So Celts were North Europeans after all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creoda

With your model of Celts as Southern French like, roughly how much genetic impact do you believe early unmixed Celts had in the following places?

1. Northernmost France/Belgium/Southern Netherlands (Belgae territory)
2. Southern Britain
3. Ireland
4. Iberia

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):

Spoiler!

Quote:

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
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: DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039 792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-0.0024966,-0.003735,0.001109,-0.0091576,-0.0038398,0.0161643,-0.0008352,-0.0133511,0.0032684,0.0041354,0.0040271,0.0060019, 0.0037342,-0.0007273,0.011146,-0.0004429
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: 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpFork

I don't believe that Celts were 45-50% Steppe, rather I imagine they were exactly midway between Italics/Iberians and pre-Celtic Britons and Scandinavians, that is around 40% Steppe, if that were the case the homeland model for Celtic expansion would work better, although obviously there is no inherent reason why it should.

The "favoring" Italic bit was referring to all the models, despite you using Italic and Celtic sample very close to one another you ended up with Central and Southern French scoring 30+% Italic, that's what I mean by "favoring", for some reason the model prefers Etruscans to the Swiss/Lech samples.

Empuries is basically on the French-Spanish border, if the locals were not Celts I think they can say something about how Southern French Celts looked and to me it would be surprising if Celts/Celtized southern France ended up looking more Southern than those N-E Iberians.

I'll try to look more into the archeology of early Hallstatt to understand better how it expanded, at least we can agree that the early Celtic expansion must have involved a fair amount of assimilation to preserve at least partially the northerness of Northern France and the British isles and to even spread it to Southern France.

Did you consider any other theory on how Celts spread outside the classical Hallstatt-La Tene theory?

My model was just to compare using northern and non-northern samples for Celts, I just wanted to show that both concepts fail at explaining both Northern France and the Alpine region in one single swoop.

I based my claim on ancient components based model, when you use later ones for some reason the non-European adxmiture becomes more evident. I noticed it some time ago with Iberian models already but I'm not sure why G25 works like this.

You are not wrong but the problem with Rome_Imperial it's that it's a bit of an abstract proxy, because we can safely say that within Italy it was an extreme outlier that in effect didn't directly influence all of the territories you showed(especially not Northern Italy) while on the other hand more MENA populations directly influenced the gene pool of northern Roman territories somewhat, I'm not sure how the models would look if we adjust for using iron age North Africans and Anatolians/Levantines.

I don't know much about Y-DNA, but didn't we find E around Bronze age Europe?

I mean how do we explain Empuries1? The 3 non northern samples and Bylany:DA111 are already 34-38% Steppe and given how modern France looks, having early Celts be 30-35% Steppe implies that there was little replacement insofar as Northern France goes, or maybe Celtic was spread into southern France after the mixing and Celtization of Northern France(EDIT:like you said, I reply non-chronologically, don't mind this entire part).

BTW this leads me to question, were Basque at time basque-like themselves? All Iberian samples are quite a bit less Steppe, although not especially so.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creoda

Yes, well, Occam's razor and all that. It could well be the case, certainly for places like Scotland or Ireland where any non-NW European input seems a bit small to affect a major language/cultural change directly.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpFork

You must agree that it's peculiar that population as far south as Latium had as much Steppes people on the other side of the Alps, you can understand the skepticism.

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?

btw, have you guys read the newest paper on celtic linguistics? they propose Celtic from France. that brings up new possibilities of models for our discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raizen

btw, have you guys read the newest paper on celtic linguistics? they propose Celtic from France. that brings up new possibilities of models for our discussion.

Please not that site, the guy that believes CWC was Uralic speaking...

I guess at least he allows us to jump over the paywall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Please not that site, the guy that believes CWC was Uralic speaking...

i'm referring to the paper he posted, not the opinion of him about it

it is weird how carlos quiles talks about 'proto-galaico-lusitanians', when gallaecians were clearly celtic unlike lusitanians. he have some very weird theories.

XenophobicPrussian model.

Code:

[1] "distance%=2.5792" Viriato_scaled Celtic,70 Italic,15.2 ImperialRoman,8.4 Mozabite,5.6 Iberia_Central_BA,0.8

Code:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%" Celtic:DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_44 @4.671708 Celtic:St_Gallen_SX20 @4.799128 Celtic:SX18_scaled @4.955601 Italic:ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_RMPR851 @5.063870 Celtic:DEU_Lech_MBA_OTTM_151ind2_d @5.474916 Celtic:DEU_Lech_EBA_POST_50 @5.537793 Celtic:CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany_DA111 @5.633017 Italic:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016 @6.488556

Quote:

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

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.

La Tene is the later culture, the spread of Hallstatt would be the one to indicate the spread of Celts into France at least, La Tene is just ramping it up and making it more violent and organized.

Quote:

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).

Do you think Celts would be 35% or what % Steppe? Maybe we are talking about technicalities, although I guess that's the entire point of the discussion.

Quote:

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?

Would this southern shift be impossible to achieve if Celts were 40% Steppe as opposed to 30%?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raizen

it is weird how carlos quiles talks about 'proto-galaico-lusitanians', when gallaecians were clearly celtic unlike lusitanians. he have some very weird theories.

Some parts of Galicia are shown as semi-Lusitanian in some maps, it's not his theory but I can't testify its validity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Some parts of Galicia are shown as semi-Lusitanian in some maps, it's not his theory but I can't testify its validity.

but do you think lusitanian and gallaecian are descended from the same iron age proto-language? i think lusitanian is a bell beaker remnant, and gallaecian rather urnfield celtic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raizen

but do you think lusitanian and gallaecian are descended from the same iron age proto-language? i think lusitanian is a bell beaker remnant, and gallaecian rather urnfield celtic.

The ethnonym Gallaecian makes it kinda obvious what they were but whether or not there were Lusitinians in the territory of Galicia is another quesiton, the 2 languages would have been related anyway so it's hard to tell.

Edit: Not sure about Bell Beaker remnant, wouldnt it have diverged significantly by the late iron age? Many even debate if it was Celtic, to me it seems unlikely for there to be such controversy if it was so old.