Romans, Alpine Celts and Belgae : close cousins ?

What wonder if the Germanic genes have more presence than the Gauls.

No, Gaulish genes (well, at least Italo-Celtic haplogroup R1b-S116 and R1b-S28 + some G2a) are overwhelmingly dominant in northern Italy (50 to 70%), Lombardy included. The haplogroups that can be imputed to the Germanic invasions represent about 10% of the population.
 
Funny coincidence is that some of recent Slavic cultures begun in Black Forest too, actual name Charnoles (means exactly black forest) of NorthWest Ukraine.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Slavs
I wonder if Veneti/Venedi/Venethi (current Poland) are not the off-shot of La Tene culture. There are neighbors of Celts of Czech area and the timing is right. Also jump through mountains to the south and there are Adriatic Veneti.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Vistula_Veneti
What kind of R1b dominates in Poland?

R1b is weak in Poland (about 15%) and confined mostly to the west and south, where there used to be a Germanic presence (not only until 1945, but also in ancient times, with the Goths). Eastern Poland is in a direct continuum of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in term of haplogroups. The Eastern Slavs descend from another branch of the Indo-European than the Celts, the one that stayed around Ukraine and Russia after all other branches left.

One characteristic of the Eastern Slavs is their combination of R1a1a and I2a2 lineages. The I2a2 are probably the remnants of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture that flourished for 3,000 years from Eastern Romania to Central Ukraine until being absorbed by steppe people circa 2750 BCE.

Western Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats) are much more ethnically mixed. They are made up of Paleolithic, Near-Eastern, Proto-Slavic, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic lineages. It is not very clear to me why they speak Slavic languages at all, since they supposedly spoke mostly Latin after 400 years of Romanisation, then were invaded by Germanic and Turkic-speaking people (Huns, Alans, Khazars, Avars). It could only mean that they kept their language through 1000 years of foreign occupation, including the civilizing influence of the Romans.

Then why did the Dacians adopt Latin and their descendants, the Romanians, have managed to resist the Slavic and Turkic influence when they were closest to the steppes and invaded the most times ? Is that only because the Dacians were Celtic-speakers like the Gauls, and their language was already close to Latin ? Is that why Slavic and Turkic tongues never got hold of the region ?
 
I think, usually the authocton cultures are saved by mountainous people.

The invasions always touch lowlands, and natives stay in hills, but after that began the process of colonization of the lowlands by highlanders, which send in the lowland not only their blood, but also their culture and language.

In the case of romans, they occupied all Dacia including highland, and romanized the people.
 
Very interesting messages. But I have difficulties to accept that the
Germanics mentioned by the Roman authors were not Germanic
speaking people. For me the Suebi are real Germanic tribes and came
maybe from Sweden. According to you: where did the Germanic speaking
tribes live during Caesar's arrival?

Where is the utmost norhtern limit of the Celtic haplogroup? Were the Eburones and Morini Celtic tribes? The Batavi, Canenefates and Frisii
were really Germanic speaking tribes.
 
Very interesting messages. But I have difficulties to accept that the
Germanics mentioned by the Roman authors were not Germanic
speaking people. For me the Suebi are real Germanic tribes and came
maybe from Sweden. According to you: where did the Germanic speaking
tribes live during Caesar's arrival?

Where is the utmost norhtern limit of the Celtic haplogroup? Were the Eburones and Morini Celtic tribes? The Batavi, Canenefates and Frisii
were really Germanic speaking tribes.

Don't forget that languages can change, even when genes stay in great part the same. Tribes living at the boundary of the Celtic and Germanic realms, like the Suebi, Eburones, Nervii and Morini could very well have switched language over time.

Many individuals could have been bilingual too. Speaking more than one language is not a recent phenomenon of educated societies. Tribes with no access to formal education in Africa, Amazonia or Papua are often multilingual.

A third important point is that there may well have been Celto-Germanic tribes. It has always been common since prehistory for tribes to exchange wives with neighbours to secure alliances or to improve mutual relations. These people could quickly have become ethnically hybrid and shared cultural elements with both Celtic and Germanic peoples. That is surely the case of the Suebi and the Eburones, but probably also of the Cimbri, which is why it is so difficult to classify them as simply Celtic or Germanic. They should be described as Celto-Germanic, just like modern British, Belgian, Swiss and central to south Germans.
 
Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
Why do they do it?

I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
descendants of the reindeerhunters.

In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!
 
Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
Why do they do it?

Countless reasons. What makes you think they switch quickly ? A Celtic tribe with a high level of bilingualism sustained for many generations could easily stop using their original language if they lose contact with other Celtic tribes and start living among Germans. Or vice versa. Migrations were very common among Celtic and Germanic tribes.

I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
descendants of the reindeerhunters.

How should they know ? Were they anthropologists, archaeologists and geneticists ?

In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!

You can't compare a tiny region like East Frisia with a big country like Sweden. There are small enclaves in Sweden or Norway where 100% of the population is blond with blue eyes. Look at the bigger picture. Anyway fair hair and eyes most likely originated in the steppes as these features are found in pockets of populations all over Central Asia, Pakistan or Iran. If the incidence is higher in Frisia or Sweden nowadays it is due to a founder effect, genetic bottleneck or selective pressures. Germanic people expanded from a quite small Bronze Age population and are therefore among the least genetically diverse people on earth (compared to their current population). I suppose that is what you mean by "purity". Ironically (considering the Nazi obsession with racial pureness), the Jews share the same particularity. Both Scandinavians and Jews are known among geneticists for their higher incidence of genetic diseases (such as Haemochromatosis or Huntington's disease for Scandinavians, and Tay-Sachs or dysautonomia for Ashkenazi Jews). Note that excessive genetic "purity" is called consanguinity.
 
Both Scandinavians and Jews are known among geneticists for their higher incidence of genetic diseases (such as Haemochromatosis or Huntington's disease for Scandinavians, and Tay-Sachs or dysautonomia for Ashkenazi Jews). Note that excessive genetic "purity" is called consanguinity.

Thats interesting, Scotland has the highest number of MS cases in the world, I wonder if this has to do with in breeding within clans?

"There appears to be a genetic element. Orkney, for instance has the highest levels in the world - it has its own MS society - and scientists are showing that it is passed down through families there. It also appears MS may be a disease we have exported to other countries. In Canada, for instance, MS is particularly high in areas to which Scots emigrated."
Taken from the source below:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/scotl...herald-is-determined-to-find-out-why-1.836898
 
Thats interesting, Scotland has the highest number of MS cases in the world, I wonder if this has to do with in breeding within clans?

The genetics component of MS is still elusive. It is generally considered to be an autoimmune disease, not a purely genetic one, because there are so many mutations involved, spread over at least 11 chromosomes, and not a single one of them is a cause of MS all by itself. That's very different from Huntington's or Tay-Sachs, for which a single SNP determines if a person is a carrier or not.
 
I suppose that the Germanic tribes arose in Scandinavia and Jutland
about 2000 BC by intermingling with local inhabitants and neolithic farmers
or corded people. Is that correct?

45 years ago I read that Germanic tribes lived complitely isolated from
the other Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia. They were the only tribes
who were not afraid of the sea unlike the Latins and Slavic tribes.
I was impressed by this text. So I obtained the especial idea about them and I supposed that they were descendants of the French Cro-Magnos rendeer hunters.
Now I understand that this is an false idea and ilusion.

But what are the mental diseases of the Scandinavians and Dutch?
I suppose neurotism and Alzheimer? Melancholy? I suppose that this
is typical disease of the Nordic and Faelish people.
 
Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
Why do they do it?

I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
descendants of the reindeerhunters.

In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!

It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.

Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.

The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures.

Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?
 
When pertaining to Britain, one has to look at the Easterly distribution of U152's subclades. For example, L2* and L20+, are all East locales. The recent U152 paper, which concludes that U152 is found, overwhelmingly, in Southern England, must mean U152*, as, separate from L2* and L20+.
 
It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.

Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.

The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures.

Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?

Blondism (light brown to light blond hair) in Germanics has been terribly exaggerated through the years. The native population of Germany has about 60% medium to dark brown hair. Light eyes (blue, grey, green) probably total ~ 50%.
 
It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.

Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.

The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures.

Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?
There is no way. Germany has about 30% of blondism. See this study

  • Southern Germany 18.4-24.5
  • Central Germany 25.3 - 32.5
  • Northern Germany 33.5 - 43.3
  • Germany whole 31.8%
Here it is at page 14:
http://ia340930.us.archive.org/2/items/mediterraneanrac00serguoft/mediterraneanrac00serguoft.pdf
 
Blondism (light brown to light blond hair) in Germanics has been terribly exaggerated through the years. The native population of Germany has about 60% medium to dark brown hair. Light eyes (blue, grey, green) probably total ~ 50%.
Yes, i know, im a german and i have medium brown hair and green eyes with brown and yellow(look at my profil picture).

The studies of robert frost, support that what you sad ;).

But light eyes also be some, which have a medium or great part of light pigments, with brown pigments. So hazel, amber, greybrown and also my eye color, greenbrown are light, because you see the light pigments good, but also the light brown pigments.
When my pupils are very small, my eyes are light green, but when the pupils are very big, it looks like amber.
But why shouldnt they be light, when this eyes have a (not small) part light pigments?!
 
Yes, i know, im a german and i have medium brown hair and green eyes with brown and yellow(look at my profil picture).
The studies of robert frost, support that what you sad ;).
But light eyes also be some, which have a medium or great part of light pigments, with brown pigments. So hazel, amber, greybrown and also my eye color, greenbrown are light, because you see the light pigments good, but also the light brown pigments.
When my pupils are very small, my eyes are light green, but when the pupils are very big, it looks like amber.
But why shouldnt they be light, when this eyes have a (not small) part light pigments?!

Then we have to completely revisit what "light eyes" really mean. However, the big problem is that physical anthropologists have never attempted comprehensive, highly structured scientific field studies to establish light eyes percentages that approach reality. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because such an effort may be perceived as racist.:rolleyes:
 
Then we have to completely revisit what "light eyes" really mean. However, the big problem is that physical anthropologists have never attempted comprehensive, highly structured scientific field studies to establish light eyes percentages that approach reality. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because such an effort may be perceived as racist.:rolleyes:
Yes, i know what you mean. Thanks for your post (y).
 
Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
Why do they do it?

I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
descendants of the reindeerhunters.

In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!

You are clearly getting carried away...
 
"As far as I know the title Germanicus was honorary and first given to Nero Claudius Drusus (and his family) for his efforts in Germania as a military commander. This kind of nomenclature resembles that of Publius Cornelius Scipio, who was named Scipio Africanus after his defeat Hannibal. Germanicus and Africanus are then rather examples of victory titles*; they do not indicate kinship or ancestry."

Sorry, The above is a quote from ANLEF but I messed up and couldn't figure out how to get it in Italics. (Sorry, Anlef!)

I would definitely go with Germanicus being an honorary title for Drusus since he would be recognized for his punitive expedition. I believe that Scipio was the first to get such a title. Numidicus was also given to one of the Metelli for actions in the Jugurthine War. Drusus' expedition seems to have been a result of the disaster in the Teutoburg Forest. Augustus had lost the three legions under Varrus. He so stung by this that he decided to abandon any further attempts at conquest in Germania. Roman honor, though, required that something be done about it. Tacitus gives a good account of the expedition by my measure.

Although I would agree that often the lines were blurred when we are trying to figure out Celto-Germanic, Germano-Celtic, etc., I tend to go with the Suebi (Marcommanic, Quadi, later Bavarians) as being Germans.
They may have been culturally influenced by Celts as they did have Kings on more or less a regular basis, but they appear fall on the German side as far as being overall more cultural, ethnically, and much more linguistically German.

As far as the more mixed tribes go, I would think more along the lines of the Rhine frontier, especially after Gaul itself was brought under Roman rule. It would be a reasonable assumption that many would have crossed the Rhine to remain free, especially when we think of the young, unmarried Gaesatae types. Some hold that the Chatti, Cherusci, and the later amalgamated mega-tribe of the Franks may have had a signifigant admixture of Celts.

The word Germani appears to have been something that certain groups of Celts used to describe themselves, possible intending to convey that they were the real thing. It is interesting that the words Germani and Teuton, both now used exclusively to describe those whom we today recognize as German, both seem to originally have referred to Celts. Germani and Germania seem to have been used a by the Romans more as a geographic term to denote those who live in that area regardless of ethnicity and the Tueton name goes back to one of the tribes later defeated by Marius.

I would like to hear from anyone who may be aware of a common word or name that Germanic types may have used to describe themselves. I have to think that a relatively cohesive group like they were would have had something that they used.


I hope that this post does not ignite a firestorm.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 157061 times.

Back
Top