Understanding indo-european y-dna

Personally I do think hg I can be correlated with tallness. Although height is an autosomal trait, the association shouldn't be ignored.

Now I am going to throw some cold water on your hg I theory being the "smartest and most physically imposing" (I too am an "I" member-- but I'm reporting what I know to be the truth). Haplogroup R, especially R1b, does seem to have some important advantages. Being more socially involved (like the hg R members tend to be) pays huge, life long dividends. I think modern science is going to find that there is a measurable difference in testosterone levels between some of the haplogroups, and that the "I"'s will have more than the "R"'s on average. This is I's great advantage... and also a large disadvantage.

Having higher testosterone enables increased drive and concentration, but it probably makes the carrier more taciturn and less likely to play well with others. Great on the football field and boardroom, not so great for navigating everyday life.

I do think there's something to the engineering association with hg I, but the trade off is that most of us might not want to apply for the job posting of cruise ship social director. When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

I would definitely agree with you. My cousin and i both are at a loss, socially but very capable. He's going into politics and i really cannot imagine him as a charismatic figure because of social awkwardness, lol. He seems to be doing okay though, already went with our Prime minister to APEC summit in Russia.
Warren Buffet is another prime example of this. Billionaire but so unsocial or even anti-social, that he crams himself into his tiny office without any computer and just reads quietly all day looking for investment opportunities.
 
Personally I do think hg I can be correlated with tallness. Although height is an autosomal trait, the association shouldn't be ignored.

Now I am going to throw some cold water on your hg I theory being the "smartest and most physically imposing" (I too am an "I" member-- but I'm reporting what I know to be the truth). Haplogroup R, especially R1b, does seem to have some important advantages. Being more socially involved (like the hg R members tend to be) pays huge, life long dividends. I think modern science is going to find that there is a measurable difference in testosterone levels between some of the haplogroups, and that the "I"'s will have more than the "R"'s on average. This is I's great advantage... and also a large disadvantage.

Having higher testosterone enables increased drive and concentration, but it probably makes the carrier more taciturn and less likely to play well with others. Great on the football field and boardroom, not so great for navigating everyday life.

I do think there's something to the engineering association with hg I, but the trade off is that most of us might not want to apply for the job posting of cruise ship social director. When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

Btw, that's really an amazing study, do you know when the results are expected?
 
...When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

There's no study (that I'm aware of anyway). This was a flippant comment about a subject matter that many choose to gloss over or ignore completely. Probably a healthy of majority of Eupedia contributors would actually catagorize my higher testosterone theory as bunk. I've been known to put my finger in the eye of commonly accepted mainstream thinking though -- I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, I'd bet a crisp twenty that some government agency somewhere is collecting stats (financial, criminal, mortality rates, etc.) on y-haplogroups. That's what big government does. Whether or not "the little people" get wind of these findings is another story.
 
spread of R1b

if it occurred during the Chalcolithic, what about the Bell beaker culture? west to east (non-indo-european) and existing in a region were most of the R1b carriers are today as well as a spread to Central Europe. It wasnt until the proper Bronze age that cultures from the Black sea area are clearly detected on the Baltic coast and in the Danubian region Tumulus-Urnfield cultures, and burial sites containing quantities of swords and daggers of an invading people.

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.

Basque Bust

There is either something fundamentally wrong with a people that have a paternal (Indo-European) lineage of over 80% yet have/share no Indo-European linguistic affiliations or culture; OR there is something fundamentally wrong with this theory.

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.

(1847) ... (1841) ... (190) ... (1826) ... (98 AD) ... (1901)...

Ancient writers did not have any extensive knowledge about Britain, so Tacitus and the modern British scholars are all of the Documented history of Iberians in Britain.

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.

There is however a vague passage in Caesar's war book.

Julius Caesar - De bello Gallico (50 BC)
"the interior of Britain was inhabited by those who were immemorially natives of the island, but the maritime parts by the Belgae."

So, the natives were not Gallic (Belgae) and since they were immemorially natives,prob. akin to the Silures Iberians.

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.

There are also endless quotes about the Irish Picts being Iberian.

Guh... from who?
 
There's no study (that I'm aware of anyway). This was a flippant comment about a subject matter that many choose to gloss over or ignore completely. Probably a healthy of majority of Eupedia contributors would actually catagorize my higher testosterone theory as bunk. I've been known to put my finger in the eye of commonly accepted mainstream thinking though -- I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, I'd bet a crisp twenty that some government agency somewhere is collecting stats (financial, criminal, mortality rates, etc.) on y-haplogroups. That's what big government does. Whether or not "the little people" get wind of these findings is another story.

Yeah, i understand now. It's just funny because when you mentioned prison i've had similar thoughts before about haplogroup I.
A few people i'd really like to see the Y-dna of, include Bill Gates and the German ww2 scientific teams, specifically the atomic scientists.
 
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.
 
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"
 
at Nordicfoyer

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

Tacitus said:
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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:
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.
 
...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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 37862 times.

Back
Top