So Celts were North Europeans after all? [Archive] - Page 2 - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

View Full Version : So Celts were North Europeans after all?

Pages : 1 [2]

Peterski

04-22-2020, 02:06 PM

Eurogenes K13, Dodecad K12b and MichalK25 results for France Bronze and Iron:

97883

97882

97881

Roy

04-22-2020, 02:19 PM

i doubt they even spoke IE. i bet they spoke something related to Rhaetian. most of western europe didn't spoke ie at this time (prob. even britain, with pictish). if they are early Iron Age they could very well be hallstatt culture and thus proto-celtic. i believe proto-italo-celtic can be explained by a later wave of steppe ancestry coming from corded ware proto-unetice (unetice is predecessor of urnfield, which is predecessor of hallstatt). there is a unetice sample in G25, take a look at it

Good explanation. People forget about non-Indo-European languages still being prevalent or at least common in that period.

Roy

04-22-2020, 02:21 PM

Remarkably, we identified several female individuals without any detectable steppe-related ancestry up to 1000 years after this ancestry arrives in the region, with the most recent woman without such ancestry dating to 2213–2031 calBCE. This suggests a high level of genetic structure in this region at the beginning of the Bronze Age with potential parallel societies living in close proximity to each other.

This Swiss has a very non-Steppe phenotype I suppose. And he is actually quite typical Swiss German I believe. Neolithic farmer stronk.

https://static.berkutschi.com/berkutschi/images/jumpers/000/001/024/small/DeschwandenGregor.jpeg?1545826810

SharpFork

04-22-2020, 03:03 PM

This Swiss has a very non-Steppe phenotype I suppose. And he is actually quite typical Swiss German I believe. Neolithic farmer stronk.

https://static.berkutschi.com/berkutschi/images/jumpers/000/001/024/small/DeschwandenGregor.jpeg?1545826810
There is no Steppe or ENF look, we have good reason to believe that phenotype changed during the bronze age, outside the fact it can always change.

Roy

04-22-2020, 05:42 PM

There is no Steppe or ENF look, we have good reason to believe that phenotype changed during the bronze age, outside the fact it can always change.

Just theoritising. I did not mean that those Neolithic farmers were identical. Either way he would be atypical in Denmark for instance.

SharpFork

04-23-2020, 05:49 AM

Any news?

Peterski

04-23-2020, 08:12 AM

Any news?

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?320980-Ancient-Swiss-Eurogenes-K15

Rocinante

04-24-2020, 06:47 AM

Creoda's model:

Target: Viriato_scaled
Distance: 1.7323% / 0.01732257
60.0 Celtic
13.0 ImperialRoman
12.4 Mozabite
10.0 Italic
2.8 Germanic
1.8 Iberia_Central_BA

Also reposting his model without the multiple spaces because it wasn't working:

ImperialRoman:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1,0.1069937,0.14860 57,-0.0248897,-0.0551253,0.0057443,-0.016083,-0.0018017,-0.003769,0.0008863,0.0154293,0.007091,0.0059443,-0.008325,0.000642,-0.0068313,-0.0010607,0.008388,-0.001098,0.004483,0.0007087,-0.001539,0.002267,0.0031223,0.0018077,0.0015967
Celtic:SX18_scaled,0.126344,0.152329,0.048271,-0.00646,0.051394,-0.007251,0.0047,-0.000692,0.016362,0.035354,0.002598,0.016485,-0.016055,-0.006055,0.001629,0.000663,0.006128,0.00266,0.0038 97,-0.006628,0.006364,0.006183,-0.011709,-0.006145,0.000958
Celtic:DEU_Lech_EBA_AITI_119,0.121791,0.140143,0.0 5242,0.026486,0.040623,0.003068,0.001175,0.001154, 0.003477,0.017859,-0.001299,0.01124,-0.020961,-0.019818,0.01045,0.02201,0.01708,-0.0019,0.009679,0.002376,0.007986,0.003957,-0.005053,0.000964,0.008382
Celtic:DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_44,0.124067,0.144205,0.05 6568,0.008721,0.04924,-0.001952,-0.00188,0.000692,0.008795,0.028247,0.001299,0.0092 92,-0.017988,-0.003028,0.005293,0.008353,-0.002608,-0.00266,0.004525,0.001126,-0.008235,-0.008285,-0.001356,-0.002651,-0.003233
Celtic:DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_50,0.120652,0.153345,0.04 3746,-0.002584,0.052933,-0.003347,-0.00329,-0.002077,0.022293,0.031162,-0.005846,0.008692,-0.022299,-0.010459,-0.002172,0.014585,0.021253,0.004307,0.001257,-0.005753,0.00262,0.000124,0.002835,-0.005181,-0.010418
Celtic:DEU_Lech_MBA_OTTM_151ind2_d,0.127482,0.1563 92,0.047894,0.005491,0.04647,-0.011435,0.00329,0.011538,0.010022,0.031345,0.0064 96,0.012889,-0.012487,-0.01156,-0.0095,0.000796,0.001565,-0.003801,-0.005656,0.005753,-0.002995,0.009521,-0.001356,-0.006386,-0.011855
Celtic:DEU_Welzin_BA_outlier3_WEZ57,0.129758,0.142 174,0.050911,0.039406,0.044316,0.007251,-0.004935,0.008538,0.028429,0.024237,0.007957,0.007 194,-0.008622,-0.012248,-0.000407,0.004906,-0.000652,0.001014,-0.003017,0.000375,0.012852,0.009645,-0.009983,0.005784,-0.004071
Celtic:CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany_DA111,0.124067,0.15131 4,0.063356,0.026163,0.0437,0.005857,0.001175,0.002 308,0.020861,0.02442,-0.012342,0.00015,-0.01665,-0.003165,0.014658,-0.009546,-0.018254,0.003801,0.005908,0.001626,0.009858,0.006 059,-0.004437,-0.005904,-0.005269
Celtic:St_Gallen_SX20,0.129758,0.147252,0.055814,0 .012274,0.055087,0.009203,0.001175,0.001846,0.0139 08,0.0277,-0.003897,0.012589,-0.019623,-0.007707,0.005293,-0.008884,-0.017341,-0.003801,0.001006,-0.008504,-0.003494,0.004699,-0.002711,-0.006266,-0.00479
Celtic:Constance_MX254_2,0.130897,0.136081,0.05543 7,0.024871,0.041854,0.00251,0.0047,0.006231,0.0177 94,0.024784,-0.004384,0.007493,-0.016501,-0.014313,0.003122,0.018165,0.014473,0.003547,-0.002388,5e-04,-0.004243,0.011129,0.001479,-0.010483,0.001317
Celtic:Constance_MX283,0.126344,0.137096,0.057322, 0.023579,0.050779,-0.003068,0.001175,0.003,0.020043,0.035172,-0.005521,0.009591,-0.014866,-0.009083,-0.000814,0.022408,0.016689,0.000127,0.004022,-0.002376,-0.001497,0.00643,-0.00456,-0.010242,0.001437
Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker:Scotland_LBA,0.1297585,0.133542,0.0630732,0 .0527298,0.0351605,0.0193132,0.0061102,0.0030575,0 .001892,-0.0027338,-0.0060082,0.0064818,-0.0180252,-0.0164115,0.024226,0.0058672,-0.0143422,0.0036108,0.0032995,0.0005313,0.0056462, 0.0044822,-0.0003393,0.0042172,0.0041315
Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker:England_MBA,0.1270132,0.1290916,0.0630678,0 .059755,0.0341783,0.019916,0.0014929,0.0049274,0.0 045958,-0.0013935,-0.0047379,0.0039671,-0.0111495,-0.0156566,0.0246771,0.0091564,-0.0059516,0.0030703,0.0009834,0.0039871,0.0046975, 0.0047133,-0.0006381,0.0058335,-0.0012045
Italic:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016,0.127482,0.1472 52,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
Italic:ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_RMPR851,0.133173,0.1563 92,0.0445,-0.00969,0.044008,-0.004462,0.00846,0.003,0.024543,0.044101,-0.002598,0.012289,-0.022448,-0.009634,-0.005429,-0.005834,0.00352,0.003167,0.006034,-0.007379,-0.008859,0.005317,-0.000863,-0.006989,-0.001796
Germanic:England_Saxon:I0773,0.141141,0.126941,0.0 63356,0.071383,0.044008,0.024263,0.00799,0.011307, 0.00409,-0.00656,-0.005359,0.005395,-0.01219,-0.013074,0.021172,0.011668,-0.001434,0.000887,0.008673,0.008629,0.010981,0.003 957,-0.003081,0.015544,-0.007424
Germanic:ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian:VDP-A-5,0.126344,0.123895,0.076555,0.062016,0.03139,0.01 8128,0.007755,0.007615,0.009204,-0.007472,0.001624,0.007493,-0.009514,-0.018992,0.025651,0.02254,0.01356,0.004814,0.00037 7,0.002876,0.004742,0.005935,0.002095,0.012652,-0.00467
Germanic:DEU_MA:AED_106,0.125205,0.133034,0.064865 ,0.067184,0.03416,0.020917,0.00517,0.008769,0.0028 63,-0.009476,-0.006171,0.002548,-0.012042,-0.006193,0.019544,0.008486,0.015255,-0.006968,-0.015964,0.005503,-0.003244,0.012736,-0.017378,0.005422,-0.000239
Germanic:DEU_MA:AED_249,0.125205,0.126941,0.071653 ,0.04845,0.043085,0.023706,0.020211,0.001385,0.003 477,-0.01057,-0.011854,-0.002398,-0.009663,0.003303,0.019679,-0.002784,-0.026598,-0.001774,0.004148,0.00988,0.01697,-0.006554,0.000123,0.007953,0.010658
Mozabite,-0.0649782,0.135551,-0.0032793,-0.0717622,0.0260249,-0.0328364,-0.0260656,0.0108257,0.0617306,0.0303463,0.0065097,-0.006366,0.021795,-0.0165685,0.0163159,-0.016176,-0.0027097,-0.0219282,-0.0435571,0.0082757,-0.0146263,-0.0367947,0.0246817,-0.0042277,0.0056594
Iberia_Central_BA,0.1239044,0.1505886,0.059639,0.0 003691,0.0686281,-0.0074901,-0.0052371,-0.0001319,0.0395609,0.0550354,-0.0029926,0.01291,-0.0243167,-0.019621,0.0066116,0.0103233,0.0156089,-0.0004163,-0.0021549,0.0007146,0.0115154,-0.0001766,-0.0088561,-0.020261,0.0028397

Target: A_scaled
Distance: 1.8736% / 0.01873582
43.6 Celtic
24.2 ImperialRoman
11.4 Germanic
11.4 Mozabite
9.4 Iberia_Central_BA

SharpFork

04-24-2020, 11:30 AM

So what about the French G25 stuff?

Peterski

04-25-2020, 11:48 AM

Top 3 closest modern populations to each Iron Age and Bronze Age French sample in my opinion:

(but let's wait for official Global25 data)

RIX4
DE_Saarland
FR_Lower-Normandy
FR_Ile-de-France

RIX2
DE_Rheinland-Pfalz
FR_Ile-de-France
FR_Pays-de-la-Loire

RIX15
FR_Nord
FR_Lorraine
FR_Auvergne

QUIN58
ES_Valencia
ES_Aragon
ES_Galicia

QUIN234
ES_Cantabria
ES_Castilla-Leon-Burgos
ES_Castilla-Leon-Soria

PSS4170
ES_Valencia
ES_Cataluna-Terres-de-l'Ebre
FR_Pyrenees-Orientales

PIR3116B
FR_Picardy
GB_North-East-England
IRL_Ulster

PIR3037AB
ES_Valencia-Castellon
ES_Baleares
ES_Cataluna

PEY53
FR_Bretagne
FR_Burgundy-Franche-Comte
FR_Picardy

PEI2
ES_La-Rioja
ES_Castilla-Leon-Soria
ES_Cantabria

PECH5
ES_Cataluna-Girona
ES_Galicia
FR_Picardy

OBE3626-1
IRL_Leinster
IRL_Munster
IRL_Connacht

NOR4
ITA_Veneto-Verona
ITA_Aosta
PRT_Portugal-Lisboa

NOR3-6
FR_Burgundy-Franche-Comte
FR_Lower-Normandy
FR_Picardy

NOR3-15
FR_Burgundy-Franche-Comte
FR_Upper-Normandy
FR_Nord

NOR2B6
FR_Pays-de-la-Loire
PRT_Portugal-Lisboa
FR_Auvergne

NIED
ES_Baleares-Mallorca
ES_Cataluna-Lleida
ES_Cataluna-Girona

Jeb8
DE_Rheinland-Pfalz
ITA_Aosta
AT_Tyrol

EUG11
ES_Cataluna-Tarragona
FR_Pyrenees-Orientales
ES_Cataluna-Terres-de-l'Ebre

ERS88
ITA_Lombardy-Bergamo
ITA_Tuscany-Florence
ITA_Lombardy-Brescia

ERS86
ES_Cataluna-Tarragona
FR_Languedoc
CH_Romandy

ERS1164
DE_Saarland
GB_Scotland-Lanarkshire
CH_Romandy

COL153i
ES_Cataluna-Terres-de-l'Ebre
FR_Centre-Val-de-Loire
ITA_Friuli-Udine

COL153A
AT_Tyrol
DE_Saarland
ITA_Friuli-Sappada

COL11
IRL_Galway
GB_Scotland-Highland
(...)

BIS385
FR_Hauts-de-France
DE_Rheinpfalz
BE_Wallonia

BIS130
FR_Picardy
FR_Burgundy-Franche-Comte
FR_Bretagne

BFM265
FR_Picardy
FR_Bretagne-Rennes
FR_Pas-de-Calais

BES1248
FR_Upper-Normandy
GB_Lancashire
GB_Cumbria

ATT26
DE_Rheinpfalz
DE_Baden-Wurttemberg
(...)

Grace O'Malley

04-25-2020, 12:27 PM

Peterski

04-25-2020, 01:10 PM

Updated results for French Iron Age and Bronze Age samples in several calculators:

(most of the previously present noise is removed from these results)

97978

One French Bell Beaker sample is also included (the one with 0% West_Med in K15).

Damião de Góis

04-25-2020, 04:14 PM

Where does this sample come from? PRT_Portugal-Lisboa

A pitty it's not in G25.

SharpFork

04-26-2020, 12:46 AM

They appear quite varied. I'm looking forward to when the full study is released.
If they are from the link Peterski sent then their variety makes sense, they come from Rousillioun/Langedoc, Alsace and Picardy. Knowing which is from where is important.

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 07:48 AM

Yes and Not, only the British Celts could fall within the range of Northern Europe but the original Celts were from Central Europe.
Hypothesis of Central European Celtic homeland is outdated completely

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png
The Ancient Celts 2nd Edition.2018. Barry Cunliffe

Top 3 closest modern populations to each Iron Age and Bronze Age French sample in my opinion:

This seems fairly reasonable, all of them looke western European aboriginal and not migrants from east as traditional speculations used to claim

Only one of them looks a bit strange

ERS88
ITA_Lombardy-Bergamo
ITA_Tuscany-Florence
ITA_Lombardy-Brescia
Could be very late Iron Age from Alpine area

J. Ketch

04-27-2020, 08:00 AM

Hypothesis of Central European Celtic homeland is outdated completely

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png
The Ancient Celts 2nd Edition.2018. Barry Cunliffe
Ancient DNA has dismantled the 'Celts from the West' theory, not that the theory ever made sense.

Grace O'Malley

04-27-2020, 08:04 AM

Hypothesis of Central European Celtic homeland is outdated completely

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png
The Ancient Celts 2nd Edition.2018. Barry Cunliffe

Well they definitely aren't from the West and Irish, Scots and Welsh don't appear to be very similar to Continental Celts at all. Awaiting more Gaul samples but as i've always said Celts appear very varied. It's almost like people were named Celts just because they weren't Romans or Greeks. :p

renaissance12

04-27-2020, 08:06 AM

This is the "face" of a celtic GALATI as seen from "greek" point of view III century B.C.

Don't forget Saint Paul letters ( GOSPEL- NEW TESTAMENT ) to Galatians ...That means that CELTIC GALATIANS were not TINY tribes in Anatolia and Balkans area..

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/67/50/0467506db1dc1547acc8aec6aeb21346.jpg

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 08:26 AM

Celts must be really divergent phenotype wise. They had Central European, Northern European and even some darker Southern European look depending on tribe, geography etc.
That's right, ancient chroniclers described Celts as different in terms of appearance, some of them as clearly Mediterranids another as Nordoid, but mostly as somwhere in between, lighter than Iberians for example, but darker than Germanics. Anthropoligical cranial analyses also show gracile Med-Nord range, with brachycephalic large minority, that differed form Germanic and even from Halsttate samples

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 08:32 AM

Ancient DNA has dismantled the 'Celts from the West' theory, not that the theory ever made sense.
What exact ancient DNA dismantled it?

So standing as opposition 'Central European theory' made more sense?

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 08:38 AM

Well they definitely aren't from the West and Irish, Scots and Welsh don't appear to be very similar to Continental Celts at all. Awaiting more Gaul samples but as i've always said Celts appear very varied.
Everything that you've said does not contradict west-east expansion

It's almost like people were named Celts just because they weren't Romans or Greeks. :p

:eek: No, Romans and Greeks gave very clear explanations who were the Celts

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 08:45 AM

This is the "face" of a celtic GALATI as seen from "greek" point of view III century B.C.

It's not known what pigmentation has this type, but very similar to highly reduced Borreby, western European type

Grace O'Malley

04-27-2020, 08:54 AM

Everything that you've said does not contradict west-east expansion

:eek: No, Romans and Greeks gave very clear explanations who were the Celts

Well British Isles populations appear to be just Bronze Age Bell Beaker. Of course there was some input from some other groups but Insular Celts appear overwhelmingly Bell Beaker and no Continental Celts appear to match them very closely. I really think that many populations were named Celtic erroneously in ancient times. I think this will be sorted out in the future with more ancient genomes. The Bell Beakers used to be a bit of a conundrum but with more ancient genomes it now appears pretty conclusive that Bell Beakers were an offshoot of Corded Ware which if anyone looked at it logically in the past is not a big surprise. Autosomally it always made sense but people used to think that Corded Ware were R1a and Bell Beaker were R1b so they thought they were different groups but now it has been shown that Corded Ware have a lot of R1b also. The Celtic issue will be sorted out as well but anyone with a bit of nonce would know that there are obviously a lot of people called Celts that aren't the same genetically. I think this is obvious now.

renaissance12

04-27-2020, 08:57 AM

It's not known what pigmentation has this type, but very similar to highly reduced Borreby, western European type

Ancient romans and greeks described the Celts... and there are also statues of their physical traits.. They could have different hair colour but their physical facial traits were similar.. and also their culture was the same everywere in Europe..and Anatolia..

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRdLfAy-xbQt4Zr0d8QKyPRFRcw51ciX-bUePJ9TXIUzyifV0lp&usqp=CAU
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/558dadc5e4b0813627c48032/t/55c7cec7e4b08d32cfd4dca5/1439157962405/sarco+1.jpg?format=1500w
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQCitboFkqnwF3mqfL9chbP9s04oGo rChH0EftBVszb63hh9wFr&usqp=CAU
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Grande_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8574_n7.jpg/220px-Grande_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8574_n7.jpg

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 09:10 AM

Well British Isles populations appear to be just Bronze Age Bell Beaker. Of course there was some input from some other groups but Insular Celts appear overwhelmingly Bell Beaker and no Continental Celts appear to match them very closely. I really think that many populations were named Celtic erroneously in ancient times. I think this will be sorted out in the future with more ancient genomes. The Bell Beakers used to be a bit of a conundrum but with more ancient genomes it now appears pretty conclusive that Bell Beakers were an offshoot of Corded Ware which if anyone looked at it logically in the past is not a big surprise. Autosomally it always made sense but people used to think that Corded Ware were R1a and Bell Beaker were R1b so they thought they were different groups but now it has been shown that Corded Ware have a lot of R1b also. The Celtic issue will be sorted out as well but anyone with a bit of nonce would know that there are obviously a lot of people called Celts that aren't the same genetically. I think this is obvious now.
:eek: You'll might be very surprised, but it's not contradict to the west-east Celtic expansion as well. Rather argues in favour of it because of distribution of patrilineal DNA in Europe

J. Ketch

04-27-2020, 09:18 AM

What exact ancient DNA dismantled it?

So standing as opposition 'Central European theory' made more sense?
There's no evidence of people from the Atlantic Fringes of Europe having a genetic impact on Central or Eastern Europe from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, on the contrary there is evidence of Iberia and the British Isles being genetically impacted in that timeframe, both autosomally and in Y-DNA. Iberians and Insular 'Celts' have been overwhelmingly R-DF27 and R-L21 respectively since the Bell Beakers, but those subclades have stayed almost exclusive to Atlantic Europe since that time. The argument for 'Celts from the West' would thus have to be a spread of Celtic culture from West to East without any migration, even though the earliest known Celtic culture is in Central Europe.

renaissance12

04-27-2020, 09:21 AM

There's no evidence of people from the Atlantic Fringes of Europe having a genetic impact on Central or Eastern Europe from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, on the contrary there is evidence of Iberia and the British Isles being genetically impacted in that timeframe, both autosomally and in Y-DNA. Iberians and Insular 'Celts' have been overwhelmingly R-DF27 and R-L21 respectively since the Bell Beakers, but those subclades have stayed almost exclusive to Atlantic Europe since that time. The argument for 'Celts from the West' would thus have to be a spread of Celtic culture from West to East without any migration.

I trust much more the ancient roman and greek's statues of European Celts ( particularly the romans statue because romans didn't like very much the "ideal" ).... from Spain to England from west Germany to Anatolia..with all central Europe in between.. - North west Italy also - ..

Peterski

04-27-2020, 09:27 AM

Ancient DNA has dismantled the 'Celts from the West' theory, not that the theory ever made sense.

How exactly was it dismantled? Celts could emerge from Bell Beakers at the Atlantic coast.

You are forgetting that Celts emerged during the Late Bronze Age, not during Copper Age.

======

This image clearly says "Atlantic Late Bronze Age networks" as the Proto-Celtic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png

^^^
In Late Bronze Age times, everyone had a lot of Steppe ancestry all over that yellow area.

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 09:30 AM

on the contrary there is evidence of Iberia and the British Isles being genetically impacted in that timeframe
Very interesting, i am at full attention. How Gaulish, Iberian, British and easpecially Irish were impacted in Iron Age by Central European. Are you going by genetics here, or maybe archaeological, historical?

The argument for 'Celts from the West' would thus have to be a spread of Celtic culture from West to East without any migration.
Maybe,... not sure, there must be more DNA samples from late Halstatt and especially La Tene graves

Peterski

04-27-2020, 09:31 AM

"Celts from the West" does NOT imply that Celts were not descended from Yamnaya.

Everyone had Yamnaya DNA along the Atlantic Facade already in the Early Bronze Age.

=====

This is a French Bell Beaker, who lived long before the emergence of Proto-Celts:

,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC1 2,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC2 2,PC23,PC24,PC25
Bell_Beaker_FRA:CBV95,0.138864,0.116786,0.047894,0 .085272,0.020311,0.039324,0.001175,0.003923,-0.024747,-0.031345,0.011367,0.002098,-0.000149,-0.015964,0.038273,-0.00305,-0.006258,-0.001774,-0.004651,0.004252,0.000749,-0.006801,0.003821,0.00964,-0.00455

,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC1 2,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC2 2,PC23,PC24,PC25
Bell_Beaker_FRA:CBV95,0.0122,0.0115,0.0127,0.0264, 0.0066,0.0141,0.0005,0.0017,-0.0121,-0.0172,0.007,0.0014,-0.0001,-0.0116,0.0282,-0.0023,-0.0048,-0.0014,-0.0037,0.0034,0.0006,-0.0055,0.0031,0.008,-0.0038

^^^
Celts could easily emerge from such Atlantic Bell Beakers who had a lot of Steppe DNA.

Grace O'Malley

04-27-2020, 09:38 AM

How exactly was it dismantled? Celts could emerge from Bell Beakers at the Atlantic coast.

You are forgetting that Celts emerged during the Late Bronze Age, not during Copper Age.

======

This image clearly says "Atlantic Late Bronze Age networks" as the Proto-Celtic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/ozUhAAn.png

^^^
In Late Bronze Age times, everyone had a lot of Steppe ancestry all over that yellow area.

Where though? Possibly France? Linguistically though it is a non-starter as Celtic languages developed in close proximity to Italic and then split and there after Celtic developed separately from Italic in close proximity to Proto-Germanic as there are some loan words from Celtic in Proto-Germanic. This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was? It's like some people have their pet theories and don't want to let them go.

As an Irish person I don't even care if I'm not a bone fide Celt. I'm just happy to go with what the evidence shows. It really doesn't change my views on who or what I am. I'm still a Gael so whether I descend from Continental Celts doesn't make much difference to my history or place in the world.

Peterski

04-27-2020, 09:43 AM

This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was?

Well according to SNP Tracker, my subclade of R1b probably came to Poland from France during the Iron Age:

http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

The oldest R1b-L151 has now been discovered in Swiss Corded Ware, so pretty close to France if you ask me.

======

Other early R1b-L151 seem to be from Lingolsheim in France and Auvernier in French Switzerland (Romandy):

https://i.imgur.com/AMHS8iS.png

J. Ketch

04-27-2020, 09:46 AM

Very interesting, i am at full attention. How Gaulish, Iberian, British and easpecially Irish were impacted in Iron Age by Central European. Are you going by genetics here, or maybe archaeological, historical?

Maybe,... not sure, there must be more DNA samples from late Halstatt and especially La Tene graves
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Olalde_Science_IberiaTransect_0.pdf

^^The difference between Bronze Age Iberians and Iron Age Celtiberians is all there. Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent (which goes along with the traditional historical record of Celts coming from Central Europe to Britain in the Iron Age, and the appearance of La Tene cultural artefacts in Britain from that time).

Grace O'Malley

04-27-2020, 09:48 AM

Well according to SNP Tracker, my subclade of R1b probably came to Poland from France during the Iron Age:

http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

The oldest R1b-L51 has now been discovered in Swiss Corded Ware, so pretty close to France if you ask me.

I'm sure that's where a lot of L21 came from specifically Northern France so that's why I'm waiting on some more studies from France but it is also obvious that Dutch Bell Beakers obviously carried L21 so I think ultimately it will be Corded Ware - Single Grave - Dutch Bell Beakers. Nothing earth shattering and it explains the British Isles and Dutch connection which is why Irish also have this connection despite not being Saxons.

Peterski

04-27-2020, 09:51 AM

It is Swiss Corded Ware > French Bell Beakers probably.

Dutch Bell Beakers were probably descended from French Bell Beakers (and ultimately from Swiss Corded Ware).

Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent

Yes it suggests admixture from the Continent, but it could be admixture from France and from Northern Iberia.

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 09:55 AM

Fantomas

04-27-2020, 10:10 AM

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Olalde_Science_IberiaTransect_0.pdf

^^The difference between Bronze Age Iberians and Iron Age Celtiberians is all there.
This trend documents
gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze
Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with
the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18).
Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where
Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction
of Indo-European languages (12), our results
indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches
to Indo-European languages. This is consistent
with the genetic profile of present-day Basques
who speak the only non-Indo-European language
in Western Europe but overlap genetically with
Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry
:thumb001:

Similarly Iron Age Brits and modern Insular Celts all have more Neolithic Farmer admixture than Bronze Age Brits, which suggests admixture from the Continent (which goes along with the traditional historical record of Celts coming from Central Europe to Britain in the Iron Age, and the appearance of La Tene cultural artefacts in Britain from that time).
In that Reich's paper that you posted Urnfield central European culture associated with Nordic DNA, but at the same time increasing Neolithic Farmer genes in Iron Age Britts you interpreted as invasion from central Europeans which was Nordic, maybe textbook Nordic population?!

SharpFork

04-27-2020, 12:51 PM

SharpFork

04-27-2020, 12:53 PM

https://i.imgur.com/eI7AWzo.png
https://i.imgur.com/53gnOh3.png

Celtic language (Gaulish) had first contact wirh proto-Germanic at very late time, already in Iron Age

Does Cunliffe actually believe Italo-Celtic separated from the rest as far early as Hittite in 6500 BCE? What? This is just ridiculous, outside Anatolian and maybe Tocharian I'm not sure how anyone can postulated IE breaking before 3000 BCE

Edit: Ah, it's Renfrew's Anatolian theory, complete garbage

XenophobicPrussian

04-27-2020, 06:00 PM

This seems fairly reasonable, all of them looke western European aboriginal and not migrants from east as traditional speculations used to claim

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.

SharpFork

04-27-2020, 06:47 PM

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.
How does Etruscan have Anatolian or Mycenean influence? Also Urnfield wasn't really eastern and Scythian influence was extremely weak.

brennus dux gallorum

04-27-2020, 06:53 PM

Where though? Possibly France? Linguistically though it is a non-starter as Celtic languages developed in close proximity to Italic and then split and there after Celtic developed separately from Italic in close proximity to Proto-Germanic as there are some loan words from Celtic in Proto-Germanic. This is like R1b from the West and we all know how inaccurate that theory was? It's like some people have their pet theories and don't want to let them go.

As an Irish person I don't even care if I'm not a bone fide Celt. I'm just happy to go with what the evidence shows. It really doesn't change my views on who or what I am. I'm still a Gael so whether I descend from Continental Celts doesn't make much difference to my history or place in the world.

Proto-celtic language wasn't developed in close proximity to italic. They had the same ancestor, just like Germanic has the same ancestor with balto-Slavic

But that has nothing to do with genetics, as italic speakers just like all IE speakers of southern Europe have assimilated native non-IE neolithics, which is the reason that they don't plot near modern Germanic and Celtic speakers

I haven't seen samples from celts of Spain or Portugal but I am pretty confident that they would plot in Southern Europe, and they still were Celts

SharpFork

04-27-2020, 07:07 PM

Proto-celtic language wasn't developed in close proximity to italic. They had the same ancestor, just like Germanic has the same ancestor with balto-Slavic

But that has nothing to do with genetics, as italic speakers just like all IE speakers of southern Europe have assimilated native non-IE neolithics, which is the reason that they don't plot near modern Germanic and Celtic speakers
How do you know for sure there were a Italo-Celtic ancestor, any specific arguments?

brennus dux gallorum

04-27-2020, 07:49 PM

How do you know for sure there were a Italo-Celtic ancestor, any specific arguments?

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)

J. Ketch

04-27-2020, 08:04 PM

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)
Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?

brennus dux gallorum

04-27-2020, 08:27 PM

Summarizing, the op is wrong, as he concludes "celts were north European" as if there was any Proto-IE population which was not equally "northern European". Southern European admixture technically means non-IE neolithic

He further makes the mistake to generalize La tene results to all historical Celtic populations of all periods. I haven't seen sample from Celtic speakers of Iberia, but I am sure that this 52% neolithic in modern Iberia didn't come out of nowhere, it was there when the majority of its population was speaking a celtic language. Celts can't be seen as a genetic/racial group, but as a linguocultural group

Fact remains that northern European celts had the same ancestor with the genetically equally northern European Italics who gave the language and civilization to modern Latin-speaking countries

Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg

in spite of posting from my mobile phone i was able to find the most famous IE tree. there are several alternatives (I have seen for example in some authors proto-Greek being originated from Italo-celtic or Thracian from Germano/Balto-slavic) but all of them have one thing in common: Celts with italics and Germanics with Balto-slavs. I will post even more links and sources tomorrow from my pc

SharpFork

04-27-2020, 08:40 PM

No argument except for the fact that every single linguist available in the net and not only supports this fact (along with the fact that Germanic had the same ancestor with balto-Slavic)
There is no such consensus, again if you have actual arguments bring them, arguments from fictitious authority are boring and pointless as you use your limited experience on the topic to dictate what linguistics think when we all know there are almost no definitive answers and everything is being questioned for a reason or another. Only scholars should have a voice in determining what the consensus or not, given they actually engage more than any of us on the topic.

J. Ketch

04-27-2020, 08:49 PM

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg

in spite of posting from my mobile phone i was able to find the most famous IE tree. there are several alternatives (I have seen for example in some authors proto-Greek being originated from Italo-celtic or Thracian from Germano/Balto-slavic) but all of them have one thing in common: Celts with italics and Germanics with Balto-slavs. I will post even more links and sources tomorrow from my pc
Weird because nearly every tree I look at shows Germanic as its own separate branch from the PIE root. There's also the obvious fact that Germanic is Centum with Italo-Celtic, unlike Satem Balto-Slavic.

Fantomas

04-28-2020, 05:52 AM

There are many problems with the Celtic from the West theory as proposed by Cunliffe and the guy that worked on the Tartessian language:

1. Languages (almost?) never expand from merely trade and lingua francas rarely end up becoming permanently spoken languages, if trade on the other hand is postulated to have kept the Bell Beaker languages close then the question is why didn't this happen with Romance or Germanic languages which had arguably far more contact from the moment they separated.

2. The linguistic diversity in Iberia itself makes the idea that somehow Celtic started from there and took over so much of Central Europe questionable, maybe we miss real existing non-Celtic populations in the sources but even the linguistic diversity in Iberia is too peculiar and not found in Gaul or Germany. Also the existence of the diverging "para-Celtic" or "Italo-Celtic"-like Lusitanian also rises many questions.

3. On the topic of the lingustic situation in Iberia, the Celtic status of Tartessian is questionable and the weak evidence we have makes it non-Celticity a more reasonable proposal, given how many non-Celtic languages there were anyway.

4. I honestly don't see how one could discard Hallstatt on archeological grounds while supporting this theory, where are the advtanges of this new theory? There is nothing as close as the cohesiveness and interconnectedness of Hallstatt and La Tene that explains the kind of continental wide ethnic and linguistic relatedness we
1. Correct me if i wrong, evolution of Germanic languages has very similar history with Proto-Celtic, if Jastorf and Nordic Bronze Age cultures are associated with it. From Corded ware culture to Nordic Bronze/Jastorf (proto-Nordic) around 1000-1500 years and they're also separated by sea and spread over a large geographic area. Proto-Celtic evolved from Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker and by 1000-500 BC began separating into different branches. Seaways are better means of communiactions than ground movements btw.

2.it's impossible to state categorically where exactly lived that group of people who have caused proto-Celtic. But the version with Atlantic seashore contains much less controversy, than others and allayed many problems.

3. In that case Koch's version would be destroyed by other linguists long time ago. Particularly since Celts were the closest neighbours of Tartessians and even supposed to be related

4.Yes, i agree. There're still many problems and blank pots, just like with Central European hypothesis by the way. But Halstatt in fact doesn't look like huge monolitic culture that cover half of Europe as shown in Wiki, in contrast it's a limited area around Alps and La Tene is too late for that. Yes Western Halstatt was probably Celtic and La Tene was 100% Celtic culture, but that's just eastern periphery of Celtic world

Fantomas

04-28-2020, 06:10 AM

Actually, recently the influences from the east have been getting vindicated.

MX 265 from iron age Switzerland was a pure Scythian migrant(pretty much identical to Hungarian, Ukrainian Scythians/Sarmatians), DA 112 from the Hallstatt site in Bohemia had minor but definite Scythian admixture. The Celts taught the Romans how to wear pants, but the Celts likely learned it from the Scythians.

Similar pattern everywhere in Europe, not just the Celts. You probably don't get the Germanic expansions without influence from Urnfield in Nordic BA, you don't get to Minoans from Greek neolithic without significantly more Anatolian stuff, you don't get from Minoan to Mycenaean without even more Anatolian stuff(and some steppe), you don't get Etruscan from Italy Bell Beaker/BA without Anatolian or Mycenaean, etc. That's why I find it funny when nationalists jerk off to ancient civilizations, because you're basically jerking off to Arabs or some guy who now herds sheep in the Caucasus mountains.
Yeah, Halstatt looke like multicultural supranational culture based on trading river system, mineral extraction and prestigious goods. They willingly took new foreign ideas, prestige metal works ,wine, new types of carts, architecture from Greece and Italy, funeral customs for the nobility from Scythians and who knows, maybe pants also. Thus presence of "Scythinans" there would make sence.

Fantomas

04-28-2020, 06:16 AM

Aside from them both being Indo-European, is there actually consensus/evidence that Germanic is part of one branch with Balto-Slavic, separate from Italo-Celtic?
Proto-Germanic, possibly, broke away from Italo-Celtic, but very early and had been in close contacts with Baltic for a very long time.

SharpFork

04-28-2020, 06:27 AM

1. Correct me if i wrong, evolution of Germanic languages has very similar history with Proto-Celtic, if Jastorf and Nordic Bronze Age cultures are associated with it. From Corded ware culture to Nordic Bronze/Jastorf (proto-Nordic) around 1000-1500 years and they're also separated by sea and spread over a large geographic area. Proto-Celtic evolved from Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker and by 1000-500 BC began separating into different branches. Seaways are better means of communiactions than ground movements btw.
I don't believe it's the same because ultimately the land in the Germanic case is more tightly connected also because proto-Germanic is date relatively early in the process, a bit more that a century after the formation of Jastorf I believe. Plus nobody is postulating "lingua francas" or the kind of long-distance unity and communication between England/Ireland and Iberia.

2.it's impossible to state categorically where exactly lived that group of people who have caused proto-Celtic. But the version with Atlantic seashore contains much less controversy, than others and allayed many problems.
Such as? What exactly are the advantages? To me they are not apparent at all, I barely see anyone actively arguing about them outside Cunliffe and no actual good deciding arguments so far.

3. In that case Koch's version would be destroyed by other linguists long time ago. Particularly since Celts were the closest neighbours of Tartessians and even supposed to be related
http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Some_observations_on_the_classification_of_Tartess ian_as_a_Celtic_language

Let's not beat around the bush, the classification of Tartessian as Celtic is highly unwarrantedn and a very low confidence claim given the evidence so far, plus it would not contradict a Central European expansion at all but it would merely help shape the timeline, given the earliest Tartessian inscription are not before the 8th century anyway.

4.Yes, i agee. There're still many problems and blank pots, just like with Central European hypothesis by the way. But Halstatt in fact doesn't look like huge monolitic culture that cover half of Europe as shown in Wiki, in contrast it's a limited area around Alps and La Tene is too late for that. Yes Western Halstatt was probably Celtic and La Tene was 100% Celtic culture, but that's just eastern periphery of Celtic world
Obviously nobody is makign the argument that material culture is 1:1 with languages, but we do see a lot of interconnectedness during the Hallstatt period and I still haven't seen anyone actually addressing what kind of secret knowledge they have that indicates Celtic from West is an actual necessary theory to explain the arrival of Celtic in Central Europe and Eastern France rather than a local development.

Regardless of material culture some Celts in Lombardy by this point, having Celtic in Spain can be argued using the same Tartessian language whose Celtic-like elements can be argued to come from borrowings. A Celtic from the West theory cannot possibly have had a different timeline of expansion than the Central European theory, so I still don't see why is it necessary, if you have just one very good argument for it please just show it.

Fantomas

04-28-2020, 08:17 AM

I don't believe it's the same because ultimately the land in the Germanic case is more tightly connected also because proto-Germanic is date relatively early in the process, a bit more that a century after the formation of Jastorf I believe. Plus nobody is postulating "lingua francas" or the kind of long-distance unity and communication between England/Ireland and Iberia.
Proto-Germanic language originated for just one century?!:confused: I think you get process formation of languages incorrectly. Language doesn't just happen from nothing, it evolves long time, many centuries, on a definitive basis. Land in the Germanic case was not more tightly connected.
Why distance contacts from central Norway to Gotland or from Northern Nederlands to central Sweden as a matter of course for you, but distance between northen Iberia and Gironde or around La Manche is something fantastically incredible?

Such as? What exactly are the advantages? To me they are not apparent at all, I barely see anyone actively arguing about them outside Cunliffe and no actual good deciding arguments so far.
It's very simple. There's no Urnfield/ Halstatt presence in Atlantic and even La Tene doesn't cover small part of area. Historians of the past resolved this problem easy, they just combined Central European archaeological cultures, idea that all migrations must have east-weat direction with ancient written sources which placed Celts on half of the Continent, and that's it!

http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Some_observations_on_the_classification_of_Tartess ian_as_a_Celtic_language

Let's not beat around the bush, the classification of Tartessian as Celtic is highly unwarrantedn and a very low confidence claim given the evidence so far, plus it would not contradict a Central European expansion at all but it would merely help shape the timeline, given the earliest Tartessian inscription are not before the 8th century anyway.
To sum up, Koch's analysis reflects the author's superior scholarship, but is not really convincing. The reader is left with a number of inconsistencies, in form and content, ad hoc solutions and divergencies from the results of the other Hispano-Celtic sources. Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach. As in the case of Lusitanian, it may very well be a hybrid language with a non-Celtic matrix and extensive Celtic loanwords (as previously assumed by Francisco Villar) or vice versa.

I shall begin by saying I find no a priori reason to rule
out a Celtic classification of Tartessian. But it is important
to note that this idea, originally put forward by José
Antonio Correa, rests on the interpretation of a large
number of words as Celtic personal names (in fact, a third
part of the corpus in Koch’s approach). As is obvious to
nearly every linguist (including Koch, but interestingly not
some of the works on Lusitanian that he quotes), proper
names are not diagnostic of the genetic appurtenance of
the language in which the text is conducted. This is why –
briga place names mentioned in indigenous Lusitanian
inscriptions contribute nothing to the study of Lusitanian.
People travel, and the allusion to persons bearing Celtic
names in ancient epigraphy, whether Celtic or not, is
entirely unproblematic. But this faces us with a problem
that is seldom reckoned with: If the matrix language of the
SW epigraphy is not Celtic, but nearly a third part of its
contents consists of Celtic personal names, these may have
been borrowed (or simply consigned in writing) long after
the dawn of literacy, and consequently may reflect the
actual synchronic phonetics of SW Celtic dialects more
faithfully than the non–Celtic appellative vocabulary

Both of these reviews suggested that can be Celtic

Obviously nobody is makign the argument that material culture is 1:1 with languages, but we do see a lot of interconnectedness during the Hallstatt period and I still haven't seen anyone actually addressing what kind of secret knowledge they have that indicates Celtic from West is an actual necessary theory to explain the arrival of Celtic in Central Europe and Eastern France rather than a local development.

Regardless of material culture some Celts in Lombardy by this point, having Celtic in Spain can be argued using the same Tartessian language whose Celtic-like elements can be argued to come from borrowings. A Celtic from the West theory cannot possibly have had a different timeline of expansion than the Central European theory, so I still don't see why is it necessary, if you have just one very good argument for it please just show it.
OK. contemporaries described "Celtic world" in many respects, we know tribes, names, cities and sometimes even history of their origin. But the main problem that most of these tribes, maybe 90% were not in Central Europe, moreover they're recent migrants from west there! Furthemore we even know from written sources when they began to move to Italy for example and what mountain pass they used, its a Ha D1 period. so i honestly don't understand why it is bothering you so much. There are no discrepancies at all, no between Celts in Iberia and Italy nor between presence of Lepontic and Tartessian inscriptions and its Celtic origin, just if we accept western theory of course.

SharpFork

04-28-2020, 09:27 AM

Proto-Germanic language originated for just one century?!:confused: I think you get process formation of languages incorrectly. Language doesn't just happen from nothing, it evolves long time, many centuries, on a definitive basis. Land in the Germanic case was not more tightly connected.
What I mean is that proto-Germanic started to split around 500 BCE I believe. Although it is also dated as late as 200 CE when through glottochronogical-based comparison between North and West Germanic, as people consider East Germanic to be a more basal split between it and North-West.

Plus the late dating is explained by actual migrations from north to south, not magical trade-driven lingua francas taking over entire regions somehow. When proponents of Celtic from the West make actual argument using migration we can compare the 2 theories, but they aren't.

Why distance contacts from central Norway to Gotland or from Northern Nederlands to central Sweden as a matter of course for you, but distance between northen Iberia and Gironde or around La Manche is something fantastically incredible?
Yes look at a map please. Plus nobody is postulating that Germanic was FORMED as a lingua franca over a large region, while those proponents do for celtic.

Plus Celtic from the West postulates Celtic was also spoken in Ireland and Britain prior to expanding into central Europe. The distance between Tartessus and Scotland is much large than even the distance between Trondheim and Thuringia. Celtic from the West also doesn't explain why the language broke up at all if primitive societies(yes they were primitive stateless societies by all accounts) could create and maintain linguistic unity over such distances.

I
t's very simple. There's no Urnfield/ Halstatt presence in Atlantic and even La Tene doesn't cover small part of area. Historians of the past resolved this problem easy, they just combined Central European archaeological cultures, idea that all migrations must have east-weat direction with ancient written sources which placed Celts on half of the Continent, and that's it![QUOTE]
There is Hallstatt influence in Britain, not a lot but at the same time it is not necessary to explain the migrations, we know there were Lepontii in Italy prior to La Tene without having Lombardy being part of the Hallstatt cohesiveness.

Also no, scholars did not invent Hallstatt or La Tene unity to fit with the sources, you are literally making stuff up simply because you don't want to revise or defend the theory you prefer with actual arguments.

[QUOTE]Both of these reviews suggested that can be Celtic

It can be Celtic and it could anything because if use such weak arguments you could argue a lot of things. Not enough to base an entire theory, especially given it's not like Tartessian has incredibly early dating.

OK. contemporaries described "Celtic world" in many respects, we know tribes, names, cities and sometimes even history of their origin. But the main problem that most of these tribes, maybe 90% were not in Central Europe, moreover they're recent migrants from west there! Furthemore we even know from written sources when they began to move to Italy for example and what mountain pass they used, its a Ha D1 period. so i honestly don't understand why it is bothering you so much. There are no discrepancies at all, no between Celts in Iberia and Italy nor between presence of Lepontic and Tartessian inscriptions and its Celtic origin, just if we accept western theory of course.
Maybe they weren't in Central Europe, maybe Tartessian was Celtic, maybe the scholars made up material cultures. All maybes.

What's bothering me is that there is no reason this theory should exist, it doesn't explain anything at all while claiming so much stuff WITHOUT evidence. There is no discrepancy in the Hallstatt theory either if you think there are non in the Western theory, you are hypocritically criticizing only Hallstatt for faults that the Western theory has, if you can demonstrably show that Hallstatt derived inctrovertably from Western sources from Iberia or Britain fell free.

SharpFork

04-28-2020, 09:27 AM

Double

Fantomas

04-28-2020, 11:04 AM

What I mean is that proto-Germanic started to split around 500 BCE I believe. Although it is also dated as late as 200 CE when through glottochronogical-based comparison between North and West Germanic, as people consider East Germanic to be a more basal split between it and North-West.

Plus the late dating is explained by actual migrations from north to south, not magical trade-driven lingua francas taking over entire regions somehow. When proponents of Celtic from the West make actual argument using migration we can compare the 2 theories, but they aren't.

Yes look at a map please. Plus nobody is postulating that Germanic was FORMED as a lingua franca over a large region, while those proponents do for celtic.
Then, how proto-Germanic before splitting around 500 BC was managed to develope in Northern Europe all that time? If only you have got alternative theory of speedy occupations of all Northern Europe by proto-Germanics in 500 BC from some small point

Plus Celtic from the West postulates Celtic was also spoken in Ireland and Britain prior to expanding into central Europe. The distance between Tartessus and Scotland is much large than even the distance between Trondheim and Thuringia. Celtic from the West also doesn't explain why the language broke up at all if primitive societies(yes they were primitive stateless societies by all accounts) could create and maintain linguistic unity over such distances.
It's not inconceivable, provided that language used by relative, neighbouring communties in close contacts with each other preserve some language for a couple of times. Don't look at the map of whole Europe if it's iterrifying to imagine for you, just look at it like it's a continuum of settlements in clear line of sight.

There is Hallstatt influence in Britain, not a lot but at the same time it is not necessary to explain the migrations, we know there were Lepontii in Italy prior to La Tene without having Lombardy being part of the Hallstatt cohesiveness.

Also no, scholars did not invent Hallstatt or La Tene unity to fit with the sources, you are literally making stuff up simply because you don't want to revise or defend the theory you prefer with actual arguments.
Sorry i don't understand you. Are you supporting Celtic invasion theory from central Europe in Iron Age or not? because it's a classic. Open any book and you'll see how Celts do conquer Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland etc. just right from Halstatt and La Tene cemeteries.

It can be Celtic and it could anything because if use such weak arguments you could argue a lot of things. Not enough to base an entire theory, especially given it's not like Tartessian has incredibly early dating.

Maybe they weren't in Central Europe, maybe Tartessian was Celtic, maybe the scholars made up material cultures. All maybes.

What's bothering me is that there is no reason this theory should exist, it doesn't explain anything at all while claiming so much stuff WITHOUT evidence. There is no discrepancy in the Hallstatt theory either if you think there are non in the Western theory, you are hypocritically criticizing only Hallstatt for faults that the Western theory has, if you can demonstrably show that Hallstatt derived inctrovertably from Western sources from Iberia or Britain fell free.
I already said that Hallstatt is a supranational phenomenon. Even in classic hypothesis it belongs to different ethnic groups, western Halstatt is Celtic and eastern Halstatt is not. The picture is much more complicated. Halstatt as such is not derived from Britain and Iberia surely, but its the result of wars and collapse of Urnfield culture. so Celts just took a part of its developing right there together with local previous population and not had been brought it Central Europe as a ready-made.

SharpFork

04-29-2020, 09:42 AM

Then, how proto-Germanic before splitting around 500 BC was managed to develope in Northern Europe all that time? If only you have got alternative theory of speedy occupations of all Northern Europe by proto-Germanics in 500 BC from some small point
Because contrary to Western Celts they don't have a oceans dividing them, c'mon now. Also nobody is talking about small points, you are building strawmans, sure glottochronology might fail in small regions but here we are talking about distances of dozens of hundreds of kilometers through the Atlantic, not a couple hundred.

Also like I said before virtually everyone takes into consideration the importance of migrations from the north reinforcing the unity. In 500 BCE Germanic was just moving south from Mecklenburg, Holstein and northern Lower Saxony.

It's not inconceivable, provided that language used by relative, neighbouring communties in close contacts with each other preserve some language for a couple of times. Don't look at the map of whole Europe if it's iterrifying to imagine for you, just look at it like it's a continuum of settlements in clear line of sight.
Yes I totally forgot about the line of settlements between Galicia and Ireland, silly me. Even if you consider France it's an extremely large area, the distance between Northern Scotland and Tartessos between 1.6 and 2 times as long of a distance as from Trondheim to Thuringia or Harz, plus it's based on the idea that the language was spread by trade and contact, NOT migration. Are you ever going to address that?

Sorry i don't understand you. Are you supporting Celtic invasion theory from central Europe in Iron Age or not? because it's a classic. Open any book and you'll see how Celts do conquer Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland etc. just right from Halstatt and La Tene cemeteries.
Not sure what the fuck you are saying but neither Hallstatt nor La Tene have been invented, the fact that such large material cultures exists coincides with what we know of Celtic migrations happening both in the Balkans, Italy and Southern France and Iberia. It's evidence converging, not bias.

I already said that Hallstatt is a supranational phenomenon. Even in classic hypothesis it belongs to different ethnic groups, western Halstatt is Celtic and eastern Halstatt is not. The picture is much more complicated. Halstatt as such is not derived from Britain and Iberia surely, but its the result of wars and collapse of Urnfield culture. so Celts just took a part of its developing right there together with local previous population and not had been brought it Central Europe as a ready-made.
And your evidence for that is? If you can come up with such a theory that totally ignores archeological cultures to talk about the expansion of linguistic communities, what fucking argument do you have against Hallstatt? You literally have nothing against Hallstatt, just tell one argument that applies against only to Hallstatt Celtic expansion theory that doesn't to yours.

SharpFork

04-29-2020, 10:24 AM

Regardless it's not like I'm going to defend the Hallstatt theory for the sake of it, there are some problems about the dating of proto-Celtic that could push the expansion some centuries prior to the Iron age Hallstatt period, but they don't benefit at all Celtic from the West, as they would still be unable to explain the diversity in Spain, the division between Brythonic and and Gaelic and of course they would still have to rely on Hallstatt to explain the Celtic expansion past the Rhine.

J. Ketch

04-30-2020, 04:35 AM

Well, here's my go to model for Western Europeans+new Swiss samples. Every single sample labeled Celtic has their closest distance to a N. Iberian or S. French population. I still use Collegno_o1 to represent Imperial Romans in my go to model over Imperial_Rome because the Imperial_Rome sample was likely too southern shifted for the average Italian colonist, a plurality of samples were Cyprus like, not to mention all the literal fresh off the boat MENA immigrants, South Italian-Greek islander seems more about right to me. Based on K36 results south of the Rhine Dutch are pretty different from all other Dutch and Flemish are pretty different from Walloons, so there's definitely some regional variation there, but those pops aren't on G25.

model(same model for all the pops, if you use the model yourself I recommend using DEU_MA as individuals rather than the average, not a good idea comparing averages of pops vs individuals of pops, I was just too lazy):

Target: English_Cornwall
Distance: 1.2712% / 0.01271192
43.4 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
29.6 Germanic
27.0 Celtic
(darkest eyed British Isles pop scores the most S. French-like Celt, coincidence?)

Target: English
Distance: 1.1496% / 0.01149641
45.2 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
34.0 Germanic
19.2 Celtic
1.6 Italic

Target: Irish
Distance: 1.3893% / 0.01389258
72.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
16.4 Germanic
11.0 Celtic

Target: Dutch
Distance: 1.0855% / 0.01085496
71.2 Germanic
15.0 Celtic
13.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker

Target: Belgian
Distance: 0.8557% / 0.00855729
35.8 Germanic
24.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
23.6 Celtic
8.6 Italic
7.2 ImperialRoman

Target: French_Nord
Distance: 0.8087% / 0.00808733
34.2 Celtic
28.8 Germanic
21.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
8.6 ImperialRoman
6.8 Italic

Target: Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
Distance: 0.9247% / 0.00924716
39.8 Celtic
25.0 Iberia_Central_BA
17.4 ImperialRoman
8.0 Italic
5.0 Mozabite
4.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker

Maybe the Empuires samples were even all Celts, it's still silly, imo, to use samples from Iberia instead of from the actual Alps, regardless of age. If anything the older age of the Alpine samples should make them prefer any newer Italic samples but they don't. I do not disagree with late period Alpine Celts being 34-40% steppe. The only thing I disagree with is people with however much % steppe N. French have making up the average of people in the Hallstatt/La Tene period Alps.

No samples from the Basque area, but as far as I know, Iberia, from the North-East all the way to Portugal, was Basque-like pre-Celtic/Roman invasions, going on PCA plot position. Not just "around Basque", but very specifically Basque. Celts likely shifted them north as Empuires shows but North Africans and Imperial Romans back down to modern Iberians. Southern France clearly got more southern via Imperial Roman admixture, perhaps even modern Spanish, but may also likely have extra northern admixture from post-medieval northern French migrating, etc, which can explain why they still cluster around my hypothesized Celts. It's like N. Italians, they are almost identical to Etruscans but obviously they are not 100% Etruscan, nowhere close to it, despite circumstances of later migrations making them extremely similar.

E has been found in neolithic Europe, nearly all of it in the south-east, nearly all of it the specific clade E-V13, and still in tiny tiny amounts, nowhere close to the rate modern Europeans have it. J has even been found in EHGs and Yamnaya, that does not mean the vast majority of modern European J isn't from later Middle-Eastern migrations.

I believe La Tene areas in N. France and Belgium are dated older to anywhere else in France(but of course oldest are in La Tene/Switzerland) along the Rhine, maybe that supports Alpine Celts moving north first before they spread to southern France/Iberia.

The Celtic speakers that crossed the English straight definitely weren't S. French like, they undoubtably picked up admixture from the Rhine area/NW France area, a region which I do think was N. French-like, if not even more northern similar to England/Scotland MBA/LBA, so while English/Irish may show low amounts of S. French-like admixture(don't forget the case of elite language conquest in Hungary/Finland btw), that wasn't the entire % of the population movement by people who spoke the language.

The Celts were pretty civilized and urbanized for their time, I would be more surprised if they were overwhelmingly Bell Beaker descended rather than heavily neolithic farmer. The Celtic language is literally closer linguistically to Italic than it is to Germanic. Keep in mind back then Latium or anywhere in Italy should really be considered the same thing as northern Italy, Slovenia, etc geographically, the Mediterranean sea used to be a barrier between gene flow, not a conduit. It's not really that far fetched for populations on both sides of a mountain range(albeit big) to be pretty similar(Celts were more northern anyway, again I'm not arguing for the Celt average to be around N. Iberians lol, the distance between Iberians and S. French is pretty big).

There's also one important point I forgot earlier, populations like Czechs, Slovaks, southern Poles show this southern shifted Celt signal. Are we really going to say Czechs and Poles have Italic and Roman admixture now?
Was just thinking, a possible point in favour of your theory that the original Celts were SW Euro-like was the Italian affinity that NW Euro countries scored surprisingly high amounts of in the Viking paper.
https://i.postimg.cc/9fv9JwGy/Got-VW-admixture-estimates.png

English = 19% 'Celtic' in your model, 18% (17-20%) 'Italian' in the paper
Irish = 11% 'Celtic' in your model, 9% (7-12%) 'Italian' in the paper
Scandinavians get 5-10% of it as well, which would be hard to explain through Romans or something.

Might be a coincidence, but just putting it out there.

Fantomas

04-30-2020, 01:16 PM

Because contrary to Western Celts they don't have a oceans dividing them, c'mon now. Also nobody is talking about small points, you are building strawmans, sure glottochronology might fail in small regions but here we are talking about distances of dozens of hundreds of kilometers through the Atlantic, not a couple hundred.

Also like I said before virtually everyone takes into consideration the importance of migrations from the north reinforcing the unity. In 500 BCE Germanic was just moving south from Mecklenburg, Holstein and northern Lower Saxony.

Yes I totally forgot about the line of settlements between Galicia and Ireland, silly me. Even if you consider France it's an extremely large area, the distance between Northern Scotland and Tartessos between 1.6 and 2 times as long of a distance as from Trondheim to Thuringia or Harz, plus it's based on the idea that the language was spread by trade and contact, NOT migration. Are you ever going to address that?

Not sure what the fuck you are saying but neither Hallstatt nor La Tene have been invented, the fact that such large material cultures exists coincides with what we know of Celtic migrations happening both in the Balkans, Italy and Southern France and Iberia. It's evidence converging, not bias.

And your evidence for that is? If you can come up with such a theory that totally ignores archeological cultures to talk about the expansion of linguistic communities, what fucking argument do you have against Hallstatt? You literally have nothing against Hallstatt, just tell one argument that applies against only to Hallstatt Celtic expansion theory that doesn't to yours.
Allright, i've seen your arguments. Proto-Germanic language that developed for 1000 years, covered whole northern Europe (Nordic Bronze Age) and divided by sea is absolutely par for the course for you, but almost the same process in Atlantic Bronze Age is something fantastically impossible.

Is that so difficult to understanding? Not from Scotland to Tartessos, you're improperly going by direct distance. But people those era travelling from settlement to settlement, between closest havens, that might be half day away from each other. If the connection between areas was intensive enough, and archaeology shows that it really was, there's nothing unusual, that these people spoke one language.

That's what western Hallstatt and La Tene look like in reality

https://i.imgur.com/rMQQl1V.png
https://i.imgur.com/McziHaj.png

There must be wild flights of imagination. to make up hypothesis how people of these archaeological cultures populated whole Atlantic part of Europe right up to Ireland and Portugal. From another side western theory is much more realistic because coastline and lower parts of large rivers is much better for connecting people and long distance travelling, than mountain Alpine area (Halstatt homeland). Journey that took a week by sea, on the ground took a months especially in mountainous region

Gota_type_

04-30-2020, 01:21 PM

Although I am not going to say much about this issue since I have not read much about it, since I am a Spaniard just wanted to tell you that there is even an older civilization than Tartessos in southern Spain which is Turdetanians. They seem to be related.

And also saying that most people in "Spain" spoke a basque like language: iberian (most people agree that basque was extremely related with iberian). And some theories say that in many places of Europe and previously to the arrival of indoeuropeans, the natives spoke an "iberian" like language.

And there was also a intermedial language called celtiberian, which is related to celtic (it even has PIE Consonants, and iberian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language

This is the celtiberian language:

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

https://www.uni-due.de/DI/Botorrita.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Botorrita1.jpg/800px-Botorrita1.jpg

llengües paleohispàniques
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Mapa_lleng%C3%BCes_paleohisp%C3%A0niques-ang.jpg/300px-Mapa_lleng%C3%BCes_paleohisp%C3%A0niques-ang.jpg

SharpFork

04-30-2020, 03:55 PM

Allright, i've seen your arguments. Proto-Germanic language that developed for 1000 years, covered whole northern Europe (Nordic Bronze Age) and divided by sea is absolutely par for the course for you, but almost the same process in Atlantic Bronze Age is something fantastically impossible.
The Nordic Bronze Age covered only the southern half of Scandinavia and the northern coast of Germany around Holstein, like I said it's smaller than the Atlantic Bronze Age and it was NOT created by magical lingua francas taking over large territories.

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/bronze_age_late_Europe_tollense_cut.jpg

Stop ignoring my points, it was NOT the same process, if Cunliffe and Koch were claiming that the Celtic Atlantic unifciaiton happened through migration it would be similar but it's not.

Is that so difficult to understanding? Not from Scotland to Tartessos, you're improperly going by direct distance. But people those era travelling from settlement to settlement, between closest havens, that might be half day away from each other. If the connection between areas was intensive enough, and archaeology shows that it really was, there's nothing unusual, that these people spoke one language.
The Atlantic Bronze Age starts in 1300 BCE and prior to that those populations were separated for centuries, there is NO reason to assume they spoke the same language nor is there any evidence that trade or merely contact unifies such large regions.

How does Basque and Lusitanian fit in this theory? Somehow those 2 populations were not unified when the areas between Scotland and Tartessos? Why are you not considering the chronological division between Brythonic and Gaelic at all?

That's what western Hallstatt and La Tene look like in reality
No this shows the core areas, not the maximum spread of their artifacts, Cunliffe's maps shows the maximum spread too. Also you find plenty of Bronze Hallstatt swords in Britain and Ireland

There must be wild flights of imagination. to make up hypothesis how people of these archaeological cultures populated whole Atlantic part of Europe right up to Ireland and Portugal. From another side western theory is much more realistic because coastline and lower parts of large rivers is much better for connecting people and long distance travelling, than mountain Alpine area (Halstatt homeland). Journey that took a week by sea, on the ground took a months especially in mountainous region
Whatever you say, you are not actually engaging with my arguments and provided no evidence of your arguments, we have to be here pretending you are some sort of genius and your ideas are supposed to be valid just by being sound. Just come up with evidencec

Fantomas

04-30-2020, 05:46 PM

The Nordic Bronze Age covered only the southern half of Scandinavia and the northern coast of Germany around Holstein, like I said it's smaller than the Atlantic Bronze Age and it was NOT created by magical lingua francas taking over large territories.

Stop ignoring my points, it was NOT the same process, if Cunliffe and Koch were claiming that the Celtic Atlantic unifciaiton happened through migration it would be similar but it's not.

The Atlantic Bronze Age starts in 1300 BCE and prior to that those populations were separated for centuries, there is NO reason to assume they spoke the same language nor is there any evidence that trade or merely contact unifies such large regions.
You have not read that book. just like anything about Atlantic core zone. There're constant contacts for thousands of years. since late Neolithic up to Late Bronze Age forming actually one contact zone. There's just huge intensification for the latter period. However, it's impossible to say when and how IE, proto-Celtic, common Celtic was introduced there, the only thing can be said confidently that in the late Bronze Age it was broadly introduсed in Atlantic zone,and it was commonly used language there, THAT'S THE POINT, who knows maybe all late Neolithic or Bell Beakers, or Armorican/Wessex cultures comprised one linguistic area and proto-Celtic evolved from it. Absolutely the same about proto-Germanic, very large part of Northern Europe accepted to be proto-Germanic and nobody knows how it exactly had happened, maybe it was 'lingua france' as well. Stop counting kilometres,it's not going to make any difference.

How does Basque and Lusitanian fit in this theory? Somehow those 2 populations were not unified when the areas between Scotland and Tartessos? Why are you not considering the chronological division between Brythonic and Gaelic at all?

No this shows the core areas, not the maximum spread of their artifacts, Cunliffe's maps shows the maximum spread too. Also you find plenty of Bronze Hallstatt swords in Britain and Ireland

Whatever you say, you are not actually engaging with my arguments and provided no evidence of your arguments, we have to be here pretending you are some sort of genius and your ideas are supposed to be valid just by being sound. Just come up with evidencec
Lusitanian seemes to be a Celtic variation or Celtic influenced, and area around Pyrenees was not belonged to Atlantic Bronze cultures, that's shown in the map i posted earlier. Anyway, is it so unbelievable that there can be another languages?

What are the problems with Brithonic/Gaelic chronolgical division? If it happened in Ha.C/D periods as shown in that table, that was exactly the period when Ireland and Scotland fall out of old Bronze contact system and became archaic, the same time Brithonic-Gallic zone was still in a state of intensive contacts

Hallstatt swords (Gundlingen type) are of Atlantic origin and spreaded into Central Europe during Ha.C period.

Halstatt/La Tene warriors conquered so large territory without leaving any burial, that is the only characteristic forms these archaeological culture?:confused:

Gota_type_

04-30-2020, 08:08 PM

Since you talk about Tartessos I am showing you some of the material culture they left, so maybe you can find others that could resemble them in other áreas:
http://benedante.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-aliseda-treasure.html
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KIcXfw_c5tE/WNMQ-ivudPI/AAAAAAAA_-Q/XGtvjO5voYAsqww6jGwfDj8C7T3QcjEDQCLcB/s400/Tesoro_de_Aliseda_7th%2Bc%2BBC.jpg

http://www.civilization.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Tartessos-Tesoro_Carambolo.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkYuaycIyAw/UwLKqxB-6QI/AAAAAAAAFT0/BSXbtFhrwq8/s1600/111+2.jpg
Many more: http://www.civilization.org.uk/intermezzo/tartessos

SharpFork

04-30-2020, 10:37 PM

You have not read that book. just like anything about Atlantic core zone. There're constant contacts for thousands of years. since late Neolithic up to Late Bronze Age forming actually one contact zone.
Did you actually read Cunliffe? He thinks Celtic SPREAD continued with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not that a previous unity was maintained:

(Page 67):
The Atlantic seaways continued to develop throughout the Bronze Age, and
by the Late Bronze Age (1300–800bc) the maritime interactions had reached
a peak of intensity. The prime motivation is likely to have been the exchange
of commodities, particularly metals, but the archaeological evidence leaves little
doubt that complex social relationships played a large part in the mobility. By the end
of the period similar warrior weapon sets were in use along the entire Atlantic façade
and feasting played a vital role in maintaining social engagement. The Celtic language
would now have been in regular use throughout the maritime zone to facilitate the
intricate networks of connectivity
When did a language ever spread in such a large area through trade? We have similar evidence for Greece and Phoenicia and neither Italians, French Anatolian nor Iberians adopted the colonizing language so thoroughly and so quickly, they needed to be conquered.

There's just huge intensification for the latter period. However, it's impossible to say when and how IE, proto-Celtic, common Celtic was introduced there, the only thing can be said confidently that in the late Bronze Age it was broadly introduсed in Atlantic zone,and it was commonly used language there, THAT'S THE POINT, who knows maybe all late Neolithic or Bell Beakers, or Armorican/Wessex cultures comprised one linguistic area and proto-Celtic evolved from it. Absolutely the same about proto-Germanic, very large part of Northern Europe accepted to be proto-Germanic and nobody knows how it exactly had happened, maybe it was 'lingua france' as well. Stop counting kilometres,it's not going to make any difference.
We have no idea if Celtic was spoken in any of those regions at any specific point in time prior to their attestation.

You basically want everyone to ignore the problems with the theory, not ask any question and just accept everything, why can't YOU do the fucking same with Hallstatt?

Lusitanian seemes to be a Celtic variation or Celtic influenced, and area around Pyrenees was not belonged to Atlantic Bronze cultures, that's shown in the map i posted earlier. Anyway, is it so unbelievable that there can be another languages?
No, Lusitanian misses important Celtic sound changes, it's not Celtic and it being Celtic influenced doesn't prove anything given it could have happened with the Hallstatt theory too.

Also the Basque and Aquitanian coastal region was under the influence of the culture too:

https://i.imgur.com/F22yj5X.png

In other maps they are not but this only puts into question the idea even more, if there was such a large gap betwwn the French and Cantabrian coast, how can one speak of a continuous "settlement to settlement" connection?

What are the problems with Brithonic/Gaelic chronolgical division? If it happened in Ha.C/D periods as shown in that table, that was exactly the period when Ireland and Scotland fall out of old Bronze contact system and became archaic, the same time Brithonic-Gallic zone was still in a state of intensive contacts
Oh yes the unfalsiable theory, If Celtic was divided in 1300 BCE it was literally at the start of the Atlantic Bronze Age and if it was in 900 BCE it was still during the Atlantic Bronze Age and if you by Cunliffe chronology it was way latter, literally none of the chronologies fits your theory.

Hallstatt swords (Gundlingen type) are of Atlantic origin and spreaded into Central Europe during Ha.C period.
I see, I'm not sure why they are called Hallstatt then.

Halstatt/La Tene warriors conquered so large territory without leaving any burial, that is the only characteristic forms these archaeological culture?:confused:
And pray tell how did Celts magically take over Hallstatt without their own burials? Also burials were not the only characteristic of Hallstatt...

Also using this logic Celts never spread to Italy or the southern Balkans/Anatolia...

SharpFork

04-30-2020, 11:06 PM

Also nevermind the fact that Cunliffe pushed his theory based on the erroneous Renfrew's Anatolian IE theory and now he pushes the idea that Indo-European somehow spread both from Anatolia and the Steppe, it's almost as if he's grasping at straws!
He even theorizes that Italo-Celtic came from Anatolia and Germanic and Balto-Slavic from a mix of Neolithic with the Steppe, what a genius, why did nobody think of that?

Cunliffe and Koch clearly come up with ridiculous theories just as easy as we breath, and Koch's interpretation of Tartessian is controversial at best. So why is this theory, again, more valid than Hallstatt/Urnfield expansion?

He even thinks that somehow Basque was a WHG language...

Fantomas

05-01-2020, 08:00 AM

Did you actually read Cunliffe? He thinks Celtic SPREAD continued with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not that a previous unity was maintained:
Yes, CONTINUED spread, not began, with the Late BA, and where exactly there's previous unity we don't know, there can be just suggested scenarios

We have no idea if Celtic was spoken in any of those regions at any specific point in time prior to their attestation.

You basically want everyone to ignore the problems with the theory, not ask any question and just accept everything, why can't YOU do the fucking same with Hallstatt?
Once again, because there's no Halstatt culture in Atlantic Europe, which directly continued form previous cultures from Bronze Age through Iron Age up to Roman conquest. Classic hypothesis doesn't work at all.

No, Lusitanian misses important Celtic sound changes, it's not Celtic and it being Celtic influenced doesn't prove anything given it could have happened with the Hallstatt theory too.
So what that was the langauge, Ibero-Celtic, Para-Celtic, Gallo-Italic or what?

Also the Basque and Aquitanian coastal region was under the influence of the culture too:

In other maps they are not but this only puts into question the idea even more, if there was such a large gap betwwn the French and Cantabrian coast, how can one speak of a continuous "settlement to settlement" connection?
There's a lot of space for Basques, Iberians, para-IE and whoever you want.

What's the large gap, this one? https://i.imgur.com/dJ9TvYf.png

I see, I'm not sure why they are called Hallstatt then.
Because it's one of the main weapons of western Halstatt elites. BTw, Halstatt elites thereat invented iron Mindelheim swords and its almost completely absent in Atalntic Europe. One more agrument against Halstatt invasion.

And pray tell how did Celts magically take over Hallstatt without their own burials? Also burials were not the only characteristic of Hallstatt...

Also using this logic Celts never spread to Italy or the southern Balkans/Anatolia...
Halstatt burial tradition and entire culture at all, was born right there using different customs including native, Italian, Greek and Scythian. they lived around controlled trading rivers and mineral resources and seems like they were not long distance invaders. Anyway we has well documented evidences of Celtic invasion in Italy and Balkans and there's no problems with La Tene material there.

Oh yes the unfalsiable theory, If Celtic was divided in 1300 BCE it was literally at the start of the Atlantic Bronze Age and if it was in 900 BCE it was still during the Atlantic Bronze Age and if you by Cunliffe chronology it was way latter, literally none of the chronologies fits your theory.

Also nevermind the fact that Cunliffe pushed his theory based on the erroneous Renfrew's Anatolian IE theory and now he pushes the idea that Indo-European somehow spread both from Anatolia and the Steppe, it's almost as if he's grasping at straws!
He even theorizes that Italo-Celtic came from Anatolia and Germanic and Balto-Slavic from a mix of Neolithic with the Steppe, what a genius, why did nobody think of that?

Cunliffe and Koch clearly come up with ridiculous theories just as easy as we breath, and Koch's interpretation of Tartessian is controversial at best. So why is this theory, again, more valid than Hallstatt/Urnfield expansion?

I'm completely confused with you. If you're going by earlier separation of Celtics, so how can you support the same time Halstatt common-Celtic unity?
Western theory better at least it maintains earlier Celtic division.(by Late BA). Cunliffe provides different works, including Grey-Atkinson one and different hypothesises and oipions about earlier spreads of IE and proto-langiages. Anyway dating range of Goidelic seaparation is between 1100-600 BC. according different linguists (Grey-Atkinson -900 BC) And the main thing, that by 600 BC this process was under way, while Halstatt assumes Celtic unity even in Iron Age

XenophobicPrussian

05-01-2020, 09:33 AM

Was just thinking, a possible point in favour of your theory that the original Celts were SW Euro-like was the Italian affinity that NW Euro countries scored surprisingly high amounts of in the Viking paper.
https://i.postimg.cc/9fv9JwGy/Got-VW-admixture-estimates.png

English = 19% 'Celtic' in your model, 18% (17-20%) 'Italian' in the paper
Irish = 11% 'Celtic' in your model, 9% (7-12%) 'Italian' in the paper
Scandinavians get 5-10% of it as well, which would be hard to explain through Romans or something.

Might be a coincidence, but just putting it out there.
Yep, that's actually a really great point.

Irish have no business having Roman admixture at all other noise levels from admixture with the English(who should be no more than 1-4% at most anyway) and Normans, if English are 17-20% and Irish are 7-12% that would need to make Irish about 50% English, which is obviously not a thing. You also have a group of Poles scoring 13%, again, not going to be a thing, meanwhile Poles do also score around that for the samples people have been associating with Alpine Celts, especially south Poles. If you don't provide the exact source of admixture the models just pick the closest thing. I even get around that same amount of Celtic in Norwegians in my models, likely all of it coming from the significant British Isles admixture they have. Would be hard to be a coincidence. Good find, I think that's actually exactly what's happening there.

SharpFork

05-01-2020, 12:49 PM

Yes, CONTINUED spread, not began, with the Late BA, and where exactly there's previous unity we don't know, there can be just suggested scenarios
Again show me a historically recorded scenarion in the pre-industrial era where a language spread over heterogeneous areas without some kind of political unity, unity that we have no evidence for in the Atlantic.

[/QUOTE]
Once again, because there's no Halstatt culture in Atlantic Europe, which directly continued form previous cultures from Bronze Age through Iron Age up to Roman conquest. Classic hypothesis doesn't work at all.[/QUOTE]
And is there altantic Culture in Hallstatt?

So what that was the langauge, Ibero-Celtic, Para-Celtic, Gallo-Italic or what?
Some people call it Para-Celtic, others think it's Italic, other think it's another branch within Italo-Celtic. Regardless it shows how unlikely it is to have had linguistical unity between Tartessos and Britain, I can understand believing Celtic came either from Spain or from Britain but both at the same time? How? Plus it doesn't really fit with the genetic evidence that show both Spain and England being pulled towards some intermediate group during the transition to the iron age. More evidence from France could help further

What's the large gap, this one?

https://i.imgur.com/hRIC2ya.png

Because it's one of the main weapons of western Halstatt elites. BTw, Halstatt elites thereat invented iron Mindelheim swords and its almost completely absent in Atalntic Europe. One more agrument against Halstatt invasion.
It's completely absent in most of France too...

Halstatt burial tradition and entire culture at all, was born right there using different customs including native, Italian, Greek and Scythian. they lived around controlled trading rivers and mineral resources and seems like they were not long distance invaders. Anyway we has well documented evidences of Celtic invasion in Italy and Balkans and there's no problems with La Tene material there.[QUOTE]
Hallstatt is a continuation of a local Urnfield tradition.

There is virtually no La Tene material in Italy or Anatolia and yet you have clearly Celts there.

[QUOTE]I'm completely confused with you. If you're going by earlier separation of Celtics, so how can you support the same time Halstatt common-Celtic unity?
I'm just showing that Cunliffe has contradictory points, you can cherrypick his theory and other people's specific datings to come up with whatever theory but so could I do the same by using Cunliffe dating and using Hallstatt.

Like I said I don't have a particular attachment to Hallstatt but you on the contrary can't help but being hypocritically only criticize Hallstatt while not taking into considerations all the faults of the Atlantic theory.

Western theory better at least it maintains earlier Celtic division.(by Late BA).
Without actually explaing how the unity could have come to be in a plausible and real way that we can see in actual history.

Cunliffe provides different works, including Grey-Atkinson one and different hypothesises and oipions about earlier spreads of IE and proto-langiages. Anyway dating range of Goidelic seaparation is between 1100-600 BC. according different linguists (Grey-Atkinson -900 BC) And the main thing, that by 600 BC this process was under way, while Halstatt assumes Celtic unity even in Iron Age
Cunliffe and Koch could fit their theory in a 1000 different theories of Indo-European spread, it's almost as if they are simply stubborn and are biased towards their own theory despite lack of evidence on all fronts.

It doesn't matter if Celtic came in the region in the Neolithic or Bronze Age, the theory remains unchanged. Are you going to defend those 2 people's random theories as well? That Germanic is a mix between farmer Indo-European and Steppe INdo-European?

In any case I'm tired of this discussion, you have still not presented any actual reason why this theory is needed and what it offers more than Hallstatt/Urnfield, especially when you ignore the fact that in multiple cases the spread of Celtic was not fllowed by spread of material culture.

SharpFork

05-01-2020, 12:50 PM

Yep, that's actually a really great point.

Irish have no business having Roman admixture at all other noise levels from admixture with the English(who should be no more than 1-4% at most anyway) and Normans, if English are 17-20% and Irish are 7-12% that would need to make Irish about 50% English, which is obviously not a thing. You also have a group of Poles scoring 13%, again, not going to be a thing, meanwhile Poles do also score around that for the samples people have been associating with Alpine Celts, especially south Poles. If you don't provide the exact source of admixture the models just pick the closest thing. I even get around that same amount of Celtic in Norwegians in my models, likely all of it coming from the significant British Isles admixture they have. Would be hard to be a coincidence. Good find, I think that's actually exactly what's happening there.

I don't believe this makes any sense, mostly unmixed Italian like Celts spreading from the Danube to Ireland?
Plus Italian is the only southern reference. I personally don't see how this evidence changes what we know at all.

mutabor

05-01-2020, 12:59 PM

Is it me who hears common vibe in Norwegian and Irish languages?

Norwegian

https://youtu.be/CCqtbte5s8E

Irish

https://youtu.be/LhqC3Vd0Qzo

mutabor

05-01-2020, 01:12 PM

Another weird thing when I hear Norwegian rap music I think it sounds a bit French.

https://youtu.be/0lWthCsPlp0

https://youtu.be/X-W-eGinFR4

Fantomas

05-01-2020, 03:30 PM

Again show me a historically recorded scenarion in the pre-industrial era where a language spread over heterogeneous areas without some kind of political unity, unity that we have no evidence for in the Atlantic.

And is there altantic Culture in Hallstatt?

Some people call it Para-Celtic, others think it's Italic, other think it's another branch within Italo-Celtic. Regardless it shows how unlikely it is to have had linguistical unity between Tartessos and Britain, I can understand believing Celtic came either from Spain or from Britain but both at the same time? How? Plus it doesn't really fit with the genetic evidence that show both Spain and England being pulled towards some intermediate group during the transition to the iron age. More evidence from France could help further

https://i.imgur.com/hRIC2ya.png

It's completely absent in most of France too...

Hallstatt is a continuation of a local Urnfield tradition.

There is virtually no La Tene material in Italy or Anatolia and yet you have clearly Celts there.

I'm just showing that Cunliffe has contradictory points, you can cherrypick his theory and other people's specific datings to come up with whatever theory but so could I do the same by using Cunliffe dating and using Hallstatt.

Like I said I don't have a particular attachment to Hallstatt but you on the contrary can't help but being hypocritically only criticize Hallstatt while not taking into considerations all the faults of the Atlantic theory.

Without actually explaing how the unity could have come to be in a plausible and real way that we can see in actual history.

Cunliffe and Koch could fit their theory in a 1000 different theories of Indo-European spread, it's almost as if they are simply stubborn and are biased towards their own theory despite lack of evidence on all fronts.

It doesn't matter if Celtic came in the region in the Neolithic or Bronze Age, the theory remains unchanged. Are you going to defend those 2 people's random theories as well? That Germanic is a mix between farmer Indo-European and Steppe INdo-European?

In any case I'm tired of this discussion, you have still not presented any actual reason why this theory is needed and what it offers more than Hallstatt/Urnfield, especially when you ignore the fact that in multiple cases the spread of Celtic was not fllowed by spread of material culture.
We are talking here about pre-historic period of late Bronze Age. The earliest textual information about Celts is the 6 century BC And we don't know anything about their political unity for the earlier period. Maybe that was, maybe not. But if structure of Celtic world in LBA was similar to those in Iron Age with political centre, high kings and even supra-national religious system, so there's nothing surprising that similar system may have existed along Atlantic areas. Also, Atlantic Bronze Age cultures were straight descendants of Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker tribes, so they could have common ethnic backroung and sibling language initially.

There's widespread infiltration of Atlantic bronze wares including weapon just right before Ha C. period, for St Brieuc-des-Iffs, Carp's Tongue' and Ewart Park phases. just right coinciding with Urnfield system collapse. Halstatt is just partially continuation of preceding Urnfield tradition.

Well if you can not believe in presence of Celts in Britain and Iberia in LBA, the only alternative is later conquest of half of Europe by some Halstatt "Genghis Khans"

I don't know why these archaeological maps are little different, anyway it doesn't change anything. For maritime transport it's not the serious obstacle.

Lesser traces in new conquered lands during middle La tene period mean just Celts were newcomers there as a raiding armies, for a short period of time. From another side they lived in Alpine area. Pannonia, and especially in Marne-Rhine area for many centuries in far greater numbers, that's why La tene is less visible outside that zone.

Cunliffe's theory has some vulnerabilities and i can't agree with some his points, but it much better explains Celtic pre-history, than old unrealistic theory, taken together archaeological, historical and linguistic data doen't make a chance for the latter. And it needed because puts everything in its place and resolve many problems with Celtic pre-history. You can read John Collis book about Celtic origin, for example, to realise what were those problems. British archaeologists detected many significant inconsistencies in old theory since 1960's, Cunliff's work is the first that sort of experience, maybe relatively crude and undigested at some points

SharpFork

05-01-2020, 04:25 PM

But if structure of Celtic world in LBA was similar to those in Iron Age with political centre, high kings and even supra-national religious system, so there's nothing surprising that similar system may have existed along Atlantic areas.
It would be surprising, do you have any evidence of the kind of wealth centralization that Hallstatt noble centers had?

Also, Atlantic Bronze Age cultures were straight descendants of Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker tribes, so they could have common ethnic backroung and sibling language initially.
Maybe, but we have no evidence of that, instead we have evidence of very different linguistic group in Iron Age Iberia, we have evidence of very different groups in Iron Age Italy and so on. Linguistic unity is to be proven not assumed.

There's widespread infiltration of Atlantic bronze wares including weapon just right before Ha C. period, for St Brieuc-des-Iffs, Carp's Tongue' and Ewart Park phases. just right coinciding with Urnfield system collapse. Halstatt is just partially continuation of preceding Urnfield tradition.
Citation needed:

https://www.academia.edu/3195723/Social_Transition_and_Spatial_Organisation_The_Pro blem_of_the_Early_Iron_Age_Occupation_of_the_Stron gholds_in_Northeast_Hungary

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229818543_Early_Iron_Age_hill_settlement_in_west_c entral_Europe_patterns_and_developments

Well if you can not believe in presence of Celts in Britain and Iberia in LBA, the only alternative is later conquest of half of Europe by some Halstatt "Genghis Khans"
Like I said repeatedly before, the Urnfield expansion could also be a candidate for an early incursion into Britain.
Well that's the exact same thing your theory assumes, literally.

I don't know why these archaeological maps are little different, anyway it doesn't change anything. For maritime transport it's not the serious obstacle.
So then why did Britan and Ireland diverge at all, if maritime transport is so easy, why do languages divide at all? Are you going to argue that Atlantic Bronze age was more interconnected that 99% of human societies and somehow everything was carried without any political conquest or military or migratory activity?

Lesser traces in new conquered lands during middle La tene period mean just Celts were newcomers there as a raiding armies, for a short period of time. From another side they lived in Alpine area. Pannonia, and especially in Marne-Rhine area for many centuries in far greater numbers, that's why La tene is less visible outside that zone.[QUOTE]
Celtic was in Italy prior to La Tene, so how do you explain that?

Yes and we have that same influence in England and Ireland too, plus we have comparative evidence in the late pre-Roman iron age in the form of Belgic tribes in England.

[QUOTE]than old unrealistic theory, taken together archaeological, historical and linguistic data doen't make a chance for the latter.
What exactly IS explained better? If you can use La Tene or Hallstatt or even despite not having them and explain the expansion into Italy, Anatolia and Balkans that way, all without proving anything, why can't you accept this "outdated" theory?

And it needed because puts everything in its place and resolve many problems with Celtic pre-history. You can read John Collis book about Celtic origin, for example, to realise what were those problems. British archaeologists detected many significant inconsistencies in old theory since 1960's, Cunliff's work is the first that sort of experience, maybe relatively crude and undigested at some points
I don't believe anyone that knows what Cunliffe thinks about Indo-Europeans with the current evidence can or should take him seriously. You can come up with a better theory but this theory simply doesn't work, it relies on too many "ifs" and in trying to argue for it you just vindicate and also remove the weaknesses of the Hallstatt/La Tene theory.

Also John Collis book from 2003? What kind of new knowledge does it have?

Fantomas

05-02-2020, 07:07 AM

It would be surprising, do you have any evidence of the kind of wealth centralization that Hallstatt noble centers had?
I don't think so. However, Halstatt noble centers system was short-lived experience and were wiped out by new waves of invasions from west. Nothing is known about their poltical power, except it was limited by neighboring small territory, otherwise there would be one great "capital" instead of many small "castles", they're just reach nobles on trading routs. From another side we know about colossal political power of elected late Gaulish kings, in the complete absence of reach burials, seems like it is an Atlantic old tradition.

Maybe, but we have no evidence of that, instead we have evidence of very different linguistic group in Iron Age Iberia, we have evidence of very different groups in Iron Age Italy and so on. Linguistic unity is to be proven not assumed.

https://i.imgur.com/N7hkBjO.png
https://i.imgur.com/zUgxBxF.jpg
Celtic deity names in the Iberian Peninsula (After Olivares 2002).

Citation needed:
The transition from the Urnfield culture to the Hallstatt period was accompanied by a broad horizon of discontinuity in settlement and burial traditions (cf. Ruoff 1974). This break was common to, and contemporaneous in, the north and the south.12 Climatic deterioration (cf. Smolla 1954; Willerding 1977) and incursions of eastern nomads ('Thraco-Cimmerian horizon'; dismissed by Jockenhovel 1975, 54-55; Torbriigge 1979,209) have been called upon to account for the disruption of the Late Urnfield pattern. But discontinuity and reorganisation are such widespread phenomena of settlement patterns in the transition from the final Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in Europe that they may best be explained by the economic and social changes resulting from the technological change-over from bronze to iron (Nylen 1974).

The reason for that Urnfield collapse was a transition from bronze to iron, hmmm... very interesting guess

Like I said repeatedly before, the Urnfield expansion could also be a candidate for an early incursion into Britain.
Well that's the exact same thing your theory assumes, literally.
And in Iberia as well:p

https://i.imgur.com/oqHplvw.jpg

So then why did Britan and Ireland diverge at all, if maritime transport is so easy, why do languages divide at all? Are you going to argue that Atlantic Bronze age was more interconnected that 99% of human societies and somehow everything was carried without any political conquest or military or migratory activity?
By the beginning of Iron Age old contact axis was mainly disrupted because it shifted from Atlantic toward Central Europe and many Atlantic regions had become more isolated, that's the good reason for language divergence . There's a strong enough migratory activity in Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker period

Celtic was in Italy prior to La Tene, so how do you explain that?

By Halstatt activity
https://i.imgur.com/iCLZh3H.jpg

Yes and we have that same influence in England and Ireland too, plus we have comparative evidence in the late pre-Roman iron age in the form of Belgic tribes in England.

La Tene and especially Belgic tribes are too late and limited events to explain Celtic presence in Islands

What exactly IS explained better? If you can use La Tene or Hallstatt or even despite not having them and explain the expansion into Italy, Anatolia and Balkans that way, all without proving anything, why can't you accept this "outdated" theory?
I must accept outdated theory just because La Tene in Italy and Anatolia is not deeply rooted? Brilliant logic! Anyway, Celtic homleand and their later invasions were well described by contemporaries.

Also John Collis book from 2003? What kind of new knowledge does it have?
Does he changed his mind about failure of obsolete east-west hypothesis since then?

J. Ketch

05-02-2020, 08:16 AM

I don't believe this makes any sense, mostly unmixed Italian like Celts spreading from the Danube to Ireland?
Plus Italian is the only southern reference. I personally don't see how this evidence changes what we know at all.
As already said, they presumably would have mixed with more Northern people before settling Britain (by ancient accounts Belgic Gauls were similar to Southern Britons), and the Italian-like admixture would be further diluted for Ireland. It maybe similar to the story of the Early Medieval Germanic expansion in Southern Europe, you can see that the Langobard groups in Northern Italy and Hungary are already highly mixed with the groups they've passed through, so while purely Germanic ancestry in Italy and Spain seems low, the overall effect of Celtic/Roman admixed Germanic speakers in Italy and Spain would be higher.

The high Italian affinity for those countries in the paper seemed inexplicable, but that admixture being of ultimately Celtic origin is the best explanation I can think of.

PaleoEuropean

05-02-2020, 09:44 AM

As already said, they presumably would have mixed with more Northern people before settling Britain (by ancient accounts Belgic Gauls were similar to Southern Britons), and the Italian-like admixture would be further diluted for Ireland. It maybe similar to the story of the Early Medieval Germanic expansion in Southern Europe, you can see that the Langobard groups in Northern Italy and Hungary are already highly mixed with the groups they've passed through, so while purely Germanic ancestry in Italy and Spain seems low, the overall effect of Celtic/Roman admixed Germanic speakers in Italy and Spain would be higher.

The high Italian affinity for those countries in the paper seemed inexplicable, but that admixture being of ultimately Celtic origin is the best explanation I can think of.

Yea not to mention Celts passed through what is now Germanic territory and many parts of Germany and German speaking countries were Celtic, Celtic is a culture not a single ethnicity, people who try to use ADNA for agenda's usually are really uneducated. They look only at what is there not what is not there.

ninjaboy

06-02-2020, 07:04 PM

not all Celts were described as pale, for example if i am not mistaken those who lived in southern England and wales were described as dark

anyway, you, as everyone here make the mistake to see Celts as a racial group instead of linguo-cultural which they really were, and as a linguocultural group they were originated from the same subclade with Italics, just like Germanics came from the same subclade with Balto-slavs

Nope, it's you that has a misconception since you fail to understand that there is no language without its native speakers. Germanic people were indeed a racial group that is confirmed by DNA. All Germanic tribes the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Teutons& Cimberi, Franks, Langobards/Lombards, Cherusci, Vandals were basically the same people. So the Romans weren't that wrong to lump all Germanics into one basket. The same goes for Arabs, there are indeed ethnic Arabs. Arab is not just merely language and culture. The point is there is such a thing as assimilation and absorption. People from other ethnic groups can be drafted into a distinct ethnic group that is more dominant or larger or just be assimilated. Hence there are terms like arabized, germanized or celtized. For instance, due to the process of Arabization, you have people in North Africa identifying as Arab while they are ethnically speaking Berbers. However, Celtic isn't only a language or culture but also an ethnicity. Besides Celtics and Italics have some genetical and linguistic links because the Bell Beaker who formed the Italic ethnic group came from Germany, Central Europe from a time where Germany was Celtic (prior to the Germanic people's arrival from Scandinavia). Germanic people have nothing to do with Balto-Slavs.

ninjaboy

06-02-2020, 07:11 PM

Yea not to mention Celts passed through what is now Germanic territory and many parts of Germany and German speaking countries were Celtic, Celtic is a culture not a single ethnicity, people who try to use ADNA for agenda's usually are really uneducated. They look only at what is there not what is not there.

I clicked for thumb up green and the red one showed up. Couldn't fix it. Sorry. However you are spot on.

PaleoEuropean

06-02-2020, 09:52 PM

I clicked for thumb up green and the red one showed up. Couldn't fix it. Sorry. However you are spot on.

Np, it showed thumbs up :). Germans and Celts are complex terms, Germans have a rich diverse history. We like to think of Germans and Celts as homogeneous familiar things but culture has never been cut and dry nor has ethnicity. If we took every Celt and every German who ever lived we would see quite a few different pictures.

PaleoEuropean

06-02-2020, 09:54 PM

Nope, it's you that has a misconception since you fail to understand that there is no language without its native speakers. Germanic people were indeed a racial group that is confirmed by DNA. All Germanic tribes the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Teutons& Cimberi, Franks, Langobards/Lombards, Cherusci, Vandals were basically the same people. So the Romans weren't that wrong to lump all Germanics into one basket. The same goes for Arabs, there are indeed ethnic Arabs. Arab is not just merely language and culture. The point is there is such a thing as assimilation and absorption. People from other ethnic groups can be drafted into a distinct ethnic group that is more dominant or larger or just be assimilated. Hence there are terms like arabized, germanized or celtized. For instance, due to the process of Arabization, you have people in North Africa identifying as Arab while they are ethnically speaking Berbers. However, Celtic isn't only a language or culture but also an ethnicity. Besides Celtics and Italics have some genetical and linguistic links because the Bell Beaker who formed the Italic ethnic group came from Germany, Central Europe from a time where Germany was Celtic (prior to the Germanic people's arrival from Scandinavia). Germanic people have nothing to do with Balto-Slavs.

That's true there is a lot of crossover, the differences we see are from groups like Scandinavians, Slavs and Celts that moved through the regions. I do agree that Germans especially continental Germans do have a core affinity.

J. Ketch

10-29-2020, 12:59 AM

Davidski/Generalissimo says that Iron Age Celts (presumably of Central Europe) were 'very Northern European'. Also that the Celtic peoples of Northern Italy were French-like.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22081-Were-Iron-Age-Celts-North-Italian-like&p=713577&viewfull=1#post713577

Ethel

10-29-2020, 01:35 AM

Here are the coordinates, see by yourself. They are from Swiss Iron Age, probably La Tené culture.

MX188_scaled,0.117238,0.129988,0.059962,0.057494,0 .021235,0.019801,-0.001645,0,-0.006545,-0.008383,0.000487,0.000749,-0.002081,-0.021194,0.013165,0.022142,0.004955,0.002534,-0.002388,0.010505,0.007362,0.003586,-0.003328,0.001205,-0.007544
MX190_scaled,0.126344,0.135065,0.059585,0.062016,0 .025235,0.030399,0.007285,0.008769,-0.008795,-0.002734,-0.009419,0,-0.014271,-0.015276,0.013843,0.008088,0.00352,-0.003674,-0.002011,0.007629,0.003868,0.009892,0.008997,-0.00976,-0.002036
MX192_scaled,0.124067,0.120848,0.066373,0.062339,0 .025235,0.023148,-0.008695,0.004384,-0.006954,-0.001276,0.002598,-0.003597,-0.007879,-0.00812,0.019679,0.021082,0.011995,0.003167,0,0.00 2376,0.00836,0.001607,-0.003944,0.002048,0.002634
MX195_scaled,0.122929,0.120848,0.064865,0.065892,0 .02185,0.026216,-0.00094,0.002538,-0.003068,-0.008201,0,0.002248,-0.010555,-0.008945,0.020629,0.024264,0.008996,-0.005194,-0.005782,0.008379,-0.00262,0.00371,0.000986,0.003012,0.001317

MX188,0.0103,0.0128,0.0159,0.0178,0.0069,0.0071,-0.0007,0,-0.0032,-0.0046,0.0003,0.0005,-0.0014,-0.0154,0.0097,0.0167,0.0038,0.002,-0.0019,0.0084,0.0059,0.0029,-0.0027,0.001,-0.0063
MX190,0.0111,0.0133,0.0158,0.0192,0.0082,0.0109,0. 0031,0.0038,-0.0043,-0.0015,-0.0058,0,-0.0096,-0.0111,0.0102,0.0061,0.0027,-0.0029,-0.0016,0.0061,0.0031,0.008,0.0073,-0.0081,-0.0017
MX192,0.0109,0.0119,0.0176,0.0193,0.0082,0.0083,-0.0037,0.0019,-0.0034,-0.0007,0.0016,-0.0024,-0.0053,-0.0059,0.0145,0.0159,0.0092,0.0025,0,0.0019,0.0067 ,0.0013,-0.0032,0.0017,0.0022
MX195,0.0108,0.0119,0.0172,0.0204,0.0071,0.0094,-0.0004,0.0011,-0.0015,-0.0045,0,0.0015,-0.0071,-0.0065,0.0152,0.0183,0.0069,-0.0041,-0.0046,0.0067,-0.0021,0.003,0.0008,0.0025,0.0011

Are these samples really La Tène? (honest question)

J. Ketch

10-29-2020, 01:38 AM

Are these samples really La Tène? (honest question)
This is an old thread, they were misdated, Bell Beaker or Early Bronze Age.

Ethel

10-29-2020, 02:20 AM

This is an old thread, they were misdated, Bell Beaker or Early Bronze Age.

:(

InfamousAngel99

10-30-2020, 01:54 PM

Gota_type_

10-31-2020, 03:47 PM

Celts were spread throughout Europe, mainly in the British Isles, Northwestern Europe, and Central Europe. A lot of people don't know this (unless they're interested in ancient cultures), because the Romans destroyed most traces of Celtic cultures in mainland Europe. The Celts of the British Isles, specifically the Celtic tribes that are the ancestors of the modern Irish people, were the most successful in terms of keeping their culture intact, thus many uninformed people think only of the Irish when they hear the term "Celtic."

You might not know this but the largest concentration of celtic remains in Europe are in NW Spain (including Castilla), where castros (celtic villages), toponymia, and things like these still exist:
https://lascatedrales.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/castro-santa-tecla.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/99/28/0599280c5a88f63fd15812b494cb63fb.jpg
http://www.galiciaenfotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/01-13495.jpg

Or this altar of sacrifices:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8f4mpzARRuQ/TjFHvMqpFOI/AAAAAAAAAxI/1faWDcBCxxQ/s1600/ALTAR.jpg

Or petroglifos:
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0c/b9/17/e7/petroglifos-de-mogor.jpg

The Romans were good at erasing old cultures.

Jingle Bell

01-16-2023, 12:55 AM

We have tree theories abt the origin of Celts:
From East: Proto Celts are descendants of Urfield culture and the proto-celtic was born in Central Europe BA and was begin developed with the times (Hallsttat and La Tene)
From Center: Says that Celts come from BA France (aka Gauls) and expanded, not too much diferent from East theorie since both comes from Bell BEakers of Central Europe
From West: Celt culture was born since atlantic bronze age and was a language used by the West Atlantid ppl for trades, but that theorie dont explains why in the same time of when the celt culture was spread in Europe the ancestry from Urnfield iwas spread in all parts of Europe which were culturally celtic too, why Iberians from IA got Urnfield ancestry in the time that celtic trait appears in iberia? thats dont looks like a coincidence . .

after all, the early celts were very prob from Central Europe, descendants of Bell Beakers and clustering with Central Frenchs and Alpine Europe, so no they werent N. Europeans.

The average of samples from La tene, Hallsttat and Gauls all are abt 40% Yamnaya, the celts were kinda heterogenous but the average of yamnaya blood was abt 35% - 43%

https://pastebin.com/u9YNXWuY

https://i.imgur.com/Wot2Z6j.png
https://i.imgur.com/3Vn7vtZ.png

as u all can see, typicals Central Europeans, not Northern

Solitude

10-22-2023, 10:07 AM

Do you think original celts and germanics is probably same people with different cultures?

Solitude

10-22-2023, 10:26 AM

Solitude

10-22-2023, 06:26 PM

Slightly altered XP's model, some of the most pure individuals for Germanic and added England MBA for pre-Celtic Briton

ImperialRoman:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1,0.1069937,0.14860 57,-0.0248897,-0.0551253,0.0057443,-0.016083,-0.0018017,-0.003769,0.0008863,0.0154293,0.007091,0.0059443,-0.008325,0.000642,-0.0068313,-0.0010607,0.008388,-0.001098,0.004483,0.0007087,-0.001539,0.002267,0.0031223,0.0018077,0.0015967
Celtic:SX18_scaled,0.126344,0.152329,0.048271,-0.00646,0.051394,-0.007251,0.0047,-0.000692,0.016362,0.035354,0.002598,0.016485,-0.016055,-0.006055,0.001629,0.000663,0.006128,0.00266,0.0038 97,-0.006628,0.006364,0.006183,-0.011709,-0.006145,0.000958
Celtic: DEU_Lech_EBA_AITI_119,0.121791,0.140143,0.05242,0. 026486,0.040623,0.003068,0.001175,0.001154,0.00347 7,0.017859,-0.001299,0.01124,-0.020961,-0.019818,0.01045,0.02201,0.01708,-0.0019,0.009679,0.002376,0.007986,0.003957,-0.005053,0.000964,0.008382
Celtic: DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_44,0.124067,0.144205,0.056568,0. 008721,0.04924,-0.001952,-0.00188,0.000692,0.008795,0.028247,0.001299,0.0092 92,-0.017988,-0.003028,0.005293,0.008353,-0.002608,-0.00266,0.004525,0.001126,-0.008235,-0.008285,-0.001356,-0.002651,-0.003233
Celtic: DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_50,0.120652,0.153345,0.043746,-0.002584,0.052933,-0.003347,-0.00329,-0.002077,0.022293,0.031162,-0.005846,0.008692,-0.022299,-0.010459,-0.002172,0.014585,0.021253,0.004307,0.001257,-0.005753,0.00262,0.000124,0.002835,-0.005181,-0.010418
Celtic: DEU_Lech_MBA_OTTM_151ind2_d,0.127482,0.156392,0.04 7894,0.005491,0.04647,-0.011435,0.00329,0.011538,0.010022,0.031345,0.0064 96,0.012889,-0.012487,-0.01156,-0.0095,0.000796,0.001565,-0.003801,-0.005656,0.005753,-0.002995,0.009521,-0.001356,-0.006386,-0.011855
Celtic: DEU_Welzin_BA_outlier3_WEZ57,0.129758,0.142174,0.0 50911,0.039406,0.044316,0.007251,-0.004935,0.008538,0.028429,0.024237,0.007957,0.007 194,-0.008622,-0.012248,-0.000407,0.004906,-0.000652,0.001014,-0.003017,0.000375,0.012852,0.009645,-0.009983,0.005784,-0.004071
Celtic:CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany_DA111,0.124067,0.15131 4,0.063356,0.026163,0.0437,0.005857,0.001175,0.002 308,0.020861,0.02442,-0.012342,0.00015,-0.01665,-0.003165,0.014658,-0.009546,-0.018254,0.003801,0.005908,0.001626,0.009858,0.006 059,-0.004437,-0.005904,-0.005269
Celtic:St_Gallen_SX20,0.129758,0.147252,0.055814,0 .012274,0.055087,0.009203,0.001175,0.001846,0.0139 08,0.0277,-0.003897,0.012589,-0.019623,-0.007707,0.005293,-0.008884,-0.017341,-0.003801,0.001006,-0.008504,-0.003494,0.004699,-0.002711,-0.006266,-0.00479
Celtic:Constance_MX254_2,0.130897,0.136081,0.05543 7,0.024871,0.041854,0.00251,0.0047,0.006231,0.0177 94,0.024784,-0.004384,0.007493,-0.016501,-0.014313,0.003122,0.018165,0.014473,0.003547,-0.002388,5e-04,-0.004243,0.011129,0.001479,-0.010483,0.001317
Celtic:Constance_MX283,0.126344,0.137096,0.057322, 0.023579,0.050779,-0.003068,0.001175,0.003,0.020043,0.035172,-0.005521,0.009591,-0.014866,-0.009083,-0.000814,0.022408,0.016689,0.000127,0.004022,-0.002376,-0.001497,0.00643,-0.00456,-0.010242,0.001437
Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker:Scotland_LBA,0.1297585,0.133542,0.0630732,0 .0527298,0.0351605,0.0193132,0.0061102,0.0030575,0 .001892,-0.0027338,-0.0060082,0.0064818,-0.0180252,-0.0164115,0.024226,0.0058672,-0.0143422,0.0036108,0.0032995,0.0005313,0.0056462, 0.0044822,-0.0003393,0.0042172,0.0041315
Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker:England_MBA,0.1270132,0.1290916,0.0630678,0 .059755,0.0341783,0.019916,0.0014929,0.0049274,0.0 045958,-0.0013935,-0.0047379,0.0039671,-0.0111495,-0.0156566,0.0246771,0.0091564,-0.0059516,0.0030703,0.0009834,0.0039871,0.0046975, 0.0047133,-0.0006381,0.0058335,-0.0012045
Italic:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016,0.127482,0.1472 52,0.033187,-0.016796,0.044008,-0.008646,-0.00376,-0.004846,0.026588,0.052666,-0.002761,0.015137,-0.036719,-0.008533,-0.009093,0.013392,0.016037,-0.004687,0.003897,0.004127,0.00262,-0.00272,0.001972,-0.007712,-0.008742
Italic:ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_RMPR851,0.133173,0.1563 92,0.0445,-0.00969,0.044008,-0.004462,0.00846,0.003,0.024543,0.044101,-0.002598,0.012289,-0.022448,-0.009634,-0.005429,-0.005834,0.00352,0.003167,0.006034,-0.007379,-0.008859,0.005317,-0.000863,-0.006989,-0.001796
Germanic:England_Saxon:I0773,0.141141,0.126941,0.0 63356,0.071383,0.044008,0.024263,0.00799,0.011307, 0.00409,-0.00656,-0.005359,0.005395,-0.01219,-0.013074,0.021172,0.011668,-0.001434,0.000887,0.008673,0.008629,0.010981,0.003 957,-0.003081,0.015544,-0.007424
Germanic:ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian:VDP-A-5,0.126344,0.123895,0.076555,0.062016,0.03139,0.01 8128,0.007755,0.007615,0.009204,-0.007472,0.001624,0.007493,-0.009514,-0.018992,0.025651,0.02254,0.01356,0.004814,0.00037 7,0.002876,0.004742,0.005935,0.002095,0.012652,-0.00467
Germanic:DEU_MA:AED_106,0.125205,0.133034,0.064865 ,0.067184,0.03416,0.020917,0.00517,0.008769,0.0028 63,-0.009476,-0.006171,0.002548,-0.012042,-0.006193,0.019544,0.008486,0.015255,-0.006968,-0.015964,0.005503,-0.003244,0.012736,-0.017378,0.005422,-0.000239
Germanic:DEU_MA:AED_249,0.125205,0.126941,0.071653 ,0.04845,0.043085,0.023706,0.020211,0.001385,0.003 477,-0.01057,-0.011854,-0.002398,-0.009663,0.003303,0.019679,-0.002784,-0.026598,-0.001774,0.004148,0.00988,0.01697,-0.006554,0.000123,0.007953,0.010658
Mozabite,-0.0649782,0.135551,-0.0032793,-0.0717622,0.0260249,-0.0328364,-0.0260656,0.0108257,0.0617306,0.0303463,0.0065097,-0.006366,0.021795,-0.0165685,0.0163159,-0.016176,-0.0027097,-0.0219282,-0.0435571,0.0082757,-0.0146263,-0.0367947,0.0246817,-0.0042277,0.0056594
Iberia_Central_BA,0.1239044,0.1505886,0.059639,0.0 003691,0.0686281,-0.0074901,-0.0052371,-0.0001319,0.0395609,0.0550354,-0.0029926,0.01291,-0.0243167,-0.019621,0.0066116,0.0103233,0.0156089,-0.0004163,-0.0021549,0.0007146,0.0115154,-0.0001766,-0.0088561,-0.020261,0.0028397

Target: Creoda_scaled
Distance: 1.7769% / 0.01776939
61.2 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
20.6 Germanic
18.2 Celtic

Target: CreodaMum_scaled
Distance: 1.1707% / 0.01170711
54.4 Germanic
23.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
14.0 Celtic
4.0 ImperialRoman
4.0 Italic

Target: CreodaDad_scaled
Distance: 2.4566% / 0.02456600
55.6 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
26.8 Germanic
17.6 Celtic

Target: English
Distance: 1.0643% / 0.01064280
38.8 Germanic
33.4 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
23.8 Celtic
3.2 ImperialRoman
0.8 Italic

Target: English_Cornwall
Distance: 1.2100% / 0.01209999
33.8 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
33.8 Germanic
30.0 Celtic
1.4 ImperialRoman
1.0 Mozabite

Target: Scottish
Distance: 1.0600% / 0.01059965
52.0 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
29.2 Germanic
16.2 Celtic
2.6 ImperialRoman

Target: Welsh
Distance: 0.8879% / 0.00887907
36.4 Germanic
34.2 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
25.2 Celtic
4.2 ImperialRoman

Target: Irish
Distance: 1.2474% / 0.01247421
61.2 Pre-Celtic-Briton/Beaker
25.2 Germanic
11.4 Celtic
2.0 ImperialRoman
0.2 Mozabite

i added these samples , with your samples i was getting all celtic

Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I1310,0.12 1791,0.152329,0.059208,0.007429,0.070782,-0.009482,-0.00329,-0.001846,0.039473,0.05704,-0.001299,0.010191,-0.017393,-0.017203,0.005429,0.015248,0.016298,-0.006841,-0.000628,0.002126,-0.001622,0.006183,-0.007518,-0.025064,-0.000599
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I1313_d,0. 122929,0.152329,0.058831,-0.004845,0.064012,-0.019522,-0.008695,-0.001154,0.041927,0.047564,0.000325,0.010041,-0.029732,-0.011836,0.002036,0.010607,0.021774,0.005701,0.004 651,0.007379,0.01959,0.005935,-0.013311,-0.008555,0.001317
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I1836,0.12 9758,0.157407,0.058454,-0.00323,0.059396,-0.000558,-0.00141,-0.003231,0.039064,0.04811,0.00065,0.006145,-0.029435,-0.021332,0.002443,0.011535,0.008214,0.000127,-0.00176,-0.001251,0.008859,0.010016,-0.007765,-0.016629,-0.007544
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I4559,0.12 862,0.14319,0.062979,0.006783,0.07386,-0.004462,0.006345,0.000231,0.047859,0.062689,0.000 325,0.008093,-0.021407,-0.020368,-0.000679,0.02254,0.015646,-0.005068,0.00176,0.013506,0.010731,0.004328,-0.010723,-0.016267,0.002395
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I4560,0.12 7482,0.151314,0.059962,0.008398,0.063704,-0.005578,-0.00658,0.004154,0.025361,0.061049,-0.008931,0.007793,-0.029435,-0.019267,-0.005157,0.009016,0.025816,0.001394,-0.005656,0.003752,0.003119,-0.006677,-0.015406,-0.015183,0.003233
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I4561,0.13 0897,0.144205,0.064488,0.011305,0.065858,0.004462, 0.00235,0,0.041723,0.054853,-0.003897,0.015137,-0.026164,-0.018029,-0.000271,0.003713,-0.002868,0.008108,0.006662,0.001751,0.015348,-0.003957,-0.016392,-0.014219,-0.001078
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I4562,0.12 2929,0.152329,0.062979,-0.001938,0.065551,-0.007251,0.00235,-0.001154,0.039473,0.055035,-0.007957,0.004346,-0.024232,-0.016102,0.004343,0.008884,0.00339,-0.000127,0.000503,0.003502,0.010232,0.004081,-0.01023,-0.022654,0.006586
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Northeast_BA:I4563,0.12 6344,0.149283,0.059962,0.001615,0.072013,-0.00502,0.00235,-0.000923,0.035792,0.054124,-0.001786,0.010641,-0.027354,-0.023121,-0.001764,0.004243,0.002868,-0.000507,0.001885,0.00075,0.020214,-0.00136,-0.02391,-0.012532,-0.001557
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southeast_BA:I3494,0.12 7482,0.158423,0.057322,-0.017442,0.07109,-0.00753,-0.010105,0.004846,0.0452,0.073806,-0.004872,0.012439,-0.020218,-0.014588,0.00665,0.001724,-0.000261,0.009755,-0.002011,0.001,0.011355,-0.001607,-0.009244,-0.029281,0.001557
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southeast_BA:I3997,0.12 2929,0.160454,0.053928,-0.002584,0.06832,-0.013108,-0.0047,0.005307,0.046836,0.072165,0.000812,0.01378 8,-0.032259,-0.032754,0.006786,0.020817,0.024121,-0.005574,-0.006662,-0.001251,0.003369,0.004946,-0.008381,-0.025184,0.000599
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southeast_BA:I8136,0.12 5205,0.15436,0.053928,-0.004845,0.069244,-0.006693,-0.00752,0.009,0.055221,0.06925,-0.001786,0.014687,-0.030773,-0.013487,0.000814,-0.001193,0.004172,-0.004181,0.010307,-0.007379,0.012104,0.003215,-0.002095,-0.020003,-0.005149
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southeast_BA:I8570,0.13 2035,0.155376,0.057322,-0.004522,0.058472,0.000279,-0.0047,0.002308,0.044995,0.05376,-0.001624,0.005695,-0.020069,-0.010046,0.00665,0.001326,-0.007041,-0.006714,0.00088,0.008879,0.008111,-0.002226,0.000246,-0.010242,-0.001197
Iberia_BA:Iberia_Mallorca_EBA:I4329,0.120652,0.143 19,0.056568,0.008398,0.054472,0,0,0.005077,0.02311 1,0.043008,-0.012179,0.014087,-0.027502,-0.017891,0.0076,0.006895,0.010691,-0.002914,0.003268,-0.011756,-0.001747,-0.006183,-0.016885,-0.006868,0.0097
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southwest_BA:I10939,0.1 17238,0.144205,0.043369,-0.014212,0.055395,-0.014223,0.00094,0.001846,0.047654,0.060685,-0.003735,0.007343,-0.018583,-0.014726,0.007329,0.007425,-0.001956,-0.006841,0,0.001251,0.018093,0.002349,-0.000863,-0.030486,0.002754
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Southwest_BA:I10941,0.1 22929,0.155376,0.057699,-0.012597,0.072937,-0.01255,-0.004935,0.007615,0.044382,0.064147,-0.003735,0.017085,-0.027205,-0.011698,0.004614,-0.009016,-0.005607,-0.000887,0.003142,0.004877,0.01123,-0.000866,-0.014297,-0.022533,0.001676
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I12208,0.119 514,0.155376,0.049026,-0.001292,0.067089,-0.00753,-0.00141,-0.000692,0.044791,0.055582,0.00065,0.015736,-0.026016,-0.023946,0.006515,0.014585,0.024251,-0.006208,-0.004902,-0.003627,0.010232,-0.00272,-0.010969,-0.016629,-0.001557
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I12209,0.120 652,0.147252,0.058831,-0.002907,0.068013,-0.005578,-0.001645,0.000923,0.037837,0.049022,0.000812,0.011 24,-0.025124,-0.022983,0.009772,0.012198,0.024121,0.001394,-0.006788,0.006378,0.009733,-0.006677,-0.008011,-0.017231,0.010418
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I3490,0.1297 58,0.153345,0.070522,0.005168,0.069551,-0.006414,-0.00987,-0.003923,0.039678,0.05212,-0.004872,0.015886,-0.018285,-0.011147,0.008143,0.008221,0.008084,0.000507,0.002 765,-0.005127,0.007986,0.004451,-0.018487,-0.033258,-0.005149
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I3493,0.1274 82,0.13405,0.050534,-0.001615,0.066782,-0.004183,-0.00752,0.006692,0.038655,0.050479,-0.012342,0.010491,-0.02557,-0.021332,0.010993,0.02148,0.011735,0.00114,-0.006034,0.002876,0.022336,0.005441,0.001972,-0.008435,0.008382
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I3756,0.1240 67,0.149283,0.06675,0.001615,0.07386,-0.013666,-0.002115,-0.006,0.033951,0.06761,-0.009743,0.014387,-0.032408,-0.024497,0.007193,0.01432,0.023991,-0.002027,0.001006,-0.006628,0.00836,-0.004575,-0.006532,-0.025425,-0.004191
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I6470,0.1263 44,0.148267,0.059962,0.002907,0.061858,-0.001394,-0.00799,0.001846,0.042541,0.049933,0.000974,0.0071 94,-0.022299,-0.017478,0.007329,0.003978,0.007953,0.001647,-0.000754,0.004502,0.016221,0,-0.013557,-0.023859,0.008502
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_Central_BA:I6618,0.1195 14,0.166547,0.061848,-0.001292,0.073244,-0.013666,-0.00611,0.000231,0.039473,0.060502,0.003573,0.0154 36,-0.020515,-0.015964,-0.003664,-0.002519,0.009127,0.000633,-0.000377,0.006628,0.00574,0.002844,-0.006409,-0.01699,0.003473
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:I1840,0.127482 ,0.155376,0.059585,0.003553,0.077245,-0.005299,-0.005405,0.003,0.034565,0.052484,-0.001624,0.014687,-0.020664,-0.018166,0.001764,0.018563,0.021122,0.002027,0.002 137,0.005628,0.010856,0.003586,-0.004067,-0.034463,0.010059
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:I2470,0.120652 ,0.158423,0.05506,0.000969,0.062781,-0.007251,-0.00141,0.004384,0.041927,0.057951,-0.002761,0.007793,-0.016353,-0.011147,0.001357,-0.006497,-0.01369,0.011655,-0.005405,-0.014507,0.010606,0.001484,-0.012325,-0.0241,-0.002036
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:I2471,0.126344 ,0.155376,0.058077,-0.001292,0.063704,0.00251,0.000235,0.013153,0.0255 65,0.048839,-0.004384,0.010191,-0.018583,-0.005643,0.006107,-0.001193,-0.004042,0.006968,-0.005908,-0.002001,0.005989,0.011747,-0.009983,-0.003976,0.00455
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:VAD001,0.12862 ,0.147252,0.053174,0.008398,0.070475,0,-0.011516,0.007384,0.033746,0.058862,-0.003085,0.011839,-0.020515,-0.027112,0.007465,0.014585,0.022296,-0.003547,-0.012318,0.003502,0.014474,0.010016,-0.007641,-0.017111,0.001317
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:VAD004,0.12065 2,0.15436,0.052043,0.006783,0.06155,-0.007809,0.004935,0.002308,0.030679,0.058133,-0.005034,0.007643,-0.034192,-0.011698,0.015201,-0.010475,0.002217,0.005701,0.009427,-0.01038,0.006738,0.006306,-0.005669,-0.012411,0.010418
Iberia_BA:Iberia_BA:Iberia_North_BA:VAD005,0.12179 1,0.157407,0.055437,0.008721,0.072013,0.003347,-0.00188,-0.007154,0.03845,0.053942,-0.008931,0.005845,-0.015163,-0.018854,0.007057,0.013657,0.026729,0.006714,0.005 028,0.002626,0.006364,0.000742,-0.016392,-0.022172,-0.001796
Iberia_BA:Iberia_Formentera_MBA:I4420_all,0.120652 ,0.151314,0.048649,-0.002261,0.056934,-0.009203,-0.003995,0.004384,0.035792,0.058133,-0.001461,0.01079,-0.02438,-0.022845,0.004479,0.008884,0.012126,-0.001014,-0.003268,-0.002376,0.006114,0.000124,-0.000493,-0.01687,0.002275

so my result

Target: celtiville_scaled
Distance: 1.6245% / 0.01624514
23.4 Iberia_BA
16.8 Volta–Niger
16.4 Celtic
12.2 Germanic
10.0 Amerindian
9.0 Mozabite
8.2 Bantu-East
4.0 ImperialRoman