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

[rms2]

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.

A lot of time has passed since the 1st century.

You still have not produced any real solid reason not to take Tacitus' observations at face value or any evidence that he was "quite mistaken".

Note that he did not say anything about the Caledonians being "overwhelmingly red-haired"; he merely noted the apparent prevalence of red hair and large limbs among them, and it could be that red hair was more common among them then than it is now (although red hair is still fairly common among the Scots).

 

[Drac]

A lot of time has passed since the 1st century.

You still have not produced any real solid reason not to take Tacitus' observations at face value or any evidence that he was "quite mistaken".

Note that he did not say anything about the Caledonians being "overwhelmingly red-haired"; he merely noted the apparent prevalence of red hair and large limbs among them, and it could be that red hair was more common among them then than it is now (although red hair is still fairly common among the Scots).

When you try to use hair color to supposedly identify a people's origin, it does indeed imply that this is one of their chief characteristics. That's what Tacitus did by trying to claim that Caledonians had a "German" origin because of that characteristic. Again, this prompts the pertinent question: what happened to all these so characteristically red-haired people that helped identify them as "Germans"? As far as I know, Scotland has not gone through any major ethno-demographic change since those times (and the influx of other "Germans" should not have altered such a trait, since he also implies that "Germans" are characterized by the same hair color.)

As mentioned before, Gray's large scale survey of hair and eye pigmentation in Scotland in the early 1900s only found about 5% of them to be red-haired. This is hardly the predominant hair color among Scots. Certainly not something you would try to use to attempt to guess their origins.

Either the "Caledonians" were just a tribe with lots of people with red hair (and not the whole of the inhabitants of Scotland), or he's just exaggerating things.

 

[rms2]

Well, I'm willing to argue, if you are.

You are apparently unwilling to just take Tacitus' comments at face value, i.e., that during the 1st century the Caledonians had a lot of big guys with red hair among them.

I am willing to accept the comments for what they are: the observations of a well-respected 1st-century Roman historian, largely based on information from his father-in-law Agricola, who would have seen Caledonian warriors and captives first hand.

Do I think Tacitus was saying that every last Caledonian man, woman and child had large limbs and red hair? No. But those traits must have been prevalent enough to have been marked among that people.

Many of Tacitus' other observations have been born out by archaeological evidence.

Why assume that he did not know what he was talking about when he commented on the large limbs and red hair of the 1st century Caledonians?

What about his comments on the dark, curly hair and generally Iberian look of the Silures of southern Wales?

Are those bogus, too?

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I highly doubt that the Caledonians were any more red-haired than the Scots of today.

Ancient history is filled with exaggerations and gross misconceptions on everything from foreign phenotypes to geography.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Well, I'm willing to argue, if you are.

You are apparently unwilling to just take Tacitus' comments at face value, i.e., that during the 1st century the Caledonians had a lot of big guys with red hair among them.

I am willing to accept the comments for what they are: the observations of a well-respected 1st-century Roman historian, largely based on information from his father-in-law Agricola, who would have seen Caledonian warriors and captives first hand.

Do I think Tacitus was saying that every last Caledonian man, woman and child had large limbs and red hair? No. But those traits must have been prevalent enough to have been marked among that people.

Many of Tacitus' other observations have been born out by archaeological evidence.

Why assume that he did not know what he was talking about when he commented on the large limbs and red hair of the 1st century Caledonians?

What about his comments on the dark, curly hair and generally Iberian look of the Silures of southern Wales?

Are those bogus, too?

Actually, the Silures may have been indigenous to Wales. It seems there is little clarity as regards their origins.

I wonder, do we know with any certainty if Tacitus ever traveled to Iberia and / or Wales and / or Scotland?

 

[Drac]

Well, I'm willing to argue, if you are.

You are apparently unwilling to just take Tacitus' comments at face value, i.e., that during the 1st century the Caledonians had a lot of big guys with red hair among them.

I am willing to accept the comments for what they are: the observations of a well-respected 1st-century Roman historian, largely based on information from his father-in-law Agricola, who would have seen Caledonian warriors and captives first hand.

Do I think Tacitus was saying that every last Caledonian man, woman and child had large limbs and red hair? No. But those traits must have been prevalent enough to have been marked among that people.

Many of Tacitus' other observations have been born out by archaeological evidence.

Why assume that he did not know what he was talking about when he commented on the large limbs and red hair of the 1st century Caledonians?

What about his comments on the dark, curly hair and generally Iberian look of the Silures of southern Wales?

Are those bogus, too?

Tacitus does not say that they had "dark hair", if I remember correctly. The majority of modern day "Iberians" and Welsh do not have curly hair, so this is obviously another doubtful comment of the same sort.

The probable "Iberian" origin and "looks" of the people from Wales/West Britain was also noticed by other ancient historians (Strabo, for example.) Also, 19th and early 20th century British anthropologists were well aware of such phenotypical variation even in the modern British and Irish populations (consult, for example, Grant Allen's summary of their views on this topic in "Ancient Britain: Anglo-Saxon Britain".) So here we have a case that has some more evidence in its favor.

 

[rms2]

Tacitus does not say that they had "dark hair", if I remember correctly. The majority of modern day "Iberians" and Welsh do not have curly hair, so this is obviously another doubtful comment of the same sort.

The probable "Iberian" origin and "looks" of the people from Wales/West Britain was also noticed by other ancient historians (Strabo, for example.) Also, 19th and early 20th century British anthropologists were well aware of such phenotypical variation even in the modern British and Irish populations (consult, for example, Grant Allen's summary of their views on this topic in "Ancient Britain: Anglo-Saxon Britain".) So here we have a case that has some more evidence in its favor.

Tacitus says "dark complexion". Here is the quote from his Agricola:

"The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts."

Why continue to use the physical appearance of modern persons to cast doubt on Tacitus' comments about persons who lived nearly 2,000 years ago? Do you look exactly like either of your grandfathers even?

I think the two observations are of the same order. For some reason you don't like Tacitus' description of the 1st century Caledonians, so you make assertions about it that you are unable to support.

Go on and on about it if you must, but it is what it is: the report of a well-known and well-respected 1st century Roman historian generally regarded as a highly reliable source.

It seems to me we are on solid ground believing that red hair and large limbs were frequent enough among 1st century Caledonians to be worthy of note and that dark complexions and curly hair were common enough among the 1st century Silures to be likewise worthy of note.

Why you want to dismiss those observations out of hand is beyond me, but perhaps it is because you think such observations are all-or-nothing, that Tacitus meant for us to think of the Caledonians as a completely and utterly red-haired, large-limbed tribe, or of the Silures as to-a-person dark-complected and curly haired.

But, you know, think what you want.

 

[Drac]

Tacitus says "dark complexion". Here is the quote from his Agricola:

"The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts."

Why continue to use the physical appearance of modern persons to cast doubt on Tacitus' comments about persons who lived nearly 2,000 years ago? Do you look exactly like either of your grandfathers even?

I think the two observations are of the same order. For some reason you don't like Tacitus' description of the 1st century Caledonians, so you make assertions about it that you are unable to support.

Go on and on about it if you must, but it is what it is: the report of a well-known and well-respected 1st century Roman historian generally regarded as a highly reliable source.

It seems to me we are on solid ground believing that red hair and large limbs were frequent enough among 1st century Caledonians to be worthy of note and that dark complexions and curly hair were common enough among the 1st century Silures to be likewise worthy of note.

Why you want to dismiss those observations out of hand is beyond me, but perhaps it is because you think such observations are all-or-nothing, that Tacitus meant for us to think of the Caledonians as a completely and utterly red-haired, large-limbed tribe, or of the Silures as to-a-person dark-complected and curly haired.

But, you know, think what you want.

"Dark-complexion" is a very relative term. "Dark" compared to whom? Plus it doesn't say "dark haired" either. And Spaniards & Welsh/SW English are predominantly straight/wavy haired, not curly, so that's another dubious assertion which modern observation does not seem to support.

Because people have not changed much in 2000 years. I can show you art work from ancient Egypt that shows surprisingly "modern-looking" people.

You are not a carbon copy of your grandparents (paternal and maternal), if for nothing else than because you are basically the product of both of their ancestries. That's hardly relevant to the case, though. We are talking about a people that were supposedly predominantly red-haired. What happened then? Why is it that in our times they are only 5% of the population instead of the majority of them, as we should expect from Tacitus' characterization?

It is Tacitus' claim that does not seem to have much support. I have John Gray's large scale survey of hair and eye pigmentation in Scotland on "my side". Tacitus apparently only had hearsay on his'. Unless you can come up with evidence for some large-scale influx of non-red-haired people in Scotland since Tacitus' times, I don't see anything that could have caused such a large decline in that trait to reduce it to only a mere 5% of the population.

I already explained to you what Tacitus' words obviously imply. When you are trying to guess an entire people's origins, and you try to use a particular physical trait (in this case red hair) to do this, it obviously implies that said trait must be very common among them, otherwise your "guess" is contradictory or flimsy at best. If I tell you that Amerindians must be of Mongoloid origins because of their craniofacial traits, you naturally will expect most, if not all of them, to share such traits with other Mongoloids, not just a small percentage of them, otherwise my assertion rests on flimsy speculation just because a handful of them share such traits with other Mongoloids.

 

[Wilhelm]

The romans also said the gauls were blonde, today we know the french are not predominantly blonde..(and probably has more to do with the germanics invasions than gauls)

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The romans also said the gauls were blonde, today we know the french are not predominantly blonde..(and probably has more to do with the germanics invasions than gauls)

Also, it was not uncommon for Gauls to bleach their hair. Apparently, this was the case among the warrior class.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Tacitus says "dark complexion". Here is the quote from his Agricola:

"The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts."

Why continue to use the physical appearance of modern persons to cast doubt on Tacitus' comments about persons who lived nearly 2,000 years ago? Do you look exactly like either of your grandfathers even?

I think the two observations are of the same order. For some reason you don't like Tacitus' description of the 1st century Caledonians, so you make assertions about it that you are unable to support.

Go on and on about it if you must, but it is what it is: the report of a well-known and well-respected 1st century Roman historian generally regarded as a highly reliable source.

It seems to me we are on solid ground believing that red hair and large limbs were frequent enough among 1st century Caledonians to be worthy of note and that dark complexions and curly hair were common enough among the 1st century Silures to be likewise worthy of note.

Why you want to dismiss those observations out of hand is beyond me, but perhaps it is because you think such observations are all-or-nothing, that Tacitus meant for us to think of the Caledonians as a completely and utterly red-haired, large-limbed tribe, or of the Silures as to-a-person dark-complected and curly haired.

But, you know, think what you want.

Again, I ask, did Tacitus ever travel throughout Scotland or Wales or Iberia? Does anyone know with any certainty?

Also, no thorough and well-designed anthropological field study measuring the frequency of adult red hair (or any other shade) in Europe exists.

 

[DavidCoutts]

And, just because things are'nt complicated enough, my Genebase results are: R1b1b2a1a2, which Eupedia classifies as a Germanic Haplogroup. However, I tested positive for L21+, which Eupedia classifies as Italio - Celtic.

Clear as mud!

 

[rms2]

And, just because things are'nt complicated enough, my Genebase results are: R1b1b2a1a2, which Eupedia classifies as a Germanic Haplogroup. However, I tested positive for L21+, which Eupedia classifies as Italio - Celtic.

Clear as mud!

R1b1b2a1a2 is P312+. If you tested positive for L21 with Genebase, they should be calling you R1b1b2a1a2f. L21 is downstream of P312, so all L21+ men are necessarily P312+ (but not all P312+ men are L21+, obviously).

With which company did you test L21+?

 

[rms2]

. . .
I already explained to you what Tacitus' words obviously imply . . .

We are talking past each other. I don't accept what you imagine you have "explained". No point in going on with it. Your posts are becoming tedious.

 

[DavidCoutts]

R1b1b2a1a2 is P312+. If you tested positive for L21 with Genebase, they should be calling you R1b1b2a1a2f. L21 is downstream of P312, so all L21+ men are necessarily P312+ (but not all P312+ men are L21+, obviously).

With which company did you test L21+?

I tested with GeneBase.

 

[DavidCoutts]

Would taking an Autosomal DNA Test be useful in determining wether or not I have Germanic ancestry on my father's side?

 

[Drac]

We are talking past each other. I don't accept what you imagine you have "explained". No point in going on with it. Your posts are becoming tedious.

More like what I am saying apparently flies over your head. It is not my fault if you don't understand logic and common sense. Your obtuseness is what already became really tedious since the early posts about this subject.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

More like what I am saying apparently flies over your head. It is not my fault if you don't understand logic and common sense. Your obtuseness is what already became really tedious since the early posts about this subject.

The most reasonable view, given historical, archaeological and genetic facts, is that the ancient Scots were phenotypically little different than what is found today.

 

[Drac]

The most reasonable view, given historical, archaeological and genetic facts, is that the ancient Scots were phenotypically little different than what is found today.

Of course, unless you can find evidence of some large-scale historical migration of a different people that drastically altered the native population. I am not aware that any such thing happened in Scotland, though.

 

[Drac]

Not that they are really necessary, but here are some quotes from British anthropologists putting Tacitus' claim of the preponderance of red hair among "Caledonians" into doubt:

There is, however, a good deal of evidence that the ancient Gauls were not so light-haired as the Germans. There is no doubt that some classical writers confounded the two, not because they had any strong resemblance, but from carelessness about the nationality, character, and complexion of a parcel of barbarians whom they despised. Most educated people nowadays are wonderfully unobservant and untrustworthy on such matters. I have met with some who had been brought into contact with both Orkneymen and Highlanders, without ever finding out the difference between them, though it extends to language, intonation, features, complexion, and moral and mental character, and is pretty considerable in all these respects. And I have heard educated people say seriously that almost all Scotchmen were red-haired (which is exactly what Tacitus said of the Germans); yet we know that a great part of Scotchmen are not red or fair in any sense of the term. - John Beddoe, "The Kelts of Ireland", The Anthropological Review, Volume 8, 1870. Pages 123-124.

Tacitus describes the Caledonians as a red-haired, large-bodied people; and, from that loose observation, infers them to be of German origin; he assigns also a Spanish origin to the Silures on account of their dark features. Writers who seem to have had but an indifferent knowledge of the nature of analytical inquiry are not certainly high authorities to serve as guides for a modern scientific investigator. Indeed, it may be doubted whether history so-called is more serviceable than romance or tradition to him who would seek light on the distinguishing characteristics of races, nations, and peoples. That red hair was conspicuous among the ancient Caledonians we may believe, just as it is among modern Highlanders; but that it was more prevalent than in our own times we may very well question. The considerable proportion of red hair that abounded among this people produced a strong impression on the Romans, and led them to conclude that a prominent characteristic was a universal one; a fallacy of which careless observers are guilty in all ages and in all countries. Hector MacLean, "On the comparative anthropology of Scotland", The Anthropological Review, Volume 4, 1866. Page 209.

Here is one where the author quotes Beddoe about a possible theory regarding who exactly might these so predominantly red-haired "Caledonians" have been that struck Tacitus' fancy (I offered a similar possibility earlier in the thread, when I suggested that perhaps the "Caledonians" were not all Scots but rather a particular group or tribe of people where red-hair was so common as to seem the norm):

We have no reason to doubt that Kymry were beyond the Forth ere the Romans came; but Agricola, who was familiar with them, would scarcely have regarded the Caledonians as a different race from the Britons had they not included another and to him a novel element, with large limbs and "fiery red hair." Attempts of scholars to explain away the description of Tacitus and make them Britons are somewhat feeble. Tacitus, like other good writers, does not waste his words, but means what he says, and only says what he means. Anthropology confirms his remark, and it would be well did scholars consult it instead of spinning endless conjectures. Men with large limbs and red hair are still common in Perthshire, especially Marr, Badenoch, and Athole. They are a different type from the Britons. We need not suppose that all the old Caledonians were of this type: they were probably a mixed race, but this type was numerous enough to strike the attention of the Romans. Who were they? "All we can say of them," writes Dr. Beddoe, " is that they point to an origin from the northern rather than from the Mediterranean long-headed races. The Caledonians might have come over from Denmark and yet borne their Celtic name; but to one who looks at them from the point of view of the physical anthropologist it may seem more likely that they were a Gaelic or a Pictish tribe with a strong dash of the athletic, broad-headed element (i. e., the Bronze Age men)." This, of course, is inconclusive. The name "Caledonian " might come from the country not the race, or, at any rate, not from this element. Hector Maclean draws the word from Gael daoine, the fair or kindred men. The fair complexion points to the north of Europe, and it was maintained by Jamieson that Teutonic names existed in the north-east of Scotland prior to the historical raids of the Northmen. - John Forbes Munro, "The Story of the British Race", 1899. Pages 118-119.