So Celts were North Europeans after all?

**SharpFork** · 04-21-2020, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Peterski

For Swiss Italians you got a rather bad fit though.

BTW, Swiss Romansh is what I would like to see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton...sons#Languages

The Swiss Italian sample is weird in of itself, very southern, more than some other Northern Italian ones. Regardless even using all Celtic samples from the Iron age, we get low Celtic values overall, in this one I excluded the woman from the late iron age but little changes:

Code:

Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8203,0.126344,0.14319,0.051288,0.021641,0.037238,-0.005299,0.00094,0.004846,0.024747,0.026971,-0.003897,0.008992,-0.025272,-0.026011,0.008822,0.004906,0.012126,-0.003547,0.003268,0.003627,0.007487,0.000618,-0.001972,0.004458,-0.00467
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8209,0.12862,0.145221,0.054682,0.013243,0.043393,0.009761,-0.001175,0.006,0.026384,0.033167,-0.006658,0.018434,-0.016501,-0.023121,0.011401,0.004508,0.005085,0.000127,0.003897,-0.009254,0.001123,0.00507,0.002218,-0.009881,0.008263
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8206,0.125205,0.127957,0.053928,0.048773,0.040931,0.013387,0.006815,0.006231,0.012067,0.014214,-0.001786,-0.005245,-0.015163,-0.018029,0.021444,0.011403,0.011735,0.010262,0.003897,0.009129,0.009733,-0.000989,-0.004807,0.016629,0.006227
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8214,0.130897,0.138112,0.058454,0.026809,0.046162,0.008367,-0.001175,-0.004154,0.016771,0.030069,-0.001624,0.009741,-0.022299,-0.014588,0.010586,0.00769,0.002868,0.002787,0.003645,0.001376,0.011105,0.006801,-0.00986,-0.012893,0.005628
Celtic:CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,0.124067,0.151314,0.063356,0.026163,0.0437,0.005857,0.001175,0.002308,0.020861,0.02442,-0.012342,0.00015,-0.01665,-0.003165,0.014658,-0.009546,-0.018254,0.003801,0.005908,0.001626,0.009858,0.006059,-0.004437,-0.005904,-0.005269

Italic:ITA_Etruscan,0.126913,0.153853,0.034695,-0.014212,0.0417,-0.005299,0.0024675,-0.002769,0.019839,0.0343515,-0.0023545,0.014237,-0.014792,-0.004335,-0.00475,-0.007823,-0.0028035,0.0052575,0.011564,-0.001188,-0.002558,0.003771,-6.15e-05,-0.0004215,-0.002694
Italic:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-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_Boville_Ernica_IA,0.126344,0.152329,0.034318,-0.014535,0.054164,-0.01506,-0.001175,0.005307,0.019634,0.041914,0.005196,0.01079,-0.011001,-0.005643,0.004479,-0.016441,-0.010822,-0.001394,0.006662,-0.01113,0.007736,0.007172,-0.007641,-0.00241,0.008981

Germanic:SWE_IA:RISE174,0.122929,0.123895,0.067127,0.058463,0.041238,0.02008,0.005875,0.007615,0.002863,-0.009659,0.003735,0.001948,-0.006987,0.003853,0.020358,-0.006762,-0.015385,0.006461,0.009427,0.00025,0.00025,0.002844,0.002465,0.011447,0.000359
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-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

**Vid Flumina** · 04-21-2020, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Peterski

Possible Rhaetian SX18:

Code:

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,-0.006055,0.001629,0.000663,0.006128,0.00266,0.003897,-0.006628,0.006364,0.006183,-0.011709,-0.006145,0.000958

SX18,0.0111,0.015,0.0128,-0.002,0.0167,-0.0026,0.002,-0.0003,0.008,0.0194,0.0016,0.011,-0.0108,-0.0044,0.0012,0.0005,0.0047,0.0021,0.0031,-0.0053,0.0051,0.005,-0.0095,-0.0051,0.0008

Western Austrian/Tyrol:

"sample": "Test1:Austrian_-_Austria10",
"fit": 2.3049,
"SX18_scaled": 43.33,
"DEU_MA_ACD": 27.5,
"DEU_MA": 24.17,
"ITA_Rome_Imperial": 5,

Few Alpine Lombards (for fun):

"sample": "Test1:Italian_Bergamo_-_HGDP01151",
"fit": 3.1616,
"SX18_scaled": 62.5,
"ITA_Collegno_MA": 23.33,
"ITA_Rome_Imperial": 14.17,

"sample": "Test2:Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige_-_ALP259",
"fit": 1.7757,
"SX18_scaled": 55.83,
"ITA_Collegno_MA": 30,
"ITA_Rome_Imperial": 14.17,

ITA_Collegno_MA is kind of a mixed bag far from being pure Langobardic or Germanic, that's why R1b-U106 can be less than 10% in Northern Italy even though Migration Period impact is almost certainly much higher:

It is certain that Alboin then brought with him to Italy many men from various peoples which either other kings or he himself had taken.
Whence, even until to-day, we call this villages in which they dwell Gepidian, Bulgarian, Sarmatian, Pannonian, Suabian, Norican or by other names of this kind.

Therefore, when king Alboin with his whole army and a multitude of people of all kinds had come to the limits of Italy [...]"

For it is certain that these Saxons had come to Italy with their wives and children that they might dwell in it, yet as far as can be understood they were unwilling to be subject to the commands of the Langobards.
But it was not permitted to them by the Langobards to live according to their own laws, and therefore they determined to go back to their own country.

**Peterski** · 04-21-2020, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Vid Flumina

Few Alpine Lombards (for fun):

"sample": "Test1:Italian_Bergamo_-_HGDP01151",
"fit": 3.1616,
"SX18_scaled": 62.5,
"ITA_Collegno_MA": 23.33,
"ITA_Rome_Imperial": 14.17,

"sample": "Test2:Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige_-_ALP259",
"fit": 1.7757,
"SX18_scaled": 55.83,
"ITA_Collegno_MA": 30,
"ITA_Rome_Imperial": 14.17,

^^^ Wouldn't throwing some "Cisalpine Gauls" into the model improve the fit for Bergamo?

BTW, what exactly is the genetic difference between Emilia and Romagna?

Are there any GEDmatch kits of 100% Emilia people vs. 100% Romagna people available?

**Vid Flumina** · 04-21-2020, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Peterski

^^^ Wouldn't throwing some "Cisalpine Gauls" into the model improve the fit for Bergamo?

I guess so, not that I expect anything too much departing from SX18. The model was not serious anyway

Originally Posted by Peterski

BTW, what exactly is the genetic difference between Emilia and Romagna?

Are there any GEDmatch kits of 100% Emilia people vs. 100% Romagna people available?

Inbox.

**XenophobicPrussian** · 04-21-2020, 12:06 PM

dp

**XenophobicPrussian** · 04-21-2020, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by SharpFork

Is this that unlikely?

Even if you the historical samples with lower steppe there is a strong preference for Italic. You can test that yourself.

There isn't a preference for Italic, though. None of the models you posted even remotely compare the two. Why do you think I've been saying this? I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now.

Originally Posted by SharpFork

The Swiss Italian sample is weird in of itself, very southern, more than some other Northern Italian ones. Regardless even using all Celtic samples from the Iron age, we get low Celtic values overall, in this one I excluded the woman from the late iron age but little changes:

Code:

Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8203,0.126344,0.14319,0.051288,0.021641,0.037238,-0.005299,0.00094,0.004846,0.024747,0.026971,-0.003897,0.008992,-0.025272,-0.026011,0.008822,0.004906,0.012126,-0.003547,0.003268,0.003627,0.007487,0.000618,-0.001972,0.004458,-0.00467
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8209,0.12862,0.145221,0.054682,0.013243,0.043393,0.009761,-0.001175,0.006,0.026384,0.033167,-0.006658,0.018434,-0.016501,-0.023121,0.011401,0.004508,0.005085,0.000127,0.003897,-0.009254,0.001123,0.00507,0.002218,-0.009881,0.008263
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8206,0.125205,0.127957,0.053928,0.048773,0.040931,0.013387,0.006815,0.006231,0.012067,0.014214,-0.001786,-0.005245,-0.015163,-0.018029,0.021444,0.011403,0.011735,0.010262,0.003897,0.009129,0.009733,-0.000989,-0.004807,0.016629,0.006227
Celtic:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8214,0.130897,0.138112,0.058454,0.026809,0.046162,0.008367,-0.001175,-0.004154,0.016771,0.030069,-0.001624,0.009741,-0.022299,-0.014588,0.010586,0.00769,0.002868,0.002787,0.003645,0.001376,0.011105,0.006801,-0.00986,-0.012893,0.005628
Celtic:CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,0.124067,0.151314,0.063356,0.026163,0.0437,0.005857,0.001175,0.002308,0.020861,0.02442,-0.012342,0.00015,-0.01665,-0.003165,0.014658,-0.009546,-0.018254,0.003801,0.005908,0.001626,0.009858,0.006059,-0.004437,-0.005904,-0.005269

Italic:ITA_Etruscan,0.126913,0.153853,0.034695,-0.014212,0.0417,-0.005299,0.0024675,-0.002769,0.019839,0.0343515,-0.0023545,0.014237,-0.014792,-0.004335,-0.00475,-0.007823,-0.0028035,0.0052575,0.011564,-0.001188,-0.002558,0.003771,-6.15e-05,-0.0004215,-0.002694
Italic:ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0.127482,0.147252,0.033187,-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_Boville_Ernica_IA,0.126344,0.152329,0.034318,-0.014535,0.054164,-0.01506,-0.001175,0.005307,0.019634,0.041914,0.005196,0.01079,-0.011001,-0.005643,0.004479,-0.016441,-0.010822,-0.001394,0.006662,-0.01113,0.007736,0.007172,-0.007641,-0.00241,0.008981

Germanic:SWE_IA:RISE174,0.122929,0.123895,0.067127,0.058463,0.041238,0.02008,0.005875,0.007615,0.002863,-0.009659,0.003735,0.001948,-0.006987,0.003853,0.020358,-0.006762,-0.015385,0.006461,0.009427,0.00025,0.00025,0.002844,0.002465,0.011447,0.000359
Germanic:DEU_MA,0.1223596,0.1303939,0.061169,0.048773,0.039792,0.0199408,0.010975,0.0052151,0.0013295,-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

Weird model, why are you using all the Empuires samples? Only one of them is a potential Gaul(I8206, probably from the NW/Central-West of France/Brittany area), the rest are local Iberians, and you didn't use any of said low steppe Swiss/Bavarian samples.

You really think Swiss French can be 46% Italic? Your Italic is inflated because you didn't include a proxy for southern shifted Imperial Romans(which probably made up the majority of migrants to the non-Italian parts of the empire, save for maybe in S. France when settlement by Italics was high during the initial conquest of Gaul during the Republic), I checked which Italic sample was scoring so high and it was specifically giving inflated Etruscan(anyone outside of Italy scoring more Etruscan than Italic speaker makes literally 0 sense) because they're the most southern shifted of Iron Age Italians, as a result the model gave more to compensate, whilist if having the needed southern admixture in the model will use less of it because it doesn't have to take something intermediary and overcompensate(for comparison, Etruscans clustered with Bergamo Italians, Imperial Roman average is around Greek islanders if not even more southern). Germanic in the French pops is also way too high because of using random Iberians as proxies for Celts.

Here's a better model with more realistic amounts of Roman admixture in Swiss, and using all Italian IA samples, as well as every single low steppe/N. Iberia/S. France clustering sample from Switzerland and Bavaria, the southern Hallstatt Bohemia sample, along with one mercenary outlier from the Tollense battlefield from NE Germany from around 1200 BC(was this guy a "Rhaetian" too?

), who was thought to be from southern Germany based on bone isotopes(I'd also include the Basque clustering outlier but he isn't on G25), and Empuires I8206 to not Germanic overcompensate in the French(labeled as "NorthCelt"):

model:

Spoiler!

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
ImperialRoman:ITA_Rome_Imperial,0.1039821,0.149515 6,-0.0235307,-0.0574065,0.0045265,-0.0204055,-0.0011946,-0.0051488,0.0006604,0.0196549,0.0034575,0.0025539,-0.0040602,-0.0014737,-0.0081715,-0.0014474,0.0035992,0.000454,0.0012178,-0.0032854,-0.0025579,0.0020454,-0.0006985,-0.0004845,0.0004141
NorthCelt:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1_I8206,0.12520 5,0.127957,0.053928,0.048773,0.040931,0.013387,0.0 06815,0.006231,0.012067,0.014214,-0.001786,-0.005245,-0.015163,-0.018029,0.021444,0.011403,0.011735,0.010262,0.003 897,0.009129,0.009733,-0.000989,-0.004807,0.016629,0.006227
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
Italic:ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_RMPR435b,0.12862,0. 145221,0.04714,0.005491,0.046162,0.00251,-0.00282,0.002769,0.021475,0.039727,-0.002923,0.012289,-0.021407,-0.016239,0.012622,0.000398,-0.003129,0.003421,0.00176,-0.001251,0.004492,0.003586,-0.00456,-0.003976,0.000239
Italic:ITA_Etruscan_RMPR473,0.127482,0.158423,0.03 5072,-0.020672,0.046778,-0.005299,0.00094,-0.000923,0.024952,0.03991,-0.002598,0.013188,-0.018434,-0.006606,-0.00665,-0.018828,-0.011865,0.003294,0.01081,0.00025,-0.001747,-0.000495,-0.000986,-0.000361,-0.003592
Italic:ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA_RMPR1021,0.126344,0.1 52329,0.034318,-0.014535,0.054164,-0.01506,-0.001175,0.005307,0.019634,0.041914,0.005196,0.010 79,-0.011001,-0.005643,0.004479,-0.016441,-0.010822,-0.001394,0.006662,-0.01113,0.007736,0.007172,-0.007641,-0.00241,0.008981
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

Target: Swiss_German
Distance: 0.8211% / 0.00821085
36.6 DEU_MA
13.6 St_Gallen
11.0 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1
9.6 DEU_Lech_EBA
9.0 ITA_Rome_Imperial
6.4 DEU_Welzin_BA_outlier3
6.0 ITA_Etruscan
5.0 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
2.8 DEU_Lech_MBA

Target: Swiss_French
Distance: 1.0261% / 0.01026134
30.0 DEU_Lech_EBA
20.8 St_Gallen
17.8 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1
12.2 ITA_Rome_Imperial
7.4 DEU_MA
6.6 ITA_Etruscan
3.2 DEU_Welzin_BA_outlier3
1.0 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
0.6 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
0.4 DEU_Lech_MBA

Target: Swiss_German
Distance: 0.8212% / 0.00821158
36.2 Germanic
32.6 Celtic
11.4 NorthCelt
10.6 Italic
9.2 ImperialRoman

Target: Swiss_French
Distance: 1.0261% / 0.01026134
54.4 Celtic
17.8 NorthCelt
12.2 ImperialRoman
8.2 Italic
7.4 Germanic

Target: Belgian
Distance: 0.8140% / 0.00814021
39.0 Germanic
28.2 Celtic
21.4 NorthCelt
7.8 ImperialRoman
3.6 Italic

Target: French_Alsace
Distance: 0.8360% / 0.00836011
52.2 Germanic
30.8 Celtic
9.4 ImperialRoman
7.6 Italic

Target: French_Auvergne
Distance: 0.4788% / 0.00478808
45.0 Celtic
25.6 Italic
16.8 Germanic
6.6 NorthCelt
6.0 ImperialRoman

Target: French_Brittany
Distance: 1.3112% / 0.01311153
48.8 Germanic
21.0 NorthCelt
18.4 Celtic
11.8 Italic
(Brittany needs something British Isles of course, extremely inflated Germanic and far worse fit than the rest)

Target: French_Corsica
Distance: 0.4605% / 0.00460509
44.0 Italic
32.0 ImperialRoman
22.4 Celtic
1.6 NorthCelt

Target: French_Nord
Distance: 0.8647% / 0.00864742
41.2 Germanic
32.0 Celtic
10.0 Italic
9.6 NorthCelt
7.2 ImperialRoman

Target: French_Occitanie
Distance: 0.4788% / 0.00478839
45.0 Celtic
26.2 Italic
12.2 Germanic
11.6 NorthCelt
5.0 ImperialRoman

Target: German
Distance: 1.3430% / 0.01343032
72.6 Germanic
25.4 Celtic
2.0 ImperialRoman
(needs Slavic of course, should get around 15% nearly all of it coming out of the 72% Germanic)

Target: Italian_Bergamo
Distance: 0.8938% / 0.00893786
43.0 Italic
23.6 ImperialRoman
20.0 Celtic
11.2 Germanic
2.2 NorthCelt

Target: Italian_Piedmont
Distance: 0.6388% / 0.00638768
39.4 ImperialRoman
27.4 Italic
15.4 Germanic
13.6 Celtic
4.2 NorthCelt

Lone models of Swiss with either/or Italic or southern shifted Alpine samples:

Italic only:

Target: Swiss_German
Distance: 0.9593% / 0.00959330
50.4 Germanic
31.4 Italic
11.0 NorthCelt
7.2 ImperialRoman

Target: Swiss_French
Distance: 1.2820% / 0.01282033
45.6 Italic
26.6 Germanic
16.8 NorthCelt
11.0 ImperialRoman

Southern shifted Alpine only:

Target: Swiss_German
Distance: 0.8504% / 0.00850357
42.2 Celtic
30.6 Germanic
16.0 NorthCelt
11.2 ImperialRoman

Target: Swiss_French
Distance: 1.0399% / 0.01039939
61.2 Celtic
21.4 NorthCelt
14.2 ImperialRoman
3.2 Germanic

Yep, it's pretty clear to me now how Hallstatt/La Tene samples are going to wind up looking like.

**J. Ketch** · 04-21-2020, 12:41 PM

I'm sticking with the Celts being Northern French / Central Western European-like. It makes the most sense to me for a variety of reasons.

**XenophobicPrussian** · 04-21-2020, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Creoda

I'm sticking with the Celts being Northern French / Central Western European-like. It makes the most sense to me for a variety of reasons.

We already know they weren't though, because of all the Iberian-S French-like samples, who get higher in number the later the samples are. The Northern French are the upper tip of the genetic cline of the samples, the average is going to be a lot more south.

Northern French are, by all intents and purposes, Northern Europeans, you're basically arguing for a Bell Beaker replacement of Neolithic farmers in a latitude as low as Switzerland more comparable to the replacement of British Isles neolithic farmers than neighbouring Italy, or nearby Hungary. Not to mention the Alpine region was one of the most populated and most culturally developed neolithic area outside of southern Europe. In a place like Scandinavia, Netherlands, England, N. Germany, where populations were tiny, near full population replacements seem plausible, in central Europe around the Alps? I guess it's possible, given the Alps are the biggest genetic border in Europe today, but it just seems highly unlikely.

Target: Constance:MX279
Distance: 2.9491% / 0.02949132
77.4 Bell_Beaker_NLD
19.4 FRA_MN
3.2 AUT_LBK_N
(one of the N. French-like Swiss BA samples)

Target: French_Brittany
Distance: 1.7005% / 0.01700488
77.6 Bell_Beaker_NLD
11.4 AUT_LBK_N
11.0 FRA_MN

Target: England_MBA
Distance: 1.0496% / 0.01049620
88.4 Bell_Beaker_NLD
11.6 FRA_MN

Target: English
Distance: 2.1195% / 0.02119519
81.2 Bell_Beaker_NLD
10.4 AUT_LBK_N
8.4 FRA_MN

----------------------------------

Areas closer to Switzerland(Hungary, Italy) and equally far as England(Iberia):

Target: HUN_BA
Distance: 2.0107% / 0.02010734
61.4 AUT_LBK_N
36.8 Bell_Beaker_NLD
1.8 LUX_Loschbour

Target: ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
Distance: 3.5805% / 0.03580536
40.0 AUT_LBK_N
39.8 Bell_Beaker_NLD
20.2 FRA_MN

Target: Iberia_North_BA
Distance: 1.4066% / 0.01406614
55.6 FRA_MN
37.0 Bell_Beaker_NLD
5.2 AUT_LBK_N
2.2 LUX_Loschbour

-------------------------------

This seems more likely as what happened in Switzerland, something intermediary:

Target: French_Occitanie
Distance: 1.1324% / 0.01132432
63.4 Bell_Beaker_NLD
23.8 AUT_LBK_N
12.8 FRA_MN

Can I see it for proto-Celts? Sure, they were probably even more northern than N. French but by the time of Hallstatt, La Tene, the Roman Republic, to me there's no way a population as north shifted as N. French lived in Switzerland.

**SharpFork** · 04-21-2020, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

There isn't a preference for Italic, though. None of the models you posted even remotely compare the two. Why do you think I've been saying this? I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now.

How is there no preference for Italic, even using your "Basque" like samples, French people and Swiss tend to score a lot of Italic, like I said including or excluding certain samples doesn't change the trend.

Weird model, why are you using all the Empuires samples? Only one of them is a potential Gaul(I8206, probably from the NW/Central-West of France/Brittany area), the rest are local Iberians, and you didn't use any of said low steppe Swiss/Bavarian samples.

You are making contradictory steps, if Empuries couldn't possibly have been Celtic then why do you think early Celts were southern French or NW-Iberian like? All 3 non-British-like Empuries samples are either on the same level as the Western Czech Bylany sample or are northern than the late Iron age swiss woman. Also Iberia_East_IA and Iberia_North_IA all had noticeable and consistently lower Steppe than Empuries1, I think it's fair to assume all 3 samples are Celt. Or do you think that Southern French were northern and ended becoming more Southern as the Basque-like Celts mixed with them? I don't follow.
I didn't use the Lech MBA samples because they are simply too early, I believe the missing centuries would blurry the model.

You really think Swiss French can be 46% Italic?

Honestly I'm not sure but I would say no, but at the same time I'm not sure why many people think the Roman conquests and rule would have had a minor impact when for all accounts they didn't(in Italy we have the evidence, and we could argue that indirectly Greece and Iberia too)

Regardless like I said the model favours Italic over Celtic, it's pretty evident in Northern Italy, even in your example Central French populations get 30+% Italic+Imperial.

Your Italic is inflated because you didn't include a proxy for southern shifted Imperial Romans(which probably made up the majority of migrants to the non-Italian parts of the empire, save for maybe in S. France when settlement by Italics was high during the initial conquest of Gaul during the Republic), I checked which Italic sample was scoring so high and it was specifically giving inflated Etruscan(anyone outside of Italy scoring more Etruscan than Italic speaker makes literally 0 sense) because they're the most southern shifted of Iron Age Italians, as a result the model gave more to compensate, whilist if having the needed southern admixture in the model will use less of it because it doesn't have to take something intermediary and overcompensate(for comparison, Etruscans clustered with Bergamo Italians, Imperial Roman average is around Greek islanders if not even more southern). Germanic in the French pops is also way too high because of using random Iberians as proxies for Celts.

Southern shifted Romans appeared because Italy became a hub of slaves and urban migrants, I'm not sure why the Roman conquest up to the early imperial age would have spread the genes of slaves and immigrants when Roman colonies were of Italic military origin.

Do we see markers of Near Eastern or North African components north of Provence to warrant using urban imperial samples outside Northern Italy? I mean the Imperial Roman samples comes up with 25% ancient near eastern components but we don't see any of that north of Provence.

Here's a better model with more realistic amounts of Roman admixture in Swiss, and using all Italian IA samples, as well as every single low steppe/N. Iberia/S. France clustering sample from Switzerland and Bavaria, the southern Hallstatt Bohemia sample, along with one mercenary outlier from the Tollense battlefield from NE Germany from around 1200 BC(was this guy a "Rhaetian" too?

), who was thought to be from southern Germany based on bone isotopes(I'd also include the Basque clustering outlier but he isn't on G25), and Empuires I8206 to not Germanic overcompensate in the French(labeled as "NorthCelt"):

I thought all(?) samples from Tollense were low quality.

Ultimately I still see too many faults in all models we made. I still have hard time accepting that the bulk of the Celtic population was 30-35% when 2 Italic samples such as proto-Villanovan and Prenestini_tribe are at like 33-35% Steppe level, also the levels of Italic and Germanic ancestry in French samples baffles me, I believe this as absurd as any result you would have gotten using a more northern proxy for Celts.
Northern France ends up appearing very Germanic and it seems to me that the "Northern Celt" component is not doing its job properly, if France had that much Germanic admixture there would be no French speaking nation, all Neustria and more would have Germanized but evidence shows that past the Loire there wasn't any real influence and even in Neustria we didn't have a situation like Belgium or the Rhineland.

This implies that Celts, if they were this southern, didn't influence Northern Celtized people(Northern France, Belgium, Middle Germany even) that much(maybe just 10-20%) which while possible does re-frame entire discussion, because I honestly can't believe that Germanic populations had actually such a large impact as far south as Occitania when modern Germany past the Rhine or the Main is already relatively southern and not especially close to Scandinavians or Lower Saxons(based on gedmatch).

There is 2 ways we can really explain how ALL of the Frenchies outside Basques and Corsicans are more northern than the Swiss and southern Lech samples and I believe Germanics cannot be the culprit based on historical and linguistic grounds while locals+Celts having already looked like this works better.

I can agree that using "Rhaetians" is a cop out but at the same time I think that the Celtic phenomenon might have been ultimately "multi-racial"(as multi-racial as central Europeans can be) even if the original Celtic areas were 30-35% Steppe(Basque-like). Or maybe talking about original celtic areas makes no sense and Celts expanded from a sizeable region with different genetic make-up, anything other than the existence of "original celts" will destroy all models, because the La Tene Celts that invaded 4th century BCE Italy would have been different to the Celts that expanded into France or Britain earlier.

**XenophobicPrussian** · 04-21-2020, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by SharpFork

How is there no preference for Italic, even using your "Basque" like samples, French people and Swiss tend to score a lot of Italic, like I said including or excluding certain samples doesn't change the trend.

You are making contradictory steps, if Empuries couldn't possibly have been Celtic then why do you think early Celts were southern French or NW-Iberian like? All 3 non-British-like Empuries samples are either on the same level as the Western Czech Bylany sample or are northern than the late Iron age swiss woman. Also Iberia_East_IA and Iberia_North_IA all had noticeable and consistently lower Steppe than Empuries1, I think it's fair to assume all 3 samples are Celt. Or do you think that Southern French were northern and ended becoming more Southern as the Basque-like Celts mixed with them? I don't follow.
I didn't use the Lech MBA samples because they are simply too early, I believe the missing centuries would blurry the model.

Honestly I'm not sure but I would say no, but at the same time I'm not sure why many people think the Roman conquests and rule would have had a minor impact when for all accounts they didn't(in Italy we have the evidence, and we could argue that indirectly Greece and Iberia too)

Regardless like I said the model favours Italic over Celtic, it's pretty evident in Northern Italy, even in your example Central French populations get 30+% Italic+Imperial.

Southern shifted Romans appeared because Italy became a hub of slaves and urban migrants, I'm not sure why the Roman conquest up to the early imperial age would have spread the genes of slaves and immigrants when Roman colonies were of Italic military origin.

Do we see markers of Near Eastern or North African components north of Provence to warrant using urban imperial samples outside Northern Italy? I mean the Imperial Roman samples comes up with 25% ancient near eastern components but we don't see any of that north of Provence.

I thought all(?) samples from Tollense were low quality.

Ultimately I still see too many faults in all models we made. I still have hard time accepting that the bulk of the Celtic population was 30-35% when 2 Italic samples such as proto-Villanovan and Prenestini_tribe are at like 33-35% Steppe level, also the levels of Italic and Germanic ancestry in French samples baffles me, I believe this as absurd as any result you would have gotten using a more northern proxy for Celts.
Northern France ends up appearing very Germanic and it seems to me that the "Northern Celt" component is not doing its job properly, if France had that much Germanic admixture there would be no French speaking nation, all Neustria and more would have Germanized but evidence shows that past the Loire there wasn't any real influence and even in Neustria we didn't have a situation like Belgium or the Rhineland.

This implies that Celts if they were this southern didn't influence Northern Celts that much(maybe just 10-20%) which while possible does re-frame entire discussion, because I honestly can't believe that Germanic populations had actually such a large impact as far south as Occitania when Germany past the Rhine or the Main is already quite southern and not especially close to Scandinavians or Lower Saxons(based on gedmatch).

There is 2 ways we can really explain how ALL of the Frenchies outside Basques and Corsicans are more northern than the Swiss and southern Lech samples and I believe Germanics cannot be the culprit based on historical and linguistic grounds.

I can agree that using "Rhaetians" is a cop out but at the same time I think that the Celtic phenomenon might have been ultimately "multi-racial"(as multi-racial as central Europeans can be) even if the original Celtic areas were 30-35% Steppe(Basque-like).

"Favor", in this case, means score more of. Swiss Germans/French(who really are the only two populations I'm arguing about) do not score more of Italic than they do the samples I labeled Celtic. I never once argued Swiss don't have Roman admixture, it's the how much I'm arguing about. You, and others, argue for Swiss pretty much being the result of northern Europeans+southern Europeans, I make the argument they're a mix of northern+already central+southern, and more northern/central. You and token have modeled Swiss as 30-50% Italic, I argue the number is below 20%. The fits are literally better when using the samples I labeled Celtic than Italic if I use them seperately, and together Swiss/French populations score much more Celtic than they do Italic. How do you get favoring Italics from any of this information?

Obviously it favors Italic in Italy, what does that have to do with anything? I was literally only arguing about the Swiss and Italians favoring Italics whilist Swiss favoring Celts literally supports my argument. You make good points about the other Empuires samples, but what are the chances of them sampling all 5 Celtic migrants? Here's the problem with this point, even though it's a decent one, we have no idea if the Celts in Iberia are from the actual Celtic homeland of the Alps and Hallstatt/La Tene. Celts in Iberia could've came from literally anywhere and acquired more admixture in France, how likely is it they went straight from Switzerland to Iberia? If they came from or passed through W France and then just followed the coast, it makes sense they'd be more northern because coastal central/NW France did have large Bell Beaker replacements because of low population density, the Bell Beakers from Britanny are more northern shifted than the only other BB samples from Central and southern France. Again, fine enough point but it's just silly to use samples from Iberia to use as Celts when you literally have samples from the Celtic homeland, and they aren't that old, some are mid-1000s BC, lots of ethnicity specific genetic drift already present in populations of that age.

As for your point on Germanic ancestry in the French, yes I agree, I was only trying to not stray too far away from your original model. I said as much myself, French(especially Britanny, but all of them do) need LBA/MBA insular Briton(French Beaker works as well) to remove inflated Germanic, that still has nothing to do with what I'm originally arguing about: Roman admixture in Swiss people(of whom Germanic admixture was also inflated in your models).

and yes, we do see Near Eastern/North African components north of Provence, why would there be more Republican era migrants than Imperial outside of Italy when Republican Rome held Gaulish/Celtic lands for what, 100-50 years, while Imperial Rome held them for what, nearly 400-500? While the Imperial Rome sample is just a mishmash of native Romans, immigrants, and their mixes, there is substantial evidence the average Roman(not dwellant of the city of Rome but inhabitant of Italy) was South Italian-Greek Islander like because of the impact said Imperial immigrants, as one Roman colonist in Iberia shows, and the Collegno outliers in Northern Italy and Pannonia/Hungary(the outliers to the Scandinavian-like Germanic migrants, not Republican Roman-like other Italians).

Target: Swiss_French
Distance: 1.4513% / 0.01451293
61.8 Bell_Beaker_NLD
31.0 AUT_LBK_N
5.0 FRA_MN
1.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.0 England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o

Target: French_Auvergne
Distance: 0.9754% / 0.00975433
62.0 Bell_Beaker_NLD
27.4 AUT_LBK_N
9.0 FRA_MN
1.0 Mozabite
0.6 England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o

Target: French_Alsace
Distance: 1.4406% / 0.01440605
71.4 Bell_Beaker_NLD
27.0 AUT_LBK_N
1.6 England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o

and that's not even getting into Y-DNA, most of the exotic Y-DNA found in Europe today(your Es, Js, Ts, what have you) is nearly completely absent from neolithic farmers, especially in western European farmers.

I guarantee you when Hallstatt/La Tene samples finally get released(I agree with you they need to stop fucking studying neolithic and bronze age populations whom we know everything about already) and they show up as N. Iberian/SW French or even Central French people are going to be saying "hue hue Rhaetians" when similar samples already exist 1k years before then as far north as fucking Mecklenburg.