Frostwulf 09:56 05-28-2010
Originally Posted by gamegeek2:
Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani
Again, we have this:
When I said the above quote, it was in relation to the North Sea group(Ingaevones) having a "Germanic" culture by the time of the meeting with the Romans. This is talking of the Frisians, Saxons and others in this group, not of the Osi, Boii or others that are considered "Celtic".
Originally Posted by gamegeek2:
IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."
Tacitus also says the Osi were non-Germanic in 43.1 and he was basing this on language. Here is what I wrote in my post above:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf:
When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus.
Again Bruhn and Lund think the term tribe of the Germani was wrong, they say it was a tribe of Germania. But most seem to say that Germanorum natio should not have been in the text, that it being there was a mistake. Therefore when he says Germanic tribe, that is in error.
Originally Posted by gamegeek2:
Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)
According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.
I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras. As for the rest of what your saying, it could very well be correct.
Originally Posted by Tacitus-"Germania":
This is the end of Suebia. As for the nations of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am unsure whether I should assign them to the Germani or the Sarmatians. 46.1
Why should he be unsure? If the term Germani was a geographical term as you say, both the Veneti and Fenni should be classified as "Germani". Yet Tacitus is unsure. He then goes on to talk of why they should be properly classified as Germani, because of customs, shields etc.,
nothing of of geography.
You have the Boii, Contini, Helvetii,Aravisci,Volcae Tectosages and others living within the geographical area you describe, yet they are called "Celts" by the Romans. By your definition they should be called Germani. You also have others the Romans call Germani(Vangiones, Eburones, Condrusi, etc.) living outside the geographical boundaries you describe, should they not be called "Celts" or something else by the Romans?
gamegeek2 15:34 05-28-2010
I've conceded that it isn't entirely geographical. It also refers to a general set of customs.
Originally Posted by Frostwulf:
I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras.
Yes, indeed - this is also correct. There can be multiple words with the same meaning, no?
Phalanx300 12:05 06-10-2010
Just found this interesting site:
http://igenea.com/index.php?c=43&lp=67
Seems that genetically Celtic and Germanic peoples weren't alike, seen some people claim that just the culture was different.
Lvcretivs 18:15 06-11-2010
I can't help but to strongly express my doubts about the scientific credibility of an commercial genetic genealogy firm, which claims to have isolated a 'specific celtic genome/genetic markup' ... from a sample of presumably just 'over 2000 saliva probes'...that's methodologically highly questionable and this site seems quite plainly aimed towards well-paying, right-leaning 'ethnic pride' advocates of every description ('germanic'/'celtic'/'jewish', ...) ...
Phalanx300 19:26 06-11-2010
Usually claiming facts can be consideren racist by some.
They seem to be credible.
What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?
Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some.
Lvcretivs 20:48 06-11-2010
Originally Posted by :
They seem to be credible.
To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...
Originally Posted by :
What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?
Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.
Originally Posted by :
Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some.
Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...
Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.
Phalanx300 12:15 06-12-2010
Originally Posted by :
To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...
Yet certainly possible.
Originally Posted by :
Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.
So when someone is simply curious of his ancestors it must and should always be because of ethnic pride? Thats basicly what its coming down to here. People don't pay such high amounts of money because of that, they want to know who their ancestors are.
Originally Posted by :
Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...
Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.
...? If someone wants to know of their ancestors and tests their DNA then it shows they do accept the differences between people.
Its good to be skeptical of some so-called science predisposed and armed with extremely small and mixed sample groups. Its very easy to mask by manipulating a samples composition. For example I believe this has been knowing done by not excluding members of historic colonial populations from African studies. This to demonstrate greater genetic diversity? If not knowingly, then its due to incompetence. Yet, I digress.
In this way, the strict classical use, Celtic ethnogenesis was centered on southwest Germania. Furthermore, within this concept there were the west and east Celts. These were similar yet discrete ethnos. The modern usurpations and perversions of the words Celt and German have certainly caused a great deal of confession, death, and pain. Overall, I stay away from the bio-gen stuff as it’s extremely flaky and filled with what may be con-arts worst of the worst. In truth, genes have very little to do with culture. As defined its learned, not inherited behavior.
Originally Posted by Lvcretivs:
I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.
Pseudo-scientific site? Given a context, a very strange use of words? But, I believe you're repeating an effort made countless times. You simply see a tired old cat brought here from outside, not one that calls this home. Pseudo-history, maybe so? However, we attempt to weed our Pseudo-science as it seems fit, as does the world at large.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO