# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Do Hallstat Celts have some role in the formation of West Germanic ethnicities?

## mihaitzateo

Hello kind Ladies and Gents,

_(Gents is a funny term for Gentlemen)
_
I will somehow pass over the introduction and will get into the subject, more directly.
As a short note, I consider Celts and Gauls as same group of ethnicities.
With the word Celts coming from the Greek Keltoi and the world Gauls coming from the Latin Galls.
This group of ethnicities seems to had related languages and related cultures and lifestyles.

Something as today Slavs are. 
If I mentioned Slavs that does not means that I am proposing a link between the Slavs and the Celts, neither that I disagree with a link between some Celtic ethnicities and some Slavic ethnicities.
I have done very few research on this matter, of the links between the Slavs and the Celts.

Now,from the few information that I have read, on this matter, I was thinking that these Hallstatt Celts had the center of their culture on the current land of Austria and South Germany.
Also, it seems that these Hallstat Celts had also an important presence in what is today Slovenia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, France, South England and Iberia.

Now ,our forum administrator, Herr Maciamo, even made a map with how Hallstatt Culture was spread over the land of current Europe, putting also the current countries borders, on this map:



To me it seems that these Hallstatt Kelts had an important role in the formation of the Western Germanic ethnicities.
If you would like to add an your opinions on this matter, please write them here.

----------


## markod

I believe the West Germanics expanded from further north, perhaps from the area of present day Denmark. Peter Schrijver has argued that West Germanic is differentiated from Proto-Germanic in that it has the typical North European substratum also present in other languages of Northern Europe. I think ancient West Germanic DNA supports a northern origin more or less.

The West Germanic tribes would have absorbed local populations during their migrations of course, but I don't think that it was an important factor in their formation.

----------


## bicicleur

Gauls were from the northern parts of Hallstatt, indicated in Maciamo's map as 'La Tene Core'.
Hallstatt period 2.8 ka - 2.5 ka seems to have been quite peacefull and prosperous.
Then things changed.
Ca 2.4 ka the Gauls core area's became overpopulated and mass migration started into the Po Valley and into the Carpathian Basin.
Gauls were warriors. They did a lot of raiding and many became mercenairies.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Gauls were from the northern parts of Hallstatt, indicated in Maciamo's map as 'La Tene Core'.
> Hallstatt period 2.8 ka - 2.5 ka seems to have been quite peacefull and prosperous.
> Then things changed.
> Ca 2.4 ka the Gauls core area's became overpopulated and mass migration started into the Po Valley and into the Carpathian Basin.
> Gauls were warriors. They did a lot of raiding and many became mercenairies.


Ok, but do you think that Hallstatt Gauls/Celts influenced the formation of the future Western Germanic ethnicities?

----------


## mihaitzateo

What I think is that the Western German ethnicities were born from the mixing of the local Hallstatt Gauls/Celts with the Germanic speakers, that came from North Europe.
As a simple note, the Slavs were calling the Germans "nemczi" - which means foreign people, while the Gauls/Celts were calling the Germans "Germans", which means neighbors.
This is told in some study that I found on this site:
http://www.gaeltacht.info/files/3-cu...ections-EN.pdf
_"The name ‘German’ is itself Celtic. The Irish root gair (near), to mean ‘neighbours’, has
been suggested. However the Old Irish root gaé (spear), to mean ‘spear-carrier’ or ‘sharpwitted’,
is stronger. In Modern Irish, ‘géar’ means ‘sharp’. The Roman word germanus
(‘real’ or ‘authentic’) takes up the latter meaning."


_

----------


## bicicleur

> Ok, but do you think that Hallstatt Gauls/Celts influenced the formation of the future Western Germanic ethnicities?


no, but when the Germanic tirbes moved south and crossed the borders of the Roman Empire, they mixed with the Gauls, they didn't replace them

France as a country is formed by the invading Franks, a Germanic tribe, but the French are ethnically derived in large parts from the Gauls.

the Germanic people had Y-DNA mainly I1 and R1b-U106, the Gauls R1b-P312
autosomal DNA was related to each other

----------


## Sile

> Ok, but do you think that Hallstatt Gauls/Celts influenced the formation of the future Western Germanic ethnicities?


the celts where already in central and south germany before Halstatt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg
they would have been there either with rossen culture or shortly after.
.
origin of germanic is north germany and denmark
.
halstatt culture was due to celts pushing south into the alps and mixing with the illyrians who where already there
some say...hal is illyrian for salt......statt is celtic for town ....so, halstatt means salt town

----------


## Sile

> Gauls were from the northern parts of Hallstatt, indicated in Maciamo's map as 'La Tene Core'.
> Hallstatt period 2.8 ka - 2.5 ka seems to have been quite peacefull and prosperous.
> Then things changed.
> Ca 2.4 ka the Gauls core area's became overpopulated and mass migration started into the Po Valley and into the Carpathian Basin.
> Gauls were warriors. They did a lot of raiding and many became mercenairies.


the only mass migration of celts in the Po valley from what i recall occurred circa 550BC ....i do not recall any others of note

----------


## mihaitzateo

> no, but when the Germanic tirbes moved south and crossed the borders of the Roman Empire, they mixed with the Gauls, they didn't replace them
> 
> France as a country is formed by the invading Franks, a Germanic tribe, but the French are ethnically derived in large parts from the Gauls.
> 
> the Germanic people had Y-DNA mainly I1 and R1b-U106, the Gauls R1b-P312
> autosomal DNA was related to each other


Maciamo has proposed that R1B-U106 is linked to the Germanic speakers.

However, highest percentage of R1B-U106 is exactly over the areas where it was the core of Hallstatt Culture : Bavaria, Baden-Wurtemberg, Austria.
In some areas of Italy, where West Germanic tribes migrated, after East Germanic tribes, are areas where I1 is even 30%.
However, R1B-U106 is not at high percentages in Italy, actually, is at low percentages.

So is possible that the Hallstatt Celts took a more Northern Route, it seems it was something like NW Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, North France, Brittany and Great Britain and Ireland.

Other Hallstatt Celts went to Denmark and South Norway. Established there and mixed to North Germanic speakers and assimilated into North Germanic ethnicity.
See that in South Sweden R1B-U106 is at low percentages, Sweden got like 12-13% R1B, all clades.
40% of Norway maternal lines are common to Britain and Ireland. It seems a little exaggerated to tell that Norwegian Vikings took so many Britain and Ireland women, to have 40% of their women similar on maternal lines, with those from Britain and Ireland.
In Iceland, 66% of the women are having common maternal lines with the women from Ireland and Britain.
How that happened, I have no idea.
According to mister Coon manual of Human Races, which is based on cranial measurements and body measurements and is very scientific stuff, Britain people are mostly Iron Age Celtic people, as race. 
And as I see from Herr Maciamo map, all Britain got quite high percentages of R1B-S21. Now, in England is known to have been strong Germanic migrations, but what about Wales and Scotland?
How R1B-U106 have such significant percentages in Scotland?
Even more weird mister Coon finds in his book that the Brits, the Irish and the South Norwegians are very close, from racial point of view.
Is not that weird?
In England it was mostly Danish Vikings that raided, not Norwegian Vikings.

This is my supposition.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I believe the West Germanics expanded from further north, perhaps from the area of present day Denmark. Peter Schrijver has argued that West Germanic is differentiated from Proto-Germanic in that it has the typical North European substratum also present in other languages of Northern Europe. I think ancient West Germanic DNA supports a northern origin more or less.


I didn't get this point. So East Germanic lacked that North European substratum? I find it hard to believe that Proto-Germanic would've lacked it, considering that it is a very late proto-language, with its latest stage in the beginning of the Common Era. Can we really believe that a pre-IE substrate still existed there to influence just West Germanic and other North European languages but not its immediate antecedent?

----------


## markod

> I didn't get this point. So East Germanic lacked that North European substratum? I find it hard to believe that Proto-Germanic would've lacked it, considering that it is a very late proto-language, with its latest stage in the beginning of the Common Era. Can we really believe that a pre-IE substrate still existed there to influence just West Germanic and other North European languages but not its immediate antecedent?


Schrijver's arguments seem pretty convincing, though the substrate influence might have been mediated by another language, for example Sami.

----------


## hrvclv

I guess we spend so much time on the forum that we forget to revisit Maciamo's initial writings as often as we should. Here is what he writes about R-U106 :

"The principal Proto-Germanic branch of the Indo-European family tree is R1b-S21 (a.k.a. U106 or M405). This haplogroup is found at high concentrations in the Netherlands and north-west Germany. It is likely that R1b-S21 lineages expanded in this region through a founder effect during the Unetice period, then penetrated into Scandinavia around 1700 BCE (probably alongside R1a-L664), thus creating a new culture, that of the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BCE). R1b-S21 would then have blended for more than a millennium with preexisting Scandinavian populations, represented by haplogroups I1, I2-L801, R1a-Z284. When the Germanic Iron Age started c. 500 BCE, the Scandinavian population had developed a truly Germanic culture and language, but was divided in many tribes with varying levels of each haplogroup. R1b-S21 became the dominant haplogroup among the West Germanic tribes, but remained in the minority against I1 and R1a in East Germanic and Nordic tribes, including those originating from Sweden such as the Goths, the Vandals and Lombards.

The presence of R1b-S21 in other parts of Europe can be attributed almost exclusively to the Germanic migrations that took place between the 3rd and the 10th century. The Frisians and Anglo-Saxons disseminated this haplogroup to England and the Scottish Lowlands, the Franks to Belgium and France, the Burgundians to eastern France, the Suebi to Galicia and northern Portugal, and the Lombards to Austria and Italy. The Goths help propagate S21 around Eastern Europe, but apparently their Germanic lineages were progressively diluted by blending with Slavic and Balkanic populations, and their impact in Italy, France and Spain was very minor. Later the Danish and Norwegian Vikings have also contributed to the diffusion of R1b-S21 (alongside I1, I2b1 and R1a) around much of Western Europe, but mainly in Iceland, in the British Isles, in Normandy, and in the southern Italy."

I reckon it clarifies a lot of what is being discussed here.

In terms of language, my theories are - provisionally - as follows :
- Germanic languages are centum.
- Corded Ware were essentially R1a, and my hunch is that by that time, the process of satemization among them was already under way.
- So Corded Ware may have to a degree "reinforced" the IE vocabulary brought in by Unetice U106, but was otherwise superseded by the newcomers' centum version. By the way, the CWC seems to come to an end as a culture concomitantly with the rise of L51+ clades in north-eastern Europe.
- Which leaves I1 groups as a potential substratum. Their percentages in Scandinavia are high enough for them to have significantly altered the language of the newcomers.
- I doubt the Saami were involved. The percentages of haplo N in Scandinavia proper (ie, Finland excepted) are negligible as compared to I1.

Also noteworthy is Maciamo's chart of haplogroups by country. 

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml

If one focuses on haplogroups I1, R1a, and R1b, there is a clearcut divide between Germany and England on the one hand, and Scandinavian countries on the other. Which goes to show that the Germanic tribes did assimilate the Celts who were in Germany when they spread south from Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Except that those Celts were essentially L21 in Britain, and P312 in southern Germany. 

What I am not too sure about is whether the Germans spread south to fill a void when some of the Celtic tribes moved en masse from Germany into France and northern Italy at some point(s) in time during late Halstatt and/or early La Tène, or whether it was the spread of the Germans which pushed the Celts away. Anyway, if you look at Maciamo's map of U152 (in his R1b page), you can't fail to see that some U152 did stay and were germanized. And as those U152 couldn't have been, all of them, German beforehand, they had to be Celts, for lack of other options. The south-western quarter of Germany is definitely Celto-Germanic.

----------


## markod

When it comes to DNA, East Germanics might be very interesting because they are the first to split. The ancestors of the Norse & West Germanics would probably still have been a more or less unified population for some time after.

----------


## mihaitzateo

A simple thing, based on very checked data:
R1B-S21 does not peaks, as Maciamo had initial information,from Germany, in NW Germany, but in Bavaria as it seems.
Anyway, this needs to be checked.
R1B-U106 in Tyrol is a little above 20%:
http://tigen.tirolensis.info/wiki/Ty...etic_structure
As a side info:
Ladin speaking people from Tyrol:
R1B - 65%.

Another thing, R1B-S21 makes half of Romania R1B so it is between 5-10% in Romania. There is at least one study from a Germany University, about Neamt County, where R1B-S21 is 7.5%. Neamt County is a mountain county.
If Goths brought R1B-S21 in Romania it seems that Visigoths were not carrying R1B-S21, because R1B-S21 is almost absent in Iberia.
But Goths for sure migrated in Italy, besides Romania and R1B-S21 is found at very low percentages in Italy.

In Italy, I1 peaks at even 30% in some places:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti...al_immigration
The Goths migration to Romania/Dacia was around 250 AD, in Italy a little later.

----------


## mihaitzateo

What I am thinking, as a supposition is that protoGermanic speakers or some Germanic speakers, mixed with the Hallstat Celts and from this mixing were born the West Germanic nations.
It would be interested to research if Austrian dialects of West Germanic and Bavarian dialects, are having any influences from FinoUgrian languages ,or not.

----------


## bicicleur

> the only mass migration of celts in the Po valley from what i recall occurred circa 550BC ....i do not recall any others of note


which mass migration ca 550 BC ?

2.4 ka coincides with the expansion of the Gauls and with the conquest of Rome by Brennus
they settled with their families in the Po Valley
they defated the Etruscans
then some of them formed bands or became mercenairies and entered deeper into Italy
one of them was Brennus and his band, who came into conflict with Rome

----------


## bicicleur

> the celts where already in central and south germany before Halstatt
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg
> they would have been there either with rossen culture or shortly after.
> .
> origin of germanic is north germany and denmark
> .
> halstatt culture was due to celts pushing south into the alps and mixing with the illyrians who where already there
> some say...hal is illyrian for salt......statt is celtic for town ....so, halstatt means salt town


Glauburg was part of the Hallstatt Celts and Hallstatt came from a group of Urnfield people

----------


## bicicleur

> I didn't get this point. So East Germanic lacked that North European substratum? I find it hard to believe that Proto-Germanic would've lacked it, considering that it is a very late proto-language, with its latest stage in the beginning of the Common Era. Can we really believe that a pre-IE substrate still existed there to influence just West Germanic and other North European languages but not its immediate antecedent?


East and West Germanic came from the same Proto-Germanic in Southern Scandinavia.
East Germanic expanded south into Balto-Slavic R1a Y-DNA territory.
West Germanic expanded south into Celtic R1b-P312 Y-DNA territory.

----------


## Sile

> which mass migration ca 550 BC ?
> 2.4 ka coincides with the expansion of the Gauls and with the conquest of Rome by Brennus
> they settled with their families in the Po Valley
> they defated the Etruscans
> then some of them formed bands or became mercenairies and entered deeper into Italy
> one of them was Brennus and his band, who came into conflict with Rome


what date do you mean by 2.4 ka
.
Did not hannibal recruit very many gaulish/celtic people from NW -Italy , as he entered Italy from France.
.
Did not the Boii , Semnones etc settle in Italy......is not the town of Bologna named after the celtic Boii people?
.

----------


## Sile

> I guess we spend so much time on the forum that we forget to revisit Maciamo's initial writings as often as we should. Here is what he writes about R-U106 :
> "The principal Proto-Germanic branch of the Indo-European family tree is R1b-S21 (a.k.a. U106 or M405). This haplogroup is found at high concentrations in the Netherlands and north-west Germany. It is likely that R1b-S21 lineages expanded in this region through a founder effect during the Unetice period, then penetrated into Scandinavia around 1700 BCE (probably alongside R1a-L664), thus creating a new culture, that of the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BCE). R1b-S21 would then have blended for more than a millennium with preexisting Scandinavian populations, represented by haplogroups I1, I2-L801, R1a-Z284. When the Germanic Iron Age started c. 500 BCE, the Scandinavian population had developed a truly Germanic culture and language, but was divided in many tribes with varying levels of each haplogroup. R1b-S21 became the dominant haplogroup among the West Germanic tribes, but remained in the minority against I1 and R1a in East Germanic and Nordic tribes, including those originating from Sweden such as the Goths, the Vandals and Lombards.
> The presence of R1b-S21 in other parts of Europe can be attributed almost exclusively to the Germanic migrations that took place between the 3rd and the 10th century. The Frisians and Anglo-Saxons disseminated this haplogroup to England and the Scottish Lowlands, the Franks to Belgium and France, the Burgundians to eastern France, the Suebi to Galicia and northern Portugal, and the Lombards to Austria and Italy. The Goths help propagate S21 around Eastern Europe, but apparently their Germanic lineages were progressively diluted by blending with Slavic and Balkanic populations, and their impact in Italy, France and Spain was very minor. Later the Danish and Norwegian Vikings have also contributed to the diffusion of R1b-S21 (alongside I1, I2b1 and R1a) around much of Western Europe, but mainly in Iceland, in the British Isles, in Normandy, and in the southern Italy."
> I reckon it clarifies a lot of what is being discussed here.
> In terms of language, my theories are - provisionally - as follows :
> - Germanic languages are centum.
> - Corded Ware were essentially R1a, and my hunch is that by that time, the process of satemization among them was already under way.
> - So Corded Ware may have to a degree "reinforced" the IE vocabulary brought in by Unetice U106, but was otherwise superseded by the newcomers' centum version. By the way, the CWC seems to come to an end as a culture concomitantly with the rise of L51+ clades in north-eastern Europe.
> - Which leaves I1 groups as a potential substratum. Their percentages in Scandinavia are high enough for them to have significantly altered the language of the newcomers.
> ...


Your last para
The Romans conquered the alpine tribes/people* after* they conquered Gaul/France
.
There where *no Germanic* people south of the Danube river until after the fall of the Roman empire.....so south of the Danube river in south Germany and the Alps was still Celtic, illyrian, raetic, helvetic , venetic etc
The bavarians, where the last of modern germany to become a germanic people ..................austrians are also of bavarian stock forming Austria in 998AD and speaking an austro-bavarian language

----------


## Sile

> What I am thinking, as a supposition is that protoGermanic speakers or some Germanic speakers, mixed with the Hallstat Celts and from this mixing were born the West Germanic nations.
> It would be interested to research if Austrian dialects of West Germanic and Bavarian dialects, are having any influences from FinoUgrian languages ,or not.


Bavarians are first mentioned in the mid 6th century, in the foothills north of the Alps, on both sides of the Danube river. 
The Suevi and macromanni where first mentioned on the north side of the danube river in 100AD.
The Alans and Lombards came into the area of the alps before the bavarians where formed

----------


## bicicleur

> what date do you mean by 2.4 ka
> .
> Did not hannibal recruit very many gaulish/celtic people from NW -Italy , as he entered Italy from France.
> .
> Did not the Boii , Semnones etc settle in Italy......is not the town of Bologna named after the celtic Boii people?
> .


2.4 ka is 400 BC, about the time the Semnones settled in Italy, and also a Boii tribe if I remember well.

----------


## hrvclv

> Your last para
> The Romans conquered the alpine tribes/people* after* they conquered Gaul/France
> .
> There where *no Germanic* people south of the Danube river until after the fall of the Roman empire.....so south of the Danube river in south Germany and the Alps was still Celtic, illyrian, raetic, helvetic , venetic etc
> The bavarians, where the last of modern germany to become a germanic people ..................austrians are also of bavarian stock forming Austria in 998AD and speaking an austro-bavarian language


You are right. Just found this map :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germai...e_Germanic.png

----------


## mihaitzateo

So a lot Celtic ethnicities were assimilated by the migrating Germanic speaking tribes, especially on the land where West Germanic languages are spoken now.
So a lot of Gauls/Celtic ethnicities had at least an important role in forming the West Germanic ethnicies.
It looks that in some areas of current speaking West Germanic areas, Gaulish/Celtic ethnicities gave more from the people DNA and lifestyle and culture than the migrating Germanic people gave. For example in Bavaria or in Tyrol.
I think Ladin speakers from Switzerland and Tyrol are actually some Celtic ethnicities, not Romans/Italics.

----------


## Northener

I certainly believe that Hallstatt Celtic had an influence on the West Germanics. Certainly in cultural sense!
According to Celtic language specialist Peter Schrijver the Frisians of the (pre-) Roman period spoke a kind of Celtic, related to Brittonic.
This disappeared when the Saxons and Nordics came to Friesland in the fourth and fifth century.

I see the Jastorf Culture as the culture that spread the Germanic culture. This North German culture is some kind of core culture for the Saxons.

By the way I don't believe that there is a coherent kind of Germanic people. It is just that the Romans used German as a label for people on the right side of the Rhine. But that was not intended to describe it as a kind of unity. Neither do Slavs or Celts.

In genetic sense the people right of the Rhine are pretty differentiated (certainly when we take also Scandinavia in account). With in the Western, North Sea bordering, Germanic part, the dominant Y-DNA is R1b U106 (and some other R1b variants). But the R1b U106 was in the West Germanic area already there before the label German was used. The first R1b U106 was in found a, Central European related, Tumulus culture (better said Sögel-Wohlde period), in Oostwoud (West-Frisia) about 1800 BC.

----------


## mihaitzateo

An interesting article from Washington Post suggests Hallstat Celts left a strong genetic ancestry in Bavaria and Austria:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f44c7dd36ccc

Bavaria and West Austria people,as genetics seems more similar to some Old Kelts from Ireland, than SE English people:

----------


## markod

> An interesting article from Washington Post suggests Hallstat Celts left a strong genetic ancestry in Bavaria and Austria:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f44c7dd36ccc
> 
> Bavaria and West Austria people,as genetics seems more similar to some Old Kelts from Ireland, than SE English people:


Completely missed the point of the article.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Completely missed the point of the article.


Hello German mate,

I think are more points in this article.
I just used the article to suppose the common genetics between Ireland, more Keltic parts of Britain and most of Germany might be because of some protoCeltic people.
And those ProtoCeltic people should have been the ancestors of Hallstatt Celts.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Schrijver's arguments seem pretty convincing, though the substrate influence might have been mediated by another language, for example Sami.


Do you have a link to his arguments? They're intriguing. Could it maybe mean that if Proto-Germanic was the IA language of the Nordic group and its Jastorf Culture offshoot (or at least a heavily influenced/Germanized heir), that non-IE substrate was still present only in the Scandinavian peninsula, whereas the continental part of that Germanic-speaking area was too far (and separated by an ocean) to be influenced by it? In that assumption of mine, East Germanic was originally "continental Proto-Germanic" before West Germanic split off from North Germanic (with which it might've formed a "Scandinavian Proto-Germanic" regional dialect) and expanded southward, partially replacing the early East Germanic dialects and pushing them eastward. (Just speculating here to try to make sense of a non-IE substrate that affected only West & North Germanic, but not East Germanic, since what we call Proto-Germanic, as any other proto-language, is just a simplified reconstruction of what was certainly a still incipient dialect continuum with regional variations).

----------


## Norvila

Celts vs slaves 😃😃😃

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Celts vs slaves 😃😃😃


Hello mate,
I kind of having difficulties comprehending your post.
Could you kindly explain more detailed?

----------


## mihaitzateo

If I put the link from Washington Post article,with the genetic resemblance between most of Germany and Austria to Ireland and more Celtic parts of Britain, that does not means that I am supposing that character traits are somehow passed strongly by genetics.
I am just supposing that the link is maybe an evidence that Hallstat Celts from Austria and Germany were assimilated by Germanic speakers.
Maybe some things related to these Hallstatt Celts remained at the new formed ethnicities.
A fact that is obvious in South Germany and Austria and Switzerland and is different from Sweden and might be inherited from the assimilated Hallstatt Celts might be cow raising.
There is a lot of cow raising in Austria and Southern Germany and Switzerland while in Sweden there is not such a thing.
So this might be inherited from the Hallstatt Celts.

Another thing, that is also present at the Czech people, that might be inherited from the Hallstatt Celts is beer brewing.
Germany is famous for beer brewing, but Sweden which is also a very Germanic country,is not having such a tradition, of brewing beer.
Austria is also having a strong tradition related to the brewing of beer.
See that in Switzerland, because of Italic ethnicities influence, the emphasis is on the production of wine, not on the production of beer.

----------


## Norvila

Celts before roman conquests were highly advance civilization distributed from the Greece to the Scotland. It's easier to discuss what part of Europe wasn't influenced by them.
Multi-genetic society is more adaptive and successful therefore belief celts were mono-genetic and distributed so widely is misleading I suppose.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Celts before roman conquests were highly advance civilization distributed from the Greece to the Scotland. It's easier to discuss what part of Europe wasn't influenced by them.
> Multi-genetic society is more adaptive and successful therefore belief celts were mono-genetic and distributed so widely is misleading I suppose.


I kind of agree with your point of view that you have presented here.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Some new info:
In some Roman Empire sites, from Britain, pre-AngloSaxon invasion, was found some R1B-U106.
Some Hallstatt Celt bones is scoring highest similarity from today populations, 76% to Austrians and Bretons, from Brittany.

----------


## mihaitzateo

A note:
The Celts were described as making a lot of beer.

So, a thing quite important from German culture, having beer as traditional beverage is something inherited from the Hallstatt Celts, at today Germans.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=NR5...20beer&f=false
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rkc47/historians_what_kind_of_alcohol_were_the_early/


In fact, it seems Germans of today are most Celtic nation of Europe while France did not retained almost anything, from the old Celtic culture of Celtic tribes living in France.

----------


## Sile

> Glauburg was part of the Hallstatt Celts and Hallstatt came from a group of Urnfield people


Halstatt celts became as we know bavarians............austrians are bavarians also , forming austria in 998AD, they speak austro-bavarian language, some say what bavarians also used to speak.
Bavarians where the last of the modern Germans to become German, this was after the fall of the Roman empire
so, Halstatt culture was never germanic influence

----------


## mihaitzateo

Just some info, to confirm that West German nations formed from Germanics and Celtic tribes:
In Wurtemberg West, R1B-P312 clades are 45%, from the paternal lines.
R1B-S21 makes 18% of the paternal lines in Wurtemberg West.
More detailed:
R1B-U152 makes 21%, R1B-DF27 - 12 %, R1B-L21 6% and generic clades of R1B-P312 another 6%.
In South Baden, R1B-L21 makes even 15% of the paternal lines.

Think that Germany was actually the Urheimat of the Celts, Celts being allied to Germanic tribes from Germany and dwelling in the dense woods from Germany.

----------


## Sile

> Just some info, to confirm that West German nations formed from Germanics and Celtic tribes:
> In Wurtemberg West, R1B-P312 clades are 45%, from the paternal lines.
> R1B-S21 makes 18% of the paternal lines in Wurtemberg West.
> More detailed:
> R1B-U152 makes 21%, R1B-DF27 - 12 %, R1B-L21 6% and generic clades of R1B-P312 another 6%.
> In South Baden, R1B-L21 makes even 15% of the paternal lines.
> Think that Germany was actually the Urheimat of the Celts, Celts being allied to Germanic tribes from Germany and dwelling in the dense woods from Germany.


did ancient germans have more R1b over I1
R1b-U152 looks like a pure gallic-celtic marker

----------


## Sile

> Do you have a link to his arguments? They're intriguing. Could it maybe mean that if Proto-Germanic was the IA language of the Nordic group and its Jastorf Culture offshoot (or at least a heavily influenced/Germanized heir), that non-IE substrate was still present only in the Scandinavian peninsula, whereas the continental part of that Germanic-speaking area was too far (and separated by an ocean) to be influenced by it? In that assumption of mine, East Germanic was originally "continental Proto-Germanic" before West Germanic split off from North Germanic (with which it might've formed a "Scandinavian Proto-Germanic" regional dialect) and expanded southward, partially replacing the early East Germanic dialects and pushing them eastward. (Just speculating here to try to make sense of a non-IE substrate that affected only West & North Germanic, but not East Germanic, since what we call Proto-Germanic, as any other proto-language, is just a simplified reconstruction of what was certainly a still incipient dialect continuum with regional variations).


this is a pseudo culture map\
orange = celts
purple = west baltic cairns culture

etc
etc

where you going with this ?

----------


## mihaitzateo

> did ancient germans have more R1b over I1
> R1b-U152 looks like a pure gallic-celtic marker


I have no idea, about this matter.
It seems Norse Speaker Germanics/Scandos had I1 and as 2nd HG, R1A-Norse.
The Germanics, ancestors of West German nations, seems to have had both I1 and I2b and R1B-U106.
There is also R1B-U106 in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark, but no one knows if that is not from the Holy Roman Empire/Frankish Empire activity, in the area.
Also, the Norse Germanics could have mixed with West Germanics, in that area, from South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark.

Maybe some people from Germany,which is the richest EU country, currently, will start to do more serious research, regarding their history.
Do not think is so hard or expensive to search Germanic and Celtic sites from Austria and Germany and analyze the bones found there.
What I know is that in Tyrol R1B-U152 is even 60% in some places.

----------


## markod

> I have no idea, about this matter.
> It seems Norse Speaker Germanics/Scandos had I1 and as 2nd HG, R1A-Norse.
> The Germanics, ancestors of West German nations, seems to have had both I1 and I2b and R1B-U106.
> There is also R1B-U106 in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark, but no one knows if that is not from the Holy Roman Empire/Frankish Empire activity, in the area.
> Also, the Norse Germanics could have mixed with West Germanics, in that area, from South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark.
> 
> Maybe some people from Germany,which is the richest EU country, currently, will start to do more serious research, regarding their history.
> Do not think is so hard or expensive to search Germanic and Celtic sites from Austria and Germany and analyze the bones found there.
> What I know is that in Tyrol R1B-U152 is even 60% in some places.


At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.

At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.

----------


## Sile

> At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.
> 
> At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.


So, you think Germanic was R1b ?

R1b-U106 , is old in frisian lands, and austria ............I cannot recall, which is the older area for this marker

----------


## mihaitzateo

> At the height of Celtic power Germanics would have been more or less a single group still. The earliest Germanic inscription was found in eastern Slovenia - it's not West Germanic. The contact occurred close to the Proto-Germanic level.
> 
> At least the bulk of R1a, I2/I1 must have been non-Germanic haplogroups that were assimilated locally.


If you would be so kind, could you provide more information about that, if you have, normally :) ?
It looks very interesting to me.

----------


## markod

> So, you think Germanic was R1b ?
> 
> R1b-U106 , is old in frisian lands, and austria ............I cannot recall, which is the older area for this marker


I have no clue, but of the three haplogroups I mentioned all except I1 seem to be locally confined. Scandinavians in general should be to a significant extent pre-Germanic IMHO. I see North-Western Germany as a speculative core area based on the toponymy, with most early Germanic dialects probably wiped out by endless internal warring and foreign invaders. West Germanic is only the latest layer from the far north.

----------


## markod

> If you would be so kind, could you provide more information about that, if you have, normally :) ?
> It looks very interesting to me.


Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categ...m_Proto-Celtic


This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.



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

----------


## Sile

> Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categ...m_Proto-Celtic
> 
> 
> This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet


it means very little..........its like the recent paper i presented on the illyrian helmet.........100% made in the Peloponnese by Greeks and sold to macedonians, epirotes etc. The Corinthian helmet was the preferred helmet in greece (also made in the Peloponnese) 
the Negau helmet could have been taken from the north or sold along the amber trails ..................

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Pay attention to the words derived from Celtic. 'King', 'iron', 'lead', 'breastplate', 'servant'. The Germanics might initially have been in a less dignified position vis-a-vis the Celts.
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categ...m_Proto-Celtic
> 
> 
> This is the earliest Germanic inscription from near Zenjak.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet


Thank you very much for providing this information.
I have looked at the terms from ProtoGermanic taken from ProtoCeltic and these terms are clearly confirming that ProtoCelts and ProtoGermanic people were living together.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I know that are Celtic names of the places, in both Germany and Austria.
In Germany, are more of those, in Austria, are fewer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_toponymy#Germany
However, taking only the name places of Celtic origin in Germany, to try to obtain an estimation of the influence that some Celtic ethnicities had at the formation of the German nation, think would be very misleading.
The influence of Celtic ethnicities in the formation of the German nation should be quite significant, I think.

----------


## MOESAN

> An interesting article from Washington Post suggests Hallstat Celts left a strong genetic ancestry in Bavaria and Austria:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f44c7dd36ccc
> 
> Bavaria and West Austria people,as genetics seems more similar to some Old Kelts from Ireland, than SE English people:


On this map, the most common point of Germanics countries to Ireland (BA Rathlin?) is centered around Hessen and South Saxony, not far from the Liechtenstein cave (hotspot of I2a2). Not close to E-Bavaria and Austria!

----------


## MOESAN

> Just some info, to confirm that West German nations formed from Germanics and Celtic tribes:
> In Wurtemberg West, R1B-P312 clades are 45%, from the paternal lines.
> R1B-S21 makes 18% of the paternal lines in Wurtemberg West.
> More detailed:
> R1B-U152 makes 21%, R1B-DF27 - 12 %, R1B-L21 6% and generic clades of R1B-P312 another 6%.
> In South Baden, R1B-L21 makes even 15% of the paternal lines.
> 
> Think that Germany was actually the Urheimat of the Celts, Celts being allied to Germanic tribes from Germany and dwelling in the dense woods from Germany.


It would be good to distinguish between Germanics formation where and when from the today Germany, still a bit unlevel today.

----------


## MOESAN

What have we todate?
- a first R1b-U106 in Sweden, was RISE98 I think, Battle Axe, 2275/2032 BC according to someones. The Oostwood one is a bit younger. Battle Axe is often associated with CWC but here I think this man was borderline, or we have to accept that Battle Axe was a bit different from CWC. The date is still interesting, in absence of an older one.
- @ Mihaitzateo: NO, aside W-Austria, U106 is not denser in SW Germany than in North: it's the opposite: it's very NW! (Center: Frisia) - in Scandinavia U106 seems western too, and arrived after other post-L51 R1b in SE or N- Scandinavia. The Austrian ones could be the result of an early splitted branch from Bohemia of the original group, with founder effect, or very later an arrow-tip army from N-Germanics during the Vlkerwanderung; but Germans were relatively soon in the surroundings (9/8 BC), pushing the Celtic Boians out of W-Bohemia, close to Austria. The linguistic germanization here could have been short, overwhelmed later by Latine or other tongues. The permanent germanization of the southern parts of today German speaking areas took effect very later. Austria doesnt seem to me the initial source of U106 of North. ATW its current peoples Haplos.
- I repeat here, spite today rather western gravity center, the U106 density in Benelux shows clearly a downward gradiant from Frisia to Wallonia and NE France. Its' almost sure that during the Belgae pre-Germanics period, the dominant R1b was not U106 but P312 descendants, L21 among them the first ones maybe, before the U152 rising during and after BB times. Its only later, I think, that U106 got southwards towards Belgium, France and SW Germany. Everywhere U106 (today) seems a Germanics "import", on mainland and in Britain.

----------


## MOESAN

- The bulk of R-U106 seems arrived in North later than the core of CWC R1a; where came it from? Hidden somewhere ? Maybe in N-Bohemia and Thuringen/Saale valley, near the  metallic mounts  at Unetice times, becoming later an element among the  Rich Tumuli  culture before Urnfields, seemingly distinct from the Baviera Tumuli (proto-Celts?) which pushed later towards SW Poland via S Bohemia and Moravia, at the Lusacian culture dawn; if present around the Saale, they (U106) had the occasion to move northwards along the Elbe, what match the today maxima of R-U106. The density of L11* without L51 in Northern Europe/Britain could mark a demographically stagnant situation where a tiny group lost its few previous L51*, did not develop immediatelty at this stage and vegetated somewhere there before to flourish. I cannot imagine it was part of the big flow of L51 which gave us P312, L21, U152 and DF27, and I cannot imagine it came from too far south but U106 is not by force the northernmost clade of R1b L11 ; the post P312 DF19 and L238 of current time seems showing northern subclades of P312 in North (Scandinavia, UK, Germany for the most) ; I think it shows that L51, even if not dense, were present in Northern Europe independantly from the alleged unique demographic boom of L51 in West, so its surely not a back move from SW Europe. But this could confirms U106 vegetated some time in between all these subclades of P312 before to emerge. Mountainous regions fit good enough. Or why not U106 the denser subclade of L11 in North, along some rare northern P312 (DF19, L238) ? Only more ancient DNA can tell us.


- dates : U106 Took the strongside after the CWC retreated? Or was already part of the move on the flanks ? The ancient presence of U106 in Sweden in Battle Axe Culture along with one Y-R1a Z645 (not too precise ?) could confirm contacts with CWC Y-R1a ; interistingly Eurogenes pretends the Battle Axe R1b U106 man clusters among today Norwegians, the R1a man among today Russians and Mordovians ; it could confirm the mixing between both sources was not yet achieved and that the most of U106 were close but apart from CWC R1a.
. The today distribution in East-Germany is weaker, but Maciamo shows some non negligible scores in Central East-Germany, spite more recent historical events that could have changed the previous situations (Slavs colonization in Middle Age). The Elbe axis from Saale region, a rich region, could confirm the possibility of a force position for U106 people as a  Germanic-launcher  before mixing and evolution of their language. They could have launched the Elp (1800/1500 BC) culture in the N-Netherlands as proposed Northerner, and it could this lately that they mixed seriously with others, a lot of Y-I1 among them and some remnants of CWC R1a people their old neighbours, less than the first ones passed into Scandinavia. The Battle Axe R1b brethren had been assimilated by CWC R1a, I think, and the final elaboration of Germanic langage took place later with the Rich Tumuli descendants as promotors because they were numerically strong enough. When we look at current pops, Norwegians are the most provided for R1a, and the details show R1a is stronger in Central and Central North than in South ; Sweden has least ; Denmark has even least. In East-Germany, a lot of R1a is younger and Slavic (M458), not in direct links with the Scandinavian Z284 which corresponds surely to CWC input. So the initial Germanics, spite a mix, had few R1a, more I1 and even more R-U106, IMO.
- Concerning the linguistic aspect, first Celts would have had less lasting contacts to first Germanics than had first Italics, according to some scholars and based on original basic language ; they would have been later contacts, after long time break away, and as a dominant culture, giving only specialized vocabulary to Germanics in a vertical way (up-down). So I think they were not the IE element which became Germanic by input of CWC and TRBK LN substrata. I think that in the Celto-Italic couple, Celtic dialects were very more western centered before Hallstatt, when Italics were staying later in Central Europe around Hungary, Croatia, parts of Austria, maybe even northernmost close to Moravia. Its even possible that proto-Celts and proto-Italics had been deeply separated before coming back later in contact around Austria at Hallstatt stage (Qw- → P mutation?) 
&- possible explanation : scholars say Celtic, Italic and Germanic have been part of the north block of I-E dialects, with a special position of Germanics because of their specific contacts with some Satem languages (CWC?) and later with Baltic, itself a Satem one ; and among the Belgae tribes, someones are clearly Celtic, other Germanic and other undetermined ; for the undetermined one, Kuhn (and partly Meid) have supposed a language close to Italic or proto-Italic whose traces are found in the toponymic substratum of the great Belgia (NE France until Seine river, SW Germany, Benelux) ; the term German would have been from this language, not from Germanics or Celtic ; as its sensible to think some old dialects more intermediary have been lost by time, it isnt stupid, and could explain the proximity of Italic with Germanic. Could proto-Italic have been even closer to the without-CWC-substrata of proto-Germanic? This old NW extension of proto- or rather pan-Italic dialects area could explain some proximities. Because spite the proximity Celtic-Italic, and the Germanic-Balto-Slavic one, it seems to me these pan-Italics (or proto-) could have kept separated proto-Celtic from proto-Germanic for a while (pure speculation here).
That said, plain Italics languages show some strong phonetic differences compared to Germanics and Celts, even Balto-Slavic, concerning PIE *Bh, *Gh, *Dh B.I., surely by Central and SE Europe 
people influences. 
Today we are seeing Italics people as southern ones (their clothes in Italy at the Imperial times) but earlier some of them were surely closer to Celts and to people of the North even in their clothings if I rely on some affirmations (multicolour squares or kind of tartan sometimes, as a whole barbarian-look dress and tattooings, similar burying, if we look at Veneti, pertaining to pan-Italic world).

----------


## MOESAN

put order in my brain diarrhea.
linguistically: I think BA R1b-U106 was the bearers of the pre-proto-Germanic, it's to say the IE basis, a dialect surrounded by other families of IE, then not so differentiated than later. But Elp C and others of these periods are to early for the well defined Germanics, even for the proto-Germanics, and U106 is not = "equal" = Germanics, only a "teacher" of IE.
I don't know if I can rely on, but some maps show in 700 BC Germanics core centered on Denmark, S-Sweden and N-Germany, and Frisia was germanized only between 500 and 250 BC? later than N-Poland by instance.
so Germanics is born in North by a mix where U106 met numerous Y-I1 end various Y-R1a (CWC+new ones?) without speaking of less dense haplos; is this which made it so special phonetically, or the odd traits were there already in the IE dialect transmitted to them?
ATW it seems Germanics had the same mix, but with different percentages here and there. Maciamo was right.
I remember the IA in Denmark saw a new physical type, akin to coon's "Iron Keltic" type BUT more pure. future Teutons and Cimbers? their type could be come from Austria (Hallstatt? damned!) but why not from Bohemia, so close. Austria could please to someones here. But auDNA, phenotypes and Y-haplo's are not so tightly linked; and this type, 'nordic-like' in a broad sense, is not the subtype dominant todate among the Scandinavian or N Germany 'nordic' ones; to date, we have only 2 old U106, very sooner than IA and Hallstatt.

----------


## MOESAN

@Northerner:
The Penguin historic map of 1988 on Wiki waked me. You're right: in 750 BC there were not plain Germanics in Frisia, not more in Poland, spite some extension in NE Germany.
Perhaps, an IE pop of northern tumuli from E-Saxony and Czechia could have spoken one of this kind of continuum of archaic dialects with strong links to pan-Italics (B.Sergent and others), maybe a diagonal band of dialects between Flanders and Austria, and U106 among some of them. With cristallization of Celtic and Italic (first) and Germanic (after) the tribes speaking them have been swallowed for a part bit after bit in Belgia by Celts getting North and Germanics getting South. so it would be lately enough than well defined Celts came in contact with Germanics, rather still northernly; but later than the IA ages? 
AS you say the roman Germany name is a bag name for unkown people. Among them, so called tribes of Germany, not only old Belgia, there were still some tribes speaking these archaic dialects, strong in Y-U106?
the ancient well defined ethnies with their changing frontiers were born by the absorbsion of more numerous but littler ethnies not so well differentiated, them and their intermediary dialects of ancient continuum.

Culture: it seems the Celts have been some time the "teachers" of the Germanics, but the strength changed side, and they retreated in front of the Germanics; but culturally, the material found among the germanic new owners of their lands in S-C Germany was still of La Tne style, so celtic.

----------


## mihaitzateo

@Moesan:
I am a in FB group with paternal lines from Germany.
I can tell for sure that in most of Germany R1B-P312 paternal lines are making more than R1B-U106.
So those should be from assimilated Celtic/Gaulish ethnics. In Austria, there are places where R1B-U152 makes even more than 50% of the paternal lines.
In Germany, most R1B-P312 is of R1B-U152 variant and there are also R1B-DF27 and R1B-L21. So, clearly, some Celtic tribes were assimilated as Germans.
I think the Roman Empire historians are calling "Germans" the tribes that were living on the land of Germany.
The genetic testing tells that those tribes were Germanic and Celtic speakers.Now Celtic speakers were a group of ethnicities which was from Britain and Ireland till in SE Europe, so we cannot expect too much common genetics on autosomal testing.
However, on autosomal testing Germans are scoring closer to the British people than they score to the French people.

It seems Celtic and Germanic tribes from current land of Germany were living together and had West German as common language, which later lead to the Celtic ethnics being assimilated as German ethnics.
In Alsatia/South Baden R1B-L21 is making 15% of the paternal lines, so this is a very interesting thing to research.

A mention, no one doubts French people are descending from mostly some Celtic tribes but it seems the Hallstatt Celtic tribes were different, in genetics, from the French Celtic tribes, being more closed to British Celts, than to French Celts.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/0...urope.html?m=1

At it can be seen Germans are scoring not far from Hallstatt sample that was used to make this map.
Actually, they are scoring closer to Hallstatt People (which should have been Celtic ethnics) than Brits,Irish or French.


There is also an AngloSaxon sample, which were people from current land of Germany, Saxony which is scoring very remote from current days Germans.
This map is rather suggesting that Hallstatt Celts gave more genetics to current day Germans, than the originally Germanic speakers tribes did.

----------


## mihaitzateo

It would be needed a serious research to see how much from the Hallstatt Celtic culture and life style it still present at today Germans.

----------


## markod

Bylany is really at the fringe of Hallstatt. What's needed are the elite samples from Austria, Switzerland etc. .

As I mentioned earlier, West Germanics were immigrants from Scandinavia and when they arrived not much was left of the Celts. West Germanic dialects were heavily influenced by Italic languages.

----------


## MOESAN

> @Moesan:
> I am a in FB group with paternal lines from Germany.
> I can tell for sure that in most of Germany R1B-P312 paternal lines are making more than R1B-U106.
> So those should be from assimilated Celtic/Gaulish ethnics. In Austria, there are places where R1B-U152 makes even more than 50% of the paternal lines.
> In Germany, most R1B-P312 is of R1B-U152 variant and there are also R1B-DF27 and R1B-L21. So, clearly, some Celtic tribes were assimilated as Germans.
> I think the Roman Empire historians are calling "Germans" the tribes that were living on the land of Germany.
> The genetic testing tells that those tribes were Germanic and Celtic speakers.Now Celtic speakers were a group of ethnicities which was from Britain and Ireland till in SE Europe, so we cannot expect too much common genetics on autosomal testing.
> However, on autosomal testing Germans are scoring closer to the British people than they score to the French people.
> 
> ...


I agree for the most with what you wrote here.
My question was: are we speaking of the influence of Celts in the making of first Germans (genesis apparently around Denmark), or of the later infuences of later Celts on so called Germanic tribes in C and S Germany, closer to our era? And what kind f influence? Language? Demic? Artefacts? The whole package?
Sure today Germans, more in South and West, have a lot of P312 sons, no surprise; a lot of them are Celts (and undetermined Belgae) partly germanized.
Hallstatt? Surely some cultural influence? But the swords found in Europe at those times were often very distinctly distributed and the IA swords of Denmark, if I don't mistake, were homogenous and different from the multiple types of the diverse Celts, ressembling to a found of N- Italy, I think. To be checked, this story of swords, I'm not sure, and after lost the notes of old Harold PEAKE I have not found yet something serious on the net for types. For jewellery and some artefacts, sure, the Germans have been influenced by IA Celts, before becoming as good artists as them. I think both have had some input of Scythian art too, but I am not competent.
concerning auDNA and the Eurogenes map I saw: it's a "worked" PCA, but I 've some confidence in it nevertheless. The Hallstatt Celts were surely closer to the Central Europe of the time. N surprise if they were closer to East French and South German people of today. The British Celts had absorbed from a side some more Iberia Neolithic people with some local WHG, and on another side they have ancestry from more Northern pops since BB's. So less input from SE or CE. If you look at the PCA, Medieval Germans are closer to 'north', to 'anglo-saxon' and today Scandinavians, as are 'north-dutch'; logical. Closer to genuine Germanics. But here again, today Belgian are even closer than 'german' and 'english IA' are not farther than 'german' from 'hallstatt' . If NW French or better, Bretons, had been put on this PCA they would have been closer too, than 'E-france'. A caution: Eurogene PCA exagerate the N-S difference and flatten the W-E one...
Aside: 1/4 of the higher statute of Celtic Hallstatt tombs have a new type, found also in Moravia and in Silesia: higher statured than the Keltic noble type, higher skulled, more dolicho wiht higher faces, lower orbits and compressed temporals, more brutal I think (I would see here some return of old 'brnn-like' input, more present in east): all the way, it was a strangers introgression in the elites, from East I think: famous 'Illyrians' or?... they don't look like the IA dolicho's of Denmark, themselves closer to IA Celts. But this concerns only an elite and doesn't have too great input onto auDNA of the pop. This new type of men almost disappeared later in La Tne. 
Personally, I think the La Tne Celts have had a total influence because they are become part of the S and SW German people, even genetically (along Rhaetians?). Before it was maybe rather a cultural influence of Hallstatt. 
the Hallstatt contacs have been through between people, I think. The post-La Tne contacts have taken place very very later in N Germany (300 BC? even later?) before the Germanics expansion at the depends of Celts.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Bylany is really at the fringe of Hallstatt. What's needed are the elite samples from Austria, Switzerland etc. .
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, West Germanics were immigrants from Scandinavia and when they arrived not much was left of the Celts. West Germanic dialects were heavily influenced by Italic languages.


I think the Hallstatt Celts samples from Austria are clustering more closer to the current day Germans, than Hallstatt Celts from Bylany.

----------


## MOESAN

Some Czech authors seem thinking the Bylany Hallstatt culture (North and NW of Czechia), whose territory was partly shared with Billendorf Urnfield culture (center in E-Saxony) was somehow distinct from the Hallstatt "Tumuli" culture neighbouring them in South and W-SW Czechia; this last one would be a continuation of the tumuli cultures already present there since before Urnfields; I think personally that this tumuli culture was already Celtic: some of these people crossed Moravia to SW Poland just before the Urnfield period which became the Lusacian culture (from their own evolution or acculturation by another folk?) # different I think from the "Rich Tumuli" of Saxony before Urnfield, present in North Czechia too. So in my mind I don't attach to closely the Hallstatt Tumuli C. (more southern) to future Germanics. But I'm not very knowledged in archeology.
I 've to read this study about Bylany, where diverse authors are cited, not by force in accord all of them about the unity of 'tumuli' cultures or 'hallstatt' cultures.

----------


## mihaitzateo

This is epic:
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/tim.../106756317.pdf
Eating dog meat and horse meat was quite common in Germany :) .
That is clearly a Celtic cultural thing.
So, coupled with the paternal lines of Germans, which if you take R1B-P312+R1B-U106 plus G are making even 75% in some areas, I would say, that culturally and genetically Germans are rather Hallstatt Celts.
Not Germanic people.
Add the fact that most German people are very attracted to the extreme sports which is something that should also come from their Celtic genes.
Celts are recorded to have been very bold people.
As for being warrior like, Germans have been most warrior nation of Europe.
Another cultural thing and genetic thing, derived from their Celtic ancestry and culture.

----------


## mihaitzateo

A linguistic argument:
In Old Norse, Swedish,Norwegian,Danish,Faroesse,Icelandic, Gothic languages, the verb is put in the middle of the sentence.
However, in German, Dutch the verb is put at the end of the sentence.
That is resembling only Latin, from European languages.
There is not known what language Hallstatt Celtic tribes were speaking, but we can suppose that the fact German is putting the verb at the end of the sentence comes from the language of the Hallstatt Celts.

Y DNA Argumens:
Most Germany areas have R1B-L21.
Prussia, which is conquered from Baltic people, do not have R1B-L21.
Some areas, fewer some more, but Alsatia/South Baden has 15% R1B-L21.
East Pomerania has 10% R1B-L21.
This R1B-L21 should be from the Bell Beakers.

Switzerland have R1B-U106 making most of their paternal lines.
23% of Switzerland paternal lines are R1B-U106.
Switzerland people are known to have been Celtic tribes, not Germanic tribes.
As a strange thing, highest R1B-U106 from Germany is in Lower Saxony, 29%, followed by Eifel area with 26% and Bavaria with 24%.


R1B-U152:
Most areas of Germany have R1B-U152.
Wurtemberg West has 21% R1B-U152. Highest R1B-U152 from Germany.

R1B-DF27 - Most areas of Germany got R1B-DF27.

R1B-L23 generic - Most areas of Germany also got "generic" R1B-L23.

Having so many clades of R1B is only found in Republic of Ireland, besides Germany from the whole world.
Germany also got the G Y DNA, which is also Celtic, in most areas.
As a strange thing, Switzerland also got R1A-M458.

----------


## MOESAN

> A linguistic argument:
> In Old Norse, Swedish,Norwegian,Danish,Faroesse,Icelandic, Gothic languages, the verb is put in the middle of the sentence.
> However, in German, Dutch the verb is put at the end of the sentence.
> That is resembling only Latin, from European languages.
> There is not known what language Hallstatt Celtic tribes were speaking, but we can suppose that the fact German is putting the verb at the end of the sentence comes from the language of the Hallstatt Celts.
> 
> Y DNA Argumens:
> Most Germany areas have R1B-L21.
> Prussia, which is conquered from Baltic people, do not have R1B-L21.
> ...


- I would prefer have the syntax of ancient Germanic than to comparate modern Germanic languages.
Concerning Y-haplo's it seems to me that the post-L11 bearers of R1b lineages having given U106 were clearly separated from the ones having given P312, geographically speaking - the today distribution of Y-U106 (and Y-I1) in Switzerland and Southern Germany does not tell us nothing about the ancient distribution there between BA and IA. I have nothing concerning LBA or EIA but at BB's ages, it seems there were R1b-U152 in S-Germany and no R1b-U106 (except error of mine) – it seems Y-R1b U106 became dense after the High Middle Ages in Switzerland and S-Germany and surely Austria ; only ancient Y-haplo’s could show us the reality – I don’t find just now what has been written about Y-haplo’s of 500’s Bavarians and Longobards.
it’s a dangerous game, but if we try to make the today distributions to speak, roughly said, U152 has been pushed southwestwards by northern U106 – in Eastern Germany, it’s U106 which has been pushed westwards, surely at Middle Ages, by Slavs (they came as far as Bavaria and Schleswig and left some traces there) – for what I think, U152 was dense among Celtic Belgae (today Belgium, SW Germany, NE France), other IA Celts (E Gauls) and ancient Ligurians of NW Italy, Corsica and SE France, surely less among Italics.
- R1b-L21 among today Germanic lands on the continent was maybe present without British Isles migrations on the continent (L21, at first came from the continent into Britain and Ireland) – But at those times, there is few chances they would have been among Germanic tribes – (the L21 case in W-Norway is another story, i think : Vikings linked but also maybe BB’s linked : the seas were not an obstacle then, we know that, and BB’s there could come from Denmark as well as from Britain) -
- So, before I know more, I ‘ll say that the only R1b very typial of Germanics was the U106 one, and associated with Y-I1 (in South, the input of R1a among Germanics seem having been weak.


& : and NO : L21 doesn’t reach 10 % in Pomerania, and doesn’t reach 15 % in Elsass ! Where get your %’s ?
Y-G has nothing specifically Celtic - it had more survived in some aeras of Europe, without specific link with an IE subgroup.
R1a-M458 is seemingly Slavic by origin and I said Slavs occupied Bavaria, so why not Switzerland; OK, but at what percentage??? according to Eupedia (here!) The whole of the country is under the 1%, only a small part in contact with Austria has between 1 and 5%!

----------


## MOESAN

to do short, first Germans was very north shifted, even if they had contacts as "pupils" with Celts at some stage -
they were not a compound where Celts took a big part and exchanged Y-lineages and were even closer to first Italics and Balto-Slavs - the post-350/400 AD story is another thing, Germanics mixed with diverse precedent pops among them Celts, Rhaetians and Latins, mix which made the today SW Germans (and not Germanics) - here we can agree -

----------


## mihaitzateo

And eating Horse and Dog meat, which was quite common in Germany?
Dog meat was also eaten in Switzerland and France.
That was a Celtic custom.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...t-occasionally
But eating Horse meat, was only encountered in Ireland, at a coronation of a new King.
This custom, to eat Horse meat, was another Celtic cultural thing.

Switzerland was very Celtic,so is not possible to have such a significant percentage of R1B-U106, from Germanic people.
I looked on y DNA of various Germany ethnics and it seems that I1 and I2 are higher in NW Germany but are low,in South Germany.

----------

