Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 56

Thread: Understanding indo-european y-dna

  1. #26
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    I would guess that Gates is a R1b (surname ends in an "s" which is often seen in Wales), but this is a total shot in the dark. I've read Warren Buffet is an I1, but that's difficult to confirm. His paternal side is from Scandinavia though apparently.

    Regarding the atomic scientists-- Einstein was an hg E member (but of course he wasn't fighting for the Germans). I would put those German rocket engineers as a mix of R1b and I1.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    at Sparkey

    R1b spread

    none of the genetic maps i know correspond the Corded ware / Tumulus / Urnfield cultures with those areas in Europe with the highest frequencies of R1b. The NON-Indo-European Bell beaker culture on the other hand does almost perfectly and it was west to east, where as all Indo-European cultures are east to west (Kurgan III / Corded / Tumulus / Urnfield / Hallstatt)
    therefor i still consider (Europe-Asia Iranian plateau link) R1b to be both PRE/Non and Indo-European.

    Basques & Bosniaks

    It is an established fact (Archaeology/Anthropology/Historic documentation) that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the pre-Indo-Europeans. The fact that the Bosniaks are today Indo-Europeans (of an Indo-European culture: slavic) clearly indicates such a connection. The fact that the basques are NOT Indo-European (no linguistic or any cultural affs.) clearly indicates NO such connection til this day.

    Aquitani:

    "I could believe that the Aquitani and the Iberians were closely linked in some way, perhaps as branches of a common ancestor at some point. There may be evidence yet to find."

    The Accounts of Strabo and Caesar (the dude that conquered the Aquitani) are pretty solid evidence.

    Charles Anthon - A classical dictionary (1841)
    "The Aquitani, according to Strabo (190), differed from the Gallic race both in physical constitution and in language. They resembled, he tells us, the Iberians rather than the Gauls."

    and Caesar divided Gaul into 3 races the Belgae (Teutonic/Keltic) the Gauls (Keltic) and the Aquitani (Iberian), it doesnt get any clearer than that concerning the Aquitani being Iberians.

    Iberian Britain

    Who do you think carried the Bell beaker (non-indo-european) culture into Britain? who created the Megalithic cultures in Brittany and Cornwall? if it wasnt PRE-Indo-European peoples, who was it?

    Tacitus still records and Iberian (pre-indo-european) tribe in Britain as late as the 1st cen. AD. and clearly states they arrived in "former times".
    Caesar (the dude that invaded Britain twice) couldnt declare much about the natives others than they were not Belgae (Gallic / Indo-European),
    as for Cymric and Gaelic, you might want to read up on those languages and their evolution. Maybe they are remnants of the Gallic spoken by these Belgae, pushed west and inland by the Teutonic (Angles/Saxons) invasions.

    "Guh... from who?" - your question about the picts,

    modern Irish scholars for starters:

    Agustus Henry Keane - Man: Past and Present (1899) Cambridge University
    "This western branch of the Iberian family thus ranged north to the Garonne, beyond which were seated the Pictones, now also commonly regarded as Iberians, and most probably ancestors of the Picts who occupied Britain before the arrival of the Kelts"

  3. #28
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    at Nordicfoyer

    you mentioned all US presidents being R1b, is this also def. established about Eisenhower?

  4. #29
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,384

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Nobody1, why do you keep posting obviously outdated (19th century) sources? I'd look the other way if it was 1988, but 1899 can be hardly considered a 'modern' scholar. I recommend you to read Forsyth (1997), who prettymuch debunks the pre-Indo-European hypothesis of Pictish. I think the general consensus is that Pictish was a Celtic language.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Nobody1, why do you keep posting obviously outdated (19th century) sources? I'd look the other way if it was 1988, but 1899 can be hardly considered a 'modern' scholar. I recommend you to read Forsyth (1997), who prettymuch debunks the pre-Indo-European hypothesis of Pictish. I think the general consensus is that Pictish was a Celtic language.
    why not? do you consider the scholars of the 19th cen. to be dumber than the ones today? all of the 19th cent. scholars and their literature is based on the original Latin and Greek works, for the most part nothing but translations from the likes of Strabo, Tacitus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Livius, Herodotus, Scylax etc. And if you consider them and their classical works outdated, than good luck with Historic reality.

    Yes, wonderful to know that Katherine Forsyth (just as valuable as Koch) out dates Bede. why she didnt receive the Nobel prize like the "outdated" Mommsen did [History of Rome] is beyond me. I mean to actually out date a person (Bede) that was contemporary with the Picts and noted that pictish is diff. from Brythonic, Gaelic and (Obviously) English is amazing to say the least.

    In total; i just responded to questions from people that have never heard of Iberians in Britain, like you have never heard of the Sicani. Now if Strabo, Tacitus, Caesar are not good enough as refs. for your historical understanding, than thats just too bad.

  6. #31
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,384

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    why not? do you consider the scholars of the 19th cen. to be dumber than the ones today? all of the 19th cent. scholars and their literature is based on the original Latin and Greek works, for the most part nothing but translations from the likes of Strabo, Tacitus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Livius, Herodotus, Scylax etc. And if you consider them and their classical works outdated, than good luck with Historic reality.
    There's a difference between a primary source and the contemporary academic discussion. But you should consider that neither Julius Caesar nor Tacitus were linguists or anthropologists. Also, if you quote them, you should quote them more completely:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus, 'Agricola'
    Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus corporum varii atque ex eo argumenta. Namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant; Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt; proximi Gallis et similes sunt, seu durante originis vi, seu procurrentibus in diversa terris positio caeli corporibus habitum dedit. In universum tamen aestimanti Gallos vicinam insulam occupasse credibile est. Eorum sacra deprehendas ac superstitionum persuasiones; sermo haud multum diversus, in deposcendis periculis eadem audacia et, ubi advenere, in detrectandis eadem formido. Plus tamen ferociae Britanni praeferunt, ut quos nondum longa pax emollierit. Nam Gallos quoque in bellis floruisse accepimus; mox segnitia cum otio intravit, amissa virtute pariter ac libertate. Quod Britannorum olim victis evenit: ceteri manent quales Galli fuerunt.
    So would you agree with Tacitus that the Caledonii (ie, Picts) are of Germanic origin?

    Yes, wonderful to know that Katherine Forsyth (just as valuable as Koch) out dates Bede. why she didnt receive the Nobel prize like the "outdated" Mommsen did [History of Rome] is beyond me.
    Well, you could at least enlighten us why you think that Forsyth's arguments (which I find quite compelling, by the way), are invalid. I for one find her etymology for "Caledonii" (from the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard') very convincing.

    I mean to actually out date a person (Bede) that was contemporary with the Picts and noted that pictish is diff. from Brythonic, Gaelic and (Obviously) English is amazing to say the least.
    To be fair, the same statement would have applied also to Old French and Classical Arabic (two contemporary languages of Bede). The statement says nothing about the relationship any of the languages towards each other. If you believe that Pictish was related with Iberian (or Basque), please demonstrate it to us. Show us your evidence.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    So would you agree with Tacitus that the Caledonii (ie, Picts) are of Germanic origin?
    Sure, many tribes were considered (part of) Picts, Herodian wrote the most extensive documents about them and the Teutonic Caledonii were ONE of them. Tacitus was a Gaul that wrote the monumental work GERMANIA, so he would know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Well, you could at least enlighten us why you think that Forsyth's arguments (which I find quite compelling, by the way), are invalid. I for one find her etymology for "Caledonii" (from the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard') very convincing.
    Because Caledonii wasnt their chosen name to begin with, it was a LATIN name from the Romans. Thats just how the Romans called them, and good to know (thanks Mrs. Forsyth) that the Romans had the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard' in mind.

    Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    To be fair, the same statement would have applied also to Old French and Classical Arabic
    To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Show us your evidence.
    And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.

    But thats just the Picts, and again, i was asked about Iberians in Britain and my answer was Tacitus and the Silures and Caesar's vague statement about the immemorable natives being distinct of the Belgae. Hardly any other classical author bothered with Britain, so the rest is a guessing game.
    But Archaeologically speaking, you do know that it wasnt the Celts [Indo-Europeans] that build Stone Henge, the Megalithic structures of Cornwall or had anything to do with the Bell Beaker culture.

    Those people were clearly PRE/NON-Indo-Europeans, whether you want to call them Natives or any other name is your choice. British scholars of the 19th cen. termed them Iberians due to the Classical Historical refs. and Archaeological (anthropological) evidence.
    Classical History and Archaeology are pretty solid grounds.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 20-03-13 at 05:07.

  8. #33
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    I like to read historical/political books from different eras-- it's amazing what you can pick up from bygone decades that aren't so drenched in political correctness.

    It's kind of like watching the news today... each source has it's own bias, so I find myself flipping between various cable channels (and alternative media) to get the jist of what's really happening.

  9. #34
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    ...Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book...
    Nobody your doing a fantastic job wrestling with a few of the larger brains on this site, and I don't want to pile on here... but the Teutons might be ALOT more Celtic than most realize. Check out the work of Dr. David Faux from California (I don't agree with everything he's come up with-- but he looks to be onto something here. So far the genetics from ancient remains in Jutland have matched his theory.) Minor point, but worth a mention.

    Totally agree with your call on Stone Henge being built by Pre Indo-European Natives.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    at Nordicfoyer


    Dr. David Faux

    Of course, Caesar couldnt tell whether the Belgae (Maas-Rhine region) were Teutonic or Gallic.
    But is Dr. Faux referring (im not familiar with his work) to all Teutonic/Germanic tribes or just to the Teutons (tribe) of the Cimbri-Teuton migration era? which would fit with Jutland.
    I have read similar, that the Cimbri where in fact Gallic/Keltic (king Boirix), the Ambrones (Helvetii) and only the Teutons (king Teutobod) truly Germanic but all being akin to each other. But the Cimbri & Teutons are chapter of themselves.

    Eisenhower

    the reason i asked, was because i read (numerous times) that JFK was R1b, and if one compares the 2 presidents and by your social descriptions of Hg I and Hg R1b, just got me wondering about Eisenhower maybe being Hg I.

  11. #36
    Great Adventurer sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,251

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c1 PF3892+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    none of the genetic maps i know correspond the Corded ware / Tumulus / Urnfield cultures with those areas in Europe with the highest frequencies of R1b. The NON-Indo-European Bell beaker culture on the other hand does almost perfectly and it was west to east, where as all Indo-European cultures are east to west (Kurgan III / Corded / Tumulus / Urnfield / Hallstatt)
    therefor i still consider (Europe-Asia Iranian plateau link) R1b to be both PRE/Non and Indo-European.
    So you basically consider it conclusive that there were no IE speaking tribes within Beaker culture or the later Atlantic Bronze Age? I don't see why it's necessary to work on that assumption. Sure, if I have to believe that there was absolutely no IE within those, then R1b must have preceded IE. But then who else would have come to Western Europe during the time period following the early Neolithic farmers? R1b in Europe must be more recent than the early Neolithic farmers, given both ancient DNA results and diversity analysis of R1b subclades. The Western European subclades also don't seem to have expanded until toward the end of Corded Ware culture further east, and tracing the R1b tree step by step leads us eastward through Europe before that, so we know that R1b isn't much more ancient in the region than its expansion time (which furthermore seems to postdate the earliest Beaker developments). So I'm still settling on a catalyst theory, which leaves open the possibility of IE R1b.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    It is an established fact (Archaeology/Anthropology/Historic documentation) that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the pre-Indo-Europeans. The fact that the Bosniaks are today Indo-Europeans (of an Indo-European culture: slavic) clearly indicates such a connection. The fact that the basques are NOT Indo-European (no linguistic or any cultural affs.) clearly indicates NO such connection til this day.
    That doesn't logically follow based on your "established fact." They mixed, therefore one must have always dominated, and founder effects are impossible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Who do you think carried the Bell beaker (non-indo-european) culture into Britain? who created the Megalithic cultures in Brittany and Cornwall? if it wasnt PRE-Indo-European peoples, who was it?
    Megalithic culture seems likely to have been principally non-IE, although the disparity of time and place of the different megaliths makes it unlikely that all were necessarily connected by a common language family. I don't expect anything but a weak correlation between megaliths and language family; however I do expect a strong correlation between industries and megaliths, as well as between genetics and language families. I think we see both of these fairly well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    as for Cymric and Gaelic, you might want to read up on those languages and their evolution. Maybe they are remnants of the Gallic spoken by these Belgae, pushed west and inland by the Teutonic (Angles/Saxons) invasions.
    I've read up, which is why I'm asking you how you work it out. You think that Gaelic descends from Belgic Gaulish? Really? To begin with, that would make it pretty much impossible to explain the P-Celtic nature of Gaulish but the more primitive Q-Celtic nature of Gaelic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.

    And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.
    You're relying a lot on Bede, who said little other than it was a different language. All that implies is that it was not understandable to the speakers of the other languages, not that it was not P-Celtic.

  12. #37
    Regular Member zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,071

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkey View Post
    We have an ancient Beaker sample that tested R1b. Unfortunately, we don't know what kind of R1b it was, so our analysis is drastically hampered. IIRC they testing nothing but U106.

    I've generally envisioned Beaker culture as not spreading R1b west-to-east, as Beaker pottery did as a whole, but rather I've envisioned Beaker culture as a catalyst for an initial wave of R1b westward, which later expanded to near its modern percentages in the Bronze Age. That seems to fit the data best to me. Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the total lack of R1b in the early Neolithic, but the appearance of it in the Chalcolithic, despite the west-to-east spread of Beaker culture.



    Why is that? I2a-Din was once non-IE, yet it is dominant in certain modern IE populations, like Bosnians. Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Bosnians? I don't get why you don't think the opposite could have happened in a given case, in which R1b could have gone IE to non-IE. Especially because the Basques are a people who don't have locally ancient Y lineages outside of their I2a1a, and who are local full-genome outliers.

    I'm not saying for certain that R1b in Basques descends from ancient IE speakers, but I'm still not seeing why we should rule it out.



    Do you have any more recent scholarship that doesn't rely on ancient people observing that they looked similar to one another? Even nowadays, Monmouthshire is perhaps the darkest complexioned place in Britain, but genetic tests show no important similarity to Iberians. Stronger evidence would be genetic evidence, or linguistic evidence, or archaeological evidence, but none of those converge to show that the Aquitani or the Silures are branches of the Iberians AFAIK.

    I could believe that the Aquitani and the Iberians were closely linked in some way, perhaps as branches of a common ancestor at some point. There may be evidence yet to find. The Silures, not so much... I have trouble imagining them as anything but coming from the same stock as the Ordovices, Demetae, Cornovii, etc.



    The Belgae were Gallic peoples who came to southern Britain shortly before the time of Caesar. The natives were the rest of the tribes in Britain (Dumnonii, Catuvellauni, Iceni, Silures...). Rather than showing that the other tribes were "akin to the Silures Iberians," this quote rather seems to indicate that the non-Belgae, like the Silures, were akin to each other and not of foreign stock, including Iberian.

    How in the world would you fit the distribution of Gaelic into your theories, or the position of the Brythonic languages as intermediate between Gaelic and Gaulish? Yikes. It becomes much more difficult if you assume a huge swath of Iberians who were not supplanted until the Belgae.



    Guh... from who?
    In regards to Aquitani, their language derived from Gascon, which derived from Basque. They both, aquitani and gascon belonged to the occitan language group.
    Logic says these iberian basques moved into or originated in the gascon/aquitani area.
    The aquitani if they where gallic would not be their true original etnicity.

    The genetics of what is called french-basque would be ideal to study
    Father's Mtdna H95a1
    Grandfather Mtdna T2b24
    Great Grandfather Mtdna T1a1e
    GMother paternal side YDna R1b-S8172
    Mother's YDna R1a-Z282

  13. #38
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    at Sparkey

    the fundamental dilemma (concerning R1b) in all of this, is obviously the timeline. But than again, how clearly is the LGM theory debunked? and how clearly is its recent arrival established. Because if it is fully established (recent arrival) than its simply a dilemma and R1b (spread) can not be explained. One can not simply model the NON-Indo-European Bell Beaker cult. Complex into an Indo-European one. The Corded ware was the first massive Indo-European culture complex and it collided with the Bell-Beaker cult. complex in Central Europe, with the subsequent Indo-European Bronze age cultures (Urnfield) pushing it back to the Atlantic.

    Even your catalyst theory goes bust given the fact that Iberia has on average ~80% R1b (today). Now thats not a catalyst effect thats a full (dominating) migration. yet apart from the Celto-Iberians (mixed and only in certain regions) there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia. The Iberians being clearly (confirmed) NON-Indo-Europeans, And Iberia itself along with Aquitania were well into Roman times still largely IBERIAN (NON-Indo-European) with the Bsaques til this present day.

    Cymric and Gaelic

    Yes, Gaelic is Q-Celtic and Cymric being P-Celtic. Apart from Gaelic, the only other Q-Celtic lang. was that of the Celto-Iberians, and have you ever heard of the Mil Espaine? silly folk story or a story that might harbor some truth; who knows.
    Cymric being P-Celtic:
    There is a quote i posted in a different thread "Greek R1b" or something about Umbrians (ancient Gallic people) [quoted in the thread] having similarities with Cymric [quoted in the thread]
    And how well examined is the Gallic of the Belgae when the Belgae were ignorant of an alphabet and had no written language?

    The Venerable Bede

    Of course i rely on him, since i have already mentioned before, first hand accounts about Britain and its people are very scarce.
    He is a proper source and a contemporary. What he meant (specifically) however, can be a matter of interpretation. Agreed.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 20-03-13 at 09:59.

  14. #39
    Elite member spongetaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-01-11
    Posts
    709


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post

    Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.
    I didn't know that Tacitus considered te Caledonii Teutonic. It reminds me of the Irish tribe of the "Cauci" which was also considered germanic.

    The Cauci (Καῦκοι) were a people of early Ireland, uniquely documented in Ptolemy's 2nd-century Geography, which locates them roughly in the region of modern County Dublin and County Wicklow.[1] From the early 19th century, comparative linguists, notably Lorenz Diefenbach, identified the Cauci with the Germanic Chauci of the Low Countries and north-western Germany, a parallel already drawn by earlier antiquarian scholarship.[2] Proponents of this view also pointed to the fact that the Manapii (Μανάπιοι), who in Ptolemy's map border the Cauci to the south, likewise bear a name that is almost identical to that of another continental tribe, the Belgic Menapii in north-eastern Gaul.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    at spongetaro

    as Taranis quoted above from Tacitus - (Agricola): "Namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant;"

    Cassius Dio mentioned the northern tribes of "hostile" Britain to be the "Caledonii and Maeatae" and claims that all other tribes (north of Hadrians wall) were merged into these two tribes;
    It wasnt until ~300 AD that the Romans (Eumenius) considered the Caledonii to be Picts. "Caledonii et alii Picti"

    So the Caledonii of Tacitus times were no longer present as such, the Caledonii were merged and simply just one tribe of the people later known as Picts.

  16. #41
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,384

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Sure, many tribes were considered (part of) Picts, Herodian wrote the most extensive documents about them and the Teutonic Caledonii were ONE of them. Tacitus was a Gaul that wrote the monumental work GERMANIA, so he would know.
    So you basically say that they were Germanic just because Tacitus says so? Have you ever even heard of Grimm's Law, for starters?

    Because Caledonii wasnt their chosen name to begin with, it was a LATIN name from the Romans. Thats just how the Romans called them, and good to know (thanks Mrs. Forsyth) that the Romans had the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard' in mind.

    Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.
    That's amazing. You're basically throwing over board every piece of data (bear in mind that even names recorded by the Greeks and Romans qualifies as linguistic data), and ad-hoc dismiss it. If we go by that point of view, there is zero evidence - one way or another, mind you - about what language the Picts spoke. I still ask you, where is your evidence? You just assume - by foregone conclusion - that the Pictish language is somehow related with Iberian - without any linguistic data.

    To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.
    Bede's statement that Pictish was different from Gaelic or Brythonic makes no statement about how different it was. Mind you, Gaelic and Brythonic (obviously both Celtic languages) are very different from each other. The same would apply to a third Celtic language (eg. Pictish).

    And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.
    What linguists do when they have no samples of written texts available of a language is that they use a field of linguistics called onomastics, that is the analysis of names. This is precisely what Forsyth did. In case you didn't notice, for the majority of names analyzed by her she provides Celtic etymologies. It would be a different situation if you were to provide Iberian (or Basque) etymologies for the Pictish names in question, but you instead claimed that these are foreign names and their real names are unknown...

    But thats just the Picts, and again, i was asked about Iberians in Britain and my answer was Tacitus and the Silures and Caesar's vague statement about the immemorable natives being distinct of the Belgae. Hardly any other classical author bothered with Britain, so the rest is a guessing game.
    But Archaeologically speaking, you do know that it wasnt the Celts [Indo-Europeans] that build Stone Henge, the Megalithic structures of Cornwall or had anything to do with the Bell Beaker culture.

    Those people were clearly PRE/NON-Indo-Europeans, whether you want to call them Natives or any other name is your choice. British scholars of the 19th cen. termed them Iberians due to the Classical Historical refs. and Archaeological (anthropological) evidence.
    Classical History and Archaeology are pretty solid grounds.
    Well, let me play things backward for you: we don't know what language people spoke (this certainly holds true for the Copper Age or the Neolithic, since people in this time period in Europe were illiterate). By what arguments (or lack of arguments) couldn't the Bronze Age or Neolithic inhabitants of Britain have already been Celtic? Unless you get into linguistics in earnest instead of your insistence of the outermost credibility of classical sources, even asking the question is pointless in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    at Sparkey

    the fundamental dilemma (concerning R1b) in all of this, is obviously the timeline. But than again, how clearly is the LGM theory debunked? and how clearly is its recent arrival established. Because if it is fully established (recent arrival) than its simply a dilemma and R1b (spread) can not be explained. One can not simply model the NON-Indo-European Bell Beaker cult. Complex into an Indo-European one. The Corded ware was the first massive Indo-European culture complex and it collided with the Bell-Beaker cult. complex in Central Europe, with the subsequent Indo-European Bronze age cultures (Urnfield) pushing it back to the Atlantic.

    Even your catalyst theory goes bust given the fact that Iberia has on average ~80% R1b (today). Now thats not a catalyst effect thats a full (dominating) migration. yet apart from the Celto-Iberians (mixed and only in certain regions) there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia. The Iberians being clearly (confirmed) NON-Indo-Europeans, And Iberia itself along with Aquitania were well into Roman times still largely IBERIAN (NON-Indo-European) with the Bsaques til this present day.
    Sorry, but your statement about Iberia is just plain wrong. The Iberian peninsula was, by place names, roughly divided into two parts, by characteristic naming conventions: in the northeast and south, you have the prefix 'ili-' (this, by the way, is taken as possible evidence that Basque and Iberian are indeed related, as 'ili-' may be a cognate with Basque 'hiri', meaning city). In the entire rest of the Iberian peninsula, you have Celtic place names (the most common ones are with the ending '-briga'). As you can see, over half of the Iberian peninsula was, by the time the Romans conquered it, firmly Celtic. Now the point is that this cannot be linked in any sensible way - especially not in the West of the Iberian peninsula - with the Central European cultures (La-Tene, Hallstatt, even Urnfield). Instead, there is a clear continuity from the Atlantic Bronze Age. In any case, the statement that the Iberian peninsula was "largely Iberian" or "largely non-Indo-European" is completely false. Even the Lusitanians, who's Celticity is debatable, were firmly Indo-European.


  17. #42
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    So you basically say that they were Germanic just because Tacitus says so? Have you ever even heard of Grimm's Law, for starters?
    My post to spongetaro, and yes i do consider Tacitus credible in calling the Nordic Caledonii (pure caledonii of his age) Germanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    that the Pictish language and Picts Picts Picts and Picts
    Im not sure what exactly confuses you about this conversation, but i was asked about Iberians in Britain. I provided quotes from Tacitus and Caesar and modern 19th cen. British scholars. One of theim Keane (Cambridge University). that claims based on the Pictones (poss. Iberians) of Gaul that the Picts of Britan were equally Iberian. Bolstered by Bede's testimony that Pictish differs from Brythonic and Gaelic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    What linguists do when they have no samples of written texts available of a language is that they use a field of linguistics called onomastics, that is the analysis of names. This is precisely what Forsyth did. In case you didn't notice, for the majority of names analyzed by her she provides Celtic etymologies.
    Correct, but my problem with this is the obvious, and that is that Forsyth didnt use Celtic etymologies she used LATIN etymologies, ignoring the fact that Italic (Latin) and Celtic have a common linguistic root. And therefor (clear) Latin terminologies of Britain are hardly any prove of anything Celtic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Well, let me play things backward for you: we don't know what language people spoke (this certainly holds true for the Copper Age or the Neolithic, since people in this time period in Europe were illiterate). By what arguments (or lack of arguments) couldn't the Bronze Age or Neolithic inhabitants of Britain have already been Celtic? Unless you get into linguistics in earnest instead of your insistence of the outermost credibility of classical sources, even asking the question is pointless in my opinion.
    Fantastic, you just described the "great unknown" of Linguistics, now could you answer my question based on the "knowledge" of Archaeology concerning Kurgan Indo-Europeans and Megalithic Britons. And doesnt that correspond with Pytheas (4th cen. BC) that states that Britain is north of the lands of the Celts. Classical History and Archaeolgy vs. guessing of Linguistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Sorry, but your statement about Iberia is just plain wrong.
    Obviously you didnt read my post, i clearly said apart "from Celto-Iberians" there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia or Aquitania.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    As you can see, over half of the Iberian peninsula was, by the time the Romans conquered it, firmly Celtic.
    1.) Iberia based on your map and the grand total of 13 Celtic (linguistically) settlements, was not "firmly Celtic". Posidonius talks of a Celtic migration; and the Romans (that conquered Iberia) found in the East Iberians akin to the Aquitani (NON-Indo-European) and in regions of the west a mixed Celto-Iberian population (indicating a non-indo-european element to begin with). [Caesar, Appian, Diodorus Siculus]

    2.) the Lusitani (west) were considered pure Celts by Diodorus Siculus, so your mysterious Indo-Europeans arent that mysterious considering they were Celts.

    Archaeologically speaking the Celtic migration dates to ~700 BC, so that makes Iberia before 700 BC NON-Indo-European Iberian. and (700 BC migration) the only input of Indo-Europeans in Iberia.(Scarce and Mixed)

  18. #43
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    ...
    Eisenhower

    the reason i asked, was because i read (numerous times) that JFK was R1b, and if one compares the 2 presidents and by your social descriptions of Hg I and Hg R1b, just got me wondering about Eisenhower maybe being Hg I.
    Nobody1, I've compiled and posted a list on Eupedia of as many U.S. Presidents and their paternal haplogroup as I could find. The majority are R1b, but there is one hg. I1 member, at least one hg. E member, and even an I2 member (Johnson).

    Initially I estimated the Kennedy family would have overwhelming chances of being R1b (wasn't able to find any hard data), but since then I've lowered their chances of being R1b to around 70%

  19. #44
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    Nobody1, I've compiled and posted a list on Eupedia of as many U.S. Presidents and their paternal haplogroup as I could find. The majority are R1b, but there is one hg. I1 member, at least one hg. E member, and even an I2 member (Johnson).

    Initially I estimated the Kennedy family would have overwhelming chances of being R1b (wasn't able to find any hard data), but since then I've lowered their chances of being R1b to around 70%
    you forgot the T ydna president
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  20. #45
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    Jefferson.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    Jefferson.
    yep

    a T1a1a ...............maybe related to adamo

  22. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-04-12
    Posts
    133


    Country: Brazil



    I = Physical vigor, larger body size, pragmatism, resistance to cold (both a testament and a consequence of their success in dealing with about 40 thousand European winters);

    R1b = dat wit
    (and obsession with moving westwards)

  23. #48
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Degredado View Post
    I = Physical vigor, larger body size, pragmatism, resistance to cold (both a testament and a consequence of their success in dealing with about 40 thousand European winters);

    R1b = dat wit
    (and obsession with moving westwards)
    But if R1 comes from North Asia, from cold zone, and was hunter-gatherer for not less time than hg I, then shouldn't R1 folks be toll and robust like hg I people?
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    But if R1 comes from North Asia, from cold zone, and was hunter-gatherer for not less time than hg I, then shouldn't R1 folks be toll and robust like hg I people?
    We I folk are tall and robust, and also very wise, but despite all that, you R folk won the day, if we're to judge by prevalence of haplotype. Sometimes things just happen that way.

  25. #50
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkey View Post
    What's mysterious about it? I think the main open question about Sardinian I2-M26>L160 is how long after the L160 TMRCA (7000 YBP, IIRC) it got there. I don't think there's much question at this point that L160 is most ancient near the Pyrenees.
    so Sardinian I2-M26>L160 expanded outside of Sardinia and much later migrated in large numbers into Sardinia
    but if they make up 40 % of Sardinians nowadays there should be a trace somewhere in Sardinian history about this immigration?
    (by the way Sardinia was practically uninhabited 8000 years ago when cardium pottery arrived there)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •