Understanding indo-european y-dna

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.

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.

fig04_600.jpg
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
 
...
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%
 
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
 
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)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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)
 
Haplogroup I seems to be the most anciently European haplogroup that is still common. As a result, "When did Haplogroup I become IE?" is similar to answering the question, "When did IE get to Europe, and how long did it take to become dominant in Europe?". It's not an easy question to answer, although I think the most popular answer to "When did IE get to Europe?" is that it came first with Corded Ware culture. As for when it became dominant, it seems to have been a clear majority by the Classical Age, and the Classical Age helped solidify it.

An interesting twist is that there seems to be some I that may have never been IE... specifically the I2-M26 in Basques. (That doesn't mean, of course, that the pre-IE culture of Haplogroup I folks was Basque. We're not sure what it was.)



It's probably because I1 bottlenecked and spread from North Germany, close to Scandinavia, around the same time that the population of these regions expanded.

Mesolithic I seems to have been become more marginal after arrival of neolithic G2a, J, F, E1b1b and T.
With arrival of IE , some I-tribes seem to florish again, while neolthical tribes become marginal.
Why would I have been the natural allies of IE?
 
Maybe it became more marginal because uhhh.....the pizza slice had to be divided with more elements? Lol. Also don't forget the men of I were hit hard when the ice-age broke out and were forced into refugiums, small cradles near the Atlantic or Adriatic coasts to survive; the chess board didn't exactly advantage them let me tell you that much.
 
And how where the men of I beaten out by R1 men? Both I1 and R1b clades waited out the LGM on the Iberian peninsula. In fact I* diversity indicates older age in those few I men from Italy and France as compared to their younger Scandinavian counterparts. Did you know there was a HV once, and that both H and V waited out the LGM on the Iberian peninsula but most of the V women (and some H I'm assuming) probably followed the I1 men north to Scandinavia? This is the ultimate questions; what are the reasons? Why is I1 and V so rare other than on the Scandinavian peninsula where they are quite frequent? Why are H and R1b widespread all over Western Europe (even east for H but with lower frequencies as we move east.) what phenomenon explains this?
 
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?

R1b appeared in SW Asia though, and spent a long time there before arriving in Europe. Hg I, on the other hand, never left their comfort zone (Europe), or at most, only went to immediately adjacent areas such as Anatolia and Caucasus. They couldn't bother to cross Gibraltar in 40k years.
 
Very correct. 95% of hg I men (if not slightly more) live within the confines of Europe.
 
Haplogroup I is indo-European nothing else
 

This thread has been viewed 37864 times.

Back
Top