The Irish are Not Celts

[Berg-i-dum]

The only people in the world to retain the original Proto-European blood in the truest sense are the Basque people in northern spain.

Not at all, there arent a "Basque people" differenced. The ancient basques were sheperds of the Pyrinnees who obtained celtic lands from the romans (they were their allies) so they were mixed with the defeated celts (by the romans) as the called "nervii" of NE Spain. They adopted the celt culture but only maintained their language. Nowadays there arent almost any difference between basques and other spaniards.

You know Ive read some theories, which state that the Basque have connections with the Kartvelian speaking people of the Caucasus namely the Georgians.

They are only proto indoeuropeans, as the ancient Picts and so.

But there are a lot of theories to explain this, one strange said that they can come from the deserctionist of the Hannibal armies who didnt cross the Pyrennes and Alps and they would become sheperds in the mouintains stablishing themselves there. This could explain the absence of basque culture ...until they robbed the celtic one in the Rome time. And it could explain too other language and racial issues. But it is not an approved theory.

It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women. They should probably be looking at the Y chromosome.

Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors. Spain was a really little country with few population to assimilate in that way the hughe population of South America. Remember how only a few hundreds of spaniard were sent to conquer Aztec empire or Inca. After conquest they were only governor elite ...not only women rapers :D. It was a mix culture in latin america, but not so big to say that almost all south americans have europeans ancestors.


About the celt problem in the thread, I think that the celts is a culture and fashion of a determinated time in ancient europe, not only a ethnic stuff. But the celts in british islands, Spain and Gaul came from the Bronze atlantic culture, the protocelts, I mean it can be true that there wasnt invasions, only a long way from the bronze age that finally produced what we identify as celt culture. This could explain the genetic similarities between iberians and ancient britons, a *"common bottom" in bronze age in all the atlantic shore: proto celts / pre indoeropeans.

Sorry about my english.

[lobf]

Not at all, there arent a "Basque people" differenced. The ancient basques were sheperds of the Pyrinnees who obtained celtic lands from the romans (they were their allies) so they were mixed with the defeated celts (by the romans) as the called "nervii" of NE Spain. They adopted the celt culture but only maintained their language. Nowadays there arent almost any difference between basques and other spaniards.

As a one-time resident of the Basque country, I can tell you they wouldn't appreciate that one bit. :P

[Berg-i-dum]

As a one-time resident of the Basque country, I can tell you they wouldn't appreciate that one bit. :P

Yeah I know, I am spaniard he he. There are a lot of romanticism there. But this is the truth.

I am galician, the "celtic" land of Spain and there are some of this topics here too.

[gamerdude873]

They should probably be looking at the Y chromosome.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways

[desert]

Actually, the sperm contains a lot of mitochondria. You didn't think it got all of its energy magically, did you?

In fact, paternal mtDNA can get into the egg, albeit very rarely. It usually doesn't because all the mitochondria are located in the part of the sperm that falls off when it reaches the egg, though I can't for the life of me remember what exactly that part is.

EDIT: Yeah, so only the top/head goes into the egg, and the mitochondria are in the midpiece, so they're screwed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways

It's accurate but incomplete. The Y Chromosome doesn't chage (accept through mutation) that's why it's so paltry these days. The point is, you have your Dad's Y, the same one, and he has his Dads, also the same.

You can track that back a fair way and it is a good indicator of paternal ancestry.

[Riastradh]

This thread has gotten off the topic and instead is now on genetic testing. My point in posting that article was to give you some scientific evidence to back what I was trying to get across. Regardless of this, I am going to post a link to an article I think most of you would like to read, whether you be hear for the talk on Irish origin/classification or genetics specifically. Enjoy.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=7817

[Intranetusa]

how is anything completely proven when we don't have a clear understanding of the human genome? i don't care how forcefully someone says something about genetic markers, its THEORY like everything else. btw, scientific theory is what hasn't been disproven yet, not higher truth...

I agree with your other statements, but I'mma gonna be nit picky here...

A scientific theory is used differently from the layman's use of the word theory, which generally means a guess. Technically, a scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has survived scrutiny by the scientific method, and exists to explain scientific laws. Thus laws such as the law of universal gravitation are supported and explained by theories such as the theory of gravity and theory of relativity.

[Sir Edward]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways

Well I'll clear up some mistakes here. By 'recessive genetic disease' I take it you implicitly meant an X linked recessive trait like color blindness and hemophilia A. While it is true there are very few functional genes, only 86, are found on the Y chromosome (compare this to ~2000 on the X chromosome) there is still plenty of genetic material present or features as you put it, over 58 million base pairs (153 Mbp for X chromosome).

The Y chromosome has some unique quality that makes it a nice target for population genetics. For one because all males (there are some rare exceptions) have only 1 Y chromosome there is no homologous recombination. Meaning the Y chromosome a person inherits is the same one their father had, and their paternal grandfather and so on and so forth. This genetic material passed exclusively from father to son allows for a paternal line to be created. If a mutation occurs in the Y chromosome of a germline cell, this mutation will be inherited in ALL male descendents. The accumulation of these unique mutation events in each line give geneticist a tool to determine how close two populations are.

Also I think you have a misconception about what geneticist look at when they are comparing DNA sequences. Forgive me if I am reading you wrong but your statement sounds like they look at the genes in the Y chromosome when really it is the opposite. You don’t want to look at mutations with in a functional gene because these mutations often have an effect negative/positive on the health of an organism. This change in fitness puts evolutionary pressure on the mutation, and can change the rate it appears in the population. When genetic genealogists do research on the Y chromosome they look at non coding DNA, commonly called by the misnomer Junk DNA (specifically they count short tandem repeat (STR) & look for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)). They look here because in non-coding DNA these mutations are neutral and have no impact on the health of the organism*.

To show my point that the Y chromosome is indeed useful for studying this issue of the inhabitants of ancient Britain take a look at this NYT article that highlights arguments from both camps.A United Kingdom? Maybe

*(Disclaimer non-coding DNA can effect gene expression in complex ways)

[Sumskilz]

At the risk of overdoing the Latin America analogy here is a link that explains how a genetic admixture study is done:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7234.full?ck=nck

Latin America is much easier to study than prehistoric Ireland for the obvious fact that the genetic evidence can be referenced against the historical record.

[gamerdude873]

Geez, its always whats most obvious that i overlook. DUH. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. I completely forgot about all the EXTRA DNA thats in there too, even if there is a lot less. Don't listen to me. They all know alot more!

[cmacq]

At the risk of overdoing the Latin America analogy here is a link that explains how a genetic admixture study is done:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7234.full?ck=nck

Latin America is much easier to study than prehistoric Ireland for the obvious fact that the genetic evidence can be referenced against the historical record.

Actually, in Mexico the Spanish colonial authorities kept meticulous census records. Think head count and income. I’ve used copies of several examples to make correlations between residential architecture and demography, then applied this to prehistoric settlements in the southwest US. Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.


CmacQ



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

Riastradh, I guess I'm a little confused by what you are trying to say, although I appreciate that your intentions and tone are good. Let me put this to you in the form of questions,

1.How precisely do you think that 'Gael' is different than 'Celt'. Bearing in mind that that the Gaelic languages are considered to be branches of the insular Celtic languages. Do you disagree with that?

2.

The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland Celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects.

What do you have to back up this position? I sincerely hope it's more than the Tain.

I don't dispute the early genetic origin of the population of the British Isles, but that statement is a very limited one, really. Oppenheimer, Sykes et al never ever say that Ireland was not a Celtic culture, but rather that it didn't acquire said culture through massive genocidal invasions. It's a question of alternate origin, not of a whole different identity.

You are making some huge statements about an era for which there is not much evidence of any kind. It doesn't help that terms like 'Celt' and 'Gael' are broadly and poorly defined (by everyone, not just you). I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong just because you're from Kerry, just that you have made some assertions, and that the sources you have cited don't support them.

P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist.
http://www.fionasplace.net/irishjoke...ymanjokes.html

[IrishHitman]

Before someone comes out with the "Scottish culture is close to Irish culture, therefore Irish culture is Celtic" argument, Ireland invaded Scotland (The Scotii group gave Scotland its name) and England in the aftermath of the Romans pulling out of key areas of Britain.

i.e. they're similar because Irish warfare and conquest caused a cultural exchange, with language being the main Irish export.....

[Sumskilz]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.


Riastradh,

I question your conclusions, however that’s not to say that you didn’t bring up an interesting topic that no doubt requires further investigation. I think one issue lies in the fact the term Celt is so vaguely defined. How many of the people that we feel comfortable calling Celts would have called themselves Celts, or Gauls, or Germans for that matter. The categorizations are convenient for modern scholarship but don’t reflect the ancients’ self-identities.


IrishHitman,

I agree, so should Irish culture then be compared to Breton, Cornish, or Welsh culture? How can all the various cross-cultural influences be sorted out? I don’t think modern cultural comparisons are very useful in this case? We probably are served best by archeology and the earliest primary sources.

[Riastradh]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

[IrishHitman]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

I would have to agree.

[Starance Quintus]

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.

[blitzkrieg80]

[edit]
Riastradh, ah i see what the issue seems to be even though we've gone over it...
#1 - Q Celtic is not related to invasion by Celts / mainland or P-Celtic speakers who have been coined as 'THE CELTS' of antiquity, thus everyone is confused because nobody ever claimed this to be so. Now, if you disagree on what defines 'Celt' that is another discussion entirely and one that doesn't have much bearing on the origin of Ireland because it spans a much wider issue. When we speak of Celts game-wise and in descriptions, it means Celtic-speakers, and we can discuss if the description should or should not mention that aspect.

what is your evidence to associate 'Gaels' with pre Indo-Europeans, other than some side-commentary about population and current theoretical gene-tests concerning the area in general? how do you know 'Gael' has anything to do with them? if they were a population before Celtic-speakers, then would they not use an identity based NOT in Indo-European language? so you must be speaking of the people we term Gaels who are a conglomeration of peoples who we do not know about other than some related material culture rather than the Gaelic-speakers themselves? because 'Gael' as an identity is of Indo-European origin with much more substantial proof illustrating this than some non-verifiable speculation that the term is somehow based on those true pre Indo-Europeans peoples who existed before and beside them... you don't even mention the cultural traits / material related to the people you are referring, which makes me think you are not even sure who you're talking about... if we know so much about Megalithic culture, then why are we not discussing this? if so much is known about the Iberian roots and relation of the culture to first inhabit Ireland, why are these extra facts excluded from the discussion? all i read from you is that you read a scientific article that agrees with your theory and there was once a material culture reaching to the British Isles that no one disputes to have existed... where is your evidence that there is a direct connection? missing links... missing links [wait- is there an iceman i don't know about?]

we don't know the identity or language of pre-Celtic/Gaelic invaders in Ireland, so claiming you know they were pre Indo-European makes no sense, when you can't even verify WHERE the Indo-Europeans came from or at what extent they inhabited Europe during pre-history and before writing and linguistic tracing.

btw, those who rule the culture (Celtic aristocracy) at the time of the Gaels, would be called 'Gaels' and thus are Celtic, thus why they use Celtic language... saying the citizens of the Persian Empire are not Persian, or the Romans are not Roman, might be true (although only partially) yet it's not helpful or descriptive at all either, unless someone is trying to say they are ALL Persian and you're trying to make a point. we have not disagreed with you, that all citizens of Ireland at the time of EB are Celtic, we agree there were more to them than meets the eye...
_________________

so, if we don't call them Celts, we should call them Gaels? but Gael is just as much inaccurate because that would imply Celtic-speaking people, whether you think so or not. Politically-correct or making people happy with what they are comfortable hearing is not the issue. so then we must have a frame of reference for peoples before them, yet there is no record of a unified or related people before them... see where this is going?... call ancients 'British' instead of 'English' to signify non-Anglo-Saxons is very similar because it is WRONG. At no point in ancient or medieval time were the inhabitants of all Great Britain referred to as 'British' or 'Briton' by their own words... the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refer to the Bretons as Bretwelas versus other Welsh (Celts) which means specifically that not all Celts in Britain even had the same identity. So, to make modern Celts in Great Britain happy, it would NOT be correct to call them 'British' other than for their own modern identity. The only reason Great Britain is the name of the island is because the Roman name was the first appropriate name and otherwise it had no identity. Hibernian were not same identity as ancient Irish either. There is no known name, if there was ever a collective identity which was lost. Sorry, that is a fact. Byzantines are similar too... they didn't call themselves Byzantines, but we use the term today!

__________________

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.

believe it or not, Islamic is not a language

[Berg-i-dum]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.

I am sorry but I can not be agree with this.

If those "estimates" were right then today almost all the population of South America would be european, ... as the population in North America nowadays is. So hard and terrible disease wich killed the 90%... , it would be clear and well-known in History and it would be change the ethniticy of America, and all this didnt happen. If you go to Mexico, Perú, Colombia you will see the most of population is native or a bit mixed in some areas and upper classes. There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

I can be agree only in the case of the Isle of Cuba, first place being colonized, where in the begining of the conquest there was terrible massacres, and nowadays the most of population are descendents of slaves since the natives were murdered or died by disease or hardworks. This was what Bartolomé de Las Casas (and Bernal Díaz) saw in Cuba, and in response Catholic Kings and after Charles I created laws to protect indians: Spain was the only State in his time which had Laws (Leyes de Burgos 1512 and Leyes Nuevas de Burgos 1542) that spoke about the natives as subjects/humans not as people without soul, as it is said the recognition of native rights put Spain at the historical vanguard of modern natural and international law. Of course the laws werent always applied. But in North America there werent any law to protect natives and it was where the real genocide happened, not in the mixed Latin America, spaniards married natives, but englishmen, dutchs killed them or appart them from his new (european) society (racial segregation).

But yes, spaniards are always the bad guys in the History lessons, specially in english History lessons. More "Black Legend and Historical truth"

Sorry again about my english and may be about the off topic

[cmacq]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today.

I think this was what I may have posted, higher up. What, no mention of the Epidii/Επίδιοι???

With this said, I personally have never viewed the multi-faceted Irish, Scot, Welsh, Briton, nor Breton populations as being Kelt in the strictest use of the term. I view the use of Celt as a modern invention with very little evidence to support it. Its sort of like the tail wagging the dog. For example the term was used by the Greeks and Latins to specifically identify a continental ethnicity associated with the Gallic Culture within a well defined time frame. Of this Gallic Culture we know it was initially centered in southeastern France, Switzerland, southern Germany, and Austria, yet have very little actual evidence of their language. In the modern use Ireland and GB only became Celt after it was discovered that the once dominant language were somewhat related to that used by the former Gallic Culture that was called Kelt.

Seemingly in conflict, I also view very few Irish or Scots as being Gaels, with most being Cruithne and nearly none being Celts. On the other hand, I've come around to equating the Belgae peoples with the P-Celt Brythonic, yet see very few Welsh or Britons, as Belgae, nor all but few being Celt. As far as the Belgae being German, indeed with no doubt this is the case, however much as with the modern misuse of the word Celt, this word German is from the Latin germane, which has a number of related meanings. These include; full, own, seed, original, genuine, and of the same parents. The Latins used the term to indicate the extremely close connection between the culture and language of the Celts and the people they called Germans (not the Culture that modern English speakers call German), whom were not at all Deutsch. So, I’ll admit that the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones where not Celts per se, yet I would view them as both German and Brythonic. I hope no one is confused?






CmacQ

[Frostwulf]

I pretty much have to agree for the most part with cmacq on the Belgae(drifting thread) as backed up by Caesar,Tacitus and the modern authors of Maureen Carrol and Simon James.
" But a more important point is that the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Gauls were actually highly diverse, and some of them, especially some of the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Belgae were culturally and perhaps linguistically more like the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and *perhaps* already among themselves)-Germans than like (say) Aquitanian Gauls. 'The Germans', especially in the 1st cent BC, were probably mostly a construct in Roman minds, rather than a self-defined or definable group of peoples with similar social structures, or other qualities (substitute 'generic American Indians' for 'Germans' and you see what I mean)."-Simon James.

[blitzkrieg80]

awesomely put examples, CmacQ and Frostwulf... that illustrates the point i was trying to get at

so now you guys have stirred up some interesting conversation pieces... would then the Cimbri be part of that configuration or at least the Celtic-like component which we see in the Gundestrup cauldron? i think so, at least the Celtic part... and also, what about the Lugii? maybe not Przeworsk, but Oskywie... or Tacitus' implied P-Celtic-speakers of Veneti? who stand out so sharply in 'No Man's Land'? this reminds me of your work, CmacQ, on the global 'disaster' in ancient Denmark and wanderings in the East... could this be related to:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i'm intrigued... too bad we still have the same information, hehe, but this conversation doesn't happen by many!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...heses#Genetics

The present-day population of R1b, with extremely high peaks in Western Europe and measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) at the Last Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12,000 BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps. The most common subclade is R1b1c9, that has a maximum in Frisia (the Netherlands). It may have originated towards the end of the last ice age, or perhaps more or less 7000 BC, possibly in the northern European mainland.[3]

Developments in genetics take away much of the edge of the sometimes heated controversies about invasions. While findings confirm that there were population movements both related to the beginning Neolithic and the beginning Bronze Age, corresponding to Renfrew's and Gimbutas's Indo-Europeans, respectively, the genetic record obviously cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken by these groups. The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic, suggesting that languages tend to spread geographically by cultural contact rather than by invasion and extermination, i.e. much more peacefully than was described in some invasion scenarios, and thus the genetic record does not rule out the historically much more common type of invasions where a new group assimilates the earlier inhabitants. This very common scenario of successive small scale invasions where a ruling nation imposed its language and culture on a larger indigenous population was what Gimbutas had in mind:[citation needed]

The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups.

Seems to agree!

[cmacq]

Right,



the Veneti and those pesky Lugii. From the Belgae, the Istaevones, and Ingaevones may have formed a cultural bridge to the west Balts; in this case it would be the Aestii, or as the Saxons called it Æstum? That is a bridge that was smashed by the entry of the Irminones/Hermiones, who were without doubt the dad of the Deutsch, with Irmin from the Old Norse jǫrmun (meaning strong?). So Tactius tells us that Irmin's dad was Mannus, who was simply put; Human Kind. However, despite what Tactius wrote about the Istaevones/Istriaones/Istriones their name implies they were somehow associated with a Istros/Istri/Histria/Ιστριη progenitor, possibly a deity associated with flowing rivers or a coastal region (Rhine and/or North Sea?), and shellfish (Ostrea???).

On the other hand the Ingaevones, or followers of Ing, seem to have been affiliated with a deity, that was roughly analogous to what the Medieval Irish called Angus/Aengus/Oengus, the Tuatha De Danann god of love, youth, and fine words. It seems that Ing was the predecessor to the later Norse Freyr, which simply means, Lord. The Norse Freyr also seems to have been given Ing's attributes, which were similar to those of Aengus/Oengus. So, Ing-landia ='s England; no way! or way? Maybe that’s one reason why it seems difficult for researchers to find so-called Saxon-DNA in Britain?

Interestingly, Jordanes claimed that the historic Hermanaric/Irmanaric, or as Beowulf had it, Eormenric, subjected these British-like-speaking (from Tactius) Aestii. That would be a hoot if the name Aestii was taken from Eesti/Estonia: so that in Prussa and northern Poland, here would be a Finnic basal population with a western Balt aristocracy that was first allied with Veneti and Lugii and a little latter subjected by the Goths, whom were of course, Deutsch. Alls well as far as the archeaology, yet what about those pesky Lugii???

Again, I'd put the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones as predominatly Brythonic; center, southwest, and southern Germany as Celt; and only extreme northeast Germany as Hermiones or Deutsch. Of course, this in the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, after which the picture changed very quickly, and very dramatically. All I can say is they; that is the Lugii, were considered Germans but not Celt, not Belgic, not Deutsch, most likely not Balt, and by all means not Slav. However, with that said, the attributes of this ethnos appear to have been usurped by, and eventually came to characterize the Deutsch speakers. I’m speculating this process began in the very late 4th century, but more likely to have occurred in the late 3rd BC. However, it is clear that it wasn’t until after the Cimbric event of the late 2nd century that the followers of Irmin became the dominant force in northwest Germany, which lead to significant territorial expansion to the east, west, and south. Of course, these expansions were greatly facilitated by the a dramatic shift to a much cooler-dryer global climate, the relative depopulation of Nordic Scandinavia with a steady demographic flow of the displaced south into northern Germany and Poland, as well as the late Gallo-Roman and early Germano-Roman wars of the 1st centuries BC and AD. Nonetheless, an interesting scenario that fits the archaeology very well.



CmacQ

[IrishHitman]

B]Europe is set to become completely Islamic[/B], and that English will not be the 1st language.

Eh, no.
It will just be another major religion is all.

[lobf]

There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

[Berg-i-dum]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

[Celtic_Punk]

what I do not understand is why anyone can think a people aren't who they are when the archaeological evidence supports original thinking, language supports it, and (though there is little) written history supports it.

Lets look at it this way. Despite Britain taking over Jamaica, the culture of Jamaica changed but did not conform to British. Result? Jamaicans are Jamaican not British.

massalia was subjugated by rome. For a time they stayed their original greco-celt culture. but due to massive influence from rome they became romanized. end result? Massalians became ROMAN

You become Canadian by living here and assimilating into the culture. Anyone in Canada who fares well in snow and can take the cold, who can speak either English or French, and well... Acts Canadian (eh!) is a Canadian. I was not born in Canada but I've changed from an Irishman to a Irish Canadian because I have taken in the culture. Anyone who doesn't fare well in cold and snow, does not simulate the social structure (no you don't have to say eh all the time, eh) and ESPECIALLY cannot speak English or French, is not a Canadian, and is still whatever culture they retain.

Culture determines not your ethnic origin (which there is no celt ethnicity, we are caucasian) but who you are. Therefore if Ireland grew acustomed to celtic goods, warfare, celtic gods, and their way of socializing and doing things, and emulated them, they became celtic.

You mistake the subtle differences for being completely different. By your(the OP) way thinking any people living outside the original site of celtic culture is not celtic, but their own form of plagiarized culture. This however is totally false. Celt influence spread over such a vast area by people accepting celtic culture into their daily lives. So for example, instead of an immigrant becoming Canadian, per say, its the Canadians who are becoming the immigrant's culture. They are STILL THE SAME GENETICALLY! but on the outside they've changed.

[lobf]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never been to agentina and I won't pretend to know anything about its terrain, so correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? If so thats why it would be sparsely populated.

Off topic: I'd love to go on a 3 week journey through the Amazon or another massive thick jungle. Obviously properly equipped, and physically ready. I'd have to rough it though... no GPS or anything electronic.