search this blog

Monday, March 25, 2019

Celtic probably not from the west


The term "Celtic from the west" is the catchphrase for a working theory, offered in a couple of recent books, positing that the earliest speakers of Celtic languages lived in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age or even earlier. It'll be interesting to see how this theory holds up against increasing numbers of ancient samples from attested early Celtic-speaking populations.

More popular and long-standing theories postulate that the Proto-Celts are associated with the Urnfield and/or Hallstatt archeological cultures of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Central Europe. I'm inclined to agree with these more mainstream views when looking at my qpAdm mixture models below of three Celtiberians from what is now La Hoya, northern Spain, from the recent Olalde et al. paper on the genomic history of Iberia.

Celtiberian_LaHoya
Halberstadt_LBA 0.207±0.077
Pre-Celtiberian_LaHoya 0.793±0.077

chisq 15.031
tail prob 0.522396
Full output

Celtiberian_LaHoya
Halberstadt_LBA 0.196±0.074
Non-Celtic_Iberian 0.804±0.074

chisq 17.366
tail prob 0.362297
Full output

The Celtiberians show a stronger signal of (Urnfield-related?) ancestry from the northeast than their Bronze Age predecessors in northern Iberia (Pre-Celtic_LaHoya) as well as their Iron Age contemporaries from eastern Iberia (Non-Celtic_Iberian). The latter group very likely spoke the non-Indo-European Iberian language. It's not clear what the Bronze Age northern Iberians spoke, but it may have been a language related to Basque, which is also non-Indo-European.

Of course, the fact that the Celtiberians harbored more northern Bell Beaker-related ancestry than basically all earlier Iberian groups was already reported in the Olalde et al. paper (on page 2), but I just wanted to see if I could flesh out some more details in regards to this observation by using chronologically and archeologically more proximate reference populations.

See also...

Open thread: What are the linguistic implications of Olalde et al. 2019?

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

300 comments:

1 – 200 of 300   Newer›   Newest»
Folker said...

Nice post. No surprise given that a Central European origin of Celts is based on rather solid archeological findings.
If I remember correctly, Reich has also stated that the British Isles have known some migration from the Continent during IA.

sykes.1 said...

The blog Old European Culture seems to specialize in Celtic/Balkan (especially Serbian) connections:

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/

Davidski said...

@All

By the way, I updated the Celtic vs Germanic PCA with the Celtiberians and Visigoths.

It worked really well I think.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PT0v9gT5FJE/XJWE7FZA7FI/AAAAAAAAHsQ/ZTHz1hAR5Tc3RLCXzyrpuonobPOpUEQywCLcBGAs/s1600/Celto-Germanic_PCA_new.png

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14wtmboaDYupa2fKGROTsBtwrrv8ubHFM/view?usp=sharing

bellbeakerblogger said...

It'll be interesting to see if French Celts are the cause the steppe ancestry reduction in Southern Britain instead of Roman-era settlers. I used to be somewhat interested in the Celtic from the West idea, but now that the link between the Beaker low countries and the islands is stronger than ever, basically it is an impossibility that Celtic existed in any of the islands before the Late Bronze Age.

Andrzejewski said...

@bellbeakerblogger Why would French Celt cause Steppe ancestry to be reduced instead of increased in South Britain?

Garvan said...

Can you try the same type models with the British iron age samples?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Strabo sayd-

Celtiberia-"Passing the Idubeda one arrives at once to the Celtiberia, which is large and unequal, being mostly rough and bathed by rivers, since the Anas and the Tagus and the following rivers go through this region ....... Of them the Dorius runs for Numantia and Segontia. To the north of the Celtiberians are the Berones. The berones (La Hoya) also adjoin the bardyetas, which today are called bárdulos"

Tartessian- From this river (Betis) the country has received the name of Bætica; it is called Turdetania by the inhabitants, who are themselves denominated Turdetani, and Turduli. Some think these two names refer to one nation, while others believe that they designate two distinct people. Of this latter opinion is Polybius, who imagines that the Turduli dwell more to the north than the Turdetani. At the present day however there does not appear to be any distinction between them. These people are esteemed to be the most intelligent of all the Iberians; they have an alphabet, and possess ancient writings, poems, and metrical laws six thousand years old, as they say. The other Iberians are likewise furnished with an alphabet, although not of the same form, nor do they speak the same language.

Lusitanian-"The sea-coast next the Sacred Promontory forms on one side the commencement of the western coast of Spain as far as the outlet of the river Tagus; and on the other forms the southern coast as far as the outlet of another river, named the Ans (Guadiana). Both of these rivers descend from the eastern parts [of Spain]; but the former, which is much larger than the other, pursues a straight course towards the west, while the Guadiana bends its course towards the south.They enclose an extent of country peopled for the most part by Kelts and certain Lusitanians, whom the Romans caused to settle here from the opposite side of the Tagus"

That is, the Lusitanians inhabited the north of the Tagus, they were not Celts, and were forced by the Romans to settle south of that river.According to Strabo only celtiberians spoke Celtic, the rest Non-Indo-European Languages, and the Iberians reached the Rhone River, But, the Eburones were a Gallic-Germanic tribe who lived in the northeast of Gaul, in what is now the southern Netherlands, eastern Belgium, and the German Rhineland, and there is a city called Eburobriga in Lusitania. Then Lusitania was not Celtic, but there were certainly migrations in the iron age

ambron said...

David, are "Germany Medieval" the Alemanni?

Unknown said...

@Andzejewski have you not been following pop gen much? Pre celtic Brits had very High steppe, Scotland today has lower neolithic + higher steppe than Norway (lamnidis et al 2018)

bellbeakerblogger said...

I don’t know that it did but the geographic concentration where steppe ancestry goes down suggests this possibility of invading Celts reducing. If that was already happening before the Roman invasion, which seems likely, then there really isn’t any other explanation unless someone makes the case that the EMBA in Britain is heavily biased towards immigrant groups and that the local Neolithic origin people bounce back from obscurity in the LBA/EIA, but I don’t buy that.
The geography seems to favor re-invasion

Joshua Lipson said...

Do we have evidence of this double-steppe infusion (one larger, Early Bronze one associated with much more dramatic turnover, and one Iron Age one, associated with Celts proper) in British Isles genomes? Are there extant 1st millennium BCE Irish genomes to compare against the late 3rd-early 2nd millennium ones?

The linguistic evidence has always weighed heavily against the idea that Celtic had spent all that time on the Atlantic fringe, branching and branching. The idea that Indo-European-like (or pre-Celtic Indo-European) people preceded them and made a much larger—though qualitatively similar—genetic impact defies intuition, but seems to be be the best fit for the evidence.

Andrzejewski said...

I wonder if swarthy Brits like Victoria Beckham are mostly descendants of the 10% Stonehenge builders who survived the BB massacre or are they of the Neolithic Farmer/WHG substrate stock within the invading French Celts?

Ric Hern said...

It will be interesting to see how the VSO wordorder in Insular Celtic came to be. As far as I understand Gaulish wasn't a VSO wordorder Language. How many similarities are there between Q-Celtic and Q-Italic Languages ? And if there are, how did this come to be ?

Mark B. said...

Granting my superficial knowledge of the subject, I've always been puzzled by 'Celtic from the West.' Given that Indo-European came from the East to Western Europe, how does Celtic originate in the West? Does it require that Pre-proto-Celtic evolved in place (having arrived earlier from the East) from a still-earlier Indo-European language?

Ric Hern said...

If Celtic only came from Hallstatt Austria, what was spoken in Germany, France, Belgium etc..? There seems to have been a difference between the Belgae and the Gauls as Julius Caesar mentioned. And it is interesting that Druids apparently recieved their training in Britain. All in Gaul who wanted to become a Druid got their training/education in Britain. Why was that the case ? Why not in the Heartland of so called Celtic Culture in Hallstad or La Tene ?

Ric Hern said...

Isn't Halberstadt a bit far from the epicentre of Hallstatt ?

Naughtius said...

Well isn’t Hallstatt the given name due to the place where artefacts were found? It doesn’t mean that’s where the culture originated.

FrankN said...

Dave: Nice post.
Note that acc. to Lorrio/Ruiz-Zapatero: "The Celts in Iberia" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29726495, La Hoya lies on the fringe or even outside the Celtiberian core. Actually, in their Fig. 15 the Ebro marks the NE border of 2nd cBC Celtiberia. The original Celtiberian core during the 6th/5th centuries BC lay further inland, somewhat NW of Madrid; the expansion, and/or cultural process of "Celtiberisation", only commenced in the late 5th cAD.
As such, Celtiberian_LaHoya may both geographically and time-wise only partly capture "true" Celtiberians and instead rather represent their effects on the periphery.

FrankN said...

What I meant to say in my previous post is that the observed "Urnfield signal" could have been much stronger in the Celtiberian core.

FrankN said...

Another issue is that Celtiberians, true to their Urnfield tradition, almost exclusively cremated their deceased. This of course means we will have to be extremely lucky to ever get "true" Celtiberian aDNA. It also means that La Hoya inhumations weren't exactly following Celtiberian customs.

Davidski said...

@ambron

Each sample in my PCA datasheets has an individual ID. You can use these IDs to look up more details about them and which papers they came from with the search function at this blog or Google.

@Ric

Halberstadt_LBA is the closest thing in my dataset to an Urnfield sample.

I also tried modeling Celtiberian_LaHoya as part Hallstatt_Bylany, but these samples don't overlap as well in terms of data and also produce very high standard errors.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Thanks.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@FrankN- "What I meant to say in my previous post is that the observed "Urnfield signal" could have been much stronger in the Celtiberian core"

You're right, the real Celtiberian people were the Arévacos, Lusones Tittos and Belos who lived a little to the south of the Berones. These were not Celtiberians but Celts. What happens is that Spanish archaeologists have come to the conclusion that many peoples that the Romans considered Celts when they arrived in Spain, were actually Celtized peoples (that is, they adopted Celtic customs such as painted pottery or Hallstatt-type iron weapons). An example are the Vettones that archaeologically are a continuation of the BB culture and culture of Las Cogotas, until in the iron age when they adopted some Celtic custom, that's why the Romans thought they were Celts. Something similar could happen with the Berones (hence the Haplogroup Y-I2a from La Hoya).

Celtiberians were always considered the fiercest by the Romans, after 20 years of fighting with Rome, they committed suicide collectively before surrendering to Scipion the African. It will be very difficult for us to find DNA from these people, although there are some infant burials that are not cremated.

Samuel Andrews said...

Off topic. Origins of Italians.......

I've taken really hard look at Italy. There's almost getting around it, Italy south of Rubicon river fits very well as a mix between Greek Islanders & Bergamo Italy.

This explains why, northern Italians have very high frequencies of R1b P312 but not much more Steppe ancestry than the rest of Italy. It also, explains why Italians have "a lot" of Steppe ancestry (20-25%) but very little WHG. If all, their Steppe admix was from Northern Bell Beaker R1b P312+ they would have more WHG.

Greek Islanders have in-explainable genetic makeup. They have more Steppe admix than Classical Greeks but also much more Near Eastern/Anatolian ancestry. They aren't a Classical Greek+Anatolian mix. What are? It's mystery why they are mostly Anatolian but also have roughly 15% Steppe ancestry.

IMO, southern Italians are well over 50% East Mediterranean in origin. Overall, they almost cluster right next to Greek Islanders. I'm also, very confident their East Med ancestors had Steppe ancestry & may have spoken an Indo European language.

It's possible Italic languages are from East Mediterranean not northern Europe Bell beaker-descended people related to Celts. R1b P312+ Indo Europeans can explain little known non-Celtic IE groups who lived in northern Italy.

Samuel Andrews said...

From, leaks on upcoming ancient DNA paper on Italy it says...

In 1500bc, Latium was still inhabited by typical Neolithic farmers. But, in the Iron age there are North Italian-like & South Italian-like people. This is consistent with Italians being a mix between two distinct ancestries, one form northern Italy & one from East Mediterranean.

The North Italian-like people could be Bell beaker descendants, the south Italian-like people could be East Mediterranean-descended people. Both may have been Indo European-speaking.

Samuel Andrews said...

It's unlikely, the East med ancestry in Italy is from Magna Gracia/Greek colonies. Classical Greeks were probably mostly descended from Neolithic Greeks. But, the East Med admix in Italy looks like it is from Anatolia not Greece. It's likely, there was a clear-cut distinction between Greeks & Anatolian neighbors so we can tell the difference.

old europe said...



@Samuel Andrews

Wherever you find the mistery of the italic languages you find also the key to celtic languages. The two are strictly connected. You cannot have the italic from the east mediterranean and the celtic from the renish beaker. It doesn't work.
Let's not forget that along with the ever mentioned Hallstatt and La Tene one of the most important foyer of celtic identity was the Golasecca culture ( first celtic inscriptions) in northern Italy.
Every time an alpine origin of celtic languages is mentioned ( I agree with this good post of Eurogenes) Golasecca should be added to the Hallstatt /La Tene couple.

Urki said...

@Diego
Strabo does not say at all that the only speakers of IE languages in the northern half of Iberia were the celtiberians. From his text we may only conclude that they did not speak celtic. But this contradicts the absolutely prevalent celtic and/or at least IE toponimy of prerroman northern Iberia (except the basque area) Do not make Strabo say what he did not say

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


In the case of Berones and La Hoya, the problem could easily be solved, if the geneticists analyzed more human remains. The deposit was studied three years ago but only mitochondrial haplogroups were analyzed - All of them absolutely Iberian except K2a5, which could have its origin in Unetice (Haunstatten and J1c2 (Unterer Tallweg, BB culture)

+ Mitochondrial DNA Reveals the Trace of the Ancient Settlers of a Violently Devastated Late Bronze and Iron Ages Village- Carolina Núñez- La Hoya (Alava, Basque Country) was one of the most important villages of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages of the north of the Iberian Peninsula, until it was violently devastated around the 4th century and abandoned in the 3rd century B.C.The archaeological excavation carried out during 1973 and 1989 revealed more than 260 human remains from different cultural periods. The highest number of interments was recovered in the more recent Celtiberian levels with a total of 131 individuals, while in the previous Indo-European levels 49 individuals were found. The remaining 80 remains were not attributed to any specific level. A total of 41 human remains from the Celtiberian Iron Age (5th century B.C.), belonging to 33 newborns or infants (30 femora, 2 humeri, and 1 skull fragment) and 8 adults (5 teeth, 2 femora, and 1 skull fragment), were selected for genetic analyses from the archaeological collection of La Hoya, deposited in BIBAT Museum, the Archaeological Museum of Vitoria-Gasteiz (Alava, Basque Country). Mit Haps- H1 (6), H3 (3), K2a5 (1), U5a1/b1 (1), U5b (2), U5b1/c1a (2), J1 (1), J1c1 (2), J1c2 (5), W (1).

Urki said...

Prerroman toponyms of Northern Iberia are massively celts or at least IE (except the basque area). Strabo does not say anything about celtiberians being the only speakers a IE languages

zardos said...

I wouldn't underestimate the transition from Hallstatt to La Tene actually, because the social upheaval and drastic societal changes from high Hallstatt to La Tene are regionally quite remarkable.
There could have been great changes of significance for the ethnic character of a people with Hallstatt being more diverse in comparison, whereas La Tene shows only little of non-Celtic ethnicities. However, its clear that Celtic predates La Tene, but not everywhere necessarily.

Urki said...

And not only in the north

Samuel Andrews said...

@old Europe,

I trust the lingustics on connection between Italic & Celtic. However, in terms of DNA & geography, Italic in so many ways doesn't fit the profile one would expect for a R1b U152+, Celtic-related group.

Romulus said...

Interesting that Latium was still EEF 1500 B.C. when there was Steppe Ancestry in Sicily in the EBA

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

I trust the lingustics on connection between Italic & Celtic. However, in terms of DNA & geography, Italic in so many ways doesn't fit the profile one would expect for a R1b U152+, Celtic-related group.

That's because your assumptions about Italic are incorrect.

Davidski said...

@Urki

Prerroman toponyms of Northern Iberia are massively celts or at least IE (except the basque area). Strabo does not say anything about celtiberians being the only speakers a IE languages.

I actually don't have a clue about what Strabo says, but if we're talking about the linguistic affinities of the Bronze Age peoples who preceded the Celtiberians in northern Iberia, then I have serious doubts that they were Celtic or even Indo-European speakers.

They have the same genetic profile as the samples from the Iberian and Tartessian speaking sites, as well as present-day Basques.

So I'm pretty sure that the upswing in steppe and Central European ancestries in the Celtiberian samples can be associated with the arrival of Celtic languages in Iberia during the Iron Age.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Urki

If the Lusitanians were Celts, Strabo would not would not have said this "They enclose an extent of country peopled for the most part by Kelts and certain Lusitanians" In other words, some tribes of the Lusitanians had been resettled south of the Tagus.

You're right Strabo does not say explicitly that the Celtiberians were the only ones who spoke Celtic, that's what I said when interpreting his words, and basically because if the Lusitanian was an Indo-European language it had to be much older than the Celtiberian because it conserved the phoneme -P- at the beginning of the words, in fact Strabo does not consider the Lusitanians as Celts. They might speak an Indo-European language, but that's hard to prove.

It is also known that many Celts of the Turdetania were mercenaries from the time of the wars against the Carthaginians.

Davidski said...

@All

By the way, on a somewhat related note, in regards to the latest aDNA results from the Mediterranean, can anyone versed in the topic of ancient languages in this part of Europe tell me what the chances are that Indo-European languages were spoken on the Balearic islands and in Sicily during the Bronze Age?

Ancient island hopping in the western Mediterranean (Fernandes et al. 2019 preprint)

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Urki, you should think what I said about the celtization of the vettones for example. In the eyes of the Romans they look Celtic, but they were not, they were absolutely Iberians who continued the cultural traditions of the BBC and the Cogotas culture. Even so they had a city called Deobriga, which is clearly an Indo-European name. In the same way King Arganthonium has an Indo-European name and yet Tartessian and Indo-European resemble an egg to a chestnut. Could it be fashions, or dominant elites, or simply, when the Romans translated to Latin the Iberian words these seemed to have other meanings or origin (that's what the Spaniards did with many words of Nahuatl and other American Indian languages)

What is clear is that the genetic continuity of the Iberians and Basques is evident, that is the biggest problem to relate P312 to an Indo-European language. Celtiberians were newcomers.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Davidski

That question would be easy to answer if we knew for sure the language that the BB culture spoke, because the Balearic Islands, Sardinia and Sicily had Iberian colonies related to this culture.In the Balearic Islands the Talayotic culture began in the Bronze Age and we have ancient DNA from the Iron Age, they were also R1b-P312, then obviously they spoke the same language as in the peninsula. In the case of Sicily I do not believe that, because the deposits of the BB culture are only in the north-western part of the island. Obviously the Iberians went there to trade with salt, ivory and amber, I do not think they had enough demographic strength to change the language of the island. In both Sicily and Sardinia, J2 haplogroup has been found in the Bronze Age, which means connections with the eastern Mediterranean.

FrankN said...

A note on "Hallstatt Celts":
From late Hallstatt (after ca. 600 BC), we have written evidence of two languages. One is Raetic, from a few fragments. The second, much more extensive record consists of Venetic inscriptions found in Tyrol, Carinthia, Styria, and Western Pannonia. When adding toponymic evidence, e.g. Ptolemy's Tergolape half-way between Salzburg and Linz, of clearly Venetic origin (c.f. Opitergum, modern Oderzo, Tergeste, modern Triest), and the parallels between Venetic script and the rudimentary documented Manching script, it appears that the predominating language in East Hallstatt was Venetic.

Of course, Hallstatt was multilingual. Aside from Raetic mentionned above, Pannonia and possibly also Austria should have housed a substantial number of Illyrian speakers. The 6th cBC Scythian expansion reached far into Austria and may, even though ultimately repelled, have left some Scythian speakers in Pannonia. Last but not least, it is unknown when Germanic Gepids reached Pannonia - it may well have been already during late Hallstatt.

And Celts? During late Hallstatt (6th/5th cBC), Celtic is attested from Celtiberia and NW Italy (Lepontic); Greek sources have furthermore Celts settling on the Lower Rhone. All these areas lie outside the Hallstatt sphere.

OTOH, La Tene was predominantly Celtic, and the classic Celtic briga toponym allows to reconstruct a predominantly Celtic area between Briancon, Bregenz and Sarrebruck (Sarabriga). Celtic presence there might already date back to Hallstatt times, and could as such have been a factor in the cultural differences between East and West Hallstatt. However, as long as no written sources from/ about the area and time in question are available, Celtic presence in West Hallstatt ultimately remains an issue of speculation.

Personally, I believe there was a substantial Celtic element in West Hallstatt, but not beyond. More specifically, I think the Romans had good reasons to distinguish Gallia from Raetia, along a line roughly comparable to the archeologically identified border between East and West Hallstatt, even 400 years after the Hallstatt culture ceased to exist.

As such, I think the Hallstatt_Bylany sample may help to trace Venetic impact on IA Europe. Venetic has left a linguistic imprint on West Slavic, especially Czech (c.f. the g->h sound shift characteristic of Italic, but also Czech). Venetic is IMO also a prime candidate when it comes to "para-Celtic", i.e. preservation of "p" in an otherwise quasi-Celtic linguistic environment (Lusitanian, Nord-West-Block, Picts, etc.). However, I wouldn't expect it to help in tracing Celtic migrations.

Ric Hern said...

But isn't Hallstatt_Bylany also close to Czech Bell Beaker ? And Czech Bellbeaker somehow connected to Lower Rhine Beakers ? And isn't Hallstatt_Bylany somehow connected to the Galatians expansion into Anatolia ?

Ric Hern said...

What is kind of wierd is that R1b samples absolutely dominates the Proposed Pontic-Caspian Homeland of Proto-Indo-European but suddenly it is as if everybody jumps on the R1b = Non-Indo-European Train. WT... ?

Davidski said...

@Ric

But isn't Hallstatt_Bylany also close to Czech Bell Beaker? And Czech Bellbeaker somehow connected to Lower Rhine Beakers? And isn't Hallstatt_Bylany somehow connected to the Galatians expansion into Anatolia?

These populations are very closely related genetically, but their linguistic relationships aren't clear.

It's certain that at least some of the groups that took part in the ethnogenesis of the Celts in Central Europe were directly of Beaker origin, but that doesn't mean that all Beaker-derived groups spoke Celtic, Celtic-related or even Indo-European languages.

We now know that many of them in Iberia didn't, and they were still closely related to all of the populations that you listed. Heck, Basques are a living example of such a group.

zardos said...

@Ric: You said yourself why this is no proof of anything, because they are all connected somehow and somewhere, but the problem is, the remains you mentioned are not the same and there is no direct continuity on every level.
If you know anything about the Hallstatt culture, you clearly see that it is very different from the La Tene and Celtic culture of historical times. There is no direct continuity in general and even less so regionally.
Research should try to walk the way back from the first known and clearly Celtic people we know of. Taking Hallstatt samples from somewhere in Central Europe is like gambling. They could be early Celts, but they could be something different, probably even non-IE as well. Frank is absolutely right.
I think that lesson should be learned by now, after the revelations from the Iberian peninsula. To assume a people must be IE, or even a specific historically known IE ethnicity, without really knowing, with too many uncertainties and lack of continuity, is just wrong. Its mere speculation at best.

Dragos said...

@(Ric

“What is kind of wierd is that R1b samples absolutely dominates the Proposed Pontic-Caspian Homeland of Proto-Indo-European but suddenly it is as if everybody jumps on the R1b = Non-Indo-European Train. WT... ?”

Obviously there’s more to it than that Ric

Davidski said...

Interesting times are upon us.

I suggest that everyone posting here keeps an open mind, and doesn't rely too much on old pre-ancient DNA assumptions, because that'll help to keep the discussions relevant and useful as more and more attested early Indo-European and non-Indo-European speakers show up in the ancient DNA record.

FrankN said...

Ric: "But isn't Hallstatt_Bylany also close to Czech Bell Beaker ? And Czech Bellbeaker somehow connected to Lower Rhine Beakers ?
Actually, I come from the archeological side, add some amateur linguistics to it, but leave aDNA analyses to others (which doesn't mean I don't consider their findings). So, I can't directly answer your question.
However:
- The Veneti are believed to have originated in the IA Este culture, the earliest phase of which (from the 10th cBC) is also dubbed as "Paleo-Venetian";
- The Este Culture is seen as southern expression of the Urnfield tradition;
- The Urnfield tradition may have evolved from the Laugen-Melaun Culture (Tyrol and Trentino, 14th-11th cAD) that controlled the copper ressources of the Eastern Alps, and exported copper as far as S. Sweden. The Laugen-Melaun culture appears to have been the first Central European culture to have used cremation urns.
- The urns, which recall Hellenic pithos burials, and cultic wine drinking festivities on so-called "Brandopferplätzen" (sacrificial fire places) suggest a significant SE European element, most likely transmitted along the Danube, in the genesis of the Laugen-Melaun culture.
- OTOH, Laugen-Melaun (and Urnfield as a whole) seems to display a good extent of continuity to preceding cultures, especially the South German Tumulus culture.
- Tyrolian copper was already exported to the Unetice culture during the EBA, as evidenced by metalurgical analysis of the Nebra sky disk [Unetice is a suburb of Prague, in case anybody wonders about the Czech connection].

That's in brief the archeological record - I will leave it to others to consolidate it with aDNA.

Davidski said...

Based on ancient DNA, archeology and linguistics, the following chain of events is plausible but speculative...

Single Grave > Rhenish Beakers > Czech and Hungarian Beakers > Urnfield culture > Hallstatt culture > La Tene culture > Celts

Of course, the assumption should be that along the way there would have been many influences from other groups that finally led to the formation of the Celts.

Also, there would've probably been many splinter groups from the main branch that led to dead ends, and many groups may have switched languages, including to non-Indo-European ones.

Rafs said...

"The latter group very likely spoke the non-Indo-European Iberian language."

I wouldn't say that's very likely, considering how rich in Alteuropäisch onomasty East Iberia is. We must internalize this fact: Celtic is not the only IE branch recorded in Iberia prior to Roman arrival.

Dragos said...

@ Rafs
Which all all those IE languages in pre-Roman east Iberia ?

Dragos said...

North and west Iberia, where Celtic Lusitanian included appear; were lightly populated. It was easy for an incoming warrior group to establish themselves as new rulers
They made little inroads to the densely inhabited El Agar zone; where the bronze age language remained

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"That's because your assumptions about Italic are incorrect."

High frequency of R1b P312 where Italic wasn't spoken, low frequencies where Italic was spoken. High East Med ancestry where Italic was spoken, no East Med ancestry where Italic wasn't spoken.

Lingustics must be right about Italic-Celtic connection. But, we have to admit areas of Italy today where Italic was spoken don't scream "We're related to Celts." They have northern Beaker ancestry but isn't huge.

Rafs said...

@Dragos
Alteuropäisch is of IE origin and it is present in East Iberia.

Certain linguists have for some time been saying, before ancient DNA results were being published in scientific journals, that the Indo-European toponymy of Iberia isn't all of Celtic origin, that there is also an older IE substrate. The genetic evidence bear them out. It shows that steppe ancestry had already spread throughout Iberia, France, and the British Isles in the Bronze Age, a millennium before the earliest records of the Celtic and other modern branches of Indo-European.

If we insist on the argument that the only variety of the Indo-European that existed in these lands was Celtic (or, at most, Celtic plus Lusitanian), then we must come to the conclusion that steppe ancestry has no connection with Indo-European, after all.

Dragos said...

@ Rafs
Hm toponyms isn’t hard science and your view that genetics now supports them doesn’t seem very viable or honest given all the data at hand.

Davidski said...

@Rafs

If we insist on the argument that the only variety of the Indo-European that existed in these lands was Celtic (or, at most, Celtic plus Lusitanian), then we must come to the conclusion that steppe ancestry has no connection with Indo-European, after all.

The sensible thing to do is to acknowledge that there's no reliable way to link steppe ancestry in pre-Celtic Iberia to Indo-European languages, because so far, it's associated with non-Indo-European languages there.

But pre-Celtic Iberia is not everything.

Steppe ancestry connects the speakers of Indo-European in Europe and India better than anything else, so no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

JuanRivera said...

Non-IE steppe ancestry may be a feature of at least southern late Bell Beakers.

JuanRivera said...

I wonder how much the Pontic-Caspian steppe, Western Siberia and Kazakhstan and Lake Baikal interacted with each other. On one hand, we have the earliest R1b-M73 in Botai and some R1a in Neolithic Lake Baikal. On another hand, we have C4 clades attested in both Baikal_HG and steppe groups. Then we have U5 in steppe, West_Siberia_N and one Baikal_HG sample. Plus a N2 clade native to Europe and attested as far west as Great Britain. Autosomal DNA shows more ANE and East Asian in Khvalynsk than that of an EHG+Piedmont mixture (due to West_Siberia_N admixture), increased Baikal_HG and some Khvalynsk admixture in Botai and both increased ANE and steppe admixture in Bronze Age Baikal_HG samples.

Rafs said...

@Drags

By your logic, all these ancient DNA papers talking about Indo-Europeans should ban this and other terms, since linguistics is not science and DNA alone can not show which languages were spoken by such ancient peoples as the Bell Beakers and whatnot who seem to have left no literature behind. If we are to try to guess their linguistic affiliation, then we must give the right to speech to "non-sciences" such as linguistics, including the study of toponymy. And by the way, the distribution of Alteuropäisch matches fairly well that of the Bell Beaker culture. On this basis, I would say that the Bell Beakers certainly spoke Indo-European, but by their timing it couldn't be any variant of Indo-European spoken today. I don't know why Alteuropäisch couldn't be a candidate.

Davidski said...

@Rafs

On this basis, I would say that the Bell Beakers certainly spoke Indo-European, but by their timing it couldn't be any variant of Indo-European spoken today. I don't know why Alteuropäisch couldn't be a candidate.

I also thought that the connection between Beakers and early Indo-European languages in Western Europe was pretty obvious. But now I honestly don't know what language or languages Bell Beakers spoke.

Beakers were in the Balearic islands in ~2400 BCE and Sicily in ~2200 BCE. As far as I know, there's nothing Indo-European in that part of the world until the Romans got there, probably not even Alteuropäisch.

Anyway, Alteuropäisch isn't really a language, not even a reconstructed one like Proto-Indo-European.

I think everyone will have to deal with all of this new information at their own pace, and eventually we can all get together again and sort it out objectively.

Rafs said...

@Diego

That is, the Lusitanians inhabited the north of the Tagus, they were not Celts, and were forced by the Romans to settle south of that river.According to Strabo only celtiberians spoke Celtic, the rest Non-Indo-European Languages

When Strabo wrote his remarks, there was no notion of what Indo-European was. So how could his writings determine that Lusitanian was not Indo-European? From the fact that his testimony can be used to differentiate the Lusitanians from the Celts, it does not follow that the former were non-IE. Non-Celticity does not prove non-IEness, as other variants of IE exist.

From the moment the Lusitanian inscriptions were studied, there was never any doubt of its Indo-European origin. It's that clear. The only question that was then debated, and which has not yet been solved to the satisfaction of all linguists, is where Lusitanian is located in the Indo-European family. The first hypothesis was that it was a mixture of Celtic and Latin. I don't think anyone still supports this thesis, but most linguists continue to support either a Celtic origin or an Italic one.

Anyway, when you say that the Lusitanians "might speak an Indo-European language, but that's hard to prove", you're showing you are not familiar with any article ever written about Lusitanian (no offense intended).

Here's an article by a Spanish linguist who has argued for the Italic thesis if you want to get better informed: http://emerita.revistas.csic.es/index.php/emerita/article/view/304/313

Rafs said...

@Davidski

The Spanish linguist Francisco Villar said that it is precisely in the eastern "non-IE" of the Iberian peninsula that the oldest IE toponymy of this region is found. I don't know if he was including the Balearic Islands in this statement, but I'll give it a look.

Dragos said...

Rafs

Indeed by logic, which might go further than linguistic ''feels'' :)
But don't get me wrong, toponyms van be quite useful, when presented by linguists who use it cautiously, and not those who reconstruct an entire history from them, as they cannot be dated and are in fact not so ''fixed'' but can be rapidly & easy changed.

May I ask a few questions:
- when are the earliest IE - Celtic or otherwise - attested in Iberia; and are you proposing that you have cracked the dating game in linguistics?
- Is ''Old European'' hydronymy a solid monomorphic entity which proves the hypothetical "'NW Indo-European'' or Nordwest Block; or has it itself been the subject of critique ?
- Have you considered that pre-modern languages were not standardised and therefore frequently retained archaicisms & diversity within their speakers (which might account for the odd phonological differences between Lusitanian & Celtic ) ?
- What divergence time have you calculated between Lusitanian & Celtic propper ?
- If there are a few ''O-E toponyms'' in eastern Iberia, should we ignore the fact that the predominant, actually attested languages were non-IE.?
- Are you also suggesting that you are not aware of the fact that there were other, later pan-Western European horizons which might account for the phenomena you're seeing ?

Lastly, as I've pointed out, the ''MRCA" of non-IE languages in Iberia squarely to link to the BB horizon, which represented a cultural and demographic rift from preceding groups. Yes ''anythign is possible''. but we now have a pretty decent idea on what is most probable.

Davidski said...

@Rafs

The Spanish linguist Francisco Villar said that it is precisely in the eastern "non-IE" of the Iberian peninsula that the oldest IE toponymy of this region is found.

Honestly, that doesn't sound too convincing. It sounds similar to that one-academic theory that Tartessian was an early Celtic language. Chances are it probably wasn't.

I really need to see a strong consensus on such matters, not the opinion of one guy.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

"But pre-Celtic Iberia is not everything.

Steppe ancestry connects the speakers of Indo-European in Europe and India better than anything else, so no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Thanks this is precisely what I meant...

ambron said...

David, can you add Halberstadt to the Celto-Germanic PCA? Then everything will be better visible.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@ Rafs

The inscriptions in Lusitanian are very rare and late, and are insufficient to elaborate a theory on the matter. What can help us are the inscriptions related to the Indigenous Gods, and their similarities with other areas of Iberia and Europe. The Celtic Gods of Iberia have only been documented in the Lusitanian Gallaecian territory-
God-REUE-COSUS-BANDUA.-QUANGEIUS-
Goddess-Trebaruna.

There are no more Celtic gods throughout Iberia (Astures, cantabros, vetones, vacceos, Basques, Iberians, Tartessians) all worshiped different deities, except in Celtiberian territory where there are votive auras of God LUG, documented in other regions of Celtic Europe.

Then Celtiberians were Newcomers and the Lusitanians probably old Indo-European speakers. All the samples that we have of ancient dna from Atlantic Iberia are R1b-P312 (Martiniano et al, Olalde et al) both in the bronze age and in the iron age. If we consider the Lusitanians as direct descendants of the BB culture, we can conclude that this culture spoke an Indo-European language. Ok We have solved the mystery of the IE expansion, Gimbutas was right.

But then you look at Iberia and you realize that no other people spoke Indo-European and all of them were absolutely R1b ​​(Turdetanians, Basques, Iberians, Vettones, Cantabros ...) with a demonstrable genetic and cultural continuity from the chalcolithic. The only explanation is that the Lusitanian and Galaicos are also an Indo-European migration from the end of the Bronze Age or the beginnings of Iron Age, that is also newcomers.

In any case, it is clear that all the cultures that are being analyzed since the Neolithic have turned out to be an evident mixture of uniparental markers. I refuse to believe that absolutely all the cultures of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Iberia were R1b and I am sure that the Celts were not genetically speaking uniform, in the same way that the Spanish Visigoths have turned out to be R1b, J2 and even E1b.

Ric Hern said...

The Rhine seems to have been a significant Cultural Barrier from the Neolithic up until Germanic tribes tried to penetrate it with limited success before 400 AD. The Corded Ware Culture didn't advance significantly past the Rhine. So interaction between Groups on both side of the Rhine I think will provide the answer to how Some Indo-Europeans switched to Non-Indo-European Languages. So basically significant amounts of ancient samples from France and Germany are needed.

EastPole said...

OT.
Before the homogeneity of the Polish population was based only on the analysis of Y chromosome.
Now huge study of Polish mtDNA in ‘Nature’ confirms that Poles can be considered genetically homogenous also from mtDNA point of view.

“Mitochondrial DNA variability of the Polish population” Justyna Jarczak et al.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0381-x

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Ric said-- "So basically significant amounts of ancient samples from France and Germany are needed"

We all agree on that, but what about Italy? It is absolutely inexplicable what is happening, Italy can explain the meaning of the Neolithic migrations and even clarify the origin of some haplogroups. Probably the masculine markers are equal to those of the rest of Neolithic Europe (R1b-V88, I2a, G2a, H, Cia2), but the rumors also speak about R1b-L51, and we can not forget Villabruna and Iboussieres. Amazing events await us and we have to flee from simplistic explanations. Here in Spain we hope the publication of the results in the deposits of Humanejos, Valencina, La Bastida and LA Almoloya that can clarify many inexplicable things. I think we have spent a lot of time talking about the steppes, but if we want to find our closest ancestors we have to look for them in Western Europe.

Davidski said...

@ambron

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G5FW0Yglftg/XJnmd6ejqQI/AAAAAAAAHs0/JxsqD8NI900sh-NbwUCR8wjDJtBGf8RSQCLcBGAs/s1600/Celto-Germanic_PCA_Halber_LBA.png

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16_cEnkI0f1lkJIAimJ14vJht4Dva4cbJ

Davidski said...

@Diego

Probably the masculine markers are equal to those of the rest of Neolithic Europe (R1b-V88, I2a, G2a, H, Cia2), but the rumors also speak about R1b-L51, and we can not forget Villabruna and Iboussieres.

There won't be any R1b-L51 in any ancient Italian samples from before the Beaker period. You should quit fantasizing.

Ric Hern said...

What is also interesting is that Urnfield plus/minus spread over the same Territory as Later Bell Beakers. And the Earlier Tumulus Culture basically spread over the same Territory as the Lower Rhine to Czech Bell Beakers.

What this suggests to me is a levelling out of some Indo-European Bell Beaker related dialects East of the Rhine to eventually form Celtic. And with Britain and Ireland showing significant trade as far as Germany and Denmark throughout the Bronze Age it is hard to think that they did not take part in some of these dialect levelling events....this interaction did not seem to include most of Central to Western France and most of the Iberian Peninsula....I keep wondering if "Para-Celtic" somehow points to something like Proto-Italo-Celtic ?

Simon_W said...

@ ambron

Also useful is this site:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#6/53.781/24.412

There you can find the IDs of most of the ancient autosomal samples. So no, Germany_Medieval are from the Baiuvarii, not from the Alemanni. But in all likelihood they were very similar anyway.

Simon_W said...

Naughtius said: "Well isn’t Hallstatt the given name due to the place where artefacts were found? It doesn’t mean that’s where the culture originated."

Indeed, and that's a very common custom in archaeology. Likewise La Tène didn't originate in western Switzerland and Villanova didn't originate in that village near Bologna.

The nucleus of the Hallstatt culture was located there:
https://justpaste.it/7ow6n

From there it expanded like this:
https://justpaste.it/3c0vi

Matt said...

Following is my kind of analysis of this:

As I understand it, Koch's "Celtic From The West" Theory is along the lines that Bell Beaker groups along the entire Atlantic facade spoke IE languages, and Celtic languages emerged through continuing population exchange between them (so shared linguistic features) which was incomplete (so non-shared linguistic features).

I have not read deeply the linguistic evidence behind this but seems to be because he sees the Atlantic Bronze Age sphere as overlapping best with later Celtic languages (and I believe apparently there is some evidence that most archaic Celtic languages found in Iberia, not anywhere Central Europe). Then, where Celtic is found further to the east, that's something like an exception to the general trend (per his model) which has come "from the west".

Indeed if you look at the Urnfield Culture proposed to be ancestral to Halstatt or proto-Celtic itself, it does seem as if its distribution overlaps the cultures within Iberia that later are found to speak non-Indo-European languages: http://www.garshin.ru/history/archeology/ancient-eurasia/bronze-age/_images/3bronze-ages.jpg. The Final Bronze Age distribution of Atlantic Bronze Age and then post-Urnfield Culture in Iberia pretty much matches the later distribution of IE:non-IE languages. As well Urnfield is also believe to be ancestral to the Etruscan Culture (if I've understood Simon's posts here about it properly). So lots of post-Urnfield folk seem non-IE, in any case.

It's hard to put a timeline on splits within Celtic really, as the most likely methods for those are the basic lexicon statistics methods, and there are both still loads of question marks around those and we probably don't have enough lexical evidence from continental Celtic varieties to use them for the deep intra-Celtic splits (?). (Even within insular Celtic branches there is disagreement on date of split from those; Chang's paper gets close to a Halstattish date, but it is argued that Chang's method sharply compresses recent dates and its not like differentiation between IC varieties would not be likely due to ongoing contact).

Anyway, the above is probably a crude sketch of the actual linguistic-archaeological theory, so I'll talk about the autosome.

On a genetic level, the "Celtic From The West" theory would also suggest that the most northern groups in Iberia participating in that network of exchanges of people, and also that they are more genetically steppe / northern than other groups in Iberia, in that instance via contact mostly via boat driven migrations (which must have been plausble ways to move large enough amounts of people to have the right impact).

So that seems tricky to distinguish from spread of more northern ancestry from Central Europe. Y-dna coalescence and sampling a bunch of ancient skeletons from Western France and Central Europe through the Bronze Age to Iron Age may have to be decisive here.

I guess my thought on the La Hoya Celtic samples having more northern ancestry is that it's both interesting and expected to see (based on ongoing migration over time and their location), but it doesn't seem obviously more compatible with either "Celtic From The West" (continuous migration up and down the Atlantic facade leading to Celtic dialect form and then language, with regional continuity since Beaker) or Celtic from Central Europe (dispersal of Celtic dialect from Central Europe and non-linguistic continuity). I'd guess this is what Koch would say as well?

mono said...

Celtic from west has a linguistic basis. The main feature of Cetic is his divergence from IE languages that remain close to the dialectical continuum.

ambron said...

David, Simon, thanks!

Simon_W said...

@ Samuel Andrews

The East Med ancestry in mainland South Italians isn't a mystery from an archaeological point of view. I think it's Bronze Age Greek, simple as that. Mycenaean influence in Southern Italy started to intensify in the MBA and peaked in the LBA, from 1445 BC through the 13th century. There are plenty of sites with Mycenaean pottery and bronzes, in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria, not only imported, but also locally produced. In the 12th century, after the Bronze Age collapse in Greece, the local production of Mycenaean ware predominated in Southern Italy. It slowly faded out at the end of the 12th century. So I think these East Med migrants must have spoken Greek. Not Italic or some unknown mystery language. And they were followed and augmented by the historical Greeks from the 8th century BC onwards. The difference between modern South Italians and Greek islanders on the one hand and ancient Greeks on the other hand may be attributed to additional migration in the Roman era and beyond. Sicily was a different story to some degree, because it also had East Med influence from farther east, Cyprus and surrounds, especially in the MBA.

Celtic and Italic are indeed too closely related to be from different corners of the continent, and Venetic and Ligurian from northern Italy also belong to that same branch of IE languages. Some linguists even think Venetic was part of Italic. Ligurian also looks Italic-related, but I'm not sure it was closer to Italic than to Celtic. Etruscan was probably intrusive in Northern Italy, which leaves only Raetic, the mountain relic, as a local non-IE language of Northern Italy.

Arza said...

Total off-topic, but interesting nevertheless:

Relic unearthed in Turkey shifts metallurgy’s origin story
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903250064.html

A Japanese research team uncovered the oldest ironmaking-related relic of its class at an excavation site in the Anatolia region, the central area of the Hittite Empire (1,400 B.C.-1,200 B.C.).

The Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology (JIAA) of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (MECCJ) discovered it in September 2017 in a geological layer dating between 2,500 B.C. and 2,250 B.C.

The analysis also looked into the composition of a small amount of lead in the relic, and then found that the proportion of isotopes was different from that of iron ore widely produced in the region.

The team unearthed several similar lumps found just above a 1-meter-thick scorched soil layer about 12 meters beneath the ground's surface.

"It shows that an ancient city that existed there was destroyed on a large scale, and then a group of people came to the area, which was swept up by flames, from the north," Omura surmised.

Simon_W said...

@ Matt

Lately I don't subscribe to the theory that the Etruscans are directly derived from Urnfield. I'd rather say they originated among natives of Southern Etruria who had adopted the IE Protovillanovan material culture and then, with the change to the Iron Age, assimilated IEs thereby picking up lots of IE admixture.

Simon_W said...

@ old Europe

The Lepontic-Celtic Golasecca culture is derived from the LBA Canegrate culture which showed clear influence from beyond the Alps, from a Northwestern direction more specifically. Which means: From Eastern France probably, so we can deduce that eastern France in the LBA was
home to a p-Celtic language.

Simon_W said...

@ Davidski

"Beakers were in the Balearic islands in ~2400 BCE and Sicily in ~2200 BCE. As far as I know, there's nothing Indo-European in that part of the world until the Romans got there"

The native languages of Sicily were Sicanian, Elymian and Sicel. I agree with Kristiina that it's interesting in the light of the ancient DNA findings that Thucydides thought that the Sicani were Iberians. Would be interesting to check this with linguistic evidence, but I don't know any online resources. The Sicels on the other hand arrived in Sicily only a few centuries before the Greeks, in the LBA. According to the Romans they had some words which were cognates with Latin words. And hell, I'm no expert on Elymian either, but apparently they don't decidedly rule out an IE affiliation.

Davidski said...

@Matt

I guess my thought on the La Hoya Celtic samples having more northern ancestry is that it's both interesting and expected to see (based on ongoing migration over time and their location), but it doesn't seem obviously more compatible with either "Celtic From The West" (continuous migration up and down the Atlantic facade leading to Celtic dialect form and then language, with regional continuity since Beaker) or Celtic from Central Europe (dispersal of Celtic dialect from Central Europe and non-linguistic continuity). I'd guess this is what Koch would say as well?

I think the main thing to keep in mind here is that the ancient Iberian and Tartessian speakers, as well as modern Basque speakers, are genetically more like Bronze Age Iberians, while the Celtiberians are clearly shifted towards Late Bronze Age Central Europe, and that this doesn't appear to be a function of geography.

That's because the sampled Iberian speakers lived practically as close to Central Europe as the Celtiberians, if not closer, and French Basques most certainly do live closer to Central Europe.

So I don't know what Koch would say in response to that, but to me it seems as if there was a migration of people to Iberia from the direction of Central Europe that mostly, although not necessarily exclusively, affected the Celtic speaking parts of the peninsula, and all of the indications are that it happened during the Iron Age just before Celtic speech was attested in Iberia. Coincidence?

Simon_W said...

@ Romulus

"Interesting that Latium was still EEF 1500 B.C. when there was Steppe Ancestry in Sicily in the EBA"

Up to 1700 BC according to my notes.

Simon_W said...

@ Zardos

"I wouldn't underestimate the transition from Hallstatt to La Tene actually, because the social upheaval and drastic societal changes from high Hallstatt to La Tene are regionally quite remarkable.
There could have been great changes of significance for the ethnic character of a people with Hallstatt being more diverse in comparison, whereas La Tene shows only little of non-Celtic ethnicities. However, its clear that Celtic predates La Tene, but not everywhere necessarily."

Yes, and where is the earliest La Tène to be found? From what I gathered it's in the northern fringe area of Hallstatt near the Rhine and Mosel.

Grey said...

"steppe ancestry reduction in Southern Britain"

this might fit a "hare and tortoise" model where one part of a source population (the hare) travels west rapidly (rivers?) without mixing with the neolithic farmers while the second part (tortoise) settles in central europe and mixes with the neolithic farmers (so less steppe dna).

and then later in the iron age the tortoise part of the original population expands to the West over the top of the hare part because they have better access to iron ore for weapons.

Grey said...

Joshua Lipson said...
"The idea that Indo-European-like (or pre-Celtic Indo-European) people preceded them and made a much larger—though qualitatively similar—genetic impact defies intuition, but seems to be be the best fit for the evidence."

the atlantic coast has a distinct climate zone (high rainfall leading to leeching and acid soils) so i wonder if the neolithic farmers were more thinly spread along the coast so an initially small minority of cowboys could expand dramatically into the unused land.

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

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Davidski said- "There won't be any R1b-L51 in any ancient Italian samples from before the Beaker period. You should quit fantasizing"

Let's see what happens, a few days ago you did not believe me when I told you that we were going to see great surprises in the results of Iberia, and look what happened with R1b in the Iberians and Tartessians. A week ago nobody thought that we could find Df27 in Sicily related to BB Iberian migrations and look what happened, a week ago anyone who said that the Goths would have 20% of E1b would have been taken for madman. The exciting thing about Genetic is that we will continue to have many surprises in the coming years and therefore we must be very cautious with our opinions.

Grey said...

Mark B. said...
"Granting my superficial knowledge of the subject, I've always been puzzled by 'Celtic from the West.' Given that Indo-European came from the East to Western Europe, how does Celtic originate in the West?"

iirc the idea stems from Iberian stone inscriptions with Celtic seeming personal names

(iirc even in Plato's description of Atlantis the king with lots of silver to trade had a Celtic sounding name?)

one possible explanation might be a people speaking pre-celtic arrived in Iberia as a minority and adopted the majority language but kept their original personal names?

Grey said...

descended from copper age cowboys?

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

Ric Hern said...

What will also be interesting is the Population Density of the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic and Bronze Age...

Ric Hern said...

Before modern medicine it was hard for people from a specific climate and ecological zone to survive in a totally different climate and ecological zone. The best they could do is mix with the locals in order for their offspring to attain some kind of immunity against diseases etc....this is why we see a lot of Plague stories of Wipe Outs in Irelands Myths until a certain point when people most probably from a similar Climate Zone arrived...

Lee Albee said...

Ric
Your understanding of disease and resistance/immunity leaves much to be desired.


Ric Hern said...

@ Lee Albee

Yes. Go to Central Africa without any Modern Medicine etc. and see how long you will survive....

zardos said...

@Ric: The main reasons for huge plagues are husbandry, a settled lifestyle with bad hygiene, large population densities with a lot of traffic between the centers.
Climate is not as much of an issue if you exclude the tropics.

As for BB, I'm now almost completely sure that they spoke no IE dialect as a whole. The only interesting part which remains is where the male lineage and physical type originated.
Because the "Beaker type" too is much more common in males and dominates the graves with the classic Beaker inventory and high status males absolutely. It is intrusive over CC along the Rhine as well.

I think there are mainly two candidates by now: Northern France or from the South East of Europe, in the direction of the Carparthians or Balkans respectively.
If the lineage stems from the steppe, I highly doubt it came with CW.

Northern France, Belgium and Netherlands must be investigated more carefully, but I predict a big surprise to come.

Are there any La Tene samples out yet? Especially warrior graves from the area between Northern France and South Western Germany.

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

Even in Italy Malaria for example had a big effect on how and by whom Italy was settled....So no need to go all the way to the Tropics so see...

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

In certain European Countries a Heat Wave is declared if the Temperature hits 27 Degrees Celsius. Here where I stay it is a Cool Summers Day.

weure said...

Davidski: "More popular and long-standing theories postulate that the Proto-Celts are associated with the Urnfield and/or Hallstatt archeological cultures of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Central Europe. I'm inclined to agree with these more mainstream views"

Ok besides the effect on Spain, what was the effect on the Isles? And to know that it's interesting to see the effect on the middle ground between Central Europe and the Isles. The Low countries and NW Germany were a diving board (like with the BB) to the Isles. In old language theory terms: the Northwestblock. The Hilversum (South Dutch/Belgium) and Sögel-Wohlde culture (North Dutch/NW Germany).

I guess in Iberia they are recognizable, but in NW Europe? If I remember it well in terms of HG/EEF/Steppe Halberstadt was about 60% Steppe and 40% EEF no HG.

When the Urnfield/Halstatt had it's influence in these area's how fare they 'introduced' new component in the NW population that was at that time a BB (SGC rooted) and EEF (TRB) and HG (Swifterbant) blend. A shot extra Steppe/EEF?

Otherwise from Iron Age until now in NW Europe inc. Scandinavia compared to BB times especially HG but also EEF gained in importance again.....

Richard Rocca said...

After taking a close look at the data, it is pretty obvious that the higher IA steppe ancestry has more to do with the a north-south cline. The Iron Age samples with the highest amount of steppe ancestry from Basque Country and Catalonia and that is regardless of them being IE or non-IE speech areas. Next highest are the east-central Valencian Iron Age samples and finally the southern Andalusia Iron Age samples. Unfortunately, the only Indo-European samples came from the north, so no real way of testing IE vs. none-IE without IE samples from the center and south.

zardos said...

@Ric: Sure climate is important, no doubt about it, but Neolithic farmers lived in the North for thousands of years before being largely wiped out on the British Isles.
The "disease advantage" was on their side, because they surely brought more new diseases.
It was the HG which had to adapt too. To the new way of life, new foods and diseases.
The main problem of the British farmers was their relative isolation probably.
So they got hit even harder by a new invasion than their mainland counterparts.

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

Yes and the Climate which changed a lot had massive effects in Europe....crop failures, famine, diseases all producing migrations and wars. Maybe even some xenophobic trends developed due to all these....

Arza said...

Doesn't it look like an impulse of Iberian-related ancestry in the Iron Age?

https://i.postimg.cc/qMr0LfHY/Dstats-Britain.png

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/awesome-substructure-within-czech.html?showComment=1520300369562#c887025199758101402

Ric Hern said...

Some more Ancient Irish DNA I think is also needed. Maybe it could clarify the Myths. Fomorians = Hunter Gatherers living of Fish and Fowl. Parthelonians = First Farmers bringing the plough and Wiped out by disease and famine. Nemedians = ?, Firbolg = Introducers of the first Metals etc....

JuanRivera said...

In Molgen there are some rumors of an upcoming Irish Neolithic paper, however, given the nature of the comments, I wouldn't count on it very much.

JuanRivera said...

Did even more models in nMonte. Progress models as Vonyuchka+EHG+West_Siberia_N better than as Vonyuchka+EHG. Khvalynsk has even more West_Siberia_N on top of that already found in its Progress ancestry (as revealed by better fits when West_Siberia_N is included; curiously, higher West_Siberia_N in models results in better fits).

Matt said...

Davidski: I think the main thing to keep in mind here is that the ancient Iberian and Tartessian speakers, as well as modern Basque speakers, are genetically more like Bronze Age Iberians, while the Celtiberians are clearly shifted towards Late Bronze Age Central Europe, and that this doesn't appear to be a function of geography.

With the caveat that Rocca doesn't seem to think that's the case looking at the samples (pattern geographical rather than attested IE / non-IE he seems to suggest), even if that is the case, why would it be clearly the case that enriched steppe ancestry would be from migratory movements from Switzerland/Central Europe (per Halstatt / Urnfield theory) rather than from Western France (per "Celtic From The West" / Atlantic Bronze Age theory)?

That is, what's the chances that contemporary Western France is not going to have higher steppe related ancestry than Iberia? Pretty slim to none I'd guess. (If Roman related shift is similar in France to Iberia, pre-Roman France must have been almost Irish in its genetic character, at least in the NW?). So any shift in steppe ancestry towards contemporary Central Europe is also a shift towards contemporary Western France, particularly Brittany and NW France which is rather the north to Halstatt. What signal would distinguish between migration from each source?

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

Its very important to keep track of all the strands of the argument here. Looking at the social nature of the Bell Beakers, if we look at the light aDNA casts on the archaeology, it is clear that they were a very tight-knit group that were closely related patrilineally and genealogically across all of Europe at the dispersal stage. I.e., from the uniparental data, there was very close temporal nesting of the subclades they carries, even if the distribution of the subclades in each region was disjunct; from the autosomes, we see that they dispersed from a relatively small and coherent founding population. The Csepel and Amesbury Archer cases point to some level of porousness between BB groups after dispersal. Add this to the very high rates of migration for women we get using isotopes, plus the preliminary data we have for BB mtDNA circulation in Poland, it is impossible to see them as being anything other than a very socially tight-knit community, at least at the dispersal stage, with close genealogical connections that tracked common origins a short time before colonization of each area. Then matrimonial ties and some level of elite circulation knit together a broader BB society for some time after dispersal.

Given these facts, it does not make sense to speak of the BBs as being "non-IE" so much as it makes sense for them to have spread a single non-IE language throughout their range at the dispersal stage, from the small and patrilineally uniform founding group that existed before. This language would also have facilitated matrimony and migration for the period afterward. If we wish to make this language non-IE, and maybe Vasconic-Iberian (if the two languages are even related) then we should see signs of this language from Sicily to Denmark, from Poland to the Irish. Ireland and Britain in particular must show very strong non-IE substrate effects, almost like Greek, given the high population replacement that accompanied the introduction of this non-IE toungue and the limited genetic change after the BB period that presumably accompanied IE. As far as I know this is just not the case.

The general point is that we must construct arguments plausible in light of the social processes implied by the fine details in archaeology and aDNA. The Western branches of IE, which include Celtic, Italic, Lusitanian, Ligurian, Venetic etc. must have originated from a common population of speakers at some point, forming the Western counterpart of the "CW languages", that range from Indic to Greek. This original "Western IE dialect" conforms far more closely to the "BB language."

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

As to why some Iberian BBs spoke non-IE languages, we can look to O. Lemercier's interpretation of what happened when BB entered Mediterranean France. There was one and a half century of co-existence between intrusive persons or groups, whose artefacts were found in a variety of contexts, often on fortified hilltops and the coast, often embedded in local Neolithic traditions (which indicates implantation), vs non-BB native groups continuing on the plains with some BB elements that sometimes looked like imitation products.

Non-BB cultures only disappear at the second stage, when all cultures were saturated with BB influences. The first period of coexistence could result in language shift for many incoming BBs. It may have looked like Metis populations in Canada, who are part-French with sex bias due to extensive admixture with frontiersmen, but still retain their original language. In fact such a pattern of admixture with European populations is fairly common in Native groups in North America, even the patrilineal ones. This scenario is even more likely to have played out in Iberia, because the aDNA indicate close to half a millennium of persistence of unadmixed Neolithic populations after the arrival of Steppe-carrying BB groups. All kinds of social scenarios would have played out over the half millennium where the intrusive and local persons interacted.

The later convulsive admixture and the complete Beakerisation of Iberia could have, in this model, spread both BB and non-BB languages, depending on what happened initially in each Beakerised group. This is far more plausible than even a language shift of BB populations in France. If Britain and Ireland are any indication, the "steamrolling" of native populations is likely to have happened all across the North European plain.

The way to vindicate or refute this hypothesis would be to contextualise each BB and Neolithic individual in its archaeological context in the half millenium of co-existence, to see precisely what social process BB admixture represents. It will be a lot more digging into the details than what people are doing now.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W,
"The difference between modern South Italians and Greek islanders on the one hand and ancient Greeks on the other hand may be attributed to additional migration in the Roman era and beyond"

I didn't know Myceneans traded with Italy. That's interesting. But, unless these Myceneans were mostly Anatolian I dis agree they are the main source for East med admix in Italy. Myceneans/ancient Greeks fit as only about 25-30% AnatoliaBA.

Italians simply have way too much East Med stuff for it to be explained by ancient Greeks. Tuscans have about as much ANatolia BA-like ancestry as ancient Greeks despite being of mostly Bell Beaker northern Italy-like origin. I've done a lot of work with G25 PCA, I can't see how ancient Greeks can fit in the picture.

According, to leaks on ancient Latium/Rome DNA, in the "Iron age" (700-50bc), all samples from Latium either cluster with northern Italy or southern Italy.

In the imperial Roman empire period, most samples cluster in southern Italy.

Therefore,
-Modern Italian north-south variation formed by the Iron age.
-Therefore, also that the southern Italian cluster is not due to recent additional admixture from the Near East.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Ani Excavator" said "the complete Beakerisation of Iberia could have, in this model, spread both BB and non-BB languages, depending on what happened initially in each Beakerised group".

You know that in Iberia there are ceramic styles and other BB objects that only exist there, right? and I suppose you know the dates of C14 of the BB culture in Spain and Portugal. Talk about Beakerisation of Iberia is an absolute incongruity. Fundamentally because it was Iberia that led the BB culture to most European regions. We had enough evidence of migrations of Iberian women to all other European BB regions, now we also have evidence of male migrations at least to Sicily (2.300-2.250 BC). Then this culture can not be considered as the scattering factor of IE, simply because the expansion of the BB pottery is the opposite of what you are saying. Ask Lemercier where the French BB culture originated.

To say that in Iberia there were Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages ​​for the time elapsed in the definitive implementation of the BB culture does not make any sense. This is simply speculation, now we have definitive proof of absolutely R1b ​​peoples who spoke non-IE languages ​​and who have a clear genetic continuity between the chalcolithic and the iron age. The Lusitanian is a recent language in the Iberian Peninsula, in fact the only written texts were made in Latin alphabet, and the Celtiberian has its origin in LaTene and is still more recent. Linking P312 and BB ceramics with some kind of IE is an absolute fantasy because there is no proof of that.

@Ani excavator said- "If we wish to make this language non-IE, and maybe Vasconic-Iberian (if the two languages are even related) then we should see signs of this language from Sicily to Denmark, from Poland to the Irish. Ireland and Britain"

First you are recognizing that it was the Iberians who brought BB culture to those countries, and it is true, but those migrations were always in small family groups that after a few generations were mixed and merged with local cultures, so that in a short period of time (200-300 years) BB culture disappeared giving way to other cultures (Germany- Czech Republic-Unetice), however, in Iberia there are BB sites well into the Bronze Age (1,600 BC), which undoubtedly demonstrates the roots and the duration of this culture in Iberia (more than 1.000 years). It is absolutely normal that this language will not leave a trace in other regions of Europe.

Or perhaps that language was not only typical of the Iberian peninsula (remember that the Aquitanians did not speak IE either) and that it simply disappeared centuries later due to the pressure of the languages ​​derived from IE.

Matt said...

Some quick graphics from PAST3 since I was interested in the lat+longitude (geographical) prediction of Germany_Beaker ancestry within the Iberia_IA dataset that Rocca raised, regardless of our interpretations of it: https://imgur.com/a/uM6RBrU

First, graphic simple plotting of lat+long against Germany_Beaker and each other.

Second, bivariate linear model of lat+Germany_Beaker / long+Germany_Beaker.

Third, multivariate model using latitude and longitude to predict Germany_Beaker, against real Germany_Beaker. Groups whose mean is above the line have more Germany_Beaker than predicted from lat+long, groups below have less (note that for any individual sample, the regression is not very predictive with low R^2, but whole seem populations fit the line fairly OK).

Grizzlor said...

@bellbeakerblogger
I think Lara Cassidy's new paper suggested something like that (a later Bell Beaker wave from western France/Britanny with more neolithic ancestry), at least for southern Ireland.

Grizzlor said...

I'd guess the latter myself. I think megalithic ancestry might have survived at least partially in France but died out in Britain for the most part.

Philippe said...

@ Ric Hern

"it is interesting that Druids apparently recieved their training in Britain. All in Gaul who wanted to become a Druid got their training/education in Britain. Why was that the case ? Why not in the Heartland of so called Celtic Culture in Hallstad or La Tene?"

Something to do with megaliths and Hyperborea I reckon.

Philippe said...

I hope this isn't too off topic, but does anyone have an idea why megalithic dolmens almost identical to those north of the Caucasus appear in India after 1500 BC? Which Indo-European group might have been spreading megalithic dolmens around?

Davidski said...

@Richard

I did notice that the results aren't as dramatic if I test for more direct steppe input, but there's still a difference...

Celtiberian_LaHoya (Basque Country): ~30% Yamnaya_Samara

Non-Celtic_Catalonia: ~25% Yamnaya_Samara

And I can still model the Celtiberians with a fairly big chunk of Halberstadt_LBA ancestry compared to the Iron Age Iberians from Catalonia.

Celtiberian_LaHoya: ~23% Halberstadt_LBA

The Celtiberians do come from a more northern site than the Iberians, but the Iberians come from more eastern sites, and in terms of geography they're actually closer to the Hallstatt culture in Central Europe, to Gaul, and to the steppe. So if geography was crucial here I'd expect them to show more steppe ancestry.

@Matt

I think what we'll see is that France, just like Iberia, generally experienced a rise in steppe ancestry from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, and that this was especially pronounced in Celtic-speaking regions.

We really need some samples from those Celtic chariot burials in Britain, France and Germany. Testing the DNA of the horse remains in these burials would also be useful.

It's interesting to note in this context the appearance of individuals with very high levels of steppe ancestry in those late Iron Age Iberian Greek areas near the French border. These sites were probably very multicultural, and we've already discussed the idea that these people might have been migrants from Celtic Gaul.

Dragos said...

Matt

Before replying to your appraisal of Koch, and some of your comments, I needed to re-refresh on Koch's central tenets:

1) Basque, Aquitanian, etc is a pre-IE language; spoken prior the arrival of IE languages. Fairly uncontroversial (although you seem to be insinuating you think that IE arrived first, - with BB, then Urnfield brought non-IE languages. That would struggle)

2) The proto-BB culture began in Portugal c. 2800 BC then fused with CWC to form BB
This is wrong on multiple levels, but I wont go into it here'; but it does demonstrate the lack of a criticial eye.

3) Linguistic deductions: '' In separating from Proto-Indo-European, ProtoCeltic developed new features found also in Palaeo-Basque, that can be explained as the result of contact, including:
1) The key sound change, often defining the emergence of Celtic, is weakening and in most
contexts loss of PIE *p. Iberian lacks /p/. PalaeoBasque/Aquitanian, was also most probably p-less''


This is important
Koch ascribes this to PIE - speaking BB encountering paleo-vasconic speakers in Western Europe.
This is a result of his naive understanding of European prehistory. He wishes to ascribe a ppan-Vasconic status to middle Neolithci western Europe, an unlikely scenario, gven the heterogeneity and disconnectivity between the groups.
Far more likely - BB was Vasconic, and the widesprpead Vasconic substrate in Celtic is due to the non-IE status of Bell Beaker/ R1b.

The Defining BA group in Iberia was El Agar, centred toward the soueast/ east - where non-IE groups emerge. It was the successor to the BB culture, the most illustrious of all. Pre-beaker Chalcolithic Iberia shows no continuity into the Bronze Age.
Despite the fact that the many commentators here are not aware of it, Iberian archaeologists are digesting very lucidly the nature of transition. ..

Dragos said...

With regard to some of your points:

A) '' Then, where Celtic is found further to the east, that's something like an exception to the general trend (per his model) which has come "from the west".''

Essentially Koch has little if anything to say for Celtic in Central Europe and further East. This does not make his model sustainable.
Nor does he have anything to say about the cousins - Venetic, Ligurian, Italic all clustering in C.E.
This makes his model rather problematic at best.


B) ''Indeed if you look at the Urnfield Culture proposed to be ancestral to Halstatt or proto-Celtic itself, it does seem as if its distribution overlaps the cultures within Iberia that later are found to speak non-Indo-European languages: ''

Thats incorrect. I'm not aware of the Urnfield culture expanding down the East Iberian coast.
Rather, an Urnfiled offshoot appears in northeast Iberia - the Segre-Cinca group - and probably diffused southwest, down the rivers into the more lightly inhabited regions, where arguably they established themselves as elite rulers.

C) ''It's hard to put a timeline on splits within Celtic really, as the most likely methods for those are the basic lexicon statistics methods, and there are both still loads of question marks around those and we probably don't have enough lexical evidence from continental Celtic varieties to use them for the deep intra-Celtic splits (?). (Even within insular Celtic branches there is disagreement on date of split from those; Chang's paper gets close to a Halstattish date, but it is argued that Chang's method sharply compresses recent dates and its not like differentiation between IC varieties would not be likely due to ongoing contact).''

Are we to pick and choose what suits our pet theories ? - the ''young'' model works for PIE -steppe as a whole, but it doesnt work for Celtic. In fact, the cherry picking approach does seem to be a categorical modus operandi in a subset of commentators here: the low steppe and absence of R1b in Myceneans and Hittites is explained by culturalal mimicry, whilst all the R1b in bona-fide non-IE groups is due to reverse assimilation.

And whilst linguistic statistic are indeed non-definitive, what about the paleo-lexis of *proto-Celtic suggesting an LBA/ Iron Age split. Again, if the wheel and sheep are gooe enough for IE, let's apply similar standards for daughter languages.

D) ''Y-dna coalescence and sampling a bunch of ancient skeletons from Western France and Central Europe through the Bronze Age to Iron Age may have to be decisive here.''

Y DNA does not support any of Koch's contentions. There is a clear divide betwen Iberian R1b and British R1b. The route of entry into Iberia was via southern France.
Nor does his cist grave tradition, which just goes back to central European BB , and ultimately, the Budzhak group.

E) ''With the caveat that Rocca doesn't seem to think that's the case looking at the samples (pattern geographical rather than attested IE / non-IE he seems to suggest), ''

There's always going to be N - S gradients in Iberia, since the Mesolithic. That doesnt really change much does it ?

Rafs said...

@David

Francisco Villar is a very mainstream linguist, and the thesis that Old European was a language spoken in the Iberian peninsula before the arrival of the Celts is definitely supported by many other linguists besides him. Maria Blanco Prosper, for example. I do not know if she even said anything about the existence of Alteuropäisch in eastern Iberia, but she proposed that Alteuropäisch language populations probably interacted with the Lusitanians, based on some of the latter's lexicon.

Mike the Jedi said...

@ Dave: "It's interesting to note in this context the appearance of individuals with very high levels of steppe ancestry in those late Iron Age Iberian Greek areas near the French border. These sites were probably very multicultural, and we've already discussed the idea that these people might have been migrants from Celtic Gaul."

Now that I think about it, the Phocaean Greeks also founded a colony in Marseilles (Massalia) about 25 years before the colony in Emporion. It stands to reason that some of the presumably Celtic-speaking locals at Massalia might have later come to Emporion as part of a multicultural trade network made possible by the Greek colons. It would be interesting to see if contemporaneous remains in Marseilles (assuming they exist) follow the same pattern as Empuries, with a few Greeks on one hand and lots more Gallic-looking people on the other.

Folker said...

@Ani Excavator
Completely agree. Some people have difficulties what a multiple centuries long homogeneization is meaning, and why social structures must be taken into account.
@Zardos
I would no bet on many surprises from France.
CW influences on SOM culture are known by archeology, and BBs sites are rare in some regions (mainly Centre, with Île de France, to Aquitaine).
By the way, the virtual absence of BBs in the Aquitaine area were Aquitanian is a big problem for those linking BBs to Vasconic languages. Also given that some are theorizing Basque as a late expansion of Aquitanian in the South.

Rafs said...

@Drago

One of the laws of the study of toponymy is that place names are more difficult to change than names of people or gods. When a language falls out of use due to the growth of another language in the same region, it can still be present in names. If the change is recent, people's names will still attest to the existence of the past language. But over the centuries, people's names keep changing, and in the end, only names of places and rivers can still testify to the previous language, and hence to the change suffered in the meantime. That is why in Latin America today many rivers, waterfalls, valleys, plateaus and sometimes even cities and provinces still receive indigenous names despite the double fact that the local population has spoken only Spanish or Portuguese for centuries and that today, personal names are almost all of European or biblical origin.

If the toponymy of a region is partly in an ancient Indo-European language, then this is proof that an Indo-European people must have lived there. If people's names and day-to-day speech, however, are in distinct, non-IE languages, then this can only mean that a non-IE language may have been imposed on the Indo-European spoken before.

Neither that law, nor that conclusion, which can be applied to the Basques, is of my invention. So I do not see what this has to do with my "feels." Perhaps it has to do with yours (see final paragraph on that).

And this has nothing to do with "ignoring the fact that the predominant, actually attested languages ​​were non-IE." It has to do with causality: every effect has a cause. The fact that the Basque country has place names in Old European can not have come out of nowhere: it too must have a cause, and the most plausible cause is that an old Indo-European people settled there once. Maybe they were not the only ones, maybe they had neighbors who were already there or who came after, against whom these old Indo-Europeans lost their cultural war. But none of this matters much to the point being made here: that the linguistic evidence points that the Basque country did not remain free of Indo-European influence throughout all its pre-history or ancient history.

I will not answer your questions about the Lusitanian and the Celtic. I just wanted to note that, once again, it is you, not me, who, despite all the pretense of speaking solely on the basis of science, is swimming against the linguistic mainstream (which has concluded that Lusitanian is IE but not Celtic), out of attachment to the non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific idea the only branch of the Indo-European that ever existed in pre-Roman Iberia was Celtic.

Davidski said...

@Mike

Yeah, a couple of those Empuries1 samples, like I8206 and I8214, are clear outliers pulling to the northeast.

They're definitely from across the Pyrenees, and very likely Celts.

Ric Hern said...

I'm totally comfortable with the idea that Proto-Celtic originated between the Northwest Block and along the Rhine to Austria due to several dialect levelling effects flooding over that area.

Ric Hern said...

It will be interesting to see from which direction R1b L21 entered France. From the North or East-Northeast.

Ryan said...

@David - "These populations are very closely related genetically, but their linguistic relationships aren't clear."

"It's certain that at least some of the groups that took part in the ethnogenesis of the Celts in Central Europe were directly of Beaker origin, but that doesn't mean that all Beaker-derived groups spoke Celtic, Celtic-related or even Indo-European languages."

Can you find any extra layer of influence in Celts other than Beakers? Or anything that distinguishes them from other Beakers (ie more steppe admixture).

Davidski said...

@Ryan

I would need samples from several attested Celtic-speaking sites around Europe to test that, especially from around the Alps.

Ryan said...

Though I guess we already have one big red flag for an extra layer of non-Beaker ancestry in Celts, which is the frequency of haplogroup I in Celtiberians.

Dragos said...

Rafs

'' One of the laws of the study of toponymy is that place names are more difficult to change than names of people or gods. When a language falls out of use due to the growth of another language in the same region, it can still be present in names. ''

Thanks, but you don't need to elucidate basics to me (as I can solicit the aid of a host of colleagues). Rather, you need to move with the times. As I stated, toponyms arent the frozne fossils 20th century linguists thought them to be. Sober & realistic use of toponyms is required

E.g. (a/p Heggarty) ''Toponymy, i.e. the study of the etymologies of individual place names, can in clear-cut
cases provide irrefutable evidence that a language was once spoken (if not necessarily
dominant) in a given territory. The great limitation, however, is that it is only the more recent
cases, where we tend to have other historical knowledge, that seem clear and undisputed. As
one steps ever further back into the past, place name etymologies become increasingly
unsure, debated, and speculative. Celtic toponyms are few and far between even in easterly
regions of Britain, and in continental Europe proposed Celtic etymologies all too often
compete with other interpretations of the same place name, or remain otherwise uncertain
hypotheses.
Attempts to push toponymy back further in time have focused on types of place name
potentially ‘longer-lived’, i.e. for major features xed in the landscape rather than settlements,
but even these – such as proposed ‘Old European’ hydronyms – cannot dodge two particular
pitfalls that toponymy faces. Firstly, proper names in general, and place names in particular,
can come from many different sources. It is not possible to predict or pin down a priori the
semantics of whatever roots may have been applied. Secondly, place names show a tendency
to phonetic attrition or ‘corruption’ that is especially far-reaching by the standards of the rest
of a language’s vocabulary, as in many English place names pronounced in extremely eroded
form,..''

Also , as Windell jokes (himself a linguist)
''PLACE NAMES.
Studies since before the 20th century have shown how valuable the study of place names
can be in reconstructing settlement, but great caution is required. It is far from an exact
science: often nearer a linguistic dark art.''

Your theory is constructed in a vacuum- devoid of context and collateral evidence . Even on Lingustics alone, you have little substance

Ryan said...

@David - "I would need samples from several attested Celtic-speaking sites around Europe to test that, especially from around the Alps."

Test it for Urnfield then in the mean time?

You said (correctly IMHO) - "Single Grave > Rhenish Beakers > Czech and Hungarian Beakers > Urnfield culture > Hallstatt culture > La Tene culture > Celts"

I think we can take for granted that the Urnfield was IE speaking based on the funerary rights alone. Is there any point in that chain you describe where Urnfield gets an extra dose of something from the steppe? Either compared to an earlier link in the chain, or compared to the Beaker ancestry in the non-IE Iberians?


Davidski said...

@Ryan

I don't have any Urnfield samples to check that.

Ryan said...

Oh, I thought you had said Halberstadt_LBA was a good proxy for Urnfield?

I guess the whole "burning your dead" thing is going to make this harder to solve...

Folker said...

@Dragos
If I'm mainly agree with on how cautious we have to be about toponymy AND onomastics, and you could have pointed to critics made on microtoponymy in the last years (clearly grounded).
But even if rivers names or mountains names are probably not as old as some think, toponymy is rather useful in many cases. It is mainly the older strate wich is problematic.

Nevertheless, there is a consensus to see Lusithanian as non Celtic language, with Celtic influence due to contact or elite dominance, but closely related to Italic and Celtic, with a branching at least during BA (not after).

Lusithanian is therefore a big hole in a non IE BBs migration.

I will not repeat myself on Vasconic languages, except the fact that they were present along Pyrenées and in Aquitaine, were BBs were virtualy absent, is not exactly what we should expect if BBs were speaking a Vasconic language.

Iberian is difficult to graps because it is badly known, and its status is unknown. There are debates about a possible Linga Franca, or even of the existence a unique Iberian language rather than various related languages (among them Tartesian). What is clear, from an archeological point of view, is that Iberian civilization started around the Tagus and expanded North along Mediterranean Sea in the first half of the Ist millenium. Did this involved a language shift or not, nobody is able to say at this point.

Folker said...

I wrote Tagus, but this is too early, I mixed with another river.
By the way, I found an interesting article about Artenac and BBs by Pautreau. Can’t post from my phone, but BBs expansion along river Loire is contemporary with the end of Artenac. BBs seem to have come from the Sea, mainly from South.

Dragos said...

@ Folker
You should learn to be be careful with your use of the term consensus, indeed there are linguists who think of Lusitanian simply. As Celtic)
Regardless about the semantics of Lusitanian, the point is is that it is it so closely related to Celtic that it can’t have spread 2500 BC whilst Celtic spread 500 BC. In Fact there was probably no uniform Celtic language but a series of interrelated dialects, some of which levelled out during the Later Iron Age

Wrt France, yes BB was spotty; but their direct ancestors in the Bronze Age certainly expanded everywhere within and they’re not going to be I2a or G2, Acquitania included

But, I caution myself if I’ve made any sweeping statements about BB as a whole ; I was mostly referring to Iberia

Matt said...

Davidski: I think what we'll see is that France, just like Iberia, generally experienced a rise in steppe ancestry from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, and that this was especially pronounced in Celtic-speaking regions.

It's possible they did, at least in some regions (those that would've been involved in two-way migration with Southern Britain, the Netherlands and the Rhineland, for ex, as one region where this likely would hold true).

But the dynamics within France are not really the question I'm raising, rather whether migration flow with a Western France that was richer in steppe ancestry than Iberia is a plausible candidate for enriched steppe ancestry in Celtiberian samples (and so steppe ancestry doesn't really help us solve Koch vs Consensus).

Matt said...

@Dragos:

Nor does he have anything to say about the cousins - Venetic, Ligurian, Italic all clustering in C.E.

Chang's model of the IE phylogeny suggests that Italic and Celtic diverged 4kya, and in general a split of at least this time depth is favoured, including by Ringe. Time depth for split of Venetic and Liguarian I don't know about, as the material seems too sparse to estimate. So Italo-Celtic with Italo being far from Celtic no issue; they are distant cousins who would not have been in close contact, nor particularly need to have been living in proximity (and being separated would fit better with deep lexical divergences anyway).

Thats incorrect. I'm not aware of the Urnfield culture expanding down the East Iberian coast. Rather, an Urnfiled offshoot appears in northeast Iberia - the Segre-Cinca group - and probably diffused southwest, down the rivers into the more lightly inhabited regions, where arguably they established themselves as elite rulers.

I'm not hugely interested in the old game of trying to downplay a movement as an elite movement which assimilates where it doesn't fit with a favoured language expansion, and non-elite or elite which 'imposed' language change when it does, or minisiming movements as offshoots, etc. where it doesn't fit. If I were, I'd do it with someone likely to treat it from a purely archaeological perspective, not where someone is likely to make mistakes from trying to yoke the horse of the archaeology to the cart of the linguistic theory.

And whilst linguistic statistic are indeed non-definitive, what about the paleo-lexis of *proto-Celtic suggesting an LBA/ Iron Age split. Again, if the wheel and sheep are gooe enough for IE, let's apply similar standards for daughter languages.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I am suspicious of linguistic paleontology in the case of Indo-European too, but at least in that instance you have a far larger number and wider horizon of languages whose dispersal makes wanderwort or homoplasy less likely, and the attested corpus is much wider. That makes it a better bet, if still to have its dubious aspects.

Y DNA does not support any of Koch's contentions. There is a clear divide betwen Iberian R1b and British R1b. The route of entry into Iberia was via southern France.

I don't think Koch's theory would suggest that y-dna would coalesce exactly, as he is talking about Celtic from a continuous trading network of cultures who were likely to be patrilocal, which would inhibit male line gene flow.

On the other hand, a "pulse" Celtic folk migration from Central Europe is probably going to involve a pulse of y-dna which coalesces with Central Europe (and this is what I was suggesting when I discussed y-dna).

There's always going to be N - S gradients in Iberia, since the Mesolithic. That doesnt really change much does it ?

Since the topic of this post is premised around whether the few Celtic speaking samples in Iberia that we have had more steppe ancestry (presumed to be from Central Europe, not Western France) than to be expected from their location, since this could be argued to be the result of a pulse migration from Central Europe, then it matters a good deal if they didn't actually have any more steppe ancestry than expected from other Iron Age groups and their location.

(Not responding on all the random comments that Koch is "naive" or has a "lack of a critical eye", which seem like the sort of general lame "scholarly" discourse outside the hard science in which a person making argument relies on verbally throwing doubt of his opponent's credibility and reputation in lieu of an actual argument.)

Dragos said...

Matt
You’re not making much sense, and obviously quite frustrated, which is understandable given the strong position you long held that there would not > be the sudden and event horizon-like shift in Iberia that the data points to. When confronted by ones own inner-contradictions; a persons’ true character prevails

zardos said...

Some words to toponymy: Toponymy can be useful for indicating a certain level of continuity from the preceding population and culture.
The general rule, with a lot of exceptions is, the more toponymic continuity, the bigger the influence of the old population.
But toponymy can never ever be used to exclude, to falsify the presence of a people.
The best example I know of is the Germanic vs Slavic borderline in former Roman provinces. Before the migration both sides were equally Roman, but while Germanics continued to use a lot of the Romano-Celtic placenames, Slavs did not as often.
From the archaeological perspective the Roman population survived much better and was able to integrate with their culture in Germanic areas.

If there is no population and cultural continuity wanted by the invaders, there will be none. So arguments refering to the absence of a Vasconic substrate in Western Europe based on toponymy are worthless.
Invaders can, if they are dominant enough choose what they want to keep alive of a conquered people.

There is no basic rule other than that.

Ric Hern said...

That Scythian near Hallstatt_Bylany makes me wonder if Iron was introduced by Scythians...

Davidski said...

@Matt

But the dynamics within France are not really the question I'm raising, rather whether migration flow within a Western France that was richer in steppe ancestry than Iberia is a plausible candidate for enriched steppe ancestry in Celtiberian samples (and so steppe ancestry doesn't really help us solve Koch vs Consensus).

As far as I can see, the across the board rise in steppe ancestry during the Iron Age within Iberia (including the appearance of some individuals with very high levels of steppe ancestry in eastern Iberia), that appears to be linked to Celtic expansions, isn't really compatible with any version of Celtic from the west that I'm aware of.

That's because there's no plausible way to explain such a trend so late in the game in that part of the world than to simply fall back on the mainstream theory that it was related to the expansions of the Urnfield/Hallstatt-derived Celts of Central Europe.

zardos said...

That is my pet theory actually, because it seems that Eastern raiders might have founded Hallstatt culture and created an elite way of life which was very much about Mediterranen ways and luxury goods. The social stratification was remarkable and this elite lived detached from the common people in their fortresses.
La Tene in comparison looks much more like a mass culture of common warriors and their are signs of revolt and that old customs were discarded at the end of Hallstatt period.

The later Eastern influence is evident in the Celtic ornamental style and horse cult also.

Ric Hern said...

The interesting bit is that a Linguistic group can jump over different Linguistic groups. There need not be direct progressive continuity. Take for example the Cimbri, Teutons and Ambrones who could have settled in Italy if their migration were successful and could have established Germanic in Italy far from and not directly connected to Germany....

Folker said...

@Dragos
Consensus is meaning that a majority of specialists is agree with a theory, not that everybody is agree.
About Lusitanian, there is some influence of Celtic, but making it a Celtic language is problematic as it is too divergent. The only option would be to say that different Celtic languages existed already for a long period of time, but this is not coherent with an origin during IA which is very firmly consensual (except for defenders of Celtic of the West and other fringe theories).
Obviously, the main point about Aquitaine is not about Y haplogroups, but the fact that BBs were rare South of the river Garonne to the Pyrenees, where Aquitanian was spoken, is pleading for a direct link between BBs and Vasconic languages, quite the contrary.
The point about Artenac was mainly to highly the later arrival of BBs in comparison with Iberia. It is therefore unlikely that Artenac could be a source of admixture for BBs migrants in Iberia.

Folker said...

@zardos
Toponymy is not as simple. Your examples are too specific. We know that Slavic expansion was made often on deserted area. So with no local memories, which was not the case for Germanic peoples (often initially forming part of Roman army).
When, like in Iberia, different groups coexisted for some time, some names could have passed from one population to another.
But we are mostly agree on Hallstatt: clear elite dominance. And clearly Celtic. But which impact on Iberia? They were far away, between Burgundy and Austria.
Celtiberians are more likely the result of La Tène.

Dragos said...

@ Folker
It’s not relevant whether there were BBs in Aquitaine specifically between 25-2000 BC
What’s relevant is the panacea of non- IE languages in the Atlantic region; which is where BB & it’s descandant groups became dominant
But I agree with you -Artenac has not to do with it . In fact; the most economical conclusion is that these languages are unlikely to descend from Neolthic groups : for all the languages we encounter in historic times - whether IE or not - have to be accounted for by post-Neolithic events (with possible exception of Basque)
This is what aDNA, anthropology and archaeology has told us
If some out of touch linguists and their fan boys bro aren’t aware of this; then it is right to criticise them

Grey said...

geography

one of the things about Iberia is there's a "watershed line" running through it such that one set of rivers drain into the Med and another set drain into the Atlantic.

https://www.stepmap.com/map/Iberian-Peninsula-Rivers-1332918.png

so given that the Celtiberians were sitting in the middle (ish)

https://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_8/images/fig06_600.jpg

is it known which direction they came from?

1) directly across the Pyrenees?
2) from the Med coast? (with their coastal lands over-run later by east Med colonies)
3) from the west? (Atlantic+rivers)

#

based purely on the geography (path of least resistance) it seems to me the fastest routes from Central Europe to the Celtiberian region would likely have been:
1) down the Rhone, along the Med coast then up river from the south/east
2) down the Rhine, along the Atlantic coast then up river from the west/north

i.e. "closeness" in practical terms is not necessarily in a straight line.

Hélio Rodrigues said...

Celtiberians are not associated with La Tène, they preced them by centuries and are usually associated with Hallstatt

Dragos said...

@ Folker
It’s not relevant whether there were BBs in Aquitaine specifically between 25-2000 BC
What’s relevant is the panacea of non- IE languages in the Atlantic region; which is where BB & it’s descandant groups became dominant
But I agree with you -Artenac has not to do with

In fact; the most economical conclusion is that non-IE languages are unlikely to descend from Neolthic groups : for all the languages we encounter in historic times - whether IE or not - have to be accounted for by post-Neolithic events (with possible exception of Sardinian)
This is what aDNA, anthropology, sociology and archaeology has told us Europe and beyond

Linguists need to base theories on valid sociological models. Trust me; many will; and those that don’t; well that’s there issue

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Folker said "I will not repeat myself on Vasconic languages, except the fact that they were present along Pyrenées and in Aquitaine, were BBs were virtualy absent, is not exactly what we should expect if BBs were speaking a Vasconic language"


I think you do not have much idea about the extent of the Euzkera, the BB culture and its relationship with the Iberian. Basque-Iberian coincidences in toponymy, in anthroponymy, in the Phonological systems, in lexical and morphological elements, are undeniable.

Gilen von Humboldt-ek nagusikiro eta eragikor lagundu zuen Euskal Herrian
XVI. mendetik zabalduaz errepikatzen zen eritzia: «Aintzinako iberiarrak euskaldunak zirela, hizkuntzaz oraingoen berdinak edo antzerakoak »

Wilhelm von Humboldt contributed decisively with his authority to propagate an
opinion which had been repeated in the Basque Country since the sixteenth century:
«The old Iberians were Basque, identical or similar to those of today as regards their
language » It is undeniable, on the other hand, that between both languages there are numerous points of contact which cannot be attributed to chance.

What we have is that practically all the Iberian Peninsula and the south of France both in the western and eastern end of the Pyrenees, spoke related NON IE languages ​​that shared a common substrate, and that the Indo-European languages ​​can be considered small isolated and unrelated pockets. Celtiberian and Lusitanian are not culturally or temporally related. In addition to issue a value judgment on the BB culture in the north of Spain, without knowing the large number of existing deposits is a recklessness.

The only thing left to the theory of the steppes to try to justify their claims is the steppe ancestry in Western Europe. As everything is increasingly difficult to explain, first they had to kidnap R1b in the steppes, then the BB culture in central Europe and now the non-Indo-European languages ​​in Western Europe. Everything is more and more confusing and requires convincing explanations, not anti-scientific speculations. It's time to remember this famous paper-

Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe -Wolfgang Haak (2.015)-

What happens when geneticists draw hasty conclusions with little data and try to be archaeologists, anthropologists and linguists?That at the moment, neither have been able to prove the massive migrations, nor have been able to relate to R1b / M29 (and much less to R1bL51 / P312) with the expansion of the Indo-European language.And meanwhile thousands of people interested in genetics have believed, or have wanted to believe that explanation, exhaustively denying other possibilities. Time will tell who is right, but I think we should not look for arguments to explain some theories we previously believe in, but look for arguments independently and later look for reasonable interpretations.




zardos said...

@Folker: Thats not true, because I was talking about Roman provinces with long established Roman settlements. You can really draw a line for some areas with the Avar and Slavic invasions eradicating most of the older strata toponyms. Toponymy is only a positive indicator, but the absence of placenames must be contextualised.

zardos said...

To make it clear: To call anything before La Tene Celtic is guesswork unless there are additional informations available for a specific region.
Some parts of Hallstatt could be considered Celtic, but not all. And there is the problem of a distinct elite in Hallstatt.
Who spoke Celtic first in some of the cultures provinces, the elite or the commoners?
Hallstatt is a prime candidate for language transfer through elite dominance.
In any case there is no need to try to make BB IE speakers against all odds, just because of later IE ethnicities.
There was a lot in between, even if the later genetic changes were not as drastic.
But how could they if steppe ancestry was everywhere already?

Grey said...

"Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe -Wolfgang Haak (2.015)"

leaving aside the language issue and just focusing on the "massive migration" part doesn't the star-shaped phylogeny of the R1b clades imply at least the possibility that the migration wasn't massive at all but initially small and for some reason explosive

either

1) the population was already there but small (maybe because it was restricted to particular terrain like river deltas) and then exploded for some reason (maybe related to the migration of another group)

or

2) an initially small population arrived from elsewhere finding conditions which led to explosive growth?

MOCKBA said...

I couldn't wrap my mind around the idea of numerous indoor infant burials in the culture which cremated its dead, and the archaeological paper on La Hoya wasn't available. Given La Hoya's location on the fringes of the Celtiberian lands, I wondered if the two rites belonged to two different cultures. However there is a more recent research paper describing infant burials in a mid-1st millennium BC fortified town in nearby Berbinzana, Navarre, also just North of the Ebro river. It contains a whole chapter on dual burial rites.
https://dadun.unav.edu/bitstream/10171/17736/1/08.%20de%20Miguel.pdf
The practice of burying dead infants near the house walls turns out to be widely documented in the Celtiberian Spain, including its core lands, and Pliny the Elder is quoted on the tradition of the Celts not to cremate babies who died before their teeth came out.
But more, there is dearth of infant burials in the regular cemeteries of the old Celts all across Europe, and indoor infant burials in the house foundations are well documented in the classic La Tene sites of Mitterretzbach (Bez. Hollabrunn), Franzhausen/ Wagram an der Traisen, Flur Kokoron and Inzersdorf-Walpersdorf (Bez. St. Pölten).

Richard Rocca said...

Diego, don't kid yourself. While there is enough to question the absolute link between some IE and non-IE languages in Iberia, nobody that makes their living from population genetics is questioning that the migration of L23 and its subclades migrated from the steppe all the way to western Europe from 2900 BC to 2500 BC.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Mockba-

The funerary customs of some of the Iberian Bronze Age cultures changed radically in a few centuries. In the last moments of the BB culture in Iberia, secondary burials were already practiced (1.800-1.600 BC), that is, the bodies were left unburied for animals to eat. The interpretation is that after this, the soul was liberated and could go to heaven. Then in some cases the bones were buried and in others not. That's why in some cultures that are heirs of BB culture there are not many skeletons. The most expert archaeologists say that it is related to the way of dying. Those who had a bad death (children without having received the rites of initiation, pregnant women, accidents) were buried in holes (as in the BBC), those who had good death were exposed to be eaten by wild animals. This custom was inherited by many Iberian peoples of the Iron Age. The Romans said that the Iberians left the dead on the battlefield, so that the vultures would eat the body and the soul would be freed. I do not know if in other parts of Europe this custom also existed

@Richard Rocca- "Diego, don't kid yourself. While there is enough to question the absolute link between some IE and non-IE languages in Iberia, nobody that makes their living from population genetics is questioning that the migration of L23 and its subclades migrated from the steppe all the way to western Europe from 2900 BC to 2500 BC"

It seems to me very well that you all thought that there was a migration of L23 and its subclades to Western Europe. Maybe you can tell me which was the culture where that migration came from. Do you have proof of this in addition to the famous autosomal steppe ancestry?

As you can imagine I am very happy with the results of Df27 in Iberia. We have it in the BB culture, in the Bronze culture of the Northeast (Catalonia), in the Levantine Bronze (Valencia), in the culture of Las Cogotas (Castile), in the Andalusian Bronze (Andalusia), in the culture of El Argar (Murcia), that is, throughout the territory. We can already speak with certainty of a Df27 massive founder effect in Iberia, because it is spread throughout the Iberian peninsula. Since you're a good friend, and you know I'm Z225, I guess you will not mind checking Vad001 (Valdescusa) and I3320-Els Strets SNPs. Anyway, I hope they do not have a lot of steppe ancestry

Un saludo

Ric Hern said...

Interesting coincidence is that Blatterhole I1593: was
mtDNA: U5b2a2 Y-DNA: R1b1 and one sample at Rathlin was mtDNA: U5b2a2 and Y-DNA: R1b1.....

Richard Rocca said...

Neither of us have direct proof, but the indirect proof is all in favor of the steppe hypothesis by a wide margin.

Proto-Nagyrev Culture (Hungary) I7043: R-L11(xP312,xU106), 2500-2200 BC (contemporary of P312 Bell Beaker in Spain and Britain).
Yamnaya Culture (I0443): R-L23(xL51,xZ2103), 3300-2700 BC.

All R-L23 samples in Western Europe that have enough data are resolvable to at least P312. Another words, no ancestral L51 nor L11. Now you show us your "proof".

And the steppe component that you are so quick to downplay is not just a component. It is the appearance of it in every single Bronze Age P312 sample and the lack of both anywhere in Western Europe before that. It is deductive reasoning at its most basic level. So now I ask you for a second proof – provide one single P312 Bronze Age sample that has no steppe ancestry. And now, provide one single non-P312 sample that has it. Surely if the haplogroup that came to dominate Western Europe within a few hundred years originated without steppe ancestry you should be able to provide one single example of it from somewhere.

Regarding VAD001, his Z225 call is further confirmed because he is also positive for Z229. He was not positive for anything below that had coverage. He had 50.2% Germany_Beaker versus only 49.8% Iberia_CA ancestry, so you will likely be disappointed.

FrankN said...

Anyone interested in Hallstatt economic geography, and how the Bylany samples fit into it,may want to check my latest comment on
https://adnaera.com/2019/03/15/the-genomic-history-of-the-iberian-peninsula-over-the-past-8000-years-olalde-et-al-2019/#comment-733

(The Google map linked there would probably exceed the maximum comment size here)

A good map of main Hallstatt communication routes between Rhone, N. Italy and Danube is found here (Abb.3)
https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/47516402/85_transportwege

For information on some of the key Hallstatt sites, I recommend
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327621590_Early_Iron_Age_Furstensitze_-_some_thoughts_on_a_not-so-uniform_phenomenon

http://fuerstensitze.de/dna_media/posluschny47fb4d9613ebd.pdf

A good read is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuneburg

The site was given up at the end of Hallstatt/ beginning of La Tene, with a final fire/ wall destruction horizon.

The same applies to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenbürg
that, however, lasted somewhat longer into La Tene A.

No destruction horizon is documented for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipf_(mountain) . However, construction activities ceased with the beginning of La Tene. The Ipf shows settlement continuity from Urnfield to Hallstatt. The modern name can be related to the Tabula Peutingerania's Opie. Pokorny interpreted the name as Venetic. Gippert sees it as pre-Celtic/ pre-Latin toponym, but finds any further linguistic assignation tenuus.
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/personal/jg/pdf/jg2013f.pdf

Grizzlor said...

@Ric Hern
"Some more Ancient Irish DNA I think is also needed. Maybe it could clarify the Myths. Fomorians = Hunter Gatherers living of Fish and Fowl. Parthelonians = First Farmers bringing the plough and Wiped out by disease and famine. Nemedians = ?, Firbolg = Introducers of the first Metals etc...."

I've also toyed with this idea. There could be really vague hint of distant truth in it, albeit being buried under several layers of mythic folklore. I find it interesting that there was a historical, non-gaelic (but perhaps brythonic) minority living in the SW Ireland called the Partraige, which would nicely correspond with the Partholon, the second invaders of Ireland. We do know that particular region received settlement from the Atlantic Facade during the Bell Beaker period. But all in all it's just fanciful speculation, getting some French Bronze Age dna from the west could make the picture a bit more clearer.

JuanRivera said...

If I'm correct, there's R1b-P312 in Khvalynsk (specifically at Ekaterinovsky Cape).

Ric Hern said...

@ Grizzlor

Yes I agree. Just some arrows in the dark until more ancient DNA shower some light upon the possibilities. Although I'm not a Celtic from the West fan, Koch, if I remember correctly made an interesting observation regarding the re-use of Neolithic Burial mounds by Beaker People which apparently are described in the Irish Myths.

So although I do not see that Celtic originated all along the Atlantic Coast, I do think the Northwest Block can not be excluded as a contributor to the formation of Celtic....

Ryan said...

@Juan - Source?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Thank you Richard, we will talk about my proofs and the German ancestry, now I am going to celebrate.

zardos said...

Hallstatt again: I'm eager to see results from commoners vs elite in Western Hallstatt graves in different phases. That could solve a lot.

JuanRivera said...

A speech about this paper: "The Unique Burial of the Ekaterinovsky Cape Early Eneolithic Cemetery in the Middle Volga Region". I don't know if the speech is avaliable.

Al Bundy said...

@Vara The PC steppe is responsible for spread to N.Europe.How is this a blow to Reich?What does BB have to do with Germanic and Baltic and Slavic? There are some twists in the tale with Celtic and R1b, and as you say and have hinted at before, maybe Yamnaya wasn't even IE.Based on what some more knowledgeable people than I have said, I think Ukraine Eneolithic has a much bigger role to play.

JuanRivera said...

Searched a lot, nothing supporting that assertion came up. So, I was wrong.

Philippe said...

@Ric Hern

"Koch, if I remember correctly made an interesting observation regarding the re-use of Neolithic Burial mounds by Beaker People which apparently are described in the Irish Myths."

Stonehenge was an important cult centre throughout the Bronze Age, despite the fact that the Beaker folk supposedly somehow killed off most of the people who built it.

Romulus said...

The Beakers apparently genocided the Neolithic Britons, but not their women, whom must have been the ones to continue it's construction onward to 1600 B.C.

Ric Hern said...

@ Phillipe

I guess there were no such thing as Pattent Rights. Although Bell Beaker re-used them they used it in a different way. Something like putting your stamp on the religion of a conquered people....

Davidski said...

Vara was trolling, so I removed his comment.

Balto-Slavic from Bell Beakers? Corded Ware from Maykop? WTF?

Ric Hern said...

@ Romulus

Nothing wrong with adopting the Television and developing it into multi coloured screne insted of keeping it black and white....Heheheeh..

Vara said...

@Al Bundy

Hmm, my comment was mysteriously deleted. Maybe cause I brought up that this was predicted by a few banned members?

The reason this is a blow to Reich's theory and the steppe theory in general is because unlike what a few uninformed people propose on the internet, BB was considered to have been ancestral to most Western IE by the mainstream. The only reason I mentioned Corded Ware in my previous post is that because Andronovo at least has some connection to actual IE groups in terms of rituals but it's not Indo-Iranian. Otherwise, I really think the Steppe/Ukraine is irrelevant for Hittite and Greco-Aryan.

BTW, Mallory's only critique of the Near Eastern model was that his precious Northwest IE had to be older than 2000BCE.

"the low steppe and absence of R1b in Myceneans and Hittites is explained by culturalal mimicry, whilst all the R1b in bona-fide non-IE groups is due to reverse assimilation. "

Dragos pretty much summed it up. Right now, looking at the whole scenario, it's really hard to link real ancient Indo-Europeans with the steppe.


@Davidski

1. Balto-Slavic was considered by some as part of Northwest Indo-European that was spread by BB.

2. If Corded was IE then it's because Maykop Indo-Europeanized the Lower Mikhaylovka and Kemi Oba groups that Corded ware is derived from. Better pray Chad's models are right otherwise it's looking like IE might have reached the steppe even later.

Davidski said...

@Vara

1. Balto-Slavic was considered by some as part of Northwest Indo-European that was spread by BB.

If by "some" you mean a few crazy people online, the yeah. But that has nothing to do with reality, and I pride myself on keeping things real here. So cut out the crap.

2. If Corded was IE then it's because Maykop Indo-Europeanized the Lower Mikhaylovka and Kemi Oba groups that Corded ware is derived from.

Right, Maykop and Steppe Maykop look about as Indo-European as modern Georgians, Abkhazians, Circassians and Kets.

In other words, there's zero chance that Maykop Indo-Europeanized Corded Ware.

Quit trolling or I'll ban you.

FrankN said...

@Ric Hern
" (Irish)Myths. (..) Parthelonians = First Farmers bringing the plough and wiped out by disease and famine.

I recently realised that BB suffered from a plague epidemy – one BB from Augsburg ( 4.203 cal BP~2.250 cal BC) has been tested positively for Y. pestis bacteria.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.025

The plague would be a plausible explanation for the massive genetic and cultural shift observed after ca. 2,200 BC in Iberia, Britain but also Central Europe. Of course, if BB was associated with a major epidemic, survivors would quickly do away with respective symbols (pots, daggers etc.), which is exactly what can be observed in El Argar and Unetice alike.

The earliest European case of plague documented in the study linked above is from Yamnaya N. Caucasus (RK1001 sample in Wang e.a. 2018), and steppe ancestry appears to involuntarily but effectively have cleared its path into Central Europe by spreading the disease.

Susceptibility to the plague is genetically determined. as evidenced by several rodents that are immune to the disease. The mechanisms aren’t yet fully understood – they relate a/o to gene mutations affecting the way how toll-like receptors (TLR) recognise infections and stimulate immune defense, but also to some genes that control metabolism. These mutations prevent plague bacteria from “highjacking” the lymphatic system and turning leucocytes, which in principle should fight diseases, into a vector of their spread.

Early and regular exposure of steppe populations to the plague implies selective pressure on males in favour of such mutations, an immunity that EEF and WHG males would have lacked. As such, one may speculate that some R1 males had acquired gene mutations that increased their resistance against the plague.

Fanty said...

@FrankN:

I think it was here on Davidskies blog that I read about the plague arriving in Europe with infected steppe migrants.

I also recall to have read "somewhere", cant recall where, the thing you described. That there is genetical immunity to the plague and that the mutations that cause the immunity to the plague center in Europe (but even at this peak is only couple percent). Cant remcall if it was said, where in Europe. The article was also from so far in the past, that stuff ike "steppe anchestry" was unknown yet. Wonder if the plague immunity wouldnt be a European, bu Indoeuropean thing.

Vara said...

@Davidski

Very interesting. You mention North Caucasians, who you think weren't Indo-European speaking, but in reality spoke Indo-Iranian languages and were following Iranian religions pre-Islam.

But here from Masudi on Circassians:

"Next to the Alans live a nation called Kashak, their country extends from the Caucasus to the Mediterranean. They are a great nation, and follow the Magian religion."

But please tell me how come Jaimoukha finds similarities with Vainakh religion and non-Iranian polytheistic IE religions, how come Makhachkala was called Samandar, why is there a river called Mardan in Chechnya, why is the name Caucasus itself Indo-European, and how come the Kuban River is very Old Indo-Iranian older than Ossetian and the East Iranian Kabul? Is it because the people who lived there never had an Indo-European lingua-franca? Or is it from elite conquest, imitation of more advanced civilizations...etc? Whatever your argument is it can be applied to the lower Mikhaylovka groups and the superior Maykop suppliers.

I know my knowledge in these matters is great compared to yours and I have to source everything or else you'll think I'm trolling but w/e.

Davidski said...

@Vara

Ancient DNA contradicts the idea that Maykop was Indo-European and that it influenced Corded Ware in any way.

There's no genetic relationship between Maykop and Corded Ware.

Accept this and move on.

FrankN said...

Fanty:
What you are referring to is the CCR5 -^32 mutation (^ shall represent a triangle, a Greek majuscule "Delta"). That mutuation causes a truncation of a specific protein used as entry port by the HIV virus, thereby effectively preventing the virus to enter the immune system. The highest prevalence of this mutation, around 12% is found among Scandinavians.
HIV/AIDS is too young in Europe to have caused such high prevalence of this mutation, so researchers looked for other diseases that could have promoted it, and one possibility they came up with was the Plague. However, this has been questionned for both medical and statistical reasons. Current thinking seems to rather see smallpox as having brought forward the CCR5 -^32 mutation.

JuanRivera said...

If models suggest that the "mainstream" Yamnaya are way better fits for CWC_Baltic_Early than the Ozera outlier, then "pure" Maykop is going to fit even worse (which is indeed seen). Ukraine_Eneolithic likewise fits worse than Yamnaya as CWC_Baltic_Early's steppe ancestor.

JuanRivera said...

So, there's no room for a mixed Ukraine_Eneolithic-Maykop population (if Mikhailovka has Maykop ancestry to begin with) to have contributed to Corded Ware.

Dragos said...

@ Frank
The plague hypothesis is too much of a catchall explanation ; immunity doesn’t link to the Y chromosomes
The shifts seen are cultural and ideological - this is rather evident by now
In any case, El Agar derives from BB

FrankN said...

Btw, mtDNA also seems to play an important role when it comes to plague susceptibility. In an old, 2007 study, it was established that English mtDNA diversity significantly declined over the last millenium, possibly as consequence of the Black Death. "A possibility is strong selection for a mtDNA haplotype, suggested in our study by the observed frequency of the CRS (Cambridge reference sequence) haplotype: 6.30% in the ancient sample and 19.53% (N=5529) in modern Europe (21.70% in modern England)" [CRS is mtDNA H2a2a1].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391188/

A similar finding was made for Denmark - compared to aDNA (up to the medieval), modern Danes have higher frequencies of mtDNA H, and much reduced frequency of mtDNA I.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912848/

In a London Black Death cemetery, mtDNA T2 was strongly overrepresented (27%, 3 of 11 samples), albeit the sample size is too small to allow for robust conclusions.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/38/E746.full.pdf

While there is multiple evidence of the connection between mtDNA and susceptibility to certain diseases, its relation to the Plague seems to not have been researched so far. However, mtDNA H has been found to have the highest maximal oxygen uptake (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19900587?dopt=Abstract), a feature certainly helpful in order to withstand the pneumonic plague, which should have been the dominant form until the IA.

Moreover, so-called T helper cells or CD4+ T-cells can activate an effective immune response against Y. pestis once they have "understood" its protein capsule. "However, plague is rapidly fatal in the naive host as a result of the virulence factors suppressing innate immunity prior to the induction of acquired immunity". IOW - such "understanding" comes normally too late.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950366/

However, mtDNA H has been shown to have the fastest CD4+ T-cell recovery in HIV patients (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282399/). This quick regeneration may possibly also speed up the "understanding" of the Y. pestis protein capsule, and activate efficient immune response still in time.

In short - the rise of yDNA R1b in Iberia, and the contemporary increase of "Iberian" mtDNA H in Central Europe could be two sides of the same coin - in combination, they might have provided the best resistance against the Plague.

FrankN said...

@Dragos:
The plague hypothesis is too much of a catchall explanation ; immunity doesn’t link to the Y chromosomes

Inspired by maps like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bubonic_plague_map_2.png
I have been looking a bit into the geographical pattern of Black Death mortality. Except for England, there isn’t any comprehensive analysis available, one needs to go into individual chronicles and historical texts. With that said, certain areas (partly not reflected in the map above) stand out as hardly or under proportion affected:
– Lombardy (Milan),
- the Basque Country,
– Wales/ Western England,
– W. Flanders (Bruges),
– Central Europe from Nuremberg via Prague and Cracow to Warszaw
The Milan and Bruges cases seem somewhat special, but the remainder obviously relates to R1-heavy regions.

Over proportion hit (50-70% mortality) were
– Tuscany (Florence)
– the Lower Rhone (Avignon)
– the North Sea basin (East Anglia, London, Cologne, Hamburg, Lübeck, S. Norway)
As concerns the latter, the Hamburg (>50%) – Magdeburg (30%) – Nuremberg (10%) transsect is informative, as it mirrors yDNA I frequencies across Germany.

That's not a scientific study, and it would certainly be good to have some of the Black Death graveyards tested for yDNA, but to me the above pattern is a bit more than a "catchall explanation".

I btw hope the Reich Lab will make available their Iberian and British BB/EBA samples to the MPI Jena team so they can as well be checked for presence of the plague. Let's wait and see...

"In any case, El Agar derives from BB"
Genetically, somewhat - albeit Matt has made some nice diagrams that demonstrate that El Argar lies quite outside the Central European BB variation. Technically, El Argar is something like 65% Iberia_CA, 35% BB_Germany.

Culturally, El Argar marks a complete break with BB. Check out their pottery here
www.elargar.com/caracterizacion/Artefactos/Ceramica/?__locale=en
Plain, functional, undecorated, and with drinking vessels more adequate for serving wine than beer /mead (which has been identified as prime content of Bell Beakers).

And in the funeral context, daggers & arrowheads give way to halberds - a tradition previously best known from Remedello/ Rinaldone.

Arza said...

@ Romulus

The Beakers apparently genocided the Neolithic Britons, but not their women, whom must have been the ones to continue it's construction onward to 1600 B.C.

I think that you're right. If Slavic babushkas can lift megaliths, why British would not be able to do so?

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-last-megalithic-ritual-in-europe.html

:)

Dragos said...

Frank

1) I take your points. However, lets put the detective hat on, looking at the period in question (rather than High Middle Ages);

The earliest thus far plague +ve sample from central Europe is from an Unetice culture sample c. 2000 BC; and whilst it might have arrived earlier, overall, the plague hypothesis has too few data points and relies on too much environmental determinism (and that's without even going into the biology)
https://www.nature.com/news/bronze-age-skeletons-were-earliest-plague-victims-1.18633


Now, lets look at the descriptors of what happened at places like SIon during the BB period, which I'm sure you're aware of.

'' This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC, at the end of the early Beaker period, when stelae on both sites were smashed and their fragments used as building material in new monuments. This marks a fundamental change in the prevailing ideology on each site. Such a change is clearly abrupt, violent and conducted quickly, so that every image was broken and thrown down. Not one remains intact at Sion, where the destruction was more complete than at Aosta.''

2) ''Genetically, somewhat - albeit Matt has made some nice diagrams that demonstrate that El Argar lies quite outside the Central European BB variation. Technically, El Argar is something like 65% Iberia_CA, 35% BB_Germany.''

DThat's a distant model, and a literal interpretation of it leads you to the wrong conclusions. The people who arrived in eastern Iberia did not fly in from the Saale, but moved from the Mesetan groups of Beakers .

Here is a more proximate model;

Iberia_Southeast_BA
Beaker_North_Iberia 61.5%
Iberia_Southeast_CA 38.5%

Distance 1.3558%

Combined with the 100% y-hg shift & presence of women coming also along, the figure makes sense.

'3) ''El Argar marks a complete break with BB.''

It represents an evolution. The introduction of warrior-single burials is still a hallmark, even if later other forms become included inthe repertoire. BB pots were dropped and so were daggers. The adoption of Hallberds is a regalia, where the top El Agar elites adopted the styles of other European bronze age centres (e.g. Unetice, Remedello) and demonstrates just how heirarchical (& oppressive ) El Agar was
It doesn't mean they came from Remedello, in fact we know they did not.

Davidski said...

As far as I know, we don't yet have any samples from El Argar, so it might be best to hold off with any suppositions that its people were the direct descendants of Bell Beakers.

Although I agree that considering the ~100% frequency of R1b-P312 at the Iberian speaking and Tartessian speaking sites, we're likely to see something very similar at El Argar and basically all other such sites.

And since a good number of people have now gone from studying ancient DNA results to studying toponyms, it seems that I'm not alone in assuming that.

FrankN said...

Dragos:
1. The Plague: Your cited article was old news (2015). Read the 2017 update with the Yamnaya, Vucedol, BB and Andronovo cases:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.025

[In fact, there is another 2018 update that isn't directly relevant for the matters at discussion here, but may still be of general interest: The earliest case of "modern", i.e. Bubonic Plague has been found in a Srubnaya grave in Samara Oblast.]

2. "It [El Argar] represents an evolution."
No. I am still not through with the respective papers, but from what I could gather, the transition was rapid. Possibly, there was no chronological overlap at all. If there was one, it was a matter of at best a few decades. The more I read, the more I get the impression of a virtual hiatus around 2,200 BC. EL Argar in earnest only picks up in the late 21st cBC. In-between we have a few pastoralists living in simple huts. The impression of a massive demographic collapse around 2,200 BC is strengthened by inspecting the Olalde e.a. 2019 data - they hardly have any samples from 2,200-2,000 BC.

The obvious cultural changes across Iberia (not only the El Argar Area) have so far been primarily attributed to the 4.2 kya event, c.f.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event#Iberian_peninsula

That's certainly just part of the story - yDNA replacement is another part, and the Plague (well, we had that already..).

3. El Argar genesis: Your points are well noted. Currently, I am still preoccupied with trying to figure out what happened around 2,200 BC. Once that has become clear, I will start to think in earnest about the genesis of El Argar.

Let me, however, note that Matt has singled out one BB sample that actually falls into the Iberian LBA genetic variety, namely I1388 from the French Alps near Annecy (and Sion). Incidentally, the Aosta valley, not too far from that site, has supplied quite a number of petroglyphic halberd depictions. A more proximate source of El Argar's halberd tradition may, however, be Galicia, from where CA halberds are also attested.

FrankN said...

@Dave:
Olalde e.a. 2019 have placed a specific focus on sampling El Argar (and did a very poor job on analysing/ interpreting these samples). Here is their panel acc. to the SupMats:

Cabezo Redondo (urban, high social differentiation, multiple burial cultures)
I3486/S-EVA 26078: 1700–1500 BCE
I3488/S-EVA 22926: 1700–1500 BCE
I3487/S-EVA 26688: 1734–1617 cal BCE (3365±20 BP, PSUAMS-2161)

Cerro de la Encina (socially differentiated)
I8140_d/13: 2117–1779 cal BCE (3590±40 BP, Beta-230003)

Cerro de la Virgen (countryside settlement)
I8144/8: 1877–1636 cal BCE (3426±34 BP, Ua-39403)
I8136/19: 1606–1418 cal BCE (3216±33 BP, Ua-39408)

La Navilla (stockbreeding, transitional)
I8048/13: 2200–2000 BCE
I8141/7: 2200–2000 BCE
I8142/8: 2200–2000 BCE

FrankN said...

La Navilla has possibly the most interesting samples, since it relates to the period dirctly after the BB collapse. The SupMat describe the site as “part of a group of collective burials (megaliths) located in the Alhama region in the southwest of the Granada province (83). It is a corridor tomb with a trapezoidal chamber located in the right bank of the Cacín river and containing 34 burials. It is surrounded by a group of orthostats.
As per https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29686392_Statistical_analysis_using_multistate_qualitative_variables_applied_to_the_human_dental_morphological_traits_in_the_Bronze_Age_Granada_Spain_1300-1500_BC
Culturally it is quite different from the Castellón Alto and Fuente Amarga settlements since it belongs to the Copper Age. There are no burials under the cottages or in the little caves, and they were stock-breeders but not farmers; however the pottery found in the burials is an Argaric typology.“

Arza said...

@ ANI EXCAVATOR

If we wish to make this language non-IE, and maybe Vasconic-Iberian (if the two languages are even related) then we should see signs of this language from Sicily to Denmark, from Poland to the Irish. Ireland and Britain in particular must show very strong non-IE substrate effects, almost like Greek, given the high population replacement that accompanied the introduction of this non-IE toungue and the limited genetic change after the BB period that presumably accompanied IE. As far as I know this is just not the case.

BBC/R1b correlates with the loss of grammatical cases and grammatical genders, as well as with the introduction of articles. Non-IE substrate effects seem to be stronger than in Greece.

Exactly as you predicted, you can see non-IE influence from Sicily to Denmark, from Poland to the Irish:
https://i.postimg.cc/HmS8Z2xF/non-IEsubstrate-Influence.jpg

Also vigesimal counting system counts here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigesimal#In_Europe

https://www.academia.edu/2353028/Old_Danish_vigesimal_counting_A_comparison_with_Basque

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Those samples you listed are from sites associated with the Argaric culture but they're not actually from El Argar.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern "It will be interesting to see how the VSO wordorder in Insular Celtic came to be. As far as I understand Gaulish wasn't a VSO wordorder Language. How many similarities are there between Q-Celtic and Q-Italic Languages ? And if there are, how did this come to be?"

Seems like Semitic language influence.

Ric Hern said...

@ FrankN

Thanks. Yes what we also can remember is that Ireland was struck by a sudden cold spell where apparently indoor temperatures reached as low as -12 Degrees Celcius and a bit later the Potato Famine which significantly reduced Irelands population. This within living memory.

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

VSO wordorder is seen in some Indo-European Languages in the form of Questions and in Poetry. And some papers I have read (can not remember which) clearly points out why VSO wordorder in Insular Celtic are not connected to Semitic. So for me personally that boat has sailed over the horizon...I think the VSO wordorder have something to do with Poetry. Amergin the Bard.... :) And if something like a Vasconic Substrate is proposed and Basque thrown into the mix I will also point out that Basque isn't a VSO wordorder Language. So maybe some other substrate language from somewhere in Central Europe but certainly not Basque or Semitic in Insular Celtic...for me personally.

Ric Hern said...

@ FrankN

Example of other natural disasters that could have struck Europe throughout the Ages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740–41)

Ric Hern said...

And:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Ric Hern said...

Europe certainly wasn't an Utopia during recorded history and certainly wasn't during Pre-History when looking at the famine trends....

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 300   Newer› Newest»