If you'll excuse the diversion, I'd like to take you back to this prescient post from a few years ago.: http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2014/09/john-koch-presentation-celtic-from-west.html
Because I think the recent work on the Eurogenes blog has made Koch's theory about Celtic much more compelling.
Consider a few things. First, that Eurogenes has a plot showing the Beaker genetics reliably maps coterminous to modern French and ... Germans, while separating themselves from modern Slavs and Balts. Further, his data plots suggest that at the time of the Tollense battle, proto-Slavic people were already a discrete genetic presence. And based on isotope studies of that battle, it most likely that they were, around the time of the Sea Peoples and the Mediterranean collapse, already in central Europe, in the area of Austria/Slovakia or Hungary, and that they were an advanced culture capable of raising large armies.
The most parsimonious interpretation of all this is that Beakers at least at some point, across some geography, spoke Proto-Celtic/Italic/Germanic (proto-C/G/I). That a Slavic intrusion into central Europe is the explanation for the divergence of Germanic from Celt-Italic, and that this Slavic intrusion lasted till near the end of the Bronze Age, and would even be considered expansive. The easiest explanation for Tollense is that proto-Slavs were in part intermediaries carrying northern exotic goods to the eastern Mediterranean. They were exerting significant military power hundreds of miles from the place where their isotopic signature was formed, against people who seem to be more Germanic/Nordic in genetics.
The collapse of the Sea Peoples must have hit the Slavic economy hard. Just at that point, the Atlantic economy is juiced by the Phoenician contact, energizing populations that are already vibrant and advanced. One urgent need is to cut off their Slavic rivals to the eastern Med markets.
A small but expansive group of Atlantic Celtic speakers begins probing their Slavic neighbors, finds weakness, and exploits it, in a wave that only begins to recede after washing all the way to Galatia.
Given the normal dynamics of such pulses, this likely happened over a fairly short time period - ie, not over the millennium which encompasses Hallstatt, La Tene and the early historical advances of the Celtic peoples, but rather, over the shorter time-period that encompasses just La Tene and early historic events. Hallstatt was actually the continuation of the Slavic presence, rather than the early Celtic presence.
Even before the genetic material began to push this alternative, Koch was aware of the quandary, the need to separate Hallstatt and La Tene, and that's why he had done some tentative work on weaponry styles that seem to emanate from Celtic areas into La Tene. It is not surprising that a conquering Celtic culture might adopt the art and other trappings of an advanced culture. And indeed, this would be an elite imposition of language, since we know the genetics didn't change much.
Maju, in a comment on your post, had pointed out that surely P-Celtic is derivative. But it made no sense to see P-Celtic as both derivative and expansive, yet to posit a recent (Hallstatt-era) central European homeland for Q-Celtic. It makes much more sense to see Q-Celtic as having expanded first, through the Atlantic Bronze, with P-Celtic then arising somewhere, and expanding in different directions during either Hallstatt, or more likely, La Tene.
Thanks for commenting. Really I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I think most Beakers spoke a common, late Indo-European macro of some sort. Beyond that I don't know. What I do find interesting is that the concentration of Beaker 'islands' across the continent correspond to places where Celts expanded in later times. Obviously Beakers did not speak Celtic, but it does indicate a similar preference for similar peoples and ways of life.
A corollary of what I'm saying is that proto-Germanic presence south of Denmark was recent and on-going during late pre-history.
But whose land were they taking? It makes little sense to me to think that the proto-Germanic speakers are making slow but steady advances into Celtic Hallstatt lands even as Celtic peoples are aggressively expanding in EVERY other direction - south into the Po, eastward to Galicia, westward to Spain, France and the British Isles.
Instead, they were pulsing into Hallstatt territories opened up because the Celtic pulse across southern central Europe left isolated, weakened communities of proto-Slavic speakers, cut off from the larger Slavic lands and from the economy that once had once made them fearsome overlords of most of Europe.
This seems to make more sense to me than to think that a Celtic Hallstatt was expanding confidently and aggressively southward into the Po Basin, eastward to Galatia and westward into Spain, France and Britain even as it's homeland was being nibbled away by slow but steady advances of Germanic tribes out of Scandinavia.
I think my second post is too speculative and may not accord well with the timelines and archaeology. Perhaps I should focus on Urnfield as the avatar of proto-Slavic expansion across central and into northern Europe.
Regardless, my core point is that the genetics seem to suggest that Beakers seem to have been speakers of something like proto-C/G/I, that a lasting Bronze Age Slavic presence seems to have isolated those who became proto-Germanic speakers from the proto-Celt-Italics, and that this makes the Atlantic Bronze Age the most likely forebears of proto-Celtic. That the Celtic expansion was likely an eastward moving P-Celtic pulse from the Atlantic into formerly proto-Slavic-speaking areas.
A smaller point - what is most interesting about the Tollense battlefield is the conjunction of DNA with isotope studies. We know these people were near the shores of the Baltic in what is now Germany. We know that a moiety of them was genetically surprisingly close to modern Slavs. But critically, we also know they were from hundreds of miles south. Without the isotope studies, we know who but not much of the why. With the isotopes, we can begin to tell their stories.
More broadly, now that we know that population movements did play a major role in pre-history, increasingly, it will be isotope studies that flesh out the skeleton of a story provided by the geneticists. If I were an isotope analyst, I would be pretty excited. They'll be at the forefront of coming advances in our knowledge of prehistory.
Bell Beaker Blogger, I just received my Father’s yDNA results. He is R-M198 or R-L644. I believe this was formerly R1a1a. He has 2 exact matches in Scotland & 2 in England. Our Greenfield ancestor left Spott, East Lothian Scotland and sailed to Rhode Island in about 1705-10. Any here is my question: Did R1a1a come into the British Isles with Bell Beakers? Thank you.
Is he R1a-M198 or R1b-L644? How many markers was it and which company?
"Did R1a1a come into the British Isles with Bell Beakers?"
I thought for certain this would be the case, perhaps in time it will show up in Beaker remains. It hasn't despite many samples, not one.
If R1a did not enter with Beakers, then I think maybe during the Roman period with the implantation of Sarmatian peoples in the borderlands or Vikings several hundred years later.
He is R-M198, or R1a1a. He matched the descendants of Archibald Greenfield (1685-1769) a Mariner in Rhode Island & Connecticut( had 4 wives) . Archibald was born near Dunbar Scotland, a village called Spott, East Lothian. At the deeper level, I feel my Father’s yDNA came into the British Isles with the Normans. He matches the Surname Prendergast from Mayo, Ireland. Maurice de Prendergast was a Norman Lord from the 1200’s that settled in Mayo. Greenfield is a Norman Surname, from Granville from Normandy. Of course the Anglo-Saxons were in the Scottish Borderlands before the Normans. But that was before the recording of Surnames. Anyway, I always believed my Greenfield name came from England so I was surprised to find the Scottish connection.
That's cool. There's another study coming on Roman Britain. I imagine in a few years we'll be at a point where we start seeing Norman dna for the early burials of the first few generations. That'll be cool
A little more research into his matches and I see other Surnames aligned with Prendergast like Fitzmorris. My Father’s Surname is Scoto-Norman. My direct ancestor left Scotland because he saw an financial opportunity in the Colonies. The Act of 1707 allowed for trade between Scotland & England. Fifteen years before my ancestor was born, the Scots suffered defeat at the Battle of Dunbar. Dunbar is two miles from my ancestors home. This is certainly more recent history than the Beakers, Saxons & Normans! But it is sure nice to know where your Colonial Grandparents came from!
If you'll excuse the diversion, I'd like to take you back to this prescient post from a few years ago.:
ReplyDeletehttp://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2014/09/john-koch-presentation-celtic-from-west.html
Because I think the recent work on the Eurogenes blog has made Koch's theory about Celtic much more compelling.
Consider a few things. First, that Eurogenes has a plot showing the Beaker genetics reliably maps coterminous to modern French and ... Germans, while separating themselves from modern Slavs and Balts. Further, his data plots suggest that at the time of the Tollense battle, proto-Slavic people were already a discrete genetic presence. And based on isotope studies of that battle, it most likely that they were, around the time of the Sea Peoples and the Mediterranean collapse, already in central Europe, in the area of Austria/Slovakia or Hungary, and that they were an advanced culture capable of raising large armies.
The most parsimonious interpretation of all this is that Beakers at least at some point, across some geography, spoke Proto-Celtic/Italic/Germanic (proto-C/G/I). That a Slavic intrusion into central Europe is the explanation for the divergence of Germanic from Celt-Italic, and that this Slavic intrusion lasted till near the end of the Bronze Age, and would even be considered expansive. The easiest explanation for Tollense is that proto-Slavs were in part intermediaries carrying northern exotic goods to the eastern Mediterranean. They were exerting significant military power hundreds of miles from the place where their isotopic signature was formed, against people who seem to be more Germanic/Nordic in genetics.
The collapse of the Sea Peoples must have hit the Slavic economy hard. Just at that point, the Atlantic economy is juiced by the Phoenician contact, energizing populations that are already vibrant and advanced. One urgent need is to cut off their Slavic rivals to the eastern Med markets.
A small but expansive group of Atlantic Celtic speakers begins probing their Slavic neighbors, finds weakness, and exploits it, in a wave that only begins to recede after washing all the way to Galatia.
Given the normal dynamics of such pulses, this likely happened over a fairly short time period - ie, not over the millennium which encompasses Hallstatt, La Tene and the early historical advances of the Celtic peoples, but rather, over the shorter time-period that encompasses just La Tene and early historic events. Hallstatt was actually the continuation of the Slavic presence, rather than the early Celtic presence.
Even before the genetic material began to push this alternative, Koch was aware of the quandary, the need to separate Hallstatt and La Tene, and that's why he had done some tentative work on weaponry styles that seem to emanate from Celtic areas into La Tene. It is not surprising that a conquering Celtic culture might adopt the art and other trappings of an advanced culture. And indeed, this would be an elite imposition of language, since we know the genetics didn't change much.
Maju, in a comment on your post, had pointed out that surely P-Celtic is derivative. But it made no sense to see P-Celtic as both derivative and expansive, yet to posit a recent (Hallstatt-era) central European homeland for Q-Celtic. It makes much more sense to see Q-Celtic as having expanded first, through the Atlantic Bronze, with P-Celtic then arising somewhere, and expanding in different directions during either Hallstatt, or more likely, La Tene.
Thanks for commenting. Really I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I think most Beakers spoke a common, late Indo-European macro of some sort. Beyond that I don't know. What I do find interesting is that the concentration of Beaker 'islands' across the continent correspond to places where Celts expanded in later times. Obviously Beakers did not speak Celtic, but it does indicate a similar preference for similar peoples and ways of life.
DeleteA corollary of what I'm saying is that proto-Germanic presence south of Denmark was recent and on-going during late pre-history.
ReplyDeleteBut whose land were they taking? It makes little sense to me to think that the proto-Germanic speakers are making slow but steady advances into Celtic Hallstatt lands even as Celtic peoples are aggressively expanding in EVERY other direction - south into the Po, eastward to Galicia, westward to Spain, France and the British Isles.
Instead, they were pulsing into Hallstatt territories opened up because the Celtic pulse across southern central Europe left isolated, weakened communities of proto-Slavic speakers, cut off from the larger Slavic lands and from the economy that once had once made them fearsome overlords of most of Europe.
This seems to make more sense to me than to think that a Celtic Hallstatt was expanding confidently and aggressively southward into the Po Basin, eastward to Galatia and westward into Spain, France and Britain even as it's homeland was being nibbled away by slow but steady advances of Germanic tribes out of Scandinavia.
I think my second post is too speculative and may not accord well with the timelines and archaeology. Perhaps I should focus on Urnfield as the avatar of proto-Slavic expansion across central and into northern Europe.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, my core point is that the genetics seem to suggest that Beakers seem to have been speakers of something like proto-C/G/I, that a lasting Bronze Age Slavic presence seems to have isolated those who became proto-Germanic speakers from the proto-Celt-Italics, and that this makes the Atlantic Bronze Age the most likely forebears of proto-Celtic. That the Celtic expansion was likely an eastward moving P-Celtic pulse from the Atlantic into formerly proto-Slavic-speaking areas.
A smaller point - what is most interesting about the Tollense battlefield is the conjunction of DNA with isotope studies. We know these people were near the shores of the Baltic in what is now Germany. We know that a moiety of them was genetically surprisingly close to modern Slavs. But critically, we also know they were from hundreds of miles south. Without the isotope studies, we know who but not much of the why. With the isotopes, we can begin to tell their stories.
ReplyDeleteMore broadly, now that we know that population movements did play a major role in pre-history, increasingly, it will be isotope studies that flesh out the skeleton of a story provided by the geneticists. If I were an isotope analyst, I would be pretty excited. They'll be at the forefront of coming advances in our knowledge of prehistory.
Bell Beaker Blogger,
ReplyDeleteI just received my Father’s yDNA results. He is R-M198 or R-L644. I believe this was formerly R1a1a. He has 2 exact matches in Scotland & 2 in England. Our Greenfield ancestor left Spott, East Lothian Scotland and sailed to Rhode Island in about 1705-10.
Any here is my question: Did R1a1a come into the British Isles with Bell Beakers? Thank you.
Is he R1a-M198 or R1b-L644? How many markers was it and which company?
Delete"Did R1a1a come into the British Isles with Bell Beakers?"
I thought for certain this would be the case, perhaps in time it will show up in Beaker remains. It hasn't despite many samples, not one.
If R1a did not enter with Beakers, then I think maybe during the Roman period with the implantation of Sarmatian peoples in the borderlands or Vikings several hundred years later.
He is R-M198, or R1a1a. He matched the descendants of Archibald Greenfield (1685-1769) a Mariner in Rhode Island & Connecticut( had 4 wives) . Archibald was born near Dunbar Scotland, a village called Spott, East Lothian.
DeleteAt the deeper level, I feel my Father’s yDNA came into the British Isles with the Normans. He matches the Surname Prendergast from Mayo, Ireland. Maurice de Prendergast was a Norman Lord from the 1200’s that settled in Mayo. Greenfield is a Norman Surname, from Granville from Normandy.
Of course the Anglo-Saxons were in the Scottish Borderlands before the Normans. But that was before the recording of Surnames.
Anyway, I always believed my Greenfield name came from England so I was surprised to find the Scottish connection.
That's cool. There's another study coming on Roman Britain. I imagine in a few years we'll be at a point where we start seeing Norman dna for the early burials of the first few generations. That'll be cool
DeleteA little more research into his matches and I see other Surnames aligned with Prendergast like Fitzmorris.
DeleteMy Father’s Surname is Scoto-Norman. My direct ancestor left Scotland because he saw an financial opportunity in the Colonies. The Act of 1707 allowed for trade between Scotland & England. Fifteen years before my ancestor was born, the Scots suffered defeat at the Battle of Dunbar. Dunbar is two miles from my ancestors home.
This is certainly more recent history than the Beakers, Saxons & Normans! But it is sure nice to know where your Colonial Grandparents came from!
...........This Germanic R1a1a may arrived with the Anglo-Saxons as Dunbar is in Northumbria.
ReplyDelete