The Urnfield culture probably was a major factor spreading Celtic languages, and the Celtic languages and culture probably originated not with the Hallstatt Culture but with an early demic diffusion of an earlier culture found in Romania around 2,000 BCE to 1,200 BCE. The body text of the introduction explains that:
The debate is currently focused around three main models: (1) a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age spread along the Atlantic seaboard linked to the Bell Beaker Culture; (2) a Bronze Age spread from France, Iberia or Northern Italy; and (3) a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age spread from Central Europe associated with the Hallstatt and La Tène Cultures. Thus, the appearance and dispersal of the Celtic language constitutes a key question concerning the cultural formation of Bronze and Iron Age Europe.In an accompanying paper, we report the generation of 752 new genomes, including 126 originating from France, Germany, Austria, and the British Isles, which are of immediate relevance to these questions.
Figure 2 in the paper looks at relative contributions of ancestry across Europe around 2300 BCE and 500 BCE.
Celtic languages, including Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton, are today restricted to the Northern European Atlantic seaboard. However, between 3 and 2 thousand years before present (BP) Celtic was widely spoken across most of Europe.
While often associated with Bell Beaker-related populations, the spread of this prominent Indo-European linguistic cluster remains debated. Previous genomic investigations have focused on its arrival to specific regions: Britain, Iberia and Southwestern Germany.
Here, we utilize new genomic data from Bronze and Iron Age Europe to investigate the population history of historically Celtic-speaking regions, and test different linguistic theories on the origins and early spread of the Celtic languages. We identify a widespread demographic impact of the Central European Urnfield Culture. We find ancestry associated with its Knovíz subgroup in the Carpathian Basin to have formed between 4 – 3.2 kyr BP, and subsequently expanded across much of Western Europe between 3.2 and 2.8 kyr BP. This ancestry further persisted into the Hallstatt Culture of France, Germany and Austria, impacting Britain by 2.8 kyr BP and Iberia by 2.5 kyr BP.
These findings support models of an Eastern Central rather than a Western European center of spread for a major component of all the attested Celtic languages. Our study demonstrates, yet again, the power of ancient population genomics in addressing long-standing debates in historical linguistics.
Hugh McColl, et al., "Tracing the Spread of Celtic Languages using Ancient Genomics" bioRxiv (March 1, 2025). More commentary and analysis at Bernard's blog.
5 comments:
Probing New Bosons and Nuclear Structure with Ytterbium Isotope Shifts
Menno Door1,2,*,†, Chih-Han Yeh3,*,‡, Matthias Heinz4,5,1,§, Fiona Kirk3,6, Chunhai Lyu1, Takayuki Miyagi4,5,1, Julian C. Berengut7, Jacek Bieroń8, Klaus Blaum1 et al.
Abstract
In this Letter, we present mass-ratio measurements on highly charged Yb42+ ions with a precision of 4 ×10−12 and isotope-shift measurements on Yb+ on the 2S1/2→2D5/2 and 2S1/2→2F7/2 transitions with a precision of 4 ×10−9 for the isotopes 168,170,172,174,176Yb. We present a new method that allows us to extract higher-order changes in the nuclear charge distribution along the Yb isotope chain, benchmarking ab initio nuclear structure calculations. Additionally, we perform a King plot analysis to set bounds on a fifth force in the keV/𝑐2 to MeV/𝑐2 range coupling to electrons and neutrons.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.063002
Bounds on new physics—
To extract bounds on the hypothetical new boson, we combine our isotope-shift measurements and nuclear mass measurements with the isotope-shift measurements of Ref.
. This allows us to eliminate both the charge radius variance 𝛿⟨𝑟2⟩ and 𝛿⟨𝑟4⟩ from the system of isotope-shift equations without requiring theoretical input. Assuming higher-order SM terms beyond 𝛿⟨𝑟4⟩ to be negligible, the
Suspected this for a while. Glad to see some evidence in its favour.
I have no clue about physics, but I wonder if the post by Kostas Papa... on neutrons being not in the nucleus has any connection to reality. If a neutron is a combined electron and proton, would it still resemble the (spherical?) form of each? (I probably won't understand any technical response, but curious.)
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-there-will-be-flaws-discovered-in-modern-physics-in-the-near-future-If-so-which-ones-and-why-do-you-think-they-will-be-found?ch=10&oid=210602200&share=31fcc9f8&srid=RPhZF&target_type=question
Kostas Papas ideas are utter garbage and are contradicted by experimental observations of high precision. It has no connection to reality. We know to an extreme degree of certainty that a neutron is not a proton plus an electron, and we know precisely how a neutron decays to a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino, sometimes plus a photon. We can even calculate all of its decays and properties to roughly percent level precision from first principles. This is a very well studied particle which is quite well understood. See https://pdg.lbl.gov/2024/listings/contents_listings.html
Ok, thanks. I like visual imagery as opposed to pure numerical data and prose, so it was appealing.
Post a Comment