Tracing the Spread of Celtic Languages using Ancient Genomics

[billh]

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). Celtic phylogeny is kind of hazy so it's hard to say for sure.

The idea of Anatolian-Levantine ancestry spreading is probably specific to specific populations or to their method. I haven't dwelled too deep into this, but earlier publications and general laymen models didn't detect a lot of Anatolian/Iranian ancestry in any of the Paleobalkan groups of Thracians, Paeonians and Illyrians.
The Illyrians are unlikely to be the main source, even though the Celts did later mix with them, because they were pushed back by Tumulus and were not the source of the Urnfield-customs transmission. On the contrary, the classical Illyrians were among the people which refused the strongest the cremation rite and other East Carpathian customs. They only adopted it much later in heavily mixed groups of Thracians/Dacians and Illyrians. Such mixed groups are the Srem group and later the Dardanians.

 
Unless future revisions are made to McColl's paper (e.g. adding new clusters), it seems to a be massive corridor movement of peoples carrying Balkan BA and Anatolia BA ancestry into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt, maybe even Italy also. These peoples may have carried both ancestries at the same time, rather than 2 separate migratory waves for each ancestry. Will be interesting to see if future samples from upcoming papers on Hungary and Romania will have high amounts of Balkan BA or even be a source of this ancestry but I'm not sure it will be higher in Romania rather than south of the Danube.

What? Where are you getting the idea that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube, or the Tiber for that matter?

[teepean]

Are these new samples different from the new samples in the McColl et al Germanic dispersal paper?

Looks like the samples are included in that paper as well.

What paper is this?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...607v2.full

[Konieczny]

Yamnaya core component vectors in ekwos/ashva milk drinkers.

I2761 (2874-2578)Sarmat(Alan Elite)-Albanian related/connected
pcw040, pcw041 (2500-2350)Celtic-Germanic related/connected
I4178, I2787, I7043, I7044, I7041, I2365,(2500-2200)mix related (horse breeding trading?)
I20499 (2880-2633)Celtic-Germanic-Latin related/connected
I3499 (2884-2666)Sarmat(Alan Elite)-Albanian related/connected

Looking good.
 I've been pointing out for a long time the special T-hair pins and Yersinia pestis phylogeny in Deriivka  I5884 connected to 

Gyvakari1-(2620-2470)
I3449-(2884-2666)
Looks like this paper may have a sample in the Baltic region showing a connection. Hopefully they will include Slovakia samples and Core Yamnaya L51 from Poland (pcw 040 and pcw 041)and Serbia (I30499) to give an explanation of linguistic vector time frames.

[La Tene]

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). Celtic phylogeny is kind of hazy so it's hard to say for sure.

The idea of Anatolian-Levantine ancestry spreading is probably specific to specific populations or to their method. I haven't dwelled too deep into this, but earlier publications and general laymen models didn't detect a lot of Anatolian/Iranian ancestry in any of the Paleobalkan groups of Thracians, Paeonians and Illyrians.
The Illyrians are unlikely to be the main source, even though the Celts did later mix with them, because they were pushed back by Tumulus and were not the source of the Urnfield-customs transmission. On the contrary, the classical Illyrians were among the people which refused the strongest the cremation rite and other East Carpathian customs. They only adopted it much later in heavily mixed groups of Thracians/Dacians and Illyrians. Such mixed groups are the Srem group and later the Dardanians.

 
Unless future revisions are made to McColl's paper (e.g. adding new clusters), it seems to a be massive corridor movement of peoples carrying Balkan BA and Anatolia BA ancestry into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt, maybe even Italy also. These peoples may have carried both ancestries at the same time, rather than 2 separate migratory waves for each ancestry. Will be interesting to see if future samples from upcoming papers on Hungary and Romania will have high amounts of Balkan BA or even be a source of this ancestry but I'm not sure it will be higher in Romania rather than south of the Danube.

What? Where are you getting the idea that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube, or the Tiber for that matter?

I never said that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube. I said significant Anatolian BA in the Balkans and that there seemed to be massive corridor or transit route for both Balkan BA and Anatolian BA into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt (e.g. Pannonia) and I said "maybe" even Italy as well, but I did not say that there was a massive % of Anatolian BA north of the Danube (it pales in comparison to Balkan BA). 

In McColl's model Balkan BA and Anatolian BA is shown as present in Italy in pre imperial times

You can see the Balkan BA and Anatolian BA clusters in Italian samples in Supplementary fig S1.1

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). 

Be sceptical all you want, but I remember it was mentioned via X at the Leiden Indo-European linguistic conference back in 2022 that the Urnfield era 'seems' to be THE era for the spread of Celtic. I think they may have been inspired by Patterson British paper and the appearance of Urnfield 'culture' in NE Iberia. Also be careful not to get confused with the concept of an "Urnfield culture" and the "Urnfield era". They are 2 different things and I prefare to say Urnfield era, essentially referring to LBA-EIA transition period, say 1200-850 BC. IIRC in France archaeologists have dropped the term 'Urnfield' altogether.

I don't adhere to the theory of a LBA introduction of Italic languages via North East Italy in Italy. Currently I favour a very early date for the Celto-Italic linguistic node, with essentially pre or proto Italic being brought by Bell Beakers into Italy or perhaps a Celto-Italic dialect that later evolved in situ in Italy into proto Italic because Celtic and Italic IIRC are said to have had relatively little contact with each other after the Celto-Italic split and the Tyrsenian-Rhaetian-Etruscan linguistic wedge between them could of in theory helped to further that. If anything, influences from Carpathian basin/Balkans could even have brought the Tyrsenian languages to Italy because the Carpathian basin in theory could have had non Indo European linguistic remnants as both Bell Beaker and Yamnaya settlements seem to have failed in the region, but that's just wild speculation. A local Alpine origin for Trysenian languages is equally plausible.

I don't know how reliable McColls's modelling is and if Balkan BA/Anatolian BA in pre imperial Italy boosts support for Balkan/Anatolian origin of Trysenian languages. I wish McColl had included the full set of samples available for Italy and southern Germany but alas, maybe we have to wait for version 2 of the paper

[CGPF]

Are these new samples different from the new samples in the McColl et al Germanic dispersal paper?

Looks like the samples are included in that paper as well.

It seems that more research was done into the samples from the McMoll study. For instance, 4 Danish Iron Age samples that were earlier classified as just R1a1a1a~ are now classified as:

R1a1a1a1d2~
R1a1a1a1d
R1a1a1a1d1a1
R1a1a1a1d1a

CGG106813 from around 200-400 CE (context date) - ca. 300 BCE (radiocarbon date) is the R1a1a1a1d2~ one, making it the first R1a YP287 in ancient DNA :-)

The supplementary material gives a wrong location for sample CGG106813 from Jutland. It mentions as location Nr. Hedegard south of Aalborg in North Jutland, but the archeological paper referred to as the source, describes the iron age graves from Hedegard east of Brande in Mid Jutland. Some 130 km south of the other Hedegard. In both Hedegards Iron Age settlements were excavated, but only reports on Hedegard in Mid Jutland mention grave fields that were excavated.

The other option is that the source is wrong. For that event a new source/report on the dig would be helpful.

[SOISSONS]

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). Celtic phylogeny is kind of hazy so it's hard to say for sure.

 
Unless future revisions are made to McColl's paper (e.g. adding new clusters), it seems to a be massive corridor movement of peoples carrying Balkan BA and Anatolia BA ancestry into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt, maybe even Italy also. These peoples may have carried both ancestries at the same time, rather than 2 separate migratory waves for each ancestry. Will be interesting to see if future samples from upcoming papers on Hungary and Romania will have high amounts of Balkan BA or even be a source of this ancestry but I'm not sure it will be higher in Romania rather than south of the Danube.

What? Where are you getting the idea that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube, or the Tiber for that matter?

I never said that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube. I said significant Anatolian BA in the Balkans and that there seemed to be massive corridor or transit route for both Balkan BA and Anatolian BA into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt (e.g. Pannonia) and I said "maybe" even Italy as well, but I did not say that there was a massive % of Anatolian BA north of the Danube (it pales in comparison to Balkan BA). 

In McColl's model Balkan BA and Anatolian BA is shown as present in Italy in pre imperial times

You can see the Balkan BA and Anatolian BA clusters in Italian samples in Supplementary fig S1.1

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). 

Be sceptical all you want, but I remember it was mentioned via X at the Leiden Indo-European linguistic conference back in 2022 that the Urnfield era 'seems' to be THE era for the spread of Celtic. I think they may have been inspired by Patterson British paper and the appearance of Urnfield 'culture' in NE Iberia. Also be careful not to get confused with the concept of an "Urnfield culture" and the "Urnfield era". They are 2 different things and I prefare to say Urnfield era, essentially referring to LBA-EIA transition period, say 1200-850 BC. IIRC in France archaeologists have dropped the term 'Urnfield' altogether.

I don't adhere to the theory of a LBA introduction of Italic languages via North East Italy in Italy. Currently I favour a very early date for the Celto-Italic linguistic node, with essentially pre or proto Italic being brought by Bell Beakers into Italy or perhaps a Celto-Italic dialect that later evolved in situ in Italy into proto Italic because Celtic and Italic IIRC are said to have had relatively little contact with each other after the Celto-Italic split and the Tyrsenian-Rhaetian-Etruscan linguistic wedge between them could of in theory helped to further that. If anything, influences from Carpathian basin/Balkans could even have brought the Tyrsenian languages to Italy because the Carpathian basin in theory could have had non Indo European linguistic remnants as both Bell Beaker and Yamnaya settlements seem to have failed in the region, but that's just wild speculation. A local Alpine origin for Trysenian languages is equally plausible.

I don't know how reliable McColls's modelling is and if Balkan BA/Anatolian BA in pre imperial Italy boosts support for Balkan/Anatolian origin of Trysenian languages. I wish McColl had included the full set of samples available for Italy and southern Germany but alas, maybe we have to wait for version 2 of the paper

What is your opinion about Gaulish. When and where did it appeared?

[Kyu]

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). Celtic phylogeny is kind of hazy so it's hard to say for sure.

 
Unless future revisions are made to McColl's paper (e.g. adding new clusters), it seems to a be massive corridor movement of peoples carrying Balkan BA and Anatolia BA ancestry into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt, maybe even Italy also. These peoples may have carried both ancestries at the same time, rather than 2 separate migratory waves for each ancestry. Will be interesting to see if future samples from upcoming papers on Hungary and Romania will have high amounts of Balkan BA or even be a source of this ancestry but I'm not sure it will be higher in Romania rather than south of the Danube.

What? Where are you getting the idea that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube, or the Tiber for that matter?

I never said that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube. I said significant Anatolian BA in the Balkans and that there seemed to be massive corridor or transit route for both Balkan BA and Anatolian BA into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt (e.g. Pannonia) and I said "maybe" even Italy as well, but I did not say that there was a massive % of Anatolian BA north of the Danube (it pales in comparison to Balkan BA). 

In McColl's model Balkan BA and Anatolian BA is shown as present in Italy in pre imperial times

You can see the Balkan BA and Anatolian BA clusters in Italian samples in Supplementary fig S1.1

I'm a little skeptical that Urnfield is unilaterally Celtic, because it had a very profound archaeological and genetic influence in Italy which can be associated with Italic (Latin) and Italic-adjacent groups (i.e. Etruscans/Villanova). 

Be sceptical all you want, but I remember it was mentioned via X at the Leiden Indo-European linguistic conference back in 2022 that the Urnfield era 'seems' to be THE era for the spread of Celtic. I think they may have been inspired by Patterson British paper and the appearance of Urnfield 'culture' in NE Iberia. Also be careful not to get confused with the concept of an "Urnfield culture" and the "Urnfield era". They are 2 different things and I prefare to say Urnfield era, essentially referring to LBA-EIA transition period, say 1200-850 BC. IIRC in France archaeologists have dropped the term 'Urnfield' altogether.

I don't adhere to the theory of a LBA introduction of Italic languages via North East Italy in Italy. Currently I favour a very early date for the Celto-Italic linguistic node, with essentially pre or proto Italic being brought by Bell Beakers into Italy or perhaps a Celto-Italic dialect that later evolved in situ in Italy into proto Italic because Celtic and Italic IIRC are said to have had relatively little contact with each other after the Celto-Italic split and the Tyrsenian-Rhaetian-Etruscan linguistic wedge between them could of in theory helped to further that. If anything, influences from Carpathian basin/Balkans could even have brought the Tyrsenian languages to Italy because the Carpathian basin in theory could have had non Indo European linguistic remnants as both Bell Beaker and Yamnaya settlements seem to have failed in the region, but that's just wild speculation. A local Alpine origin for Trysenian languages is equally plausible.

I don't know how reliable McColls's modelling is and if Balkan BA/Anatolian BA in pre imperial Italy boosts support for Balkan/Anatolian origin of Trysenian languages. I wish McColl had included the full set of samples available for Italy and southern Germany but alas, maybe we have to wait for version 2 of the paper

Proto-Italic is thought to be quite young, only having split a bit earlier than 1000 BC, so that fits a more recent origin

[billh]

I never said that there was significant Anatolian BA north of the Danube. I said significant Anatolian BA in the Balkans and that there seemed to be massive corridor or transit route for both Balkan BA and Anatolian BA into what later will be the eastern Hallstatt (e.g. Pannonia) and I said "maybe" even Italy as well, but I did not say that there was a massive % of Anatolian BA north of the Danube (it pales in comparison to Balkan BA). 

In McColl's model Balkan BA and Anatolian BA is shown as present in Italy in pre imperial times

You can see the Balkan BA and Anatolian BA clusters in Italian samples in Supplementary fig S1.1

Be sceptical all you want, but I remember it was mentioned via X at the Leiden Indo-European linguistic conference back in 2022 that the Urnfield era 'seems' to be THE era for the spread of Celtic. I think they may have been inspired by Patterson British paper and the appearance of Urnfield 'culture' in NE Iberia. Also be careful not to get confused with the concept of an "Urnfield culture" and the "Urnfield era". They are 2 different things and I prefare to say Urnfield era, essentially referring to LBA-EIA transition period, say 1200-850 BC. IIRC in France archaeologists have dropped the term 'Urnfield' altogether.

I don't adhere to the theory of a LBA introduction of Italic languages via North East Italy in Italy. Currently I favour a very early date for the Celto-Italic linguistic node, with essentially pre or proto Italic being brought by Bell Beakers into Italy or perhaps a Celto-Italic dialect that later evolved in situ in Italy into proto Italic because Celtic and Italic IIRC are said to have had relatively little contact with each other after the Celto-Italic split and the Tyrsenian-Rhaetian-Etruscan linguistic wedge between them could of in theory helped to further that. If anything, influences from Carpathian basin/Balkans could even have brought the Tyrsenian languages to Italy because the Carpathian basin in theory could have had non Indo European linguistic remnants as both Bell Beaker and Yamnaya settlements seem to have failed in the region, but that's just wild speculation. A local Alpine origin for Trysenian languages is equally plausible.

I don't know how reliable McColls's modelling is and if Balkan BA/Anatolian BA in pre imperial Italy boosts support for Balkan/Anatolian origin of Trysenian languages. I wish McColl had included the full set of samples available for Italy and southern Germany but alas, maybe we have to wait for version 2 of the paper

I think I misread your first comment, I see what you're saying now (with regards to BA Anatolian in SE Europe). I also suspect Tyrsenian languages are local in origin, as I don't see how a random group of Anatolians could have spread their language into the alps with little other hint of their presence. 

It is quite possible that Celtic spread during the Urnfield era, but I don't think the Urnfield culture corresponds specifically to Celts.

[La Tene]

Proto-Italic is thought to be quite young, only having split a bit earlier than 1000 BC, so that fits a more recent origin

If the Urnfield era is considered late or disintegrating Proto Celtic then most likely Proto Italic already existed in this period (1200-850) or even before it. The key lies in the dating and duration of the Italo-Celtic. How long did it last? From what I gather there are 2 competing theories; a brief early node that probably ended by or during the EBA, or a much longer period of existence for Italo-Celtic that possibly lasted until the Urnfield era  (which I feel is less likely).

Another clue could be dating the split of (proto) Celtiberian from Proto Celtic. Did it happen before or during the appearance of Urnfields in Iberia or was it the result of a later migration? Did proto Celtiberian arrive in Iberia fully formed or was it a variety of Proto Celtic that the migrants brought with them, that then evolved in situ in Iberia over many centuries into Celtiberian? (And afaik some Iberian linguists contemplate that there were other Hispano-Celtic languages and not just Celtiberian).

If the 2nd Celtic language to break off was Lepontic and the earliest attestation of Lepontic was in the 6th or 5th century BC then proto Celtiberian had to of split before the earliest proposed dates for the inscriptions bearing the Lepontic language. As Jaska would probably say one cannot 'see' language from DNA or Archaeology, but an idea of continuity in material culture from Canegrate to Golasecca would make it harder to dismiss an even earlier date for the split of Lepontic from Common Celtic. But if there were interruptions in the settlement pattern in the long long timeline from Canegrate to the end of Golasecca culture, then in theory that could possibly imply a much later intrusion of Celts into Northern Italy but still being before the supposed Celtic invasions of the La Tene era

It would also help to roughly date the formation of the (central!?) Italic genepool which afaik is directly ancestral to the IA Italics and Etruscans. As Jaska would say you cant 'see' language from DNA, but if the (central!?) Italic genepool stayed roughly the same from the BA to the IA, it could be indicative of at least a BA date for Proto Italic.

I think I misread your first comment, I see what you're saying now (with regards to BA Anatolian in SE Europe). I also suspect Tyrsenian languages are local in origin, as I don't see how a random group of Anatolians could have spread their language into the alps with little other hint of their presence. 

I agree that Tyrsenian languages most likely are local Alpine in origin but I dont know much about them so I am open to different theories. I think most of the pre imperial samples from McColl's paper are located more in central Italy and the Tyhrrennian coast. We would really need more BA & IA North Italy and Alps samples and then see if they too can be modelled with McColl's Anatolian BA cluster. But then again McColl might just add new IBD clusters in an updated version of the paper in a years time that replace or eat up Anatolian BA, as well as change the samples used as 'sources' samples for different ancestries that appear in this paper (and the Germanic one) that McColl and his team have 'discovered', and all this talk of Anatolian BA in Italy/Central Europe in pre imperial times could be a waste of time.

It is quite possible that Celtic spread during the Urnfield era, but I don't think the Urnfield culture corresponds specifically to Celts.

Is it really a unified culture? Is the Lusatian culture its own culture or is it just the eastern part of a single Urnfield culture?

I agree with you that the Urnfield 'culture' was most likely multi ethnic, but I tend to look at it as a social phenomena or style/trend that swept through many parts of Europe. That's why I find it easier to define it as an 'era' (period of time) rather than as a single unified culture. During this period of time (and after?) according to the authors of this paper, a Knoviz-BA like ancestry supposedly swept from East to West, which the authors link with the spread of Celtic. 

But what ancestry can be associated with a non Italian BA source that supposedly swept into Italy in the LBA? especially if the (central!!?) Italian genepool, including Latins and Etruscans was already forming in BA Italy. Did this genepool form in LBA or the MBA?

What is your opinion about Gaulish. When and where did it appeared?

I am inclined to support an introduction of proto Celtic into eastern Gaul by the westward expansion of the south German Tumulus Culture into parts of eastern France IIRC in the late MBA. Being geographically close to the upper Danube region I think parts of eastern France remained part of a Common Celtic linguistic zone after Celtiberian split away. This could explain why Gaulish is sometimes closely linked to Brythonic as a possible joint sub branch and both language groups being considered quite similar (especially if Common Celtic can be dialectally divided into a north zone (Gaulish, Brythonic) and a southern zone (Lepontic).

I think Gaulish spread throughout France with phenomena like RSFO, Hallstatt, La Tene cultural influences etc but did perhaps could not displace indo-european or non indo-european substrats in the western Alps, Southern half of France and perhaps even Belgica (lack of 'Celtic-isms'? in toponymy). The linguistic Gaulish-ization of France would been entering its final advanced phase with the expansion of Gauls into Caesar's Aquitania

I think this paper is open to a LMBA or LBA introduction of Celtic into France, which they tentatively associate with a 'Knovitz-BA' type ancestry, the formation of which they dated IIRC by at least 1300 BC, that spread to the west

we find that this ancestry profile in the Czech Republic occurred by 3300 BP, in individuals associated with the Tumulus Culture and continuing into the Knovíz and Hallstatt Periods (Extended Data Fig. 1)

Compared to England, the impact of Knovíz-related ancestry is particularly high in France, Germany and the Czech Republic. In Austria, we note considerable diversity at the  eponymous Hallstatt site, with individuals modelled with particularly high proportions of either Knovíz or Hungarian/Serbia Bronze Age-related ancestry, more similar to Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, where the Hungarian/Serbian Bronze Age-related ancestry is modelled in high proportions.

Finally, we included a Bronze Age source from Britain and Ireland (Set C6), corresponding to the fixed ‘left’ population described in the qpAdm analyses below. In England from the Late Bronze Age until the Migration Period, individuals tend to be modelled primarily by the British-Irish Bronze Age ancestry, with some Knovíz or French/Iberian Bronze Age-related ancestry (Supplementary Fig. S1.9). Notably, the East Yorkshire individuals are modelled with very high proportions of the local British-Irish Ancestry (Supplementary Fig. S1.1). In France, Iron Age individuals tend to be modelled primarily by the Knovíz and French/Iberian Bronze Age-related ancestries, but with little to no British-Irish Bronze Age-related ancestry.

We find these results do not contradict, and are broadly consistent with the IBD Mixture Modelling results. We therefore conclude that in England, migrations from at least three distinct populations occurred. Following the first arrival of Steppe ancestry, we find Middle and Late Bronze Age groups can be modelled only with additional ancestry from Mainland Southern and Western Europe.

In contrast the Iron Age population requires ancestry from more Eastern Central Europe to be well modelled, likely occurring at the end of the Bronze Age. In France a similar result is found; in the Iron Age, populations can only be modelled when including a Bronze Age source from Eastern Central Europe, indicating here too, migrations occurred from the east.

As Riverman suggested, 'Knovitz-BA' ancestry might just be a proxy for south Germany BA ancestry as 1: IIRC the Tumulus culture expanded into Bohemia, not from it, and 2: Knovitz culture samples are thought to be descendant from Tumulus culture ancestry brought to Bohemia from south Germany/Austria, thereby implying that both the Tumulus culture ancestry and the later 'Knovitz-BA' ancestry originated from southern Germany or at least from the upper and/or middle Danube, and 3: an increase of 'EEF' likely from Italy was even detected in the Gretzinger Hallstatt paper

Further east, in the Czech Republic, we see the increase of Italian Neolithic-related and Bronze Age Anatolian-related ancestry between 3200–2800 BP (Fig. 3). We also note that we detect no evidence of French/Iberian Neolithic ancestry. By splitting further into the cultural phases for the region, we find that this ancestry profile in the Czech Republic occurred by 3300 BP, in individuals associated with the Tumulus Culture and continuing into the Knovíz and Hallstatt Periods (Extended Data Fig. 1).

and 4: the lack of BA & IA German samples included by McColl and his team despite referencing some of the new papers, & despite being publicly available already, such as Lech EBA, Lech MBA, SW Germany Hallstatt, La Tene Switzerland, Hallstatt Slovenia etc which could lead him the create a 'South German BA' ancestry profile and use this profile instead of 'Knovitz-BA'

[Balkaniika]

Hi guys! Do you think haplogroups such as R1b-U152 and G-L497 in the balkans were from the celtic or germanic migrations? considering the fact there were many celtic groups in illyria and rivers in montenegro and serbia such as Tara ans Lim trace their names to celtic languages. Even specific tribes such as the Mataruga tribe that trace their name to a spear brought by the celts.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

That's the TC before the big expansion rather.
E.g. in Hungary it reached up to the Tisza river, with influences going beyond.

Looking at the cultures, movements east to west, west to east, and timelines:

1.  FGC12378 and subclade FGC47869 are in Tumulus Culture north of the Alps, centered on southern Germany from upper Rhine in the west  to upper Austria in the east.

2.  As the FGC47869>FGC12401 13 SNP block develops, they possibly moved east into Carpathian Basin with Tumulus, where the Urnfield Culture develops, and then back west near their Tumulus homeland, where the Hallstatt Culture takes shape.

3.  Here, FGC12401>FGC47875 subclades FGC12384 and BY5698 form (~1000-600 BC)

4.  BY5698>BY33575 becomes part of the Eastern Hallstatt group, with descendants eventually turning up in Hungary and Italy.

5.  Meanwhile, BY5698>BY12085 and FGC12384 become part of the Western Hallstatt and succeeding La Tene cultures.  Their descendants eventually arrive in Britain, via Gaul, during this period or the Roman Era (ie ~800 BC to 400 AD)

[Roslav]

Hi guys! Do you think haplogroups such as R1b-U152 and G-L497 in the balkans were from the celtic or germanic migrations? considering the fact there were many celtic groups in illyria and rivers in montenegro and serbia such as Tara ans Lim trace their names to celtic languages. Even specific tribes such as the Mataruga tribe that trace their name to a spear brought by the celts.

As far as U152 is concerned (and L2 Z49 S8183 in particular), I have been looking into this for some time and it seems to me that, taken as a whole (U152 is too old a haplogroup to be ultra specific), a substantial subset of Balkan or even more generally - Eastern European/Danubian U152, has clear links to Southern and Western Germany. Under Z49, this is very well exemplified by a recurrent three-way connection, revealed by both modern lineages and ancient samples, linking Rhineland and Baden-Wurtemberg to Slovenia, Friuli and Veneto, with Czech, Hungarian or Austrian samples inbetween. Some of those connectons are fairly old and date back to the Urnfield, perhaps even Tumulus culture period, as shown by samples from Dolge njive cemetery or Grottina dei Covoloni del Broion. But most likely there were multiple, successive waves of those migrations occurring along the major trade routes and waterways for many centuries. 

Many of these Z49 subclades seem to have a particularly dense, pretty much continuous distribution along the Rhine and the Danube. This characteristic pattern (kind of like a tilted lightning bolt symbol or an "H" missing both its bottom left and upper right arm) seems typical for Y4355, S8172 or Adriano Squecco's R-S20782 (map , beware of the quite obvious Italian-Slovenian sampling bias) among others. I find it interesting and suggestive that it is Veneto that seems particularly rich in those L2 subclades rather than Lombardia or Piemonte (which should better correspond with historical Gallia Cisalpina). In several instances Italo-Slovenian subclades extend into Croatia and even Bosnia&Herzegovina, while some isolated Bulgarian L2 lineages show links to Italy and Germany. Thus, I think it is reasonable to assume most of Balkan L2 "survivors" could be attributed to the same Urnfield/Hallstatt migrations (but of course single lineages could represent much earlier or later introductions).

[Mitchell-Atkins]

That's the TC before the big expansion rather.
E.g. in Hungary it reached up to the Tisza river, with influences going beyond.

Looking at the cultures, movements east to west, west to east, and timelines:

1.  FGC12378 and subclade FGC47869 are in Tumulus Culture north of the Alps, centered on southern Germany from upper Rhine in the west  to upper Austria in the east.

2.  As the FGC47869>FGC12401 13 SNP block develops, they possibly moved east into Carpathian Basin with Tumulus, where the Urnfield Culture develops, and then back west near their Tumulus homeland, where the Hallstatt Culture takes shape.

3.  Here, FGC12401>FGC47875 subclades FGC12384 and BY5698 form (~1000-600 BC)

4.  BY5698>BY33575 becomes part of the Eastern Hallstatt group, with descendants eventually turning up in Hungary and Italy.

5.  Meanwhile,  BY5698>BY12085 and FGC12384 become part of the Western Hallstatt and succeeding La Tene cultures.  Their descendants eventually arrive in Britain, via Gaul, during this period or the Roman Era (ie ~800 BC to 400 AD)

Associated maps for steps 2-5

[Riverman]

I completely agree with your scheme in general, but I think it is extremely difficult to pinpoint things for specific branches. Because unless you have concrete data, you never know whether e.g. a specific subclade moved in already in the Urnfield period or as late as with say modern era French/German migrants to Britain.
For the bulk there should be these generalised patterns, but on the more fine grained individual level, there are always huge surprises possible with multiple forth and back migrations etc.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

I completely agree with your scheme in general, but I think it is extremely difficult to pinpoint things for specific branches. Because unless you have concrete data, you never know whether e.g. a specific subclade moved in already in the Urnfield period or as late as with say modern era French/German migrants to Britain.
For the bulk there should be these generalised patterns, but on the more fine grained individual level, there are always huge surprises possible with multiple forth and back migrations etc.

Fully understand. 

 It's just my current best guess based on available puzzle pieces; and can quickly change as additional info comes to light.

As mentioned earlier, this story just doesn't apply to my subclade, but possibly to many others associated with Tumulus/Urnfield/Hallstatt.