Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe

M

mount123

Active member
Messages
999
Reaction score
697
Points
113
Y-DNA haplogroup
J2b-L283
This study has 35 Hallstatt samples from Baden-Württemberg. There are ten R1b, seven G2a-L497, one I2a-L38 and one J2b2a-L283>Z597 (aka Z628). G2a makes up 37% of the haplogroup, which may seem huge compared to modern Germany, but this study focuses on dynastic successions, so several of them could be the same lineage. The terminal SNP isn't the same simply because the quality of the samples varies and some have lower resolution.

What is more unexpected is to find an R1b-U106>L48>Z9>Z347 in southern Germany at the time. It's also unfortunate that the other samples weren't tested for SNP beyond P311 or P312. There should be at least some U152.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Sample ID[/TD]
[TD]Site Name[/TD]
[TD]mtDNA haplogroup[/TD]
[TD]Y-DNA Haplogroup[/TD]
[TD]Y-DNA SNP[/TD]
[TD]Archaeological Dating[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]APG001[/TD]
[TD]Asperg "Grafenbuehl"[/TD]
[TD]J1b1a1[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1a2[/TD]
[TD]P312[/TD]
[TD]500-480 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]Asperg "Grafenbuehl"[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]APG002[/TD]
[TD]Asperg "Grafenbuehl"[/TD]
[TD]J1c3e1[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]480-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]APG003[/TD]
[TD]Asperg "Grafenbuehl"[/TD]
[TD]X2b[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1a2[/TD]
[TD]P312[/TD]
[TD]480-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]Asperg "Grafenbuehl"[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HEU001[/TD]
[TD]Heuneburg[/TD]
[TD]U5b2b[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]550-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HEU002[/TD]
[TD]Heuneburg[/TD]
[TD]W6a[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]500-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HOC001[/TD]
[TD]Eberdingen-Hochdorf "Biegel"[/TD]
[TD]J1b1a1[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1[/TD]
[TD]P311[/TD]
[TD]530-520 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]Eberdingen-Hochdorf "Biegel"[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HOC002[/TD]
[TD]Eberdingen-Hochdorf "Biegel"[/TD]
[TD]K1a4c1*1[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a[/TD]
[TD]CTS4803[/TD]
[TD]530-500 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HOC003[/TD]
[TD]Eberdingen-Hochdorf "Biegel"[/TD]
[TD]K1a2a[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1[/TD]
[TD]CTS9737[/TD]
[TD]530-500 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HOC004[/TD]
[TD]Eberdingen-Hochdorf "Biegel"[/TD]
[TD]U4c2a[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1a1~[/TD]
[TD]Z753[/TD]
[TD]530-500 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LAN001[/TD]
[TD]Langenenslingen "Alte Burg"[/TD]
[TD]H30b1[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b[/TD]
[TD]CTS12972[/TD]
[TD]400-200 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LWB001[/TD]
[TD]Ludwigsburg "Römerhügel"[/TD]
[TD]U4a1a[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1a2[/TD]
[TD]P312[/TD]
[TD]530-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LWB002[/TD]
[TD]Ludwigsburg "Römerhügel"[/TD]
[TD]H2a2a1[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1a[/TD]
[TD]L151[/TD]
[TD]500-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LWB003[/TD]
[TD]Ludwigsburg "Römerhügel"[/TD]
[TD]K1b2b[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a1b~[/TD]
[TD]FGC8304[/TD]
[TD]530-500 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG001[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG002[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b2b[/TD]
[TD]Z347[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG003[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H1c9[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b[/TD]
[TD]PF6527[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG004[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H1c[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG005[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]T2+16189[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG006[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]K1a+195[/TD]
[TD]J2b2a1a1a~[/TD]
[TD]Z628[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG007[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H3[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG008[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]HV0+195[/TD]
[TD]I2a1b2a[/TD]
[TD]S2550[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG009[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H1c9[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG010[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]T2b4[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a[/TD]
[TD]Z1823[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG011[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]K1a[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG012[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H2[/TD]
[TD]NA[/TD]
[TD]NA[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG013[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]I2[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b1a1[/TD]
[TD]L52[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG014[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]R1b1a1b[/TD]
[TD]CTS12478[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG015[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H5[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG016[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]U5a1a2b[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b[/TD]
[TD]L497[/TD]
[TD]616-530 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MBG017[/TD]
[TD]Magdalenenberg[/TD]
[TD]H27[/TD]
[TD]G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a1b~[/TD]
[TD]FGC8304[/TD]
[TD]616 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SCN001[/TD]
[TD]Ditzingen-Schöckingen[/TD]
[TD]H3g[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]..[/TD]
[TD]500-450 BCE[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

R1b-P312, G2a-L497 and I2-L38 have long been associated with Alpine Celts. There is a particularly strong correlation between the distributions of R1b-U152 (aka S28) and G2a-L497, which goes beyond Hallstatt and La Tène Celts and also include Etruscans and Italic tribes.

1717483988503.png


1717484010945.png


Another surprising element from the paper is what they say here:

Interestingly, we find that individuals with haplogroup G2a-L497 (for example, MBG017, MBG016 and HOC004) exhibit significantly more southern European ancestry than individuals carrying haplogroup R1b-M269 (for example, HOC001, APG001 and MBG003)
Click to expand...

This is odd because it would mean that G2a-L497 lineages would be recent migrants to southern Germany who hadn't had time to mix with the mainstream population. They all date from around 600 to 500 BCE. We could imagine that Etruscans could have provided those lineages, but the problem with that is that they had vastly more R1b-U152 than G2a-L497. There isn't really any other region of southern Europe that was close enough and where G2a-L497 was a significant lineage. In fact I doubt that there would be any outside of Italy. All the other regions of southern Europe (Iberia, Greece) where L497 is found today owe its presence to Celtic and Roman colonisation and wouldn't have had any L497 around 600 BCE.

It's probably just a coincidence that the samples with more southern European ancestry all happen to be G2a-L497. They could just as well have been R1b-P312 or U152. The authors tried to infer their place of origin and it is indeed northern Italy, though not necessarily Etruria. That's interesting because it shows that there were still considerable population exchanges (at least among the elite) across the Alps around 600 to 500 BCE, which is at least 600 to 700 years after the Urnfield/Hallstatt expansion into Italy.

1717485612443.png
 
Last edited:
Here under some extracts written in "italics" - comments are of mine for some blog, don't mind.
1 – on their PCA we see the relatively loose S-Germany Celtic cluster spans a little bit over the today Germans cluster (I suppose SW and Southern ones) and surely over what I suppose to be today Northern Spanyards. It’s true the centrum seems rather around today Southern France, so a it different from the Champagne IA Celts. So « separate in genetic space from present-day Germans » is not accurate, spite the German centroid todate is far enough, effectively. It would confirm if general, the same profile as among Alsace IA Celts, rather « southern » compared to other Celts, with an input of a Y-G2a rich element. Gretzinger : Interestingly, we find that individuals with haplogroup G2a-L497 (for example, MBG017, MBG016 and HOC004) exhibit significantly more southern European ancestry than individuals carrying haplogroup R1b-M269 (for example, HOC001, APG001 and MBG003) - < Urnfields times ??? -



2- That there had been created a continuum at those times is surprising in no way, History explains it.. Identity is another thing, similarity or affinity is an unprecise term.



Interestingly, this third inter-site group of relatives exhibits significantly more southern European ancestry than the rest of our analysed individuals (93.6 ± 1.9% versus 59.9 ± 3.9%; two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum exact test; W = 0, P = 0.0002259) and, consequently, significantly more Early European Farmer (EEF) ancestry (55.6 ± 0.9% versus 48.4 ± 1.1%; two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum exact test; W = 0, P = 0.0002259) (Supplementary Fig. 2.8) (for details on EEF ancestry decomposition, see Methods and Supplementary Notes 2 and 4). This might indicate a non-local, southern European origin of the ancestors of the Magdalenenberg elite. Consequently, we applied MOBEST35 to perform spatiotemporal interpolation of their genetic affinity to ~5,660 previously published ancient genomes, obtaining similarity probabilities across early Iron Age Europe that can be interpreted as proxies for geographical origin (Supplementary Note 2). We detect for all four of these samples (MBG004, MBG016, MBG017 and HOC004) a putative transalpine origin in northern Italy, while all other tested Hallstatt individuals’ origins are located north of the Alps, close to their respective sites (Fig. 3a,b). Remarkably, these individuals feature excess EEF ancestry on the X chromosome in comparison with the autosomes (83.5 ± 9.9% versus 55 ± 1.1%). Applying the formula described in Mathieson et al.36, we find evidence that the EEF admixture was significantly female biased (Z  = −2.86), suggesting an excess of females over males with south-European origin among their ancestors. In contrast, we detect no difference in EEF ancestry on the X chromosome and the autosomes in the rest of the sampled Hallstatt population (43.6 ± 5.7% versus 49 ± 0.6%) and, consequently, no evidence for sex-biased admixture in the main group (Z = 0.93).

3- Spite evoking the input of a component or its increase into Lech valley BA pop Gretinger doesn’t compare it to a turnover when he says : … we find the Iron Age individuals to be separate in genetic space from present-day Germans and falling closer to present-day French and other southern European individuals (Supplementary Fig. 4.1). Compared with contemporaneous data, the Hallstatt individuals cluster homogeneously intermediate between Iron Age samples from present-day France and the Czech Republic, together with Bronze Age samples from the Bavarian Lech valley within the present-day French variation. The genetic affinity between our Hallstatt individuals from southern Germany and individuals from Bronze and Iron Age France is part of a broader genetic continuum spanning from Iberia to the Balkan peninsula, featuring a common genetic ancestry component.

(BTW this continuum concept can hide a complicated process of multidirectionnal local admixtures, when the writing gives the impression of a big almost homogenous move of some component)-
 
I’m assuming there are no G25 coordinates yet?
 
The Northern Italic like elites in this sample are probably the Etruscan related Raetics. Prior to Roman domination the Raetics had pushed their territory well into parts of southern Germany so it shouldn't be surprising to see them in these areas.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Corinna Salomon (University of Vienna) explains and answers questions about ancient North Italic alphabets used in the Alps, which many scholars have speculated could be a source of the rune futhark alphabets. From a live conversation held on Zoom with Jackson Crawford's Patreon supporters on April 23, 2023.

 
Torzio, in 2024 you still don't understand that the script has no connection with the language.
 
and as i stated years ago.....link this proof......never seen it

and not some rubbish like the messapic one , where i was linked a inscription of a ring, which says in greek....i love ana ...or something like that
 
torzio said:

Script - Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum

tir.univie.ac.at tir.univie.ac.at

I do not see that much etruscan link........more closer with Venetic and Lepontic and Camunic as per link
Click to expand...
Genetically they look closer to modern northern Italians than the Etruscan norms of iron age southern Tuscany and Felsina. Linguistically and ethnically ancient authors agree with certainty that the Raetics were a branch of Etruscans. As I've said in the past with the etruscans and their northerly raetic branch we will likely see a north/south cline ranging between modern northern italian like and spanish like.

This study now provides rather notable evidence for this idea as there is really no other Italian ethnic group that is evidenced in Germany during 500BC other than the Raetics. None of these samples look Spanish-like, either.
 
Vitruvius said:
Genetically they look closer to modern northern Italians than the Etruscan norms of iron age southern Tuscany and Felsina. Linguistically and ethnically ancient authors agree with certainty that the Raetics were a branch of Etruscans. As I've said in the past with the etruscans and their northerly raetic branch we will likely see a north/south cline ranging between modern northern italian like and spanish like.

This study now provides rather notable evidence for this idea as there is really no other Italian ethnic group that is evidenced in Germany during 500BC other than the Raetics. None of these samples look Spanish-like, either.
Click to expand...


Where would a genetic study on Raetics have been published?
 
Pax Augusta said:
Where would a genetic study on Raetics have been published?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the outliers in this study. The relatedness map clearly places their closest modern populations in Veneto, FVG, Piemonte and Emilia Romagna. This also correlates well with the ancient Picene and Illyrian genetic profile norms.

1724009001020.png
 
Vitruvius said:
I was referring to the outliers in this study. The relatedness map clearly places their closest modern populations in Veneto, FVG, Piemonte and Emilia Romagna. This also correlates well with the ancient Picene and Illyrian genetic profile norms.

View attachment 16483
Click to expand...


Okay, so just speculation.

Are you really sure that predictions with Mobest are about modern populations? In the study it says that the affinities are with ancient genomes, not modern ones.

I happened to talk about this with archaeologists who deal with the Protohistory of northern Italy and they don't think the outliers are Rhaetians.
 
Consequently, we applied MOBEST35 to perform spatiotemporal interpolation of their genetic affinity to ~5,660 previously published ancient genomes, obtaining similarity probabilities across early Iron Age Europe that can be interpreted as proxies for geographical origin (Supplementary Note 2). We detect for all four of these samples (MBG004, MBG016, MBG017 and HOC004) a putative transalpine origin in northern Italy, while all other tested Hallstatt individuals’ origins are located north of the Alps, close to their respective sites (Fig. 3a,b).
Click to expand...

37383UC.png
 
G25 coordinates for MBG004, MBG016, MBG017 and HOC004 who have a putative transalpine origin in Iron Age northern Italy according to the study. I haven't the faintest idea whether these coordinates are accurate, but they don't plot at all with modern northern Italy. They plot with the Spanish and the French in a PCA with modern samples, and in another PCA with ancient samples a couple plot closer to Pian Sultano/Broion/Etruscans/Latins and another couple more towards Central European Iron Age samples.

Obviously the G25 is anything but a faultless tool, but that map above clearly shows affinities with Iron Age populations of northern Italy, certainly not modern ones.


Code: 
MBG004,0.136588,0.149283,0.037712,-0.000969,0.048009,-0.009482,0.004935,-0.003231,0.01493,0.032802,-0.002111,0.012889,-0.0278,-0.007156,-0.002443,-0.000796,0.002868,0.007348,-0.00088,-0.000625,0.006239,-0.008903,0.003204,-0.003012,0.000359
MBG016,0.12862,0.151314,0.039975,0.004199,0.050163,-0.006972,-0.00799,-0.001385,0.016566,0.047017,-0.002923,0.010641,-0.022745,-0.009358,0.006243,-0.005038,-0.007302,-0.002787,0.015209,-0.007128,-0.000499,-0.002102,-0.006655,-0.008917,0.012693
MBG017,0.125205,0.144205,0.054305,0.013243,0.048009,0.010319,-0.003995,0.003231,0.009817,0.020228,-0.002598,0.005545,-0.010704,-0.00055,0.005836,-0.003447,-0.005346,-0.000253,0.008422,-0.002251,0.002745,0.004575,0.002958,0.008073,0.001197
HOC004,0.120652,0.150298,0.046009,0.011305,0.045547,0.008088,0.00141,0.006692,0.015953,0.027335,-0.004222,0.012889,-0.016799,0.000413,0.000136,-0.013922,-0.016428,0.003421,0.002137,-0.011506,-0.004243,0.002473,-0.004683,-0.004097,-0.002634

FHRX7sx.png


bkfHEfs.png
 
Pax Augusta said:
Okay, so just speculation.

Are you really sure that predictions with Mobest are about modern populations? In the study it says that the affinities are with ancient genomes, not modern ones.

I happened to talk about this with archaeologists who deal with the Protohistory of northern Italy and they don't think the outliers are Rhaetians.
Click to expand...
This is a good catch, Pax. It was my mistake to assume this was a comparison to modern norms, so apologies for that. I'm curious as to exactly what ancient samples they were using for comparisons in the mobest map. I can only assume bronze age samples recovered so far. Looking at Moesan's post, it does appear most of the outliers cluster in the Italy IA Republic group which for the most part overlaps modern Eastern Spaniards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top