Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites

[Mitchell-Atkins]

If my geographic analysis is any good, there’s a possibility one of these ancient samples will be on my line.

[Sephesakueu]

J-L283 found in a hallstatt individual hahahah not like everyone with iq higher than 83 coudn't have foreseen that.
Sad day for "roman mediated" parrots.

[Pribislav]

It seems we could be talking about a patrilineal dynasty as well, since samples from three different sites could belong to the same subclade (the last two have lower coverage):


LWB003; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xFGC8346,Z40765,Z45548,FT47568,FT153446,BY34320,FGC34822,Y97811)

MBG017; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xY3101,S2795,FGC8346,Z45548,FT153446,FTD7424,BY34320,BY130701,Z30742,FGC34822,Y97811,FT367097)

HOC002; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803

HOC003;  G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816

[Orentil]

So, it seems that all samples are from Baden-Württemberg, Germany?

Yes, all samples seems to be localised around 3 main regions (if we got the meaning of the labels right) :
1- Stuttgart
2- Heuneburg
3- Magdalenenberg

Then SCN might stand for Schwenningen next to the Magdalenenberg, maybe another grave nearby, at least I have no better idea.

[Riverman]

It seems we could be talking about a patrilineal dynasty as well, since samples from three different sites could belong to the same subclade (the last two have lower coverage):


LWB003; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xFGC8346,Z40765,Z45548,FT47568,FT153446,BY34320,FGC34822,Y97811)

MBG017; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xY3101,S2795,FGC8346,Z45548,FT153446,FTD7424,BY34320,BY130701,Z30742,FGC34822,Y97811,FT367097)

HOC002; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803

HOC003;  G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816

Could be seen as another example of top elites DO NOT have disproportional genetic success necessarily. The elites on top were sometimes particularly vulnerable and the late Hallstatt elite might even have been dethroned, probably even been under attack at the end of the period.
Most of the big founder events are clan-tribal based, not because of single, exceptionally successful individuals.

There is no full yDNA lists for all the samples available yet?

[pelop]

J-L283 found in a hallstatt individual hahahah not like everyone with iq higher than 83 coudn't have foreseen that.
Sad day for "roman mediated" parrots.

Some branches are still very likely to be Roman-mediated, others moved out of the Balkans during prehistory like this sample showcases (along with other samples we've seen recently) and others seem to have migrated with the various "barbarian" groups moving east to west during the migration period. It's nice that aDNA can still surprise us. Hopefully these new findings will help dispel some of the persistent yet unsubstantiated theories that are popular in anthofora, for example that the Italo-Celtic language family came from the Netherlands or Denmark.

[Villanovan]

It seems we could be talking about a patrilineal dynasty as well, since samples from three different sites could belong to the same subclade (the last two have lower coverage):


LWB003; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xFGC8346,Z40765,Z45548,FT47568,FT153446,BY34320,FGC34822,Y97811)

MBG017; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xY3101,S2795,FGC8346,Z45548,FT153446,FTD7424,BY34320,BY130701,Z30742,FGC34822,Y97811,FT367097)

HOC002; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803

HOC003;  G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816

If these categorizations are accurate and they are indeed related to each other in male line, being Y3101-, they should be downstream G-Y13112. We'll see.

En passant, no ancients downstream G-Y13112 so far:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bgLRC1c...DyDmR/view

Could be seen as another example of top elites DO NOT have disproportional genetic success necessarily. The elites on top were sometimes particularly vulnerable and the late Hallstatt elite might even have been dethroned, probably even been under attack at the end of the period.
Most of the big founder events are clan-tribal based, not because of single, exceptionally successful individuals.

There is no full yDNA lists for all the samples available yet?

I agree that top elites don't necessarily have disproportional genetic success. Perhaps these samples are another example of that, depending on how we define "disproportional".

The ancients in question would be less than 2800 years old. I don't see many Western European branches up to 2800 years old that are super developed (I know that UK is very well covered when it comes to genetic tests, so there could be some there). Needless to say, the most frequent macro-haplogroups in West Europe nowadays owe their conditions mainly to older events.
So, one must consider the timeframe, or the context, for properly judging whether a given branch experienced an important relative expansion or not.

That said, I don't think, again, the nodes in question (way older than those Hallstatt samples) are by themselves examples of "disproportional genetic success" (if you referred to these nodes directly), however, they look successful. The TMRCA of G-S2808 (downstream G-CTS4803) is estimated by FTDNA Discover in 3767 ybp; the G-Y3098, in 3680 ybp. Looking at Western European subclades of similar age in the available phylogeny, even those downstream super branches generally over 4500 years old and extremelly frequent, I see they don't tend to be greater.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-Y3098/tree
We have a good idea of frequencies of old branches, however, we cannot say the same in relation to younger branches. It's noteworthy that the phylogeny of G-Y3098 could be even better developed. That is to say that G2a men tend not to sequence Y-DNA, at least in comparison to men from many other branches. It's easily demonstrable by statistics available in the biggest G2a Project. From the numbers, we see that just ~25.9% of the members (mostly Europeans) tested the BigY. It's too bad. As a point of comparison, ~66.5% of those in the R-DF27 Project tested the BigY. In the R-L21, 61.9%. R-U106 Project, ~58%. And so on.
I'd say G-Y3098 is "successful".

[Riverman]

It seems we could be talking about a patrilineal dynasty as well, since samples from three different sites could belong to the same subclade (the last two have lower coverage):


LWB003; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xFGC8346,Z40765,Z45548,FT47568,FT153446,BY34320,FGC34822,Y97811)

MBG017; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>Y3098 (xY3101,S2795,FGC8346,Z45548,FT153446,FTD7424,BY34320,BY130701,Z30742,FGC34822,Y97811,FT367097)

HOC002; G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803

HOC003;  G2a2b-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816

If these categorizations are accurate and they are indeed related to each other in male line, being Y3101-, they should be downstream G-Y13112. We'll see.

En passant, no ancients downstream G-Y13112 so far:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bgLRC1c...DyDmR/view

Could be seen as another example of top elites DO NOT have disproportional genetic success necessarily. The elites on top were sometimes particularly vulnerable and the late Hallstatt elite might even have been dethroned, probably even been under attack at the end of the period.
Most of the big founder events are clan-tribal based, not because of single, exceptionally successful individuals.

There is no full yDNA lists for all the samples available yet?

I agree that top elites don't necessarily have disproportional genetic success. Perhaps these samples are another example of that, depending on how we define "disproportional".

The ancients in question would be less than 2800 years old. I don't see many Western European branches up to 2800 years old that are super developed (I know that UK is very well covered when it comes to genetic tests, so there could be some there). Needless to say, the most frequent macro-haplogroups in West Europe nowadays owe their conditions mainly to older events.
So, I'd say that one must consider the timeframe, or the context, for properly judging whether a given branch experienced an important relative expansion or not.

That said, I don't think, again, the nodes in question (way older than those Hallstatt samples) are by themselves examples of "disproportional genetic success" (if you referred to these nodes directly), however, they seem successful. The TMRCA of G-S2808 (downstream G-CTS4803) is estimated by FTDNA Discover in 3767 ybp; the G-Y3098, in 3680 ybp. Looking at Western European subclades of similar age in the available phylogeny, even those downstream super branches generally over 4500 years old and extremelly frequent, I see they don't tend to be greater.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-Y3098/tree
We have a good idea of frequencies of old branches, however, we cannot say the same in relation to younger branches. It's noteworthy that the phylogeny of G-Y3098 could be even better developed. That is to say that G2a men tend not to sequence Y-DNA, at least in comparison to men from many other branches. It's easily demonstrable by statistics available in the biggest G2a Project. From the numbers, we see that just ~25.9% of the members (mostly Europeans) tested the BigY. It's too bad. As a point of comparison, ~66.5% of those in the R-DF27 Project tested the BigY. In the R-L21, 61.9%. R-U106 Project, ~58%. And so on.
I'd say G-Y3098 is "successful".

Honestly even the survivors we see might not be exactly from this aristocratic clan in question. And there are definitely much more successful Western European branches around. We don't see, in any case, a big Hallstatt era founder and branching event, not a big one, that much is for sure. And that's already a result, if looking at how important this branch seems to have been politically, in its heydays. 

And we already knew from other samples that G2 branches are among the Proto-Celts, coming second after the typical Bell Beaker Western R1b branches mostly downstream of R-L51, especially R-L2. That means they had some sort of ethnic-tribal expansion, with the Celts, which is part of the reason why they are well represented in the British Isles imho. 
But the political-dynastic position of these specific branches didn't pay off genetically as much as some people claim elite positions in prehistoric societies did. And that's because the clan-tribal-ethnic expansions are far more important and impressive.

[Mokordo]

Too late, already posted.

[corrigendum]

J-L283 found in a hallstatt individual hahahah not like everyone with iq higher than 83 coudn't have foreseen that.
Sad day for "roman mediated" parrots.

Some branches are still very likely to be Roman-mediated, others moved out of the Balkans during prehistory like this sample showcases (along with other samples we've seen recently) and others seem to have migrated with the various "barbarian" groups moving east to west during the migration period. It's nice that aDNA can still surprise us. Hopefully these new findings will help dispel some of the persistent yet unsubstantiated theories that are popular in anthofora, for example that the Italo-Celtic language family came from the Netherlands or Denmark.

The majority of branches are very likely to be Roman era or post-Roman arrivals in western Europe, not just for this haplogroup but for all haplogroups which were very rare in the pre-Roman era in the west. I'm not sure why someone would think that 1 such sample (from a BA Balkan clade) in ~100 samples in western Europe changes the overall picture. I would think that the very low percentage of all such haplogroups in the archaeogenetic record in the west is the best evidence that the movement of most such lineages towards the west, north of the Mediterranean Sea cannot predate the Roman era.

This is also true for all haplogroups which were common in northern/eastern Europe in antiquity but haven't been found anywhere in the Balkans, the Italian Peninsula and the Aegean area before late antiquity and the migration period.

[corrigendum]

But the political-dynastic position of these specific branches didn't pay off genetically as much as some people claim elite positions in prehistoric societies did. And that's because the clan-tribal-ethnic expansions are far more important and impressive.

Compared to other EEF lineages, I would argue that G-L497 integration in Proto-Celtic groups and their elites paid off massively. Just compare G-L497 % vs. all other EEF lineages of western Europe today.

According to yfull's stats, which tend to correspond to data from academic studies, G-L497 is 2.5% in Germany (n=832), 2% in France (n=405), 2.3% in Belgium (n=88), 7.2% in Switzerland (n=138). This makes it a successful lineage compared to the alternative which most EEF lineages like G-BY49026 faced.

[GHurier]

The majority of branches are very likely to be Roman era or post-Roman arrivals in western Europe, not just for this haplogroup but for all haplogroups which were very rare in the pre-Roman era in the west. I'm not sure why someone would think that 1 such sample (from a BA Balkan clade) in ~100 samples in western Europe changes the overall picture. I would think that the very low percentage of all such haplogroups in the archaeogenetic record in the west is the best evidence that the movement of most such lineages towards the west, north of the Mediterranean Sea cannot predate the Roman era.

This is also true for all haplogroups which were common in northern/eastern Europe in antiquity but haven't been found anywhere in the Balkans, the Italian Peninsula and the Aegean area before late antiquity and the migration period.

In fact, what we see from the phylogeny is that the "Roman mediated" do exists for J-L283, it affects some clades ... but it is not heavily dominant.
In fact, subclades like J-Z1043 and J-Y27522 are clearly dominated by ~IA dispersions.
For instance, you have not a single sample of those clades in EIA-Balkans ... I'm not sure why in such situation someone would think that they have been displaced by Romans, from a region where they are not attested pre-romans ?
Keep in mind that the closest MRCA that you can link to the Balkans for those clades is >2100 BCE ... and among Z638 major clades ... only one have yielded samples during EIA up to now. 1000+ years is a very long time gap. Some Haplogroups are crossing the whole continent in few centuries since Neolithic.

The case for Y15058 is more tricky because it faced the two mecanism, even if in terms of diversity, the major diffusion is likely ~1000 BCE.
This clades where likely participating to eastern-Hallstatt movements starting from Eastern-Alps (~Slovenia/South-Austria) during EIA (and Croatia for Y15058).
When you compare diversity of the clades, Y27522 and Z1043 have clearly northern affinity compared to Y15058 ... and we know what is at the northern edge sampled Y15058 population (Eastern Hallsatt).

Regarding other ancient DNA clues, for J-Z631 (Z1043 "ancestor") we have RMPR116 that is typically Hallsatt by ~100 CE and have been found in Roma.
Which shows that :
1. It is unlikely to have been collected in the Balkans considering the admixture and the "too short timescale" to morph its admixture.
2. Z631 populations were indeed inside the "Roman-sphere" (no-one is doubting that to my knowledge)
3. There is a ~Hallstatt like region where such sample found its origin.

The absence of these clades in Anatolia or North Africa also speek against a major involvement of Romans in the dispersion.

And in fact, regarding Z631, minor roman displacement might have occured in "both directions" (there one clade clearly affected, but the direction of displacement is yet to be identified).
We have good reasons to think that it (Z631) was indeed present deep in the Balkans, maybe as early as ~600-500 BCE (and by ~300 BCE its present is a given).
But we also have good reasons to think that it was in Southern Germany around the same time.
This Hallsatt-"hub" (Eastern-Hallstatt in the first place and later Western Hallstatt for few subclades) allows to explains few pre-Roman clumps of diversity, in particular the Spanish one.

The point is, that you expect such clade in a "Danubian corridor" ... that is nearly unsampled yet during 1st millenium BCE.
For instance, you can test EIA-Czechia as deeply as you want, most likely you want find such sample (or only marginally at best).
Because subsequent dispersal they didn't participate to northern component of Hallstatt.
But, most likely the Danubian bassin in Austria and South Germany north of the Alps will likely provide a significant amount of such lineages.
IA-populations were not homogeneous regarding haplogroups distribution. And population sharing cultural traits didn't have necessarly the exact same ancestry background.

For a "mass Roman mediated" dispersion you would expect way more clade coupling : (i) between Balkans and the rest of Europe, (ii) within distant places in Europe ... whereas post-700 BCE, diversity is mostly spatially "compact" saves few clades.

More generally about all haplgoroups, "mass Roman mediated dispersions of haplogroup" is mostly a myth ... few haplogroup were dispersed by Romans. One of the most affected family is E-V13, and even for E-V13 I won't claim Romans to be the main mecanism.
This clade was also among Hallstatt populations.
The mass Roman displacement of any clades sounds like a bed-time story ... that in reality only marginally affected the genetic of Europe. Trying to displace hundreds of clades is not realistic with this mecanism, as to dodge "correlation signal" it needs to be coupled with mass-extinction which multiply the number of clades to be displaced ...
Demographically speaking, it is a very weird position.

[ambron]

Pribislav

Were there only four male samples or have you only tagged four so far?

[Southpaw]

J-L283 found in a hallstatt individual hahahah not like everyone with iq higher than 83 coudn't have foreseen that.
Sad day for "roman mediated" parrots.

Some branches are still very likely to be Roman-mediated, others moved out of the Balkans during prehistory like this sample showcases (along with other samples we've seen recently) and others seem to have migrated with the various "barbarian" groups moving east to west during the migration period. It's nice that aDNA can still surprise us. Hopefully these new findings will help dispel some of the persistent yet unsubstantiated theories that are popular in anthofora, for example that the Italo-Celtic language family came from the Netherlands or Denmark.

I must point out that I haven't come across any theories or hypotheses within anthropological forums suggesting that the Italo-Celtic language family originates from the Netherlands or Denmark (even if someone might have thrown as hypothesis it was not popular at all). Accusing others of being unsubstantiated without any basis just for yourself to sound more reasonable is bad.

[Anglesqueville]

In one of his texts the Russian linguist Kuzmenko proposes something like the presence of an Italo-Celtic proto-dialect in contact with a pre-Proto-Germanic dialect somewhere in what is today the Netherlands. Honestly, I only have a very vague and distant memory of this, and of a vague argument on the basis of so-called common Germanic-Celto-Italic innovations. I seem to remember mostly that this nonsense was used by someone on Anthro in the context of debates about Proto-Germanic. It's only very fringe, and these theories have never been popular anywhere, at least to my knowledge.