Tracing the Spread of Celtic Languages using Ancient Genomics

[Riverman]

teepeanTracing the Spread of Celtic Languages using Ancient Genomics

Abstract

Celtic languages, including Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton, are today restricted to the Northern European Atlantic seaboard. However, between 3 and 2 thousand years before present (BP) Celtic was widely spoken across most of Europe. While often associated with Bell Beaker-related populations, the spread of this prominent Indo-European linguistic cluster remains debated1—7. Previous genomic investigations have focused on its arrival to specific regions: Britain8, Iberia9 and Southwestern Germany10. Here, we utilize new genomic data from Bronze and Iron Age Europe to investigate the population history of historically Celtic-speaking regions, and test different linguistic theories on the origins and early spread of the Celtic languages. We identify a widespread demographic impact of the Central European Urnfield Culture. We find ancestry associated with its Knovíz subgroup in the Carpathian Basin to have formed between 4—3.2 kyr BP, and subsequently expanded across much of Western Europe between 3.2 and 2.8 kyr BP. This ancestry further persisted into the Hallstatt Culture of France, Germany and Austria, impacting Britain by 2.8 kyr BP and Iberia by 2.5 kyr BP. These findings support models of an Eastern Central rather than a Western European center of spread for a major component of all the attested Celtic languages. Our study demonstrates, yet again, the power of ancient population genomics in addressing long-standing debates in historical linguistics.

Sequence data for the new 578 ancient genomes can be found in the ENA under accession:
xxxxxxxx.

No data available yet.

Tracing the Spread of Celtic Languages using Ancient Genomics

Celtic languages, including Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton, are today restricted to the Northern European Atlantic seaboard. However, between 3 and 2 thousand years before present (BP) Celtic was widely spoken across most of Europe. While often associated with Bell Beaker-related...

www.biorxiv.org

If I am reading the supplementary correctly there are two Finnish iron age samples with decent quality!

Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA (TITLES/ABSTRACTS)

The paper concentrates on the amounts of different early farmer/Neolithic ancestries and being able to, if done correctly, to identify specific mass migrations into Celtic areas. Most notable, it seems to prove, going by the text, what I always considered the likeliest option, that there was a massive influx of continental ancestry into the British Isles after the initial settlement by the Bell Beakers:

For England, we find a series of transitions in the prominent farming ancestries present for212
each time slice (Fig. 3). Initially, between 4800–4000 BP, we find a individuals are modelled213
with a high proportion of Bell Beaker related ancestry, and the tendency to have a slightly214
higher proportion of local British-Irish Isles Neolithic ancestry, relative to the other215
Neolithic-related ancestries. By the Middle Bronze Age (4000–3200 BP), the highest Farmer-216
related ancestry is French/Iberian Neolithic-related rather than the local Neolithic ancestry,217
consistent with recent studies suggesting migrations from the mainland8,36. This migration,218
specifically the Iberian connection, is further supported by evidence that the UK received219
copper from Iberia during this phase (3350/3250–750 BP)41. However, in the Late Bronze220
Age, we see a shift, in which the proportion of Italian Neolithic ancestry has increased to221
similar proportions to that of French/Iberian Neolithic. In the Iron Age, similar patterns are222
seen, with the additional appearance of Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestry. The changes223
in Farming ancestry present are suggestive of migrations from distinct regions of Europe in224
which local farming ancestry was incorporated.

I consider the last shifts to be the most important, especially since it would relate to the "Italian-like" Tumulus culture core of early Celts during the Urnfield period, with additional Carpatho-Balkan during Urnfield into Iron Age. Same pattern in France, with an apparently massive shift from Franko-Iberian Atlantic facade ancestry to "Italian-like":

In France, we see a similar transition (Fig. 3). During the Early and Middle Bronze Age,227

more local French/Iberian- than Italian Neolithic-related ancestry tends to be present. By the228
Iron Age, the relative proportions have swapped, so Italian Neolithic-related ancestry is the229
highest, accompanied by Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry. Due to the lack of samples from the230
Late Bronze Age, the time of this transition cannot be directly measured. However, the231
increased proportion of Italian Neolithic-related ancestry during the Late Bronze Age on the232
British Isles suggests it was present in France by this time.

That is a clear pattern proving how the Urnfield expansion changed the autosomal make up of the whole Western Celtic sphere, with influences from the Italian-Alpine and Carpathian area.

Further east, in the Czech Republic, we see the increase of Italian Neolithic-related and235

Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestry between 3200–2800 BP (Fig. 3). We also note that we236
.CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licensemade available under a
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is
The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted March 1, 2025.;https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.28.640770doi:bioRxiv preprint
detect no evidence of French/Iberian Neolithic ancestry. By splitting further into the cultural237
phases for the region, we find that this ancestry profile in the Czech Republic occurred by238
3300 BP, in individuals associated with the Tumulus Culture and continuing into the Knovíz239
and Hallstatt Periods (Extended Data Fig. 1).

The pulse seems to have come the Carpatho-Balkan zone (Urnfielders!):

However,245
while we see a general range reduction of the British and French/Iberian Neolithic-related246
ancestries, we find an increase in the geographical range of the Italian Neolithic-related and247
Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestries throughout these periods.

Relevant to the appearance of Italian Neolithic and254
Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestry in Western Europe by the Iron Age, we included255
individuals from Hungary/Serbia (0_3_4_2_2_C_2800+). Consistent with the results found256
from using the Farmer-related ancestries as a proxy, we find the appearance of Bronze Age257
French/Iberian ancestry appearing in England during the Middle Bronze Age, and the258
Hungarian/Serbian Bronze Age reaching widespread distributions during the Iron Age (Fig.259
4). In the Czech Republic, we find almost all individuals being modelled with a large260
proportion of Hungarian/Serbian ancestry during the Late Bronze Age.

The path might have been Tumulus culture expansion to the East/South East, mixing with the local Carpathians and transition to the Urnfield rites, then expansion of these Eastern mixed groups back all over the territories during Urnfield and these being the base for the later Celtic koine:

Next, we included individuals from the Late Bronze Age from the Czech Republic,282
associated with the Urnfield subgroup of the Knovíz Culture, as a source, who were modelled283
above with high proportions of Hungarian/Serbian ancestry (Extended Data Fig. 1). In the284
early Iron Age (2800–2470 BP), we find this ancestry modelled across Western Southern and285
Eastern Central Europe in varying proportions, complemented by more local sources286
(Extended Data Fig. 3.). In England, the highest proportion tends to be modelled as Bell287
Beaker-related, followed by Knovíz-related and French/Iberian Bronze Age-related. In288
contrast, on the mainland, the proportion of ancestry modelled as Bell Beaker-related tends to289
be low or absent, with the Steppe ancestry in these individuals better modelled by the other290
Bronze Age sources, i.e. Bronze Age Knovíz-related, French/Iberia and Hungary/Serbia

The Celtic core being covered by this "backflow migration" from the Carpathian zone:

Compared to England, the impact of Knovíz-related ancestry is particularly high in France,292

Germany and the Czech Republic. In Austria, we note considerable diversity at the293
eponymous Hallstatt site, with individuals modelled with particularly high proportions of294
either Knovíz or Hungarian/Serbia Bronze Age-related ancestry, more similar to Hungary,295
Slovenia and Slovakia, where the Hungarian/Serbian Bronze Age-related ancestry is296
modelled in high proportions.

Knoviz itself is just the result of this admixture from the Eastern Urnfield (Lusatian-Kyjatice-Gáva) sphere.


This ancestry later spread to Scandinavia too - see migration period patterns:

Some of the Migration Period individuals from Britain carry313
high proportions of Knovíz-related ancestry and little to no British-Irish Bronze Age-related,314
suggestive of migrations from or admixture on the continent (Supplementary Figure S1.1).315
Migration Period migrations into Denmark and Sweden detected elsewhere revealed that316
people carrying some continental ancestry12,50, but primarily of Scandinavian ancestry31,317
arrived in Denmark and Southern Sweden by the Viking Period; here we provide further318
insight into the source of the continental ancestry: the influx of small proportions of319
continental ancestry is modelled as Knovíz and Hungary/Serbia Bronze Age-related ancestry,320
generally lacking British-Irish Bronze Age and French/Iberian Bronze Age. As such, we can321
exclude the Netherlands, France, Britain and Ireland as a source of this continental ancestry,322
and infer a source region further east. This stands in direct contrast to Norway, where high323
proportions of the British-Irish Bronze Age-related ancestry are detected in most individuals324
with non-local ancestry, consistent with previous studies50.

This paper seems to prove unambiguously that the Urnfield phenomenon was associated with mass migrations and spread in the Western sphere the Celtic language and culture:

Furthermore, the expansion of Knovíz-related ancestry from Eastern Central Europe detected458
here, continuing into Hallstatt and La Tène populations, provides new evidence supporting459
the linguistic model in which Celtic languages were mediated to France, Britain, Iberia and460
Italy during the Late Bronze Age by populations associated with the Urnfield Culture67,68.461
This aligns with the association of the Lepontic language with the Urnfield-derived462
Golasecca Culture of Northern Italy69, as well as the Urnfield-type weaponry of ~3200–3000463
BP depicted on Late Bronze Age warrior stelae of the Southwestern Iberian Peninsula70–72.

Link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.640770v1.full.pdf

With the Gomolava samples and other Carpatho-Balkan samples, we might prove, very soon, the same on an even higher level for the Balkans, where these Eastern Urnfielder groups didn't just spread their ancestry indirectly, like in the West, since the dominant factor were the "converted Eastern Tumulus culture" people, but directly, like with Gáva-related Channelled Ware.
Knoviz and the Middle Danubian Urnfield group were kind of a experiment and mixed territory, whereas to the West we primarily deal with the spreads of Proto-Celtic "converts" to the Urnfield religion/package.

 

[Riverman]

In the supplements they also address the "patrilineage problem":

S3.2. Spatial distribution of subhaplogroups of R-P312 track population movements in247
the Middle and Late Bronze Age248
Haplogroup R-P312 resolves itself in a polytomy, with downstream lineages showing some249
level of geographical structure, particularly among Bronze Age individuals. Subhaplogroup250
R-L21 (and its descendant R-DF13) is predominant in Britain and Ireland; R-DF27 (and R-251
Z195) in Iberia and France; R-U152 (and R-L2) in Central Europe and Northern Italy; and R-252
DF19 and R-Z30597 potentially associated with the Netherlands and Scotland, respectively,253
though sample sizes for these two are very limited. This regional distribution of R-P312254
subhaplogroups provides a framework to explore population movements during the Bronze255
and Iron Ages. Additionally, the European Farmer-related haplogroup G-L497 also seems to256
be a geographically structured lineage, being largely restricted to Central Europe and Italy257
during the Bronze Age, and could also be used to track increased connectivity between258
regions in the archaeogenetic record.
However, it must be noted that, consistent with autosomal DNA evidence, Western Europe261
exhibits a strong paternal lineage continuity from the Bronze Age to the present, particularly262
when considering R-P312 subhaplogroups. In most regions, modern males predominantly263
descend from the same subhaplogroups that were already common in the Bronze Age.264
Notably, in Ireland and the Basque Country, R-L21 and R-DF27, respectively, account for265
over 80% of all present-day male lineages90–95.
Allele-frequency-based 8 and haplotype-based methods detect an arrival of continental268
ancestry in Britain during the Middle Bronze Age (3,200-4,000 BP). Consistent with this, we269
detect the R-DF27 sub haplogroup – associated with France and Iberia – among a few270
individuals during and after the Middle Bronze Age 8,35, which could be evidence of this271
signal of gene flow from these regions. Interestingly, one of these individuals from the272
Middle Bronze Age, from Cliffs End Farm, Kent, was shown to be a genetic and isotopic273
outlier8.
IBD mixture modelling results have demonstrated gene flow between Central Europe276
(specifically, Urnfield-associated Knovíz culture) and Britain and Iberia, who share an277
ancestry source which is also present in Hallstatt, La Tène and other contexts in France and278
Germany. Supporting the autosome evidence, we document multiple occurrences of typically279
Central European lineages R-U152 (and its downstream lineage R-L2) and G-L497 in Britain280
by ~2,300 BP8 and France by ~2,600 BP8,37,55. In the continent, those individuals are mainly281
from Hallstatt, La Tène or Gaulish contexts. Though significantly later, we also find282
haplogroup R-U152 in Medieval Belgium, where Celtic languages had been spoken in the283
Iron Age96.

In Iberia, IBD mixture modelling suggests gene flow with Central Europe to start by 2,500286
BP, but very few male individuals have been previously analyzed from Spain or Portugal287
between the crucial time period between 1,800 and 2,800 BP 8,9 most of them at low288
coverage. Their paternal lineages are dominated by local R-DF27 and its subhaplogroups 65,289
but one individual from Northeastern Spain belongs to haplogroup R-U152 (L2), which can290
be tentatively linked with the Urnfield presence in the region 97. Additionally, three present-291
day Northeastern Spanish individuals from the Iberians from Spain (IBS) 1000 Genomes292
population also carry R-U152 (L2) haplogroups.

Here I must comment on the fact, that if looking for Urnfielder influences, as a rule of thumb, both the first to start and the last to end with the rite of cremation are the most likely to be Urnfielder lineages!
This means any finds and frequencies of Urnfielder-associated haplogroups have to be considered the very lower end of the possible presence. Highly likely, there were many more than that.

From the linguistic perspective:

By the Iron Age, Celtic306 language varieties were spoken across much of Europe. All of these diverged from a common307
linguistic ancestor, Proto-Celtic, or at least from a Common Celtic dialect continuum98, often308
estimated to have existed during the late 4th millennium BP99, cf. c. 3200–2900 BP100, c.309
3205 (2515‒3963 BP)23 or at any rate after the start of the 4th millennium BP101 and before c.310
2600 BP102. On a deeper level, the Celtic branch is widely grouped with the closely related311
Italic branch, ancestral to e.g. Latin, under a Italo-Celtic subclade that arguably also included312
Lusitanian4,103,104, but this subgrouping is not universally accepted105.

This interpretation clearly suggests that Pre-Celtic was spoken in the Italo-Celtic/Kentum continuum of the Tumulus culture and transitioned from a subset of this Tumuluis culture people (those Eastern groups having had contacts to the cremating Carpathian basin locals, in the Danube-Tisza area) to the Urnfield spread of Proto-Celtic (1.200 BC). The main haplogroup of these Eastern Tumulus culture people was R-L2 - notably R-L2 appeared as far as Iberia with the Urnfielders spread.

Just like the presence of sequenced haplogroups from the Urnfielders represent the very lower end of the possible spread, the same applies for the timing:

In483 short, it looks as though Urnfield cultural impact reached wide areas of Iberia by c. 3200 BP,484
but its genetic effects first become evident only several centuries later. Due to the limited485
number of Bronze and Iron Age genomes from the region, the date of 2500 BP should be486
interpreted as a lower limit of the time of arrival, with future samples possibly helping to487
address this issue.

For the heydays of Urnfielders, there is not sufficient sampling! Therefore all these arrival dates are rather the latest for e.g. Iberia.

Inhumation burials are oftentimes irregulars and could even represent slaves - at the same time, the area origin of the cremation rite is clearly the (Eastern) Carpathian basin - resulting in a mixed Tumulus culture-early Urnfielder culture West of the Tisza, whereas the Transtisza locals adopted some innovations from the TC people as well.

However, this expansion has also been discussed in terms528
of a ritual change from inhumation to cremation that expanded with a new religion but also529
that the pits with inhumations could represent slaves58. The early origin of cremation and the530
use of urns for the bones originated in Hungary from where it spread in subsequent centuries

About the advantages of the Urnfield revolutions (among others):

The Urnfield culture reflects a more collective, centralized social organization based on534
staple finance, i.e. on surplus generated by intensive agrarian regimes, rather than wealth535
finance, while remaining under the strong political leadership of war chiefs167. This536
expansion and associated migrations were rooted in agrarian intensification, with the537
introduction of new crops such as millet and large-scale transformation of landscapes170.538
These advances supported significant population growth and facilitated the spread of the539
Urnfield culture. This in turn is reflected in the formation of large, fortified settlements170.540
Also advanced metalwork of hammered cauldrons and cups for feasting and drinking541
flourished, with centers in Hungary and Bohemia, from where their products were exported542
widely across Europe167.

What they didn't mention is a more "professionalised" warrior caste with a specific warrior ethnos and vastly more advanced weaponry and tactics, most notably Naue II/Reutlingen type slashing swords, long casted spearheads, types of casted arrowheads and larger shields (precursor to hoplite style warfare), which appeared both in the West and East with the expansion of Urnfielders.

An attempt was also made to move northward551
to settle and take control of the metal exchange. This could in turn have led to battle in the552
Tollense valley in Mecklenburg region that included several thousand warriors from south553
Scandinavia, northern Germany and central Europe62.

Note that in the battle of Tollense a wide range of warriors from Tumulus culture people, Eastern Urnfielders (mainly Lusatians) and even Balto-Slavs under Urnfielder control participated. Showing that the Urnfielder elite has created a wide ranging network from which elite forces could be drawn. In the case of Tollense from Southern Germany to around Eastern Poland-Belorussia, from Mecklenburg-North Eastern Germany to Hungary-Transylvania.

Link to the supplements: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.640770v1.supplementary-material

 

[Riverman]

The Celts were therefore mixed/converted Tumulus culture people, whereas the Eastern Urnfielders, with which they mixed, and from which they had most of these new customs from, spoke different languages. In my opinion they main Transtisza group (from Eastern cremating Otomani, Wietenberg, Verbicoara etc.) spoke Proto-Thracian and the Lusatians likely another rather Satem related language, probably closest to Balto-Slavic, likely between Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

To make that difference is crucial, since this makes the Celts a "mere backflow", rather than a completely foreign invasion. Which being proven, beside other facts, by the main Proto-Celtic haplgroup being R-L2, which was proven to be the dominant haplogroup in Eastern Tumulus culture people which came into contact with the Eastern Carpathian cremating locals which were very rich in EEF ancestry (Transylvanian continuity since the Bronze Age, hopefully soon published paper).

Groups like Carpathian Tumulus culture/Egyek/Cehalut etc. are fully mixed TC + cremating locals, resulting in this impulse which caused the formation of the Urnfield phenomon/conversion of TC warriors.

Here is a core site, the site of Egyek, in which we can see the mixture of incoming TC with local Carpathians:

Egyek – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

TC didn't make it beyond the Tisza river, which was the stand of the local EEF-rich Carpathians which cremated, but in the zone between the Danube and the Tisza, they mixed and beyond those mixed zone innovations and new ideas were exchanged in both directions.

Therefore I think that the mixture took place in the Danube-Tisza zone, and from there the new Proto-Celts spread with the Middle Danubian Urnfielder/Knoviz group Westward.

The main reason for the papers focus on Knoviz, is in my opinion, that the much more central Middle Danubian Urnfield group, which connected Proto-Villanovans in Italy with the East Urnfielder/local people from Lusatians, Kyjatice and Gáva-Holigrady, is simply that they were harder/not to sample, since they way more strictly (like Gáva) did cremate their dead, compared to the less strictly cremating/more sacrificing with irregular burials of the victims, Knoviz group.

Therefore I want to really stress that their focus on Knoviz is primarily due to the sampling bias. The really central group is more likely the Middle Danubian Urnfield group.

 

[Tautalus]

Distribution of Y-chr haplogroups by cultural group of the 578 new ancient individuals included in the analyses. Since not all are male, the total is obviously different.

Y-Chr Haplogroup (hgYMinor)	Samples Count
C-V20	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
E1b-M123	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_EarlyBronzeAge_France	1
E1b-V13	9
Crimea_IronAge_	3
Slovakia_IronAge_Roman	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Slovakia_Medieval_Slav_Avars	1
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
G2a2-L30	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
G2a-L497	11
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	5
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_IronAge_Vix_LaTene	1
England_IronAge_Roman	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
G2a-PF3147	1
Crimea_MigrationPeriod_Goth	1
G2a-Z6552	3
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	2
Lithuania_IronAge_CentralLithuania_FlatBurials	1
I1a-CT56364	13
Denmark_IronAge	4
Sweden_IronAge	3
Norway_IronAge	2
Denmark_Viking	2
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
I1a-CTS7362	9
Denmark_IronAge	5
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_LateRoman	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanGrave	1
I1a-DF29	8
Denmark_IronAge	4
Norway_IronAge	1
Sweden_Baltic_IronAge_Early_Roman	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_Viking	1
I1a-Y16499	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I1a-Z139	2
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I1a-Z140	17
Denmark_IronAge	10
Denmark_Viking	2
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
Norway_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
I1a-Z2041	5
Denmark_IronAge	4
Denmark_Viking	1
I1a-Z58	2
Denmark_IronAge	1
Denmark_BronzeAge	1
I1a-Z63	2
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I2a-L160	9
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	8
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
I2a-L596	2
Georgia_IronAge_	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
I2a-M423	7
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Denmark_LateVikingEarlyMedieval	1
I2a-Y3721	2
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
I2a-Z161	10
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	4
Denmark_IronAge	4
Denmark_IronAge_LateGermanicWetlandSkeleton	1
Denmark_IronAge_bog_skeleton	1
I-M253	19
Denmark_IronAge	7
Denmark_Viking	4
Denmark_Modern	2
Norway_IronAge	2
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolthic	1
J1a-CTS6020	2
Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
J1a-P58	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
J2a-M67	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
J2a-Z6065	1
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	1
J2b-L283	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
N1a-L392	3
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	3
N1a-VL29	5
Lithuania_IronAge_NorthLithuania_Barrows	2
Sweden_Baltic_IronAge_Early_Roman	1
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Lithuania_IronAge_CentralLithuania_FlatBurials	1
N1a-Z1936	1
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	1
Q1b-YP4010	2
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	2
R1a-L664	6
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	5
Denmark_IronAge	1
R1a-M417	3
Denmark_IronAge	2
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
R1a-PF6162	12
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	4
Denmark_IronAge	3
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	2
Denmark_Viking	1
Russia_IronAge_Hun	1
Norway_IronAge	1
R1a-Y2395	26
Norway_IronAge	12
Denmark_IronAge	6
Norway_LateNeolithic	3
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	2
Norway_BronzeAge	1
Norway_LateNeolithicEarlyBronzeAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1a-Z280	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
R1a-Z94	4
Russia_IronAge_Saka	1
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	1
Crimea_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
R1b1-L238	1
Norway_IronAge	1
R1b-DF19	3
Netherlands_IronAge	2
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
R1b-DF27	4
France_IronAge_LaTene	2
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_IronAge_HallstatLaTeneOrBronzeAge	1
R1b-DF99	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
R1b-L11	9
Denmark_IronAge	2
Sweden_LateNeolithic	2
Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Germany_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
R1b-L21	6
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	2
France_IronAge_LaTene	2
Scotland_IronAge_Orkney	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
R1b-L23	3
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
R1b-L51	6
England_IronAge_Roman	1
Slovakia_IronAge_Roman	1
France_IronAge_Vix_Hallstatt	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
CzechRepublic_IronAge_Halstatt	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1b-M269	9
Denmark_IronAge	4
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
Denmark_Viking	1
R1b-P312	15
France_IronAge_LaTene	4
Netherlands_IronAge	3
CzechRepublic_IronAge_LaTene	2
France_Medieval_Vix_ME	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_BronzeAge_	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
R1b-S1194	3
Denmark_IronAge	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
R1b-U106	60
Denmark_IronAge	24
France_IronAge_LaTene	6
Netherlands_IronAge	5
Norway_IronAge	4
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	3
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	2
Denmark_BronzeAge	2
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	2
Denmark_Viking	2
Sweden_IronAge	2
Sweden_Viking	1
Denmark_IronAge_LateRoman	1
Denmark_LateVikingEarlyMedieval	1
Denmark_Viking_LateGermanicBogSkeleton	1
CzechRepublic_MigrationPeriod_Langobard	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1b-U152	12
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	5
Netherlands_IronAge	2
CzechRepublic_IronAge_LaTene	2
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
France_BronzeAge_	1
R1b-V88	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
R1b-Z2103	4
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
Russia_IronAge_Alan	1
R1b-Z2118	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Total	344

 

[kingdavid]

Distribution of Y-chr haplogroups by cultural group of the 578 new ancient individuals included in the analyses. Since not all are male, the total is obviously different.

Y-Chr Haplogroup (hgYMinor)	Samples Count
C-V20	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
E1b-M123	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_EarlyBronzeAge_France	1
E1b-V13	9
Crimea_IronAge_	3
Slovakia_IronAge_Roman	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Slovakia_Medieval_Slav_Avars	1
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
G2a2-L30	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
G2a-L497	11
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	5
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_IronAge_Vix_LaTene	1
England_IronAge_Roman	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
G2a-PF3147	1
Crimea_MigrationPeriod_Goth	1
G2a-Z6552	3
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	2
Lithuania_IronAge_CentralLithuania_FlatBurials	1
I1a-CT56364	13
Denmark_IronAge	4
Sweden_IronAge	3
Norway_IronAge	2
Denmark_Viking	2
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
I1a-CTS7362	9
Denmark_IronAge	5
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_LateRoman	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanGrave	1
I1a-DF29	8
Denmark_IronAge	4
Norway_IronAge	1
Sweden_Baltic_IronAge_Early_Roman	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_Viking	1
I1a-Y16499	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I1a-Z139	2
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I1a-Z140	17
Denmark_IronAge	10
Denmark_Viking	2
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
Norway_LateNeolithic	1
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
I1a-Z2041	5
Denmark_IronAge	4
Denmark_Viking	1
I1a-Z58	2
Denmark_IronAge	1
Denmark_BronzeAge	1
I1a-Z63	2
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
I2a-L160	9
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	8
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
I2a-L596	2
Georgia_IronAge_	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
I2a-M423	7
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
Denmark_Viking	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Denmark_LateVikingEarlyMedieval	1
I2a-Y3721	2
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
I2a-Z161	10
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	4
Denmark_IronAge	4
Denmark_IronAge_LateGermanicWetlandSkeleton	1
Denmark_IronAge_bog_skeleton	1
I-M253	19
Denmark_IronAge	7
Denmark_Viking	4
Denmark_Modern	2
Norway_IronAge	2
Sweden_IronAge	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolthic	1
J1a-CTS6020	2
Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
J1a-P58	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
J2a-M67	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
J2a-Z6065	1
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	1
J2b-L283	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
N1a-L392	3
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	3
N1a-VL29	5
Lithuania_IronAge_NorthLithuania_Barrows	2
Sweden_Baltic_IronAge_Early_Roman	1
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
Lithuania_IronAge_CentralLithuania_FlatBurials	1
N1a-Z1936	1
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	1
Q1b-YP4010	2
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	2
R1a-L664	6
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	5
Denmark_IronAge	1
R1a-M417	3
Denmark_IronAge	2
Denmark_Baltic_IronAge	1
R1a-PF6162	12
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	4
Denmark_IronAge	3
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	2
Denmark_Viking	1
Russia_IronAge_Hun	1
Norway_IronAge	1
R1a-Y2395	26
Norway_IronAge	12
Denmark_IronAge	6
Norway_LateNeolithic	3
Norway_EarlyBronzeAge	2
Norway_BronzeAge	1
Norway_LateNeolithicEarlyBronzeAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1a-Z280	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
R1a-Z94	4
Russia_IronAge_Saka	1
Russia_IronAge_Mazunino	1
Crimea_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
Hungary_MigrationPeriod_Sarmatian	1
R1b1-L238	1
Norway_IronAge	1
R1b-DF19	3
Netherlands_IronAge	2
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	1
R1b-DF27	4
France_IronAge_LaTene	2
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_IronAge_HallstatLaTeneOrBronzeAge	1
R1b-DF99	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
R1b-L11	9
Denmark_IronAge	2
Sweden_LateNeolithic	2
Portugal_Medieval_Visigothic	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Germany_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
R1b-L21	6
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	2
France_IronAge_LaTene	2
Scotland_IronAge_Orkney	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
R1b-L23	3
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
R1b-L51	6
England_IronAge_Roman	1
Slovakia_IronAge_Roman	1
France_IronAge_Vix_Hallstatt	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
CzechRepublic_IronAge_Halstatt	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1b-M269	9
Denmark_IronAge	4
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	1
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
Denmark_Viking	1
R1b-P312	15
France_IronAge_LaTene	4
Netherlands_IronAge	3
CzechRepublic_IronAge_LaTene	2
France_Medieval_Vix_ME	1
Spain_MigrationPeriod_Visigoths	1
France_BronzeAge_	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	1
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
R1b-S1194	3
Denmark_IronAge	1
Netherlands_IronAge	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
R1b-U106	60
Denmark_IronAge	24
France_IronAge_LaTene	6
Netherlands_IronAge	5
Norway_IronAge	4
Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar	3
Netherlands_IronAge_Frisian	2
Denmark_BronzeAge	2
Denmark_EarlyBronzeAge	2
Denmark_Viking	2
Sweden_IronAge	2
Sweden_Viking	1
Denmark_IronAge_LateRoman	1
Denmark_LateVikingEarlyMedieval	1
Denmark_Viking_LateGermanicBogSkeleton	1
CzechRepublic_MigrationPeriod_Langobard	1
Denmark_IronAge_PreRomanBogSkeleton	1
Austria_IronAge_Hallstat	1
Denmark_LateNeolithic	1
R1b-U152	12
France_IronAge_Hallstatt	5
Netherlands_IronAge	2
CzechRepublic_IronAge_LaTene	2
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Denmark_IronAge	1
France_BronzeAge_	1
R1b-V88	1
Denmark_EarlyNeolithic	1
R1b-Z2103	4
Russia_MigrationPeriod_Alan	2
France_Medieval_LateAntiquity	1
Russia_IronAge_Alan	1
R1b-Z2118	1
France_IronAge_LaTene	1
Total	344

thanks for posting it
but i think the french bronze age e-m123 is a mistake in there lab
that individual is XX female

the early medieval or more correct late antiquity french e-m123>m84>y5435 sample is really though

 

[Hawk]

Something that caught my eye:

Bronze Age Hungary/Serbia

and

Further east, in the Czech Republic, we see the increase of Italian Neolithic-related and236 Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestry between 3200–2800 BP (Fig. 3). W

and the259 Hungarian/Serbian Bronze Age reaching widespread distributions during the Iron Age (Fig.260 4). In the Czech Republic, we find almost all individuals being modelled with a large261 proportion of Hungarian/Serbian ancestry during the Late Bronze Age.

This is so remiscient of E-V13 having two profiles, some closer to this Hungary/Serbia profile and others closer to Aegean lets say, now the problem is that the paper describes the Bronze Age Anatolia as mixed with CHG and the Kapitan Andreevo E-V13 had very low CHG to my understanding, atleast lower than Mycaneans.

and Bronze Age Anatolians with CaucasusHunter-Gatherer ancestry30 70 ), gave rise to key groups relevant to Bronze and Iron Age Europe.

Anyway, as expected the Celts having relationship with Tumulus and the subsequent Urnfield and Knovitz Culture who was already tested almost all R1b in the ritual pits of Knovitz Culture was already known.

 

[Riverman]

Don't forget they use those ancient populations which are well-sampled, which is Knoviz and BA Hungary/Serbia.

They don't have as much samples from say Middle Danubian and South German TC/UF populations, they don't have as many samples from BA Romania. That is a huge issue, because like I wrote above, Knoviz is rather a proxy for the main hub, which is in all likelihood the Middle Danubian and Alpine-Bavarian-Swabian UF groups.
Some of the EEF-Anatolian ancestry might have come from Italy and the East Mediterranean via backflow from the Italics and Sea Peoples too, btw.

 

[Hawk]

Well, perhaps there is smoke in the air, and E-V13 has dual nature, some spread early in Bronze Age Anatolia with Troy-Yortan Culture where we encounter names like Dardani, Mysi, Brygi/Phrygi etc, etc and the rest nearby Hungary/Serbia a.k.a Southern Carpathians.

IDK, the issue i see is that they see the Bronze Age Anatolian related ancestry having CHG something which to my knowledge Kapitan Andreevo lacked, but due to geographic proximity they should have CHG and admixed with Caucasus populations to some degree as did Mycenaeans (understandably they had J2a in high percentage).

 

[Riverman]

Well, perhaps there is smoke in the air, and E-V13 has dual nature, some spread early in Bronze Age Anatolia with Troy-Yortan Culture where we encounter names like Dardani, Mysi, Brygi/Phrygi etc, etc and the rest nearby Hungary/Serbia a.k.a Southern Carpathians.

I don't see that. At least not before the LBA. Because even the main thrust before Channelled Ware, of Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna, did happen later.
Also, based on the E-V13 phylogeny, there is no major split of E-V13 before 1.600 BC. The vast majority of lineages were not on new paths before that time frame (end of Tell cultures and Wietenberg, start of Suciu de Sus and Southward migration of Wietenberg-Verbicoara, ultimately expansion with ZPC in the LBA).

To me it is pretty obvious that the impact of Tumulus culture from the West and Sabatinovka (Noua-Coslogeni) in the East brought things into motion for E-V13. Before their impact, much of the E-V13 is highly likely to still have lived somewhere in the Transtisza zone, at least somewhere between Transcarpathia in the North and Banat-Oltenia in the South.

 

[Tautalus]

thanks for posting it
but i think the french bronze age e-m123 is a mistake in there lab
that individual is XX female

You are right and it is not an isolated case.

popId	groupLabel	dataSource	sex	hgMT	hgYMajor	ISOGG_minimum	hgYMinor
CGG023718	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H45b	I2a1a	I2a1a1a1a1a1~	I2a-L160
CGG023721	France_EarlyBronzeAge_France	thisPublication	XX	J1c3	E1b1b1b	E1b1b1b2a1a1a1	E1b-M123
CGG021474	Crimea_IronAge_	thisPublication	XX	W1c	E1b1b1a	E1b1b1a1b1a	E1b-V13
CGG023717	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H3+16311	J2a	J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b1a~	J2a-M67
CGG023676	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H1b	R1b1a1b	R1b1a1b1a1a2b	R1b-U152

 

[MOESAN]

You are right and it is not an isolated case.

popId	groupLabel	dataSource	sex	hgMT	hgYMajor	ISOGG_minimum	hgYMinor
CGG023718	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H45b	I2a1a	I2a1a1a1a1a1~	I2a-L160
CGG023721	France_EarlyBronzeAge_France	thisPublication	XX	J1c3	E1b1b1b	E1b1b1b2a1a1a1	E1b-M123
CGG021474	Crimea_IronAge_	thisPublication	XX	W1c	E1b1b1a	E1b1b1a1b1a	E1b-V13
CGG023717	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H3+16311	J2a	J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b1a~	J2a-M67
CGG023676	France_IronAge_Hallstatt	thisPublication	XX	H1b	R1b1a1b	R1b1a1b1a1a2b	R1b-U152

Could somebody ask the authors how this occurred: a typo in the column of 'sex'?

 

[J Man]

Could somebody ask the authors how this occurred: a typo in the column of 'sex'?

I asked Hugh McCall himself...They are indeed typos and those samples listed above are actually all males. He said that he is going to correct the sex chromosome typos for the listed samples.

 

[J Man]

Could somebody ask the authors how this occurred: a typo in the column of 'sex'?

I asked Hugh McCall himself...They are indeed typos and those samples listed above are actually all males. He said that he is going to correct the sex chromosome typos for the listed samples.

I asked Hugh McCall himself...They are indeed typos and those samples listed above are actually all males. He said that he is going to correct the sex chromosome typos for the listed samples.

Nevermind now he told me that the J2a sample is actually female. Not sure about the other samples.

 

[MOESAN]

Thanks, Jman.
To come back to the question of language spreading and this paper which seems linking the expansion of ALL Celtic languages by Urnfields moves, I 'have some personal doubts. I think the first introduction of Celtic languages came from Eastern France and periphery, to Birtain (and Irlenad a bit later?) at BA, but not the Late BA. No Atlanric theory, no Urnfields theory. This survey as a lot of others corks holes by thecnical extrapolations for some regions as often, producing unified places or gentle gradual penetration of places even when it was not the case everywhere, even if like this it's a progress compared to preceding works on the question. Some analysis of modification in anDNA can fail to separate bilateral osmosis from colonization. What I see on my readings is that Tumuli pops expanded also eastwards at BA before true Urnfields and were distinct fromUrnflieds. We are even not sure that all the Tumuli people were speaking something akin to Celtic, I don't exclude some languages akin to Italic in EastVenetics?). Urnfields had various results according to places and spread of different langue (or NO new laguage, according to places). In southern Germany there were examples of subtile penetration of Urnfields in local culture (surely Celtic) where men had "urnfields" weapons but were inhumed when their wives were cremated; not a complete colonization where Urnfields people impose at first all their cultural and religious package.
IMO (primal)Celtic was already spoken in Eastern Gaul, southern Germany, parts of Czechia and here and there around, parhaps too (primal)Italic more southernly, between Western Alps and Austria/Croatia, or both families were on the way to swallow intermediary ex-Italo-Celtic dialects; The Urnfield impulse from Carpathian Basin produce sometimes emigrations but too acculturation of people from West (Tumuli) thiese laston integrating some Urnfields "masters" and even more females so crossings. I agree that the progress in agriculture and weaponry can have launched backflows, among them the admixted Celts (style Knovitz?). The Urnfields demic influence can be seen too in the few new Y-haplo's found among the more numerous Y-R1b P312+ of the origins (< BB's) arrived then as far as Gaul and not only in autoDNA. I think the mixture with "Italian-neolithic-farmers" DNA was begun before among South Celts and Italics and had been added to the DNA package on a road eastwards and not only later westwards.
Celtic, Gaelic at least, was in the Isles before Urnfields. I think Ireland has been poorly touched by Urnfields culture, maybe I am wrong?
ATW This study is welcome and I wait for some few ones more. The data is of importance, I just put some humble reservations (I'm an amateur) concerning interpretation about the Central Europe genesis of the mixt and the language theory, not about the later spreading of (other) Celtic dialects into Gaul, Iberia and Britain at Urnfields and Halstatt/LaTène times.

 

[MOESAN]

Sorry for my typos errors. My keeboard is not sensitive enough or I lost all my strength (I'm 76!)

 

[MOESAN]

Sorry for my typos errors. My keeboard is not sensitive enough or I lost all my strength (I'm 76!)

 

[Hallstatt]

I asked Hugh McCall himself...They are indeed typos and those samples listed above are actually all males. He said that he is going to correct the sex chromosome typos for the listed samples.

Nevermind now he told me that the J2a sample is actually female. Not sure about the other samples.

Hey J Man

If you are in contact with Hugh McColl, would it be possible for you to ask him if he could add the samples from these papers to the official release, or version 2 of his Celtic Paper?

As far as I know most of the genetic data has already been released to the public as G25 coordinates are available for them, except for number 3. All samples are relevant to Celts and Italics. Thanks

Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe​

Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe - Nature Human Behaviour

Gretzinger et al. examine genetic evidence from 31 Iron Age individuals in southern Germany and find that this early Celtic society probably had a dynastic system of matrilineal inheritance, with a network of well-connected elites covering a broad territory.

www.nature.com

Geographic origin, ancestry, and death circumstances at the Cornaux/Les Sauges Iron Age bridge, Switzerland​

Geographic origin, ancestry, and death circumstances at the Cornaux/Les Sauges Iron Age bridge, Switzerland - Scientific Reports

Cornaux/Les Sauges (Switzerland, Late Iron Age) revealed remnants of a wooden bridge, artifacts, and human and animal skeletal remains. The relationship between the collapsed structure and the skeletal material, whether it indicates a potential accident or cultural practices, remains elusive. We...

www.nature.com

Tracing social mechanisms and interregional connections in Early Bronze Age Societies in Lower Austria​

Tracing social mechanisms and interregional connections in Early Bronze Age Societies in Lower Austria

In this study, we present the results of archaeogenetic investigations of Early Bronze Age individuals from Lower Austria, specifically associated with the Únětice and Unterwölbling cultural groups. Through analysing newly generated genome-wide data of 138 individuals, we explore the social...

www.biorxiv.org

"Until death do us part". A multidisciplinary study on human- Animal co- burials from the Late Iron Age necropolis of Seminario Vescovile in Verona (Northern Italy, 3rd -1st c. BCE)​

"Until death do us part". A multidisciplinary study on human- Animal co- burials from the Late Iron Age necropolis of Seminario Vescovile in Verona (Northern Italy, 3rd-1st c. BCE) - PMC

Animal remains are a common find in prehistoric and protohistoric funerary contexts. While taphonomic and osteological data provide insights about the proximate (depositional) factors responsible for these findings, the ultimate cultural causes ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age and the legacy of the Roman expansion in Central Italy​

The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age and the legacy of the Roman expansion in Central Italy

Background The Italic Iron Age was characterized by the presence of various ethnic groups partially examined from a genomic perspective. To explore the evolution of Iron Age Italic populations and the genetic impact of Romanization, we focused on the Picenes, one of the most fascinating...

www.biorxiv.org

Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe​

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax6219

 

[Tautalus]

The emergence and dissemination of Celtic languages is a topic of never-ending debate and research among scholars. Two primary questions underline this inquiry: how, where, and when did Proto-Celtic emerge from Proto-Indo-European, and how did this language spread and give rise to the ancient Celtic languages?

The association between the Bell Beaker culture, the R1b-P312 Y-DNA haplogroup, and the development of Celtic culture is well-established, but the exact mechanisms and timing of this process remain unclear.
One theory suggests that Proto-Celtic formed in a more eastern region of the Bell Beaker territory during the Early Iron Age or Late Bronze Age. Possible locations for this emergence include the sequence of the Urnfield, Hallstatt, and La Tene cultures. However, it is likely that these cultures were multi-linguistic. Probably Proto-Celtic developed on the more western side of these cultures. In relation to Hallstatt, perhaps western Hallstatt (Hallstatt D) played a significant role in the development of Proto-Celtic.

The spread of Proto-Celtic through Western Europe and its evolution into distinct languages, Celtiberian, Gaulish, Brittonic, Goidelic, is a more complex and nuanced process.
The Bell Beaker culture, which predates the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, likely spoke Italo-Celtic related languages. So, we can say that in the Late Bronze Age the peoples of Western Europe spoke dialects that were close to the Proto-Celtic from Central Europe.
Recent studies have shed some light on this process of spread, but the results are not always straightforward. There are studies, like "Dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe" that shows that there was a genetic continuum between south Germany, France, and Iberia in the Bronze and Iron Age.
This thread paper speaks on a Knoviz-related ancestry, that from East Central Europe, spread to Gaul, Britain and Iberia and took with them Celtic languages. But the distribution of material cultures such as Urnfield or Hallstatt does not neatly align with the distribution of Celtic languages.

The existence of more archaic Celtic languages than Gaulish, such as Celtiberian in north-eastern Spain, suggests, for me, that Celtic languages developed in situ, in the regions where they were later encountered by the Romans and Greeks. This is supported by the prevalence of Celtic place names, which are primarily concentrated in Western Europe, particularly in Gaul, Great Britain, and central and western Iberia. In Eastern Europe this presence is scarce, probably late, or non-existent.

Density of ancient ‘Celtic-looking’ place-names

Although it is not a perfect example, because Proto-Celtic is a hypothetical reconstructed ancestor of the Celtic languages and the time scale being different, the comparison with Latin and the development of the Romance languages is instructive.
A theory called Romance from Italy wouldn't make much sense. Of course that Latin originated in Central Italy during the Iron Age, but the Romance languages developed in the western provinces of the Empire, centuries after their fall. Similarly, it is possible that Celtic languages developed progressively in situ, mediated by some sort of influence from Central European cultures (migrations, elite domination, commerce lingua franca) as they spread westward, reaching their final historical form in Western Europe.
I am no expert in this field, but probably, like the Romance languages, the Celtic languages developed from Proto-Celtic not through a process of gradual divergence, with different branches emerging over time, but through a process of language change, in situ, and they were influenced also by the previous Bell Beaker languages spoken in Gaul, Britain and Iberia.
And perhaps the France/Iberia Bronze Age-related ancestry mentioned in this paper played a more important role in the dissemination of Proto-Celtic than the Knoviz-related ancestry. For instance, Celtiberian is older in Iberia than the arrival of Knoviz-related ancestry.

The origins and spread of Celtic languages are complex and multifaceted processes that cannot be reduced to a single theory or explanation. The ancient Celtic languages, probably, were formed in Western Europe, in the regions where they were later found, involving complex processes of admixture and cultural assimilation. To fully understand this process, we cannot rely on one theory only. Celtic from the East may explain the origin of Proto-Celtic, but do not satisfactorily explain the spread of these languages.​

 

[MOESAN]

I agree with the most you wrote, Tautalus, so what I write now is just personal speculations.

Italic dialects for someones show a bit more ancient ties with Germanic than do Celtic ones + despite som possible ties of Italic(s) with Lusitanian and Ligurian which seem inherited since BB times, the historic and archeologic traces we have place proto-Italic core somewhere East the proto-Celtic one - see even some ties supposed by linguists between some Northwestblock dialects (born by Belgae?) and kind of a « meta-Italic », Venetic being seemingly the closest to the first one - It could be that this post Italo-Celtic which became pre-proto-Italic great area was bordering the future Celtic area on it East, from North to South at some stage. This places the Celts original core more in West. Some of Belgae tribes were supposed to be come from Bohemia, according to some old scholars. We can assume that the big rich Tumuli of southern East-Germany and northern Bohemia was speaking something very akin to this meta-Italic at BA and not truly proto-Celtic. The ones who reached or stayed near the Lower-Rhine and the sea had contacts with true Celts or at least proto-Celts (future Belgae mix?), the ones more in East and North could have undergone the Germanic mutations and absorbtion of substrata vocabularies after mixing during the Germanic linguistic genesis, consecutive to an expansion towards North. I suppose that the high frequency of Y-R1b-U106 among Germanics, higher in their West part, is an heritage of these pre-proto-Germanics recruted among the most northern groups of this « meta-Italic ». These people, a majority of Y-R1b-U106 (not all subclades because some other subclades had another destiny, in contact with future Celts) is the transmetors of western IE to non-IE plus supposed ‘satem’-like IE pop’s (CWC heirs) of Northern Europe. ATW it could signify that ‘centum’ western IE has been transmitted almost uniquely by Y-P312 bearers, at first…

The most typical Italic dialects could have been the result of tight contacts around Austria-Croatia between the southern groups of the « meta-Italic » continuum (among southern Tumuli) with non IE Tell cremating cultures of Hungary. I avow I dont know how to place precisely the first proto-Etruscan speakers. Maybe non-IE Rhaetians were the most ancient ones, dwelled in the central Alps, when the more evolved true Etruscan could be an heritage from more eastern groups closer to Hungary (with slight extra-Iranlike DNA or not ? Rather not based on the current knowledge). It could be that the Etruscanlike family of languages was at first a South-Central Europe thing of LN ?(speculation) - The Urnfield package (both Etruscan and Italic) into northern Italy came through North-East and not from North. The first Terramare were not Urnfields people of any kind. The less unsatisfying exlanation would be they were Ligurians of some sort.

So Celts were rather in West since MBA at least IMO, say around central and eastern Gaul and also southwestern Germany, before subseuqnet colonizatons, surely early in South-West, West and North-West. Maybe some groups colonized early Britain and Ireland, carrying with them kind of Gaelic dialects (Qw- Celtic) before being more or less wiped out by P- Celtic dialects at LBA/EIA.

The survey in question seems showing a West to East advance of Celts before a flow back at Urnfields times. The P-Celtic tribes ?
I hope I'll be forgiven for my speculations without any new data.

 

[MOESAN]

Sorry: for centum IE language early western transmissions, I add U106 to P312, so L151(L11), so L51 -