with Unetice=proto Italo Celts and Nordic bronze age culture=proto Germanic's which accroding tp Wikpedia those two cultures descend from Bell BEaker. Also R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe is deifntley connected with the spread of Germanic and Italo celtic languages which are Indo European. If u say that Bell Beaker was originally Indo European and orignated in western Europe 5,000ybp or so. U will need to change the whole idea of origin and spread of Indo European languages and their y DNA which defends the Kurgen hypothesis pretty well. Germanic and Italo Celtic languages had to come from a migration from the east in Russia and Ukraine, southeast Europe, or north mid east originally. Y DNA from Trellis france 5,000ybp defend the idea that Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts.

R.Rocca
09-21-2013, 08:37 PM
Yes understand that but orignalley they would not have had R1b. 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b. Including 22 from Trellis southwestern France 5,000ybp!!!!! were P312 is about 70-80% today. Showing R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 had not made it that far west by 5,000ybp which is late Neloithic. Also Bell Beaker form what i have heard may have begun in Iberia so ur talking about a migration from the west. R1b1a2a1a L11 had to take a migration from the east and would have begun around the end of Bell Beaker culture. R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116* is also very rare. So u need to look at deeper subclades like in central Europe R1b1a2a1a2b S28 is only estimated to be 3,500-5,000ybp that points to migration probably after Bell Beaker culture. So R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 probably did not spread during the time of Bell Beaker culture so that is not an explanation. Orignally Bell beaker would have had no R1b.

Did Bell Beaker culture ever extend to Denmark no. So how do u explain so much R1b1a2a1a1 S21 in Denmark and why is it so connected with the spread of Germanic languages. R1b1a2a1a L11 descendants did not spread during Bell Beaker culture so once again the huge junk of western Europe ruled by Bell Beaker does not explain the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11.

The Bell bEaker R1b totally defends my view to. That is exactly what i would excep because R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts would have arrived in that area of Europe about 5,000-4,500ybp. I think they conquered and adopted Bell Beaker culture. Then later with Unetice=proto Italo Celts and Nordic bronze age culture=proto Germanic's which accroding tp Wikpedia those two cultures descend from Bell BEaker. Also R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe is deifntley connected with the spread of Germanic and Italo celtic languages which are Indo European. If u say that Bell Beaker was originally Indo European and orignated in western Europe 5,000ybp or so. U will need to change the whole idea of origin and spread of Indo European languages and their y DNA which defends the Kurgen hypothesis pretty well. Germanic and Italo Celtic languages had to come from a migration from the east in Russia and Ukraine, southeast Europe, or north mid east originally. Y DNA from Trellis france 5,000ybp defend the idea that Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts.

You are stating a lot of your own assumptions as fact.

1. Bell Beaker most certainly did reach Denmark as attested to by the dozens of sites in the north (see http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_low.pdf )

2. You are assuming that age estimates are correct, and since most do not take into account dead branches, only successful ones, they are bound to be understating the age of L11. If you need proof, look at the age estimates for E-V13 and you will see that it was estimated to be a few thousand years younger than the E-V13 Epicardial sample from Neolithic Avellaner Spain.

3. The Treilles site pre-dates the earliest known Bell Beaker sites in that area of Southern France by several hundred years. So, the lack of R1b in the ancient DNA samples from Treilles says absolutely nothing about the association between R1b and Bell Beaker.

alan
09-21-2013, 09:40 PM
There are three ways of explaining the fact that beaker pot and R1b cover the same areas but seem to move in reverse.

1. The dating of beaker as earliest in Iberia is simply unsafe. I think this is possible as a hell of a lot would fit better if it originated somewhere like SE France or the Alps.

2. The pots were invented in Iberia but the main spead of beaker pot was carried out by a different people who borrowed the pots.

3. R1b spread east to west in immediate pre-beaker times with copper workers c. 3500-3000BC moving from eastern Europe along the Alps and to Iberia has the advantage of fitting the distribution patterns well.

I personally am a skeptic about the early Iberian dating. I have seen several U-turns about beaker dating in the past. I would really like to know the details of the dated materials. There are serious problems in dating in the crucial period in the radicarbon curve. I personally think some sort of origin in the Alps would make a lot more sense. The beaker pots look to me like they come from a similar root as corded ware and even funnel beaker. I am not arguing that the Dutch model should be reanimated. For example copper working/mining, corded ware and cultures like Remedello converged in the Alps just after 3000BC. That intuitively is the kind of mix where beaker type culture would appear more naturally to evolve from. I am skeptical about the Iberian origin for beaker and until I get my hands on the detail of all the early samples and their environment I will continue to have doubts. Diet and environment can make radiocarbon dates too old when taken from human bone.


Yes understand that but orignalley they would not have had R1b. 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b. Including 22 from Trellis southwestern France 5,000ybp!!!!! were P312 is about 70-80% today. Showing R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 had not made it that far west by 5,000ybp which is late Neloithic. Also Bell Beaker form what i have heard may have begun in Iberia so ur talking about a migration from the west. R1b1a2a1a L11 had to take a migration from the east and would have begun around the end of Bell Beaker culture. R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116* is also very rare. So u need to look at deeper subclades like in central Europe R1b1a2a1a2b S28 is only estimated to be 3,500-5,000ybp that points to migration probably after Bell Beaker culture. So R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 probably did not spread during the time of Bell Beaker culture so that is not an explanation. Orignally Bell beaker would have had no R1b.

Did Bell Beaker culture ever extend to Denmark no. So how do u explain so much R1b1a2a1a1 S21 in Denmark and why is it so connected with the spread of Germanic languages. R1b1a2a1a L11 descendants did not spread during Bell Beaker culture so once again the huge junk of western Europe ruled by Bell Beaker does not explain the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11.

The Bell bEaker R1b totally defends my view to. That is exactly what i would excep because R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts would have arrived in that area of Europe about 5,000-4,500ybp. I think they conquered and adopted Bell Beaker culture. Then later with Unetice=proto Italo Celts and Nordic bronze age culture=proto Germanic's which accroding tp Wikpedia those two cultures descend from Bell BEaker. Also R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe is deifntley connected with the spread of Germanic and Italo celtic languages which are Indo European. If u say that Bell Beaker was originally Indo European and orignated in western Europe 5,000ybp or so. U will need to change the whole idea of origin and spread of Indo European languages and their y DNA which defends the Kurgen hypothesis pretty well. Germanic and Italo Celtic languages had to come from a migration from the east in Russia and Ukraine, southeast Europe, or north mid east originally. Y DNA from Trellis france 5,000ybp defend the idea that Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts.

rms2
09-21-2013, 09:45 PM
The radiocarbon dates for the Csepel Beaker sites in Hungary are nearly as old as those in Iberia, c. 2800 BC. I believe the oldest in Iberia are c. 2900 BC. That is not much different, and I doubt that rc dating is so precise that 100 years is outside the margin of error.

Fire Haired
09-22-2013, 12:54 AM
There are three ways of explaining the fact that beaker pot and R1b cover the same areas but seem to move in reverse.

1. The dating of beaker as earliest in Iberia is simply unsafe. I think this is possible as a hell of a lot would fit better if it originated somewhere like SE France or the Alps.

2. The pots were invented in Iberia but the main spead of beaker pot was carried out by a different people who borrowed the pots.

3. R1b spread east to west in immediate pre-beaker times with copper workers c. 3500-3000BC moving from eastern Europe along the Alps and to Iberia has the advantage of fitting the distribution patterns well.

I personally am a skeptic about the early Iberian dating. I have seen several U-turns about beaker dating in the past. I would really like to know the details of the dated materials. There are serious problems in dating in the crucial period in the radicarbon curve. I personally think some sort of origin in the Alps would make a lot more sense. The beaker pots look to me like they come from a similar root as corded ware and even funnel beaker. I am not arguing that the Dutch model should be reanimated. For example copper working/mining, corded ware and cultures like Remedello converged in the Alps just after 3000BC. That intuitively is the kind of mix where beaker type culture would appear more naturally to evolve from. I am skeptical about the Iberian origin for beaker and until I get my hands on the detail of all the early samples and their environment I will continue to have doubts. Diet and environment can make radiocarbon dates too old when taken from human bone.

But according to FTDNA deep subclades of R1b1a2a1a2 S116 show they spread in the Bronze age after Bell bEaker culture. for R1b1a2a1a2b S28 it fits with Urnfield culture and spread of Italic languages and Hallstat-La Tene Celts. For R1b1a2a1a2c L21 it probably came to the British isles 3,500-4,500ybp with the bronze age which was brought by Bell beaker but I think they were Germanic Italo Celts by that time.

R.Rocca
09-22-2013, 01:33 AM
The radiocarbon dates for the Csepel Beaker sites in Hungary are nearly as old as those in Iberia, c. 2800 BC. I believe the oldest in Iberia are c. 2900 BC. That is not much different, and I doubt that rc dating is so precise that 100 years is outside the margin of error.

Aren't the Csepel dates charcoal though?

rms2
09-22-2013, 12:31 PM
Aren't the Csepel dates charcoal though?

You know, that's a good question. I don't know the answer. I'll try to find out.

I know that charcoal is unreliable because the result depends on the age of the tree when it was cut, or something like that.

palamede
09-22-2013, 05:44 PM
You know, that's a good question. I don't know the answer. I'll try to find out.

I know that charcoal is unreliable because the result depends on the age of the tree when it was cut, or something like that.


A dating problem with the first phase of BB culture is that it is a time (2900-2600 av JC) of a plateau of the calibration curve ( fluctuation of the C14 creation in the atmosphere (and then in the wood) caused by the modulation of the arrival of the responsible solar particles by the terrestrial magnetism) . Therefore the incertitude of the C14 dates are multiplied for the calibrated date.
but I guess there had been a regular continuity in the cultures of Lower Tage and neighbouring regions of Central and southern Portugal since the last centuries of 4th millenia.

rms2
09-23-2013, 11:45 AM
I have not been able to find out whether or not the Csepel Beaker radiocarbon dates came from charcoal.