I could be of Celtic orgin [Archive]

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 04:26

I've done some research and found out that the south-eastern part of Poland I come from could have originated as a land of Celtic peoples. This part of Poland and Western Ukraine is called Galicja (Galizien in German) and some historians argue that Galizien is the name of some Celtic tribe. There have been numerous excavations of Celtic artifact at archaeological sites in that area of Poland. The coat of arms of the Celts from this part of Europe was a black jackdaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvus_monedula) seen on the shield of this warrior.

A lot of history of early Slavic peoples or proto-Slavs is still murky because those barbarians didn't really develop proper written language (and thus historical records) until Christianisation of the region in 10 century A.D.

I've always known that deep inside I'm a barbarian and it manifests itself in my habits, behavior, etc. I accept my barbarian identity though.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Dohle_%28Corvus_monedula%29_d1.jpg/240px-Dohle_%28Corvus_monedula%29_d1.jpg

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 04:42

Here's a map showing the original distribution of European Celtic peoples in ancient times. As you can see it includes southern Poland and my home town. Today only British Isles and part of France have Celtic-speaking peoples (dark green).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png

TWFanatic

02-02-2008, 04:48

Does this mean you'll change your name to The Gaesatae and start fighting in the nude?

I've thought about changing my name to Naked Fanatic. Apparently this put a very disturbing image in people's minds.

Mouzafphaerre

02-02-2008, 05:38

.
Internautos would suffice I guess. Or Internautorix. :clown:
.

johnhughthom

02-02-2008, 06:22

Intranetusa

02-02-2008, 07:29

Internatus, please do change your screen name...it resembles my screen name a little too much. And I don't like competition. >.<

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 08:21

Internatus, please do change your screen name...it resembles my screen name a little too much. And I don't like competition. >.<

OK, my new name is Colossus...with a Greek spelling.

General Appo

02-02-2008, 08:33

Well, I can top your Celtic origin, as I am almost certainly Germanic, and we all know the Germanic tribes kicked the Celtic tribes as*es just about everytime they met.

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 08:37

Well, I can top your Celtic origin, as I am almost certainly Germanic, and we all know the Germanic tribes kicked the Celtic tribes as*es just about everytime they met.

Good for you:smg:

Primative1

02-02-2008, 09:16

I'm a genuine Celt. No maybe about it.

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 09:28

I'm a genuine Celt. No maybe about it.

You painted barbarian. Since when is your naked tribe connected to the Internet?!

Primative1

02-02-2008, 10:22

You painted barbarian. Since when is your naked tribe connected to the Internet?!

Got to move with the times man.

-sKy-

02-02-2008, 11:00

I am from Austria, origin 500 years ago in Silesia, i could be a Slavonian, a Germanian, a Celtic or a Green Rabbit... who cares, maybe i am a little bit of everything... :smash:

blank

02-02-2008, 11:57

I'm not a Celt though. I have no idea where the finno-ugric tribes originate (Scandinavia? Baltics? NW Russia?), so i can't connect myself to any EB factions. Too bad, but it also means i can lay off the nationalism :beam:

Tristuskhan

02-02-2008, 12:11

People still speak a form of Celtic in Brittany, I didn't know that. Very interesting:book:

Degemer mad, ma c'harantez!

Barbarossa82

02-02-2008, 12:21

Well, I can top your Celtic origin, as I am almost certainly Germanic, and we all know the Germanic tribes kicked the Celtic tribes as*es just about everytime they met.

:2thumbsup: :medievalcheers:

Tristuskhan

02-02-2008, 13:13

Well, I can top your Celtic origin, as I am almost certainly Germanic, and we all know the Germanic tribes kicked the Celtic tribes as*es just about everytime they met.

Hey you, give us back London!:clown:

The Wandering Scholar

02-02-2008, 13:49

It would be good to be a decendent of a powerful warlord.

overweightninja

02-02-2008, 14:04

It would be good to be a decendent of a powerful warlord.

Aren't something like 10-25% of all men descended from Genghis Khan? Swear I read that somewhere....
Anyway I think if you dig back far enough, the amount of migrations and stuff that have gone on over the centuries means most people could probably claim descendancy from most of the major groups going around.
I'm from one of those Dark Green regions (well, the other side of the river), but I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more Roman, Turkish, Russian, Norman etc etc etc blood in me than celtic :p
Cheers

unreal_uk

02-02-2008, 15:02

Aren't something like 10-25% of all men descended from Genghis Khan? Swear I read that somewhere....
Anyway I think if you dig back far enough, the amount of migrations and stuff that have gone on over the centuries means most people could probably claim descendancy from most of the major groups going around.
I'm from one of those Dark Green regions (well, the other side of the river), but I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more Roman, Turkish, Russian, Norman etc etc etc blood in me than celtic :p
Cheers

That's exactly what I was going to say. Looking back 2,000 years to whoever inhabited the land you currently reside in doesn't say anything for ones ancestry! I know my immediate ancestry is Italian and Welsh, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm descended from the Romans or the Silurii! Who knows where my family was before they went to Italy or came to Wales.

Everyone's from Africa originally, anyway!

konny

02-02-2008, 15:11

I think that about 1/2 of Europe's (and America's) population could be of Celtic orign. Most of these people could also be of Roman or Germanic orign - or of all three together.

Maeran

02-02-2008, 16:52

If we're going to be like that, I would put money on most of Europe and North America's population having a bit of every ethnic group that was in the region or traded with it. Because people are like that.

Still, you could look at it a different way and celebrate the newly named Collossos discovering his potential Celtic past.

Welcome to the party!

Maeran- Probably mainly of Ordovician and Brigante stock. With healthy doses of Roman, Danish, Saxon and Norman French and a little bit of other things for flavour.

General Appo

02-02-2008, 17:05

blank

02-02-2008, 17:08

Maeran

02-02-2008, 17:13

I've seen articles about this principle, and even with a few million competing men in the original generation most of the population end up sharing ancestors over a few thousand years. After all, people generally try to avoid marrying cousins (I know it used to happen a lot more often, but you get the idea of what I'm saying here, I hope) so the shared 'ancestry' will spread very far over time.

Kολοσσός

02-02-2008, 17:57

Aren't something like 10-25% of all men descended from Genghis Khan? Swear I read that somewhere....
Anyway I think if you dig back far enough, the amount of migrations and stuff that have gone on over the centuries means most people could probably claim descendancy from most of the major groups going around.
I'm from one of those Dark Green regions (well, the other side of the river), but I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more Roman, Turkish, Russian, Norman etc etc etc blood in me than celtic :p
Cheers

I don't know about that but Charles Bronson the actor certainly was which I found very surprising. I've always wondered about his striking Asiatic features and slanted eyes. Well guess what, his daddy was a Crimean Tatar. The mother was not but the dad's genes dominate his appearance.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Bronson_1973.jpg/220px-Bronson_1973.jpg

General Appo

02-02-2008, 18:51

If there was only 2 men living in Europe at 1 AD, then yes. Otherwise, no.

That´s just stupid. Let´s say there were only 2 men and 2 women in Europe at 1 AD. Each man get a couple of kids, and these kids grow up and and marries someone. Who? The other guys kids! And when they have kids both the original men are their ancestors, so after only 2 generations everybody shares the same ancestor. Multiply both the number of men and the number of years by a couple of thousands, and you´ll see that the principle stays.

Ayce

02-02-2008, 19:02

I don't know about that but Charles Bronson the actor certainly was which I found very surprising. I've always wondered about his striking Asiatic features and slanted eyes. Well guess what, his daddy was a Crimean Tatar. The mother was not but the dad's genes dominate his appearance.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Bronson_1973.jpg/220px-Bronson_1973.jpg

His father was a Lipka (Lithuanian) Tartar. And his mother a Lithuanian-American

Long lost Caesar

02-02-2008, 19:49

he is uuugly bugly!

Hax

02-02-2008, 21:10

Probably Seleukid origin here, but who cares nowadays?

General Appo

02-02-2008, 21:17

Seleukid? That´s not really any people, unless you are a mix of Macedonian, Greek, Syrian, Persian, Jewish, and a dozen other peoples.
Which of course you could be.
Personally, I´ve never felt "connected" to the Sweboz just because I´m kinda related to them, but I have always felt for the Druhtiz Skandzisku (Scandinavian Spearmen). If I´d have lived during that time that´s what I would most likely have been after all.

Hax

02-02-2008, 21:34

Seleukid? That´s not really any people, unless you are a mix of Macedonian, Greek, Syrian, Persian, Jewish, and a dozen other peoples.

Exactly.

M to the A

02-02-2008, 21:40

Screw research, I'm half Makedonian and half Belgian :charge: And yes I do believe I'm related to Alexander and Ambiorix themselves.. :2thumbsup: Worship me

Primative1

02-02-2008, 21:58

unreal_uk, I'm in Silure territory too. But yea, we are all African ultimately.

Obelics

02-02-2008, 22:32

one quarter YueZhe, one quarter Sabean with a spread of Eskimese and Aztech... my grandmather sayd she was taken by Martians and raped, so i could be half martian too...

no seriously, i cant believe people who says they have ancestor from 2000 y ago... i can just arrive to my granfh and grand moder...

I believe we have some cultural heritages more than genetic "specific" ancestors... so very difficult to find.

Anyway who cares, we have to die like everyone other, so i dont want to be reputed like an ancestor of someone in the futur...
if i have some sons im happy, but im sure the sons of the sons of my sons will have soon forget about me, if i was a gaul, if i was a roman or if i was a baktrian...
If tomorrow my country will not exist anymore, and put the case there will be a new country named X, i think my successors, will repute them of that country rather than my actual country.

history change every Tot years, so i bet in 100, 200 years actual geography will be quite different.

I have no faith in the flag of the nations neither in that of the race.
i dont remember almost never in my life i have embraced the flag of my country... except were i were very little watching the worldcup.

Hax

02-03-2008, 01:52

Instead, we should all become Togo nationalists.

TOGOOOO!

TOGOOOO!

Mouzafphaerre

02-03-2008, 02:39

.
Go go Togo! :cheerleader:

:togo:
.

woad&fangs

02-03-2008, 02:43

Were the Celts the only people to have red hair?

M to the A

02-03-2008, 03:25

Were the Celts the only people to have red hair?
Several accounts by Greek writers detail redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini", probably Udmurts and Permyak Finns located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia, as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to: "be tall and terrifying in appearance ... a great mass of red hair ... over her shoulders".

Red hair was also found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. The 2nd millennium BC caucasian Tarim mummies in China were found with red and blonde hair.[5]

According to Wikipedia

Megas Methuselah

02-03-2008, 04:54

I'm a Canadian mutt...
:wink:

Kολοσσός

02-03-2008, 07:00

Test

Justiciar

02-03-2008, 07:39

All this mention of heritage makes me feel quite unfortunate. My mother was a hampster, you see. And my father.. well I remember nothing about him beyond his vaguely elderberryesque smell. Woe to me. Woe.

Maeran

02-03-2008, 09:57

Ni!

aftzengeier

02-03-2008, 15:05

Considering how few people existed just a couple of hundreds of years ago, a man living around AD 1 could easily be forefather to like 50% of Europe´s population, so a lot of people are probably decendent from some famous guy.
But anyway, Germanic people rules!!! Woho!! Yiha!! Yaay!!! :logic:
:viking: :medievalcheers: :barrel:

This guy knows where the apple's gonna come down :eyebrows: http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s246.gif

On topic:

It was proved several times, that there never has been a ethnical celtic group. The celts were "only" a cultural family containing several ethnic groups like the gauls or britons for excample. When they conquered a foreign land they did not push the former settlers off of that area but made them part of their culture - the acting that was part of the Roman success! The Celts by that were able to generate a huge population not having to colonize conquered territory. The Germanics did it the other way around in most cases of ancient time (until the migration). So it is unlikely that the author of this thread is of celtic origin. The Celts were pushed out of Galizia and later the Vandals who most likely settled down there were also forced to migrate somewhere else a few centuries later, giving the land to the new slavic population!

The only things that really can prove ethnic populations are corpses from the swamps :eyebrows: They literally are a bessing to northern and central european research on ancient peoples :stupido:

Farewell so far :capricorn:

BerkeleyBoi

02-03-2008, 16:55

Chinese families tend to keep very good track of their ancestry. I have a big family scroll that shows my ancestry going back nearly one thousand years to the Song Dynasty. So I can state with great certainty that I am... Chinese.

It's not that difficult to keep track of family lineage in China either. I mean for at least the past three hundred years, my ancestors lived in the same village northwest of Guangzhou. It wasn't until 1976 that someone from my family moved to the city. And then all of a sudden, I now have relatives living in San Francisco, Vancouver, New York, Sydney, Lima, Jakarta, and Brussels.

mrhoopla

02-03-2008, 19:59

Since I'm of Swiss origin, I can say with some certainty that I possess many Celtic ancestors.

The Romans assimilated the Celtic peoples of present day Switzerland, but did not affect their ethnic mix to a great degree. Later on, Germanic tribes such as the Alemanni moved into to Switzerland as the Roman Empire fell into decline, and proceeded to assimilate the Romanized Celts.

So: Germanic, Celtic, with a tad of Roman :balloon2:

Gaius Scribonius Curio

02-04-2008, 03:53

I'm guessing that I'm Anglo-Saxon, (Germanic). Four of my eight great Grandparents were from the same village in Yorkshire (I've never even been to Yorkshire myself!), and three are from the south coast.

But the point is that its all relative, as has already been said, the human gene pool is only so big, hence we're all related!

russia almighty

02-04-2008, 04:11

Speaking of that there was this one show they did a test on a caveman skeleton;this dude in the town was closely related to him .

Hound of Ulster

02-04-2008, 04:36

My ancestory may be Irish, but that doesn't mean my ancestors were at Alesia. I can however take some pride in the fact that the Celts (of whom the Irish could be called an 'ethnic group') once ruled all of Europe, sacked Rome and Delphi, created beautiful works of art in gold and silver, and left behind a mythology on par with that of Greece or Mesopatamia. European ancestery (especially for Americans) is very hard to figure out, mostly because of migrations, invasions and expulsions of peoples that have occured throughout history.

And yes, we are all African in the end.

Ah Chedder Man!

cmacq

02-04-2008, 05:31

we are all African in the end.

I know thats more settled science...

...like global warming and the bloody big bang...

but...

would you bet the ranch on that???

Teleklos Archelaou

02-04-2008, 05:58

Guys, you are all *everything*, and much more recently than you might expect.

400 years ago, each one of us had more than one million direct ancestors at that specific generation. 800 years ago the number of your direct ancestors at that generation exceeds the total population of the planet, meaning your ancestors 800 years ago probably included much of the adult population of the world (who had any descendants that lived). Because of human migrations, even just a few Indian and Chinese traders in south Africa who sired illegitimate children there in the 1400's, or a couple of silk road traders from the Middle East who settled in China, if 800 years ago your ancestors included even a single European, African, or Asian, then 1,600 years ago your ancestors included most of the adult populations of all three continents.

If a historical figure who lived more than 1,600 years ago had children who had descendants, that person is almost certainly among your ancestors. Everyone in the world today is most likely descended from Nefertiti, from Confucious, and from Julius Caesar (through his illegitimate children, not Julia).

And yes, I would bet the ranch, and your ranch, and everyone else's ranch, that we are all African in the end. Multiregionalism is hardly acceptable as a serious scientific alternative to RAO (you can thank your DNA for letting us be sure of this).

I'm proud that my recent ancestors have been poor farmers who had good and stable families, but anyone who is excessively proud of their ancestry, especially after anything more than about 10 generations (i.e., more than anyone in the family might directly know or remember), imho, is a little silly. I'm almost certainly descended from Caesar and Alexander and Mohammed and Genghis Khan and Socrates and anyone else you'd care to remember, and you are too!

cmacq

02-04-2008, 06:08

I like you man…

But you're crazy…

crazy man…

cum by ya...

massiv zingo blingo on the hacuna matata, dude...

Dhampir

02-04-2008, 06:25

The only ethnic descent I can claim with any certainty is Native American. The other parts of the family came from Northern Germany and Norway and who the heck knows what goes on in those barbarian places. They're always darkened in by fog of war.

Teleklos Archelaou

02-04-2008, 06:30

Well, if you don't choose to actually read about what "scientists" have figured out about this sort of stuff, you can have whatever ideas you like. If you aren't talking about the most reclusive and distant Polynesian-Pacific Islander or Native American peoples who might not have a single drop of European or mixed blood in their veins, then the Most Recent Common Human Ancestor (not the first of course, just the most recent one who was *common* to us all) probably lived within the last 1000 years. That would mean we all are that closely related.

cmacq

02-04-2008, 06:53

The General

02-04-2008, 12:17

I'm guessing that I'm Anglo-Saxon, (Germanic). Four of my eight great Grandparents were from the same village in Yorkshire (I've never even been to Yorkshire myself!), and three are from the south coast.
So you probably have some Viking blood in you, too. Jórvík go go.

Trust me...

scientists often lie...

...like dirty rugs.

You just need to figure out their motive, means, and opportunity.

Man-made global warming; plain lies, miss steps, bad data, fake charts, and false graphs.

Big Bang and the outward expanding universe, yet we have the predicted massive collision of M31 and Via Lactea in the year 3 billon and 1?

Africa First, discovery of point-of-origin directly related to relatively small modern population, little vegetation, exposed geology, and hot-dry modern climate.

Face it dude, you live in world created by science in seven days, a lemming's paradise, where there's never any right, nor wrong, and you will never prove a thing worth knowing; cause the science tells you so?

As today, the road to good intentions, is paved with bogus science.

And the bogus science is the good science.

And whom were these illegitimate children of Julius Caesar?
Lulz. Over-skepticism much?

Mnergh. On-topic; I've got at least Germanic and Finnish blood in me, and possibly some Swedish and/or Russian blood, too. Who knows? And, of course, my Germanic, or, err, German forefathers might've carried some Celtic blood, too, and perhaps some western Slavic too (again, who knows? Those are just groups that lived nearby and might've mixed, hence my assumption).

My Finnish bloodline (I've got mostly Finnish blood in me, the Germanic fore-father of my father's line migrated into Eastern Finland some time during the 1500s...) most likely contains relatively "pure" blood. I mean, inbredness is what we can attribute at least some of our (Finns) inheritable diseases to. Small populations ftl.

Ayce

02-04-2008, 12:36

Trust me...

scientists often lie...

...like dirty rugs.

You just need to figure out their motive, means, and opportunity.

Man-made global warming; plain lies, miss steps, bad data, fake charts, and false graphs.

Big Bang and the outward expanding universe, yet we have the predicted massive collision of M31 and Via Lactea in the year 3 billon and 1?

Africa First, discovery of point-of-origin directly related to relatively small modern population, little vegetation, exposed geology, and hot-dry modern climate.

Face it dude, you live in world created by science in seven days, a lemming's paradise, where there's never any right, nor wrong, and you will never prove a thing worth knowing; cause the science tells you so?

As today, the road to good intentions, is paved with bogus science.

And the bogus science is the good science.

And whom were these illegitimate children of Julius Caesar?

Whoaah, easy there...

Although I do agree man-mad warming is false, but the data, charts and graphs aren't fake, they're just arranged badly: We know global warming isn't due to greenhouse gases, since the upper atmosphere is not heating slower than the troposphere, as it would in a greenhouse gas scenario, besides even if it were, 95% of the greenhouse gases is H2O vapour. Besides overlapping the charts you see the CO2 line following the temperature line. There have been many Universities that have dismanteled this thing as just an excuse to tax the most ubiquotus byproduct of burning processes.

But the rest, come on... Africa was the birthplace of humanity, both the first evolution towards a bipedal mammal from the primates there and Homo sapiens sapiens 80000 yrs ago.

The Universe may be expanding at a faster and faster rate, but it's structure is collapsing from the initial uniform soup of matter to the current string like shapes of thousands of galaxies that have clumped together due to gravitational forces.

Teleklos Archelaou

02-04-2008, 13:05

.......And whom were these illegitimate children of Julius Caesar?
Uh Julius Caesar was a notorious womanizer. Of course he had lots of illegitimate children. :dizzy2:

As for the rest of that kooky stuff, how do you start with the idea that scientists are generally lieing? I'd much rather trust people who are trained to do their research, then draw conclusions from it, than the other way around - if you are so sure all these scientists are just making things up, then you probably have your answers already in your head and no one is going to convince you otherwise. It makes for bad science and bad history too when applied that way.

Watchman

02-04-2008, 13:30

Didn't the marching song of Caesar's legionaries go something like "here comes our bald whoremonger..." ? :sweatdrop:

Personally, I tend to trust the scientists unless given strong reasons not to in individual cases. Partly because they get results - case in point being the electronic hardware I'm typing this with. And partly because while their method for "filling in the blanks" may not be perfect, it's at least the best one around and they tend to keep each other in check readily enough. "Peer review", remember ?

cmacq

02-04-2008, 19:04

Moros

02-04-2008, 19:35

I think we are getting quite off-tpoic, wouldn't you agree?

I guess I'm mainly Germanic, perhaps some Gallo-Roman blood, but mostly German. I guess...

Ayce

02-04-2008, 22:27

Had to give you guys something better to write about. This threat was becoming a total cum by ya bore.

Good to see you're up to speed on MMGW. Did you read about the problems with the urban recording site data? The real problem here is the unsupportable rate of global population growth.

Expanding yet collapsing, could cover all the bases in theory, and I'm sure someone has found somebody to invent the math to support it? But does that make it right, or do we need a new theory? Maybe if one had a stationary point to stand and about a billion years, give or take 50 mill, to plot the paths of several galaxies. Everyone knows that the observational results from singular reference are directly related to chronometric exposure, distance, and relative prospective. How about blackholes followed by bangs, wherein some bangs are much bigger than others?

Humanity, and Homo Sapiens are not quite the same as bipedal primates. I believe, the actually evidence for the first Humans comes from the Near East and not Africa.

Are innovation and science the same, and is there a direct relationship between peer-review, correct grammar, career, and so-called public funding? But you're all right about some science being 'kooky stuff,' but that of course may also depend on ones point of reference.

Remember, this is all made in good cheer.

Sorry for the off topic, but a few things to be made clear here:

I've heard about those data recording problems, but they're not even needed to disprove MMGW. The unsupportable pop growth thing is also bogus said by media „experts” regarding the „population control measures that need to be implemented in Africa, India, China”, as the fewer the people, the easier to control. The Earth's resources can support 12 billion people (and the population will top-out at 10-11 billion in the future). This process is explained in 9-10th grade Geography lessons (at least here).

As for the clumping process, by looking into younger parts of the Universe (a few billion light years away) you see a much more uniform distribution. And groupings are string-like because of Universe expansion (an arc with the same no. of degrees is longer the farther you get from the center of the circle). Universe expansion has been determined to be speeding up by observing Type Ia supernovas - they blow at exactly 1.44 solar masses and thus have the same true luminosity. It was a totally unexpected result, they were looking into how fast the Universe was slowing down.

Actually there are older specimens in Africa than the ones found in the Near East or China. The oldest is about 6 million yrs old, at the time of the first split.

Back on topic: I probably look like a Dacian resident of Kallatis (quite hairy, if only I'd let facial hair grow, but not now - in 5 years time at the very least), 1/8-1/6 Greek - the rest indigenous, Wallachian Plain(going back many generations of priests before my grandpa, who caught the Soviet Army entering Romania - how ironic, I'm an atheist, convinced religion is detrimental to the world)/Carpathian Arc/East Pannonian ancestries probably. I don't see any cuman or goth features on me, so not much of a migratory ancestry.

General Appo

02-04-2008, 23:15

Amazing how a topic about someone claiming to be of Celtic origin can lead to discussions about wether the universe is expanding or not. Amazing.
Anyway, I am fairly certain I am indeed fully (as fully as one can be at least) of Germanic heritage, at least me and my whole family look that way, and I have confirmation that my family lived in Sweden since at least around 1400, I think the oldest church record is from 1324 or something like that.
Since Sweden never really got any of that migration thing I can say with some certanity that my ancestors most likely lived in Scandinavia or northern Germany.
I wouldn´t say I´m proud of it, but at least I can be fairly certain of my heritage, not that it does much good to be that. Just a fun little thing really, especially as I am almost the only one I know who have only Swedish family as far back as one can go. Bit of a boring family I have.
Most people nowadays have ancestors from very different areas, for example in my class I have guys with Portugese, Iranian, Finnish, Polish, Iraqian, Turkish, Brittish, Italian, Korean, Brazilian, Marockoan, Greece, Ethiopian, Egyptian, French, Vietnamese, and a couple of other nationality´s in just their parents or grandparents. Most have one very swedish family, and one not so much swedish, with varying degrees of how "non-swedish" it is.
Not saying that it´s bad or good, just how it is. It´s funny to look at my parents school photos, because absolutely everyone looks distinctly "swedish", where as now the majority doesn´t. Funny how things can change in one generation, but I guess that´s what happens when muncipials with 81,000 people take more refugees from Iraq than USA and Canada togheter.

Cyclops

02-05-2008, 02:56

I think the 19th century idea of race=language=blood=nation is utter rubbish.

If the opening poster is proud of his descent from Celtic tribes in what is now Poland, good luck to him. I understand some Poles trace ancestry back to the Sarmatians IIRC?

Most of my discenable ancestors are from the fringe of the British isles, which makes my blood ancestry mostly Celtic, but I speak a Germanic language with 80% romance words (English) so my culture has a lot more to do with Athens, Rome, Paris and London than Dublin or Edinburgh. My culture is English: you can call it British at a stretch, and its becoming Australian by degrees but we're centuries away from being a distinct culture as opposed to a regional variation.

I think being a Celt is a matter of language and culture. Everyone who uses soap is a little bit Celtic in that sense. Everyone who uses paper money is a little bit Chinese. Everyone who reads manga is a little bit Japanese. Everyone who drinks whiskey is a little bit Irish. Everyone who has toppled an empire and brought about a 500 year dark age of ignorance and cruelty is a little bit German :smash: (just kidding) anyone who has enjoyed a decent beer is definitely a bit German (they may not have invented it but German beer is the best I've had!).:2thumbsup:

Jaywalker-Jack

02-05-2008, 03:27

Red hair was also found in Asia....

A lot of people in India have red hair to this day, believe it or not.

Watchman

02-05-2008, 03:29

Would you believe I actually don't care a whit about my ancestry beyond the actual living kin ?

Jaywalker-Jack

02-05-2008, 03:35

My ancestory may be Irish, but that doesn't mean my ancestors were at Alesia. I can however take some pride in the fact that the Celts (of whom the Irish could be called an 'ethnic group')

Don't be so sure. The latest genetic studies suggest we Irish (and the Welsh, Scots and English for that matter) have most in common with the Basques. The first people to settle the islands after the Ice Age came from that region, and have remained the main population group here ever since. The Celts, Normans, Vikings, Romans and Anglo-Saxons brought in only a small fraction of our heritage.

Jaywalker-Jack

02-05-2008, 03:38

Centurion Crastinus

02-05-2008, 08:10

OK, my new name is Colossus...with a Greek spelling.

How do you change your screen name anyway?

eadingas

02-05-2008, 10:57

Regarding original topic and bringing back a bit of sanity to the matter:

1) Polish Galitzia has nothing to do with Gauls, unlike Spanish one. Its name comes from the city of Halicz which was the capital of the region in the old days. Later in Latin it was changed from Halyczyna to Galicyna to Galizia to sound more 'posh'.

2) The Celts were removed from these lands a good few hundred years before Slavs came. After them there were Germans, mixed Germano-Celts, Sarmatian raiders, Huns and then there's a settlement gap, so Slavs are coming into mostly an empty land - which is one of the reasons they expand so succesfully, no enemies to fight.

3) You'd have more luck finding Celtic origins in Lower Silesia, where you can still find the Celtic/Germano-Celtic artifacts and toponyms without too much bother.

Barbarian

02-05-2008, 12:51

You can''t really judge your origin just by your nationality and the place you live. You can't even track what cultures have been mixed in your families over the last few centuries, not talking about thousands of years even. I am sure that each of us have a part from most of the ancient cultures, considering that the ethnic groups didn't stay at one place, but migrated due to endless reasons. It is pretty sure, that most of us are not the descendants from tribes, who lived in our countries 2000 years ago.

The reason, why 1 man can be an ancestor to thousands or millions of people, are the fact that most of the family trees or bloodlines end somewhere and are cut. Those who remained through history, are our ancestors.

In any case, I am Barbarian! :viking:

cmacq

02-05-2008, 16:34

Very Off Topic

Actually there are older specimens in Africa than the ones found in the Near East or China. The oldest is about 6 million yrs old, at the time of the first split.

I think this may be due to some missunderstanding about what is considered human vs hominid, but please read here for a somewhat comic book verson...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1227_051227_asia_migration.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020704_georgianskull.html

There have always been problems with particular features of human physiology that do not fit well into the Africa First model, yet strangly they never get much press.

I've heard about those data recording problems, but they're not even needed to disprove MMGW.

Actually, the problems with the urban recording stations clearly demonstrate that temps. have dropped slightly since the 1940s and remain slightly below, and not far above, those projected for the MWP.

As for the clumping process, by looking into younger parts of the Universe (a few billion light years away) you see a much more uniform distribution.

If there was indeed a big bang, and everything happened all at once, why would there be younger parts of the Universe?

Good Ship Chuckle

02-05-2008, 17:04

I'm definately all celtic. Freckles, blue eyes, dark hair, and first generation Irish. Both my mother a father were born in Ireland.

The ancient greeks also said that the celtic peoples originally came from central Turkey. This place was called Galatia. This finding is supported by the original map that the thread maker posted at the beginning.

So maybe I'm actually a Turk. Who knows? :7detective:

The General

02-05-2008, 19:11

Moros

02-05-2008, 19:49

Also Turks came much later to turkey.

Cyclops

02-05-2008, 22:36

Yeah my mate is a Pontian Greek. His family moved to Florina from near Trebizond so he's also a "Greek Macedonian" with all the arguments that entails. He sometimes describes himself as Byzantine. Frankly he looks more Persian than Greek (people also guess he's Spanish and for some reason South African), but he's orthodox, speaks greek etc.

delablake

02-21-2008, 09:12

I am half Roman and half Austrian, so I am a mixture of two great yet contradictory cultures. I have brown-green eyes and my long, curly hazel hair tends to become strawberry-red at the sea-side, i am muscular, taller than the average Italian but smaller than your average barbarian, so 2000 years ago it would have been a tough choice for me, whether to join the horde or the legions (with closely cropped hair though, lol).
Yet I am born in Rome, so I usually like to play with the Romani, and I never attack the Gauls.

Intrepid Adventurer

02-21-2008, 12:36

Just going off topic veeery fast! ^_^

There have always been problems with particular features of human physiology that do not fit well into the Africa First model, yet strangly they never get much press.

I find that any decent challenge to the current opinion is often overlooked until there is no denying it. Especially when it means rethinking stuff that's been presumed to be true for a very long time

If there was indeed a big bang, and everything happened all at once, why would there be younger parts of the Universe?

Or if it all exploded and spun into existance, why do entire solar systems rotate in the 'wrong' direction?

Although science is very useful for understanding many things, I think we must always keep in mind that many of the things scientists presume to have happened are all speculation based on very little actual evidence. It's what you make of it. This is proven by the fact that the scientifical opinion of many things, especially the origin of the human race, is radically changed every once in a while. 'They' do not know, 'they' assume. The only way to really scientifically state something is true, is to observe it. And as all historians will agree, that's often our biggest problem: we'll never get that chance!

Back on topic:

I've always wanted to know where I came from. My family migrated from Germany near Kassel to the Netherlands in the 17th century, before that I have no idea. I only know that they traveled with gypsies and so might have mingled with them. I must presume to be mostly Germanic, of course.

Tristuskhan

02-21-2008, 22:52

People still speak a form of Celtic in Brittany, I didn't know that. Very interesting:book:

For those who would like to hear a bit of Breton (depends on the time of the day but it's also a good musical radio):

http://radiokerne.antourtan.org/bre/wareeun-selaou.asp

fenix3279

02-22-2008, 06:18

I'm part English, Irish, German, and French. Nothing but celtic here, buddy.

cmacq

02-22-2008, 07:28

In truth you'all may be Kelts, or maybe naught, but can you pipe or play the drum?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BePu3Smz9vU&feature=related

Then in a crowded room, without a thought, step off the Claymore's prance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz2jnrYzFw0&feature=related

If the fife, a string, or tipper, skip low and slow, then build to rapid fire...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnIpyoUwQiY

does your pump pound bolts of punch-pulse to ped and brain the same?

For I know sure, a bonnie Kelt I'm not, yet in cold dark fact, a wee bit Scot.

So take great pride, or care be fraught, in this crazy sharp-edged dance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoBi5lNXk_0&feature=related

you'all have sought?

Now then, its back to work.

KhaziOfKalabara

02-22-2008, 10:50

Very Off Topic

If there was indeed a big bang, and everything happened all at once, why would there be younger parts of the Universe?

The whole universe is the same age, but light has a finite speed. The further away things are, the longer the light takes to arrive. So things closer to us look older, and things further away look younger.

cmacq

02-22-2008, 10:55

Is the key word here, 'looks?'

That was the point I tried to make on page 2 of this thread, about observational results from a singular reference being directly related to chronometric exposure, distance, and relative prospective. The above off-the-cuff was just me, tossing a quick metaphorical monkey wrench into something that has always appeared a bit too metaphysical for my liking.

Back on topic?

Hax

02-22-2008, 12:30

I hail from Mars.

Greetings, Earthlings!

cmacq

02-22-2008, 14:39

Hax,

what's that tied to your tail?

Hax

02-22-2008, 14:43

Crap, my antenna's still on?

Intrepid Adventurer

02-22-2008, 14:47

No mate, that's your Rome DVD collection trailing behind you. ;)

Tristuskhan

02-22-2008, 23:44

More of continental celts. Breizh Atao!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XwGW2IJpJA

IndianPrince

02-23-2008, 00:46

Im probably greek/"aryan"/"indian"/turk/many more ... thats what u get when ur country assimilates invading armies instantly :P

Prince

cmacq

02-23-2008, 02:03

Not to be too far off topic, but today in the field, running right through the middle of a historic site, I saw the largest loin tracks ever.

Tiberius Nero

02-23-2008, 03:47

IndianPrince

02-23-2008, 03:55

Heh, love it how everyone tries to speak of their biological ancestry in terms of modern conceptual constructs of nationality; it is like measuring weight in yards and meters, yet most don't notice how absurd this is.

True it is absurd. But ... i guess we can't really go into the depths of it unless getting into some argument about "how inaccurate that statement is because so & so group only was there for so & so time ..."

I guess to simplify (not OVER-simplify, mind u) we use modern tags to identify our heritage

Prince

Tiberius Nero

02-23-2008, 07:33

True it is absurd. But ... i guess we can't really go into the depths of it unless getting into some argument about "how inaccurate that statement is because so & so group only was there for so & so time ..."

I guess to simplify (not OVER-simplify, mind u) we use modern tags to identify our heritage

Prince

That doesn't change the fact that this process is based on nothing more than misconceptions, imperfect understanding of history, over-generalization (and yes over-simplification as well), and downright fiction. Might be amusing to watch once in a while, but coming from a place and a "neighbourhood" (guess where :/ ) where this process is taken very seriously, it really turns my stomach in certain contexts.

Constantius I

02-23-2008, 08:23

I have nothing wrong with being proud of who I am. I am an irishman. great great Grandad came from Connaught to the USA around 1860ish, we dont know exactly when, but he did join the union army in the civil war (served in an irish regiment from NY or something). My Ma's side came over from ireland during the civil war in the 1920's and were from donegal. The real shame is, we spoke fluent irish until my parents generation, when my grandparents decided that it was unamerican!!!!!!!!!! to teach them!!!!!

Damn, I could have spoke flawless irish living in the heart of the united states!

Gaius marcus

02-23-2008, 08:28

well, I am a descendant of William The Conqueror, Who invaded England... I have the coat of arms and everything to prove it. Aparently my ancestors went back to france then settled in Canada, mixing with the Iroquoise and Later the Italians(I'm also descended from the Romans on my Grandmother's Side) which is cool.

Edit: does this mean im part of the French/English Nobility?

Starance Quintus

02-23-2008, 09:47

I'm a mad scottish celt from my fathers side and polish from my mothers side :O now thats interesting :S we have family records dating back to the 12th century :O

Hax

02-23-2008, 14:31

I'm a mad scottish celt

Most Scots nowadays aren't Celtic anymore, unless you're from The Isle of Skye, or something.

cmacq

02-23-2008, 14:47

Heh, love it how everyone tries to speak of their biological ancestry in terms of modern conceptual constructs of nationality; it is like measuring weight in yards and meters, yet most don't notice how absurd this is.

Come again about absurdity, was it the modern constructs or the yards and meters? Still, I've had the unfortunate opportunity to witness first-hand some of these so-called and self-proclaimed Kelts in action over a holyday feast, and to tell the truth, its no bloody bed-O'roses. I wouldn't call them absurd; as least not to their face, yet the words insane, mad, and crazy-stupid come to mind. I've no stomach for it myself, but as they always say, that often a strong drink makes for a throbbing-weak head. So, in all seriousness if I could, I would invite all the Kelts to remove the bottle from their mouths, for a moment...

to pronounce a toast to all those that call themselves Kelts, and of course all their fellow travelers,

cheers to all!

Bouketsu

02-23-2008, 20:16

I know I am...
I have the red hair to prove it. :]
Ireland will never fall! >-<

Fionnlagh

02-24-2008, 01:11

Most Scots nowadays aren't Celtic anymore, unless you're from The Isle of Skye, or something.
Now why do you say that?

From my understanding the Scots are made up mostly of Picts (arguably one of the Celtic peoples) , Gaels and Brythonic Celts, with a small part of Viking and Saxon thrown in. That looks like a mostly Celtic people to me :P

Hax

02-24-2008, 01:35

Because during the years England controlled Scotland, the population got very mixed. It's quite hard for a Scot to say you're Celtic nowadays, unless you can trace your family back for more than say, 1000 years.

The Scots nowadays are Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Normandian, most certainly south from Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the Lowlands overall, especially the lowlands area, especially the Lothian area.

Yeah, I do know some stuff about Scotland.

cmacq

02-24-2008, 02:29

Correct me if this was not what you meant,

but, I believe Hax was referring to the huge exodus and/or deportation of Highlanders and Islanders from northwest Scotland between the 1650s and 1850s. Of these the vast majority ended up in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, and Ireland. Now, of the islands least touched by the deportations (later called Clearances) were Lewis, Harris, Baleshare, and Barra. The Clearances hit Skye hard, as well.

My family was from Ulva, and I'm of one sept of the mac Quarrie. Don't believe what you read online, there are many different spellings, but only four major septs still around. I may add, not a single person of the original mac Quarrie families remain on Ulva, Mull, or any of the western isles.

Actually, my family claims a recorded line a bit longer than one thousand years. But, I've never heard anyone call us Kelts. Been called a lot of other words, but not a Kelt. I think we're considered to be Scot because an illustrious ancient-ancestor married into the Alpin royal line and his personal/clan name was Gaelicized? Thus, he became a son and then there is that whole inbreeding issue, thingy...
of which I will not bore anyone with.

Also, I believe in reality, the term Pict is used to mean, that the person whom uses it, has absolutely no clue what in the world the word Pict means, other than someone that was not a Scot or a Donnald (dark one)? Some have proposed that Picts or Pechts means something like 'the Confederation?'

Hax, what about the Scotto-Normans, and try not to leave out any other old bones of contention?

Fionnlagh

02-24-2008, 04:41

I haven't brushed up on my Scottish history inna while so bear with me if I'm just talkin out of my ass a little bit :P

I wasn't aware the English Controlled Scotland to such a large extent to say that there was a mass immigration from the Saxons and the Normans. If your idea that being ruled by the English would all of a sudden have loads of Saxons and Normans mix and become the majority of that land, that would certainly mean Ireland and Wales would be more Anglo Saxon and Norman than Scotland would be.

The only people I can think of that the Normans really mixed with in Scotland was the Nobility, other than that I don't think the Normans had a profound impact on the Lowland or Highland population.
And the Saxons really only held a small portion of Southern Scotland. The Picts saw to it not to let the Saxons move any further North.

Then there are the Vikings who only really held the Islands and a portion of Northern Scotland, there I can see a healthy dose of Celto/Norse people. Galloglass are a good example of what came from those areas.

From what I know, i'd say its a safe bet to say Scotland is mostly of Celtic stock, unless its a mass migration into a area that kills off the local residents. Which the Saxons didn't even do to all of the British Celts, something the Normans couldn't do, and the Vikings in the end became Celts themselves.

Reading these forums for quite awhile now, makes me feel a little funny trying to put my two cents in.... something just gives me the feeling that what ever I say is wrong, but I stand by it :P

cmacq

02-24-2008, 08:34

Surprisingly or not, this is another of those complex subjects.

Fionnlagh, or should I say White-law, or is it literally Vion's law...

as far as the Medieval period is concerned you're correct, except for the part about ancient Alba being filled by largely a Keltic stock. Also there were the massive demographic shifts between the 1650s and 1850s, with the associated backfilling by lollanders, english, and irish immigrants after the 1860s. Regressing somewhat, while they (the late classical and dark age people) were collectively referred to as Picts or Pechts, individually the Scots called them Cruithin or Cruithne. Typically, scots applied this term to the later wherein a subservient role was implied. Some have equated this term with a gaelic (q-Kelt) form of Briton or Priteni. Yet, those with some understanding of the subject will note the Old Irish word cruithnecht, meaning wheat (literally; that which is 'cut' or 'harvested). Thus, the word Cruithne (Cruith-ni) most likely meant something like '[those] without wheat, harvest' or 'non-farmers?'

In the last decade or so, researchers (archaeologists mainly) that work in this field have come around to calling these Picti, non-Kelts. There are a number of reasons for this, and again I will not bore anyone with these. The point is, if indeed these people were pre-Kelts, 1) this may shed some light on Tacitus' somewhat cryptic statement about the people that lived north of the Britons in the 1st century AD; and 2) then one might add the Iron Age Kelts to the list of assimilated enthos, at least in the areas outlined by Hax.

Whence comfort seemed to dwell,
discomford no sooner swelled,
so go Gallowglasses and skippy Kerns,
both compelled...

to trust their heels?

Now Hax, its time to tell them about the Epidii.

an_do_89

02-24-2008, 23:48

I believe is a kind of a feeling this problem with the origin.
I always felt I'm dacian at the origin and that I'm a dacian, because I'm convinced that no romanization ocured and that the migrating people had no influence on my ancestors who never moved from the area of theyr mountains.

And by the way:In Romania was discovered the oldest bone of homo sapiens from Europe (34.000-36.000 years old), and the second in the world after the bone found in Africa.:idea2:

Watchman

02-24-2008, 23:53

Well, isolated mountain regions and suchlike have certainly been known to "time-capsule" some rather strange relics. Although it's arguably not something to brag about if you happen to hark back to such inbred hicks... ~;)

Cyclops

02-25-2008, 01:03

...Yeah, I do know some stuff about Scotland.

Great stuff.

IIRC the recent DNA studies suggest most of the British peoples are overwhelmingly descended from the pre-Keltic neolithic farmers who swamped out the mesolithoc h/g's. The exceptions are on the islands where there's up to 50% scandanavian stock (yep those Vikings made an impresion). The weitrd suggestion is there's more Viking blood than Saxon in Brtain :dizzy2:.

So the "English" who mixed with the "Scots" are 80=90% the same ancestry.

As far as the "nation=culture" argument goes, I feel most Scots are now Anglicised in that they speak English (albeit in their own charming variety of acdents) and share many aspects of English culture (parliament, fried foods etc).

I think my Scottish ancestors like my Irish ancestors have become part of a broader British culture dominated by the English. I think nearly all of my ancestors went through a phase when they were Celtic.

Justiciar

02-25-2008, 02:29

The wierd suggestion is there's more Viking blood than Saxon in Britain.
Not so wierd, given the murky nature of early English settlement, and wider area of Norse invasion. Not to mention the supposedly indistinguishable nature of "English" and Danish DNA. Still, it's culture that counts, in one's own opinion. And as far as that goes, Scotland is - at least at it's roots - Celtic. It's not such a good idea to rely on genetic studies either tbh. They're inconclusive at best, and typically only draw from a small and selective group of subjects. You'd have to mill through the entire "native" populace of Britain to be certain, frankly.

Teleklos Archelaou

02-25-2008, 02:49

Because during the years England controlled Scotland, the population got very mixed. It's quite hard for a Scot to say you're Celtic nowadays, unless you can trace your family back for more than say, 1000 years.
But even if you did, you're talking about one family? If you think your ancestors were pretty much all Scottish, 1000 years ago your ancestors (direct ones) were not from one little place. They were most everyone in Europe. Not from all over, but most everyone who had descendants that lived. You would have billions of direct ancestors at that point, though of course most anywhere near Scotland would be your ancestor many times over by countless different ways.

cmacq

02-25-2008, 04:17

So the "English" who mixed with the "Scots" are 80=90% the same ancestry.

Right, the good old numbers game...

I believe what Cyclops, or should I say Round-eye, cites is...

The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story
Stephen Oppenheimer 2006

Good post Cyclops, but the devil is always in the detail, and this is me riding rough-shod and shot-gunning from the hip.

Although I would agree with the basic premise, I do get very uneasy when a geneticist starts spiting out names and dates, as if those data were somehow divined from DNA. Worst still Oppenheimer gets some of this side-bar from the rejected discipline of glottochronology. For example, at one point Oppenheimer adopts Forster’s argument, that English (the language) was a so-called fourth Germanic language group used in England before the Roman invasion. I must say, a bit off the DNA's beaten track.

I agree with Justiciar about the near indistinguishable nature of 'English' and 'Danish' DNA, and would add some populations found in Norway, northwest Germany, and the Netherlands to that mix as well. In fact, Mark Thomas of University College, London, makes a convincing argument to that affect. The Oppenheimer book attempts a counter argument, but its an extremely weak one. In fact, Justiciar's entire post makes some very important and sound points.

This of course brings me the basal argument I was about to make in the Swaboz 1.0 thread, about the enthos of the Northwest Block and Pre-Roman Iron Age Denmark being Kelt. Here and now, please let no fur fly on this count, as my part of the pending project reports are in and I have no more field days for several weeks to come. Soooo, I'll get back to it soon...

maybe?

I think that 'Origins of the British' is a good overview of a very complex subject, yet I get the distinct impression the numbers were either worked too much, or worked too little. In the end I find it over indulgent, often presumptuous, and intellectually lacking.

With all due respect for Teleklos Archelaou, and not to make too fine a point, but dear sir I've a few chose words; pack animal mentality and marriage networks. Innately, humans (or Homo sapiens sapiens) seem to have this wicked habit of using breeding to establish a deceive competitive advantage. In this little reality-game, it is something that can not be changed, as it is...

hard coded.
And Watchman, about that 'inbred hicks,' thats a horrid thing to say, and I strongly resemble that incredibly insensitive comment!

Cyclops, find any new malapropisms yet? We both know that they're there...

somewhere?

Teleklos Archelaou

02-25-2008, 04:53

With all due respect for Teleklos Archelaou, dear sir I've a few chose words; pack animal and marriage networks. Innately, humans seem to have this wicked habit of using breeding to establish a deceive competitive advantage. In this little reality-game it is something that can not be changed, as it is, hard coded.While I would say that the majority of his ancestors probably did come from the place he thinks they did, many (thousands and thousands if we are talking a thousand years of ancestors) surely did not.

Just one of his sixteen great-great grandparents, or just one of his 64 great-great-great-great grandparents coming from continental europe would lead to tens of thousands to millions of ancestors not from there after 1000 years. While those other 63's ancestors were inbreeding (to use the unfavored term) within a few kilometers of home, just one of the 64 of that one coming from Gaul or Germany might have come from northern Italy, and just one of their 64 GGGG grands might have come from Sicily or somewhere further away.

With Greeks in Baktria and India, Romans in Arabia and Egypt, assorted carthaginians ending up further and further into Africa, random traders on the silk route from places further east, slaves from parts more exotic being taken across the Mediterranean world and having children mixed with other peoples from the other side of their known world, all of that happening 2000 years ago, just one or two people six generations back, and one or two six generations back of that, and another six further back, coming from slightly different areas can give you incredibly numerous ancestors from places you had no idea of if you go back to something like 50 generations. By 50 generations you hit 1000 years and out of all of those millions of people *each* having 50 more generations (to take us back to Cicero and Cleopatra and Vercingetorix's time), I can easily see how just about everyone who has any ancestors from Ireland to Madagascar to Japan is descended from just about everyone else alive with descendants at the time of our mod.

I'm from a little town that has only been in existence for about 170 years and I know people in it who I am related to *at least* 7 totally different ways I have found, just in those 170 years. Only one or two of those ways was known to any living folks, but the rest can be found by looking at records and keeping exhaustive accounts on a computer program.

I'm proud of who my ancestors were that I knew and who lived on our land and walked the woods I walk when I am at home, but there's a point in the past, going backwards, where I cease to be able to know really what they were like or that I am able to relate to them in any meaningful way (for me about 7 or 8 generations is it really, further than that they came from too many distant places and I stop personally being able to keep all the different ethnicities and stories together in my head or even, meaningfully, on paper or in a program). I have found that, pretty definitively, I am Welsh, Irish, English, Scottish, French, German, and Native American that I know of. But for each one of those that I have found, they each have their own pasts, some more varied than others, and going back just 15 or so generations leaves a total jumble of tens of thousands of people that there's hardly any way to keep track of.

Am I proud of those further back? In a way I guess, but what does it mean to me that 20 generations ago *one* of my GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG grandfathers was a duke or king? I had more than 1,000,000 *direct* ancestors 20 generations ago. Just 400 years. They were without a doubt kings and dukes and serfs and traders and hunters and farmers and every possible thing one could imagine, even if most of them for any one person come from a particular area that they are from. pack animals and marriage networks or not, mine (and anyone who is living today anywhere in Europe, for sure) didn't all come from one tiny place, or one region. Even the most isolated of peoples (in Scotland or Romania or wherever) had one or two that trickled in from somewhere else within 8 or 10 generations, and that door had more in it from elsewhere too.

cmacq

02-25-2008, 06:52

An American...

I think I understand the merit of what you mean, and as a mathematical problem you're correct. However, if the various DNA studies demonstrate anything, its the dominance of established regional and local breeding populations. The small sample size and methods in which the numbers are manipulated within some DNA studies mask the smaller scale aspect of this phenom to some extent, yet its evident, nonetheless.

Herein, you provide outliers as opposed to a core population, where the former are genetically assimilated (often swamped as genetic non sequiturs) into the later or local and/or greater regional collective...

or they're clubbed, skinned, and discarded aside the road like a January Christmas Tree, only to turn up about 3,000 years later as some half eaten bog body.

I wont get into the class, rank, status, or privilege thingy; other to say the higher on the totem pole, the further back ones ancestors are more likely to have been recorded. Nothing more, and nothing less. Also, not word one about the great unwashed masses, culture, or tradition's impact on breeding population...

except...

a very old family tradition comes to mind about a personage called the Muirannach or 'Sea Rover' and a lady from the far south called Gríanach or 'Sunshine.' This tradition has something to do with seasonal change and concludes that the clan was directly descendant from the above union by day, and by night the seal (you know Phoca vitulina). I believe a number of other clans from the western isles and some from parts of Ireland have simular traditions. And then there is the symbolic Salmon, as the clan totem and all of what that entails, and it goes on and on. I digress.

I'll say nothing about deficiency, mortality, decapacitation, other infertillity, nor fertility and caloric intake. Still, as my rond de jambe, in the breeding group numbers-game, I'll say, resistance is of course...

futile.

Watchman

02-25-2008, 11:44

And Watchman, about that 'inbred hicks,' thats a horrid thing to say, and I strongly resemble that incredibly insensitive comment!Remember, I do live in what's still probably the world's biggest open-air laboratory of hereditary diseases in small relatively isolated populaces...
...something that often enough gets hunch-level proof right out on the street. As my mother tends to caustically observe, "the countryside is deserted and all the village idiots flock into the capital." ~;p

machinor

02-25-2008, 15:07

I'm always a bit sceptic torwards this whole nationality/ancestry thing. I never really digged this concept of being proud because of living in the same region like people A some 1000 years ago, some distant ancestors living in region B or some distant relative having participated in historical event C. That's all way to absurd to me. How could I be proud of something I had no influence on? Puzzles me. Plus in every ancestry there is as much to be ashamed of as there is to be proud of.
I, for example, have the same surname as a quite famous regional hero from the Napoleonic Wars. Some people would be proud of that, I guess. But I also share this same surname with the local Nazi-governor from the time of the Third Reich and while there may be some misled individuals being proud of that, it generally isn't something to boast with. So of course, I could be proud of my surname for being linked with a regional hero but then again there is also some dark history linked to it, so the proudness is neutralized, so to speak.

I always wondered why some peoples seem to be more fixated on nationality/ancestry/etc. than others.

kissemisse

02-25-2008, 15:14

One of my bloodlines, my mothers, supposedly trace back to the Franks, and Charlemagne.

I wasn't that interested at listening at one of my parents great "family reunions". Hundreds of people I don't know but are related too.. horay... :dizzy2: That little bit got lodged in my brain though.

Not saying I'm a direct descendant or whatever it's properly called, I honestly can't remember details, but I think he [the relative giving the information and that did the research] WANTED to, and at least he was convinced of it, indicate a relation to Charlemagne himself. Although, I would wonder why frankish blood, or even Charlemagnes, would eventually make it up to Sweden... but then again I'm not THAT interested in this family research thing. I do know that there's been alot of religious people. Like bishops, priests etc in my family, wich I know and personally find amusing since I'm an atheist. Can't have been to keen on celibacy though...

My fathers bloodline appears to be "Swedish" for as long as anyone has bothered to research it, wich is almost not at all.

Pretty sure he had no information older than that though, or maybe I just stopped listening. Still, doesn't really matter. Can't live off ancestors anyway.
If Alexander the Great had tried to live off someone elses life, especially if they had been dead for a couple of hundred years, I'm sure he wouldn't have been Alexander the Great. If anything, it could have been his ancestors, dead of course, feeling proud over Alexanders achievements - if thoose were infact something to be proud of, since they did the "hard" task of providing Alexander with his DNA. Then again, it's hard to feel anything when your glands have decomposed :P
His father could have been proud of him more properly though, if he felt he had anything to do with his "success".

How could I be proud of something I had no influence on? Puzzles me. Plus in every ancestry there is as much to be ashamed of as there is to be proud of.

Well said :)

I mean, a parent might feel proud over influencing the life of a child, or a friend influencing the life or a friend, or heck, anyone. A person influencing a person, might have effects that one might feel proud of... but ancestors that lived hundred to thousands of years ago before I was born?
I had nothing to do with them and they had nothing to do with me, other than the possibility of sharing a minute bit more identical DNA than the almost as identical DNA of a random person.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Oh one cool thing while speaking of hereditary diseases. There's literally no history of physical, note how I don't mention mental ;P, diseases in my family. Not even cancer, despite my grandmother smoking most of her 90 year life. She did have a rupture/bulge:thing in her aorta, *cough* smoking *wink*, wich she somehow, probably thanks to the amazing surgeon, survived. Tough as nails that lady. (I guess there could very well be a aptitude for cancer in my family, and we've just been lucky for as long as paper records of any kind have been around?)
Anyway, as far as I could tell everyone, in availiable medical history, lived to pretty high ages, and causes of death appear to be non-hereditary. I guess I can thank ancestors for that? :P

However, on a grand scope - outside of "modern:ish" medicine, I would have very little to go on... I think caveman medical records are classified.

Labrat

02-25-2008, 15:36

Remember, I do live in what's still probably the world's biggest open-air laboratory of hereditary diseases in small relatively isolated populaces...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to my genetics lecturer, that honour goes to New Guinea ~;p .

cmacq

02-25-2008, 16:46

Remember, I do live in what's still probably the world's biggest open-air laboratory of hereditary diseases in small relatively isolated populaces...
~;p

Right

Yet, one's highly deficient, inbred, and disease ridden gene pool, may to be another's Beverly Hills cement-pond smorgisborg? You may have never heard of Young, (which is the same as Pleasant Valley [another interesting idiom all its own]) Arizona. Internationally, a relatively little known back water for American Pioneer genetic flotsam and jetsom. For this fact alone it enjoys a reputation of some local renown. It may not be the largest open-air laboratory, but as far as your run-of-mill Botany Bay enclosures go, its has one of the more interesting collections of dueling-banjo types anywhere on the planet. Again, for this reason, and it being the headquarters of the Pleasant Valley War, the community seems to derive an immense sense of local pride. I suppose it may have something to do with ones, 'grit-grit-grin-didigh gittin shot inna Ka'rral unhiz wedinnite,' and whilst waiting for the gun fighting parties to cease and desist, had half his face eaten off by the pigs?

Right, and the bride weeps-on in another long line of crowning moments, to be long remembered no doubt. Now, don't get me wrong. Even though the certain charms of this quant little Desperada are not completely lost on me, I don't actually live there. I have dinned at the one local eatery (the Antler Bar) on occasion and altogether spent several weeks, billeted by Uncle Sam, on the edge of town. But, outside of work, I would for no reason ever stay there for any length of time, nor drink the water. Yet, if ever you have the divine privilege or unavoidable opportunity of even driving through, as well remember, don't make eye contact and no mater how pitiful or pathetic they appear, by all means never feed the locals...

... NEVER!!!

Pardon my spelling, as I'm not as up to speed, on my Hill-Billy, as I should be.

Watchman

02-25-2008, 20:33

Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to my genetics lecturer, that honour goes to New Guinea ~;p .Curses ! Foiled again ! :wall: If it wasn't for you meddling kids...!

Cyclops

02-25-2008, 22:51

...This of course brings me the basal argument I was about to make in the Swaboz 1.0 thread, about the enthos of the Northwest Block and Pre-Roman Iron Age Denmark being Kelt. Here and now, please let no fur fly on this count, as my part of the pending project reports are in and I have no more field days for several weeks to come. Soooo, I'll get back to it soon...
...

Please do, thats a fascinating theory.

My vague impression is that Celtic identity is a bit like Frankish. Lots of people are conquered or influenced and they all get called the one thing for sharing a few words and maybe some metalwork.

Is celtic more of a culture group than a culture?

Also no mala-popisms detected, in fact nothing anti-catholic at all.

cmacq

02-25-2008, 23:26

Found another Kelt and he has the name, papers, and bloody red hair to prove it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhizo7KrZrw&NR=1

Although this tweaker and his q***r little friends may in fact, be Kelticatures?

I bet its scarry when they come down!

Did I say when they come down?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ld7J6AmAg4&feature=related

Here and there a bit Latene, no?

Cyclops

02-26-2008, 02:41

Its a sad fact about health in PNG. Laughing Sickness and all that.

Found another Kelt and he has the name, papers, and bloody red hair to prove it...

I want to know how you got acid into my lunch...

Artorius Maximus

03-19-2008, 06:49

Wow, Teleklos Archelaou brought up an interesting subject. Some of us could be descended from hundreds of ethnicities if you take geneology far back enough...

cmacq

03-19-2008, 07:25

Can't we please just let this go the way of the Raphus cucullatus?

Now back to Red Eye.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

04-22-2011, 22:12

I believe I am descended from Napoleon's Marshalls and the Indian Maratha confederacy Generals.

A_Dane

04-23-2011, 20:40

Tuuvi

04-25-2011, 06:04

Never mind

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

04-25-2011, 12:14

Very Off Topic

I think this may be due to some missunderstanding about what is considered human vs hominid, but please read here for a somewhat comic book verson...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1227_051227_asia_migration.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020704_georgianskull.html

There have always been problems with particular features of human physiology that do not fit well into the Africa First model, yet strangly they never get much press.

Indeed. But then, we are in an age (like any other age, actually) where dissent from the 'accepted understanding' is looked down upon as either kookery orbased upon some conspiracy theory.

Actually, the problems with the urban recording stations clearly demonstrate that temps. have dropped slightly since the 1940s and remain slightly below, and not far above, those projected for the MWP.

Same as above. There is ALOT of misleading information put out to the general public as scientific 'consensus' (as if scientific questions are a matter of democracy..). That there are various vested interests supporting different studies rather muddies the waters. MMGW, though, has so many holes that it is laughable that it is (allegedly) supported by the scientific 'establishment'.

If there was indeed a big bang, and everything happened all at once, why would there be younger parts of the Universe?

Ah...one of my favourite subjects, and you have addressed a fundamental question in a very novel way. What is the nature of time. We are struggling to describe the universe within epistemological frameworks (deterministic, hard-materialist) which have been overtaken by events (General and (especially) Special relativity, and quantum behaviour (probabilistic and indeterminate)). What is the nature of time? But, try discussing that science is as much about epistemology as it is observation and...some don't seem to get it.

Anyway, I digress. As far as ethnicity and culture are concerned...it can't be stressed enough that they are not necessarily the same thing. When the Normans invaded and took control in England, for example, it was a very small percentage of the population that ruled. They didn't bring over masses of immigrants. But it seems there was a greater assimilation of populations when the Angles and Saxons had arrived. What Romans may have turned up in these lands would have had little interest in dallying with the local populous (even those aristocratic, Roman educated descendants of the Celtic chieftans whose villas dot our landscape). The soldiers (of many and varied ethnic backgounds) may have settled here.

Cultural change does not mean ethnic cleansing or even necessarily huge ethnic alteration. But, I'm not sure what there is to be said -then - for a sense of pride in one's ethnicity per sé. Because that sense of pride is actually rallied around the (perceived) culture of that group.

I myself am dark-haired...nominally. I have brown eyes and a Roman nose (for want of a better description). My body hair tends to be black. But...if I grow a beard it is...red, tinged with blonde. Some of my more...personal body hair is also red. I have freckles, but if I am blessed by the Sun (a rare treat) my freckles merge and I become very dark. So, what ethnicity am I? Do you know, I don't care one bit.

History, for me, is about understanding social and political contexts. Its about how people may have perceived themselves (in terms of the written records that we have) and how they perceived the world around them. The history of religions is particularly interesting, but only if one can view it from outside of that overview. The same, I would have thought, would carry in terms of cultural/ethnic histories. If you associate yourself with a particular group you might consider the 'rightness' of that group as a given (the 'pride' in one's background), and you might miss the bigger picture...On a personal level this isn't so much of a problem, but we see this played out on national scales.

All that I know of for certain about my family history is that we were, at some point, smugglers - along the South East coast (and beyond, it seems, it was a Markwick - smuggling tea - who triggered the Opium Wars). Ought I be proud of that? I'm interested... but thats as far as it goes, really.