Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites

[Pylsteen]

Are there other Y-samples outside of the J and G dynasties?

[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.

I need to correct myself. SCN could be Schöckingen, see attached link. Another possibility would be Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt (there were also two graves found.

https://home.bawue.de/~wmwerner/stz/ho/s...020-1.html

google translation:
Experts are researching family relationships using 2,500-year-old genetic fingerprints

EBERDINGEN. Archaeologists have investigated the Celtic prince of Hochdorf and other sovereigns. The experts want to find out how the rulers of 2,500 years ago related to each other.

By Dieter Kapff

High-tech in archeology is no longer unusual. Prehistoric scientists are now also testing what the police want to do when hunting criminals with electronic fingerprints. In a pilot test, teeth and bone remains of eleven early Celtic individuals from Baden-Württemberg were examined at the Göttingen Institute for Zoology and Anthropology. The aim is to use DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, to obtain genetic information and thus clarify whether the princes were related to each other.

The background is the question currently being discussed in research as to what the power structures in the country looked like in the late Hallstatt period. Were they just individual clan heads, chieftains, who ruled over a small area or an extensive clan? Or did they all belong to a family-connected aristocratic class that had the say everywhere? Was there an aristocratic network back then, even a hereditary aristocracy?

The study results are exciting and initially confirm connections that were previously only suspected. But they also have surprises in store. The Celtic prince of Hochdorf in the Ludwigsburg district was actually related to at least one, perhaps even several, dead people from the large burial mounds of the late Hallstatt period.

The objects of the study were skeletal parts from the princely grave mounds in Eberdingen-Hochdorf, the Roman mound in Ludwigsburg, the Kleinaspergle, the Grafenbühl (both Asperg), from Ditzingen-Schöckingen (all in the Ludwigsburg district), from Hundersingen on the Danube and from Magdalenenberg near Villingen-Schwenningen. The Hochdorfer had a molar pulled out and a bone removed from others. A gram of unadulterated substance is then pulverized, dissolved, the DNA extracted and multiplied using the so-called PCR method. The fragments of the genes then light up in ultraviolet light. They can now be compared with each other.

During the investigation, the genes from the cell nucleus gave poor results. But there is also genetic information in the mitochondria of the cell body. So the Göttingen researchers switched to mitochondrial DNA. This means that the direct male sequence via the Y chromosome, which only occurs in men, and other genes cannot be recognized, but the relationship in the maternal line can.

Using molecular genetic analysis, the Göttingen researchers determined that the genetic information of the prince from the Hochdorf central grave and the dead man in the central grave of Grafenbühl near Asperg are identical. This means that both are obviously related to each other on the maternal line. The relationship can be traced over two generations, as the 40-year-old Hochdorfer died around 550 BC. The dead man from Grafenbühl was buried 50 years later. The Grafenbühler could therefore have been the sister son of the Hochdorfer.

Three other deaths do not have such close relationships. These are a subsequent burial from Hochdorf, a dead person from the Roman hill near Ludwigsburg and a 25-year-old woman from Schöckingen. In these three cases, only two of the three sections of mitochondrial DNA have been examined. So it is entirely possible that the dead woman from Schöckingen was “Bäsle to the Celtic prince,” as Baron von Schöckingen vividly put it in front of visitors. This could mean that the Schöckinger woman was a daughter of the Hochdorfer's mother's sister. And this gives weight to the thesis that the region's Celtic princes come from a related aristocratic class.

The three from Schöckingen, the Römerhügel and Hochdorf form a group that differs from the other dead examined. However, the matches in the DNA traces with the Hochdorf prince and the Grafenbühl deceased are relatively imprecise. A reliable statement can therefore only refer to the fact that there is a similarity within a not very large population. However, a family relationship is certainly conceivable.

The surprising result was that a woman and a child who were subsequently buried in Grafenbühl were in no way related to each other. Until now they had been viewed quite naturally as mother and child. Now one can speculate that the woman is the stepmother.

10/20/2003 - updated: 10/21/2003, 5:03 am

[Dewsloth]

"This means that the direct male sequence via the Y chromosome, which only occurs in men, and other genes cannot be recognized,"

Hopefully technology has progressed to the point where we have a better shot.

[Orentil]

"This means that the direct male sequence via the Y chromosome, which only occurs in men, and other genes cannot be recognized,"

Hopefully technology has progressed to the point where we have a better shot.

Yes, I am very confident. This is an old investigation from 2003 in Göttingen, now it is in the hands of the MPI in Jena.

[Villanovan]

By the way, how do we know the samples in question represent elites? Sorry. No time for searching.
If so, they'd add up to the 2800-2600 years old G2a sample HÜ-I/8, from a rich grave (in Austria) linked to Hallstatt.
https://docplayer.org/51098997-Sonius-ar...stest.html
Impossible to know the subclade from the few STRs available, but they do resemble the G-L497 modal.

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.

I believe I get your point now.

They may or may not have left living descendants nowadays, of course. Actually lineages in general went extinct more often than not. Perhaps most of the ancients we know about haven't left such descendants. As an author once suggested: the reduction of Y-DNA diversity was much greater than the reduction in male population size. Given a certain frame, there're relatively few surviving lineages, in relation to the number of lineages/men at the times of their MRCAs (or even in relation to the number of contemporary elite families), actually reinforcing your conclusion, which is just intuitive. But I assumed you might have used G2a as reference, or G-Y3098 at best, hence my focus on the branch itself, drawing attention to possible anachronisms. Truly, I'm sure there must be Western European branches more successful than G-S2808 or G-Y3098, with similar age, but digging into the current tree, that doesn't seem to be the rule, even without considering the little bias I referred to in my last post.
Now, most of the branches younger than 2800 years are not so well developed. But I do recall now seeing special cases in East Europe (Serbia, under I2) and in West Europe (UK, under R-L21). Not to mention the (possibly unparalleled) expansion of Ashkenazi branches in a very short timeframe. So, if you are using as reference, let's call it, "Gengis Khan branches", then ok; and I'd rephrase, from your definition of "disproportional": top elites usually don't have disproportional genetic success. It's quite clear those "GK branches" are exceptions in their times.

I agree that the arrival of an important part of G-L497 to UK must have been related to Celts. From the seventeen G samples in Patterson et al. (2021), only one was confirmed as non-G-L497, while fifteen were confirmed for the subgroup. IIRC, coincidently, the frequency of the branch among the La Tène samples from this very paper, ~11%, was similar to its frequency among the British IA samples in the same paper, ~12%, "if" we discount the R-L21 samples, probably "native". Later movements into England must have increased the frequency of lineages like R-U106, I, J and E, and decreased others, such as G-L497's itself.

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.

Proto-Celts were important vectors for G-L497, but not only G-L497 TMRCA predates proto-Celts substantially as its first important expansion, represented by the G-Z727 (G-Z1816) subclade, also predates them well. This more relevant expansion must have happened just slightly after R-U152's, which is the one that G-Z727 seems to best mirror, as usually assumed.
Bottom line, G-L497 must have been related to several different groups along its evolution, as you know. For example, from the data available, it looks like it could have been the most frequent G subclade among early Etruscans. Perhaps it was frequent among Tyrsenian speakers (?).

As a side note, I get a bit different numbers from the FTDNA database, significantly bigger than YFull database. (FTDNA statistics work just fine for macro-haplogroups, as any tester is categorized for one of them, however, FTDNA statistics tend to underestimate the frequency of subgroups in general, because unknown status are considered as they were negative results, for the purpose of establishing frequencies; which means that some manual calculations are needed in order to get more accurate numbers from FTDNA data, for subclades.)

[Riverman]

The Etruscan link might be viable, since the Raetho-Etruscans lived in the vicinity of the Alpine-Danubian-North Italian sphere and where therefore close to the Tumulus culture, which likely represents Centum speakers ancestral to Italo-Celts and possibly other unknown people which went extinct before they could be recognised by ancient authors and sources. I think at some point the ancestral Tumulus culture and the ancestral Rhaeto-Etruscans were neighbours and its possible that some major branches switched sides either way, which would explain the presence of Tumulus culture/Beaker branches in Etruscans and vice versa.

[Manofthehour]

The Etruscan link might be viable, since the Raetho-Etruscans lived in the vicinity of the Alpine-Danubian-North Italian sphere and where therefore close to the Tumulus culture, which likely represents Centum speakers ancestral to Italo-Celts and possibly other unknown people which went extinct before they could be recognised by ancient authors and sources. I think at some point the ancestral Tumulus culture and the ancestral Rhaeto-Etruscans were neighbours and its possible that some major branches switched sides either way, which would explain the presence of Tumulus culture/Beaker branches in Etruscans and vice versa.

This goes along with Giampietro Fabbri's thesis part of which talks of some confederation between the Proto-Tyrhennians and who he calls the "Proto-Gaul-Latins" (Gaulatanas, e.g. Collatia, Collatinus) both of whom supposedly entered Italy from the Eastern Alps during the Mid-Late Bronze Age.

 Either way, perhaps the proximity of Venetics to Rhaetics and the Latins to Etruscans are part of the same cline/phenomenon and relationship going back to the BA.

[teepean]

Here's the dataset. There are some duplicates that I did not merge.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

Code:

SampleName    TotalSites    NonMissingCalls
APG001_ss.A0201    1233013    357403
APG001_ss.A0401    1233013    251609
APG002_ss.A0201    1233013    486864
APG003_ss.A0201    1233013    250355
APG003_ss.A0401    1233013    460514
HEU001.A0301    1233013    487976
HEU002.A0201    1233013    257177
HOC001.A0301    1233013    18739
HOC001_ss.A0302    1233013    105097
HOC002.A0301    1233013    583466
HOC003.A0301    1233013    243800
HOC004_ss.A0101    1233013    922882
LAN001.A0301    1233013    284298
LWB001_ss.A0102    1233013    491776
LWB002_ss.A0102    1233013    262255
LWB003_ss.A0101    1233013    939636
MBG001.A0101    1233013    22531
MBG002.A0101    1233013    86253
MBG003.A0101    1233013    424643
MBG004.A0101    1233013    415263
MBG005.A0101    1233013    387562
MBG006.A0101    1233013    199242
MBG007.A0101    1233013    862159
MBG008.A0101    1233013    746832
MBG009.A0101    1233013    510234
MBG009_ss.A0102    1233013    872181
MBG010.A0101    1233013    212191
MBG011.A0101    1233013    30340
MBG012.A0101    1233013    28883
MBG013.A0101    1233013    66715
MBG014.A0101    1233013    21703
MBG015.A0101    1233013    161438
MBG016.A0101    1233013    430210
MBG017_ss.A0101    1233013    1019375
SCN001_ss.A0201    1233013    42387
SCN001_ss.A0401    1233013    60754

[old europe]

The Etruscan link might be viable, since the Raetho-Etruscans lived in the vicinity of the Alpine-Danubian-North Italian sphere and where therefore close to the Tumulus culture, which likely represents Centum speakers ancestral to Italo-Celts and possibly other unknown people which went extinct before they could be recognised by ancient authors and sources. I think at some point the ancestral Tumulus culture and the ancestral Rhaeto-Etruscans were neighbours and its possible that some major branches switched sides either way, which would explain the presence of Tumulus culture/Beaker branches in Etruscans and vice versa.

This goes along with Giampietro Fabbri's thesis part of which talks of some confederation between the Proto-Tyrhennians and who he calls the "Proto-Gaul-Latins" (Gaulatanas, e.g. Collatia, Collatinus) both of whom supposedly entered Italy from the Eastern Alps during the Mid-Late Bronze Age.

 Either way, perhaps the proximity of Venetics to Rhaetics and the Latins to Etruscans are part of the same cline/phenomenon and relationship going back to the BA.

It is very unlikely that both Etruscan and Latins entered Italy in the middle to Bronze Age 

Etruscan were Remedello/ Rinaldone folks. The territory of this 2 copper age cultures overlaps perfectly with reto-etruscan speaking zone
Latins were from Polada/Alpine beaker culture. Since Latin clusters with Gaulish it is likely it entered Italy through the western Alps/ Switzerland

[old europe]

I say this because you can go by exclusion. Recent genetics papers pointed out tha etruscans
Were not recently incomers from Anatolia
Of course they were not beakers unless you root for the R1b were not IE speaking which is crazy
The only option is they came indeed from Anatolia but with the cardial/impresso colonization

[miquirumba]

several mtDNA results by Haplogrep3
there are many duplicated samples with terrible coverage
MBG001 H7a
HEU001 U5b2b
LWB003 K1b2b
MBG006 K1a+195
MBG016 U5a1a2b
MBG010 T2b4
MBG009 H1c9

[miquirumba]

more mtDNA
APG003 X2b+226 +7399T
MBG004 H1c50 https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H1c50/
MBG003 H1c9
MBG010 T2b4
MBG015 H5 +6116G

[ChrisR]

This goes along with Giampietro Fabbri's thesis part of which talks of some confederation between the Proto-Tyrhennians and who he calls the "Proto-Gaul-Latins" (Gaulatanas, e.g. Collatia, Collatinus) both of whom supposedly entered Italy from the Eastern Alps during the Mid-Late Bronze Age.

Interesting. The Pre-Cisalpine genesis of North and Central Italy is still not clear enough IMHO. I think you mean
Kainua Misena e il popolo misto degli Etruschi - Fabbri 2018
Auto-Translated Abstract

Kainua Misena and the mixed people of the Etruscans
This study proposes an interpretation of the name of the Etruscan city of Kainua, the remains of which have been unearthed in the town of Marzabotto in the province of Bologna. To this end, the origins of the Etruscan people are recalled and its characteristic of actually being a confederation of peoples belonging to two distinct lineages descended from the *Thyrgwaunas, Proto-Haltaic-speaking, and the *Gwaulgwaunas, Proto-Indo-European-speaking, known in the Aegean area as a mixed people, *Mykgwaunas. (Migdonians and Mycenaeans). The descendants of these lineages in Italy are then recognized and distinguished as Tyrsini and Volsini, according to the terminology of Greek and Roman historians. The Tyrsine, Volsine and mixed origins of the main Etruscan cities, including Kainua, are then analyzed. For this one, also on the basis of archaeological findings, a Sabatian/Sabine and Umbrian origin is hypothesized followed by a Volsine and a later Tyrsine-Volsine re-foundation. The toponym Kainua is then traced back to the name shared by the ancestors of Umbrians (*Gwaunas *Hubaras), Sabines (*Swagwaunas), Volsini and Tyrsini, namely *Gwaunas, transformed according to the phonetic changes of the Umbrian language into *Kainas, and derived into Kainua with the addition of the characteristic patronymic tyrsine ending -ua: city of the Kainas. It is finally assumed that the settlement was also known as a city of the mixed people, namely *Mysena (< *Mykgwaunas), hence the present name of the locality.

[teepean]

I have uploaded a new dataset where duplicates are merged.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

Code:

SampleName    TotalSites    NonMissingCalls
APG001_merged    1233013    509614
APG002    1233013    486864
APG003_merged    1233013    583309
HEU001    1233013    487976
HEU002    1233013    257177
HOC001_merged    1233013    121411
HOC002    1233013    583466
HOC003    1233013    243800
HOC004    1233013    922882
LAN001    1233013    284298
LWB001    1233013    491776
LWB002    1233013    262255
LWB003    1233013    939636
MBG001    1233013    22531
MBG002    1233013    86253
MBG003    1233013    424643
MBG004    1233013    415263
MBG005    1233013    387562
MBG006    1233013    199242
MBG007    1233013    862159
MBG008    1233013    746832
MBG009_merged    1233013    958214
MBG010    1233013    212191
MBG011    1233013    30340
MBG012    1233013    28883
MBG013    1233013    66715
MBG014    1233013    21703
MBG015    1233013    161438
MBG016    1233013    430210
MBG017    1233013    1019375
SCN001_merged    1233013    100003

[Qrts]

Extracted individual data into bed/bim/fam dataset, converted them into 23andme files and ran them on YSEQ's cladefinder:

APG001: 

Most specific position on the YFull YTree is R-CTS2501

APG003: 

Most specific position on the YFull YTree is R-L2

LWB001:

Most specific position on the YFull YTree is R-L2

MBG002:

Most specific position on the YFull YTree is R-Z331

MBG003:

Most specific position on the YFull YTree is R-S1161