World Families Forums - English L21

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 23, 2014, 01:20:02 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  English L21
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: English L21  (Read 3527 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« on: September 09, 2011, 01:27:35 PM »

We all talk so much about Scottish, Irish and Welsh L21 and the big clusters in those areas.  However, we very rarely talk about L21 in England.  My impression is that it lacks large later subclades such as we find in Ireland and Scotland but I am not sure if that is true or not.  It would make sense if L21 was the mark of the Anglicised Britons who remained in England because you would expect them to be a lower stata for a long period after the Anglo-Saxons and that would not put them in a good position to be superbreeders and form big clusters like M222.  I understand there are a lack of clusters in L21 in France too.  Is there any pattern among English L21?
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2011, 01:35:34 PM »

By the way looking at the Busby data, does anyone notice that their p312* type group seems to rise when L21 falls and falls when L21 rises.  I have long had a suspicion that it like U106 was somehow in competition with L21.  It seems in Ireland that p312* is frequently non-native although not exclusively so.  I just have a hunch that a chunk of it may be Germanic in origin. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2011, 07:20:39 PM »

I've also been wondering how much of English L21, especially in the west, is ultimately of Irish origin, ancient or otherwise. We know the Irish settled in southern Wales and in Cornwall, as well. I wonder how much Irish settlement (that lasted) there was farther north on the western coast of what is now England.

Some of the DF21+ guys appear to be English, or at least have English surnames.

Busby's sampling was skewed to the east, but L21 still held its own at pretty much a dead heat with U106. If his sampling had been geographically balanced, L21 would have surpassed U106 in England, I believe.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2011, 07:25:14 PM »

By the way looking at the Busby data, does anyone notice that their p312* type group seems to rise when L21 falls and falls when L21 rises.  I have long had a suspicion that it like U106 was somehow in competition with L21.  It seems in Ireland that p312* is frequently non-native although not exclusively so.  I just have a hunch that a chunk of it may be Germanic in origin.  

I noticed that, too, and agree with you.

P312xL21,U152 in the Busby study also appeared as a distinctly minority paragroup in the British Isles. The biggies are L21 and U106, and U106 is only really big in England.

Of course, it would have been nice if Busby had at least tested for SRY2627. That would have split off some of that P312xL21,U152, especially on the Continent.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 07:25:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2011, 07:38:17 PM »

On the P312xL21,U152 subject again -

That observation of Alan's would seem to indicate that L21 arrived in the Isles from the Continent as L21, not in an ancestral form as P312xL21. Looks like it might have been the first R-L11 clade in. It spread out and populated the British Isles, receding only in the east in the spots where other groups muscled in somewhat later. Or maybe some of them were already there, and L21 butted up against them in the southeast?

The Roman conquest of lower Britain set the stage for all that followed and made the later Anglo-Saxon incursions possible, that and the fact that the British were as busy fighting each other as they were the Anglo-Saxons.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 07:41:58 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2011, 08:26:45 PM »

I've also been wondering how much of English L21, especially in the west, is ultimately of Irish origin, ancient or otherwise. We know the Irish settled in southern Wales and in Cornwall, as well. I wonder how much Irish settlement (that lasted) there was farther north on the western coast of what is now England.

Some of the DF21+ guys appear to be English, or at least have English surnames.

Busby's sampling was skewed to the east, but L21 still held its own at pretty much a dead heat with U106. If his sampling had been geographically balanced, L21 would have surpassed U106 in England, I believe.

Rich, you already know L21 clades like the Irish Sea Modal-ers and M222 are all over Northern England and the Scottish Borders, so Irish immigrants (from the sub-Roman period, onward) definitely have an impact there.

I also think L21 outnumbers U106 in England, and your quip about Britons fighting each other more than anyone else is true.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2011, 08:50:10 PM »

Honestly, I would like to be found positive for an SNP downstream of L21 that is very much tied to a specific geographic location. That would be nice, since I can't get my y-line paper trail past the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia.

I have come close already with L21, since I have a British Isles surname. That gets me in the neighborhood, but I would like a bit more resolution.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2011, 07:15:50 AM »

Since we are discussing England, I thought I would post here what I could find for England from the Busby et al paper's supplementary info Excel chart.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.DC1/rspb20111044supp2.xls

The six sample locations in England were: 1) Southwell, Nottinghamshire; 2) Lutterworth, Leicestershire; 3) Leeds, West Yorkshire; 4) Peterborough, Cambridgeshire; 5) Exeter, Devon; and 6) Gravesend, Kent.

I mentioned this elsewhere once before, but I noticed that the M1 Motorway, which runs north-south through basically the center of England, makes it fairly easy to see that Busby's sampling is skewed a bit to the eastern side of England. Leeds and Lutterworth are pretty much right on the M1. Southwell, Peterborough, and Gravesend are east of it, Gravesend well east of it, down in SE England. There was only one sample location in the West, the one at Exeter in Devon.  

Here is a breakdown by sampling location in England.

Southwell   N= 165

U106xU198 = 15.8%

U198 = 2.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 15.2%

L21xM222 = 16.4%

M222 = 0

U152 = 9.7%

Lutterworth   N=25

U106xU198 = 24%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 12%

L21xM222 = 8%

M222 = 4%

U152 = 0

Leeds   N=47

U106xU198 = 14.9%

U198 = 6.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 10.6%

L21xM222 = 29.8%

M222 = 10.6%

U152 = 6.4%

Peterborough   N= 172

U106xU198 = 23.3%

U198 = 2.3%

P312xL21,U152 = 17.4%

L21xM222 = 12.8%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.1%

Exeter   N=48

U106xU198 = 25%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 6.3%

L21xM222 = 37.5%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.3%

Gravesend   N=52

U106xU198 = 23.1%

U198 = 3.8%

P312xL21,U152 = 21.2%

L21xM222 = 13.5%

M222 = 1.9%

U152 = 15.4%

Averaging over all six sample locations, I arrive at the following:

U106xU198 = 21%

U198 = 2.48%

P312xL21,U152 = 13.78%

L21xM222 = 19.66%

M222 = 2.75%

U152 = 7.98%


If I missed a spot, let me know. We can add the info and rework the averages.

I take back what I said in an earlier post about P312xL21,U152 being such a minority paragroup. It's actually pretty substantial everywhere, except in the Exeter sample. Even there it's over 6%.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 07:19:39 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2011, 04:05:57 PM »

I find myself wondering what the future holds for the R-L21 Plus Project since first Myres et al and now Busby et al have come to light. I must confess, a lot of my past motivation has been discovering continental L21 and trying to find out if L21 originated on the Continent or in the British Isles.

These two reports have taken a lot of the wind out of my sails, since, between them, they have sampled a number of continental locations. Honestly, I thought L21 would be much more frequent in Germany than it apparently is. I am even a little disappointed with the results in France, although L21 is a significant player there.

I was also hoping for some bigger numbers in Norway.

Instead, we find L21 much more restricted and localized than I had thought. Since Busby et al have cast doubt on the dependability of estimating the age of a haplogroup from haplotype variance, I have begun to wonder if I have been wrong all along.

I still think L21 originated on the Continent. The haplotype variance in France is the highest anywhere, even with all the British haplotypes we have; but that doesn't give me the sense of certitude it once did. The predominance of L21 in the British Isles makes me think it arrived there as L21 rather than in ancestral form as P312xL21. But, who knows, really?

In the aftermath of Myres and Busby, I am wondering, what now?
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2011, 04:18:29 PM »

I find myself wondering what the future holds for the R-L21 Plus Project since first Myres et al and now Busby et al have come to light. I must confess, a lot of my past motivation has been discovering continental L21 and trying to find out if L21 originated on the Continent or in the British Isles.

These two reports have taken a lot of the wind out of my sails, since, between them, they have sampled a number of continental locations. Honestly, I thought L21 would be much more frequent in Germany than it apparently is. I am even a little disappointed with the results in France, although L21 is a significant player there.

I was also hoping for some bigger numbers in Norway.

Instead, we find L21 much more restricted and localized than I had thought. Since Busby et al have cast doubt on the dependability of estimating the age of a haplogroup from haplotype variance, I have begun to wonder if I have been wrong all along.

I still think L21 originated on the Continent. The haplotype variance in France is the highest anywhere, even with all the British haplotypes we have; but that doesn't give me the sense of certitude it once did. The predominance of L21 in the British Isles makes me think it arrived there as L21 rather than in ancestral form as P312xL21. But, who knows, really?

In the aftermath of Myres and Busby, I am wondering, what now?


Here's another difficult thing.

Figuring this mess out would have been a lot simpler had L21's distribution corresponded more exactly with that of the ancient Celts. It does correspond very nicely with the distribution of the insular Celts, but it doesn't do nearly as well with the continental Celts. Of course, that is grist for the mill of those who say that the insular Celts were not "true Celts" in the first place.

U152 appears to be a better fit for the continental Celts, as much as it pains me to admit that. But it has its highest frequencies in Italy, Corsica, and Sardinia, and those latter two places weren't exactly Celtic strongholds.

Ah, well. Life is messy.

Logged

jonesge
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2011, 04:49:23 PM »

Please look at L371 when you are discussing insular Celts. Specially in Wales.

L371 us downstream of L21 and is brother along with DF21.

You, Busby, other posters in this forum, et al keep forgetting this very important L21 subclade of L371.

 Please let me know what you think about the L371s.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 06:57:08 AM by jonesge » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2158


« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2011, 06:28:06 PM »

U152 appears to be a better fit for the continental Celts, as much as it pains me to admit that. But it has its highest frequencies in Italy, Corsica, and Sardinia, and those latter two places weren't exactly Celtic strongholds.
Neither Tuscany had anything to do with Celts, and also in North Italy the Celt impact was probably much less than some Celtists think. I have said from many years that the Celt Bohi were annihilated by Romans and the remains went back to Bohemia. The distribution of R-U152 in Italy is much older than the historic peoples and probably R-U152 has nothing to do with historic Celts. Probably R-L21 is more linked to Celts, but we should find more of it in Italy. But if my theory were demonstrated right, that also Indo-European languages, at least the Western ones, started from the Alpine zone, everything could be explained; Celt and German languages  belonged to peoples who came from the Alpine zone, and R-L2 can be born amongst those peoples who became Celts, and the amount of R-U152-L2 in Italy could be due to Celts, or also to Germans. Of course to link a people with a haplogroup is wrong, perhaps is more right to link it with a subclade, like every language is a "subclade" (Celt, German, Latin) of a "haplogroup" (Western Indo-European).
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 06:30:00 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2011, 12:42:40 AM »

I find myself wondering what the future holds for the R-L21 Plus Project since first Myres et al and now Busby et al have come to light. I must confess, a lot of my past motivation has been discovering continental L21 and trying to find out if L21 originated on the Continent or in the British Isles.

These two reports have taken a lot of the wind out of my sails, since, between them, they have sampled a number of continental locations. Honestly, I thought L21 would be much more frequent in Germany than it apparently is. I am even a little disappointed with the results in France, although L21 is a significant player there.

I was also hoping for some bigger numbers in Norway.

Instead, we find L21 much more restricted and localized than I had thought. Since Busby et al have cast doubt on the dependability of estimating the age of a haplogroup from haplotype variance, I have begun to wonder if I have been wrong all along.

I still think L21 originated on the Continent. The haplotype variance in France is the highest anywhere, even with all the British haplotypes we have; but that doesn't give me the sense of certitude it once did. The predominance of L21 in the British Isles makes me think it arrived there as L21 rather than in ancestral form as P312xL21. But, who knows, really?

In the aftermath of Myres and Busby, I am wondering, what now?

There is plenty wrong with the Busby paper - Anatolian R1b is considered as a standalone clade when compared to European R1b when we know the SNP trail gets older as one goes west to east. Just take it for what it is.

L21 is no different. We just do not know where it sprung. This is why the R-L21 Project is an important repository of data. I have a feeling that L21 arose east of Germany, but the sampling conducted from countries east of it is lacking. That's the limitation of commercial testing though. But we have a great amount of information so far, and the large amount of British samples should not preclude an origin on the continent.

There is just too much L21 on the continent (where it is also found with its parent haplogroups) to say it arose somewhere else. Something makes me think that R1b, and L21 in particular, traveled quickly across Europe.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 12:43:36 AM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2011, 06:44:47 AM »

I find myself wondering what the future holds for the R-L21 Plus Project since first Myres et al and now Busby et al have come to light. I must confess, a lot of my past motivation has been discovering continental L21 and trying to find out if L21 originated on the Continent or in the British Isles.

These two reports have taken a lot of the wind out of my sails, since, between them, they have sampled a number of continental locations. Honestly, I thought L21 would be much more frequent in Germany than it apparently is. I am even a little disappointed with the results in France, although L21 is a significant player there.

I was also hoping for some bigger numbers in Norway.

Instead, we find L21 much more restricted and localized than I had thought. Since Busby et al have cast doubt on the dependability of estimating the age of a haplogroup from haplotype variance, I have begun to wonder if I have been wrong all along.

I still think L21 originated on the Continent. The haplotype variance in France is the highest anywhere, even with all the British haplotypes we have; but that doesn't give me the sense of certitude it once did. The predominance of L21 in the British Isles makes me think it arrived there as L21 rather than in ancestral form as P312xL21. But, who knows, really?

In the aftermath of Myres and Busby, I am wondering, what now?

There is plenty wrong with the Busby paper - Anatolian R1b is considered as a standalone clade when compared to European R1b when we know the SNP trail gets older as one goes west to east. Just take it for what it is.

L21 is no different. We just do not know where it sprung. This is why the R-L21 Project is an important repository of data. I have a feeling that L21 arose east of Germany, but the sampling conducted from countries east of it is lacking. That's the limitation of commercial testing though. But we have a great amount of information so far, and the large amount of British samples should not preclude an origin on the continent.

There is just too much L21 on the continent (where it is also found with its parent haplogroups) to say it arose somewhere else. Something makes me think that R1b, and L21 in particular, traveled quickly across Europe.

Your last point is very interesting.  L21 is dominant in all parts of the isles where Germanic influence was limited and/or late. How did western half of England, Scotland (including the north-east), Ireland ALL become predominantly L21.  That suggests that the source population feeding into all these areas must have been L21.  There is no evidence of Bronze Age or later movements where one part of the isles sends its population into another part to the degree that can account for L21.  So, it has to go back to a common origin point somewhere IMO.  There are two options IMO:

1. The continent opposite the isles (especially the Atlantic side) must have had high L21 because it is inconceivable that L21 would otherwise repeatedly rise to the top across so many widely separated parts of the isles otherwise.

2. That all the isles L21 are descended from one original L21 group.  In other words it arrived in England as a founder effect from a mixed S116 continental population (likely northern France) and spread from there to the rest of the isles. I can only imagine this option in a first farmers context.  

I think it is important to realise that the distribution of L21 is so widespread in the isles that it is hard to find a common denominator that accounts for this unless we go deep back into prehistory.  L21 is predominant among the Scots (even in the NE), the Welsh, the Irish and the western English and has a reasonable showing everywhere in isles.  It is in every corner at reasonable numbers.  That needs to be explained.  I dont think historical movements even begin to explain this.  The Iron Age more divided these areas than united them too.  Even the Bronze Age was highly regionalised and while some L21 areas were linked together to some degree, some were not.  The beaker period shows a strong east-west divide but yet L21 is strong in both NE Scotland and the west of Ireland where the beaker traditions were very different.  

If I had to guess, I think the origins of L21 is probably from a founder effect relating to the first farmers arrival in England c. 4200BC from a mixed S116 area and spread from there across the isles over the next 400 years.  In effect all isles L21 is descended from one small group who arrived in England from northern France.  Its the only movement where I can see the level of penetration of one clade everywhere.  

« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 10:53:38 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2011, 07:09:55 AM »

That makes sense to me. It certainly looks like L21 got in early, while the population was still fairly sparse and mostly y hap I on the male side of things.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2011, 07:12:13 AM »

Please look at L371 when you are discussing insular Celts. Specially in Wales.

L371 us downstream of L21 and is brother along with DF21.

You, Busby, other posters in this forum, et al keep forgetting this very important L21 subclade of L371.

 Please let me know what you think about the L371s.

Honestly, L371 is so new, I doubt there are many here who know much about it. I don't.

Maybe you can fill us in or point us to a source of information on it. Is there an L371 Project yet?
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2011, 07:16:03 AM »

U152 appears to be a better fit for the continental Celts, as much as it pains me to admit that. But it has its highest frequencies in Italy, Corsica, and Sardinia, and those latter two places weren't exactly Celtic strongholds.
Neither Tuscany had anything to do with Celts, and also in North Italy the Celt impact was probably much less than some Celtists think. I have said from many years that the Celt Bohi were annihilated by Romans and the remains went back to Bohemia. The distribution of R-U152 in Italy is much older than the historic peoples and probably R-U152 has nothing to do with historic Celts. Probably R-L21 is more linked to Celts, but we should find more of it in Italy. But if my theory were demonstrated right, that also Indo-European languages, at least the Western ones, started from the Alpine zone, everything could be explained; Celt and German languages  belonged to peoples who came from the Alpine zone, and R-L2 can be born amongst those peoples who became Celts, and the amount of R-U152-L2 in Italy could be due to Celts, or also to Germans. Of course to link a people with a haplogroup is wrong, perhaps is more right to link it with a subclade, like every language is a "subclade" (Celt, German, Latin) of a "haplogroup" (Western Indo-European).

I'm certainly ready to agree with you on U152. That means I want to agree, but I'm just not sure, and I certainly do not disagree.

I think a lot of U152 here and there must have travelled with the Romans, but we've had "La Tene Celts" drummed into our heads about U152 for quite a few years now.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2011, 07:19:25 AM »

I find myself wondering what the future holds for the R-L21 Plus Project since first Myres et al and now Busby et al have come to light. I must confess, a lot of my past motivation has been discovering continental L21 and trying to find out if L21 originated on the Continent or in the British Isles.

These two reports have taken a lot of the wind out of my sails, since, between them, they have sampled a number of continental locations. Honestly, I thought L21 would be much more frequent in Germany than it apparently is. I am even a little disappointed with the results in France, although L21 is a significant player there.

I was also hoping for some bigger numbers in Norway.

Instead, we find L21 much more restricted and localized than I had thought. Since Busby et al have cast doubt on the dependability of estimating the age of a haplogroup from haplotype variance, I have begun to wonder if I have been wrong all along.

I still think L21 originated on the Continent. The haplotype variance in France is the highest anywhere, even with all the British haplotypes we have; but that doesn't give me the sense of certitude it once did. The predominance of L21 in the British Isles makes me think it arrived there as L21 rather than in ancestral form as P312xL21. But, who knows, really?

In the aftermath of Myres and Busby, I am wondering, what now?

I do think though we got to avoid repeating yet again the idea that frequency denotes origin.  Another thing is the idea that all the Celts belong to one clade or that there is a common denominator clade is a misnomer. The spread of L11 probably long predates the formation of distinct languages like Celtic.  

Also, the idea that the centre of the Celtic world is the Alpine areas or south Germany etc has been challenged and no archaeologists today take seriously those old style archaeological maps with little oval blobs in south Germany, Swirzerland  etc with arrows streaming out like some sort of demographic outpouring.  Those outdated ideas are the ones that are used to link U152 to Celts.  It is pretty clear that is not how Celts or Celtic spread in western Europe.  

I personally believe in a half way house between the central European and the Atlantic Celts idea and think Celtic emerged as a distinct language about 2000BC in a broad zone of interaction between the isles, NW France and Germany with no one area more important.  Regardless, I think the establishing of the patterns of L11 clades happened before the development of IE into language branches like Celtic, Germanic etc.  

Ir is pretty clear from the distribution of ancient Celtic languages (which includes a strong L21 area in the northern Atlantic., the Iberian Z196 and subclade dominated area, a U152 dominated central Europe and a mixed bag in France) that Celtic speaking was not linked with one clade.  

I think there is misunderstanding about the Celts that is only recently being highlighted.  The central European and Alpine Celts are a subset of Celts not the origin.  They are only focussed on because they were the ones Geographically closest to threatening the Greek and Roman world.  It is also true that what we tend to focus on the rich burial epicentre of Hallstatt D and La Tene but this is really overfocussing on chiefdoms that were rich through trade with the classical world through dint of being close to the routes.  

Our ideas of the Celts and what they were is badly skewed by the early reliance in Celtic studies on classical authors who focussed on the Celts of the parts of Europe where they were threatening them which also happened to be the Celts in most trade contact too.  This has given the idea that the Celts par excellence or there origin point was Alpine and central Europe and people also see the spilling of the Celts into the classical world as their glory years rather than the reality that it was the result of a systems collapse at the end of Hallstatt D in he north Alpine zone.

The idea that somehow the most important population movements just so happen to fall handily into the period when classical authors are around to record them is an irrational but common one, particularly in this hobby.  People want to explain everything in the period 500BC to about 1000AD even though that is only 10% of the settlement history of Northern Europe.    

IMO, the major subdivisions of L11 show geographical patterning that cover far too wide areas to see it as anything other than folk movement and founder effects at a remote era. If the L11 pattern had simply been down to the random rising of Niall type chieftons the pattern would be much more random looking and not have the patterning into huge blocks of predominance of one L11 clade or the other.  The pattern looks far more like waves of folk movement to me.    

As for L21.  I think a showing of 10% of the entire male population of France or more and also much higher in the NW is a pretty massive contribution.   Again, only the outmoded ovals and arrows from central Europe type approach makes France seem like a sideshow in terms of the Celts.  In reality France made up most of the area where we can be 100%
certain continental Celtic speakers were located in temperate mainland Europe.  It is the main successor state to Gaul.  It is much less clear what the linguistic situation was beyond the Rhine and the Danube.  In general it is only assumed through archaeological reasoning that there were once a lot of Celts in Germany. The actual linguistic evidence is very poor east of the Rhine and north of the Danube for Celts.  So, if we are going to look at a modern country and think of it as a former Celtic one then France  is a far more clearcut bet than Germany on the whole.  Also, the impact of later Germanic movements was less in France.  So, I would certainly feel France is the best place to use as a proxy of the old Gauls.  In general too if I was to do that I would steer clear of the eastern and north-east areas of France where Germanics did make a bit of an impact.  Like the isles, its probably safer to look at the western half of France away from the main steams of later settlers if you are looking for a more undiluted proxy for the pre-Roman Gauls.  
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2011, 07:52:22 AM »

I have to confess that I am still influenced by the historical reading I did as a boy and as a young man, with its constant theme of ex oriente lux. It's hard to shed all of that. H.G. Wells' Outline of History, for example, was a big influence on me.

Still, even today, the Indo-European languages, including Celtic, are thought to have come out of the east and to have moved west across the continent. I am aware that Koch and Cunliffe have suggested an alternative, Atlantic, origin for Celtic, but that is considered a fairly radical idea, out of the mainstream linguistic consensus.

If the older, more mainstream idea that Celtic came out of central Europe is correct, then either L21 came from that region or was "celticized" by a group from that region, either directly or as the result of some sort of linguistic domino effect.

The fact that most y haplogroups predate language families like Celtic does not alter the fact that either 1) L21 was part of the original Celtic-speaking population or 2) it wasn't, and got its Celtic from some other group.

For good or ill, those sorts of issues go to the heart of human identity, and many if not most of us got into dna testing to find out who we are.

It doesn't do any good to say it doesn't matter.

It does.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2011, 11:52:32 AM »

I do think that the idea the Celts emerged in Alpine or central Europe and spread out from some compact area is probably wrong.  I also think the idea that the Celtic dialect originated in one compact area and spread to aboriginals is also wrong.  For a start L11 spread too quickly (apparently including into the isles) for any L11 clades to have had really separate cultural, ethnic or linguistic identities.  From everything I have heard about variance of L11 clades, they are of similar date and spread quickly.  So, I see a Europe of L11 peoples with the same language in the first few centuries of L11.  That may have been the period that L11 formed most of its present pattern.  The forming of language blocks was later evolution and may have happened a long long time later.

As for the formation of linguistic blocks, all we can do is look at cultural contacts and groups in the archaeological record and compare them to earliest known distributions of languages.  Regardless of the origin of S116 (i.e. had it spread earlier with the farmers etc) the beaker network does bear a resemblance to the Celto-Italic work and that could have been a stage in the development of a dialect over a wide area NOT in one of these oval 'core' areas with arrows.  The reason I say this is the main point of a widespread dialect in this period would have been so that they could understand each other in the trade that went on in this period.  So a wide group of west IE speakers could have evolved a common dialect between them rather than one area being the 'core'.  The next stage is the separation of Celtic and Italic networks.  It does appear that after the early beaker phase much of Iberia fell out of the network and was more linked to a west Mediterranean network.  That is IMO the likely reason for Italic-like languages like Lusitanian in Atlantic Iberia and Ligurian in southern France.  The Celtic network seems to have evolved north of this.  I suspect that Celtic started to emerge among a group of core cultures in close contact c. 2000BC - NW France, Wessex, Ireland and Unetice in central Europe.  Although separate cultures there was close contact and there must have been a common dialect developing towards Celtic while Italic was emerging to the south along the west Med. and Atlantic Iberia.  That to me is the origin of Celtic. A widespread networking among peope whose languages shifted from western IE to Celto-Italic in the beaker period and then to very early Celtic in the Early Bronze Age.  There was a furious network of interaction that would have maintained some sort of common dialect through the middle Bronze Age.  I suspect that the split into P and Q dialects may have happened when some of the Celts were drawn into the Atlantic Bronze Age network while other were drawn into the central European urnfield/Hallstatt network (Britain may have been in one then the other).

So in summary, I think L11 spread with Centum IE peoples who were not yet split into separate languages.  That for me is the main phase of L11 spread until the post-Roman period.  It must have happened at some point in the Neolithic but we can leave that open.  I then think (without much movement of people) interaction within the beaker network led to Celto-Italic c. 2500BC and then the northern half of this network when the beaker network broke down became the Celtic network.  Again I dont think this involved migration in any great numbers.  Then finally the Celtic network began to split into two area c. 1200BC with the Atlantic network (which also now joined Atlantic Iberia, previously possibly linked to the Italic network to the Celtic one) and the central European Urnfield network.  Again, I dont see migration as neccessary and the difference in clades across the Atlantic Bronze Age network area seems to back up that view. 

I think in general the clade distribution and the development of separate IE languages were two different things dating to different times.    There may have been an apparent coincidence between p312 and Celtic in the main but its imperfect and I dont think the link is causal.  Yes, p312 does on balance make it much more likely that your ancestors were Celtic but I think Celtic developed over a geographical area and a trading network and that the various L11 clades originally did not have separate ethnic identities. 

I suppose in summary, I think the level of resolution represented by L21, U152, U106 etc only gives a 'balance of probabilities' view of deep ancestry and at only more refined further downstream clades can clarify this.  What I find frustrating is a lack of SNP between L21 and the isles SNPs.  However, if, as variance suggests, L21 crossed to the isles really soon after its advent in France then there may not have been time for SNPs downstream of L21 to occur on the continent prior to some of it moving to the isles.   

In terms of Celtic identity, I think its been fairly long established by archaeologists that there only a couple of areas like the south of England (Belgic) and east Yorkshire (Parisii) seem to have had much migration in the Iron Age.  So, its likely wrong to think that our ancestors are literally those who were in central Europe and those in accounts.   However, we knew that before DNA.  Those guys in the classical accounts from the alpine areas and central Europe only feature more than those further north and west simply because they were nearer and were trading and attacking them.  The cultures to the north were very similar and the same basic cultures existed throughout temperate western Europe since the early Bronze Age. The word 'Celt' has just been too much linked to the subset of the Celts who were close to the classical world at the time when historical account begin.  That is just pure chance and too much weight or importance has been put on that subset of the Celts because of it.  This has led to the idea the La Tene-Hallstatt-Urnfield cultures being treated as THE Celts instead of a subset of them.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2011, 12:25:03 PM »

Or to put it i a far more concise way. I dont think the idea that the Celtic language evolved in a compact area and them spread from there by migration is held by hardly any archaeologists today in terms of western Europe.  Its been all but proven that La Tene, Hallstatt and even Urnfield do not explain the earliest known distribution of the Celtic languages. The common denominator must pre-date even Urnfield and the Atlantic Bronze Age because BOTH are needed to explain the distribution of Celtic languages c. 6th century BC.  So the logical step is to ask what is the common denominator between those two cultures? Well that pushes us back into the mid Bronze Age and early Bronze Age when there was a period of strong connection between Ireland, Wessex, Amorica and Unetice central Europe and all of these culture emerged out of beaker.  Beaker is too wide spread to be just Celtic but the phase just after it with that group of interconnected cultures would form a horizon where a chunk of the old beaker groups could have evolved a common dialect through constant trade, contact, intermarriage (with the high status women moving) etc.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 12:25:48 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2011, 01:02:14 PM »

Thanks, Alan. That knits things together pretty well. I still have to overcome all the stuff I absorbed growing up as a curious kid in the 1960s and '70s, reading old history books, with their tales of waves of conquerors entering Britain from the east.

I don't think I'm the only one either.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2011, 01:25:09 PM »

It is much less clear what the linguistic situation was beyond the Rhine and the Danube.  In general it is only assumed through archaeological reasoning that there were once a lot of Celts in Germany. The actual linguistic evidence is very poor east of the Rhine and north of the Danube for Celts.

The genetics would certainly be unreliable. The archaeological evidence is mixed and there is good evidence for celtic speakers, if such did indeed exist, leaving the area altogether. Moreover, it may simply be celtic influence, rather than celtic speaking.

Celtic influence is heavy to the east of the Rhine but also exists to the north of the river Main in the modern state of Hesse. Here for example, a map of Final Hallstatt Early La Tene Beaked Flagons:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/Flagons.jpg

The concentration of this type is heaviest to the west of the Rhine around the Mosel area. The area of main interest as far as this question is concerned is the area between the solid grey line and the dotted grey line. To what degree is it celtic?

There is a concentration of Halstatt D wagon burials to the south of the river Main and they stray into the area of interest but, they are absent to the west of the Rhine around the Mosel area:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/HallstattDWagonBurials.jpg

The picture changes with La Tene CD Chariot Burials.jpg which has a concentration to the west:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/LTCDChariotBurials.jpg

On the otherhand, La Tene AB Stamped Pottery is much more widespread:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/LTABStampedPottery.jpg

It is unclear from the archaeology what the relationship is between the Hesse dwellers and those in the Mosel area.

The reason why the area is of interest is that the area between the solid and dotted lines contains the mountain ridge from which, to its south, rivers flow south and west towards the Rhine, and to the north, flow into the north sea. For traders moving along the river valleys, it is a meeting place between northern peoples and celtic speaking peoples.

There is also a question about the peoples living in the north. They appear to be highly mobile groups who stay in one area for between one and two generations and then dismantle their settlements and move on. They show signs of celtic trade, fibulae, pottery and so on, but also some signs of trade, but fewer in quantity, with the germanic world, such as amber beads.

To the north of the dotted line we are in the Harpstedt Nienburg cultural group, the yellow area on this map:

http://tinyurl.com/6at76nq

One village belonging to this group is that at Schnippenburg which was occupied for about 50 years. One of the housetypes from this area, the so called Haps type, has been reconstructed nearby:

http://eisenzeithaus.de/wb/pages/de/infos.php

Although it is a house with integral byre, normally a north germanic style, Haps type houses are restricted to the Harpstedt Nienburg group. Note the bipartitie entrance, a smaller one for humans and a wider one for animals. It has two doors and behind is a partitioning wall. Also note the lack of corners, they are rounded. The construction and the way the roof is supported is also different from truly north germanic building styles.

These houses are rarely occupied for more than two generations if that. The trend is that the group who built them moved westwards, with many later examples appearing in low countries. Speculation is that these peoples are those belgic tribes that Caesar said came from Germania.

In some parts at least, areas which show much celtic archaeology were completely abandonned and resettled by germanic speakers later. What we don't know of course is if these peoples were celtic speaking.

Another interesting puzzle can be seen on the map of La Tene AB stamped pottery, http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/LTABStampedPottery.jpg

Note the concentration in Britanny. One of the tribes in Britanny were the Veneti who have been linked by some to the eastern european Veneti. The french linguist Martinet argues that ventetic speaking peoples lived between germanic speakers in the north and celtic speakers in the south:

http://www.cpt.co.uk/maps/venetic.gif

It is highly speculative of course but the existence of peoples living between the germanic speakers and celtic speakers in Germania has been around for some time.

cheers
authun


« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 01:30:21 PM by authun » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2011, 01:47:05 PM »

  The cultures to the north were very similar and the same basic cultures existed throughout temperate western Europe since the early Bronze Age. The word 'Celt' has just been too much linked to the subset of the Celts who were close to the classical world at the time when historical account begin.  That is just pure chance and too much weight or importance has been put on that subset of the Celts because of it.  This has led to the idea the La Tene-Hallstatt-Urnfield cultures being treated as THE Celts instead of a subset of them.

I read an excerpt of a book illustrating similarities of Celto-Germanic cultures along the Rhine, and it delineated between Northern and Southern Gallic tribes by looking at weapons deposits in the Rhine. Apparently, it was a rite of passage for young men entering adulthood.

The author discusses how Northern Gauls had a pronounced martial aspect to their culture as opposed to those living near Southern France and Northern Italy. Those living closer to the Southern Alpine areas began to live in towns earlier and were Romanticized faster. The author goes on to explain how Rome recruited most of its auxiliaries from Northern Gaul, especially the cavalry.

This makes me think of what you are saying about a clear distinction between Alpine and Northern Celts. They must have split into distinct branches somewhere between Germany and Hungary, before one tribe (L21) went North and the other (U152) went South. Wherever Celtic first arose as a language is a good vantage point because it must have been pretty close to Italic and maybe Proto-Germanic as well.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2011, 02:10:25 PM »

Wherever Celtic first arose as a language is a good vantage point because it must have been pretty close to Italic and maybe Proto-Germanic as well.

They were certainly in close contact in the pre roman iron age. The german word eisen for iron is very likely a celtic loan into german, cf. gaulish isarna whereas in latin, the word was ferrum.

Other than contact in the iron age however, german and celtic hadn't been in contact for some considerable time.

cheers
authun
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.124 seconds with 19 queries.