Celtiberian ethnicity_ (See before say that someone is iberian)

Ziober

Regular Member
Messages
539
Reaction score
45
Points
28
Ethnic group
Celtiberian
For all those people biased by anglo-american movies. I would like to show you how spaniards (celtiberians) looks. Thanks to the youtuber The Anthropology Society Guy.

 
Last edited:
Lots of phenotypic diversity in Spain and Portugal, as in Italy, Greece, the Balkans. I don't see anyone here doubting it.

See:
 
That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.
 
For all those people biased by anglo-american movies. I would like to show you how spaniards (celtiberians) looks.

Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? ;) And do they call themselves Celtiberians?
 
.........................................................................................................................................................
 
Last edited:
That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.

What is not true?
 
Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? ;) And do they call themselves Celtiberians?

Of course that we call ourselves celtiberians, in spanish celtíbero/a ( cultured people I mean)
 
I'm sorry but how Hollywood represent " celtiberians " in general ? Do you talkin' about some kind of péplum in celtiberian context or do you talk about modern spaniards ?
 
carrie-fisher-princess-leia-star-wars-c924eaab735423b2.jpg


Dama_de_Elche.jpg
 
That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.

That there is a test that really tells you the percentage of genetic celticity you have or is pseudoscience or is directly a lie or hoax.

And by the way the Lady of Elche does not belong to the culture Celtibera but to the Ibera.
 
Angela, phenotypic diversity is everywhere in Europe, in any European country you find blond people very clear skin and blue eyes and dark brown eyes, the difference between north and south of Europe is in frequency, the further north you are an increase of people clearer and more dark southern story, but this does not mean that you are more or less Celtic, or more or less of the steppe (which is far from the Iberian peninsula) or more or less other categories, but you have simply and historically received more or less solar radiation.

But if we stick to empirical evidence (not to hypotheisis and theories) both Greeks and Romans cited the Celts in the Iberian peninsula on numerous occasions, which other countries can not say, and in the Iberian Peninsula there is one of the highest concentrations of Celtic and Indo-European toponyms, well these are empirical tests not hypotheses and theories.


There are texts in the Iberian Peninsula of several Celtic and non-Celtic Indo-European languages, in how many countries is this cumulation of scientific evidence and not hypotheses and theories?.
 
Angela, phenotypic diversity is everywhere in Europe, in any European country you find blond people very clear skin and blue eyes and dark brown eyes, the difference between north and south of Europe is in frequency, the further north you are an increase of people clearer and more dark southern story, but this does not mean that you are more or less Celtic, or more or less of the steppe (which is far from the Iberian peninsula) or more or less other categories, but you have simply and historically received more or less solar radiation.

But if we stick to empirical evidence (not to hypotheisis and theories) both Greeks and Romans cited the Celts in the Iberian peninsula on numerous occasions, which other countries can not say, and in the Iberian Peninsula there is one of the highest concentrations of Celtic and Indo-European toponyms, well these are empirical tests not hypotheses and theories.


There are texts in the Iberian Peninsula of several Celtic and non-Celtic Indo-European languages, in how many countries is this cumulation of scientific evidence and not hypotheses and theories?.

I think the bolded sentence and the last one as well are both easily falsifiable. I will use just Italy as an example, although there was a "Celtic" presence in other areas as well. All the territory north of the Po River, as well as Liguria and lands even south of the Po into Toscana and the Marche were settled by Celtic/Gallic speaking people in the first millennium BC, not to mention the earlier Urnfied assodicated migrations. Let's not forget also that the Italics were steppe related peoples. Celtic and Italic are on the same branch of the Indo-European tree.

Some of my own ancestors were what are called the Celt-Ligurians of the Ligurian Alps and the Apennines Alps. Indeed, the major linguistic divide in Italy is between what used to be called the Gallo-Italian languages north of the Massa-Senigalia (or La Spezia-Rimini line), and the Eastern Romance languages of the areas south of it. This is similar to Spain in that there were Iberian speaking areas and Indo-European speaking areas even until the arrival of the Romans. The last "Celtic" area of Italy was not conquered by the Romans until 192 BC, and the Ligures later than that.

As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin, yet Spain and Portugal are very low in steppe ancestry, as are many areas of Italy, so how high could their "Celtic" percentage have been? I'm not saying it's not there; I'm just saying it's much lower than some have thought.
300px-Italy_IV_century_BC_-_Latina.svg.png


Quali+sono+le+lingue+romanze+oggi.jpg


search



3f733afbc3cab7da72e4e6b5696e3501--celtic-nations-iberian-peninsula.jpg


In this chart from Haak et al, the steppe portion would have been perhaps in the Iberians as well as the Indo-European speakers, so you can't really double it to get a figure for the "Celtic" portion, so for a rough estimate, what is it, one-third?

Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png


The ancient dna calculators give us an idea of individual results as it compares an individual's raw data directly to the ancient samples. Perhaps you'll want to run your raw data through it, so far we only have one or two Iberian results.

The "steppe" ancestry would have come in with the first Indo-Europeans, then with "Celts" or "Gauls", then with the Germanic tribes. In the case of Italy that would be the Goths and Lombards, so it can't be used to compute "Celtic" ancestry, but it's clear steppe ancestry in southern European is always quite a bit less than in the north, and "farmer" ancestry corresponding higher in the south than in the north.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Calculator-Results/page3?highlight=geneplaza

These are my results and I'm half Emilian, 1/4 eastern Ligurian and 1/4NW Tuscany, so hardly a far northern Italian.:

ANCIENT FARMERS
74.3%


  • WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
    39.2%​
  • LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
    3.3%​
  • NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
    3.4%​
  • EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
    28.4%​


  • STEPPE CULTURES
    25.7%
    • KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
      12.6%​


    • ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
      5.3%​


    • YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)

These are AdeoF's results, northwest Spain:


  • ANCIENT FARMERS
    66.1%
    • WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
      35.3%​


    • LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
      4.6%​


    • NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
      5.6%​


    • EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
      20.6%​




  • STEPPE CULTURES
    29.2%
    • KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
      4.2%​


    • ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
      12.3%​


    • YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)
      12.7%​




  • AFRICAN
    4.3%
    • EAST AFRICAN (modern)
      4.3%​


    • WEST AFRICAN (modern)
      0.0%​
 
Last edited:
I think the bolded sentence and the last one as well are both easily falsifiable. I will use just Italy as an example, although there was a "Celtic" presence in other areas as well. All the territory north of the Po River, as well as Liguria and lands even south of the Po into Toscana and the Marche were settled by Celtic/Gallic speaking people in the first millennium BC, not to mention the earlier Urnfied assodicated migrations. Let's not forget also that the Italics were steppe related peoples. Celtic and Italic are on the same branch of the Indo-European tree.

Some of my ancestors were what are called the Celt-Ligurians of the Ligurian Alps and the Apennines Alps. Indeed, the major linguistic divide in Italy is between what used to be called the Gallo-Italian languages north of the Massa-Senigalia (or La Spezia-Rimini line), and the Eastern Romance languages of the areas south of it. This is similar to Spain in that there were Iberian speaking areas and Indo-European speaking areas even until the arrival of the Romans. The last "Celtic" area of Italy was not conquered by the Romans until 192 BC, and the Ligures even later.

As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin, yet Spain and Portugal are very low in steppe ancestry, as are many areas of Italy, so how high could their "Celtic" percentage have been? I'm not saying it's not there; I'm just saying it's much lower than some have thought.
300px-Italy_IV_century_BC_-_Latina.svg.png


Quali+sono+le+lingue+romanze+oggi.jpg


search



3f733afbc3cab7da72e4e6b5696e3501--celtic-nations-iberian-peninsula.jpg


In this chart from Haak et al, the steppe portion would have been perhaps in the Iberians as well as the Indo-European speakers, so you can't really double it to get a figure for the "Celtic" portion, so for a rough estimate, what is it, one-third?

Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png


The ancient dna calculators give us an idea of individual results as it compares an individual's raw data directly to the ancient samples. Perhaps you'll want to run your raw data through it, so far we only have one or two Iberian results.

The "steppe" ancestry would have come in with the first Indo-Europeans, then with "Celts" or "Gauls", then with the Germanic tribes. In the case of Italy that would be the Goths and Lombards, so it can't be used to compute "Celtic" ancestry, but it's clear steppe ancestry in southern European is always quite a bit less than in the north, and "farmer" ancestry corresponding higher in the south than in the north.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Calculator-Results/page3?highlight=geneplaza

These are my results and I'm half Emilian, 1/4 eastern Ligurian and 1/4NW Tuscany, so hardly a far northern Italian.:

ANCIENT FARMERS
74.3%


  • WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
    39.2%​
  • LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
    3.3%​
  • NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
    3.4%​
  • EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
    28.4%​


  • STEPPE CULTURES
    25.7%
    • KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
      12.6%​


    • ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
      5.3%​


    • YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)

These are AdeoF's results, northwest Spain:


  • ANCIENT FARMERS
    66.1%
    • WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
      35.3%​


    • LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
      4.6%​


    • NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
      5.6%​


    • EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
      20.6%​




  • STEPPE CULTURES
    29.2%
    • KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
      4.2%​


    • ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
      12.3%​


    • YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)
      12.7%​




  • AFRICAN
    4.3%
    • EAST AFRICAN (modern)
      4.3%​


    • WEST AFRICAN (modern)
      0.0%​
'
Oh, I don't understand the significance of the video of the people marching in a religious procession with those white headpieces. Southern Italians and Sicilians do the same thing.

As for phenotype, yes, there are some dark haired people in Scandinavia, for example, but far fewer as a percentage of the whole than fairer haired people are in Southern European countries. There is more homogeneity in the north than in the south.

There are also, imo, more extreme differences in terms of phenotype in southern Europe than in northern Europe.
 
Last edited:
As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin


Do we really have enough indications for that already? I mean, considering that the Indo-European arrival in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have happened quite late in comparison with other parts of Europe, many centuries after the main emigration out from the steppes, wouldn't we expect their steppe admixture to be already very diluted (e.g. in the order of 30% more than 50%), especially if they came not directly from northern/northwestern Europe, but rather from a more southerly place like France, Switzerland or Northern Italy?
 
Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe? if they are going to say that there was no writing, but of course we are joining the steppe to the Celtic and have nothing to do, the classical people never said that there were Celts in the steppe, they referred to Gaul (France) and Spain, even if the Celtic people had part of their ancestors in the steppe was long before considered as such, since Celtic not only genetics, is culture, is language, etc., which by the way the difference between the north of Spain and France in stage component is very reduced.


Therefore you can not know the percentage of celticity of a person relating it to its steppe component because they have nothing to do, it is as absurd as a calculator that tells you the percentage of Romano has a current Spanish.

The right would be based on what the classical world called Celtic and where the toponymy and Celtic texts, France, Spain, Northern Italy, in the moment before the invasion of the Roman empire remove an autosomic component and from here a calculator of the celticity, although I have always thought that all this aspect of the genetics is very manipulable and on the other hand in the calculator K36 very interesting things are observed.
 
I am not using calculators but in K36 in the attached link it could be said that the regions that exceed 80% would be the classical celtic regions observing according to this calculator a surprising genetic homogeneity and that are also the rich areas in R1B, maybe here Basques and Aquitans deviate from the above.


I like to insist on my condition of amateur and not professional in genetic questions, I apologize beforehand if I say some nonsense.

https://fusiontables.googleuserconte...mplt=2&hml=KML

Ziober gives me the feeling that you are not Spanish and less than Rioja.
 
Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe?

That's not a strong argument. Celtic as we know it with its main distinctive features is an Iron Age language family. A common Proto-Celtic language may have been spoken as late as 1,200-1,100 BC, in the very end of the Bronze Age. So, one doesn't need to wonder why there is nothing Celtic in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All the Indo-European migration/expansion issue has to do with an entirely different and much earlier historic period, probably as distant from Proto-Celtic as we are now from Proto-Germanic and Classical Latin. You can't find Celtic toponymy in the steppes because Celts didn't even exist then, and it is the Celts that descend partly from the steppe tribes, not the other way around.
 
That's not a strong argument. Celtic as we know it with its main distinctive features is an Iron Age language family. A common Proto-Celtic language may have been spoken as late as 1,200-1,100 BC, in the very end of the Bronze Age. So, one doesn't need to wonder why there is nothing Celtic in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All the Indo-European migration/expansion issue has to do with an entirely different and much earlier historic period, probably as distant from Proto-Celtic as we are now from Proto-Germanic and Classical Latin. You can't find Celtic toponymy in the steppes because Celts didn't even exist then, and it is the Celts that descend partly from the steppe tribes, not the other way around.

So why is the celticity percentage associated directly with the steppe?
 


Do we really have enough indications for that already? I mean, considering that the Indo-European arrival in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have happened quite late in comparison with other parts of Europe, many centuries after the main emigration out from the steppes, wouldn't we expect their steppe admixture to be already very diluted (e.g. in the order of 30% more than 50%), especially if they came not directly from northern/northwestern Europe, but rather from a more southerly place like France, Switzerland or Northern Italy?

That's a good point, Ygorbr, as far as the people who actually went into Spain and Italy. We need more proximate ancient dna samples to compare not only to the steppe, but to Iberian and Italian and Balkan MN people, and to modern people of those areas, which is why I said they might have been as much as half-steppe.

We do have a few ancient samples which can given us some hints, however. The admixture took place in central Europe, yes.

I should have initially posted the entire visual from Haak et al:

aaaaa.jpg


Then there are the Rathlin samples. Does anyone have a cite or a graphic that breaks down the "steppe" percentage of the Bronze Age English samples? As far as I remember Cassidy et al broke it down into farmer, hunter-gatherer (both WHG and EHG) and then the "Caucasian" element.

Anyway, we do get some information about similarity of various areas to the Rathlin samples, and while Spain has more than Italy, it's pretty faint.

c8c908bc3ab71990c98674d78c660f01.jpg


Anyway, the "steppe" in southern Europe, 26% in my case, 29% in Adeo's, for example, wouldn't only have come from "Insular Celtic" or Rathlin related peoples. It would have come from the Italics, Ligures, Veneti, part of the ancestry of the Iberians etc., as well as the later Germanic tribes and whatever they brought with them. That might all be more related to the Hungarian Bronze Age part of the graphic.

Oh, one thing I should mention is that the "Northern Spain" in the Haak graphic,is, according to the authors, Pais Vasco.
 
But if there is a category that puts Basque.

We also have very old Indo-European languages in Anatolia, do you know if there is much steppe in Anatolia? in the map does not see much steppe, then in Greece despite being so close to the steppe apparently there is little, this as explained ?.


I insist in my humble opinion as an amateur I believe that the steppe can explain part of the Indo-European phenomenon but not everything and that still to be explained.


Just as the relationship between R1B and Indo-European still has too many obscure gaps that are filled with unconvincing explanations.
 

This thread has been viewed 18827 times.

Back
Top