Mein Gott! I'm...German?!?!

DavidCoutts

Regular Member
Messages
110
Reaction score
2
Points
0
My DNA was tested by GeneBase and came back as L21+

When I checked my GB Matches, the largest group was, unsurprisingly since I am Scottish, European/Celtic with 585 Matches. Some were very close; Genetic Distance of 1/Common ancestor within 24 generations.

However, the second largest group was European/GERMANIC, with 381 matches, again soem of them very close gentically speaking.

Am I right to conclude that my father is at least partly descended from one of the Germanic tribes? Or am I way off base?

Fire at will...:ashamed2:
 
What is your autosomal ?
 
My DNA was tested by GeneBase and came back as L21+

When I checked my GB Matches, the largest group was, unsurprisingly since I am Scottish, European/Celtic with 585 Matches. Some were very close; Genetic Distance of 1/Common ancestor within 24 generations.

However, the second largest group was European/GERMANIC, with 381 matches, again soem of them very close gentically speaking.

Am I right to conclude that my father is at least partly descended from one of the Germanic tribes? Or am I way off base?

Fire at will...:ashamed2:

Er . . . uh . . . "Celtic" and SW Germany are practically synonymous.

Check out the R-L21 European Continent Map:

http://tinyurl.com/qo2e4m

Remember also what the 1st-century Roman historian Tacitus said of the Caledonians:

"The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin."
(Agricola, 11)
 
Er . . . uh . . . "Celtic" and SW Germany are practically synonymous.

Check out the R-L21 European Continent Map:

http://tinyurl.com/qo2e4m

Remember also what the 1st-century Roman historian Tacitus said of the Caledonians:

"The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin."
(Agricola, 11)

First time I've heard that. I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised.:shocked:
 
So this is a prove that Germanic tribes have arrived long before the
Anglo-Saxons' s arrival! But I cannot believe that all the red haired
men in UK, Scotland and Ireland are descendants of the Germanics.

Erik
 
R1b1b2 ht 15 is on West Europe since minimum 7000 years ago (neolithic farmers) so germans or celtic is a very new concept "Saxon" "Celtic" or "italic" is in fact a mixed of I1 (paleolithic) + R1b1b2 (neolithic) + J2 (it depends of someclades) + E1(earlier on north Europe Germany ) .
 
So this is a prove that Germanic tribes have arrived long before the
Anglo-Saxons' s arrival! But I cannot believe that all the red haired
men in UK, Scotland and Ireland are descendants of the Germanics.

Erik

Never trust Roman or other ancient accounts to discuss ethnology or genetics. The Romans had difficulties distinguishing between the Germans and the Celts. Sometimes it was a linguistic or cultural distinction, sometimes a physical one.

Red hair was very probably diffused to Europe through R1b1b2 people, who also brought Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages with them. Red hair is as common in isolated regions with a Celtic background (Ireland, Scotland) than those with a Germanic one (Scandinavia) or a mixed one (southern Germany, Belgium).

There were no Germanic tribe in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons, but Celtic ones. Celts and Germans are closely related because they descend from a common Bronze-Age ancestral tribe.
 
R1b1b2 ht 15 is on West Europe since minimum 7000 years ago (neolithic farmers) so germans or celtic is a very new concept "Saxon" "Celtic" or "italic" is in fact a mixed of I1 (paleolithic) + R1b1b2 (neolithic) + J2 (it depends of someclades) + E1(earlier on north Europe Germany ) .
It is possible that R1b1b2 was in West Europe about 7000 years ago, but I wouldn't use the term "minimum". It may be closer to the maximum.

Dr. Hammer at FTDNA presented that R1b1b2 in Europe appears to have TMRCA of 4000-8000 years ago.
 
Never trust Roman or other ancient accounts to discuss ethnology or genetics. The Romans had difficulties distinguishing between the Germans and the Celts. Sometimes it was a linguistic or cultural distinction, sometimes a physical one.

Red hair was very probably diffused to Europe through R1b1b2 people, who also brought Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages with them. Red hair is as common in isolated regions with a Celtic background (Ireland, Scotland) than those with a Germanic one (Scandinavia) or a mixed one (southern Germany, Belgium).

There were no Germanic tribe in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons, but Celtic ones. Celts and Germans are closely related because they descend from a common Bronze-Age ancestral tribe.

In the 1st century Tacitus would have had knowledge of the "Germans" living closest to the Rhine, that is, to the more Celtic of the tribes inhabiting Germania. Chances are back then they did resemble the Caledonians much more than modern Germans resemble modern Scots now.

I would not dismiss Tacitus' observations out of hand. He was a careful observer and historian.

It is also a fact that red hair reaches its current world maximums in the British Isles.
 
In the 1st century Tacitus would have had knowledge of the "Germans" living closest to the Rhine, that is, to the more Celtic of the tribes inhabiting Germania. Chances are back then they did resemble the Caledonians much more than modern Germans resemble modern Scots now.

I would not dismiss Tacitus' observations out of hand. He was a careful observer and historian.

It is also a fact that red hair reaches its current world maximums in the British Isles.

Even in Scotland red haired people are just a small minority. John Gray's survey of hair and eye pigmentation in Scotland during the early 1900s only found about 5% of Scots to be red haired ("Memoir on the pigmentation survey of Scotland", in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, V. 37, 1907. Page 382), the large majority having different hues of brown hair. These ancient Roman "descriptions" are not always entirely reliable. Often those writers used to fix their attention on some trait which they considered unusual or "exotic" and tried to make it the norm among the foreign peoples they were talking about.
 
Even in Scotland red haired people are just a small minority. John Gray's survey of hair and eye pigmentation in Scotland during the early 1900s only found about 5% of Scots to be red haired ("Memoir on the pigmentation survey of Scotland", in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, V. 37, 1907. Page 382), the large majority having different hues of brown hair. These ancient Roman "descriptions" are not always entirely reliable. Often those writers used to fix their attention on some trait which they considered unusual or "exotic" and tried to make it the norm among the foreign peoples they were talking about.

My understanding is that true red hair (excluding non-auburn or chestnut shades) averages out to approximately 3% in Europe. Scots may have the most legitimate red-haired people in the world (6-7% possibly) with Ireland second.
 
Last edited:
We don't know if red-hair is a Celtic trait, since it is not even sure if the British isles had more Celtic populations than continental Europe. In Brittany, France, Northern Italy, central Europe or western Iberia redhair is average (2-3 %) so most probably red-hair is a Germanic trait
 
We don't know if red-hair is a Celtic trait, since it is not even sure if the British isles had more Celtic populations than continental Europe. In Brittany, France, Northern Italy, central Europe or western Iberia redhair is average (2-3 %) so most probably red-hair is a Germanic trait

It may actually be Nordic.
 
It is possible that R1b1b2 was in West Europe about 7000 years ago, but I wouldn't use the term "minimum". It may be closer to the maximum.

Dr. Hammer at FTDNA presented that R1b1b2 in Europe appears to have TMRCA of 4000-8000 years ago.

Yes ! we can say 8000 years maximum sorry (y) you are ok !
 
Saying things like, "These ancient Roman 'descriptions' are not always entirely reliable", is what is known as a bald assertion. The point is whether or not one can show that Tacitus' observations were unreliable and specifically that his observations regarding the Caledonians of the 1st century were unreliable.

Where is the actual evidence that Tacitus was so unreliable that we should entirely disregard his remarks concerning the physical appearance of the ancient Caledonians?

I doubt there is any such evidence.

In its absence, perhaps we should just take his statement at face value.

No doubt many of the Caledonians of the 1st century did in fact have "red hair" and "large limbs".
 
We don't know if red-hair is a Celtic trait, since it is not even sure if the British isles had more Celtic populations than continental Europe. In Brittany, France, Northern Italy, central Europe or western Iberia redhair is average (2-3 %) so most probably red-hair is a Germanic trait

Red hair is not that common in Germanic regions. It is much more common in those places where Celtic language and culture survive.
 
Red hair is not that common in Germanic regions. It is much more common in those places where Celtic language and culture survive.
red-hair is not that common in Brittany, which has a Celtic language and culture
 
Red hair is NOT COMMON ANYWHERE - and don't go by what you find on Wikipedia since the way things are presented there "red hair" could mean anything from strawberry blond to chestnut. The great majority of people who have TRUE red hair are European or unmixed descendants of Eurasian Berbers. Europe as a whole averages about 3-4% legitimate red hair, with Scotland ranking highest, I believe at 6-7% (a significant minority of Scots also carry the recessive "red hair gene"). So, no, the overwhelming majority of people ANYWHERE in Europe do not have TRUE red hair. Now, if you want to include auburn and chestnut shades then the percentage goes up noticeably, even in some countries with no "Celtic" influences.

BTW, no accurate anthropological field studies have been accomplished as regards red hair frequencies. People keep going by the same horribly flawed information passed down through the ages, for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Saying things like, "These ancient Roman 'descriptions' are not always entirely reliable", is what is known as a bald assertion. The point is whether or not one can show that Tacitus' observations were unreliable and specifically that his observations regarding the Caledonians of the 1st century were unreliable.

Where is the actual evidence that Tacitus was so unreliable that we should entirely disregard his remarks concerning the physical appearance of the ancient Caledonians?

I doubt there is any such evidence.

In its absence, perhaps we should just take his statement at face value.

No doubt many of the Caledonians of the 1st century did in fact have "red hair" and "large limbs".

No, it's what's known as a hardly uncommon occurrence; it is not rare for ancient historians to be quite mistaken. Many times they spoke of places they had never been to in their lives, writing about them from hearsay. And when the more modern anthropological evidence does not seem to correlate with their statements, the more reason we have of doubting them. What happened to these so overwhelmingly red-haired "Caledonians" then? Red hair is hardly the norm among their modern counterparts.
 
No, it's what's known as a hardly uncommon occurrence; it is not rare for ancient historians to be quite mistaken. Many times they spoke of places they had never been to in their lives, writing about them from hearsay. And when the more modern anthropological evidence does not seem to correlate with their statements, the more reason we have of doubting them. What happened to these so overwhelmingly red-haired "Caledonians" then? Red hair is hardly the norm among their modern counterparts.

My wife is Scottish and knows the country and its people very well and she will be the first to tell you that, although you find a higher percentage of people in Scotland with true red hair compared to other parts of Europe, it still amounts to a very small minority. I've been to Scotland many times and fully agree with her.
 

This thread has been viewed 34393 times.

Back
Top