Celts

[alanarchae]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav4040

For the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to Northern and Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age (Figs. 1, C and D, and 2B). The increase was 10 to 19% (95% confidence intervals given here and in the percentages that follow) in 15 individuals along the Mediterranean coast where non-Indo-European Iberian languages were spoken; 11 to 31% in two individuals at the Tartessian site of La Angorrilla in the southwest with uncertain language attribution; and 28 to 43% in three individuals at La Hoya in the north where Indo-European Celtiberian languages were likely spoken (fig. S6 and tables S11 and S12).

This trend documents gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18). Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages (12), our results indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages.

Are these findings and conclusions still valid in 2023?

There was shifting of population in that 1100-800BC era in England but v little if any change in yDNA among those who were accorded burials. Iberia shifted a little north, england shift a little south. Both were linked into the Atlantic Bronze Age in precisely this period. It’s probable that 300 years of intermarriage along the network was slightly levelling the differences between different core groups on the network (the northern French, England and north and west Iberia. Probably elites mainly but the elites we’re likely superbreeders/children had far higher survival chances. Like directions were shorter steps like France to Britain, France to Spain etc

[alanarchae]

I was inspired by Riverman's graphs on E-V13 etc. It's a bit time-consuming though, doing this by hand, if this can be automated that would speed things up quite significantly, although by hand you get a better understanding of the clades IMO and FTDNA seems to like to keep this tree in-house. I agree L21, DF27 and U106 (maybe I1 too) would be great to visualize like this as well. Patience...

Can you explain the methodology?  I'd like to be consistent and try it with DF19.  If it's humanly possible with U106 and L21, DF19 should take about 20 minutes, tops.

The method used is as follows:

1) Open the branch you would like to analyse in the FTDNA discover tree, and open the time tree
2) Hold notepad next to it, or if you can use split screens, you might utilize excel or whatever graph program you use, immediately
3) Write down the branch name (SNP), TMRCA, and the number of direct downstream branches, separated by comma's or semicolons.
The number of modern direct downstream branches can be inferred by counting the blue lines (generally they are two, sometimes more, the number is also in the "haplogroup story"). Generally, I ignored the brown ancient lines, because they might have variable coverage. If a branch did not show downstream blue lines or only brown ancients, I counted them as 1. I did include results from e.g. the "Sardinian" study (those branches look a bit bleaker). I did ignore everything after 1000 AD to make things a bit easier.

you'll end up with a list like

branch,TMRCA,nr
L2,-2522,32
FTA56180,865,2
FT9470,-450,2

4) copy-past the list in excel (or similar) in separate columns (use paste, separate by comma etc.).
5) prepare the data as you want: check for typo's, add a column for subclades you want to explore, etc.
6) make a turn table with the TMRCA as row, subclades as column, and the sum of daughter branches as value
7) group the TMRCA's by intervals of 100 years (or other if wished)
8) you're ready to graph; I generally copy-paste the turn-table in a new plain table, add 0 in the empty fields, and don't forget to add the 100-year intervals that were empty in the turn-table.

Now for this topic, I'm picking up DF27 first at the moment. I might have results this weekend already. The tree is a great gift from FTDNA.

That U152 graph of yours is simply magnificent. Makes it far easier to see overall patterns and interpret them using archaeological chronology. If you ever do an L21 one I think you’ll find sudden growth after 2450BC, probably steady to strong growth through the bronze age then a big dip in branching in the 700-400BC era and only a gradual recovery 300BC to 100AD then steep growth around 300-400AD onwards. That is what Irish archaeology in particular would imply. This might be partly offset by a different pattern in Britain whereby there was likely decent growth in the eta 500BC-100AD. Not sure what the effect of the Romans in England will be on the L21 branching. Certainly it took a giant hit with the Anglo-Saxons arriving though this is exactly the same period I think L21 would have been accelerating in Ireland as the Irish population grew to unprecedented sizes. Might see a dent around 550AD when there seems to have been widespread disease and famine.

[alanarchae]

I wonder what the haplotype distribution is like for these expanding groups. In present-day France, DF27 has as much if not more of a presence throughout most regions than U152. L21 increases in gradient towards the North and West. 
I'd imagine this to be the case with Gallic tribes.

Is most DF27 in France linked with a more archaic substratum that later receives (mostly L2?) migration from the Rhine in LBA? I wonder if DF27 was already a predominate (or close to, or at least as much) Y-lineage as U152 in the EBA-LBA Middle Rhine.  
Who knows at this point I guess. 

I pinned all (or most of) P312 and DF27 samples of https://indo-european.maps.arcgis.com/ 


P312 + DF27 EARLY BRONZE AGE 


P312 + DF27 MIDDLE BRONZE AGE 



P312 + DF27 EARLY IRON AGE



From what I've seen, U152 is more predominant basically all over Western Europe in all 3 ages. And I would say P312 consists in almost 60% of all pins. (I think the site's database is a little old though, but it can give us a reference) L21 does go north-west and when it arrives in British Isles you see lots and lots of DF13s.

there are areas where absence of ancient dna samples is likely due to acid soils - Holland, Portugal,Armorica etc. Which is a pity as those are 3 of the biggest nodes in the bell beaker network. Other areas where human bone rarely survive for the same reason include much of the northerb two thirds of Scotland. I believe much of NW Germany, Denmark and Norway have acidic soils too. In all those areas you kind of rely on unusual spots where the acidity is lowered

[alanarchae]

I think the bronze age is key because unlike the more territorial polities of the iron age (certainly the La Tene era), it’s very striking how the elites of the bronze age were mostly marked out by control of metals, exotica etc over distance and keeping up with fashions. There was likely not a huge land hunger in most of the bronze age. The same land could support much larger populations as we see in the AD era. The estimates of the population of north-central Europe grow a bit but not spectacularly between say 2400BC and 800BC. It’s usually estimated to start steepening in the iron age with a big jump at the end of the iron age. So I think that to some extent explains why elites focussed on control of materials etc through the Bronze Age. Land just wasn’t a scarce commodity in north and central Europe in the bronze age. Plus of course, before iron, controlling bronze was incredible power - if you were denied access that would effectively send you back to the stone age.

At the moment I'm having a look again at the subclade growth history of U152 branches based on the FTDNA discover tree, the number of new subclades increased after the Bell Beaker period, throughout the Bronze Age, peaking during the Urnfield/early Hallstatt period, then there is interestingly a decline in new subclades during later Hallstatt and early La Tène.

Here a first graph. I did not just count the number of TMRCA's this time, but the number of new daughter branches (or son branches of of course) per TMRCA, to capture the growth better. Soon more on this topic per subclade.



Is anyone familiar with studies on the European demography during the Iron Age?

the sudden rise of Z56 around 1100BC or so and drastic fall around 700BC is. wet interesting. It kind of shadows me he rise and fall of other U152 though not identical. It kind of sounds like a western Italic group that did very well in later proto villanovan thst then took a big hit around the time of the villanovan. That is the opposite of what you’d expect if they were etruscans. It’s more like a group who the Etruscans damaged. Maybe some sort of pre etruscan Italics or Ligurians?

[alanarchae]

I think the bronze age is key because unlike the more territorial polities of the iron age (certainly the La Tene era), it’s very striking how the elites of the bronze age were mostly marked out by control of metals, exotica etc over distance and keeping up with fashions. There was likely not a huge land hunger in most of the bronze age. The same land could support much larger populations as we see in the AD era. The estimates of the population of north-central Europe grow a bit but not spectacularly between say 2400BC and 800BC. It’s usually estimated to start steepening in the iron age with a big jump at the end of the iron age. So I think that to some extent explains why elites focussed on control of materials etc through the Bronze Age. Land just wasn’t a scarce commodity in north and central Europe in the bronze age. Plus of course, before iron, controlling bronze was incredible power - if you were denied access that would effectively send you back to the stone age.

At the moment I'm having a look again at the subclade growth history of U152 branches based on the FTDNA discover tree, the number of new subclades increased after the Bell Beaker period, throughout the Bronze Age, peaking during the Urnfield/early Hallstatt period, then there is interestingly a decline in new subclades during later Hallstatt and early La Tène.

Here a first graph. I did not just count the number of TMRCA's this time, but the number of new daughter branches (or son branches of of course) per TMRCA, to capture the growth better. Soon more on this topic per subclade.



Is anyone familiar with studies on the European demography during the Iron Age?

Z36 had timing of sharpest rise and fall that reminds me of Terramare and a map I found of Z36 in Italy kind of fits

[Manofthehour]

the sudden rise of Z56 around 1100BC or so and drastic fall around 700BC is. wet interesting. It kind of shadows me he rise and fall of other U152 though not identical. It kind of sounds like a western Italic group that did very well in later proto villanovan thst then took a big hit around the time of the villanovan. That is the opposite of what you’d expect if they were etruscans. It’s more like a group who the Etruscans damaged. Maybe some sort of pre etruscan Italics or Ligurians?

It gives me the idea that Iron Age Latins, along with Faliscans, were basically Iron Age holdouts of what used to be a much broader occupation throughout Tuscany and some Ligurian areas. I keep saying "Liguro-Latin continuum" and I think there is something to it. 

Etruscans and Sabellic peoples pressured and condensed them to a smaller area, from which degrees of exchange, assimilation and cohabitation occurred later on. For example, Rome itself was a clusterf-k of Latin, Etruscan and Sabellic people and influence since near if not its inception.

I have more to say about Latin, "West Italic" and how/where it may have branched off from Bell Beakers in this and/or my other post "Para-"Ligurian" phenomenon. I speculate a connection to the Rhone-Maritime Beakers largely based on Tibor Feher's hypothesis.

[Cejo]

there are areas where absence of ancient dna samples is likely due to acid soils - Holland, Portugal,Armorica etc. Which is a pity as those are 3 of the biggest nodes in the bell beaker network. Other areas where human bone rarely survive for the same reason include much of the northerb two thirds of Scotland. I believe much of NW Germany, Denmark and Norway have acidic soils too. In all those areas you kind of rely on unusual spots where the acidity is lowered

For reference, here is a map of European Soil pH, largely supporting the areas you mention.

Show Content

Spoiler

Interesting that Ireland seems to be an outlier, with acidic soil, but seemingly no shortage of ancient remains (is that a true statement?). I was thinking maybe peat bogs explained this, but then I looked at this map of peat coverage in Europe, and it seems like that can't be the whole story:

Show Content

Spoiler

[Manofthehour]

I've recently come across the works of Giampietro Fabbri thanks to Alanarche. He may be prone to some ethnolinguistic conflation/gobbledegook but it inspired me to draw out this rough etymological scheme of proposed endonyms (and a couple related place names), which might contain a strain of truth or might just be laughable, but I like it so far. It's roughly based on his ideas with a few additions and alterations by me.

take with a grain of salt, but perhaps food for thought. 


Change "Galatai" to Galati or Galatae, which is the Latin term and I'm guessing closer to the endonym than the Greek Galatai.

Referring to "Galatanas" This Bell Beaker clan that went South and many down the Rhone and adjacent areas intermixed with Alpine and Iberian-like EEF peoples of the area to form Ligurian-Like peoples. This indeed resulted in lower-steppe admixed people than more northerly Gauls.  From what I understand Iron Age Latins show genetic affinities with South France and Iberia. (West Med, basically) I imagine Z56>Z43 being a major marker among them, which is reflected in current and ancient distribution. Obviously some of their kin may have remained in Northern Areas closer to the Upper Rhine or went elsewhere.

It fits that they'd have been Celticized later on by waves of more northerly Gallic-related or otherwise Urnfield/Hallstatt people.

Galatai or Galatians being a confederation of  tribes settling in Turkey following defeat in Greece. A significant component of them seems to have originally come from Southern France (Tectosages, etc..) It to me seems plausible that they used an archaic endonym (what I speculate this to be) to refer to themselves.

[alanarchae]

there are areas where absence of ancient dna samples is likely due to acid soils - Holland, Portugal,Armorica etc. Which is a pity as those are 3 of the biggest nodes in the bell beaker network. Other areas where human bone rarely survive for the same reason include much of the northerb two thirds of Scotland. I believe much of NW Germany, Denmark and Norway have acidic soils too. In all those areas you kind of rely on unusual spots where the acidity is lowered

For reference, here is a map of European Soil pH, largely supporting the areas you mention.

Interesting that Ireland seems to be an outlier, with acidic soil, but seemingly no shortage of ancient remains (is that a true statement?). I was thinking maybe peat bogs explained this, but then I looked at this map of peat coverage in Europe, and it seems like that can't be the whole story:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Esti...and-CY-Are-

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Esti..._235909039

[alanarchae]

there are areas where absence of ancient dna samples is likely due to acid soils - Holland, Portugal,Armorica etc. Which is a pity as those are 3 of the biggest nodes in the bell beaker network. Other areas where human bone rarely survive for the same reason include much of the northerb two thirds of Scotland. I believe much of NW Germany, Denmark and Norway have acidic soils too. In all those areas you kind of rely on unusual spots where the acidity is lowered

For reference, here is a map of European Soil pH, largely supporting the areas you mention.


Interesting that Ireland seems to be an outlier, with acidic soil, but seemingly no shortage of ancient remains (is that a true statement?). I was thinking maybe peat bogs explained this, but then I looked at this map of peat coverage in Europe, and it seems like that can't be the whole story:

ireland has 2 types of bog.

Lowland raised bog is basically former lakes. So nobody ever lived on that stuff unless in a very specialist way for fishing and when they infilled with peat many 1000s of years ago  they were only good for peat cutting and fowling.

However, the biggest quantity of bog is upland hill blanket bog. That is what covers most of the higher land (and even quite low land in the west). But the thing to note is most of it didn’t exist until the end of the bronze age/start of the iron age. Before that those area were peat-free. I believe the process was that the one attactive upland shallow brown earth/ranker type soil which was well drained in the neolithic and bronze are but got leached and turned into acid  podzol soils then finally peat grew. However this didn’t happen until maybe 700BC. 

Also, a lot of settlement in the bronze age in ireland was concentrated along fairly narrow terraces of fluvio glacial gravels and sands that ran along small rivers above the flood plains. They would not show up on a map of this scale. In ateas with a lot of peaty upland in the period after say 700BC, permanent settlement would have thereafter been exclusively on those gravel terraces thereafter. Most of the many small rivers in ireland feature those terraces but none would show up on a map of this scale. Even as late as the medieval era a lot of Irish petty territories were basically based on populations centred on small river valleys with good soil on low gravel river  terraces with middling soil on glacial till on mid slopes and everything above 200m (even lower in the west) basically boggy land only used for summer transhumance. Basically the population superconcentrated on the small % of the land with the best souks. Ireland as a whole never had a high population density until post medieval times and what population there was was concentrated on the best soils of each locality. Much  of the surface area was not permanently settled and was only used seasonally. 

There are also some areas of where limestone is a feature of the glacier till or more base rocks like limestone and basalt. You occasionally get weird stuff like the presence of a lot of shells in raised beach terraces lowering the ph.

[Cejo]

Thanks @alanarchae, I can see what you mean, even just looking at two sites I'm somewhat familiar with on a high resolution soil map at teagasc.ie

Show Content

Spoiler    

Show Content

Spoiler    

I guess one follow-on question I would have is whether settlement patterns in the same time-frame would have been similar elsewhere, or was this unique to Ireland, either geologically or from a land-use perspective? Or both.

[Pylsteen]

The discussion regarding the subclade graphs may continue in the new thread.

[Strabo]

Has anybody here or on the old forums ever attempted a Celtic PCA with all pre Roman samples from "solidly" Celtic areas in a linguistic sense?

The guys over on the Balkans threads like @corrigendum and @rafc amongst others make great PCAs were the add all the ancient J2b L23 and EV13 samples and are able to demonstrate clinality between samples stretching from the EBA/MBA in the case of Illyrians, and EIA in the case of Thracians with the immediate pre Roman and Roman era populations.  

Would be great if we could repeat such a PCA for Celts. Unfortunately I dont know how to make a PCA so thats why I  ask. I dont expect a cline to show up connecting all Celtic areas like ranging from Britian to Spain to Italy but perhaps, maybe for Gauls in particular we would be able to trace their movements. Alternatively perhaps it would be more wise to make "Britons PCA"  or a "Celtiberian PCA" if you consider those as separate  or not Celts in the same sense as the Gauls

[Strabo]

Interesting paper. May have something to do with the origin or evolution of the Belgae

I translated some bits. 

https://www.academia.edu/104395820/De_la...llstattien

From the Meuse valley to the banks of the Scheldt...
or the evolution of the concept of the Mosan Hallstattien Group ( Alain Henton 2022)

A re-updated map of the Mosan Group

Over the last two decades, preventive archeology has provided a new material for study: ceramics.

The latter now offers a sufficiently extensive corpus, mixing domestic and funerary contexts,to attempt a new approach to the cultural geography of the early and middle phases of the Early Iron Age for Northern France, Belgium and the Southern Netherlands.

From the point of view of ceramic typology (fig. 2), four more or less related facies (fig. 3) seem to emerge (Henton 2017; 2018).

The first, described as “Scaldian”, is based on domestic and funerary data along the Scheldt and in the Dender and Haine valleys.

For the border area between the Netherlands and Belgium, the relative homogeneity of the assemblages of ceramic furniture from certain necropolises would indicate the existence of a second facies straddling Belgian and Dutch Limburg, extended to the Demer valley and to the Maritime Scheldt, and qualified as “Maas-Demer-Schelde” (MDS).

A third “Hesbignon” ceramic facies stands out in habitats in Hesbaye Liège and its surroundings.
For the sector located between the three previous facies, where the tombs of the Dyle valley are concentrated, most of the ceramic forms constituting the funerary assemblages find their main parallels in the Scaldian and Hesbignon facies.

Other elements, such as variations of lamps, however, testify to contacts with the MDS facies.
The last facies, “Ardennes”, brings together funerary sites from Namurois, the Semois valley, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Argonne.

The expansion recognized for these four ceramic facies therefore extends over more than 35,000 km2, straddling the northern border of France, a large part of Belgium and the south-east of the Netherlands (fig. 3).

It would correspond to the same cultural entity, based on concordances of ceramic chinaware and funerary rites.

Its delimitation is not taken in the sense of “border”, but rather that of a minimal expansion defined with regard to neighbouring and contemporary groups and/or cultural facies (Henton 2017: 386-388).

In the north, current knowledge does not allow its limit to be extended beyond Dutch Limburg and part of neighboring North Brabant.

The rare typological parallels located beyond this limit, notably at Oss (P.-B., Noord-Brabant), indicate a priori more a zone of influences following the Meuse valley than a real connection to the ceramic facies MDS.

For the north-eastern limit of this facies, if certain funerary rituals and ceramics associate the tombs of the Krefeld region with those of the Meuse valley (downstream of Liège),
it remains difficult to assume its expansion to the limit of the Rhine valley.

This uncertainty applies just as much to the eastern margins of the cultural entity in early-middle Hallstatt/Ha C-D1, coming up against the Laufelder Gruppe (late phase) and subsequently the Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur (initial phase HEK IA1) .

The southern and south-western limits would be aligned with the valleys of the Moselle, Aisne, Oise and Somme.

Its western border, more assured, corresponds to the right bank of the Scheldt valley, forming the limit with the post Deverel-Rimbury (PDR)/Manche – Merdu-Nord ceramic facies located in the west of Hauts-de-France. and Belgian Flanders.

For the name of this entity, it seems difficult to us to maintain that of the “Groupe des Ardennes” proposed by P. Brun here is more forty years old.

If for the Final Bronze IIIb, the cultural area defined by the ceramic facies maintains an assured geographical link with the Ardennes Massif (Henton 2017; 2018), that of the early-middle Hallstatt/Ha C-D1 extends very far beyond its limits in the direction from the north and northwest.
The area of the “Mosan Group” of E. Warmenbol, comes as close as possible to the mapping proposed for these ceramic facies; three of them being in fact associated with the Meuse valley and its watershed.

The discovery of a Scaldian facies, however, significantly increases the territory of this group towards the west and northwest, with the integration of the Scheldt valley and more than 75% of its basin.

To stick as closely as possible to the archaeological data, it therefore seems appropriate to add a reference to the Scheldt to the name proposed by E. Warmenbol, in the form of “Mosan-Scaldian Group” (GMS).

Chronological and cultural contextualization of the Mosan-Scaldian Group

Chronologically, the “Mosan-Scaldian Group” corresponds to Early-Middle Hallstatt, spanning nearly 250 years from the dawn of the 8th century to the mid-6th century BCE.

For a majority of the closed complexes excavated in our study area, the ceramic typology hardly allows, in the state of knowledge, to refine their chronology below Ha C-D1.

However, the contribution of absolute dating provides some clues as to the emergence of the Scaldian facies in the study area.

If the majority of dates correspond to the “Hallstattian plateau”, centered around 2500-2450 BP, i.e. around 800/700-400 cal BC, a few early dates (habitats of Sint-Gillis-Waas and Quiévrechain, necropolis of Velzeke (De Mulder 2011; Henton 2017) are placed in the last quarter of the 9th century and the first quarter of the 8th century BCE. This corresponds to the Ha C1a of C. Pare (1999) or the ancient Hallstatt C of P.-Y. Milcent ( 2004: 102-104), timed between 800 and 740/720 cal BC.

Absolute dating of tombs at Neerpelt and Louette-Saint-Pierre can be linked to this phase (Warmenbol 2009: 374-375). As for the funerary metal assemblages, if the studies carried out by M. E. Mariën (1958) on those of the necropolises of CourtSaint-Etienne and Havré had made it possible to attribute most of the tombs to Ha C1, P.-Y. Milcent (2012: 142-167) places their furniture in his 1st Iron A1 recent Atlantic, equivalent to the Ha C1b-C2 of Pare, i.e. generally between 740/720-650 BCE.

The numerous typological comparisons made between the domestic ceramic corpus of the Hallstatt Scaldian facies and that of these necropolises would therefore make it possible to place most of the habitat sites in the Scheldt valley in the chronological slice Ha C1b-C2/early Hallstatt.

However, there remains the problem of the middle Ha D1/Hallstatt, a period being little distinguished in funerary complexes, except in Belgian Flanders, by absolute chronology or typology, as at Destelbergen (De Mulder 2011: 355 ).

For the Scaldian facies, no typological break seems, with rare exceptions, discernible in domestic ceramic furniture before the first manifestations of the final Hallstatt china cabinet (Ha D2-3), around the middle of the 6th century BC.

From a cultural point of view, if the funeral metal furniture of the GMS group has initiated debates about its “Atlantic” origins and/or “continental/oriental”, it is clear that it remains just as difficult to characterize this group based solely on its ceramics.

With regard to domestic data (ceramics, architecture of habitats) and indirectly funerary data, the transition from the 401 Final Bronze Age to the First Iron Age in the western part of the Mosan-Scaldian Group would be marked by a cultural break based more likely on an exogenous contribution than by simple endogenous evolution.

We therefore opt for the hypothesis of the establishment, in the valleys of the Scheldt, Haine and Dendre, of a new human group from the dawn of the 8th century BC.

If it is illusory to try to quantify the importance of this "migration", we suppose that even a limited number of "migrants", scattered by family units over a restricted area, could have easily spread over time. generations through simple demographic expansion.

The homogenization of ceramic typology, evident in our opinion from the end of the 8th century, could be an indication of a possible acculturation of populations of Late Bronze Age culture, or even of a syncretism (cultural mix) between the latter and " Hallstattian migrants”.

According to significantly different methods, this scheme could be extended to the Hesbignon and Belgian-Dutch Limburg facies.

Following this reasoning, the question of the origin of these new arrivals, however, still remains unresolved. The Bavarian hypothesis, formulated by M. E. Mariën, remains to be ruled out in view of the manifest typological incompatibility with the ceramics of Bavaria and its margins.

In the neighboring regions of the GMS group, the rare typological parallels offer little more serious clues, with the notable exception of dishes with a large internal rim (type 30300, Henton 2017), the main typo-chronological markers of the group's chinaware.

For the latter, there are indeed some correspondences in the German state of Baden-Württemberg; region where the rest of the dresser differs, however.

The question therefore remains open pending new archaeological data, but also potential data offered by recent advances in isotopic analyzes of bones from funerary sites.

[alanarchae]

Interesting paper. May have something to do with the origin or evolution of the Belgae

I translated some bits. 

https://www.academia.edu/104395820/De_la...llstattien

From the Meuse valley to the banks of the Scheldt...
or the evolution of the concept of the Mosan Hallstattien Group ( Alain Henton 2022)

A re-updated map of the Mosan Group

Over the last two decades, preventive archeology has provided a new material for study: ceramics.

The latter now offers a sufficiently extensive corpus, mixing domestic and funerary contexts,to attempt a new approach to the cultural geography of the early and middle phases of the Early Iron Age for Northern France, Belgium and the Southern Netherlands.

From the point of view of ceramic typology (fig. 2), four more or less related facies (fig. 3) seem to emerge (Henton 2017; 2018).

The first, described as “Scaldian”, is based on domestic and funerary data along the Scheldt and in the Dender and Haine valleys.

For the border area between the Netherlands and Belgium, the relative homogeneity of the assemblages of ceramic furniture from certain necropolises would indicate the existence of a second facies straddling Belgian and Dutch Limburg, extended to the Demer valley and to the Maritime Scheldt, and qualified as “Maas-Demer-Schelde” (MDS).

A third “Hesbignon” ceramic facies stands out in habitats in Hesbaye Liège and its surroundings.
For the sector located between the three previous facies, where the tombs of the Dyle valley are concentrated, most of the ceramic forms constituting the funerary assemblages find their main parallels in the Scaldian and Hesbignon facies.

Other elements, such as variations of lamps, however, testify to contacts with the MDS facies.
The last facies, “Ardennes”, brings together funerary sites from Namurois, the Semois valley, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Argonne.

The expansion recognized for these four ceramic facies therefore extends over more than 35,000 km2, straddling the northern border of France, a large part of Belgium and the south-east of the Netherlands (fig. 3).

It would correspond to the same cultural entity, based on concordances of ceramic chinaware and funerary rites.

Its delimitation is not taken in the sense of “border”, but rather that of a minimal expansion defined with regard to neighbouring and contemporary groups and/or cultural facies (Henton 2017: 386-388).

In the north, current knowledge does not allow its limit to be extended beyond Dutch Limburg and part of neighboring North Brabant.

The rare typological parallels located beyond this limit, notably at Oss (P.-B., Noord-Brabant), indicate a priori more a zone of influences following the Meuse valley than a real connection to the ceramic facies MDS.

For the north-eastern limit of this facies, if certain funerary rituals and ceramics associate the tombs of the Krefeld region with those of the Meuse valley (downstream of Liège),
it remains difficult to assume its expansion to the limit of the Rhine valley.

This uncertainty applies just as much to the eastern margins of the cultural entity in early-middle Hallstatt/Ha C-D1, coming up against the Laufelder Gruppe (late phase) and subsequently the Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur (initial phase HEK IA1) .

The southern and south-western limits would be aligned with the valleys of the Moselle, Aisne, Oise and Somme.

Its western border, more assured, corresponds to the right bank of the Scheldt valley, forming the limit with the post Deverel-Rimbury (PDR)/Manche – Merdu-Nord ceramic facies located in the west of Hauts-de-France. and Belgian Flanders.

For the name of this entity, it seems difficult to us to maintain that of the “Groupe des Ardennes” proposed by P. Brun here is more forty years old.

If for the Final Bronze IIIb, the cultural area defined by the ceramic facies maintains an assured geographical link with the Ardennes Massif (Henton 2017; 2018), that of the early-middle Hallstatt/Ha C-D1 extends very far beyond its limits in the direction from the north and northwest.
The area of the “Mosan Group” of E. Warmenbol, comes as close as possible to the mapping proposed for these ceramic facies; three of them being in fact associated with the Meuse valley and its watershed.

The discovery of a Scaldian facies, however, significantly increases the territory of this group towards the west and northwest, with the integration of the Scheldt valley and more than 75% of its basin.

To stick as closely as possible to the archaeological data, it therefore seems appropriate to add a reference to the Scheldt to the name proposed by E. Warmenbol, in the form of “Mosan-Scaldian Group” (GMS).

Chronological and cultural contextualization of the Mosan-Scaldian Group

Chronologically, the “Mosan-Scaldian Group” corresponds to Early-Middle Hallstatt, spanning nearly 250 years from the dawn of the 8th century to the mid-6th century BCE.

For a majority of the closed complexes excavated in our study area, the ceramic typology hardly allows, in the state of knowledge, to refine their chronology below Ha C-D1.

However, the contribution of absolute dating provides some clues as to the emergence of the Scaldian facies in the study area.

If the majority of dates correspond to the “Hallstattian plateau”, centered around 2500-2450 BP, i.e. around 800/700-400 cal BC, a few early dates (habitats of Sint-Gillis-Waas and Quiévrechain, necropolis of Velzeke (De Mulder 2011; Henton 2017) are placed in the last quarter of the 9th century and the first quarter of the 8th century BCE. This corresponds to the Ha C1a of C. Pare (1999) or the ancient Hallstatt C of P.-Y. Milcent ( 2004: 102-104), timed between 800 and 740/720 cal BC.

Absolute dating of tombs at Neerpelt and Louette-Saint-Pierre can be linked to this phase (Warmenbol 2009: 374-375). As for the funerary metal assemblages, if the studies carried out by M. E. Mariën (1958) on those of the necropolises of CourtSaint-Etienne and Havré had made it possible to attribute most of the tombs to Ha C1, P.-Y. Milcent (2012: 142-167) places their furniture in his 1st Iron A1 recent Atlantic, equivalent to the Ha C1b-C2 of Pare, i.e. generally between 740/720-650 BCE.

The numerous typological comparisons made between the domestic ceramic corpus of the Hallstatt Scaldian facies and that of these necropolises would therefore make it possible to place most of the habitat sites in the Scheldt valley in the chronological slice Ha C1b-C2/early Hallstatt.

However, there remains the problem of the middle Ha D1/Hallstatt, a period being little distinguished in funerary complexes, except in Belgian Flanders, by absolute chronology or typology, as at Destelbergen (De Mulder 2011: 355 ).

For the Scaldian facies, no typological break seems, with rare exceptions, discernible in domestic ceramic furniture before the first manifestations of the final Hallstatt china cabinet (Ha D2-3), around the middle of the 6th century BC.

From a cultural point of view, if the funeral metal furniture of the GMS group has initiated debates about its “Atlantic” origins and/or “continental/oriental”, it is clear that it remains just as difficult to characterize this group based solely on its ceramics.

With regard to domestic data (ceramics, architecture of habitats) and indirectly funerary data, the transition from the 401 Final Bronze Age to the First Iron Age in the western part of the Mosan-Scaldian Group would be marked by a cultural break based more likely on an exogenous contribution than by simple endogenous evolution.

We therefore opt for the hypothesis of the establishment, in the valleys of the Scheldt, Haine and Dendre, of a new human group from the dawn of the 8th century BC.

If it is illusory to try to quantify the importance of this "migration", we suppose that even a limited number of "migrants", scattered by family units over a restricted area, could have easily spread over time. generations through simple demographic expansion.

The homogenization of ceramic typology, evident in our opinion from the end of the 8th century, could be an indication of a possible acculturation of populations of Late Bronze Age culture, or even of a syncretism (cultural mix) between the latter and " Hallstattian migrants”.

According to significantly different methods, this scheme could be extended to the Hesbignon and Belgian-Dutch Limburg facies.

Following this reasoning, the question of the origin of these new arrivals, however, still remains unresolved. The Bavarian hypothesis, formulated by M. E. Mariën, remains to be ruled out in view of the manifest typological incompatibility with the ceramics of Bavaria and its margins.

In the neighboring regions of the GMS group, the rare typological parallels offer little more serious clues, with the notable exception of dishes with a large internal rim (type 30300, Henton 2017), the main typo-chronological markers of the group's chinaware.

For the latter, there are indeed some correspondences in the German state of Baden-Württemberg; region where the rest of the dresser differs, however.

The question therefore remains open pending new archaeological data, but also potential data offered by recent advances in isotopic analyzes of bones from funerary sites.

that’s very interesting and does make me wonder about the Belgae