Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? And do they call themselves Celtiberians?For all those people biased by anglo-american movies. I would like to show you how spaniards (celtiberians) looks.
That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.
Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? And do they call themselves Celtiberians?
That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.
Angela, phenotypic diversity is everywhere in Europe, in any European country you find blond people very clear skin and blue eyes and dark brown eyes, the difference between north and south of Europe is in frequency, the further north you are an increase of people clearer and more dark southern story, but this does not mean that you are more or less Celtic, or more or less of the steppe (which is far from the Iberian peninsula) or more or less other categories, but you have simply and historically received more or less solar radiation.
But if we stick to empirical evidence (not to hypotheisis and theories) both Greeks and Romans cited the Celts in the Iberian peninsula on numerous occasions, which other countries can not say, and in the Iberian Peninsula there is one of the highest concentrations of Celtic and Indo-European toponyms, well these are empirical tests not hypotheses and theories.
There are texts in the Iberian Peninsula of several Celtic and non-Celtic Indo-European languages, in how many countries is this cumulation of scientific evidence and not hypotheses and theories?.
'I think the bolded sentence and the last one as well are both easily falsifiable. I will use just Italy as an example, although there was a "Celtic" presence in other areas as well. All the territory north of the Po River, as well as Liguria and lands even south of the Po into Toscana and the Marche were settled by Celtic/Gallic speaking people in the first millennium BC, not to mention the earlier Urnfied assodicated migrations. Let's not forget also that the Italics were steppe related peoples. Celtic and Italic are on the same branch of the Indo-European tree.
Some of my ancestors were what are called the Celt-Ligurians of the Ligurian Alps and the Apennines Alps. Indeed, the major linguistic divide in Italy is between what used to be called the Gallo-Italian languages north of the Massa-Senigalia (or La Spezia-Rimini line), and the Eastern Romance languages of the areas south of it. This is similar to Spain in that there were Iberian speaking areas and Indo-European speaking areas even until the arrival of the Romans. The last "Celtic" area of Italy was not conquered by the Romans until 192 BC, and the Ligures even later.
As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin, yet Spain and Portugal are very low in steppe ancestry, as are many areas of Italy, so how high could their "Celtic" percentage have been? I'm not saying it's not there; I'm just saying it's much lower than some have thought.
In this chart from Haak et al, the steppe portion would have been perhaps in the Iberians as well as the Indo-European speakers, so you can't really double it to get a figure for the "Celtic" portion, so for a rough estimate, what is it, one-third?
The ancient dna calculators give us an idea of individual results as it compares an individual's raw data directly to the ancient samples. Perhaps you'll want to run your raw data through it, so far we only have one or two Iberian results.
The "steppe" ancestry would have come in with the first Indo-Europeans, then with "Celts" or "Gauls", then with the Germanic tribes. In the case of Italy that would be the Goths and Lombards, so it can't be used to compute "Celtic" ancestry, but it's clear steppe ancestry in southern European is always quite a bit less than in the north, and "farmer" ancestry corresponding higher in the south than in the north.
See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Calculator-Results/page3?highlight=geneplaza
These are my results and I'm half Emilian, 1/4 eastern Ligurian and 1/4NW Tuscany, so hardly a far northern Italian.:
ANCIENT FARMERS74.3%
- WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
39.2%- LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
3.3%- NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
3.4%- EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
28.4%
STEPPE CULTURES25.7%
- KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
12.6%
- ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
5.3%
- YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)
These are AdeoF's results, northwest Spain:
- ANCIENT FARMERS
66.1%
- WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)
35.3%
- LEVANT (4000-8000 years)
4.6%
- NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)
5.6%
- EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)
20.6%
- STEPPE CULTURES
29.2%
- KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)
4.2%
- ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)
12.3%
- YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)
12.7%
- AFRICAN
4.3%
- EAST AFRICAN (modern)
4.3%
- WEST AFRICAN (modern)
0.0%
As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin
Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe?
That's not a strong argument. Celtic as we know it with its main distinctive features is an Iron Age language family. A common Proto-Celtic language may have been spoken as late as 1,200-1,100 BC, in the very end of the Bronze Age. So, one doesn't need to wonder why there is nothing Celtic in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All the Indo-European migration/expansion issue has to do with an entirely different and much earlier historic period, probably as distant from Proto-Celtic as we are now from Proto-Germanic and Classical Latin. You can't find Celtic toponymy in the steppes because Celts didn't even exist then, and it is the Celts that descend partly from the steppe tribes, not the other way around.
Do we really have enough indications for that already? I mean, considering that the Indo-European arrival in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have happened quite late in comparison with other parts of Europe, many centuries after the main emigration out from the steppes, wouldn't we expect their steppe admixture to be already very diluted (e.g. in the order of 30% more than 50%), especially if they came not directly from northern/northwestern Europe, but rather from a more southerly place like France, Switzerland or Northern Italy?
This thread has been viewed 18955 times.