Battle of European R1a vs. R1b

[dundee]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

sorry for my bad english, it is a lot text and i used more google as my brain.
But let me say this. I have translate the complete genetic here in this project. A really wonderful work and the most is right. But the interpretation is a bit sparly and more celtic-friendly as correct.
The author seems to have a prejudice against R1a.

the report on the genetics of R1a and R1b seems like a battle for Europe's true origin. One has the impression will be the whole of Europe Celt and even Slavs call themselves pre-Celts.
The Germanic component is actually presented as a marginal steppe people from Siberia.

Is described here in particular, the R1b from the southern or western Black Sea region, R1a but more from the eastern Black Sea region is. That is correct, but It seems more plausible that only by common strains of both the success of the Indo-Germans constituted.

Well, the fact is that in the high mountains south of the Black Sea, a very unfavorable to domesticate place for horses or even to reinvent wheels. Anyone who has even pulled a cart over mountains, know what I'm talking about.

It is also known, that is to reduce the scale deposits of glaciers in the steppes much easier than caves in mountains.

And the floor of the Steppes is much less explored archaeologically as Anatolia.

The work presented in higher level of R1b appears to be more of a prejudice against Germans.
The tip of this iceberg is the appearance of the Germanic languages as a mixture of Celtic and Slavic.

Point 1:
Slavic is a conglomerate of many languages, her sentence structure is closer to Latin than Germanic.
Your letter system is borrowed from the Greek. Slav means "slave". Your writing has evolved from a secret language of the slaves of Rome, they carried on into the Eastern Europe.

Point 2:
Germanic can not be a mixture of Celtic and Slavic, for their runes are found almost all over in Northern- Middle- and Eastern Europe to the Black Sea.

The record layout is very different from Celtic, Roman and Slavic languages.

Germanic has clearly developed from an Indo-European language. It was probably the last tribe from the Indo-European language family.

Point 3:
The enormous spread of R1a in Asia but also to prove, in India, which this nation has expanded much more aggressive than R1a R1b. It must always learn more innovations than it would be safe for R1b and R1b
more attractive to join the strongest brother tribe.

So went R1b not a loser, rather, as a brother in the
R1a strains were, in turn, forced the weak R1b pure strains in the hostile mountains of the Southwest, where they found their way to Europe.
This all fits in the unfavorable position of the capital of the Hittite empire away from each trade route, and its sudden demise.

The departure to the West must therefore have had a solid base and was not in the south but from the east.

Point 4:
When later also penetrated R1a/R1b mixed tribes in the west, they displaced the Celts in particular from these regions. You have to face them so have had an advantage.

Sure had both the proto-Celtic and the proto-Germanic technology already developed further.
Now imagine a scenario that the Proto-Germanic, the proto-Celts would be appreciated for their craftsmanship and thus integrated into their tribes..

Point 5:
That the Germans themselves were limited to North and Eastern Europe uses advance a certain respect for other peoples. They settled either in Western or Southern Europe. Why?

If you look at the German American Nordic religion look closely, there seems an echo of the true story to find. In Germanic mythology the three strains is discussed. Also of 2 divine dynasties, the Aesir and Vanir.

Also know that some parallels to Germanic mythology to Celtic mythology. Tyr and Toutatis, and Taranis Wotan,
Giants, dwarfs, elves, trees, animals and sacred sites but also calendar and festivals.

It almost seems as if the Germans some Celtic gods as Vanir have taken in their own religion, but others replaced with Germanic gods and thus create peace in heaven.

It is interesting in this respect also, that they believed the world would perish in a huge battle (Ragnarok), fight together with Aesir and Vanir against giants and mythical monsters.

Point 5:
The Celts and Germans are mixed at the intersection is completely normal. But the Germans are fighting for the Celts and the Celts for Germans tends to suggest that they are always considered as brother nations, not a Celtic or Germanic.

Likewise, the boundaries were flowing among those Eastern European tribes who were appointed by Rome as the Scythians.

Obviously, the Germans considered both the eastern and the western neighbor nation as a brother nation.

Only the submission of the Celts by Caesar and the development of a Slavic language and the victory in the Varus battle may have changed their view of the world completely.

Rome has thus made the Germans as a people.

It would be, but not a German-Slavic branch, but rather an act originally mixed R1a/R1b Germanic branch.

This is also the mutation of the lactose tolerance to it has 2000-year-old center always in the middle of Germany and its spread significantly in France and Poland are demonstrated.

Finally, slaves brought their secret language deep in the free East, where it developed as an innovation, and finally with Slavic immigrants found their way back to Europe.

point 6:
The royal families all belong to the R1b is, in turn, to the particular success of West Germans and their convenient location to Scandinavia, France and England.

The Anglo-Saxons established centuries ago the king of England. The sex of the French franc is also the creation or Normans (Norsemen, Vikings) back.
Also the Spanish and Italian race is West Germanic origin. Let us recall because of Alaric and Theodoric.

The Russian family of the Romanov goes back to the Rus, that was the name of the Vikings, from Norway exhibited along the Volga and the Dnieper, the whole nobility of the Russian Empire.

point 7:
West German table is not only today's High German, but also Dutch, English and Scandinavian languages.

Every German can still understand parts of the Gothic language of 2,000 years ago. He is also capable of Scandinavian and Dutch, with some imagination (ok, really high imagination) to understand.
(Though, some not even understand Frisian or Bavarian.

The English language is a West Germanic base system.
Old English is essentially a development of the Anglo-Saxon from the 5th Century
It still uses a jargon that us more like a
a complicated "Minne Song" in a German dialect spoken north extreme occurs.

From the Latin, the modern English has borrowed mostly neologisms. The English language is that of the world differ in the furthest in writing and pronunciation.

in result:
Unfortunately, it is up to date so the world would rather be Celt.
England would never be German manner (Anglo-Saxons). Scandinavians keep the Vikings for Eastern Celts and even the German believe they are actually Celtic. This paper confirms that Impression.

But not only the language, even the lactose tolerance among Caucasians in England, Scandinavia, Netherlands, USA and Australia is a legacy of the good old Germans. And the ancient ancestors were not from Hitler.

Germans, Romans, Celts and Slavs (which in my opinion more
Scythians should be called, are Indo-Europeans.
R1b dominated Western Europe, R1a dominated northern Asia, including Siberia. So who is more successful?

Hitler was not a modern German, and probably had more Jewish ancestors. Even the pedigree of the great Abraham Lincoln has beautiful black branches and Stalin would easily pass as the Vikings. Probably we will find a brother in Gandhi.

Ultimately, we are thus all Africans.
So it is not necessary to make R1b into bright hero.


Have a nice first advent.

greets from the ancient german part.

[Dalmat]

thats a bunch of crap


Sloveni/Slaveni...itd(Slavs)-means word speakers,ppl who understand each other.
Njemci/Nemci...itd(Germans)-means mutes,ppl we dont understand.

Roman word for slave was "servus".


Secondly,we say here "peder" for faggot/gay,and its pronounced similar to Spanish name Pedro,so does that mean by your logic that all Pedros are fags?

Rest of it i didnt bother to read.

[how yes no 2]

Point 1:
Slavic is a conglomerate of many languages, her sentence structure is closer to Latin than Germanic.
Your letter system is borrowed from the Greek. Slav means "slave". Your writing has evolved from a secret language of the slaves of Rome, they carried on into the Eastern Europe.

Nope, Germans of today are conglomerate of many nations... original Germans were dominantly belonging to haplogroup I
(I1 and I2b)

50% of today Germans is R1b which are of same origin as Celtic people... they became Germanic by living in Germania...
in fact, Germania in times of Roman empire was not about nation origin but about way of living...

you can clearly see it from the classification of Vistula Venedi tribes (who were originally Sarmatian and from whom Slavs largely origin)...

From the 2nd century AD, Roman authors saw the lands between the Rhine and the Vistula rivers as Germania. East of the Vistula was classed as Sarmatia.
The 2nd-century geographer Ptolemy makes that boundary clear. In his section on Sarmatia he places the Greater Ouenedai along the entire Venedic Bay, which can be located from the context on the southern shores of the Baltic. He names tribes south of these Greater Venedae both along the eastern bank of the Vistula and further east.[5] So it seems that his "Venedicus bay" was the Bay of Danzig, still inhabited by speakers of Baltic languages in the Middle Ages. The area was part of Prussia and only absorbed into Poland in 1569.
Pliny the Elder also places the Veneti along the Baltic coast. He calls them the Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi). [6]
This region was barely known to the Romans a century earlier than Ptolemy.
Tacitus, writing in AD 98 did not refer to the Vistula as a boundary, but simply locates the Veneti among the peoples on the eastern fringe of Germania. He was uncertain of their ethnic identity:
The Veneti have borrowed largely from Sarmatian ways; their plundering forays take them all over the wooded and mountainous country that rises between the Peucini [Germanic-speakers north of Dacia] and the Fenni [Finno-Ugric hunter-gatherers of Finland and the eastern Baltic]. Nevertheless, they are to be classed as Germani, for they have settled houses, carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot; in all these respects they differ from the Sarmatians, who live in wagons or on horseback. [7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

in the land of Scythia to the westward dwells, first of all, the race of the Gepidae, surrounded by great and famous rivers. For the Tisia flows through it on the north and northwest, and on the southwest is the great Danube. On the east it is cut by the Flutausis, a swiftly eddying stream that sweeps whirling into the Ister's waters. (34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling in the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart. (36) But on the shore of Ocean, where the floods of the river Vistula empty from three mouths, the Vidivarii dwell, a people gathered out of various tribes. Beyond them the Aesti, a subject race, likewise hold the shore of Ocean.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/.../jordgeti.html
Jordanes - the origin and deeds of Goths

Point 2:
Germanic can not be a mixture of Celtic and Slavic, for their runes are found almost all over in Northern- Middle- and Eastern Europe to the Black Sea.The record layout is very different from Celtic, Roman and Slavic languages.

as I showed above Germania in ancient Rome and Greece is about style of living (settled in houses and not nomads as in Sarmatia), not about origin...

Germanic has clearly developed from an Indo-European language. It was probably the last tribe from the Indo-European language family.

I do not know what you mean by last tribe from IE family... perhaps most recent branch...
try reading ancient Indian text written in sanskrit by knowing German only...
you will not understand almost anything, while with Serbian I will recognize lot of words.... truth is that Slavic languages are much closer to the languages of India and Iran than the Germanic languages... which is very logical taking into account that IE languages were likely spread in Iran and India by R1a carrying Scythians...

Point 3:
The enormous spread of R1a in Asia but also to prove, in India, which this nation has expanded much more aggressive than R1a R1b. It must always learn more innovations than it would be safe for R1b and R1b
more attractive to join the strongest brother tribe.
So went R1b not a loser, rather, as a brother in the
R1a strains were, in turn, forced the weak R1b pure strains in the hostile mountains of the Southwest, where they found their way to Europe.
This all fits in the unfavorable position of the capital of the Hittite empire away from each trade route, and its sudden demise.
The departure to the West must therefore have had a solid base and was not in the south but from the east.

Hittite empire most likely has nothing to do with R1b... it can be related to haplogroup G that matches its spread very nicely...
see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...4&postcount=28

R1b is likely to have passed through Asia minor to Europe in pre-Hettite times
see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...4/?tool=pubmed

Point 4:

When later also penetrated R1a/R1b mixed tribes in the west, they displaced the Celts in particular from these regions. You have to face them so have had an advantage.

there are no mixed R1a/R1b tribes...
it seems that the split was very early in history...
Celts were R1b

Sure had both the proto-Celtic and the proto-Germanic technology already developed further.
Now imagine a scenario that the Proto-Germanic, the proto-Celts would be appreciated for their craftsmanship and thus integrated into their tribes..

proto-Celts were R1b, and proto-Germanic were I1 and I2b1
those are different people of different origin....
and yes Germans seems to have been throughout history most talented Europeans for technical sciences/craftmanship, but not so much for art...
different cultures develope under different circumstances, which determines priorities of their cultural values...

Point 5:

That the Germans themselves were limited to North and Eastern Europe uses advance a certain respect for other peoples. They settled either in Western or Southern Europe. Why?
If you look at the German American Nordic religion look closely, there seems an echo of the true story to find. In Germanic mythology the three strains is discussed. Also of 2 divine dynasties, the Aesir and Vanir.

?

Also know that some parallels to Germanic mythology to Celtic mythology. Tyr and Toutatis, and Taranis Wotan,
Giants, dwarfs, elves, trees, animals and sacred sites but also calendar and festivals.

that is because of 50% of nowdays Germans is R1b and thus likely origin from Celts who lived in Germania... while less than 35% can be related to Germanic people....

It almost seems as if the Germans some Celtic gods as Vanir have taken in their own religion, but others replaced with Germanic gods and thus create peace in heaven.

that is what I think must have happened considering that most of Germans of today origin from Celts or pre-celtic people, and much less Germans of today origin from original Germanic people...

It is interesting in this respect also, that they believed the world would perish in a huge battle (Ragnarok), fight together with Aesir and Vanir against giants and mythical monsters.

very strange myth... let's hope it will not happen...

Point 5:
The Celts and Germans are mixed at the intersection is completely normal. But the Germans are fighting for the Celts and the Celts for Germans tends to suggest that they are always considered as brother nations, not a Celtic or Germanic.
Likewise, the boundaries were flowing among those Eastern European tribes who were appointed by Rome as the Scythians.

as I said Germans of today are likely to be more Celtic in origin than Germanic (unlike Swedes for example)

otherwise there is no brotherhood as Celts were conquered by Germanic Franks and Burgundians in France, and by Germanic Langobardi in Italy... and by Visigoths in Spain, and Osthrogoths in Italy...

in genetics, closest people to original Germanic people (dominantly I1 and I2b1 who merged later into Germanic as it does not correlate with I1 in Scandinavia) are Sardinians (dominantly I2a1), proto-Serbs (dominantly I2a2) and perhaps proto-Croats (dominantly I2a2)... while Celts (dominantly R1b) are genetically more brothers to Scythians (dominantly R1a)

historically, Germans of today are mix of I1 and R1b, while Slavs are mix of R1b and I2a2

Obviously, the Germans considered both the eastern and the western neighbor nation as a brother nation.
Only the submission of the Celts by Caesar and the development of a Slavic language and the victory in the Varus battle may have changed their view of the world completely.

Slavic languages as satem speaking Indo-European variants probably origin from (or are identical to) Scythian/Sarmatian languages, as Iranian and Idian languages are satem as well..

Rome has thus made the Germans as a people.It would be, but not a German-Slavic branch, but rather an act originally mixed R1a/R1b Germanic branch.

nope, Germania was way of living... Celts were subdued by Roman emopire which influenced their languages and development....north from Roman empire were two areas struggling to defend freedom from expanding Roman empire: Germania and Sarmatia... people in Germania lived in houses, people in Sarmatia were nomads moving around....

there is no R1a/R1b Germanic branch.... Germanic branch was I1 and perhaps I2b...

This is also the mutation of the lactose tolerance to it has 2000-year-old center always in the middle of Germany and its spread significantly in France and Poland are demonstrated.
Finally, slaves brought their secret language deep in the free East, where it developed as an innovation, and finally with Slavic immigrants found their way back to Europe.

mind your language...
Slavic name for Germans - Nemci means dumb/mute/not able to speak

actually Romans called Slavs Sclaveni, and not slaves, which is completelly different word... btw. how would you react if I claim that word Germans is derived from word germs, as those people were dirty carriers of all diseases?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen

point 6:
The royal families all belong to the R1b is, in turn, to the particular success of West Germans and their convenient location to Scandinavia, France and England.

perhaps, but I guess that means they origin from Celts mostly...

The Anglo-Saxons established centuries ago the king of England. The sex of the French franc is also the creation or Normans (Norsemen, Vikings) back.
Also the Spanish and Italian race is West Germanic origin. Let us recall because of Alaric and Theodoric.

genetically, German conquerers of areas (Franks, Langobards, Suebi, Goths) contributed some I1 to areas (France, Italy, northwest Spain/Portugal... some of them also carried some R1b that origins from previously germanized Celts... they didnot enter areas peacefully, but took them by force... they have interrupted cultural development, but were assimilated into more dominant cultures...

The Russian family of the Romanov goes back to the Rus, that was the name of the Vikings, from Norway exhibited along the Volga and the Dnieper, the whole nobility of the Russian Empire.

Rus tribe come from Scandinavia not from Germany proper...
Scandinavia is mostly mix of R1a, I1 and N
not much R1b

point 7:
West German table is not only today's High German, but also Dutch, English and Scandinavian languages.
Every German can still understand parts of the Gothic language of 2,000 years ago. He is also capable of Scandinavian and Dutch, with some imagination (ok, really high imagination) to understand.
(Though, some not even understand Frisian or Bavarian.
The English language is a West Germanic base system.
Old English is essentially a development of the Anglo-Saxon from the 5th Century
It still uses a jargon that us more like a
a complicated "Minne Song" in a German dialect spoken north extreme occurs.

Romanians can understand Italian, French and Spanish, but their origin is completely different...
every nation has some language... and historical events influenced spread of languages... Latin was originally spoken only in area around small village called Rome... now languages derived from it are spoken in Italy, Spain, France, Romania, latin America...

From the Latin, the modern English has borrowed mostly neologisms. The English language is that of the world differ in the furthest in writing and pronunciation.
in result:
Unfortunately, it is up to date so the world would rather be Celt.
England would never be German manner (Anglo-Saxons). Scandinavians keep the Vikings for Eastern Celts and even the German believe they are actually Celtic. This paper confirms that Impression.

Germans of today are actually in their origin more Celtic than Germanic, same holds much more for Dutch and English...

most truly Germanic nation are Swedes probably... you can also see that in their mythology that is best preserved Germanic elements...

But not only the language, even the lactose tolerance among Caucasians in England, Scandinavia, Netherlands, USA and Australia is a legacy of the good old Germans. And the ancient ancestors were not from Hitler.

?
Hitler was just a short episode in German history...
guy managed to use propaganda to mess up with mind of the people to manipulate them without real reason into war for "living space"... he is not first or last person to do it... Roman empire did the same conquest, Napoleon too... just they are further a way in history so we do not see them as pure evil.... it's not like all Germans are to blame for that... it can happen to any people under strong enough propaganda...

Germans, Romans, Celts and Slavs (which in my opinion more
Scythians should be called, are Indo-Europeans.
R1b dominated Western Europe, R1a dominated northern Asia, including Siberia. So who is more successful?

yes, Scythians sounds more proper from historical perspective...
but, word "skitati" in Serbian and Croatian language (I guess same is in other Slavic languages) has a meaning to wander around, it is about nomad style of life... and Slavs although they are likely to origin from nomad tribes of Sarmatia are for long time no more nomad tribes... in my opinion, with rejecting nomad style of life, they have stopped using the name...

anyway, success is not just about wars and domination...
it is about creating culture as well...
and those two do not go together...
wars destroy culture, and cultural achievements are due to long periods of peace...

Hitler was not a modern German, and probably had more Jewish ancestors. Even the pedigree of the great Abraham Lincoln has beautiful black branches and Stalin would easily pass as the Vikings. Probably we will find a brother in Gandhi.
Ultimately, we are thus all Africans.
So it is not necessary to make R1b into bright hero.

agreed

[Mzungu mchagga]

From what I've read about a tribe called Chatti (supposedly the ancestral form of today's Hesse), which settled along the east side of the Rhine at the borders of the Roman Empire, they were long time considered as a Germanic tribe. Recent archeological studies found out that they were more Celtic with some Germanic features. There is some evidence that Celtic and Germanic tribes east of the Rhine lived in mostly peaceful coesistence and cultural exchange. Later on they all became somewhat more "germanized" and regarded as Germanic.

[Yorkie]

Nope, Germans of today are conglomerate of many nations... original Germans were dominantly belonging to haplogroup I
(I1 and I2b)

50% of today Germans is R1b which are of same origin as Celtic people... they became Germanic by living in Germania...
in fact, Germania in times of Roman empire was not about nation origin but about way of living...

you can clearly see it from the classification of Vistula Venedi tribes (who were originally Sarmatian and from whom Slavs largely origin)...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti



http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/.../jordgeti.html
Jordanes - the origin and deeds of Goths



as I showed above Germania in ancient Rome and Greece is about style of living (settled in houses and not nomads as in Sarmatia), not about origin...



I do not know what you mean by last tribe from IE family... perhaps most recent branch...
try reading ancient Indian text written in sanskrit by knowing German only...
you will not understand almost anything, while with Serbian I will recognize lot of words.... truth is that Slavic languages are much closer to the languages of India and Iran than the Germanic languages... which is very logical taking into account that IE languages were likely spread in Iran and India by R1a carrying Scythians...



Hittite empire most likely has nothing to do with R1b... it can be related to haplogroup G that matches its spread very nicely...
see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...4&postcount=28

R1b is likely to have passed through Asia minor to Europe in pre-Hettite times
see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...4/?tool=pubmed





there are no mixed R1a/R1b tribes...
it seems that the split was very early in history...
Celts were R1b



proto-Celts were R1b, and proto-Germanic were I1 and I2b1
those are different people of different origin....
and yes Germans seems to have been throughout history most talented Europeans for technical sciences/craftmanship, but not so much for art...
different cultures develope under different circumstances, which determines priorities of their cultural values...


?



that is because of 50% of nowdays Germans is R1b and thus likely origin from Celts who lived in Germania... while less than 35% can be related to Germanic people....



that is what I think must have happened considering that most of Germans of today origin from Celts or pre-celtic people, and much less Germans of today origin from original Germanic people...

very strange myth... let's hope it will not happen...



as I said Germans of today are likely to be more Celtic in origin than Germanic (unlike Swedes for example)

otherwise there is no brotherhood as Celts were conquered by Germanic Franks and Burgundians in France, and by Germanic Langobardi in Italy... and by Visigoths in Spain, and Osthrogoths in Italy...

in genetics, closest people to original Germanic people (dominantly I1 and I2b1 who merged later into Germanic as it does not correlate with I1 in Scandinavia) are Sardinians (dominantly I2a1), proto-Serbs (dominantly I2a2) and perhaps proto-Croats (dominantly I2a2)... while Celts (dominantly R1b) are genetically more brothers to Scythians (dominantly R1a)

historically, Germans of today are mix of I1 and R1b, while Slavs are mix of R1b and I2a2



Slavic languages as satem speaking Indo-European variants probably origin from (or are identical to) Scythian/Sarmatian languages, as Iranian and Idian languages are satem as well..



nope, Germania was way of living... Celts were subdued by Roman emopire which influenced their languages and development....north from Roman empire were two areas struggling to defend freedom from expanding Roman empire: Germania and Sarmatia... people in Germania lived in houses, people in Sarmatia were nomads moving around....

there is no R1a/R1b Germanic branch.... Germanic branch was I1 and perhaps I2b...



mind your language...
Slavic name for Germans - Nemci means dumb/mute/not able to speak

actually Romans called Slavs Sclaveni, and not slaves, which is completelly different word... btw. how would you react if I claim that word Germans is derived from word germs, as those people were dirty carriers of all diseases?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen


perhaps, but I guess that means they origin from Celts mostly...



genetically, German conquerers of areas (Franks, Langobards, Suebi, Goths) contributed some I1 to areas (France, Italy, northwest Spain/Portugal... some of them also carried some R1b that origins from previously germanized Celts... they didnot enter areas peacefully, but took them by force... they have interrupted cultural development, but were assimilated into more dominant cultures...



Rus tribe come from Scandinavia not from Germany proper...
Scandinavia is mostly mix of R1a, I1 and N
not much R1b



Romanians can understand Italian, French and Spanish, but their origin is completely different...
every nation has some language... and historical events influenced spread of languages... Latin was originally spoken only in area around small village called Rome... now languages derived from it are spoken in Italy, Spain, France, Romania, latin America...



Germans of today are actually in their origin more Celtic than Germanic, same holds much more for Dutch and English...

most truly Germanic nation are Swedes probably... you can also see that in their mythology that is best preserved Germanic elements...


?
Hitler was just a short episode in German history...
guy managed to use propaganda to mess up with mind of the people to manipulate them without real reason into war for "living space"... he is not first or last person to do it... Roman empire did the same conquest, Napoleon too... just they are further a way in history so we do not see them as pure evil.... it's not like all Germans are to blame for that... it can happen to any people under strong enough propaganda...


yes, Scythians sounds more proper from historical perspective...
but, word "skitati" in Serbian and Croatian language (I guess same is in other Slavic languages) has a meaning to wander around, it is about nomad style of life... and Slavs although they are likely to origin from nomad tribes of Sarmatia are for long time no more nomad tribes... in my opinion, with rejecting nomad style of life, they have stopped using the name...

anyway, success is not just about wars and domination...
it is about creating culture as well...
and those two do not go together...
wars destroy culture, and cultural achievements are due to long periods of peace...



agreed

I always enjoy your postings, and share your enthusiasm for the topics. I tend to agree with you that the Proto-Celts were predominantly R1b and the Proto-Germanics were predominantly I1 and I2b1. In terms of being ultimately part of the same I haplogroup, you are correct that bearers of I2a1 [you mention Sardinians] and I2a2 [you mention Croats and Serbs] are closer to the original stock of the Proto-Germanics. However, don't forget to include the north-German-founded, north-west European form of I2a2- I2a2b-Isles, which several authors [Sykes, Klyosov etc] see as being brought to Britain by Anglo-Saxons.

I am afraid that you are wrong regarding Scandinavia being 'a mix of R1a1, I1 and N and not much R1b'. In truth, modern day Scandinavia has roughly an almost equal mix of I1, R1a1 and R1b with Norway having the most R1a1.

To reiterate, I agree with you that R1b is clearly the majority signature of the Proto-Celts. R1b has a clear link with the spread of Celtic languages. Despite the efforts of a 'wanna-be-Viking' faction active within genetic genealogy to convince us otherwise, most R1b is of Celtic origin. However certain forms of R1b, such as U106/S21, the rarer U198/S29 and the recently discovered 'Norse' form of R1b found in Clan MacLeod and tested for by Ethnoancestry as snp S182, seem to be Germanic-leaning.

[how yes no 2]

However, don't forget to include the north-German-founded, north-west European form of I2a2- I2a2b-Isles, which several authors [Sykes, Klyosov etc] see as being brought to Britain by Anglo-Saxons.

I am not 100% convinced about Isles clades, but at the moment origin from Anglo-Saxons is most logical explanation... Isles clades might be in UK much before Anglo-Saxons... otherwise we would be likely to find them in Germany as well....do you perhaps know whether the spread of Isles clades correlates with spread of I1 in various areas of UK?

I am afraid that you are wrong regarding Scandinavia being 'a mix of R1a1, I1 and N and not much R1b'. In truth, modern day Scandinavia has roughly an almost equal mix of I1, R1a1 and R1b with Norway having the most R1a1.

true, I was wrong there... btw. I mentioned N because I counted Finland in Scandinavia as well...

To reiterate, I agree with you that R1b is clearly the majority signature of the Proto-Celts. R1b has a clear link with the spread of Celtic languages. Despite the efforts of a 'wanna-be-Viking' faction active within genetic genealogy to convince us otherwise, most R1b is of Celtic origin. However certain forms of R1b, such as U106/S21, the rarer U198/S29 and the recently discovered 'Norse' form of R1b found in Clan MacLeod and tested for by Ethnoancestry as snp S182, seem to be Germanic-leaning.

I think there are Germanic R1b clades... but I claim that before becoming Germanic those people were Celtic or pre-Celtic...

[Segia]

Can somebody affirm what language spoke a guy when a "x" mutation took place in his monoparental chromosome? What language did speak the "P" guy who gave origin to a "Q" or "R" dude? And their mothers? Do all his descendants speak the same language?

That's the reason why is absurd to correlate mutations and ethnolinguistic genesis. The same haplogroup/s could be involved in the development of different ethnicities. There is no R1b=celtic, I1=germanic or R1a=slav.

[how yes no 2]

Can somebody affirm what language spoke a guy when a "x" mutation took place in his monoparental chromosome? What language did speak the "P" guy who gave origin to a "Q" or "R" dude? And their mothers? Do all his descendants speak the same language?

That's the reason why is absurd to correlate mutations and ethnolinguistic genesis. The same haplogroup/s could be involved in the development of different ethnicities. There is no R1b=celtic, I1=germanic or R1a=slav.

that is only partialy true.... indeed languages and cultures can change...

however if you were completely right in your claim, than it would not be possible to use genetics to trace historical events... but it is possible...

it is not like language and cultural development are completely unrelated to genetic development of related tribal groups....people in past did tend to stay in their ethnic groups... people inside same ethnic/tribal group are typically much more related (have closer common ancestor) than people from not related ethnic groups....

tribal groups that are not heavily influenced (e.g. conquered for long period) by other tribal groups tend to maintain and further develop their culture and language...

in Europe R1b does correlate perfectly with hostoric influence of Celtic culture, I1 and I2b1 correlate with influence of Germanic culture, and R1a with spread and influence of Slavic culture... this leaves lot of space for generalizations....

when I speak of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic origin I tend to speak about genetic origin ... reason is that in Europe the Celtic culture developed and spread among tribal groups who were R1b carriers, Germanic among I1 and I2b1, Slavic among R1a and I2a2 carriers... there are exceptions, but every rule has exceptions...

in my opinion it is infinetly more absurd to claim that there is no correlation between spread of haplogroups and cultures than to claim there is...

[Segia]

Then you think ancient celts, germans or slavs carried a single haplogroup and that single haplogroups weren't present in other different ethnicities....?

Do you seriously think that humans didn't mix in Eurasia thousands of years ago and the origin of languages are linked to genetic markers?

The spread of cultures are linked to the spread of humans (who carry hgs), but this doesn't imply that these hgs weren't present in various (near or distant) ethnicities. Haplogroups don't portray an exclusivity label. That's my point.

The possibility (nota bene) of celts bearing mostly (nota bene) R1b doesn't make R1b celtic.

[Yorkie]

I am not 100% convinced about Isles clades, but at the moment origin from Anglo-Saxons is most logical explanation... Isles clades might be in UK much before Anglo-Saxons... otherwise we would be likely to find them in Germany as well....do you perhaps know whether the spread of Isles clades correlates with spread of I1 in various areas of UK?


true, I was wrong there... btw. I mentioned N because I counted Finland in Scandinavia as well...


I think there are Germanic R1b clades... but I claim that before becoming Germanic those people were Celtic or pre-Celtic...

I should have been a little clearer regarding L161 I2a2b-Isles. In England and lowland Scotland, the Anglo-Saxons are probably at least in part responsible for bringing small quantities over from northern Germany. I have seen only one distribution map, which members use on an I2a2b-Isles board on Ancestry.com, and yes, the distribution of I2a2b-Isles in England and lowland Scotland does seem to mirror that of I1, though it is obviously much, much thinner. Perhaps also, pre-Celts and Celts were involved too. Interestingly, I2a2b-Isles seems absent in Wales. Again, I2a2b-Isles has a definate presence [albeit small] in modern day Germany.

I tend to see I2a2b-Isles, given its great age, as being carried over to Britain/Ireland in different 'waves'. In Ireland, probably the bulk is pre-Celtic, an echo of the earliest post-LGM settlers. As Tim Owen and Ian Adamson [2010] suggest in 'Genes of the Cruthin' blog, the subclade C of I2a2b-Isles has a distinct hotspot in Rathcroghan, Roscommon, the seat of a Cruthin satellite settlement.

I agree with you that the Germanic-leaning R1b clades such as U106 and U198 were originally associated with the Celts. R1b is associated with the spread of Celtic languages and it seems pointless to deny the R1b/Celtic connection.

[Mzungu mchagga]

[...]
Do you seriously think that humans didn't mix in Eurasia thousands of years ago and the origin of languages are linked to genetic markers?

The spread of cultures are linked to the spread of humans (who carry hgs), but this doesn't imply that these hgs weren't present in various (near or distant) ethnicities. Haplogroups don't portray an exclusivity label. That's my point.
[...]

That's what I'm asking myself all the time...

[how yes no 2]

Then you think ancient celts, germans or slavs carried a single haplogroup and that single haplogroups weren't present in other different ethnicities....?

Do you seriously think that humans didn't mix in Eurasia thousands of years ago and the origin of languages are linked to genetic markers?

The spread of cultures are linked to the spread of humans (who carry hgs), but this doesn't imply that these hgs weren't present in various (near or distant) ethnicities. Haplogroups don't portray an exclusivity label. That's my point.

The possibility (nota bene) of celts bearing mostly (nota bene) R1b doesn't make R1b celtic.

sure, humans did mix, but not nearly as it is the case today...
people were organized in big tribal groups that had common origin and common culture/language... life would not really be easy for individual deciding to move from own tribal group to some other...major movements of genes are thus movements of tribal groups...


it is a matter of level of abstraction at which you look...
to classify haplogroups according to nations/tribal groups that did spread them one needs to go a bit deeper into subbranches of those haplogroups...

but what we see with respect to R1b is that in Europe people who originated from it produced Celtic culture... ofcourse R1b is wider than Celtic, especially as it is present in areas of Africa and Asia where we with current historical/archeological findings can not historically attest Celtic people, but if we restrict to Europe, than I think that it is pretty obvious that spread of Celtic cultures correlates pretty well with spread of R1b... for me this is enough to call this haplogroup Celtic... my point of view is that genetic origin is stronger than language and culture... a tribal group can change language and culture, but it tends to keep identity and its genetic structure... so, when I speak of people in Europe of Celtic and pre-Celtic origin I speak of R1b
rather than about people who speak a bit of Celtic languages...

[Yorkie]

sure, humans did mix, but not nearly as it is the case today...
people were organized in big tribal groups that had common origin and common culture/language... life would not really be easy for individual deciding to move from own tribal group to some other...major movements of genes are thus movements of tribal groups...


it is a matter of level of abstraction at which you look...
to classify haplogroups according to nations/tribal groups that did spread them one needs to go a bit deeper into subbranches of those haplogroups...

but what we see with respect to R1b is that in Europe people who originated from it produced Celtic culture... ofcourse R1b is wider than Celtic, especially as it is present in areas of Africa and Asia where we with current historical/archeological findings can not historically attest Celtic people, but if we restrict to Europe, than I think that it is pretty obvious that spread of Celtic cultures correlates pretty well with spread of R1b... for me this is enough to call this haplogroup Celtic... my point of view is that genetic origin is stronger than language and culture... a tribal group can change language and culture, but it tends to keep identity and its genetic structure... so, when I speak of people in Europe of Celtic and pre-Celtic origin I speak of R1b
rather than about people who speak a bit of Celtic languages...

Your arguments seem cogent and perfectly reasonable to me about R1b. In support of your claims, I would add that not for nothing do top-drawer Population Geneticists such as Bryan Sykes, Peter Forster, Martin Richards and Stephen Oppenheimer regard R1b as essentially a 'Celtic marker'.

[LeBrok]

I'm curious if they coined a general name for R1a too.

[Yorkie]

I'm curious if they coined a general name for R1a too.

To my knowledge, none of the four mentioned [I've had contact with the first three as a social scientist interested in genetics] have coined a 'name' for R1a1 in the sense of a 'marker for...'. However, in her paper of 2004, Siiri Rootsi and colleagues referred to R1a1 as, 'a Slavic marker'. This is clearly outdated, as we have a recently discovered snp which clearly separates Scandinavian and German -leaning R1a1 from Slavic R1a1.

Whilst he also did not coin a 'marker for' type name for R1a1, Jim Wilson has long regarded the vast bulk of R1a1 in Britain as having a Norwegian origin. Of course, Danes and Anglo-Saxons carried some R1a1 too, but Wilson is essentially correct about the bulk in my humble opinion.

[Zbigniew_Paesano]

thats a bunch of crap


Sloveni/Slaveni...itd(Slavs)-means word speakers,ppl who understand each other.
Njemci/Nemci...itd(Germans)-means mutes,ppl we dont understand.

Roman word for slave was "servus".


Secondly,we say here "peder" for faggot/gay,and its pronounced similar to Spanish name Pedro,so does that mean by your logic that all Pedros are fags?

Rest of it i didnt bother to read.

Indeed. the origine of the Slowianie, slav, slovene etc is from the common protoslavic = slovo - word in modern sl languages with all the connotations to speak and express oneself as a contrast to foreigners.
In the Finnish language the word for slave is = orje which pretty reasonably can be derived from the indo-eur Aryans. There may have occurred contact between the early Finns with inde-eur Aryan captives or strangers in east-european room which gave the "orje" in its current meaning

[DavidCoutts]

To my knowledge, none of the four mentioned [I've had contact with the first three as a social scientist interested in genetics] have coined a 'name' for R1a1 in the sense of a 'marker for...'. However, in her paper of 2004, Siiri Rootsi and colleagues referred to R1a1 as, 'a Slavic marker'. This is clearly outdated, as we have a recently discovered snp which clearly separates Scandinavian and German -leaning R1a1 from Slavic R1a1.

Whilst he also did not coin a 'marker for' type name for R1a1, Jim Wilson has long regarded the vast bulk of R1a1 in Britain as having a Norwegian origin. Of course, Danes and Anglo-Saxons carried some R1a1 too, but Wilson is essentially correct about the bulk in my humble opinion.

So what Haplogroup did the Danes and Anglo-Saxons belong to if not R1a1, Tim?

[Yorkie]

So what Haplogroup did the Danes and Anglo-Saxons belong to if not R1a1, Tim?

I think Danes and Anglo-Saxons were a mixture of I1, I2b1, R1b and R1a1. The Anglo-Saxons [as is suggested by Sykes] probably also carried a smattering of L161 I2a2b as well, given its presence on the north European plain.

[DavidCoutts]

I think Danes and Anglo-Saxons were a mixture of I1, I2b1, R1b and R1a1. The Anglo-Saxons [as is suggested by Sykes] probably also carried a smattering of L161 I2a2b as well, given its presence on the north European plain.

Is there any evidence of L21+ being carried by Danes, Yorkie? I'm not trying to deny my Celtic heritage, just curious if this marker was also found in Scandinavian people as well as Celts.

[Yorkie]

We've discussed this before on another forum. I believe that amateur R1b projects claim to have found L21 positive in Scandinavia, but so far no academic paper to support this exists to my knowledge. It is beyond dispute that the Danes did and do carry R1b. Even the most 'Celticist' types like Bryan Sykes acknowledge that Danes and Anglo Saxons for that matter carried R1b to Britain. Contrary to the prevailing consensus amongst the R1b hobbyist faction, Sykes sees the Germanic invaders as carrying around 25% of the R1b found in Britain. The rest he attributes to the Celts. I think one has to weigh up the variables when considering R1b [not that I have that problem..], and look at surname, geographical origin of ancestors etc. In your case, given what I know of your ancestry, I'd say it is probably more likely that your R1b was carried by Celts. I also see R1b, even the U106 variety, as being of ultimately proto-Celtic origin.

In any case, David, it is quite possible that you have Germanic ancestors as well as Celtic ones. We British are essentially a mixture [at varying degrees] of Germanic and Celtic peoples.The Y line is just the tip of our genetic ancestry.