Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites

[Dewsloth]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

Edit:  I'll give you one guess as to which of the Celtic samples plots closest to I17607

[Andour]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

Interestingly, all those Central European IA groups have their own northern outlier - Hallstatt and la Tène alike.

The cores of those groups are essentially Gaulish-like, but :
Czech IA La Tène I120509 plots "north of the Arctic circle" on PCAs. France Grand Est COL11 is surrounded by Swedes.
Czech Hallstatt Bylany DA112 is Dutch-like, while DA111 lands half way between Brittany and the Basque country.
In that respect, the Slovakia IA Vekerzug group (not Gaulish-like, for that matter) is a caricatural case, with people plotting among Lithuanians, and others plotting in Lazio.

I wonder if this is due to the fact that those groups were still "in the making", sort of, awaiting genetic homogenization, or whether those outliers were traders or mercenaries who died a long way from where they belonged.

More selfishly, I am very much interested in the Gaulish-like looks of those German, Czech, Austrian, even Slovenian IA samples. Two years ago, Claire Elise Fischer's Gaulish paper concluded that they could detect no genetic discontinuity in Iron Age France. I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups. It reeks of nazi propaganda to their eyes and is currently politically incorrect.

Still, for the sake of my own private identity quest, I can't help wondering when I hit on maps like this one :

[Olymp]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

Interestingly, all those Central European IA groups have their own northern outlier - Hallstatt and la Tène alike.

The cores of those groups are essentially Gaulish-like, but :
Czech IA La Tène I120509 plots "north of the Arctic circle" on PCAs. France Grand Est COL11 is surrounded by Swedes.
Czech Hallstatt Bylany DA112 is Dutch-like, while DA111 lands half way between Brittany and the Basque country.
In that respect, the Slovakia IA Vekerzug group (not Gaulish-like, for that matter) is a caricatural case, with people plotting among Lithuanians, and others plotting in Lazio.

I wonder if this is due to the fact that those groups were still "in the making", sort of, awaiting genetic homogenization, or whether those outliers were traders or mercenaries who died a long way from where they belonged.

More selfishly, I am very much interested in the Gaulish-like looks of those German, Czech, Austrian, even Slovenian IA samples. Two years ago, Claire Elise Fischer's Gaulish paper concluded that they could detect no genetic discontinuity in Iron Age France. I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups. It reeks of nazi propaganda to their eyes and is currently politically incorrect.

Still, for the sake of my own private identity quest, I can't help wondering when I hit on maps like this one :

Close to modern ethnic French and Gaulish. Same local diversity.

[GHurier]

I'll just repeat quickly some points.
1.Displacement means forced mobility, the evidence we have for western Europe has to do with movement in the context of the Roman army and urbanization. Just check a list of Balkan legions which were stationed in western Europe throughout the Roman era.
2. I added all J-L26 haplogroups in one grouping because none of them have been found in IA France.  I use yfull's database where J-L283 is 2.7% (n=405). We can combine both datasets to be more accurate, but the main point would remain the same: 4-8% of Y-DNA in modern France comes from lineages which haven't been found there during the IA, but which are typically found southeast of France.
It's Y12000 which has an early medieval founder effect among Mishar Tatars and today makes up 16-20% of the total lineages of this ethnic group. The lineage may be a "back migration" towards the east of some local Pannonian lineage which had joined the Avar elite as in the case of Hungary. 
4. Neither has yet been found in the pre-Roman Balkans as most of the BA/IA Balkans are unsampled, but in itself the fact that they have been found with local Roman Balkan profiles and they are the earliest samples from their subclades is highly suggestive.

A point about methodology :

For some reasons you totally neglect cremating sub-populations ... which means that up to now ancient DNA record is by construction "culturally" biased.
That's why, reasoning by lack of sample is very dangerous ... because these cremating populations are also a "blind spot" in ancient DNA coverage, which is not geographically-driven but ethno-culturally-driven (thus with Y-DNA correlations).
That's important in the present discussion as in my claims I place the cradle of some J-L283 into cremating population of Eastern-Alps.
Therefore, by construction you expect a biased-low fraction of these samples inside ancient DNA records (you only see the one who "exited" the cremating custom) ... making your %-approach very very unadapted for such populations where inhumation and cremation coexists.
 
Another methodological issue :

If for you a 200 CE sample in the Balkans with a local profil is a proof that these sample are there since pre-Roman-times (and indeed, they likely were), then a 100 CE Hallstatt-like sample is also the proof that the concerned clade is to be found in a Hallstatt-like population.
It is just a matter a methodological consistency.
The utilisation of double standard is a very bad-signal you send.

Lucky we are, a J-L283 have been found ~500 BCE (with a local profile) right where there is a diveristy spot of modern J-L283 (at Z597 level) and matching the admixture of the RMPR116 sample (thus, we have our IA Z597-level diversity) ...

The presence of Roman-era samples with local profile in the Balkans is just not contradictory with my claims ... as within my claims, you do expect such samples (by 300 BCE at worst and potentially even before). Thus, I don't see why you are pushing this argument, as it is not relevant to counter my claims.

Then some false information to be corrected :
 
With YFULL data, clump of J-L283 are also to be found in (i) "Alsace", (ii) "Hauts-de-France/Normandie" and (iii) "Centre-Val-de-Loire/Nouvelle-Aquitaine" ... 
In fact most J-L283 samples in France are not in the south-eastern corner, 2-3 are in the South-Eastern corner among 11 total samples (~1/4 ... which is what you expect for a south-Eastern corner covering 1/4 of the territory).
This reccurent manipulation of data is a very bad signal you send.

 We still don't know why you are obsessed with IA-France ... while no-one claim that France hosted a significant amount of J-L283 during IA. The story is different for Southern Germany.
This reccurent attempt to manipulate the posistion I defend is also sending me very bad vibes ...

While Balkans did received some coverage for IA (as expected Y21878 was found), South-eastern France have nearly no coverage (only few Y-DNA near Marseille round ~300 BCE).
Interestingly, by ~0 CE, Y21878 accounts for 16 lineages (from YFULL tree) with surviving descendants ... whereas J-Z631 accounts for 89 lineages and Y27522 for 25 lineages. Basically, when sampling Balkans, if it was Z631 cradle, it should most likely pop-out-first (and in fact considering a mass-Roman-displacement scenario ... you have roughly to put Z631 everywhere in the Balkans, but still expanding without affecting other surrounding clades, what a challenge).

[GHurier]

French population was "roughly" genetically composed since at least ~1000 BCE.
The main remaining question is about the connection with Central Europe during IA.
It would probably require a segment-matching analysis, but it would be interesting to see with which Bell Beaker sample are found the closest match for the new IA-French samples.

[pelop]

C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option.

For France/Gaul it's reasonable to assume that there were both movements and cultural diffusion.

[poilus]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

 

More selfishly, I am very much interested in the Gaulish-like looks of those German, Czech, Austrian, even Slovenian IA samples. Two years ago, Claire Elise Fischer's Gaulish paper concluded that they could detect no genetic discontinuity in Iron Age France. I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups. It reeks of nazi propaganda to their eyes and is currently politically incorrect.

 

It is a bit of a circular reasoning. 
Rather than archeological theories, the main problem Fischer had to deal with is the low genomes coverage which prevented her to use IBD detecting tool.

[GHurier]

I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups.

From Y-DNA phylogeny we clearly see a movement of people between Central and Western Europe ... even if I won't be categoric about the "direction" of the movement (west to east ?, east to west ?, or maybe both).

Here is a plot of clade cross-correlation for R-P312 between Central/East Europe and Western Europe :



This figure shows the fractional amount of diversity persent in Western-Europe (red curve), Central/Eastern-Europe (blue curve), and the shared diversity (black curve). The curves are normalised such that clades absent from the two concerned regions are not considered at all (blue curve + red curve = 1 + black curve).

The clear decoupling of clades around 1000 BCE indicates a migration. We also see the BB-era decoupling prior 2000 BCE.
Lack of decoupling between 2000 and 1200 BCE shows that during this period European population were significantly less mobile than during the BB-era.

A movement is clearly attested for Y-DNA ... question to solve is in which direction. To me, only a segment by segment analysis can solve this question.

[Andour]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

 

More selfishly, I am very much interested in the Gaulish-like looks of those German, Czech, Austrian, even Slovenian IA samples. Two years ago, Claire Elise Fischer's Gaulish paper concluded that they could detect no genetic discontinuity in Iron Age France. I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups. It reeks of nazi propaganda to their eyes and is currently politically incorrect.

 

It is a bit of a circular reasoning. 
Rather than archeological theories, the main problem Fischer had to deal with is the low genomes coverage which prevented her to use IBD detecting tool.

"Archeological theories" was the reason C.E. Fischer herself put forward to explain why her group of geneticists had forborne from mentioning other options. She didn't seem to exclude other scenarios herself. I only reported what she explained. Still, the extension of the Hallstatt area in French territory on the map I posted above raises the question of migrations... As for how archeologists look at things, it will be enough to mention the title of a publication by one of the leading experts in that field : "Mais où sont passés les Indo-Européens ? (Where are the IE gone?). He finds no trace of them in archeology and therefore concludes that westward IE movements are " une forme de mythe historique et politique sur lequel les idéologies se sont appuyées régulièrement au cours de l'histoire récente " - a sort of historical and political myth on which ideologies have repeatedly relied in the course of recent history.

[Andour]

A movement is clearly attested for Y-DNA ... question to solve is in which direction. To me, only a segment by segment analysis can solve this question.

Y-dna is also one of the reasons why I suspect there might have been westward movements around the turn of the 1st milenium BC, in the wake of the 12C BC upheavals. That's about the time cremation reached the shores of the Mediterranean. Here is the list of ancients I have compiled so far two steps above my end-clade :

I7289 U152+ L2+ S14469     2289 BC Bell Beaker Czech                  Radosevice, Czech Republic Study: Olalde Nature 2018

I5516 P312+ FGC4183+      1866–1615 calBCE  Scotland CA-EBA     Doune, Perth and Kinross, Scotland Study: Olalde et al 2018

WEZ54  P312+ FGC4183 (?)  ca 1250 BC                                       Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany Study: Burger et al 2020

I13792  U152+ L2+ S14469  1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

I13793 U152+ L2+ S14469   1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

DA111 U152+ L2+ FGC4183+    836-780 calBCE Hallstatt-Bylany Culture    Lovosice, Czech Republic Study: Damgaard & al. 2018

I20519 U152>L2>S14469 400-200 BCE Czech IA LaTene Central Bohemia,  Prague 5, Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre) Study : Patterson's "Celtic Paper" 2021

[poilus]

I don't know much about LAN001 but:
I17607 800-550 BCE Louny, Stradonice, Czech Republic P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281  Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D Hallstatt

 
More selfishly, I am very much interested in the Gaulish-like looks of those German, Czech, Austrian, even Slovenian IA samples. Two years ago, Claire Elise Fischer's Gaulish paper concluded that they could detect no genetic discontinuity in Iron Age France. I pointed out on a French forum that given the genetic similarity in Western and Central Europe at the time, migrations might pass undetected. C.E. Fischer was kind enough to answer and explain that, although several scenarios could be considered, they had prudently opted for "cultural diffusion" rather than demic movement on the grounds that archaeologists preferred that option. Problem is, French archaeologists seem to have a(n) (ideological) problem with whatever concerns migrations of IE-speaking groups or sub-groups. It reeks of nazi propaganda to their eyes and is currently politically incorrect.
 

It is a bit of a circular reasoning. 
Rather than archeological theories, the main problem Fischer had to deal with is the low genomes coverage which prevented her to use IBD detecting tool.

"Archeological theories" was the reason C.E. Fischer herself put forward to explain why her group of geneticists had forborne from mentioning other options. She didn't seem to exclude other scenarios herself. I only reported what she explained. Still, the extension of the Hallstatt area in French territory on the map I posted above raises the question of migrations... As for how archeologists look at things, it will be enough to mention the title of a publication by one of the leading experts in that field : "Mais où sont passés les Indo-Européens ? (Where are the IE gone?). He finds no trace of them in archeology and therefore concludes that westward IE movements are " une forme de mythe historique et politique sur lequel les idéologies se sont appuyées régulièrement au cours de l'histoire récente " - a sort of historical and political myth on which ideologies have repeatedly relied in the course of recent history.

What means other options here? I think she was refrering to qpAdm models which fit genetically but not the archeogical record.
Again it sounds like a circular reasoning.  There is no need to bring Demoule in the topic.

Overall, the compiled results reinforce the archaeological hypothesis that explains the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age by political and economic crisis combined with social changes rather than by major migration or population turnover for the territory of present-day France. These genomic results are in line with more recent archaeological hypotheses that have tended to rule out the involvement of major in- vasion/migration in the cultural transition (Garcia and Le Bras, 2017). Recent re-evaluations of the archae- ological data have indeed indicated progressive cultural evolution during these periods, such as the gradual use of iron (instead of an abrupt substitution from one material to another) or the progressive evo- lution of pottery (Verger, 2015). Complicating the scenario, recent archaeological studies have even re- vealed different cultural evolution rhythms depending on the regions or on the type of material studied (Milcent, 2009; Verger, 2015). Finally, the genomic data gathered for the Early and Late Iron Age in the Al- sace region is consistent with genetic continuity throughout the Iron Age period. Even if the data in hand are restricted to the Alsace region, they support the view that the emergence of the La Te` ne culture was not necessarily linked to a major influx  populations/genes.

[poilus]

A movement is clearly attested for Y-DNA ... question to solve is in which direction. To me, only a segment by segment analysis can solve this question.

Y-dna is also one of the reasons why I suspect there might have been westward movements around the turn of the 1st milenium BC, in the wake of the 12C BC upheavals. That's about the time cremation reached the shores of the Mediterranean. Here is the list of ancients I have compiled so far two steps above my end-clade :

I7289 U152+ L2+ S14469     2289 BC Bell Beaker Czech                  Radosevice, Czech Republic Study: Olalde Nature 2018

I5516 P312+ FGC4183+      1866–1615 calBCE  Scotland CA-EBA     Doune, Perth and Kinross, Scotland Study: Olalde et al 2018

WEZ54  P312+ FGC4183 (?)  ca 1250 BC                                       Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany Study: Burger et al 2020

I13792  U152+ L2+ S14469  1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

I13793 U152+ L2+ S14469   1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

DA111 U152+ L2+ FGC4183+    836-780 calBCE Hallstatt-Bylany Culture    Lovosice, Czech Republic Study: Damgaard & al. 2018

I20519 U152>L2>S14469 400-200 BCE Czech IA LaTene Central Bohemia,  Prague 5, Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre) Study : Patterson's "Celtic Paper" 2021

 Can you give me a confirmation of the clade of I3875 Villard-Lauzet 2459-2242 BCE from Olalde 2018?

[Chad]

Does anyone have all the genotype data?

[pelop]

Y-dna is also one of the reasons why I suspect there might have been westward movements around the turn of the 1st milenium BC, in the wake of the 12C BC upheavals. That's about the time cremation reached the shores of the Mediterranean. Here is the list of ancients I have compiled so far two steps above my end-clade :

I7289 U152+ L2+ S14469     2289 BC Bell Beaker Czech                  Radosevice, Czech Republic Study: Olalde Nature 2018

I5516 P312+ FGC4183+      1866–1615 calBCE  Scotland CA-EBA     Doune, Perth and Kinross, Scotland Study: Olalde et al 2018

WEZ54  P312+ FGC4183 (?)  ca 1250 BC                                       Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany Study: Burger et al 2020

I13792  U152+ L2+ S14469  1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

I13793 U152+ L2+ S14469   1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

DA111 U152+ L2+ FGC4183+    836-780 calBCE Hallstatt-Bylany Culture    Lovosice, Czech Republic Study: Damgaard & al. 2018

I20519 U152>L2>S14469 400-200 BCE Czech IA LaTene Central Bohemia,  Prague 5, Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre) Study : Patterson's "Celtic Paper" 2021

Are the Scottish and Tollensee samples verified R-FGC4183? I don't see them at FTDNA Discover's tree: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-DF103/tree

[Andour]

Y-dna is also one of the reasons why I suspect there might have been westward movements around the turn of the 1st milenium BC, in the wake of the 12C BC upheavals. That's about the time cremation reached the shores of the Mediterranean. Here is the list of ancients I have compiled so far two steps above my end-clade :

I7289 U152+ L2+ S14469     2289 BC Bell Beaker Czech                  Radosevice, Czech Republic Study: Olalde Nature 2018

I5516 P312+ FGC4183+      1866–1615 calBCE  Scotland CA-EBA     Doune, Perth and Kinross, Scotland Study: Olalde et al 2018

WEZ54  P312+ FGC4183 (?)  ca 1250 BC                                       Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany Study: Burger et al 2020

I13792  U152+ L2+ S14469  1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

I13793 U152+ L2+ S14469   1050 BC Czech LBA                           Knoviz, Czech Republic Study : Patterson et al 2021

DA111 U152+ L2+ FGC4183+    836-780 calBCE Hallstatt-Bylany Culture    Lovosice, Czech Republic Study: Damgaard & al. 2018

I20519 U152>L2>S14469 400-200 BCE Czech IA LaTene Central Bohemia,  Prague 5, Prague-Jinonice (Holmanʼs Garden Centre) Study : Patterson's "Celtic Paper" 2021

Are the Scottish and Tollensee samples verified R-FGC4183? I don't see them at FTDNA Discover's tree: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-DF103/tree

The Tollense sample remains dubious, according to some of our experts on the forum (can't remember who, maybe R.Rocca ?). Hence the question mark next to it.

The Scottish sample, as far I can remember, is indeed FGC4183. I'll go through what files I have in store and see if I can find something conclusive.

Edit : Just checked, and... the Scottish sample is L21! Can't understand how it ended up in my list. Anyway, considering the point I was trying to make above, it's just as fine if he gets removed. Sorry for the blunder anyway.