PDA

View Full Version : Were Celts once 30-40% of Europe's population?



Pages : [1] 2

Tomenable
05-04-2018, 10:15 PM
This article estimates the number of Celts in year 200 BCE as around 10 million people:

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

The total population of Europe at that time, is estimated as ca. 25-30 million people:

http://www.arabgeographers.net/up/uploads/14299936761.pdf

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

Do you think it is possible that Celtic-speakers were once 30-40% of all Europeans?

What happened to those people, are their descendants still with us in your opinion?

JonikW
05-04-2018, 10:35 PM
Yes, I think the people who we know as Celts today are those that retained the languages. Much of France outside of Brittany must also be largely Celtic for example. The Franks didn't kill them off...

Tomenable
05-04-2018, 11:04 PM
There were also some Celts outside of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians

The famous "Dying Gaul" sculpture, actually shows a dying Galatian from Anatolia:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-97eNDalZwIQ/UT9qdyKFNmI/AAAAAAAAAhA/4AdUESb1TI0/s1600/umierajacy-gal.jpg

https://cudaswiata.archeowiesci.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stervendegalaathoofd.jpg

^^^
To me he doesn't look Anatolian, so I suppose Galatians did not assimilate many locals.

JonikW
05-04-2018, 11:13 PM
That was a well documented (by ancient standards) movement of tribes into what is Turkey today. I believe they came back into the homelands later. St Jerome said that the Celtic speech he heard in Trier was similar to that of Galatia. He had visited both places. They certainly caused a lot of trouble for the Romans.

JonikW
05-04-2018, 11:45 PM
22961

Incidentally, here's a pic I took of the dying Gaul 10 years ago. It's unusual because it shows the shield.

rms2
05-04-2018, 11:56 PM
I sincerely doubt that the Celts were once 30-40% of the European population.

lukaszM
05-05-2018, 12:03 AM
That was a well documented (by ancient standards) movement of tribes into what is Turkey today. I believe they came back into the homelands later. St Jerome said that the Celtic speech he heard in Trier was similar to that of Galatia. He had visited both places. They certainly caused a lot of trouble for the Romans.

You think they returned from Anatolia? I remember reading they were just hellenized.

rms2
05-05-2018, 12:20 AM
You think they returned from Anatolia? I remember reading they were just hellenized.

I have never read of a return of the Galatians to the Celtic homelands in Europe. St. Jerome was writing in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. By then the Galatians had already been in Anatolia for several centuries.

rms2
05-05-2018, 12:36 AM
There were also some Celts outside of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians

The famous "Dying Gaul" sculpture, actually shows a dying Galatian from Anatolia:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-97eNDalZwIQ/UT9qdyKFNmI/AAAAAAAAAhA/4AdUESb1TI0/s1600/umierajacy-gal.jpg

https://cudaswiata.archeowiesci.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stervendegalaathoofd.jpg

^^^
To me he doesn't look Anatolian, so I suppose Galatians did not assimilate many locals.

Based on the hairstyle, the moustache, and the torque, I think that statue should really be called, "The Dying Naked Disco Guy from the late 1970's Who was Stabbed by His Girlfriend". ;)

Kulin
05-05-2018, 05:29 AM
There were also some Celts outside of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians

The famous "Dying Gaul" sculpture, actually shows a dying Galatian from Anatolia:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-97eNDalZwIQ/UT9qdyKFNmI/AAAAAAAAAhA/4AdUESb1TI0/s1600/umierajacy-gal.jpg

https://cudaswiata.archeowiesci.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stervendegalaathoofd.jpg

^^^
To me he doesn't look Anatolian, so I suppose Galatians did not assimilate many locals.


To me, he looks like one of those Turkish guys with a big mustache.

sktibo
05-05-2018, 06:32 AM
All depends on how we're defining Celts. If we are going with Celtic language speakers, I don't know about what percentage that might be, 30-40% might be about right.
Are their descendants still with us? Certainly. From what I can tell in places like England and France they remained a significant part of the gene pool throughout various population shifts. Since people in the ancient world were valuable as slaves, and killing people by hand would be brutal and exhausting, I seriously doubt any total population displacement. It looks like those who weren't killed or sold as slaves in the Roman era fit in as Romans too. It seems to me that many if not most countries in Europe have a claim to some kind of Celtic connection.

05-05-2018, 07:51 AM
This article estimates the number of Celts in year 200 BCE as around 10 million people:

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

The total population of Europe at that time, is estimated as ca. 25-30 million people:

http://www.arabgeographers.net/up/uploads/14299936761.pdf

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

Do you think it is possible that Celtic-speakers were once 30-40% of all Europeans?

What happened to those people, are their descendants still with us in your opinion?

Tomenable, I think there is different ethnic layer structures to most European populations, to a varying degree and percentage.
Since your Polish what is your take on the Krakow Mounds? And that general alrea being called Galatia? I also read they had unearthed some Iron Age Celtic village in the area.
When my wife and I were in Krakow, to me they reminded me of some of the old Iron Age Celtic forts in the UK.

JonikW
05-05-2018, 08:34 AM
I have never read of a return of the Galatians to the Celtic homelands in Europe. St. Jerome was writing in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. By then the Galatians had already been in Anatolia for several centuries.

Just looked at Cunliffe's Ancient Celts and think this was actually a return from Greece rather than Anatolia. I see Cunliffe says some of the Celtic force in Greece in 279 BC seems to have moved back northwards to the middle Danube valley, whence they'd come. These formed the Scordisci confederation. He adds that after the Celtic expulsion from Greece it appears that some roamed southeastern Europe and that there is evidence some may have settled in the west. He mentions new cemeteries in Marne here. Also the Tectosages who settled near Toulouse. Can't see anything on the fate of the Galatians themselves but that must be what I was remembering.

Finn
05-05-2018, 09:03 AM
All depends on how we're defining Celts. If we are going with Celtic language speakers, I don't know about what percentage that might be, 30-40% might be about right.
Are their descendants still with us? Certainly. From what I can tell in places like England and France they remained a significant part of the gene pool throughout various population shifts. Since people in the ancient world were valuable as slaves, and killing people by hand would be brutal and exhausting, I seriously doubt any total population displacement. It looks like those who weren't killed or sold as slaves in the Roman era fit in as Romans too. It seems to me that many if not most countries in Europe have a claim to some kind of Celtic connection.


I tend to say yes. But I'am cautious to call it Celtic because I see that are lot of connotations with it....

But reformulated as Bronze Age people starting with LN-EBA, followed up Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield, I say yes. They brought also some Steppe genes. Of course it's regional differentiated.

Finn
05-05-2018, 09:07 AM
This article estimates the number of Celts in year 200 BCE as around 10 million people:

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

The total population of Europe at that time, is estimated as ca. 25-30 million people:

http://www.arabgeographers.net/up/uploads/14299936761.pdf

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

Do you think it is possible that Celtic-speakers were once 30-40% of all Europeans?

What happened to those people, are their descendants still with us in your opinion?

And Tomenable Peter Schrijver, the most prominent professor in Celtic studies of the low lands has stated this:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/8jpp2zse6vvgv.png

Finn
05-05-2018, 09:19 AM
The linguistic theory of Schrijver is genetically added by K47.

Finn Dad
3.50% South-Caucasian
0.74% North-Caucasian
2.42% Paleo-Balkan
0.00% Turkic-Altai
0.00% Proto-Austronesian
0.10% Nilotic
0.20% East-Med
4.02% West-Med
2.07% SW-Euro
10.54% East-Euro
21.90% North-Sea_Germanic
23.99% Celtic
0.03% West-African
8.72% West-Finnic
0.04% Sahelian
13.98% Scando-Germanic
0.02% Iranian
0.20% South-African_HG
5.05% Baltic
0.11% Papuan
2.37% Pamirian

Finn mom

0.74% South-Caucasian
1.29% North-Caucasian
3.66% Paleo-Balkan
0.00% Turkic-Altai
0.00% Proto-Austronesian
0.00% Nilotic
0.01% East-Med
0.00% Omotic
0.00% Munda
0.00% North-Amerind
7.44% West-Med
5.57% SW-Euro
0.00% Arabic
14.39% East-Euro
0.00% Central-African_HG
0.00% Andean
0.00% Indo-Chinese
0.00% South-Indian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.27% Volgan
0.00% Mongolian
0.00% Siberian
18.96% North-Sea_Germanic
21.33% Celtic
0.00% West-African
0.00% Kushitic
4.01% West-Finnic
0.00% Uralic
0.00% Sahelian
0.16% NW-Indian
0.00% East-African_HG
0.00% East-Asian
0.00% Amuro-Manchurian
13.94% Scando-Germanic
0.12% Iranian
0.00% South-African_HG
0.00% Amazonian
8.12% Baltic
0.00% Malay
0.00% Meso-Amerind
0.00% South-Chinese
0.00% North-African
0.00% Papuan
0.00% West-Amazonian
0.00% Pamirian

Finn
3.68% South-Caucasian
0.06% North-Caucasian
2.28% Paleo-Balkan
0.00% Turkic-Altai
0.00% Proto-Austronesian
0.00% Nilotic
0.03% East-Med
0.32% Omotic
0.00% Munda
0.00% North-Amerind
2.60% SW-Euro
0.00% Arabic
11.45% East-Euro
0.00% Central-African_HG
0.00% Andean
0.00% Indo-Chinese
0.00% South-Indian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Volgan
0.00% Mongolian
0.00% Siberian
23.98% North-Sea_Germanic
22.59% Celtic
0.00% West-African
0.00% Kushitic
7.69% West-Finnic
0.00% Uralic
0.29% Sahelian
0.12% NW-Indian
0.00% East-African_HG
0.00% East-Asian
0.00% Amuro-Manchurian
13.37% Scando-Germanic
0.00% Iranian
0.11% South-African_HG
0.00% Amazonian
8.31% Baltic
0.00% Malay
0.00% Meso-Amerind
0.00% South-Chinese
0.00% North-African
0.00% Papuan
0.00% West-Amazonian
3.12% West-Med
0.00% Pamirian

Mom is inland North Dutch and comes most close to the Bronze Age population, see her Celtic result, father and I got more Nordic/Germanic influxes our ancestry is more coastal North Dutch especially influenced by the Nordic/Germanic tribes during the migration period.

But as on the whole the Celtic influence is pretty big in the three of us!

rms2
05-05-2018, 02:02 PM
I think Schrijver may be the only scholar who thinks the North Sea coast of the Netherlands was once occupied by Brythonic-speaking Celts.

Finn
05-05-2018, 02:14 PM
I think Schrijver may be the only scholar who thinks the North Sea coast of the Netherlands was once occupied by Brythonic-speaking Celts.

Wrong. he stated that it was likewise the Brythonic speaking not exactly the same as.

rms2
05-05-2018, 02:21 PM
Wrong. he stated that it was likewise the Brythonic speaking not exactly the same as.

Whatever. Call them P-Celtic then. What I said was that I think Schrijver is the only scholar to make such a claim, or do you know of another?

I have never seen the North Sea coast east of the Rhine included as part of the Celtic-speaking region. Your guy may be alone in that.

Being alone does not automatically make one wrong, but it does cause the rest of us to wonder why the other linguists missed such an important finding.

Finn
05-05-2018, 02:24 PM
Whatever. Call them P-Celtic then. What I said was that I think Schrijver is the only scholar to make such a claim, or do you know of another?

I have never seen the North Sea coast east of the Rhine included as part of the Celtic-speaking region. Your guy may be alone in that.

Being alone does not automatically make one wrong, but it does cause the rest of us to wonder why the other linguists missed such an important finding.

Read his well qualified work, linguistic well sourced, now you shoot out of the hips. Read it and come back then.

rms2
05-05-2018, 02:31 PM
Read his well qualified work, linguistic well sourced, now you shoot out of the hips. Read it and come back then.

Will his "well qualified work" tell me whether or not any other linguists agree with him?

Maybe he's right, but he seems to be the only one saying that the North Sea coast east of the Rhine was once P-Celtic speaking.

Henri Hubert thought the Kurgan Bell Beaker people who went to Britain and Ireland were Q-Celtic-speaking Goidels who left for the Isles from the North Sea coast near the mouth of the Rhine. Olalde et al's finding of an apparent genetic connection between British Kurgan Bell Beaker and Oostwoud Kurgan Bell Beaker tends to support Hubert's idea. But that goes back to about 2400 BC, long before P-Celtic arose.

From The History of the Celtic People by Henri Hubert, page 169:



But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there.

rms2
05-05-2018, 02:46 PM
Here's some more from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People, pages 171-173:



. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.

They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.

The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.

razyn
05-05-2018, 03:20 PM
Read his well qualified work, linguistic well sourced, now you shoot out of the hips. Read it and come back then.

That isn't quite the idiom, and sounds like a description of uncontrolled diarrhea. To "shoot from the hip" means to fire one's pistol as soon as it clears the (hip) holster -- not bracing one's wrist with the other hand, sighting along the barrel, etc. Metaphorically, it refers to haste and a lack of preparation. In cowboy movies (especially), that quick-draw technique was often perceived as necessary, but it's not the serious marksman's ideal.
https://media.giphy.com/media/EAQjEAvpJoTLi/giphy.gif

An example here might be peppering an L21 forum (or, really, any other thread) with experimental salvos about U106.

JonikW
05-05-2018, 03:32 PM
Or saying that the Celts left Anatolia when I meant Greece;)

rms2
05-05-2018, 04:49 PM
Here's some more from Hubert's The History of the Celtic People, pages 171-173:



. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.

They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.

The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.



Henri Hubert died in 1927. It's amazing how right he was. He was a pretty smart man.

Finn
05-05-2018, 04:56 PM
That isn't quite the idiom, and sounds like a description of uncontrolled diarrhea. To "shoot from the hip" means to fire one's pistol as soon as it clears the (hip) holster -- not bracing one's wrist with the other hand, sighting along the barrel, etc. Metaphorically, it refers to haste and a lack of preparation. In cowboy movies (especially), that quick-draw technique was often perceived as necessary, but it's not the serious marksman's ideal.
https://media.giphy.com/media/EAQjEAvpJoTLi/giphy.gif

An example here might be peppering an L21 forum (or, really, any other thread) with experimental salvos about U106.


:biggrin1:

Of course It's a dutch verb "uit de heup schieten" and exactly meant in the cowboy context....

Schrijver would immediately recognize my Dutch background ;)

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:06 PM
Will his "well qualified work" tell me whether or not any other linguists agree with him?

Maybe he's right, but he seems to be the only one saying that the North Sea coast east of the Rhine was once P-Celtic speaking.

Henri Hubert thought the Kurgan Bell Beaker people who went to Britain and Ireland were Q-Celtic-speaking Goidels who left for the Isles from the North Sea coast near the mouth of the Rhine. Olalde et al's finding of an apparent genetic connection between British Kurgan Bell Beaker and Oostwoud Kurgan Bell Beaker tends to support Hubert's idea. But that goes back to about 2400 BC, long before P-Celtic arose.

From The History of the Celtic People by Henri Hubert, page 169:

Schrijver is certainly not the first and only one. Kuhn was the first with the so called Northwestblock theory.


As far as the language situation in the Low Countries and Northern Germany before the Roman Conquest is concerned, Gysseling (1960, 1964) and Kuhn (1962) replaced the Celtic of Carnoy (1948–1949) and so many others with ‘conservative Belgian’ and ‘language of the Northwest Block’, followed by a Germanisation wave during the second century BC.


Source (http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~rwillemy/229_LanguageContact2002.pdf)

and see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

So a kind of intermediate position between "Celtic" and "German".

These theories are stil disputed.

Schrijver stated that Frisian has a kind of Celtic substrate. He made this clear that 'typically Celtic' mistakes in people who are acquiring German are part of old English and old Frisian. As such I have not seen any comment from academic shit that he is totally wrong with that.

Of course there are people who state that there was a more early on influence of German.

But one thing is looks clear: the North Dutch as the English became only during the big migration fully germanized......

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:10 PM
. . . I see Cunliffe says some of the Celtic force in Greece in 279 BC seems to have moved back northwards to the middle Danube valley, whence they'd come. These formed the Scordisci confederation . . .

Interestingly, one of our early R1b-L21 results was from a man of Croatian ancestry, and the Slovenia/Croatia border area shows up as a sort of hot spot on this R1b-L21 distribution map, at least relative to the rest of L21 on the Continent.

22977

That was Scordisci territory. It would be interesting to see some ancient Scordisci y-dna test results.

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:13 PM
in the category golden oldies this one from Clarke (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7YmjMcgxt-sJ:rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24936/22384+&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=safari)is interesting too. May be in some respect like Hubert somewhat outdated but sometimes still pretty accurat.

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:14 PM
Schrijver is certainly not the first and only one. Kuhn was the first with the so called Northwestblock theory.



Source (http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~rwillemy/229_LanguageContact2002.pdf)

and see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

So a kind of intermediate position between "Celtic" and "German".

These theories are stil disputed.

Schrijver stated that Frisian has a kind of Celtic substrate. He made this clear that 'typically Celtic' mistakes in people who are acquiring German are part of old English and old Frisian. As such I have not seen any comment from academic shit that he is totally wrong with that.

Of course there are people who state that there was a more early on influence of German.

But one thing is looks clear: the North Dutch as the English became only during the big migration fully germanized......

I don't think those behind the Nordwestblock idea thought it was P-Celtic. Schrijver seems to be a lone voice in advocating that.

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:15 PM
Interestingly, one of our early R1b-L21 results was from a man of Croatian ancestry, and the Slovenia/Croatia border area shows up as a sort of hot spot on this R1b-L21 distribution map, at least relative to the rest of L21 on the Continent.

22977

That was Scordisci territory. It would be interesting to see some ancient Scordisci y-dna test results.

Yes and the nowadays spread.....or R1b L21

https://www.mupload.nl/img/935zastkh5cm.png

Northwestblock, Ireland and the Isles

Camulogène Rix
05-05-2018, 05:15 PM
Cet immense voyage des gobelets campaniformes (Bell Beakers) est encore plein de mystères. Ce ne sont évidemment pas les mêmes hommes qui s'en sont servis (not the same people who used them) en Espagne et en Bohème.

Indeed, Henri Hubert was a very great scholar. He is no longer published in his own country since 1974. What a pity...

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:17 PM
Indeed, Henri Hubert was a very great scholar. He is no longer published in his own country since 1974. What a pity...

I have his book, The History of the Celtic People (https://www.amazon.com/History-Celtic-People-Henri-Hubert/dp/1858911001). He was brilliant, and a very engaging writer, too. His writing flows like a wonderful story. I recommend that book.

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:20 PM
I don't think those behind the Nordwestblock idea thought it was P-Celtic. Schrijver seems to be a lone voice in advocating that.

no idea, IMO northwestblock is a intermediate or twilight zone between celtic and germanic.
I'm not going to defend that one. I only want to give it as an example that the language in the Lowlands and NW Germany was not undoubtfull German at that time. Ant that these ideas are not new.

Schrijver has got a point with his 'Celtic speakers" acquiring German, or not?

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:26 PM
Remember that the Kurgan Bell Beaker men in Oostwoud were all R1b-P312.

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:35 PM
Remember that the Kurgan Bell Beaker men in Oostwoud were all R1b-P312.

Yes and they were replaced by the Sogel-Wohlde warriors the front runners of the Elp culture, rooted in Unetice.

alexfritz
05-05-2018, 05:36 PM
this is a great paper on the latene expansion into the balkans (p17)
http://www.academia.edu/28084234/M._Karwowski_P._C._Ramsl_eds._Boii_-_Taurisci_Mitteilungen_der_Pr%C3%A4historischen_Ko mmission_85_Wien_2016

i think while the hinxton celts are a good proxy for 'a celt' in continental europe there are differing types, the two urnfielders BR2 and HAL36 clearly differ from another despite of the common proto-celtic(incl HaA/B network and than there also must have been a further wave from the steppes, prob the historically attested cimmerians, since the pre-scythianIA(hungary) carries karasuk type ancestry not present in the previous populations and the thraco-cimmerian complex is intrinsic to Hallstatt(C/D) one of the major iron celtic networks; linguistically (apart from the nordic ba circle and greece) i dont think there were any languages other than those intra-kin to and ascribed to the 'celtic/italic' branch specially when factoring in that all italic languages developed and derived from the balkans/carpbasin (saying more of beyond the alps than within) and only with strictest criteria of a celtic language{qualified as celtic being the loss of PIE *p;

ps: most galatians of course remained in anatolia, and were granted citizenship after zela(auxiliary) to form and maintain as core recruits the XXII Deiotariana one of the important legion in the east;

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:39 PM
Yes and they were replaced by the Sogel-Wohlde warriors the front runners of the Elp culture, rooted in Unetice.

We don't know that. One U106 in a relatively late mound at Oostwoud isn't proof of much. Elp extended up into Jutland, which I have never seen described as Unetice country, and the oldest known U106 was found in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery.

Finn
05-05-2018, 05:42 PM
Remember that the Kurgan Bell Beaker men in Oostwoud were all R1b-P312.


Please stay on topic here, or do you mean that the Bell beaker were a pre-Celtic impulse? ;)

This is the Irish/Britonic component at least according to 23 and me.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/2gkgo379m97.png

Again you see the spread in Ireland, British Isles, Belgium and NW Germany. Again a matter of spread from LN-EBA BB, Unetice and other Bronze Age cultures.

Cassidy (2016)

However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.


and picture:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/8ay4tl4.png

My point is that you underestimate the Bronze age (genetic) interaction.

This is my K20 Bronze age, besides the already mentioned K47 a clear sign of the Central European Bronze age influence in NW Europeans, so yes Tomenable has got a point here!

0.00% Amerindian
0.00% East-Asian
0.00% East-African
0.21% Oceanian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South-Asian
0.00% South-Chinese
0.00% West-Africa
18.66% West-Euro
53.32% Central-Euro
0.00% North-East-Euro
0.00% North-Africa
0.00% Jordan_BA
0.00% Mota
0.03% Anatolian_CHL
0.01% Armenia_CHL
0.00% Iran_CHL
12.95% West-Steppe
14.82% East-Steppe
0.00% Steppe_to_SCAsian

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:43 PM
this is a great paper on the latene expansion into the balkans (p17)
http://www.academia.edu/28084234/M._Karwowski_P._C._Ramsl_eds._Boii_-_Taurisci_Mitteilungen_der_Pr%C3%A4historischen_Ko mmission_85_Wien_2016

i think while the hinxton celts are a good proxy for 'a celt' in continental europe there are differing types, the two urnfielders BR2 and HAL36 clearly differ from another despite of the common proto-celtic(incl HaA/B network and than there also must have been a further wave from the steppes, prob the historically attested cimmerians, since the pre-scythianIA(hungary) carries karasuk type ancestry not present in the previous populations and the thraco-cimmerian complex is intrinsic to Hallstatt(C/D) one of the major iron celtic networks; linguistically (apart from the nordic ba circle and greece) i dont think there were any languages other than those intra-kin to and ascribed to the 'celtic/italic' branch specially when factoring in that all italic languages developed and derived from the balkans/carpbasin (saying more of beyond the alps than within) and while the strictest criteria of a celtic language/qualified as celtic being the loss of PIE *p;

Honestly, I don't see any real good reason to regard Urnfield as the precursor to Celtic.

rms2
05-05-2018, 05:47 PM
Please stay on topic here . . .

You often confuse autosomal and y-dna. Northern Europeans are very similar to one another autosomally, but there are distinct clines when it comes to y-dna, because, you see, half our autosomal dna comes from our mothers. People in the ancient past were like us in that respect.

The topic here, as I understand it, is the Celts and whether they were 30-40% of the population of Europe at one time.

One non-Bell Beaker Scandinavian interloper in a relatively late mound at Oostwoud doesn't change that.

alexfritz
05-05-2018, 05:58 PM
Honestly, I don't see any real good reason to regard Urnfield as the precursor to Celtic.

its def not the precursoer, underscoring the, but it surly is one of the precursers if also(by the very least) only limited to Ha A/B and since im still sticking to watkins and clackson i dont see any reason why bell-beaker is not the first precursor of 'celtic' with unetice constituting a similar case as the later thraco-cimmerian>hallstattC/D ie a further impulse from the steppes; the unetice network holding key elements such as the tumulus, proper bronze tin/copper alloy and especially the horse chariot/wagon via the steppe catacomb culture;

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:01 PM
We don't know that. One U106 in a relatively late mound at Oostwoud isn't proof of much. Elp extended up into Jutland, which I have never seen described as Unetice country, and the oldest known U106 was found in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery.

We certainly now that already Sprockhoff (1941) based on archeological findings labeled this as a "Urkeltentum". And that for a Nordicist who were eager to label everything as Germanic....

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:04 PM
We certainly now that already Sprockhoff (1941) based on archeological findings labeled this as a "Urkeltentum". And that for a Nordicist who were eager to label everything as Germanic....

He labeled the mound at Oostwoud in which that U106 was found as "Urkeltentum"?

I think you are fudging a bit.

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:16 PM
You often confuse autosomal and y-dna. Northern Europeans are very similar to one another autosomally, but there are distinct clines when it comes to y-dna, because, you see, half our autosomal dna comes from our mothers. People in the ancient past were like us in that respect.

The topic here, as I understand it, is the Celts and whether they were 30-40% of the population of Europe at one time.

One non-Bell Beaker Scandinavian interloper in a relatively late mound at Oostwoud doesn't change that.

First of all no reaction on if Schrijver is wrong or not when he stated that in Old English and old Frisian there was a Celtic substrate, of people acquiring German but made 'Celtic kind of mistakes'. Only spreading doubts without counter expertise.... So unless you have a qualified contra arguments I guess Schrijver has got a point here.

Celts is a late just like German laid up on by the Romans. The idea that it were homogenous kind of people is nineteenth century thought. In fact it's sometimes very arbitrair what was Celtic or German.

So therefore I prefer to speak of the influence of the Central European Bronze Age cultures.

Genetically these cultures has a tremendous effect on the auDNA even in nowadays (NW) Europeans. That's also the essence of what Tomenable stated!


Large parts of Y-DNA R1b have connections with this Bronze Age spread.

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:25 PM
He labeled the mound at Oostwoud in which that U106 was found as "Urkeltentum"?

I think you are fudging a bit.

to cheap Rms2.

Sprockhoff qualified the Elp culture (that's a recent label), characterized by

Sogel-Wohlde swords
https://www.mupload.nl/img/69lvgxb4br6hf.png

Kummerkeramik
https://www.mupload.nl/img/uv5jxs51k64.png

Axes with bent edges
https://www.mupload.nl/img/pcn1xw74k7z.png

.....as Urkeltentum.

Oostwoud ca. 1800 BC = Elp (Hoogkarspel as part of Elp).

(Wiki: ook de Hoogkarspelcultuur in West-Friesland wordt gezien als deel van de Elpcultuur, slechts gescheiden door een door het ontstaan van de Zuiderzee veroorzaakte zone zonder vondsten.= the Hoogkarspel culture in West Friesland is also seen as part of the Elpe culture, separated only by a zone without any finds caused by the creation of the Zuiderzee.)

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:33 PM
So, he thought Jutland was Celtic. Interesting.

Mario Alinei thinks Proto-Indo-European was of Paleolithic origin in Europe.

Okay, move on. Where is U106 in people who can be identified as Celtic with some certainty?

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:40 PM
A Tumulus of a Sogel Wohlde chieftain in Drouwen, Drenthe, North Dutch can be based on the findings (a burial with golden earrings) as one of the highest ranks Tumulus of the Unetice related cultures of the Northern Plain.

See:

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

related to

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/armies-in-the-early-bronze-age-an-alternative-interpretation-of-unetice-culture-axe-hoards/B513FF389674EA20F20A91795CD99232/core-reader

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:43 PM
So, he thought Jutland was Celtic. Interesting.

Mario Alinei thinks Proto-Indo-European was of Paleolithic origin in Europe.

Okay, move on. Where is U106 in people who can be identified as Celtic with some certainty?

Urkeltentum is called proto Celtic not the Celtic label you have in mind. That's why I call it Central European Bronze culture. Because you have very different connotations with Celts, but that's partly 19th century Romantic thought.....

Yes this cultures had even influence on Denmark (part of Elp) read Vandkilde and Kristiansen.

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:44 PM
A Tumulus of a Sogel Wohlde chieftain in Drouwen, Drenthe, North Dutch can be based on the findings (a burial with golden earrings) as one of the highest ranks Tumulus of the Unetice related cultures of the Northern Plain.

See:

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

related to

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/armies-in-the-early-bronze-age-an-alternative-interpretation-of-unetice-culture-axe-hoards/B513FF389674EA20F20A91795CD99232/core-reader

Okay. And he is known to be Celtic how? How is he not regarded as an early German or even as an early unknown?

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:47 PM
BTW, when are you going to start your thread on how U106 got to Ireland in the Bronze Age? I've been waiting for that one.

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:48 PM
Okay, move on. Where is U106 in people who can be identified as Celtic with some certainty?

Ok little bit off topic, but I'm not that strict ;)

Z156 has a good chance to be partly associated with the Bronze Age spread.

As you look at R1b U106 Z156 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S264/)it's dated on y- full TMRCA 4400 ybp.

Maciamo made the following tree:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/jk3v0zqe3.png

So even taken with tons of salt you can't really state that until 0 it didn't move for 2000 years and after that it moved.....illogical!

So it's prudent to state that R1b U106 Z156 could well spread in the Bronze Age.

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:52 PM
Okay. And he is known to be Celtic how? How is he not regarded as an early German or even as an early unknown?

Central European Bronze Age related. And certainly not early German. Jastorf culture is usually seen as early German. That's iron age.

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:52 PM
Is that tree based on actual ancient results or on modern men? The latter, I think. There is absolutely no evidence of U106 in Britain or Ireland in the Bronze Age.

Z156 is well known as the y-dna haplogroup of the German royal house of Wettin. Were they actually Irish in origin?

Finn
05-05-2018, 06:57 PM
Is that tree based on actual ancient results or on modern men? The latter, I think. There is absolutely no evidence of U106 in Britain or Ireland in the Bronze Age.

Z156 is well known as the y-dna haplogroup of the German royal house of Wettin. Were they actually Irish in origin?

Ridiculous statement: Y-DNA spread in the Bronze Age could indeed pop up in Ireland and can pop up in the German royal house of Wettin.....#noproblemo

ADW_1981
05-05-2018, 07:00 PM
To me, he looks like one of those Turkish guys with a big mustache.

The facial proportions do not look Turkish, at least not if one were to generalize. Clearly is of west European stock.

rms2
05-05-2018, 07:01 PM
Ridiculous statement: Y-DNA spread in the Bronze Age could indeed pop up in Ireland and can pop up in the German royal house of Wettin.....#noproblemo

Partly true, but the big problemo for you is that there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and where it does occur is mostly in the places settled by the English and others who came from countries outside of Ireland where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland.

That's the big problemo with U106 and Italo-Celtic in general. It's thick in Germanic countries and real thin in the Italo-Celtic ones.

Odd behavior for a Proto-Celtic y-dna haplogroup.

Does this distribution look like that of a y-dna haplogroup that arrived in Ireland in the Bronze Age?

22980

BTW, that darker pink in Northern Ireland is really too high to be justified.

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:05 PM
Is that tree based on actual ancient results or on modern men? The latter, I think. There is absolutely no evidence of U106 in Britain or Ireland in the Bronze Age.

Z156 is well known as the y-dna haplogroup of the German royal house of Wettin. Were they actually Irish in origin?

No no samples yet.

But this can't be ruled out in the future. During the Bronze Age the contacts were very strong.

JJ Butler an eminent expert of the NW European Bronze age stated in chapter 2:

http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24793


In summary, the evidence suggests that there were two principal trade routes in use in our area during the Early Bronze Age: one directly oversea between South Scandinavia and Britain and Ireland, the other between Ireland-South England and the Low Countries, 'Westphalia, South Hanover and Saxo-Thuringia.

During the MBA and LBA the contacts intensified especially Ireland played a part in this!

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:15 PM
Partly true, but the big problemo for you is that there isn't much U106 in Ireland, and where it does occur is mostly in the places settled by the English and others who came from countries outside of Ireland where U106 is a lot more common than it is in Ireland.

That's the big problemo with U106 and Italo-Celtic in general. It's thick in Germanic countries and real thin in the Italo-Celtic ones.

Odd behavior for a Proto-Celtic y-dna haplogroup.

Does this distribution look like that of a y-dna haplogroup that arrived in Ireland in the Bronze Age?

22980

BTW, that darker pink in Northern Ireland is really too high to be justified.


I'm not single minded rms2 of course much of R1b U106 is spread by Anglo-Saxons (and Norwegians) no doubt (as you know already I stated that over and over again).

But R1b U106 had 'a life' before the Germanic spread. Even a few thousand years! So parts of for example Z156 could be Bronze Age spread, also in Ireland.

Wait and see.....

rms2
05-05-2018, 07:16 PM
Trade is one thing. Settlement and a substantial presence are another.

And you're trying to prove U106 is Celtic, not that a stray Scandinavian or other Proto-German traveling salesman fathered a love child in Ireland at some point.

U106 is very small potatoes in Ireland, as it is in the other historically Celtic countries.

razyn
05-05-2018, 07:25 PM
.

[U106 is] very small potatoes in Ireland

I even know a song about them.

http://www.irishmusicdaily.com/praties-they-grow-small

Geborgenheit
05-05-2018, 07:33 PM
30-40 % ? Well, quite possible, if all to the North of the Alps were Celts.

By the way, which mitochondrial haplogroups have been found among Celts ? Maybe H ? :)

05-05-2018, 07:38 PM
The facial proportions do not look Turkish, at least not if one were to generalize. Clearly is of west European stock.

After spending a few years in Bavaria, Germany, that is definitely a pheno type from around these parts, IMO.

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:41 PM
Trade is one thing. Settlement and a substantial presence are another.

And you're trying to prove U106 is Celtic, not that a stray Scandinavian or other Proto-German traveling salesman fathered a love child in Ireland at some point.

U106 is very small potatoes in Ireland, as it is in the other historically Celtic countries.

No more precise R1b U106 is spread by Central European Bronze Age cultures (also a genetic well for the Celts). (And for the deaf ones also by the Germans). Even small potatoes can taste well...mentioned some possibilities nothing more nothing less.

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:41 PM
After spending a few years in Bavaria, Germany, that is definitely a pheno type from around these parts, IMO.

Franz Josef Strauss!?:biggrin1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvfyjLj0IVY

Angriff
05-05-2018, 07:50 PM
Isn't the most likely explanation for the North Dutch area that it was settled by Celts who were displaced by Germanic tribes during the Roman Era? If they moved across the channel to England it would also explain the genetic shift in SE England during the Iron Age that Reich is trying to account for. And if they took local wives after displacing the ruling warrior class it would explain the vowel shift as well as the large shift in y-haplo from P312 to U106.

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:52 PM
This article estimates the number of Celts in year 200 BCE as around 10 million people:

https://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/on-the-physical-anthropology-of-the-ancient-celts/

The total population of Europe at that time, is estimated as ca. 25-30 million people:

http://www.arabgeographers.net/up/uploads/14299936761.pdf

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

Do you think it is possible that Celtic-speakers were once 30-40% of all Europeans?

What happened to those people, are their descendants still with us in your opinion?

If the first blog is well (still a bit C.S. Coon like text) than these are my forefathers:

The Nordic Celts were very few in the Danube area, were found to some proportion in the banks of the Rhine and formed the majority of the population only at the mouth of the Rhine, on the North Sea coast.

Radboud
05-05-2018, 07:52 PM
I don't think those behind the Nordwestblock idea thought it was P-Celtic. Schrijver seems to be a lone voice in advocating that.

Yeah, it seems there are some issues with this theory that Frisii were originally Celtic speaking peoples. Michiel de Vaan, author of Dawn of the Dutch book addressed some points of the substrate hypotheses of Schrijver.

I did not read his book, but in the comments, there are is a user named Olivier van Renswoude from this article (https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/) gave some good counter-arguments.

He mentioned that Schrijver changed some possibilities to certainties. For example, certain names like Helinium and the first part of the name Cananefates might have been of Celtic origin, but Schrijver assumes that they are of Celtic origin. However, they can be easily be of Germanic origin aswell, the user mentioned that they are even more plausible.

Schrijver did mention that Verritus and Malorix could have been Celtic names, but the the compilers of the book in the introduction mentioned that they are Celtic names.

Also, are there are any plausible explanations for a Celtic origin of the name "Frisii''? A difficult task, because the / f / as a sound was very rare in the Celtic languages we know from that time. And that while there are several Germanic explanations possible and the Frisii for example lived on the Flevum, which in the words of the well-known philologist Günter Neumann "eine einwandfreie germanische Etymologie" has, because the "bedeutet einfach" das flutende, strömende (Gewässer)

He also mentioned that the ethnic identification of the Frisii by the Romans, who had long-term contact with them is too easily pushed aside. It is not as if we are talking about an obscure tribe at a time when the Romans hardly knew anything about Germans and therefore easily confused them with Celts.

Finn
05-05-2018, 07:59 PM
Isn't the most likely explanation for the North Dutch area that it was settled by Celts who were displaced by Germanic tribes during the Roman Era? If they moved across the channel to England it would also explain the genetic shift in SE England during the Iron Age that Reich is trying to account for. And if they took local wives after displacing the ruling warrior class it would explain the vowel shift as well as the large shift in y-haplo from P312 to U106.


Yes! The North Dutch/ Frisii of the (pre) Roman time got a severe population setback at the end of the Roman empire. Mostly in the west coast part less in the eastern and inland parts. Were they went? Not much sources...some say Belgium/Northern France but that's speculating. But the Chauci/Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norwegians came (along with some R1b U106 Z18 lines) to the North Dutch as to England of course.

Archeologist Nicolay:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/7v2osfkvvdl.png

Finn
05-05-2018, 08:02 PM
Yeah, it seems there are some issues with this theory that Frisii were originally Celtic speaking peoples. Michiel de Vaan, author of Dawn of the Dutch book addressed some points of the substrate hypotheses of Schrijver.

I did not read his book, but in the comments, there are is a user named Olivier van Renswoude from this article (https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2017/12/01/latijn-germaans-en-keltisch/) gave some good counter-arguments.

He mentioned that Schrijver changed some possibilities to certainties. For example, certain names like Helinium and the first part of the name Cananefates might have been of Celtic origin, but Schrijver assumes that they are of Celtic origin. However, they can be easily be of Germanic origin aswell, the user mentioned that they are even more plausible.

Schrijver did mention that Verritus and Malorix could have been Celtic names, but the the compilers of the book in the introduction mentioned that they are Celtic names.

Also, are there are any plausible explanations for a Celtic origin of the name "Frisii''? A difficult task, because the / f / as a sound was very rare in the Celtic languages we know from that time. And that while there are several Germanic explanations possible and the Frisii for example lived on the Flevum, which in the words of the well-known philologist Günter Neumann "eine einwandfreie germanische Etymologie" has, because the "bedeutet einfach" das flutende, strömende (Gewässer)

He also mentioned that the ethnic identification of the Frisii by the Romans, who had long-term contact with them is too easily pushed aside. It is not as if we are talking about an obscure tribe at a time when the Romans hardly knew anything about Germans and therefore easily confused them with Celts.

That's name giving, but as far as I know the central thesis of Schrijver, old English and old Frisian is a German language with relicts of people trying to acquire the German language but wit a kind of Celtic as a mother tongue is not contested or does it?

(I can make a copy of his work of 2017 and send by PM no problem)

JonikW
05-05-2018, 10:21 PM
This is all fascinating. Does anyone think my I-Z140 could be Celtic as well as Germanic? I'd always assumed Anglo-Saxon was the most parsimonious origin. My A4577 branch looks pretty sparse on the ground today (TMRCA 600 BC). I only know of a Dutch/German family that's my closest match at present. I've seen the bronze age log coffin burials in the museum in Copenhagen and was intrigued to read recently that there were similar ones in Britain so maybe I've been wrong about my Y line all along and we were already here as Celts when Caesar's 800 boats landed...

ADW_1981
05-05-2018, 10:22 PM
Franz Josef Strauss!?:biggrin1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvfyjLj0IVY

The guy at 0:18 is a dead ringer for the Celt.

EDIT: to clarify, the Dying Gaul statue.

JonikW
05-05-2018, 10:31 PM
The guy at 0:18 is a dead ringer for the Celt.

Spooky. But the dying Celt is quite a generic northern European type.

jdean
05-05-2018, 11:38 PM
Let's be honest, it's highly unlikely the fellow actually sat for this : )

Just guessing but I'd say it's more likely this was the artist's impression of what a dying Gaul / Celt looked like rather than a true representation ?

JonikW
05-06-2018, 12:23 AM
I'm guessing the sculptor of the original did his homework. It's a realistic northern European face so no reason to think it wasn't representative. I wonder whether they used models as in the Renaissance

jdean
05-06-2018, 12:37 AM
I'm guessing the sculptor of the original did his homework. It's a realistic northern European face so no reason to think it wasn't representative. I wonder whether they used models as in the Renaissance

Not saying that couldn't be true but who's to say the subject was a Gaul, I've seen plenty of films where the director was happy with 'a' foreigner accent.

sktibo
05-06-2018, 03:34 AM
Since this topic is a bit all over the place in terms of discussing "Celticity" (but don't get me wrong I have been greatly enjoying reading this one) I thought I'd weigh in with my own ideas on the matter.

22983
This is a European PCA with Central European Beakers, British Beakers, and Czech + German Corded Ware plotted on it. Central Euros are red diamonds, British are red squares, CW are red Xs. I've tried this before with all of the samples, but high coverage British and Central European samples have been identified and I found that excluding the lower coverage samples cleared these groups up nicely. The British Beakers do touch into the modern Celtic (Isles) cluster (in green) but also inhabit the Scandinavian cluster (purple) and reach out towards the Corded Ware area. The Central European Beakers cluster with the French but appear to lean towards the Germans. I think of modern France, Switzerland, Southern Germany, and Austria when I see where these cluster. It has been very interesting to see that Anthrogenica members with significant South German ancestry plot with the French so consistently, and I can't help but think these folks might be responsible for that. The modern Celtic cluster looks like it is in between the British Beakers and the Central European ones (though it is important to note that a couple British Beakers appear to belong to the modern type without any combination effect) hinting at a mixture of these two types creating the modern cluster. I'm not a fan of it, but maybe the La Tene theory could be correct, as it appears that a group of people resembling the modern French, Swiss, and South Germans could have combined with the more Nordic like British Beakers and maybe they brought their language with them.

Finn
05-06-2018, 05:08 AM
Since this topic is a bit all over the place in terms of discussing "Celticity" (but don't get me wrong I have been greatly enjoying reading this one) I thought I'd weigh in with my own ideas on the matter.

22983
This is a European PCA with Central European Beakers, British Beakers, and Czech + German Corded Ware plotted on it. Central Euros are red diamonds, British are red squares, CW are red Xs. I've tried this before with all of the samples, but high coverage British and Central European samples have been identified and I found that excluding the lower coverage samples cleared these groups up nicely. The British Beakers do touch into the modern Celtic (Isles) cluster (in green) but also inhabit the Scandinavian cluster (purple) and reach out towards the Corded Ware area. The Central European Beakers cluster with the French but appear to lean towards the Germans. I think of modern France, Switzerland, Southern Germany, and Austria when I see where these cluster. It has been very interesting to see that Anthrogenica members with significant South German ancestry plot with the French so consistently, and I can't help but think these folks might be responsible for that. The modern Celtic cluster looks like it is in between the British Beakers and the Central European ones (though it is important to note that a couple British Beakers appear to belong to the modern type without any combination effect) hinting at a mixture of these two types creating the modern cluster. I'm not a fan of it, but maybe the La Tene theory could be correct, as it appears that a group of people resembling the modern French, Swiss, and South Germans could have combined with the more Nordic like British Beakers and maybe they brought their language with them.

I agree Skitbo!!! But than place the North Dutch Bell Beakers in the story= ‘modern Celtic cluster looks like it is in between the British Beakers and the Central European ones’. I guess so....

But B.B. are not the only ones that were previous to the Celts and the Germans.

Afterwards we get the Central European Bronze Age Cultures that effected whole NW Europe incl Ireland and England.

Of course this has been regional differentiated we don’t now yet exactly. But the Iron Age Celts and Germans both drunk from the Bronze Age Central Europe well.

As said earlier labels like Celts and German are quite arbitriray and laid up on by the Romans. It is nineteenth century Romantic thought that this were coherent people with each a separate development....actual they were much more, also genetically, intermingled.

And especially along the southern North Sea Coast with all it’s rivers going into Central Germany it’s even more arbitrair to split.

I don’t think North Dutch before 0 AD can be seen as hardcore Iron Age Celts in the sense of oppidia etc. But genetically they fished in the same gene pool. And their language can be connected with the Bronze Age Cultures of Europe as the actual Celts....

But I see the statement of Tomenable as 30 a 40% Central European Bronze Age related!

Finn
05-06-2018, 05:21 AM
The guy at 0:18 is a dead ringer for the Celt.

EDIT: to clarify, the Dying Gaul statue.

Sharp!!!! But see elsewhere about the medevial Bavarians they cluster closely with North Nothwest Ruropeans, Celts? Germans? You name it....

sktibo
05-06-2018, 05:49 AM
I agree Skitbo!!! But than place the North Dutch Bell Beakers in the story= ‘modern Celtic cluster looks like it is in between the British Beakers and the Central European ones’. I guess so....

But B.B. are not the only ones that were previous to the Celts and the Germans.


I dunno Finn, I think it is possible that Bell Beakers were the only predecessors to the modern Celts, and by those I mean the most extreme types such as Western Scots and the Irish. I don't see anything particularly convincing that any other Bronze Age type was in the mix there.. I don't know for sure, of course, but that is where I'm putting my money. I've got no idea about the Germans. Looks like the North Dutch are on the Scandinavian side of the British / Celtic cluster. Off the top of my head this might be due to something like a mixture of British/Dutch type Beaker + Unetice or some other groups which are basically high in Steppe ancestry or incredibly Similar to the British Beaker type as well, keeping them in roughly the same space on the plot. Perhaps a little mixture of the Central European type as well bringing it downward a bit. They certainly appear to have a good amount of ancestry in common with Celtic types, but maybe less in common linguistically.

Radboud
05-06-2018, 06:32 AM
That's name giving, but as far as I know the central thesis of Schrijver, old English and old Frisian is a German language with relicts of people trying to acquire the German language but wit a kind of Celtic as a mother tongue is not contested or does it?

(I can make a copy of his work of 2017 and send by PM no problem)

I am not sure if you read this book yet, but the author Michiel de Vaan of the book Dawn of the Dutch addressed some issues of this central thesis regarding the sound system/klankenbestel.

EDIT: I found a better link:

http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027264503

Finn
05-06-2018, 08:01 AM
I dunno Finn, I think it is possible that Bell Beakers were the only predecessors to the modern Celts, and by those I mean the most extreme types such as Western Scots and the Irish. I don't see anything particularly convincing that any other Bronze Age type was in the mix there.. I don't know for sure, of course, but that is where I'm putting my money. I've got no idea about the Germans. Looks like the North Dutch are on the Scandinavian side of the British / Celtic cluster. Off the top of my head this might be due to something like a mixture of British/Dutch type Beaker + Unetice or some other groups which are basically high in Steppe ancestry or incredibly Similar to the British Beaker type as well, keeping them in roughly the same space on the plot. Perhaps a little mixture of the Central European type as well bringing it downward a bit. They certainly appear to have a good amount of ancestry in common with Celtic types, but maybe less in common linguistically.


Do you think the Bell Beaker (close related to the Dutch/Rhenish Beakers) came along and than the Irish, Scots and Welsh afterwards went in a splendid isolation in a deep wintersleep until those crude Germans kissed them awake? End of sweet Celtic dreams? :biggrin1:

The BB got much emphasize, but there is a world between the BB and the iron age full of interaction!

I guess the BB set up a network and afterwards the Bronze Age people influenced Ireland, British Isles, Belgium and NW Germany. A matter of spread from LN-EBA BB, Unetice and other Bronze Age cultures.

Cassidy (2016)

However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.


and picture:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/8ay4tl4.png


And the North Dutch? For a big part they share lots of "BB" and "Bronze Age genes" with the Irish, Welsh, Scottish.

I recall my K47 of my family (fur purpose left out beneath 1%):

Finn Dad
23.99% Celtic
21.90% North-Sea_Germanic
13.98% Scando-Germanic
10.54% East-Euro
8.72% West-Finnic
5.05% Baltic
4.02% West-Med
3.50% South-Caucasian
2.42% Paleo-Balkan
2.07% SW-Euro
2.37% Pamirian

Finn mom
21.33% Celtic
18.96% North-Sea_Germanic
14.39% East-Euro
13.94% Scando-Germanic
8.12% Baltic
7.44% West-Med
5.57% SW-Euro
4.01% West-Finnic
3.66% Paleo-Balkan
1.29% North-Caucasian

Finn

23.98% North-Sea_Germanic
22.59% Celtic
13.37% Scando-Germanic
11.45% East-Euro
8.31% Baltic
7.69% West-Finnic
3.68% South-Caucasian
3.12% West-Med
2.60% SW-Euro
2.28% Paleo-Balkan

See these (modern) Celtic affinities!!!

Mom is inland North Dutch and comes most close to the Bronze Age population, father and I got more Nordic/Germanic influxes our ancestry is more coastal North Dutch especially influenced by the Nordic/Germanic tribes during the migration period.

But as on the whole the Celtic influence is pretty big in the three of us!

And my Bronze Age K20 (again left out beneath 1%):
53.32% Central-Euro
18.66% West-Euro
12.95% West-Steppe
14.82% East-Steppe

IMO from BB, through the Bronze Age, until Iron age the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe left a giant mark on the genetics of NW Europe incl overseas!

Finn
05-06-2018, 08:17 AM
I am not sure if you read this book yet, but the author Michiel de Vaan of the book Dawn of the Dutch addressed some issues of this central thesis regarding the sound system/klankenbestel.

EDIT: I found a better link:

http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027264503

Just scanned but see no arguments against the thesis of Schrijver (2017) that old Frisian got relicts of Celtic speakers acquiring German. What would also be a surprise because the work of Schrijver is from dec 2017.

JonikW
05-06-2018, 09:30 AM
I dunno Finn, I think it is possible that Bell Beakers were the only predecessors to the modern Celts, and by those I mean the most extreme types such as Western Scots and the Irish. I don't see anything particularly convincing that any other Bronze Age type was in the mix there.. I don't know for sure, of course, but that is where I'm putting my money. I've got no idea about the Germans. Looks like the North Dutch are on the Scandinavian side of the British / Celtic cluster. Off the top of my head this might be due to something like a mixture of British/Dutch type Beaker + Unetice or some other groups which are basically high in Steppe ancestry or incredibly Similar to the British Beaker type as well, keeping them in roughly the same space on the plot. Perhaps a little mixture of the Central European type as well bringing it downward a bit. They certainly appear to have a good amount of ancestry in common with Celtic types, but maybe less in common linguistically.

If the Bell Beakers were the only predecessors of the Celts, could they have mixed with an I1 native population in Scandinavia, creating the Germanic population? They might explain the 30% or so of outside vocabulary in early Germanic. The Beakers as Celtic speakers does seem to make sense, especially as we can now count out the Neolithic people in Britain at least.

rms2
05-06-2018, 11:27 AM
Isn't the most likely explanation for the North Dutch area that it was settled by Celts who were displaced by Germanic tribes during the Roman Era? If they moved across the channel to England it would also explain the genetic shift in SE England during the Iron Age that Reich is trying to account for. And if they took local wives after displacing the ruling warrior class it would explain the vowel shift as well as the large shift in y-haplo from P312 to U106.

That's a possibility, but you have to understand what Finn is on about. He maintains that U106 was Proto-Celtic and therefore that single U106 in what was likely an Elp mound at Oostwoud proves his point, that is, if Friesland was once occupied by early Celts.

I think it far more likely, given all we know about U106, that, if Friesland was Celtic-speaking at one time (which I think is very iffy at best), it was occupied by non-U106 people who were mostly displaced by Germanic-speaking U106ers.

But what about the Oostwoud U106, who was there by about 1650 BC? Well, if he belonged to the Elp culture, that extended to the east and up into the Jutland peninsula in what is now Denmark. It isn't likely to represent early Celtic speakers.

Recall that the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker mound at Oostwoud, which was much older than the Elp mound where that one U106 (I4070) was found, was occupied by six males who were all P312, not U106.

Finn
05-06-2018, 11:44 AM
That's a possibility, but you have to understand what Finn is on about. He maintains that U106 was Proto-Celtic and therefore that single U106 in what was likely an Elp mound at Oostwoud proves his point, that is, if Friesland was once occupied by early Celts.

I think it far more likely, given all we know about U106, that, if Friesland was Celtic-speaking at one time (which I think is very iffy at best), it was occupied by non-U106 people who were mostly displaced by Germanic-speaking U106ers.

But what about the Oostwoud U106, who was there by about 1650 BC? Well, if he belonged to the Elp culture, that extended to the east and up into the Jutland peninsula in what is now Denmark. It isn't likely to represent early Celtic speakers.

Recall that the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker mound at Oostwoud, which was much older than the Elp mound where that one U106 (I4070) was found, was occupied by six males who were all P312, not U106.

That's a spin rms2. I only stated that's a real option that Bronze Age Cultures spread R1b U106. It's you that every time get upset about this but according to you it belongs to the Germanic corner.... and it "should" stay there.

Further on see my posting ^^^ based on sources and IMO a responsible thought. Be my guest to counter it in a fair way not by spin of my opinions.

I just saw a book that perfectly represent the way you are thinking about this kind of things. 'The coming of the Celts.'

http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P03427 (see the picture in front!)

It's 19th century romanticism, nationalism.....based on the 'separate' development of "the Celts" and "the Germans" and "the Slaves". Coherent people. They even thought they had separate kind of "spirit' or "soul" (Volksgeist).

In lots of your reactions this shimmers heavily through.

IMO nowadays genetics shows that for example in NW Europe lost of genes are shared (see my previous posting) and that the Bronze Age played a big part in it.....

The consequence of that is that there is no such thing as "THE celts" or "THE Germans"....the intermingling was very big!

Finn
05-06-2018, 11:50 AM
That's a possibility, but you have to understand what Finn is on about. He maintains that U106 was Proto-Celtic and therefore that single U106 in what was likely an Elp mound at Oostwoud proves his point, that is, if Friesland was once occupied by early Celts.

I think it far more likely, given all we know about U106, that, if Friesland was Celtic-speaking at one time (which I think is very iffy at best), it was occupied by non-U106 people who were mostly displaced by Germanic-speaking U106ers.

But what about the Oostwoud U106, who was there by about 1650 BC? Well, if he belonged to the Elp culture, that extended to the east and up into the Jutland peninsula in what is now Denmark. It isn't likely to represent early Celtic speakers.

Recall that the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker mound at Oostwoud, which was much older than the Elp mound where that one U106 (I4070) was found, was occupied by six males who were all P312, not U106.

May I invite you to refute this crucial statement of Cassidy (2016):


However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.

rms2
05-06-2018, 11:55 AM
You never actually answer my arguments, Finn. You dance around them and accuse me of things of which I am not guilty, like "Romanticism", etc., which is just silly blather.

Note that Friesland was very early on in the very heart of what is believed to have been the cradle of the Germanic languages: the Harpstedt and Jastorf cultures.

This is from Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, page 87:



Consequently, the Jastorf culture and probably the neighbouring Harpstedt culture have provided Gemanicists with a generally agreed-upon Germanic homeland. This also finds reinforcement from the linguists who suggest that sound changes that transformed a late Indo-European dialect into Proto-Germanic occurred about 500 BC.


23002

Here is what Mallory says about Nordwestblock, on page 85 of the same book:



A few linguists suggest that the territory between the Oise and the Aller may have been occupied by a linguistic group which was neither Celtic nor Germanic but which has been termed Nordwestblock.

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:00 PM
You never actually answer my arguments, Finn. You dance around them and accuse me of things of which I am not guilty, like "Romanticism", etc., which is just silly blather.

Note that Friesland was very early on in the very heart of what is believed to have been the cradle of the Germanic languages: the Harpstedt and Jastorf cultures.

This is from Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, page 87:



23002

Here is what Mallory says about Nordwestblock, on page 85 of the same book:

Yep contradiction because Harpstedt-Nienburg was part of the Northwest block. So not the clearest thought or drawing of Mallory.....

I'm no defender of the Nothwestblock as such, but it shows that this area was not core germanic...and opened the possibility of other languages.

Friesland did not earlier spoke undoubtful German (probably with Celtic accent) after the big migration!

05-06-2018, 12:01 PM
Just want to throw something else into the mix, as I been travelling Germany, lived in Hamburg for a couple of years.
The ancient name for Hamburg was “Treva”, according to Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century AD).
This at least to a person of some Welsh, P Celtic language knowledge sounds like a P Celtic place name.

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:04 PM
You never actually answer my arguments, Finn. You dance around them and accuse me of things of which I am not guilty, like "Romanticism", etc., which is just silly blather.


Hahaha it reflects your opinion Rms2....

the quote of Cassidy is not silly blather or is it? It's a crucial point IMO!

Are you able to refute it? I guess not....

rms2
05-06-2018, 12:05 PM
May I invite you to refute this crucial statement of Cassidy (2016):



However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.

What's to refute?

Cassidy is saying that the Ballynahatty woman, who was like a modern Sardinian and a Neolithic Iberian, was very different from the Rathlin Island Kurgan Bell Beaker men, who were like central and northern Europeans from the Bronze Age. BTW, the Rathlin Island men were R1b-L21, not U106.

You're mixing apples and oranges, Finn, confusing autosomal dna with y-dna. Half of one's autosomal dna is contributed by his mother, so the autosomal pool doesn't necessarily reflect clines in y-dna.

Where does Cassidy say, "This proves U106 was Proto-Celtic!"? She doesn't, because she's not goofy.

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:12 PM
What's to refute?

Cassidy is saying that the Ballynahatty woman, who was like a modern Sardinian and a Neolithic Iberian, was very different from the Rathlin Island Kurgan Bell Beaker men, who were like central and northern Europeans from the Bronze Age. BTW, the Rathlin Island men were R1b-L21, not U106.

You're mixing apples and oranges, Finn, confusing autosomal dna with y-dna. Half of one's autosomal dna is contributed by his mother, so the autosomal pool doesn't necessarily reflect clines in y-dna.

Where does Cassidy say, "This proves U106 was Proto-Celtic!"? She doesn't, because she's not goofy.

Again selective reading, this is what she says exactly: along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.

And that's the crux in my thought the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe influenced NW Europe incl the Isles.

That's major.

And than you can discus about pre, proto or actual Celtic, but that's minor.

Irish, Scots, North Dutch.....and other people of NW Europe share a big amount of Bronze Age genes......!

rms2
05-06-2018, 12:28 PM
Again selective reading, this is what she says exactly: along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.

And that's the crux in my thought the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe influenced NW Europe incl the Isles.

That's major.

And than you can discus about pre, proto or actual Celtic, but that's minor.

Irish, Scots, North Dutch.....and other people of NW Europe share a big amount of Bronze Age genes......!

Stick with y-dna, Finn. Almost everyone knows central and northern Europeans are very similar autosomally, and educated people know that not all Bronze Age European cultures were Proto-Celtic. Unetice has been credited with contributing to early Germanic, early Balto-Slavic, and early Italo-Celtic.

23004

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:39 PM
Stick with y-dna, Finn. Almost everyone knows central and northern Europeans are very similar autosomally, and educated people know that not all Bronze Age European cultures were Proto-Celtic. Unetice has been credited with contributing to early Germanic, early Balto-Slavic, and early Italo-Celtic.

23004

No in a next posting I will do but primarily Y-Dna solo is to narrow IMO.

The people in NW Europe are closer Rms2. Some Frisians get Irish on number one in the admixture. Not without reason. It's highly because of the Bronze Age connection. That's not only Unetice....

This is also reflected in 23 and me Irish/British, the correlation with for example North Dutch is bigger.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/m8juwq3gr6ybx.png

See also my families K47 results big "Celtic" affinity.

Ok taken with tons of salts....but not goofy ;)

rms2
05-06-2018, 12:40 PM
Just want to throw something else into the mix, as I been travelling Germany, lived in Hamburg for a couple of years.
The ancient name for Hamburg was “Treva”, according to Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century AD).
This at least to a person of some Welsh, P Celtic language knowledge sounds like a P Celtic place name.

Lots of places had Celtic names that later acquired Germanic names as a consequence of the expansion of the Germans during the Migration Period.

And - who'd a thunk it? - the skeletons of Migration Period Germans are starting to yield y-dna test results, and many of them are U106.

Will we see the same thing from the ancient Irish? (Not likely.)

rms2
05-06-2018, 12:43 PM
Here's a better use of a similar map, Finn. Pair it with another to compare L21 to U106 in Britain and Ireland. Note the pretty obvious connection of the former to the ancient British and Irish Celts, and the equally obvious connection of the latter to the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English.

23006

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:54 PM
Than your beloved R1b U106.

The basic line for me is this.

According to Y-full it has a TMRCA of 4700 BC. And I assume it's rooted somewhere in Central-East Europe.

At least we have a sample of Unetice (just above Prague).

Than we have a sample in Lilla Beddinge/Scania about 2000 BC. This sample shows auDNA affinity with Unetice and Bell Beaker and in 1:1 with Unetice Silezia Poland. A that time Scania was heavily influenced by Unetice.

Than we have Oostwoud/West-Friesland 1800 BC, that's Elp, another Unetice/EBA derivate.

And than comes Cassidy again:
along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.

This is not only true for auDNA but also for Y-DNA......

So it's imaginable that certain R1b U106 lines like Z156 did go with this flow.....also to Ireland? But until now no concrete sample. So this stays speculative.

PS and of course needless to say but its hard to hear me over the Ocean I guess, R1b U106 played a big a very big part in the Germanic spread ;)

Finn
05-06-2018, 12:56 PM
Lots of places had Celtic names that later acquired Germanic names as a consequence of the expansion of the Germans during the Migration Period.

And - who'd a thunk it? - the skeletons of Migration Period Germans are starting to yield y-dna test results, and many of them are U106.

Will we see the same thing from the ancient Irish? (Not likely.)

SGAdavies has a point here, Bronze Age cultures like Unetice and other kind of Bronze Age cultures were also present in the Hamburg area, the Germanic spread was later.....

rms2
05-06-2018, 01:09 PM
SGAdevies has a point here, Bronze Age cultures like Unetice and other kind of Bronze Age cultures were also present in the Hamburg area, the Germanic spread was later.....

Was that his point?

Finn, most of the Unetice y-dna results have not been U106. One has thus far, and that in the Czech Republic. Besides, as I already mentioned, Unetice has been credited with contributing to the genesis of early Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italo-Celtic.

Who knows what Unetice people spoke? Answer: no one.

Take a look at all the evidence that argues against U106 having much of a part to play in the Celtic story. It is most frequent in Germanic-speaking lands, it declines sharply as one enters Italo-Celtic-speaking regions, its oldest known representative thus far was recovered from a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden (hotbed of the Celts!), and it is turning up over and over again in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

rms2
05-06-2018, 01:22 PM
. . . R1b U106 played a big a very big part in the Germanic spread ;)

Well, you got that part right.

Equally important would be the concession that R1b-U106 played very little if any part in the Celtic spread.

Finn
05-06-2018, 01:24 PM
[QUOTE]Finn, most of the Unetice y-dna results have not been U106.

Indeed like all cultures after them.....are mixed.


.
One has thus far, and that in the Czech Republic. Besides, as I already mentioned, Unetice has been credited with contributing to the genesis of early Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italo-Celtic.

Who knows what Unetice people spoke? Answer: no one.


.....and than we have Tumulus and Urnfield.....also with a big impact on NW Europe.



Take a look at all the evidence that argues against U106 having much of a part to play in the Celtic story.

I said it's spread in Bronze Age time and could play a part in pre-proto or actual Celtic, a line like Z156. Where did I suggest it was major....never. I use only probably, and speculative.
Enough to get you right in the chair but that's another thing.


It is most frequent in Germanic-speaking lands, it declines sharply as one enters Italo-Celtic-speaking regions.


Yes I know " and of course needless to say but its hard to hear me over the Ocean I guess, R1b U106 played a big a very big part in the Germanic spread"


its oldest known representative thus far was recovered from a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden (hotbed of the Celts!), and it is turning up over and over again in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

Yep low evidence based on a needle or something like that, in my region there are Bronze Age findings in a dolmen (a kind of re-use)....so they are TRB??? Goofy!!!:crazy:

The only thing is that some eager want to associate R1b U106 with Corded Ware is because in some way it's an ultimate Nordicist wet dream (you see we are are CW, so early Germanic). Pathetic.

The influence of Unetice on Scania 2000 BC is according to latest literature. The connections in the admixtures and 1:1 with Unetice and BB are to obvious. It plots very different than time line samples, real Corded Ware, in that area.

But this could only disrupt a potential wet dream, sorry for that.....

rms2
05-06-2018, 01:38 PM
Finn, there is no evidence U106 had much if anything to do with Celtic, pre-, proto-, or otherwise. You certainly have not produced any.

On the other hand, I have produced a list of reasons to think that U106 had little or nothing to do with the early Celts and everything to do with the early Germans.

In the meantime, U106 keeps showing up in ancient results from Migration Period Germans. If that doesn't do it for some folks, I don't know what will.

I guess we will have to wait and see if U106 turns up in any skeletons that can clearly be identified as Celtic.

Oh, by the way, it wouldn't surprise me if a few Celts here or there were U106. I just don't think there were ever very many of them. There will always be cultural bleed-over at the frontiers. But U106 was never an important player among the Celts except as an outside, Germanic source of pressure.

Finn
05-06-2018, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE]Finn, there is no evidence U106 had much if anything to do with Celtic, pre-, proto-, or otherwise. You certainly have not produced any.

If you think that an Y-DNA that was present in Bronze Age Unetice, LN-EBA Scania, EBA West Friesland, was 2000 years frozen, and in Jastorf/ Northern Germany unfrozen as German and than spread, than you got a point but I guess it didn't work that way. Fool another one....


By the way, it wouldn't surprise me if a few Celts here or there were U106. I just don't think there were ever very many of them. There will always be cultural bleed-over at the frontiers. But U106 was never an important player among the Celts except as an outside, Germanic source of pressure.

Hear hear.....but you stayed in the lines....of course ;)

But we get off topic here Rms2.

Radboud
05-06-2018, 03:00 PM
Just scanned but see no arguments against the thesis of Schrijver (2017) that old Frisian got relicts of Celtic speakers acquiring German. What would also be a surprise because the work of Schrijver is from dec 2017.

Yeah correction: I meant arguments against substrate hypotheses of Schrijvers previous works.



Indeed like all cultures after them.....are mixed.


Bell Beakers were also mixed, yet it was obviously a power house for P312 if we look at the frequencies. U106 was absent in these Bell Beakers and it suddenly shows up Unetice. It makes a central BB>Unetice scenario for U106 problematic. Based on the Unetice samples we have, y-Haplogroup I2 is a significant marker and we have only one U106 sample, that sample had already a very deep subclade of U106. Of course, it's not a fair comparison because we have more BB samples on our hands, but I am not convinced that Unetice was the smoking gun for U106 yet.





The only thing is that some eager want to associate R1b U106 with Corded Ware is because in some way it's an ultimate Nordicist wet dream (you see we are are CW, so early Germanic). Pathetic.


You really think that people are eager to associate U106 with CWC? An assocation with CWC is still on the table, because there is lack of U106 in Bell Beakers. We also still have to test Baltic Bell Beakers.



The influence of Unetice on Scania 2000 BC is according to latest literature. The connections in the admixtures and 1:1 with Unetice and BB are to obvious. It plots very different than time line samples, real Corded Ware, in that area.


Here is the thing, scholars and archaeologists agree that Nordic_LN period II (around 1950 BC-1700 BC) should be considered as EBA because it's closely related to the Nordic Bronze Age. However, Scandinavian scholars agree Nordic_LN period I(2350- around 1950) was more closely related to the preceding Neolithic periods. It was a stable period. RISE98 falls within this time period perfectly. There are also no signs of Unetice or BB influences in Lilla Beddinge cemetery.

The calculators only show that RISE98 is more similar to Bronze Age populations than to CWC, it's not meant to show ''connections'' with specific cultures. There are other explanations for this similarity.

Finn
05-06-2018, 03:30 PM
Yeah correction: I meant arguments against substrate hypotheses of Schrijvers previous works.

:thumb:


Bell Beakers were also mixed, yet it was obviously a power house for P312 if we look at the frequencies. U106 was absent in these Bell Beakers and it suddenly shows up Unetice. It makes a central BB>Unetice scenario for U106 problematic. Based on the Unetice samples we have, y-Haplogroup I2 is a significant marker and we have only one U106 sample, that sample had already a very deep subclade of U106. Of course, it's not a fair comparison because we have more BB samples on our hands, but I am not convinced that Unetice was the smoking gun for U106 yet.


no smokings guns but all coincidence that Oostwoud and Lilla Beddinge can (of course not without debate) be possible connected with Unetice?


You really think that people are eager to associate U106 with CWC? An assocation with CWC is still on the table, because there is lack of U106 in Bell Beakers. We also still have to test Baltic Bell Beakers.


Yep don't underestimate that some are really Y-DNA clanish.



Here is the thing, scholars and archaeologists agree that Nordic_LN period II (around 1950 BC-1700 BC) should be considered as EBA because it's closely related to the Nordic Bronze Age. However, Scandinavian scholars agree Nordic_LN period I(2350- around 1950) was more closely related to the preceding Neolithic periods. It was a stable period. RISE98 falls within this time period perfectly. There are also no signs of Unetice or BB influences in Lilla Beddinge cemetery.

The calculators only show that RISE98 is more similar to Bronze Age populations than to CWC, it's not meant to show ''connections'' with specific cultures. There are other explanations for this similarity.


I mentioned already literature in which specific the area of Lilla Beddinge was mentioned as an area that got an impuls about 2000 BC from Unetice.
What are the explanations? In the Ancient 1:1 Rise 98 has a 3cM connection with Unetice Silezia Poland.
The grave isn't quite clear I guess....

And surprise surprise Radboud ok taken with some salt your Global 25:


Radboud

Ireland_EBA,58.6
England_Anglo-Saxon,36.2
Nordic_LN,2.6
CWC_Baltic,2
Slavic_Bohemia,0.6


You can understand my :biggrin1: I guess.....

Radboud
05-06-2018, 05:39 PM
no smokings guns but all coincidence that Oostwoud and Lilla Beddinge can be (of course not without debate) be possible connected with Unetice?


I am wondering how the U106 sample ended up in Unetice in the first place. The Central BB> Unetice scenario doesn't look good. Unetice itself does not seem to be a power house for U106 at the moment, I really wonder which group(s) are responsible for U106, it's still a mystery to me. :P



I mentioned already literature in which specific the area of Lilla Beddinge was mentioned as an area that got an impuls about 2000 BC from Unetice.

Yes, Lilla Beddinge cemetery did had some cremations during the BA period. But the graves of the cemetery did had not any signs of Unetice/BB influences. RISE98 has an average date of around 2150 BC. I guess I have a different interpretation of around 2000 BC, but the age screams Late Neolithic Period I to me. From what I understand is that the first ''impulses'' from Unetice etc arrived after 2000 but before 1950 BC in Scandinavia.



What are the explanations?


Descendant of CWC mixing with the local population, descendant of a unknown Steppe-derived group, I would not rule out a descendant of a Baltic Bell Beaker scenario either. But yeah, the grave does not tell us much.



In the Ancient 1:1 Rise 98 has a 3cM connection with Unetice Silezia Poland.


I have 5cM connection with LBK Stuttgart, not sure if this tool is reliable.



And surprise surprise Radboud ok taken with some salt but your Global 25:



You can understand my :biggrin1: I guess.....

Not sure if my results are relevant, but like you said, we should take this results with a grain of salt and interpret it correctly. Overfitting can also be an issue. So far, not only Nmonte but also other tools and calculators showed mixed results for me, from being French-like to Scando-like.( Ask Sktibo ;) )

sktibo
05-06-2018, 05:51 PM
Do you think the Bell Beaker (close related to the Dutch/Rhenish Beakers) came along and than the Irish, Scots and Welsh afterwards went in a splendid isolation in a deep wintersleep until those crude Germans kissed them awake? End of sweet Celtic dreams? :biggrin1:

The BB got much emphasize, but there is a world between the BB and the iron age full of interaction!

I guess the BB set up a network and afterwards the Bronze Age people influenced Ireland, British Isles, Belgium and NW Germany. A matter of spread from LN-EBA BB, Unetice and other Bronze Age cultures.

Cassidy (2016)


and picture:

And the North Dutch? For a big part they share lots of "BB" and "Bronze Age genes" with the Irish, Welsh, Scottish.

I recall my K47 of my family (fur purpose left out beneath 1%):

Finn Dad
23.99% Celtic
21.90% North-Sea_Germanic
13.98% Scando-Germanic
10.54% East-Euro
8.72% West-Finnic
5.05% Baltic
4.02% West-Med
3.50% South-Caucasian
2.42% Paleo-Balkan
2.07% SW-Euro
2.37% Pamirian

Finn mom
21.33% Celtic
18.96% North-Sea_Germanic
14.39% East-Euro
13.94% Scando-Germanic
8.12% Baltic
7.44% West-Med
5.57% SW-Euro
4.01% West-Finnic
3.66% Paleo-Balkan
1.29% North-Caucasian

Finn

23.98% North-Sea_Germanic
22.59% Celtic
13.37% Scando-Germanic
11.45% East-Euro
8.31% Baltic
7.69% West-Finnic
3.68% South-Caucasian
3.12% West-Med
2.60% SW-Euro
2.28% Paleo-Balkan

See these (modern) Celtic affinities!!!

Mom is inland North Dutch and comes most close to the Bronze Age population, father and I got more Nordic/Germanic influxes our ancestry is more coastal North Dutch especially influenced by the Nordic/Germanic tribes during the migration period.

But as on the whole the Celtic influence is pretty big in the three of us!

And my Bronze Age K20 (again left out beneath 1%):
53.32% Central-Euro
18.66% West-Euro
12.95% West-Steppe
14.82% East-Steppe

IMO from BB, through the Bronze Age, until Iron age the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe left a giant mark on the genetics of NW Europe incl overseas!

I don't understand why you're posting K47 results from your family? No one is questioning the shared Bronze Age ancestry between the Isles and the Low Countries, that seems pretty well established. I also don't think that these DIY calculators and other GEDmatch tools are well suited as there are often flaws in the components which have been created. Just because someone labels a component to be "Celtic" doesn't mean it is a good representation of what that is.

On the topic of Unetice, from what I have seen they do match groups like the Irish very well, but upon further examination, I found that the Unetice samples were basically indistinguishable from the British Beaker type. So this isn't likely to be a matter of Unetice ancestry, rather, a calculator grabbing onto something which is identical to the actual source of a population.

It looks to me like we start with the British Beakers coming in during the Early Bronze Age and largely displacing the Neolithic peoples, and then at some later point (It looks like during the Middle Bronze Age, based on where the MLBA England and Scotland samples plot) we have interaction with another group, likely Central European Beakers. By the Late Bronze Age, all five samples we have from this period are right in the modern Celtic / British Isles cluster.

It doesn't look at all like a complex world of interactions, quite the opposite: A number of groups, maybe a small number, of Bell Beaker stock, interacting with one another.


If the Bell Beakers were the only predecessors of the Celts, could they have mixed with an I1 native population in Scandinavia, creating the Germanic population? They might explain the 30% or so of outside vocabulary in early Germanic. The Beakers as Celtic speakers does seem to make sense, especially as we can now count out the Neolithic people in Britain at least.

So many of the British Bell Beakers were very close to the Corded Ware, and probably have a lot of Corded Ware ancestry. I think this is the connection we see between the British Isles and Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. I think that groups like the Anglo-Saxons probably had some descent from the British/Dutch type of Bell Beaker as well.



Not sure if my results are relevant, but like you said, we should take this results with a grain of salt and interpret it correctly. Overfitting can also be an issue. So far, not only Nmonte but also other tools and calculators showed mixed results for me, from being French-like to Scando-like.( Ask Sktibo ;) )

"Consistent" is not a word I would use to describe you! IMO we should take all nMonte and DIY calculators with a good pinch of salt. I have a lot of fun with nMonte models but I find using PAST to graph is more informative.

Finn
05-06-2018, 05:51 PM
I am wondering how the U106 sample ended up in Unetice in the first place. The Central BB> Unetice scenario doesn't look good. Unetice itself does not seem to be a power house for U106 at the moment, I really wonder which group(s) are responsible for U106, it's still a mystery to me. :P

I guess for all of us Radboud!!


Yes, Lilla Beddinge cemetery did had some cremations from during the BA period. But the graves of the cemetery did had not any signs of Unetice/BB influences. RISE98 has an average date of around 2150 BC. I guess I have a different interpretation of around 2000 BC, but the age screams Late Neolithic Period I to me. From what I understand is that the first ''impulses'' from Unetice etc arrived after 2000 but before 1950 BC in Scandinavia.



Descendant of CWC mixing with the local population, descendant of a unknown Steppe-derived group, I would not rule out a descendant Baltic Bell Beaker scenario either. But yeah, the grave does not tell us much.


No indeed, I will search for the recent paper in which is shown that the area of Lilla Beddinge got a push and was related in their development to Central Europe.


I have 5cM connection with LBK Stuttgart, not sure if this tool is reliable.

Fully understandable much of us have, ENF?


Not sure if my results are relevant, but like you said, we should take this results with a grain of salt and interpret it correctly. Overfitting can also be an issue. So far, not only Nmonte but also other tools and calculators showed mixed results for me, from being French-like to Scando-like.( Ask Sktibo ;)


At least after a discussion about close links in Bronze Age NW Europe from Ireland to the Lowlands etc this was nice to see...;)

Finn
05-06-2018, 06:04 PM
Catch:

Lilla Beddinge in Southwest Scania

Per Cornnell, Encounters:

The increased exchange activity in central and eastern parts of South Scandinavia can furthermore be traced in the development of the house and settlement size...the house sizes changed rapidly and considerably around 2000BC...settlement structure in some parts of Southern Scandinavia even resemble village organization. Moreover the construction of houses in several instances show a similarity with long houses in Central Europe. The settlement of Almhov just south of the city of the Swedish city Malmö in southwest Scania exemplifies how the European exchange system can be traced in the local settlement structure.



Relationship with Unetice

Hence, as the Bell Beaker culture ceased and the Únětice culture flourished in central Europe the exchange and contact networks changed in favour of the Únětice area, which influenced South Scandinavia from across the Baltic Sea (Iversen, 2015: 108–111; Vandkilde, 1996, 2001, 2007b).

It is obvious to see the significant enlargement of some of the South Scandinavian houses as a result of the enhanced wealth in the form of metal that can be seen from c. 2000 BC, together with the supposed increase in agricultural productivity. As mentioned above, the increased number of metal objects was due to closer contacts with the flourishing central European Únětice culture within which similar, and even longer, contemporary two-aisled houses are found (Nadler, 2001; P.O. Nielsen, 1999: 159–161; Schefzik, 2010; Walter, Mecking, Wehmer, Jahn, & Birkenbeil, 2008: 7–15). Thus, the occurrence of very large houses probably reflects marked differences in social status and wealth resulting in the appearance of what we can term chieftains’ halls. These large-scale two-isled houses were the predecessors of the three-aisled chiefly halls of the Early Bronze Age representing the consolidation of a social order with accentuated differences in status and wealth (Kristiansen, 2006; Kristiansen & Larsson, 2005: 277–279; Randsborg, 2011)

This brings us to the other significant Late Neolithic feature, metal. Even though limited in number, the presence of metal objects bears witness to the establishment of far-reaching contact and exchange networks, which then developed further from around 2000 BC, as a result of increased links with the Únětice culture. However, the amount of imported metal had not yet reached a level that allowed the creation of formal hierarchies.

The interesting question is of course why metal stayed in southern Scandinavia in the Late Neolithic and not in the Early Neolithic. Except for the external fluctuations in the production and distribution of copper in central and southeastern Europe, one explanation could be a supposed economic surplus gained through a reinforced agricultural focus. This surplus could be invested in trade and exchange with early Únětice Bronze Age communities.


Source:
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opar.2017.3.issue-1/opar-2017-0023/opar-2017-0023.pdf

rms2
05-06-2018, 06:09 PM
I am wondering how the U106 sample ended up in Unetice in the first place . . .

Remember this archaeological paper (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:922601/FULLTEXT01.pdf) by Dalia Anna Pokutta that tells the story of one Swedish migrant who wound up in Unetice territory?

Maybe he wasn't the only one, and perhaps others were more successful than he was.

Meanwhile, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute RISE98 to Unetice, except perhaps wishful thinking.

Finn
05-06-2018, 06:32 PM
[QUOTE]I don't understand why you're posting K47 results from your family? No one is questioning the shared Bronze Age ancestry between the Isles and the Low Countries, that seems pretty well established. I also don't think that these DIY calculators and other GEDmatch tools are well suited as there are often flaws in the components which have been created. Just because someone labels a component to be "Celtic" doesn't mean it is a good representation of what that is.


Because it's an example how the interaction in the Bronze Age was. I'm curios why in NW Europe there is so much resemblance between the different countries. Much Frisians/Dutch, not only Radboud in Global 25, get Irish results. Why?

No the label Celtic is introduced by Lukasz because he took some nowadays "Celtic" populations as proxy. And obviously my family shows much resemblance. And it resemblances Bronze Age Central Europe....so that's the connection I guess.

Central Europe Bronze Age> NW Europe incl South Scandinavia and the Isles/Ireland.

I don't see the harm of it...
In other postings we are using our private samples don't we?


On the topic of Unetice, from what I have seen they do match groups like the Irish very well, but upon further examination, I found that the Unetice samples were basically indistinguishable from the British Beaker type. So this isn't likely to be a matter of Unetice ancestry, rather, a calculator grabbing onto something which is identical to the actual source of a population.



The Unetice have some higher HG, but could indeed be very identical, but I guess that Cassidy, professional enough, had not a slip of the tongue I guess when see mentions Unetice and other EBA cultures from North and Central Europe. As to you she could simply state BB and then finish?


It looks to me like we start with the British Beakers coming in during the Early Bronze Age and largely displacing the Neolithic peoples, and then at some later point (It looks like during the Middle Bronze Age, based on where the MLBA England and Scotland samples plot) we have interaction with another group, likely Central European Beakers. By the Late Bronze Age, all five samples we have from this period are right in the modern Celtic / British Isles cluster.

It doesn't look at all like a complex world of interactions, quite the opposite: A number of groups, maybe a small number, of Bell Beaker stock, interacting with one another.


I guess you are wrong JJ Butler an eminent scholar of the Bronze Age has clearly mapped the connections in NW Europe in the Bronze Age, Ireland played a big part in it....
Indeed a whole world of interaction between Southern Scandinavia, parts of Germany, Low Lands, the Isles, Ireland!

http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24793


So many of the British Bell Beakers were very close to the Corded Ware, and probably have a lot of Corded Ware ancestry. I think this is the connection we see between the British Isles and Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. I think that groups like the Anglo-Saxons probably had some descent from the British/Dutch type of Bell Beaker as well.


As England the Frisian coast was a target of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Norwegians too. That's why dad and I resemble the A-S. Not because of the A-S were British BB.


"Consistent" is not a word I would use to describe you! IMO we should take all nMonte and DIY calculators with a good pinch of salt. I have a lot of fun with nMonte models but I find using PAST to graph is more informative.


Yes I use them with salt, but eat them still with salt...I use them through the eyelashes.
But when they are complete nonsense than this site is pure fun? Hope not....

Finn
05-06-2018, 06:33 PM
Remember this archaeological paper (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:922601/FULLTEXT01.pdf) by Dalia Anna Pokutta that tells the story of one Swedish migrant who wound up in Unetice territory?

Maybe he wasn't the only one, and perhaps others were more successful than he was.

Meanwhile, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute RISE98 to Unetice, except perhaps wishful thinking.

Yes read it well it were people en marge the society, not a kind of immigrants with high social status....So this could reflect the situation at that time. Unetice spread and took control of crucial parts of NW Europe (on the amber route etc etc).


It is feasible that frequent changes of sexual partners of the mother in this case were unwelcome and viewed possibly as immoral by the local community, which resulted with social ‘degradation’ and repulsion of her children on the outskirts of the cemetery ground. For hundreds of years, an interaction between local Úněticean communities and foreigners has formed specific state of social cohesion, understood as an ordering feature of Early Bronze Age society defined as the interdependence between members of this society, shared loyalties and solidarity. Ultimately, this social cohesion was an essential ingredient of shared values and feelings of common identity, the sense of belonging and the strength of social relations. In the same time, as shown in this study, the same concept of cohesion has shaped and defined the extent of inequality and disparities in prehistoric society.

rms2
05-06-2018, 06:48 PM
Yes read it well it were people en marge the society, not a kind of immigrants with high social status....So this could reflect the situation at that time. Unetice spread and took control of crucial parts of NW Europe (on the amber route etc etc).

Note, however, that the apparently murdered Swedish immigrant was accorded a typical Unetice-style burial position:



The burial pit was located in the northern part of the site and was separated clearly from other burials. Skeleton no. 1, an adult female, was lying in a pit with her head towards the south and facing east, on her right side with contracted upper limbs (Fig. 1–2). Next to her, the remains of an adult male were unearthed. According to anthropological examination he was tall (over 170 cm) and well-built. In discussed period typical body height for local males in Silesia is estimated at 163 cm (Pokutta 2013, 122–123). In his lumbar spine a flint
arrowhead was found. Together with female 1, this individual was buried according to most typical Úněticean tradition, with head south facing east.


Anyway, whatever it means, it's a fun and intriguing paper.

Angriff
05-06-2018, 06:51 PM
That's a possibility, but you have to understand what Finn is on about. He maintains that U106 was Proto-Celtic and therefore that single U106 in what was likely an Elp mound at Oostwoud proves his point, that is, if Friesland was once occupied by early Celts.

I think it far more likely, given all we know about U106, that, if Friesland was Celtic-speaking at one time (which I think is very iffy at best), it was occupied by non-U106 people who were mostly displaced by Germanic-speaking U106ers.

But what about the Oostwoud U106, who was there by about 1650 BC? Well, if he belonged to the Elp culture, that extended to the east and up into the Jutland peninsula in what is now Denmark. It isn't likely to represent early Celtic speakers.

Recall that the actual Kurgan Bell Beaker mound at Oostwoud, which was much older than the Elp mound where that one U106 (I4070) was found, was occupied by six males who were all P312, not U106.

Yeah this is what I was thinking along the lines of, which is why I also mentioned the shift from P312 to U106 dominated y-haplogroup in the population. I was thinking an initial wave of Celts to England displaced by Germanics moving southward along the coast, later followed by the Germanics also going to England a few centuries later.

Radboud
05-06-2018, 06:54 PM
Catch:

Lilla Beddinge in Southwest Scania

Per Cornnell, Encounters:



Relationship with Unetice


Source:
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opar.2017.3.issue-1/opar-2017-0023/opar-2017-0023.pdf


They are mainly talking about the transition period of Nordic_LN I and II which is around 2000-1950 BC. Like I said, scholars like Rune Iversen argues to call Nordic_LN II as ''Earliest Bronze Age'', based on solid arguments. However, they still seperate Nordic_LN I from the Nordic Bronze Age because things were stable during this time period. Keep in mind that RISE98 is dated around 2150 BC, so it's a bit to early to be part of the transition period. However, this doesn't mean that new people did not move to Scandinavia during earliest period of Late_Neolithic I, but there is no evidence for a ''Unetice origin'' of RISE98.



Remember this archaeological paper (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:922601/FULLTEXT01.pdf) by Dalia Anna Pokutta that tells the story of one Swedish migrant who wound up in Unetice territory?

Maybe he wasn't the only one, and perhaps others were more successful than he was.

Meanwhile, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute RISE98 to Unetice, except perhaps wishful thinking.


Yeah, I remember that Swedish migrant. It's very likely there were more movements from Scandinavia to Central-Europe. Perhaps the Unetice U106 guy from Czechia was a descendant?:P I hope they will test the migrant's remains.

Angriff
05-06-2018, 07:09 PM
I am wondering how the U106 sample ended up in Unetice in the first place. The Central BB> Unetice scenario doesn't look good. Unetice itself does not seem to be a power house for U106 at the moment, I really wonder which group(s) are responsible for U106, it's still a mystery to me. :P




It's probably similar to the remains from Sweden that they found in a grave site in Poland Unetice: https://hum.gu.se/english/current/news/Nyhet_detalj/proof-of-human-migration-from-sweden-to-poland-during-the-early-bronze-age.cid1184071 , someone who had come from Scandinavia or Jutland.

edit: ah I see rms2 beat me in referencing this individual!

rms2
05-06-2018, 07:12 PM
. . .
I guess you are wrong JJ Butler an eminent scholar of the Bronze Age has clearly mapped the connections in NW Europe in the Bronze Age, Ireland played a big part in it....
Indeed a whole world of interaction between Southern Scandinavia, parts of Germany, Low Lands, the Isles, Ireland!

http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24793

. . .

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I think we all know there was trade and other forms of exchange here and there across Europe. Autosomally central and northern Europeans have a lot in common. But those things don't always translate into the spread of all y-dna haplogroups into every region in large numbers.

The fact remains that U106 reaches its peak frequencies in Germanic-speaking countries and declines rapidly as one crosses into historically Italo-Celtic-speaking regions. It's turned up in a skeleton from about 2300 BC (give or take) in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden, and thus far it has not turned up in Kurgan Bell Beaker, certainly not in any of the areas that would later become Italo-Celtic speaking. U106 is popping up regularly now in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

Yes, it has shown up in one Unetice skeleton from the Czech Republic and in one likely Elp culture skeleton in Friesland. But Unetice cannot be shown to be Pre- or Proto-Celtic, certainly not exclusively. Elp is a culture that hugged the North Sea coast, extending to the east and north from the eastern Netherlands up into the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, none of which is considered part of the Celtic homeland, but all of which is considered to be part of the Germanic cradle, Harpstedt and Jastorf.

Finn
05-06-2018, 07:12 PM
Note, however, that the apparently murdered Swedish immigrant was accorded a typical Unetice-style burial position:
Anyway, whatever it means, it's a fun and intriguing paper.


Indeed interesting!!! And course following the rules of the dominant society at that time....Unetice set the rules. A high hierarchical and patriarchal society.

Finn
05-06-2018, 07:17 PM
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I think we all know there was trade and other forms of exchange here and there across Europe. Autosomally central and northern Europeans have a lot in common. But those things don't always translate into the spread of all y-dna haplogroups into every region in large numbers.

The fact remains that U106 reaches its peak frequencies in Germanic-speaking countries and declines rapidly as one crosses into historically Italo-Celtic-speaking regions. It's turned up in a skeleton from about 2300 BC (give or take) in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden, and thus far it has not turned up in Kurgan Bell Beaker, certainly not in any of the areas that would later become Italo-Celtic speaking. U106 is popping up regularly now in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.

Yes, it has shown up in one Unetice skeleton from the Czech Republic and in one likely Elp culture skeleton in Friesland. But Unetice cannot be shown to be Pre- or Proto-Celtic, certainly not exclusively. Elp is a culture that hugged the North Sea coast, extending to the east and north from the eastern Netherlands up into the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, none of which is considered part of the Celtic homeland, but all of which is considered to be part of the Germanic cradle, Harpstedt and Jastorf.

Rms2 honestlyI think i can't hear the word R1b U106 no longer....think what you think of and believe in, all settled and closed case.

R1b U106 is unisono Germanic.

And the word Celtic is like faulty towers don't mention the war.....

enough for today!

:wave::wave:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

rms2
05-06-2018, 07:24 PM
Rms2 honestlyI think i can't hear the word R1b U106 no longer....think what you think of and believe in, all settled and closed case.

R1b U106 is Germanic.

And the word Celtic is like faulty towers don't mention the war.....

enough for today!

:wave::wave:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

I was thinking of telling you pretty much the same thing. I have not followed you into every thread you have started on this subject or in which you have interjected your U106-is-Celtic campaign.

But now and again I feel the need to say what I think.

Remember, too, that I at least am speaking in broad, general terms. I do not think that every last U106 man everywhere, at all times, was a Germanic tribesman. For one thing, Germanic is a branch of Indo-European that is younger than U106. No doubt there were also exceptions and blurring, especially along cultural frontiers. Maybe a U106 Celt or two will show up sometime. But I don't think there were ever many of them or that U106 had much to do with the expansion of Italo-Celtic.

Finn
05-06-2018, 07:49 PM
I was thinking of telling you pretty much the same thing. I have not followed you into every thread you have started on this subject or in which you have interjected your U106-is-Celtic campaign.

But now and again I feel the need to say what I think.

Remember, too, that I at least am speaking in broad, general terms. I do not think that every last U106 man everywhere, at all times, was a Germanic tribesman. For one thing, Germanic is a branch of Indo-European that is younger than U106. No doubt there were also exceptions and blurring, especially along cultural frontiers. Maybe a U106 Celt or two will show up sometime. But I don't think there were ever many of them or that U106 had much to do with the expansion of Italo-Celtic.

U106-is-Celtic campaign. = Spin.

But that how it seems to function. Goodby!

rms2
05-06-2018, 08:00 PM
U106-is-Celtic campaign. = Spin . . .

Really? Shall we list and count all the threads in which you have argued for a Proto-Celtic origin for U106, including, most recently (and inappropriately) in a thread entitled Bell Beaker R1b-L21 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=384260&viewfull=1#post384260)?

I don't think you'll stop.

sktibo
05-06-2018, 08:02 PM
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I think we all know there was trade and other forms of exchange here and there across Europe. Autosomally central and northern Europeans have a lot in common. But those things don't always translate into the spread of all y-dna haplogroups into every region in large numbers.


Thank you for pointing that out though, just because a population has contact with another population doesn't mean they're intermixing

Finn
05-06-2018, 08:02 PM
They are mainly talking about the transition period of Nordic_LN I and II which is around 2000-1950 BC. Like I said, scholars like Rune Iversen argues to call Nordic_LN II as ''Earliest Bronze Age'', based on solid arguments. However, they still seperate Nordic_LN I from the Nordic Bronze Age because things were stable during this time period. Keep in mind that RISE98 is dated around 2150 BC, so it's a bit to early to be part of the transition period. However, this doesn't mean that new people did not move to Scandinavia during earliest period of Late_Neolithic I, but there is no evidence for a ''Unetice origin'' of RISE98.


Forgot to answer you before I went, excuse!

Info of Jean M.


Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal.BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439410/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Finn
05-06-2018, 08:15 PM
Really? Shall we list and count all the threads in which you have argued for a Proto-Celtic origin for U106, including, most recently (and inappropriately) in a thread entitled Bell Beaker R1b-L21 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=384260&viewfull=1#post384260)?

I don't think you'll stop.

Oh with this R1b U106 kind of thing, I do.....because I'm into a direct but fair and honest debate. But not on this way then I pass.

Eterne
05-06-2018, 08:17 PM
Because it's an example how the interaction in the Bronze Age was. I'm curios why in NW Europe there is so much resemblance between the different countries. Much Frisians/Dutch, not only Radboud in Global 25, get Irish results. Why?


Differences aren't very big in the global scale so could just be that the tests have weak power to find fine distinctions? So it's hard to interpret.

My 2c, using y-dna haplotypes has advantages for detecting flow between populations, but it also has the problem that any expansions of a lineage due to social processes can mask flow.

For example, there was a suggestion in the Irish dna atlas paper late last year (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17124-4) that gene flow from Scandinavia was higher than would have been thought from y-dna.

It's easy to see how that's possible even without being female biased flow (which is unlikely in the case of the viking age); males from Scandinavia enter Ireland, but social processes and simple probability then favour that when a y expansion happens (Niall of the Nine Hostages stuff), it's probably going to be from one of the more established local y lineages. Especially given patrilocality and male kin networks. So it's easy for the actual ancestry history to get masked out by this kind of process, such that regional separation of y-dna may not tell you as much as you might think.

The future of understanding how much gene flow there has been around Europe will probably be something to do with higher resolution adna and autosomal haplotypes, like what you cite from Cassidy's paper, combined with the y and mtdna stuff.

I'm not sure this will ever tell us how many Celtic speakers there ever as a proportion of Europeans there were! At best, like in the Indo-European case, it will tell us if plausible mass migrations happened that could have spread languages, and the population growth histories of people who spread those languages. Languages can easily switch from one group to another through interaction, and proto-Celtic may never have been a language developing in isolation in one place so much as an Indo-European dialect that gradually emerged from Indo-European speakers in West-Central Europe.

rms2
05-06-2018, 08:33 PM
Thank you for pointing that out though, just because a population has contact with another population doesn't mean they're intermixing

There could be some intermixing, but it wouldn't be extensive since it didn't involve extensive settlement. If a merchant fathers a love child someplace, the odds of that child, if he is a male, founding a successful y-dna line are pretty slim: possible yes, but not likely.

JonikW
05-06-2018, 08:52 PM
I've enjoyed this dispute very much. To be honest that's why I joined Anthrogenica, to gain knowledge from people of different opinions who know what they're talking about. I'm learning a lot. I reckon the Reich paper will settle this U106 argument about the Celts for good. I'll be interested to see whether anyone from my own haplogroup turns up too. Can't wait.

Radboud
05-07-2018, 06:54 PM
Forgot to answer you before I went, excuse!

Info of Jean M.

That's the old radiocarbon date of the northern skeleton. RISE98 is the southern skeleton of Grave 49. There are some updated carbo dates in the same study you linked.



L. Bedinge Grave 49
S skeleton*
3860±60 2476–2141 BC Period 4
L. Bedinge Grave 49
N skeleton*
3790±65 2459–2037 BC Period 4

the two radiocarbon dated individuals
from Grave 49 fall within the second half of MN B or the Late Neolithic.
This burial has been typologically dated Period 4 (Malmer 2002:141)
based on its constructional features as well as a bone needle.

Allentoft 2015 study also had a date for RISE98, 2275-2032 BC.


I am not sure why the northern skeleton was not tested though, would have been interesting to compare.

moesan
05-07-2018, 09:09 PM
Gaul/Gallia by instance was a very fertile country, very populated (relatively to the time), and was not, by far, the only celtic speaking area at some stage of history - sure the first Celtic people creating the breaking from other more or less akin dialects of west I-Ean was not so numerous but if we take the late Iron Age the populations become celtic speakers by admixture or acculturation (with subdialectalization of course) were surely numerous for the times. until 40% of this ancient Europe, maybe not but not so far; uneasy to be sure, of course. One opinion.

moesan
05-07-2018, 09:28 PM
Northwest Block dialects could have been part of a greater group we can name Western I-E; B. Sergent seems to think it would show more ties with kind of proto-Italic or pan-Italic group (the Italic link with proto-Germanic?) - Celtic seems having been formed farther South, and later of course, after proto-Celtic would have broken its contacts with proto-Italic; all that is based on few and little it's true -
Hubert supposed BB's (Round Barrows in GB) would have possibly been ancestors of the Goidels, but it's just a prudent supposition, not affirmation -
I think BB's were not well defined "Celts" but it 's possible they already spoke an old I-E - the affirmation BB's would respresent 90% of the Britain pop basis (I red it!) is not serious; the bulk of Britain pop before the Romans of the Saxons was of Celtic origin but these Celts found birth in areas were Late continental BB's have been the masters and where the same genetic basis existed, with some drift and some new mixes -among these mixes, resurgence of old Old Barrows pops - as time was passed - among the differences with BB's we can imagine the so typical 'dinaric' element - apparently the dynamiser element among BB's spread - lost weight in the mix, leaving traces rather than basis -

Finn
05-12-2018, 06:33 AM
Really? Shall we list and count all the threads in which you have argued for a Proto-Celtic origin for U106, including, most recently (and inappropriately) in a thread entitled Bell Beaker R1b-L21 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=384260&viewfull=1#post384260)?

I don't think you'll stop.


After a stop.

My tentive conclusion is R1b U106 has already spread by the Bronze Age cultures in Europe. Is it thereferore possible that it spread along the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in: yes certainly. Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor. Is it therefore less Germanic? No certainly not R1b U106 is and will be a dominant West Germanic marker.

Mac Donald in his Wettin paper:


M269 > L51 > L23 > L11 > P311 > U106 > Z381 > Z156 > Z306 > Z304 > DF98.
DF98 is contemporary with the Unetice culture, although we cannot authoritatively state that it arose within it. Other places of origin are still quite possible, and further results (particularly archaeological DNA) should be able to provide us with further answers in the future.
Arrival of DF98 to western Europe and the British Isles was probably significantly later, perhaps with the Tumulus culture of the late second millennium BC. Given the prevalence of British clusters of tests with convergence ages around 1000 years ago, there seems to be a significant Norman contingent.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
05-12-2018, 08:57 AM
After a stop.

My tentive conclusion is R1b U106 has already spread by the Bronze Age cultures in Europe. Is it thereferore possible that it spread along the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in: yes certainly. Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor. Is it therefore less Germanic? No certainly not R1b U106 is and will be a dominant West Germanic marker.

Mac Donald in his Wettin paper:

"Given the prevalence of British clusters of tests with convergence ages around 1000 years ago, there seems to be a significant Norman contingent."

I share your view as stated. :)
I find Iain's "Norman" comment interesting. At the moment ( from test results and subject to further dating information from the experts) it seems possible or even probable that my own Z326 "Y" line is of Norse or Norman origin.
It's not so long ago people were saying the Normans and Norse left little genetic impact in Britain, maybe not true in relation to "Y" descent at least.

moesan
05-12-2018, 05:52 PM
1- I was speaking of resurgence of LONG Barrows people, not Round Barrows (the British BBs) of course -
I don't share (to date) the thought U106 would be associated with Celts, before more info - what does not mean some early non-Celtic people rich for U106 did not take foot here and there in Britain; in the Netherlands, the opposition is strong enough concerning Y-R1b-L11 (U106><P312) descendants between North the Rhine and South to it and it keeps on concerning the other Benelux countries -
O don't say it's definitive proof but...
for U106, a possible palce of demographic increase could be in Tumuli culture of East-Sax (# Baviera-SW Bohemia Tumuli; these last ones maybeproto-Celtic)

Camulogène Rix
05-12-2018, 06:08 PM
Gaul/Gallia by instance was a very fertile country, very populated (relatively to the time), and was not, by far, the only celtic speaking area at some stage of history - sure the first Celtic people creating the breaking from other more or less akin dialects of west I-Ean was not so numerous but if we take the late Iron Age the populations become celtic speakers by admixture or acculturation (with subdialectalization of course) were surely numerous for the times. until 40% of this ancient Europe, maybe not but not so far; uneasy to be sure, of course. One opinion.
Could you please develop this sentence? I'm not sure to fully understand what you mean by 40%

moesan
05-12-2018, 10:33 PM
Could you please develop this sentence? I'm not sure to fully understand what you mean by 40%

Sorry, I spoke (or wrote) a bit too quickly, pushed by my ethusiasm; it's just a personal hypothesis and 40% is maybe to go too far (25% could be better?)- ATW here I spoke of ALL Celtic speakers at the highest point of the culture, even if I took before example on the lone Gallia - I don't speak of Eastern Europe (Russia and so on) and of Romans possessions out of Western Europe -
BTW estimations about pops numbers are still controversial in scholars world for old times and there is no reason to invest too much in my first answer! But I still believe thenumber of Celtic languages speakers at Iron Age and a bitafter was very impressive -

Camulogène Rix
05-13-2018, 08:35 AM
So, you reckon that on the Gaul territory up to 40% of the population spoke Celtic idioms during the Iron age. I believe you could be right. Strabo wrote that the Gallic tribes could understand each other.

In the North-East area and in some parts of the West this is clear that the 'country' was ruled by Celtic elites. Gaul was mainly populated along the rivers.

rms2
05-13-2018, 11:09 AM
After a stop.

My tentive conclusion is R1b U106 has already spread by the Bronze Age cultures in Europe. Is it thereferore possible that it spread along the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in: yes certainly. Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor. Is it therefore less Germanic? No certainly not R1b U106 is and will be a dominant West Germanic marker.

. . .

A big problem with your follow-on conclusion that U106 is a "'typical’ Celtic marker, no minor", is that there is no evidence of that whatsoever. If U106 were a typical Celtic marker, then, in terms of modern y-dna, we should expect to see it at fairly high levels in the Celtic homelands, but we don't. Instead, it reaches its peak in Germanic-speaking countries and plummets as one enters Italo-Celtic ones. In terms of ancient y-dna, if U106 were a typical Celtic marker, we should expect to see it in Kurgan Bell Beaker, if not everywhere, then at least in those places that became Celtic speaking, but, again, we don't.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt U106 is a major Germanic marker. It keeps turning up in ancient Germans, most recently in DA119, who was apparently a Vandal. The Vandals are supposed to have taken their name from Vendel in Sweden. Interestingly, U106 has also turned up in ancient Germanic Lombards, whose own oral tradition said that they also came from southern Sweden. Of course, the oldest U106 find to date, RISE98 (~2300 BC), was recovered in Sweden, in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge.

As far as I know, Sweden was never home to any Celts, nor was it home to any Bell Beaker people.

Your entire argument seems to be as follows: U106 has been in found in one Unetice skeleton from the Czech Republic and in one skeleton from Oostwoud in Friesland who might have belonged to the Elp culture, therefore, U106 must have been a typical Celtic marker.

The problem is, the second part of your argument, the "U106 must have been a typical Celtic marker" part, does not necessarily follow from the first part. Unetice may have contributed to the genesis of early Italo-Celtic, but it is also supposed to have contributed to the genesis of early Germanic and early Balto-Slavic. There is nothing in that Unetice U106 to link him to the Celts, nothing at all. Elp is a culture of the North Sea littoral that extended up into the Jutland peninsula of present-day Denmark and North Germany. It was not a culture of the Celtic homelands.

Thus, neither of the ancient skeletons you think point to the early Celts actually does.

Keep that in mind when you look at all the other evidence that argues against U106 having much if anything to do with the Celts (all the stuff I mentioned up above, at the beginning of this post).

Personally, I think U106 was probably present in Baltic Kurgan Bell Beaker and had little if anything to do with Italo-Celtic. Instead, it became closely involved with the genesis of early Germanic and expanded with the expansion of Germanic speakers, which is why it is popping up frequently in ancient Germans of the Migration Period. I predict it will also show up in Viking remains.

Finn
05-13-2018, 11:31 AM
A big problem with your follow-on conclusion that U106 is a "'typical’ Celtic marker, no minor"

Read it twice or as much as you like but that's not what I have stated.

That's not the way I'm going to discuss. First you give my words a spin and than you give a reaction on that spin...:crazy: ....to cheap.

rms2
05-13-2018, 12:11 PM
Read it twice or as much as you like but that's not what I have stated.

That's not way I'm going to discuss. First you give my words a spin and than you give a reaction on that spin...:crazy: ....to cheap.

I quoted your words exactly as written, and even repeated them. No "spin".

Here it is again.



My tentive conclusion is R1b U106 has already spread by the Bronze Age cultures in Europe. Is it thereferore possible that it spread along the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in: yes certainly. Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor. Is it therefore less Germanic? No certainly not R1b U106 is and will be a dominant West Germanic marker.


Hard to misinterpret or "spin" that. It is very plainly stated.

I put the truly relevant parts in bold and underlined some of them.

You basically said that you think U106 was spread by the Bronze Age cultures of Europe, "therefore" it spread to the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in, ergo, it is a typical Celtic marker and not a minor one.

I disagree with that very strongly because there is no evidence it is true, for all the reasons I have stated (over and over). For those reasons, it looks to me like U106 expanded not so much with the Bronze Age cultures of Europe, with the possible exception of the Nordic Bronze Age, but with the ancient Germans.

I think you just don't like what I wrote because it's hard to refute.

JonikW
05-13-2018, 01:05 PM
It looks to me that Finn meant: Is it a typical Celtic marker? No, minor.

rms2
05-13-2018, 01:18 PM
It looks to me that Finn meant: Is it a typical Celtic marker? No, minor.

Ah! I think you're right.

The placement of commas is important. There's a lot of difference between, for example, "Let's eat granny", and "Let's eat, granny".

I also think I misread "Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor" as a statement rather than a question, since there was question mark, and I think I also transposed the first two words and made them read "It is" rather than "Is it". It was still early here when I first read that.

Hmmm. Was U106 a minor Celtic marker? Maybe. I would call it vanishingly minor, if present at all. But there may have been a few U106 Celts here and there. I doubt there were ever very many of them.

I've had similar discussions with L21 guys who really want L21 to be Germanic. I tell them something similar, but in reverse, i.e., that there may have been ancient L21 Germans here and there, but there probably never were very many of them.

Finn
05-13-2018, 01:25 PM
I quoted your words exactly as written, and even repeated them. No "spin".

Here it is again.



Hard to misinterpret or "spin" that. It is very plainly stated.

I put the truly relevant parts in bold and underlined some of them.

You basically said that you think U106 was spread by the Bronze Age cultures of Europe, "therefore" it spread to the Celtic parts of Europe before the Germans came in, ergo, it is a typical Celtic marker and not a minor one.

I disagree with that very strongly because there is no evidence it is true, for all the reasons I have stated (over and over). For those reasons, it looks to me like U106 expanded not so much with the Bronze Age cultures of Europe, with the possible exception of the Nordic Bronze Age, but with the ancient Germans.

I think you just don't like what I wrote because it's hard to refute.

You quoted me:


A big problem with your follow-on conclusion that U106 is a "'typical’ Celtic marker, no minor"

In fact I stated:


Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker, no minor.

Thats turned upside down!!!!

Finn
05-13-2018, 01:48 PM
Ah! I think you're right.

The placement of commas is important. There's a lot of difference between, for example, "Let's eat granny", and "Let's eat, granny".

Hmmm. Was U106 a minor Celtic marker? Maybe. I would call it vanishingly minor, if present at all. But there may have been a few U106 Celts here and there. I doubt there were ever very many of them.

How come that native speakers like John and Jonik knew exactly what I meant.

You are good in making fuzz. So other people are going to think where there is smoke there is fire.....

Huhuh.

Back to basics I stated, just like Mac Donald in his Wettin papers, that there was some spread of R1b U106 by the Bronze Age Cultures. Around 2000-1800 BC EBA already present in different parts of NW Europe. At least to the Coninental shores of the North Sea.

Did it stop spreading until we got in the Iron Age? Not likely isn’t it?

So very logic that there was some spread in the later on called Celtic area’s.

So Houston what’s the problem.

But Rms2 is obviously running out of arguments so he concentrates on the interpunction ;)

Finn
05-13-2018, 02:14 PM
@Rms2 this is exactly the point:


I've had similar discussions with L21 guys who really want L21 to be Germanic. I tell them something similar, but in reverse, i.e., that there may have been ancient L21 Germans here and there, but there probably never were very many of them.

You think in some way fixed or monolithic regarding cultures like "Celts" and "Germans" and the "belonging" Y-DNA.

Ok ok there are "some" or 'border" exceptions.....but in fact Germanic is Germanic and Celtic is Celtic. And never the two shall..... That's may be exaggerated.

But every time when there comes info or opinions that potential disturbs this image then you do, almost intuitive, everything to keep this between the lines....repeating pattern.

rms2
05-13-2018, 03:00 PM
. . .

Thats turned upside down!!!!

I might have understood you better had you written, "Is it therefore a ‘typical’ Celtic marker? No, minor."

Pardon me, but I thought you were making a statement rather than asking a question and answering in the negative.

rms2
05-13-2018, 03:08 PM
How come that native speakers like John and Jonik knew exactly what I meant.

I am a native speaker of English, but you aren't, so you'll have to excuse my not immediately deciphering your lack of both a question mark and a comma in the right places.



You are good in making fuzz. So other people are going to think where there is smoke there is fire.....

Huhuh.

Bull. I posted plenty of evidence, which you never address. You just keep rattling on about Bronze Age cultures.



Back to basics I stated, just like Mac Donald in his Wettin papers, that there was some spread of R1b U106 by the Bronze Age Cultures. Around 2000-1800 BC EBA already present in different parts of NW Europe. At least to the Coninental shores of the North Sea.

Did it stop spreading until we got in the Iron Age? Not likely isn’t it?

So very logic that there was some spread in the later on called Celtic area’s.

So Houston what’s the problem.

I don't see McDonald saying what you're saying, i.e., that one U106 has been found in Unetice and one in Elp, therefore U106 spread to Celtic areas. I have already explained why I think that's a bad argument.



But Rms2 is obviously running out of arguments so he concentrates on the interpunction ;)

I'm not running out of them; you simply ignore them, mainly because they are devastating to your point of view. Honestly, I'm tired of repeating them.

At least you have progressed to the point now where you will say that U106 was only a minor Celtic marker. That's some improvement.

rms2
05-13-2018, 03:16 PM
@Rms2 this is exactly the point:



You think in some way fixed or monolithic regarding cultures like "Celts" and "Germans" and the "belonging" Y-DNA.

Ok ok there are "some" or 'border" exceptions.....but in fact Germanic is Germanic and Celtic is Celtic. And never the two shall..... That's may be exaggerated.

But every time when there comes info or opinions that potential disturbs this image then you do, almost intuitive, everything to keep this between the lines....repeating pattern.

The problem is that no information has come along to indicate that U106 had much if anything to do with the Celts. That's the problem I have. Otherwise, I have no problem with U106 being Celtic, or Slavic, or Hottentot. But I'm not going to think it's any of those things just because you think it is and because of two skeletons in ancient cultures that cannot be definitively tied to the Celts.

If tomorrow a U106 turns up in Hallstatt or La Tene, you might have a point, except even then I think the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicates that U106 never was a major part of the Celtic story.

That has nothing to do with being monolithic or exaggerating anything. It has everything to do with the actual evidence.

I could just as easily accuse you of being monolithic because you seem to think any Bronze Age European find inevitably points to the Celts. I am far less monolithic, because I recognize the Celts weren't the only game in town, and that Unetice is supposed to have contributed to the early Germans and Balto-Slavs, as well.

Perhaps a better word than monolithic is monomaniacal. Ever since that one U106 turned up in Unetice, you have been on about U106 being Celtic in thread after thread, over and over.

Finn
05-13-2018, 03:19 PM
I am a native speaker of English, but you aren't, so you'll have to excuse my not immediately deciphering your lack of both a question mark and a comma in the right places.

Ok that's true. But it stays a fact that other native speakers diid interpret it like I did.
This can be on the threshold of projection ;)




Bull. I posted plenty of evidence, which you never address. You just keep rattling on about Bronze Age cultures.



I don't see McDonald saying what you're saying, i.e., that one U106 has been found in Unetice and one in Elp, therefore U106 spread to Celtic areas. I have already explained why I think that's a bad argument.

Mac Donald stated that R1b !06 was already in Unetice and stated that Tumulus was 'responsible' for a certain spread to the west.The Oostwoud /Elp sample is related to this.

So basically at 1800 BC it was already ion the continental shores of the North Sea, so it had more than 2000 years time to spread in NW Europe (afterwards came the big, major Germanic spread).

All facts and reasonable opinions, not fictions or rattling.


At least you have progressed to the point now where you will say that U106 was only a minor Celtic marker. That's some improvement.


I never stated it was otherwise.....

rms2
05-13-2018, 03:38 PM
Unetice was not exclusively Celtic nor even definitely Celtic. As I said before, Elp was a culture of the North Sea littoral, including the Jutland peninsula of Scandinavia. Add to those facts the huge weight of the rest of the evidence that U106 had little or nothing to do with the Celts.

As for your never having said anything other than that U106 was a minor Celtic marker, that's not really true. If it were, you would not have gone into Tomenable's ridiculous "R1b-U106 were the true Celts and Belgae" thread and agreed with him when he resurrected it after it had lain dormant for two years:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6939-R1b-U106-were-the-True-Celts-and-Belgae-(my-opinion)&p=384689&viewfull=1#post384689



Yep and around 1800 BC we find a R1B U106 sample in Oostwoud, West Friesland right in the face of England.....

rms2
05-13-2018, 03:49 PM
You don't seem to be saying U106 was a minor Celtic marker here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=369470&viewfull=1#post369470) either.



I think that what we see is that with the findings in BB Czech/ Unetice etc we can even state that R1b U106 is largely spread by the proto- Celts and that the Germanic world inherited this haplotype. In the Germanic world it became a prosperous Y-DNA line. But R1b U106 was already settled in the later on called Germanic area's before the use of the word/verb/culture Germanic!


Of course, since you made that post, it has turned out that the finding of U106 in a Hungarian BB was premature and incorrect. Thus far, there is still no U106 in Bell Beaker.

Finn
05-13-2018, 04:12 PM
You don't seem to be saying U106 was a minor Celtic marker here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=369470&viewfull=1#post369470) either.

I see no contradictions.... I only prefer Bronze Age Cultures nowadays above proto-Celtic because of the endless chit chat about what’s pre, proto of actual Celtic or not.

Otherwise consistency......

rms2
05-13-2018, 04:23 PM
I think I'll let this go now, Finn. I'm tired of it.

There will always be claims and counter claims. If enough ancient remains that can be attributed to the Celts with reasonable certainty turn out to be U106, great. I very sincerely doubt that's going to happen, but who knows? In the meantime, U106 seems to just keep racking up the Migration Period Germans.

Next up: Vikings.

Finn
05-13-2018, 04:32 PM
I think I'll let this go now, Finn. I'm tired of it.

There will always be claims and counter claims. If enough ancient remains that can be attributed to the Celts with reasonable certainty turn out to be U106, great. I very sincerely doubt that's going to happen, but who knows? In the meantime, U106 seems to just keep racking up the Migration Period Germans.

Next up: Vikings.

I hope we will receive some new Nordic samples. Because in Global 25 I’m 68% modern Scandic and only a few percentages modern Dutch. I guess due to the Migration Period.... so desperately In need for new Nordic samples, to proof a direct connection.....

So looking forward to the “next up” !

Radboud
05-13-2018, 04:53 PM
I see no contradictions.... I only prefer Bronze Age Cultures nowadays above proto-Celtic because of the endless chit chat about what’s pre, proto of actual Celtic or not.

Otherwise consistency......

Well, I am not in the mood for endless discussions about labels for Bronze Age Cultures either. (Or Nordic Late Neolithic :P) However, you have to keep in mind that it can be confusing if you label Bronze Age cultures like Unetice as Proto-Celtic. Unetice is a a huge horizon with alot of different groups and it's to old to be Proto-Celtic. Unetice could have contributed to Proto-Germanic speakers and even Proto Balto-Slavs too. Shouldn't we call it as just plain ''Western IE''?

Finn
05-13-2018, 05:26 PM
Well, I am not in the mood for an endless discussions about labels for Bronze Age Cultures either. (Or Nordic Late Neolithic :P) However, you have to keep in mind that it can be confusing if you label Bronze Age cultures like Unetice as Proto-Celtic. Unetice is a a huge horizon with alot of different groups and it's to old to be Proto-Celtic. Unetice could have contributed to Proto-Germanic speakers and even Proto Balto-Slavs too. Shouldn't we call it as just plain ''Western IE''?

When it’s used by everyone it would be a solution.....

Otherwise I dropped those kind of labels because of reasons mentioned above.

Stays a fact that 1800 BC a R1b U106 person stood on the shores of the North Sea and a few centuries earlier already in Scania.

With some imagination you can call them EBA pioniers, but I stay with the sober facts.....it was 2000-1800 BC in different parts of NW Europe present. So a lot of time for a potential spread through NW Europe, incl the later called Celtic area’s.

Of course the biggest spread came with the Germans.....but their spread began about the Roman times and the biggest spread about the early Middle Ages.

By the way this Iron Age people stood also on the shoulders of their Bronze Age ancestors....so you could say without a R1b U106 spread in the Bronze Age there would not have been such a spread in the Iron Age/early Middle Ages.

it would be an unicum if R1b U106 was planted in the actual Germans just a moment before they spread....no indications for that I guess.

rms2
05-13-2018, 06:08 PM
Not to continue an argument or start a new one, but every y-dna haplogroup had a lot of time to spread everywhere, but there are still clines and limits in the distribution of y-dna haplogroups.

So, why didn't R1a spread over the entire Eurasian continent in ancient times, from sea to sea, so that it would be found from one end to the other in a nice, smooth, high frequency?

Why didn't G2a do the same?

Obviously because there were some people in the way whose men had other ideas.

So, even though U106 shows up in Czech Unetice and in Oostwoud in what may be an Elp burial mound, that does not translate to settlement throughout northwest Europe, including the regions that would become Celtic. Other people got there first, some of them pretty warlike and indisposed to welcome newcomers.

Why didn't U106 make the short crossing from Friesland and settle in what is now England in the Bronze Age rather than waiting until the Anglo-Saxon period? I don't know for sure, but probably the circumstances weren't favorable. Maybe it was due in part to the lack of good boat technology, and maybe it was due in part to the bellicosity of the tribes already ensconced in SE Britain. It certainly doesn't look like U106 made it there in any numbers during the Bronze Age, not to settle anyway. If it had, one would think it would have turned up in Olalde et al's Bronze Age British samples. And maybe the U106 population was not that numerous in Friesland at that point, not enough to send emigrants to Britain.

The Germans couldn't make much progress against the Celts until the Romans softened the latter up and civilized many of them. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of SE Britain was made possible by the Romans and their ~400 years of control of the island, during which time they effectively pulled out the fangs and claws of the Celtic inhabitants of at least the southeastern quarter of Britain.

Finn
05-13-2018, 07:07 PM
Not to continue an argument or start a new one, but every y-dna haplogroup had a lot of time to spread everywhere, but there are still clines and limits in the distribution of y-dna haplogroups.

So, why didn't R1a spread over the entire Eurasian continent in ancient times, from sea to sea, so that it would be found from one end to the other in a nice, smooth, high frequency?

Why didn't G2a do the same?

Obviously because there were some people in the way whose men had other ideas.

So, even though U106 shows up in Czech Unetice and in Oostwoud in what may be an Elp burial mound, that does not translate to settlement throughout northwest Europe, including the regions that would become Celtic. Other people got there first, some of them pretty warlike and indisposed to welcome newcomers.

[QUOTE]Why didn't U106 make the short crossing from Friesland and settle in what is now England in the Bronze Age rather than waiting until the Anglo-Saxon period? I don't know for sure, but probably the circumstances weren't favorable. Maybe it was due in part to the lack of good boat technology, and maybe it was due in part to the bellicosity of the tribes already ensconced in SE Britain. It certainly doesn't look like U106 made it there in any numbers during the Bronze Age, not to settle anyway. If it had, one would think it would have turned up in Olalde et al's Bronze Age British samples. And maybe the U106 population was not that numerous in Friesland at that point, not enough to send emigrants to Britain.


You can't rule out a migration during the whole BA. It's more a matter of lack of samples....but that's because we have only relative few samples yet.



The Germans couldn't make much progress against the Celts until the Romans softened the latter up and civilized many of them. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of SE Britain was made possible by the Romans and their ~400 years of control of the island, during which time they effectively pulled out the fangs and claws of the Celtic inhabitants of at least the southeastern quarter of Britain.

"The Germans" and "The Celts" are Roman labels. Laid up on. And not based on "genetic" or "ethnic" differences.
Much of it is nineteenth century thought or interpretation.....
"The Germans" against "The Celts" were took this battle place rms2? ;)
In fact they were kind of tribal (not "Celtic" or "German" tribal ) and intermixed.

rms2
05-13-2018, 07:18 PM
Germans and Celts are ethno-linguistic labels. We can use them because they are reflective of reality.

Probably a lot of battles took place in prehistory that we don't know about and never will know about. Tribal societies weren't all that mixed when it comes to y-dna. Patriarchal, patrilocal cultures are surprisingly monolithic in their y-dna profiles. I'm not saying they were absolutely uniform, but they tended to be dominated in their geographical regions by a single y-dna haplogroup.

If the Celts were so mixed, why is U106 relatively rare in the historic Celtic homelands?

I think we can rule out much of a U106 migration in the Bronze Age. We can't rule out a stray individual here or there, but U106 not only does not look like a y-dna haplogroup that arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age, it's also not showing up in ancient British samples until the Roman Period.

U106's distribution in the British Isles and Ireland looks just like what it evidently is: the result of the spread of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, for the most part, with some Vikings and others thrown in for good measure. The parts of the Isles that remained Celtic speaking the longest or have preserved their Celtic speech to this day have the lowest frequency of U106.

23140

sktibo
05-13-2018, 07:27 PM
Germans and Celts are ethno-linguistic labels. We can use them because they are reflective of reality.

Probably a lot of battles took place in prehistory that we don't know about and never will know about. Tribal societies weren't all that mixed when it comes to y-dna. Patriarchal, patrilocal cultures are surprisingly monolithic in their y-dna profiles. I'm not saying they were absolutely uniform, but they tended to be dominated in their geographical regions by a single y-dna haplogroup.

If the Celts were so mixed, why is U106 relatively rare in the historic Celtic homelands?

I think we can rule out much of a U106 migration in the Bronze Age. We can't rule out a stray individual here or there, but U106 not only does not look like a y-dna haplogroup that arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age, it's also not showing up in ancient British samples until the Roman Period.

U106's distribution in the British Isles and Ireland looks just like what it evidently is: the result of the spread of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, for the most part, with some Vikings and others thrown in for good measure. The parts of the Isles that remained Celtic speaking the longest or have preserved their Celtic speech to this day have the lowest frequency of U106.

One thing I'd like to add to this is that people love the idea of complex, geographically knowledgeable ancient cultures who had trade lines and connections far and wide. While I don't think these cultures we are discussing were overly simplistic, I can't help but think that we sometimes want to make them seem more complex and connected than they may have actually been. The Celtic Fringes of the British Isles are often comprised of rough terrain on what may have been the edge of the world so I don't think people were desiring to move into these places. In the case of the further out early British / Celts, it seems that the Autosomal DNA and the Y DNA seem to tell the same story: There wasn't a whole lot of intermixing with outside groups until the Germanic Migrations.

rms2
05-13-2018, 07:31 PM
BTW, regarding battles between Celts and Germans, we know they took place. For example, King Arthur, if he existed, fought a number of successful campaigns against the Anglo-Saxons, as did Urien, the king of Rheged.

If Arthur did not exist, we know the Britons were militarily successful for awhile anyway, since the progress of the pagan Anglo-Saxons was stymied in the mid to late 5th century.

The epic poem Y Gododdin tells the tale of the Battle of Catraeth in about 600 AD, which the Celtic Britons lost, unfortunately.

Finn
05-13-2018, 07:36 PM
Germans and Celts are ethno-linguistic labels. We can use them because they are reflective of reality.

Probably a lot of battles took place in prehistory that we don't know about and never will know about. Tribal societies weren't all that mixed when it comes to y-dna. Patriarchal, patrilocal cultures are surprisingly monolithic in their y-dna profiles. I'm not saying they were absolutely uniform, but they tended to be dominated in their geographical regions by a single y-dna haplogroup.

If the Celts were so mixed, why is U106 relatively rare in the historic Celtic homelands?

I think we can rule out much of a U106 migration in the Bronze Age. We can't rule out a stray individual here or there, but U106 not only does not look like a y-dna haplogroup that arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age, it's also not showing up in ancient British samples until the Roman Period.

U106's distribution in the British Isles and Ireland looks just like what it evidently is: the result of the spread of the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, for the most part, with some Vikings and others thrown in for good measure. The parts of the Isles that remained Celtic speaking the longest or have preserved their Celtic speech to this day have the lowest frequency of U106.

Large parts of Southern Germany, Belgium, Austria etc are quite high R1b U 106. It's the question if this it are one and only "Germanic descendants" in the sense of the migration age and later or are there some Bronze Age Age R1b U106 lines too....

As said Celtic or Germanic was not a thing that was in people's mind in the early middle ages and before...... I don't think you could find a "Anglo-Saxon" chieftain, or a "Frisian", or a "Danish" one in the early middle ages that described himself as German or Germanic.

This started when nations began to built etc etc.

In the descriptions of the historians there of Celtic and Germanic civilizations, but when it comes to the core the descriptions of the differences are high flying and rather vague (something with oppidia and druids etc) in fact this were not exclusive labels....(yes in modern times they made it exclusive).

And they are of course only because of a kind of distance etc genetic differences so we can use now to trace migrations etc. But THE Celts and THE Germans nah.

rms2
05-13-2018, 07:49 PM
Large parts of Southern Germany, Belgium, Austria etc are quite high R1b U 106. It's the question if this it are one and only "Germanic descendants" in the sense of the migration age and later ore are there some Bronze Age Age R1b 106 lines too....

It's not really a question, Finn. Southern Germany and Austria are German speaking because Germanic tribesmen invaded and settled them during the Migration Period. Part of Belgium speaks Germanic Flemish. I would have to dig up the paper, but I recall a study that showed that those in Belgium and Flanders with French surnames were mostly P312, while the frequency of U106 was highest among those with Germanic Flemish surnames.

You left out England. Why? Because you know England speaks Germanic English now for the same reasons those other places that were once Celtic speak their own Germanic languages.



As said Celtic or Germanic was not a thing that was in people's mind in the early middle ages and before...... I don't think you could find a "Anglo-Saxon" chieftain, or a "Frisian", or a "Danish" one in the early middle ages who described himself as German or Germanic.

This started when nations began to built etc etc.

It doesn't really matter whether they called themselves Celtic or Germanic or whatever. Those terms serve our purposes and help us distinguish one ethno-linguistic group from another.

The Britons may not have known they were Celts, but they were. The Anglo-Saxons would not have thought of themselves as Germani unless some Roman officer had mentioned it to them, but they were Germani nonetheless.



In the descriptions of the historians there are of Celtic and Germanic civilizations, but when it comes to the core the descriptions of the differences are high flying and rather vague (something wit oppidia and druids etc) in fact this were not exclusive labels....(yes in modern times they made it exclusive).

And they are of course only because of a kind of distance etc genetic differences that we can use now to trace migrations etc. But THE Celts and THE German nah.

So, now your argument is that there were really no differences between Celts and Germans?

Finn
05-13-2018, 08:01 PM
[QUOTE]It's not really a question, Finn. Southern Germany and Austria are German speaking because Germanic tribesmen invaded and settled them during the Migration Period. Part of Belgium speaks Germanic Flemish. I would have to dig up the paper, but I recall a study that showed that those in Belgium and Flanders with French surnames were mostly P312, while the frequency of U106 was highest among those with Germanic Flemish surnames.


These area's were the strongholds of continental Celtic civilization Rms2, so when the Germans came in they massacred all the indigenous inhabitants?


You left out England. Why? Because you know England speaks Germanic English now for the same reasons those other places that were once Celtic do.


England idem.



It doesn't really matter whether they called themselves Celtic or Germanic or whatever. Those terms serve our purposes and help us distinguish one ethno-linguistic group from another.



The Britons may not have known they were Celts, but they were. The Anglo-Saxons would not have thought of themselves as Germani unless some Roman officer had mentioned it to them, but they were Germani nonetheless.


As long you keep in mind that labels didn't play these kind of role in ancient times. And they were never exclusive. So make them not retrospect exclusive...... And keep in mind that a lot of it is nineteenth century nationalism (THE Celts against THE Germans....could be easy used in patriotic thrilling and pathetic story's).



So, now your argument is that there were really no differences between Celts and Germans?
Yes there were some differences but relative and not absolute and well defined.

spruithean
05-13-2018, 08:27 PM
I don't think all inhabitants would have been massacred, however there would have definitely been both bloodshed and blending of cultures. A fair amount of Germanic chiefs seemed to have Celtic names (examples being Maroboduus of the Marcomanni, Cerdic of the Gewissae, Merewalh of the Magonsæte, etc). There was certainly far more complex events taking place during the Migration Age (and even in the Roman Period) that I think is difficult to envision under a modern lens.

However given U106s distribution and prevalence amongst the locations where the Germani settled, I think a large contingent have Germanic roots, with some later adopting non-Germanic cultures and language.

@rms2, Y Gododdin is certainly epic indeed! Though it would have been great if a name of the Anglian leader was recorded!

Finn
05-13-2018, 09:33 PM
I don't think all inhabitants would have been massacred, however there would have definitely been both bloodshed and blending of cultures. A fair amount of Germanic chiefs seemed to have Celtic names (examples being Maroboduus of the Marcomanni, Cerdic of the Gewissae, Merewalh of the Magonsæte, etc). There was certainly far more complex events taking place during the Migration Age (and even in the Roman Period) that I think is difficult to envision under a modern lens.

However given U106s distribution and prevalence amongst the locations where the Germani settled, I think a large contingent have Germanic roots, with some later adopting non-Germanic cultures and language.

@rms2, Y Gododdin is certainly epic indeed! Though it would have been great if a name of the Anglian leader was recorded!

About the difference between Dutch and French speaking Belgians and R1bU106 I would like to know the source. According to my information these strict lines and also related to R1b U106 are not easy to make......1300 years strictly speaking French or Dutch speaking Belgian families on that small ground with lots of mobility....many doubts.....

According the info of Mac Donald:

21 testers from 20 families
Belgium has a very high L48 fraction, though its proportions mirror those of Germany. The Z156 component is significant, but is entirely DF96 rather than DF98.

Some overlap with the British. Could be partly Bronze Age lines....Z156?

And to make the Germanic history complete. As far as I know the Franks, the tribe that dominantly went to Belgium, was highly an elite invasion. Their strongholds were in Henegouwen that’s nowadays French speaking, their headquarter was Doornik/Tournai,until the Merovings left to Paris.....

So the genetic footprint must have been in Wallonie at least as high as in Flanders, may be Flanders got some Chauci that could really be possible. But massive???

Certainly not the main cause of the language division......

I’m going to sleep, bye!

Saetro
05-13-2018, 11:39 PM
I don't think all inhabitants would have been massacred, however there would have definitely been both bloodshed and blending of cultures. A fair amount of Germanic chiefs seemed to have Celtic names (examples being Maroboduus of the Marcomanni, Cerdic of the Gewissae, Merewalh of the Magonsæte, etc). There was certainly far more complex events taking place during the Migration Age (and even in the Roman Period) that I think is difficult to envision under a modern lens.


Some of the Roman massacres - of both Celts and Germans - had enormous numbers eliminated.
With some massive re-organisations sometimes documented.
In other cases there is silence. Maybe some areas were just left sparsely settled until the Migration Age.
Overall though, the Roman destructive influence is often not much considered.

rms2
05-14-2018, 10:26 PM
These area's were the strongholds of continental Celtic civilization Rms2, so when the Germans came in they massacred all the indigenous inhabitants?

We weren't talking about "all the indigenous inhabitants". We were talking about how U106 got into southern Germany, Austria, and Belgium.

All the evidence indicates it was with the Migration Period Germans who invaded and settled those places, bringing their Germanic language with them.

I'm sure you realize U106 is turning up quite frequently these days in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.



England idem.

You said it! Just as those other places acquired both their Germanic speech and their U106 from Migration Period Germans, so the part of what was once Britannia that became Angle Land did so via the same sort of process.

One would have to be absolutely willfully blind not to see it.



As long you keep in mind that labels didn't play these kind of role in ancient times. And they were never exclusive. So make them not retrospect exclusive...... And keep in mind that a lot of it is nineteenth century nationalism (THE Celts against THE Germans....could be easy used in patriotic thrilling and pathetic story's).


Yes there were some differences but relative and not absolute and well defined.

Exclusive or not, the facts remain what they are. There is no evidence whatsoever that U106 had much if anything to do with the Celts and loads of evidence indicating it is a major Germanic marker.

I could kind of understand this sort of back and forth before U106 starting popping up in actual Migration Period Germans. But now it's just silly and futile.

To me, the connection between U106 and the ancient Germans is probably one of the single most obvious things in genetics. It's sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious.

When it comes to the Celts, however, U106 is pretty much missing in action. (That's because, duh, it's not really a Celtic y-dna marker, or certainly not much of one.)

Finn
05-15-2018, 11:52 AM
We weren't talking about "all the indigenous inhabitants". We were talking about how U106 got into southern Germany, Austria, and Belgium.

All the evidence indicates it was with the Migration Period Germans who invaded and settled those places, bringing their Germanic language with them.

I'm sure you realize U106 is turning up quite frequently these days in the skeletons of Migration Period Germans.



You said it! Just as those other places acquired both their Germanic speech and their U106 from Migration Period Germans, so the part of what was once Britannia that became Angle Land did so via the same sort of process.

One would have to be absolutely willfully blind not to see it.



Exclusive or not, the facts remain what they are. There is no evidence whatsoever that U106 had much if anything to do with the Celts and loads of evidence indicating it is a major Germanic marker.

I could kind of understand this sort of back and forth before U106 starting popping up in actual Migration Period Germans. But now it's just silly and futile.

To me, the connection between U106 and the ancient Germans is probably one of the single most obvious things in genetics. It's sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious.

When it comes to the Celts, however, U106 is pretty much missing in action. (That's because, duh, it's not really a Celtic y-dna marker, or certainly not much of one.)

We are turning in circles Rms2.

I don't deny the huge impact of the Germans (language, genetics), but especially in the range Czech, Austria, South Germany, Belgium, Northern France, the Isles, the spread of R1b U106 during the Bronze Age is a real possibility (and we have already some tiny samples that showed this kind of spread).

I don't pressume the German R1b U106 replaced all the older Bronze Age onces in those areas. But the German tribes certainly added some new ones.

Nothing left to say IMO,

rms2
05-15-2018, 12:14 PM
We are turning in circles Rms2.

I don't deny the huge impact of the Germans (language, genetics), but especially in the range Czech, Austria, South Germany, Belgium, Northern France, the Isles, the spread of R1b U106 during the Bronze Age is a real possibility (and we have already some tiny samples that showed this kind of spread).

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is likely.

I don't see any evidence thus far to indicate that U106 spread to Austria, South Germany, Belgium, Northern France, and the Isles before the coming of the Germans. We know that Austria, South Germany, the Flemish part of Belgium, and England went from Celtic speaking to Germanic speaking, which they are at present, and that they all have fairly high frequencies of U106. Given the fact that U106 reaches its peak frequencies in Germanic-speaking areas, drops like a rock in Italo-Celtic-speaking areas, and is appearing in the skeletons of actual Migration Period Germans, it's not hard to put two and two together and understand how that happened.



I don't pressume the German R1b U106 replaced all the older Bronze Age onces in those areas. But the German tribes certainly added some new ones.

Nothing left to say IMO,

Replacement is a different argument, one we're not having. I'm arguing that U106 came with the Germans of the Migration Period. Those Migration Period Germans are the reason south Germany, Austria, Flemish Belgium, and England are all Germanic speaking today and have high frequencies of U106.

And now we have U106 in actual Migration Period Germans.

How much more does it take to get the picture?

Finn
05-15-2018, 05:34 PM
How much more does it take to get the picture?

You mean this one?

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/kings-cluster.pdf


Determining an origin for a population such as this requires accurate knowledge of the foundation of that population, which we do not have. Our best estimate for the foundation of our cluster lies around 1500 BC: the uncertainty in such estimates depends most strongly on the rate of SNP formation, which is roughly once every 120 to 145 years, giving an uncertainty of +/- about 400 years to the age of DF98. The SNP chain we investigate runs asfollows:M269>L51>L23>L11>P311>U106>Z381>Z156>Z306 > Z304 > DF98.
The third millenium BC was a time of considerable change in Europe. M269, is now generally thought to have arrived in from the Black Sea area, around 3000 BC, possibly via the river Danube. DF98 congregates around the headwaters of the Danube, where it meets the headwaters of the Rhine. It is thought our ancestors spread from here to the Rhine delta, then across to Britain, where they probably first arrived around 1300 BC. Successive waves of migration have brought DF98 to the British Isles since then. Given the prevalence of clusters of tests with convergence ages around 1000 years ago, there seems to be a significant Norman contingent to the DF98 tests of the British Isles.
This evidence is suggestive of DF98 with being formed and transmitted during the expansion and migration of the Tumulus Culture throughout Western Europe during the later part of the second millenium BC. However, other places of origin are still quite possible. While more-accurate dating (and ultimately archeological DNA) would give us a clearer picture, this currently appears to be a serious contender for our origins.

Radboud
05-15-2018, 07:26 PM
It's not really a question, Finn. Southern Germany and Austria are German speaking because Germanic tribesmen invaded and settled them during the Migration Period. Part of Belgium speaks Germanic Flemish. I would have to dig up the paper, but I recall a study that showed that those in Belgium and Flanders with French surnames were mostly P312, while the frequency of U106 was highest among those with Germanic Flemish surnames.


This one? ;)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/bearers-of-french-surnames-in-flanders.html

Another example, Myres data shows U106 frequencies in Swiss ethnic groups like Swiss French speakers and Swiss Germans. There was plenty of U106 in Swiss-Germans, but the frequency of U106 dropped in Swiss French significantly. (German speaking NE Switzerland (18.8%) and French speaking NW Switzerland (3.7%) as per Myres data.)

Finn
05-15-2018, 07:47 PM
This one? ;)

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/bearers-of-french-surnames-in-flanders.html

Another example, Myres data shows U106 frequencies in Swiss ethnic groups like Swiss French speakers and Swiss Germans. There was plenty of U106 in Swiss-Germans, but the frequency of U106 dropped in Swiss French significantly. (German speaking NE Switzerland (18.8%) and French speaking NW Switzerland (3.7%) as per Myres data.)

Yes ok....read well:


In this context, an interesting historical event is the demic migration from French-speaking regions in Northern France to the depopulated and Dutch-speaking region Flanders at the end of the sixteenth century. Y-chr subhaplogroups of individuals with a French/Roman surname that could be associated with this migration event were compared with those of a group with autochthonous Flemish surnames.

Easy....

They didn't compare Wallonian (some of them rooted in the Franks) and Flemish surnames but immigrant 16th century French and Flandres. Piece of cake.

And Mac Donalds Wettin paper Radboud?


Add just saw the third comment, indeed my thought too:


Wallonia is suspiciously missing from this paper.

Finn
05-15-2018, 08:48 PM
Mmmmm sounds familiair.....

https://r1bu106.wordpress.com/the-frisian-myth-of-r-u106/

rms2
05-15-2018, 10:11 PM
You mean this one?

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/kings-cluster.pdf



Determining an origin for a population such as this requires accurate knowledge of the foundation of that population, which we do not have. Our best estimate for the foundation of our cluster lies around 1500 BC: the uncertainty in such estimates depends most strongly on the rate of SNP formation, which is roughly once every 120 to 145 years, giving an uncertainty of +/- about 400 years to the age of DF98. The SNP chain we investigate runs asfollows:M269>L51>L23>L11>P311>U106>Z381>Z156>Z30 6 > Z304 > DF98.
The third millenium BC was a time of considerable change in Europe. M269, is now generally thought to have arrived in from the Black Sea area, around 3000 BC, possibly via the river Danube. DF98 congregates around the headwaters of the Danube, where it meets the headwaters of the Rhine. It is thought our ancestors spread from here to the Rhine delta, then across to Britain, where they probably first arrived around 1300 BC. Successive waves of migration have brought DF98 to the British Isles since then. Given the prevalence of clusters of tests with convergence ages around 1000 years ago, there seems to be a significant Norman contingent to the DF98 tests of the British Isles.
This evidence is suggestive of DF98 with being formed and transmitted during the expansion and migration of the Tumulus Culture throughout Western Europe during the later part of the second millenium BC. However, other places of origin are still quite possible. While more-accurate dating (and ultimately archeological DNA) would give us a clearer picture, this currently appears to be a serious contender for our origins.


I see that dates to November of 2014. I wonder if McDonald still believes in all its details.

Honestly, with no disrespect to him, I don't see any reason whatsoever to think U106 of any kind arrived in Britain as early as 1300 BC. There is certainly no ancient y-dna evidence to support that idea. If any of it did arrive that early, it must have been singularly unsuccessful, and it sure did a wonderful job of staying within the confines of the territory later staked out by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English.

I guess time will tell. In the meantime, it does seem to be telling.

Is anyone keeping a spreadsheet of all the ancient U106 results?

rms2
05-15-2018, 10:16 PM
Mmmmm sounds familiair.....

https://r1bu106.wordpress.com/the-frisian-myth-of-r-u106/

Drivel. No one is claiming U106 is "Frisian", and that sappy article amounts to tilting at straw men.

Just ignore all those U106 Migration Period Germans, and when those Viking remains turn out to be U106, as well, just move along. There's nothing to see here.

Dewsloth
05-15-2018, 10:26 PM
Is anyone keeping a spreadsheet of all the ancient U106 results?

I think that would be Bollox79

Finn
05-16-2018, 06:01 AM
Drivel. No one is claiming U106 is "Frisian", and that sappy article amounts to tilting at straw men.

Just ignore all those U106 Migration Period Germans, and when those Viking remains turn out to be U106, as well, just move along. There's nothing to see here.


May be you are used to only scan the headlines, ok in the same range....

https://r1bu106.wordpress.com/did-r-u106-migrate-west-before-germanic-cultures-existed/

And I don’t deny or ignore a German spread.....

Finn
05-16-2018, 06:09 AM
I see that dates to November of 2014. I wonder if McDonald still believes in all its details.

Honestly, with no disrespect to him, I don't see any reason whatsoever to think U106 of any kind arrived in Britain as early as 1300 BC. There is certainly no ancient y-dna evidence to support that idea. If any of it did arrive that early, it must have been singularly unsuccessful, and it sure did a wonderful job of staying within the confines of the territory later staked out by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English.

I guess time will tell. In the meantime, it does seem to be telling.

Is anyone keeping a spreadsheet of all the ancient U106 results?

With the samples that now are available he has even more reason for a Bronze Age spread to the west, 1800 BC on the coast of the North Sea remember.
And I’am convinced he is, facing the facts, intelligent enough to suppose a certain pre German spread.
But doesn’t matter as long as you use blinkers....

Radboud
05-16-2018, 06:44 AM
Yes ok....read well:



Easy....

They didn't compare Wallonian (some of them rooted in the Franks) and Flemish surnames but immigrant 16th century French and Flandres. Piece of cake.


Indeed, but we did not mention that they tested Walloons, did we? I just wanted to add an another example to show the strong connection between Germanic-speakers and U106 and to help out Rms2 with the link to the paper. ;)




And Mac Donalds Wettin paper Radboud?


Why are you showing me this paper from 2014? If you want to know Mac Donald's current view, you should check the Yahoo U106 group. Here is his (second) post of the U106 finding in Unetice:



As some of you may have been following on Anthrogenica ( https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&highlight=I7196 ), our new U106 ancient burial from Prague has now been further refined to:
U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z306 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894
Being S1894+ myself, this obviously makes me very happy. I've been very lucky to have two out of the five early U106+ burials be R-S1894. However, it also raise some interesting possibilities for everyone else. I should point out that the S1911 and S1894 assignments are made from single reads, but that's normally ok providing one is not searching for novel variants and provided the read quality is ok.

These are still very early days for understanding this burial and the context in which he was found. Perhaps the most important factor here is the date of the burial. Carbon dating hasn't (as far as I can work out) been performed. Contextually, the site has been given a date of between 2200 BC and 1700 BC in the Olalde publication, and we have to assume from the R-S1894 haplogroup that the burial lies towards the end of this period.

This is interesting in the context of the age and spread of the older U106 branches. This burial closest U106 individual to an existing lineage that we know of: the Swedish (RISE98), Dutch (Olalde) and York (Roman) burials are all many centuries more recent than their most-recent known haplogroups, and don't give us great constraints on the ages of haplogroups. I had dated S1894 to between 2545 BC and 1231 BC, with a best guess of 1866 BC. Clearly, if this burial is S1894+, the real date must be in the earlier part of this timeframe. This pushes back the most likely dates of all the haplogroups around it. The following are guideline ages for the youngest each clade is likely to be (i.e. we can be 95% confident the true ages are older than these dates):
R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC
R-L11/L151/P311: before 2560 BC
Better constraints for U106 and L11 come from RISE98 and other ancient burials.

The Y-STR difference between the R-S1894 and R-L11 ancestral values is:
DYS492=12->13 @ Z2265
DYS464c=17->16 @ Z156
DYF395s1=15-16 -> 16-16 @ DF98
DYS557=16->15 @ DF98
DYS607=14 @ S1911
DYS511=12->11 @ S1894
DYS552=24->25 @ S1894 [exact location questionable]
The expected timeframe for this set of mutations is much shorter, only about 500 years. The discrepancy may be due to missing back mutations in this dataset, and is hopefully something we can explore better in the coming months. However, it points to a relative absence of STR mutations between the R-Z156 MRCA and R-Z304's, and a relative surfeit between the R-Z304 MRCA and R-DF98's, with implications for the time periods between these clades. The relative proximity of the R-Z306 SNPs Z8161, Z305 and Z306 (respectively hg38 positions 20404882, 20443277 and 20625892) could indicate an origin in a single event, but I've no idea how likely this is.

Any implications for the migration history of these branches can only be guesswork at this stage, particularly for someone with no archaeological background like myself. It will take time to ruminate and fully understand what these sources are telling us. However, we can derive some pointers for the origins and spread of U106 from this man.

The western Czech Republic is very much the eastern boundary of the modern R-U106 and R-L11 bulk distributions. Myres et al. (2007) notes a 28% R-M269 frequency and a 14% R-U106 frequency in the Czech Republic, part of a declining trend heading eastwards. Without any evidence of R-U106 basal clades or a substantial modern R-U106 population to the east of Prague, it's hard to imagine the R-U106 common ancestor lived much further east.

The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic. Hence, taken with the ancient R-P312 burials and modern R-S1194 distribution, I'd posit the R-L11 MRCA living somewhere across the north coast of Germany. However, I hasten to add that similar extrapolation would not have predicted a R-S1894 burial in Prague!

Geographically, the R-Z156 clade lies towards the southern extent of the R-U106 distribution. One possible reason for this could be that R-Z156 found itself as part of the group that founded the Unetice culture, differentiating it from the Corded Ware culture. Whether this was via the Nitra culture or not, I don't know.

If this is the case, the predominant spread of R-Z156 (and potentially other R-U106 clades) westwards would probably come with incorporation into the Tumulus culture, and we see a very significant increase in the number of R-U106 clades (indicating a population explosion) around the same time. It would also explain some of the sporadic eastern European R-Z156 results we have: unlike other major eastern R-U106 groups (which mostly show descent from Sweden or Germany during Gothic or post-Roman times), eastern R-Z156 populations seem to have a more ancient origin that may tie into the trade links of the Unetice culture and its descendants.

Again, these are some of the questions we hope to probe better with statistical analysis in the coming year or so. The analyses here are very much early opinions and rough calculations rather than established fact.




You don't need to convince me that a minority of U106 lineages were part of Pre-Germanic spread in Europe, but nothing suggests that U106 was a major lineage in Celts at the moment.

Finn
05-16-2018, 11:05 AM
Indeed, but we did not mention that they tested Walloons, did we? I just wanted to add an another example to show the strong connection between Germanic-speakers and U106 and to help out Rms2 with the link to the paper. ;)


As the Wallionians evidence is missing this gives potential a wrong impression of the connection between Germanic and non-Germanic speakers.....



Why are you showing me this paper from 2014? If you want to know Mac Donald's current view, you should check the Yahoo U106 group. Here is his (second) post of the U106 finding in Unetice:

You don't need to convince me that a minority of U106 lineages were part of Pre-Germanic spread in Europe, but nothing suggests that U106 was a major lineage in Celts at the moment.



Indeed! It gives a fine impression of the pre-Germanic spread.....

rms2
05-16-2018, 12:21 PM
With the samples that now are available he has even more reason for a Bronze Age spread to the west, 1800 BC on the coast of the North Sea remember.
And I’am convinced he is, facing the facts, intelligent enough to suppose a certain pre German spread.
But doesn’t matter as long as you use blinkers....

Stop with the "blinkers" type of insults.

My posts are reasonable, and I provide lots of good reasons for what I think. You can't answer them, so you insult me.

That shows that you must be desperate.

Finn
05-16-2018, 01:52 PM
Stop with the "blinkers" type of insults.

My posts are reasonable, and I provide lots of good reasons for what I think. You can't answer them, so you insult me.

That shows that you must be desperate.


When people ignore some faits and not once buth over and over agian I call this use of blinkers.

Not intended as a insult, when that's the case excuse.

But I will now definately stop with you to discuss about this subject, agree to diasagree.....

Radboud
05-16-2018, 07:18 PM
As the Wallionians evidence is missing this gives potential a wrong impression of the connection between Germanic and non-Germanic speakers.....


Alright, fair enough. I remember that Walloons have also plenty of U106. I cannot find the source though.




Indeed! It gives a fine impression of the pre-Germanic spread.....

Keep in mind that the analyses of his post are very much early opinions and rough calculations rather than established fact. We truly need more data to confirm that Z156 found itself as part of the group that founded the Unetice culture. Mac Donald also suggests that U106 was originated in the regions between Prague and the Baltic, but it's also very possible that U106 had it's ancestral origins further East.(Western Ukraine?)



Stop with the "blinkers" type of insults.

My posts are reasonable, and I provide lots of good reasons for what I think. You can't answer them, so you insult me.

That shows that you must be desperate.

I have read your posts for a few years now and they are reasonable and intelligent indeed. Same thing goes for Finn.

rms2
05-22-2018, 11:45 PM
. . .
I have read your posts for a few years now and they are reasonable and intelligent indeed. Same thing goes for Finn.

Thanks, but I am not sure I agree with that last part. He seems to be growing desperate, since he is accusing me of wearing "blinkers" (i.e., blinders), etc.

Sometimes people go too far to retain my respect.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
05-23-2018, 06:36 AM
It's never seemed logical to me that there were a bunch of U106 people (and possibly other groups) on the North West shore of continental Europe and yet none made the crossing to Britain, voluntarily or otherwise, until the Roman era and of course with the Anglo Saxon and Norse migrations.

I may have mentioned this article before :-

"800 Years of Human Sacrifice in Kent"

"It’s about a Wessex Archaeology dig in 2004-05 at Cliffs End farm in Thanet, a piece of north-east Kent that was an island up until the 16th century when silting finished connecting it to mainland England. What we’re dealing with here is ritual murder, some pretty strange disposal of the dead and ancient Scandinavian migrants......
Basically what they’re doing here is killing people and livestock, manipulating their remains ritually, often exposing them on site for a time, and finally inhuming them in pits. Bone preservation is perfect, leaving it all too clear what is going on. And it goes on for 800 years, well into the Middle Iron Age about 200 cal BC. A three-century hiatus during the Early Iron Age, I speculate, may be covered by the part of the feature that hasn’t been excavated........
Andrew Millard of Durham University analysed all suitable teeth from 25 individuals. Here’s the geographical breakdown of the sacrificial victims’ area of origin:

36% local
32% southern Norway or Sweden
20% western Mediterranean
12% indeterminate

This gave particularly interesting results in the case of an old woman whose disarticulated skull was redeposited in the Late Bronze Age charnel pit discussed above. She was born in Scandinavia, moved to northern Britain as a child, lived a long life and finally ended up as a prop in a religious ritual on Thanet.
More than half of the victims are foreigners. And though more than a third are locals, we don’t know if their parents were locals as DNA hasn’t been done yet. "

It's speculated this was part of a slave trade. If so it raises questions about how widespread it was, when did it start and how many people (and their descendants) may have ended up in Britain from different parts of continental Europe? Of course slavery might not have been the only reason for making the crossing.

https://aardvarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/900-years-of-human-sacrifice-in-kent/

Finn
05-24-2018, 07:42 AM
It's never seemed logical to me that there were a bunch of U106 people (and possibly other groups) on the North West shore of continental Europe and yet none made the crossing to Britain, voluntarily or otherwise, until the Roman era and of course with the Anglo Saxon and Norse migrations.

I may have mentioned this article before :-

"800 Years of Human Sacrifice in Kent"

"It’s about a Wessex Archaeology dig in 2004-05 at Cliffs End farm in Thanet, a piece of north-east Kent that was an island up until the 16th century when silting finished connecting it to mainland England. What we’re dealing with here is ritual murder, some pretty strange disposal of the dead and ancient Scandinavian migrants......
Basically what they’re doing here is killing people and livestock, manipulating their remains ritually, often exposing them on site for a time, and finally inhuming them in pits. Bone preservation is perfect, leaving it all too clear what is going on. And it goes on for 800 years, well into the Middle Iron Age about 200 cal BC. A three-century hiatus during the Early Iron Age, I speculate, may be covered by the part of the feature that hasn’t been excavated........
Andrew Millard of Durham University analysed all suitable teeth from 25 individuals. Here’s the geographical breakdown of the sacrificial victims’ area of origin:

36% local
32% southern Norway or Sweden
20% western Mediterranean
12% indeterminate

This gave particularly interesting results in the case of an old woman whose disarticulated skull was redeposited in the Late Bronze Age charnel pit discussed above. She was born in Scandinavia, moved to northern Britain as a child, lived a long life and finally ended up as a prop in a religious ritual on Thanet.
More than half of the victims are foreigners. And though more than a third are locals, we don’t know if their parents were locals as DNA hasn’t been done yet. "

It's speculated this was part of a slave trade. If so it raises questions about how widespread it was, when did it start and how many people (and their descendants) may have ended up in Britain from different parts of continental Europe? Of course slavery might not have been the only reason for making the crossing.

https://aardvarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/900-years-of-human-sacrifice-in-kent/

Indeed John, this study is somewhat older but gives a very clear perspective!

https://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24793

rms2
05-27-2018, 11:14 PM
It's never seemed logical to me that there were a bunch of U106 people (and possibly other groups) on the North West shore of continental Europe and yet none made the crossing to Britain, voluntarily or otherwise, until the Roman era and of course with the Anglo Saxon and Norse migrations . . .



Do we know "there were a bunch of U106 people . . . on the North West shore of continental Europe"? One in Oostwoud in the Netherlands isn't a bunch.

If they made the crossing, they sure did a good job of staying in the places that were settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, and Olalde et al didn't find any sign of them in their Bronze Age samples.

If those people on Thanet included some U106 men, how do we know they have any living descendants? If they were from Scandinavia, maybe all of the men, or most of them, were I-M253.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
05-28-2018, 06:53 AM
Do we know "there were a bunch of U106 people . . . on the North West shore of continental Europe"? One in Oostwoud in the Netherlands isn't a bunch.

If they made the crossing, they sure did a good job of staying in the places that were settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, and Olalde et al didn't find any sign of them in their Bronze Age samples.

If those people on Thanet included some U106 men, how do we know they have any living descendants? If they were from Scandinavia, maybe all of the men, or most of them, were I-M253.

It seems to me that generally an awful lot of interpretation and assumption is derived from very few samples of ancient remains. Can these samples and their burial contexts be considered representative of the total population of Britain (or somewhere else) at a given point in time? - possibly not, we just don't know.
Say the U106 population in parts of Britain at a given point in time was 1 in a 1,000, the chances of finding a specific U106 burial are obviously very low. Maybe it was one in 10,000, or one in 500, we just don't know but the odds would be against finding such a burial. Maybe any early U106 presence was specific to particular regions or areas of Britain. The most logical place for such a presence would obviously be close to continental Europe - exactly the same as areas most affected by the later Anglo Saxon and Norse Era migrations.
People seem happy to use small sample sizes when it supports their case but discount a small number of samples when it doesn't.
"If those people on Thanet included some U106 men, how do we know they have any living descendants? " - How do we know they didn't?
"If they were from Scandinavia, maybe all of the men, or most of them, were I-M253." - and maybe they weren't, that's just an assumption.
I doubt Thannet was unrepresentative of population movements between Britain or parts of Britain and continental Europe over a very long period. The idea that specific DNA groups in North Western continental Europe weren't involved in these early population movements seems very improbable to me. If you want to define them as "not Celts" that's fine but that doesn't mean they weren't here, at least to some extent.
"settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English," - You should know that "The English" are not entirely or even mostly of Germanic descent, far from it. They have Celtic (and earlier) origins too.

rms2
05-28-2018, 11:16 AM
It seems to me that generally an awful lot of interpretation and assumption is derived from very few samples of ancient remains. Can these samples and their burial contexts be considered representative of the total population of Britain (or somewhere else) at a given point in time? - possibly not, we just don't know.
Say the U106 population in parts of Britain at a given point in time was 1 in a 1,000, the chances of finding a specific U106 burial are obviously very low. Maybe it was one in 10,000, or one in 500, we just don't know but the odds would be against finding such a burial. Maybe any early U106 presence was specific to particular regions or areas of Britain. The most logical place for such a presence would obviously be close to continental Europe - exactly the same as areas most affected by the later Anglo Saxon and Norse Era migrations.
People seem happy to use small sample sizes when it supports their case but discount a small number of samples when it doesn't.
"If those people on Thanet included some U106 men, how do we know they have any living descendants? " - How do we know they didn't?
"If they were from Scandinavia, maybe all of the men, or most of them, were I-M253." - and maybe they weren't, that's just an assumption.
I doubt Thannet was unrepresentative of population movements between Britain or parts of Britain and continental Europe over a very long period. The idea that specific DNA groups in North Western continental Europe weren't involved in these early population movements seems very improbable to me. If you want to define them as "not Celts" that's fine but that doesn't mean they weren't here, at least to some extent.
"settled by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English," - You should know that "The English" are not entirely or even mostly of Germanic descent, far from it. They have Celtic (and earlier) origins too.

You seem to be arguing that maybe there was a needle or two in the haystack. Okay, maybe. I have always said that perhaps a few U106 men made it across to Britain before the Roman Period. But, honestly, I thought we were talking about a real population movement.

Olalde et al had 37 Kurgan Bell Beaker samples from Britain, 51 pre-Beaker Neolithic samples from Britain, and 67 post-Beaker, Bronze Age samples from Britain, for a total of 155 ancient British samples. Of those, 90 were male. None of them was U106. 90 is not a million, but if U106 had much of a presence in Britain by the Bronze Age, one would expect there to be at least one in Olalde et al's collection.

I know the modern English are a mix of several things, including Celtic and Germanic. They aren't just Germanic. But there were no English before the advent of the Germanic element in their make-up. There was no Angle Land in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Right now there is no evidence that would cause a reasonable person to associate U106 with the Celtic element in the ancestry of the English.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
05-28-2018, 04:49 PM
You seem to be arguing that maybe there was a needle or two in the haystack. Okay, maybe. I have always said that perhaps a few U106 men made it across to Britain before the Roman Period. But, honestly, I thought we were talking about a real population movement.

Olalde et al had 37 Kurgan Bell Beaker samples from Britain, 51 pre-Beaker Neolithic samples from Britain, and 67 post-Beaker, Bronze Age samples from Britain, for a total of 155 ancient British samples. Of those, 90 were male. None of them was U106. 90 is not a million, but if U106 had much of a presence in Britain by the Bronze Age, one would expect there to be at least one in Olalde et al's collection.

I know the modern English are a mix of several things, including Celtic and Germanic. They aren't just Germanic. But there were no English before the advent of the Germanic element in their make-up. There was no Angle Land in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Right now there is no evidence that would cause a reasonable person to associate U106 with the Celtic element in the ancestry of the English.

"You seem to be arguing that maybe there was a needle or two in the haystack" I wouldn't expect significant numbers of U106'ers in Britain in this period but I don't know and I don't think we have enough data to draw broad conclusions. A "trickle" over a long period can add up to a fair number of people.

"But there were no English before the advent of the Germanic element in their make-up." There was no Angle Land in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons arrived." English and Angle Land are just names, obviously derived from the Anglo Saxon language. We are talking about individual tribal societies which weren't exclusively Anglo Saxon in terms of their populations. Probably most of the elite were of Anglo Saxon origin but I would think there was substantial integration with the previous population over time, as happened with the Normans, the Norse peoples and the Romans. When people live in the same place they integrate, maybe not initially but over time. A single "England" didn't exist until 937 under Athelstan I don't think.

"Right now there is no evidence that would cause a reasonable person to associate U106 with the Celtic element in the ancestry of the English." I wouldn't disagree. Of course it depends how we define the term "celtic". It may be possible that there were some U106 people and their descendants (and possibly others) living within some celtic tribal groups, voluntarily or not. Whether that makes them Celts or not is a matter of interpretation I suppose.

uintah106
05-28-2018, 08:13 PM
Then the prescence of I1 and R1a Z284 in Brtiian may have been partially "celtic" as well. Why reason anything else? U106 Is mostly westgermanic anything else is absurd.

rms2
05-29-2018, 11:22 AM
"You seem to be arguing that maybe there was a needle or two in the haystack" I wouldn't expect significant numbers of U106'ers in Britain in this period but I don't know and I don't think we have enough data to draw broad conclusions. A "trickle" over a long period can add up to a fair number of people.

We have a fair amount of data now that we didn't have before Olalde et al. We also have the Hinxton Celts, both L21 and both recovered in an area that today has one of the highest frequencies of U106 in Britain. As I said, no U106 in Britain thus far before the Roman Period. In Ireland the two Bronze Age Rathlin Island KBB men were both L21.



. . . English and Angle Land are just names, obviously derived from the Anglo Saxon language. We are talking about individual tribal societies which weren't exclusively Anglo Saxon in terms of their populations . . .

Names mean something. Names save us the trouble of having to entirely re-explain a thing every time we want to speak about it. They aren't "just names", and you were the one who said the English weren't purely Germanic. I agree, but there were no English and there was no Angle Land until the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain at the end of the Roman Period. The point is that just because the modern English are partly Celtic in their make up doesn't mean U106 had much if anything to do with the Celtic part. It doesn't look like it did.



"Right now there is no evidence that would cause a reasonable person to associate U106 with the Celtic element in the ancestry of the English." I wouldn't disagree. Of course it depends how we define the term "celtic". It may be possible that there were some U106 people and their descendants (and possibly others) living within some celtic tribal groups, voluntarily or not. Whether that makes them Celts or not is a matter of interpretation I suppose.

If they arrived in Britain before the Roman Period and spoke Celtic, they were Celts. Almost anything is possible. The question is whether or not such a thing is likely. Thus far, it doesn't look like it.

BTW, I'm not arguing there were absolutely no U106 men in Britain before the Romans. My argument is that there couldn't have been very many of them and that by far most U106 men in Britain and Ireland today are y-dna descendants of Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, the English, or the Vikings, or some more recent arrivals from the Continent, like Flemings.

Saetro
05-29-2018, 09:40 PM
Where is that Reich paper on British ancient DNA?
We need more haystacks and more needles!

(And even then I'll be grumbling that the sampling wasn't representative, but I'll try to keep that to myself unless they don't address it in their paper.)

Webb
05-31-2018, 03:05 PM
As much as I loathe to stroke the L21 guy's egos, I think it is safe to assume that L21 = Insular Celtic, in a broad brush stroke sort of way. I have mentioned before I don't like to link modern DNA distribution to ancient groups, but I think L21 is one of the exception to the rules, as Ireland is a perfect illustrator of this scenario. You have an Island that has some of the highest concentrations of L21, speaking a Celtic Language. Invasions to the island by outside groups did not happen really until historic times, meaning there was not a very early mixing of cultures and languages such as one sees in Great Britain, making things a bit messy. I am sure that among these predominately L21 men, there were some other clades, such as U106 and DF27, and U152, and maybe even some I1 and R1a, but even P312* at the time of the Myres study, which includes any P312 that is not L21 or U152, was only around 19% at its highest concentration in Ireland is pretty telling. One would have to assume if taking samplings of pre Anglo-Saxon Britain, one would find a similar sort of distribution. Adversely, if one assumes that the Anglo-Saxons were a vector of U106, DF19, DF99, some U152, some L21, some DF27, some I1, some R1a then it gets very messy. If assuming my broad brush stroke is correct, then you now have three large P312 groups and only two major matching languages, Italic and Celtic. If we assume L21 is Celtic, then is U152 responsible for Italic? U152's modern distribution is very heavy in Italy, connecting it to where we assume modern Italic languages came from. Where then does this leave DF27? Is DF27 the meat in the sandwich between L21-Celtic and U152-Italic? We had celtic languages in Iberia, which is where DF27 is currently today most concentrated. But there was also other IE languages long since lost in Iberia. I don't know. A long time ago, I assumed that the ratio of P312 verses U106 in Britain illustrated that maybe there was no complete replacement of Celts with Anglo-Saxons in Britain. I thought it odd that the Anglo-Saxons would kill off everyone, and I think using current haplo distributions in Britain, we can assume that even in the heart of Anglo-Saxon England, many Celts survived. I think that occupational surname projects can be clues. I will use my own. The Webb DNA project has a large number of P312 lineages. L21 is most common among these P312 lineages. This leads me to believe that the specialized occupations were valued by the incoming Anglo-Saxons, meaning the low people were probably left mostly intact and there was just a replacement at the top. Just my thoughts.

rms2
06-01-2018, 12:23 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the Kurgan Bell Beaker people probably spoke some sort of early form of Italo-Celtic. Their y-dna profile, as we have seen from the data thus far, was overwhelmingly P312. We don't know what Baltic Bell Beaker was like, but the Kurgan Bell Beaker we know about thus far was mostly L2, L21, and DF27.

IMHO, Celtic spread as a kind of lingua franca that facilitated trade among people who were already speaking Italo-Celtic in northwest Europe, which made the adoption of Celtic fairly easy and natural. Something similar happened in the Levant among speakers of Semitic languages in the last centuries BC, so that by the time of Christ, the common language there was Aramaic. Thus when Jesus told St. Peter, ". . . [Y]ou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18), He was speaking Aramaic and actually said, "You are Kepha [Rock] and on this kepha [rock] I will build my church." The name Peter comes from Petros, which means rock in Greek. The translation mixes the Greek name Peter with the English word rock and obscures what Simon's nickname (Kepha) really meant in Aramaic.

Angriff
06-01-2018, 12:27 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the Kurgan Bell Beaker people probably spoke some sort of early form of Italo-Celtic. Their y-dna profile, as we have seen from the data thus far, was overwhelmingly P312. We don't know what Baltic Bell Beaker was like, but the Kurgan Bell Beaker we know about thus far was mostly L2, L21, and DF27.

IMHO, Celtic spread as a kind of lingua franca that facilitated trade among people who were already speaking Italo-Celtic in northwest Europe, which made the adoption of Celtic fairly easy and natural. Something similar happened in the Levant among speakers of Semitic languages in the last centuries BC, so that by the time of Christ, the common language there was Aramaic. Thus when Jesus told St. Peter, ". . . [Y]ou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18), He was speaking Aramaic and actually said, "You are Kepha [Rock] and on this kepha [rock] I will build my church." The name Peter comes from Petros, which means rock in Greek. The translation mixes the Greek name Peter with the English word rock and obscures what Simon's nickname (Kepha) really meant in Aramaic.

I suspect this is pretty close to an accurate picture. You can even compare the leveling of dialects in most European countries in the last century or so as a similar situation—many of these dialects were as differentiated as language families and have largely flattened out into the national languages in many countries.

edit: It's also worth considering the extensive trade networks that existed during the Bronze Age which would have facilitated this kind of language leveling.

Finn
06-01-2018, 09:27 AM
I suspect this is pretty close to an accurate picture. You can even compare the leveling of dialects in most European countries in the last century or so as a similar situation—many of these dialects were as differentiated as language families and have largely flattened out into the national languages in many countries.

edit: It's also worth considering the extensive trade networks that existed during the Bronze Age which would have facilitated this kind of language leveling.

Those dialects are pretty fluid! My region (Groningen) spoke according to Schrijver in the early iron age a kind of Celtic (Frisians were traders so the lingua franca you describe), in the migration period/early middle ages followed for sure by Old Frisian and in the middle Ages (due to het Hanseatic city of Groningen) lower Saxon with a Frisian substrate.

rms2
06-02-2018, 12:33 AM
Those dialects are pretty fluid! My region (Groningen) spoke according to Schrijver in the early iron age a kind of Celtic (Frisians were traders so the lingua franca you describe) . . .

Actually, I was the one who described the lingua franca, Finn. I don't think Frisians ever spoke Celtic. The people who lived in that area before them may have, however.

Finn
06-02-2018, 04:20 AM
Actually, I was the one who described the lingua franca, Finn. I don't think Frisians ever spoke Celtic. The people who lived in that area before them may have, however.

The Frisii of the wetlands, the terps or wierden, did ‘exist’ from about 600 BC. So Iron Age. Their ancestors lived on the higher ground of Drenthe and may be NW Germany. After a population decline at the end of the Roman period, the Frisii disappeared from the archeological radar, did they disappear partly or total, that’s still discussed. Than the Saxons/Chauci (last one already infiltrating in the Eastern parts in the Roman period) and other tribes from the North. Only when the Franks came in the verb Fries or Frisian came back, old flag new vessel so to say.
In that proces the language changed. Based on qualified research Schrijver has shown that the language changed. The new Frisians, like their counterparts oversea, spoke a German language but with pronunciations if they were Celts acquiring German.
I can’t wait to see this movie about that period,
http://www.redbaddefilm.nl/intro

rms2
06-02-2018, 12:35 PM
The Frisii of the wetlands, the terps or wierden, did ‘exist’ from about 600 BC. So Iron Age. Their ancestors lived on the higher ground of Drenthe and may be NW Germany. After a population decline at the end of the Roman period, the Frisii disappeared from the archeological radar, did they disappear partly or total, that’s still discussed. Than the Saxons/Chauci (last one already infiltrating in the Eastern parts in the Roman period) and other tribes from the North. Only when the Franks came in the verb Fries or Frisian came back, old flag new vessel so to say.
In that proces the language changed. Based on qualified research Schrijver has shown that the language changed. The new Frisians, like their counterparts oversea, spoke a German language but with pronunciations if they were Celts acquiring German.
I can’t wait to see this movie about that period,
http://www.redbaddefilm.nl/intro

You seem to be calling two different sets of people Frisians. I would call only the Germanic Frisians Frisians. That's a Germanic tribal name that only secondarily has been assigned to a geographic place, not primarily a geographic name that was secondarily assigned to whatever people happened to live there.

I'm not a linguist, but I have never read of any kind of significant Celtic influence on Low German (Plattdeutsch) languages like Frisian. I have heard that some scholars believe there was some Celtic influence on Hochdeutsch. Since the Celts were far more numerous in central and south Germany, that seems far more likely.

Finn
06-02-2018, 01:21 PM
Yes indeed there are, and that's in the Frisian history writing common nowadays, Frisians before and after the big migration. So they are not congruent, no continuity. The big migration meant a reshuffle. After that Friesland became part of the Nordic horizon, until the Franks forced them into the Central West European horizon. So the Frisians became not earlier (full) Germanic than after the big migration.....

Schrijver has made clear, based on qualified research, that Old English and Old Frisian both had Celtic kind of relicts due to 'Celtic speakers' who want to acquire German. I'm not able to correct him...Until know no one corrected him on this track.

Yes they corrected him on name giving and such like (that can points to an earlier Germanic influence) but not on the relicts based on Celtic pronunciations of German.....

Frisian language is not lower german neither lower saxon....(they get furious when they hear that rms2). I can ashore you this from scientific point of view and as native speaker (living in the region).

And to make it all odd: the East-Frisians speak a Lower Saxon dialect like the people from Groningen.

That's because during the middle ages Groningen, Drenthe, East-Friesland had a eastwards (Hanseatic/Lower German) orientation and the West-Frisians a Holland (and England) so a westward orientation.

So in Groningen and East-Friesland they made a shift from Old-Frisian to Lower Saxon, in West-Friesland there were some Holland influences....

All those shifts and differences on a square mile, what a mess ;)

rms2
06-02-2018, 01:52 PM
You seem to rely a lot on Schrijver. I'm not linguist enough to judge him, but relying on a single linguist for what appear to be very controversial ideas doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.

I've never read that there was much if any Celtic impact on either Old English or Old Frisian.

Of course, even if there was, that wouldn't make U106 Celtic.

Finn
06-02-2018, 02:06 PM
You seem to rely a lot on Schrijver. I'm not linguist enough to judge him, but relying on a single linguist for what appear to be very controversial ideas doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.

I've never read that there was much if any Celtic impact on either Old English or Old Frisian.

Of course, even if there was, that wouldn't make U106 Celtic.

In the language aspect I do. I guess he is really knowledgeable on that area. But if he is proven wrong he is wrong, simple as that.

The break between old and new Frisians, is historically correct, so it's a real possible scenario that the old Frisians spoke a 'Celtic kind of language' as the lingua franca (as you call it) of that time. The old Frisians were already traders, seafarers and were in the axis between NW Continental Europe and the Isles. So that their language could have been Celtic colored: no surprise. The Celtic area's were at that time high developed, set the tone.

It's evident that from the migration time they became Germanic in every aspect.

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:20 PM
There may have been Celtic speakers in what is now Friesland, but it's not really known as a Celtic area. On most maps, it's not even included among the areas of Europe once occupied by Celts.

Finn
06-02-2018, 02:23 PM
I see that Schrijvers most recent work is on google books (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=schrijver+North+Sea+Celtic&source=bl&ots=N92Hy4ykoB&sig=kDfv7O_-e3QMi6xwSy7fX4dpFUQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwwpzFlrXbAhVBiKYKHRj3DGMQ6AEITjAG#v=on epage&q=schrijver%20North%20Sea%20Celtic&f=false) (I hope also available in other countries I don't know for sure).

moesan
06-12-2018, 08:27 PM
I'm not too knowledged on this matter.
just concerning the evolution of old germanic 'th' frisian seems aligned with Scandinavian languages where it turned into 't' (+ as some Scot dialects of East), while it turned into 'd' in German and Low Countries dialects, staying 'th' in the most of English dialects and in Icelandic; for lexicon I don't know but concerning other phonetic evolution I don't see specific Celtic traits, but it's at superficial sight.
ATW confirming what was already said, I never saw any historical-geographical work putting a supposed Celtic tribe as far North in the Netherlands (North the Rhine) - on the phenotypical ground Frisians are among people of the Netherlands the ones who evocate the less a Celtic input or in general a pre-North-germanic input.

Finn
06-13-2018, 04:31 PM
thanks Moesan what certainly could have been the case that in in Iron Age/Roman Age Friesland-en face England- and in the Delta of the Rhine the people spoke a kind of Celtic, as it was the lingua franca of that period in NW Europe...
The Frisii of the Roman Age were not the Frisians of the post Germanic migrations. The influx of the A-S/Nordic North Sea amalgam was big in Friesland, especially in Westergo (Western part of nowadays Friesland) in the more NE parts (Groningen and Drenthe) the Chauci began to spread already in Roman times....
I guess the A-S/Nordic amalgam certainly influenced the phenotype.

rms2
06-13-2018, 11:22 PM
If there were Celtic-speaking people living in what is now Friesland at one time, I wouldn't call them Frisians. The Frisians were a Germanic tribe.

Any Celtic people living there before the Frisians arrived weren't Frisians, just as the Britons living in what is now England weren't Anglo-Saxons.

Finn
06-14-2018, 06:30 AM
If there were Celtic-speaking people living in what is now Friesland at one time, I wouldn't call them Frisians. The Frisians were a Germanic tribe.

Any Celtic people living there before the Frisians arrived weren't Frisians, just as the Britons living in what is now England weren't Anglo-Saxons.

Rms2 you are even more Germanicist ;) than the North Dutch/ Frisians self. 100 years ago it was controversial but now generally accepted that after the migration period the North Dutch became Germanic. Before that it was blur. And they could well speak a kind of Celtic or an in between Germanic-Celtic language....

IMO a kind of simplistic reasoning why the Frisians in the Roman and pre Roman times could not be called Frisians because Frisians are Germans so the Frisans who were not Germanic (= (pre) Roman) can’t be Frisians. Pretty close minded. The 'Germanic' Frisians were, most probably by their rival the Franks, called Frisian, because they lived on the same location as the old Frisii. And it's not excluded that (a small portion/ residu of) the old Frisii fused with the A_S/Nordic influx.

I’m more or less tired of your statements, obviously due to a lack of knowledge of the North Dutch history.... low knowledge in this respect but still blunt statements.

rms2
06-14-2018, 11:02 AM
. . .

I’m more or less tired of your statements, obviously due to a lack of knowledge of the North Dutch history.... low knowledge in this respect but still blunt statements.

It doesn't matter whether or not you are tired of my statements, Finn.

You are wrong in this case.

The Frisians were a Germanic tribe who gave their name to the place now called Friesland. The place wasn't called Friesland all along and gave its name to whatever people happened to live there.

The people who lived in what is now called Friesland before the Frisians arrived were NOT Frisians. That's not hard to understand. If they spoke some form of Celtic, which is an open question, then they were some sort of Celtic people, but they weren't Frisians.

Would one call the various tribes living in Britannia before the Anglo-Saxons got there Anglo-Saxons? Probably not, unless he is a really silly, anachronistic sap.

No, those Celtic peoples had their own tribal names. They are known collectively as Britons.

Similarly, before the Germanic Franks arrived and established their suzerainty over Gaul, the place wasn't called France, the Kingdom of the Franks, i.e., Frankreich. The people living there weren't the French. They were Celtic Gauls.

Why the ardent desire to make Celts out of the Frisians, Finn? Germanophobia?

Finn
06-14-2018, 11:38 AM
It doesn't matter whether or not you are tired of my statements, Finn.

You are wrong in this case.

The Frisians were a Germanic tribe who gave their name to the place now called Friesland. The place wasn't called Friesland all along and gave its name to whatever people happened to live there.

The people who lived in what is now called Friesland before the Frisians arrived were NOT Frisians. That's not hard to understand. If they spoke some form of Celtic, which is an open question, then they were some sort of Celtic people, but they weren't Frisians.

Would one call the various tribes living in Britannia before the Anglo-Saxons got there Anglo-Saxons? Probably not, unless he is a really silly, anachronistic sap.

No, those Celtic peoples had their own tribal names. They are known collectively as Britons.

Similarly, before the Germanic Franks arrived and established their suzerainty over Gaul, the place wasn't called France, the Kingdom of the Franks, i.e., Frankreich. The people living there weren't the French. They were Celtic Gauls.

Why the ardent desire to make Celts out of the Frisians, Finn? Germanophobia?

The Frisii were known in the Roman time, than there was population dip, than the influx of the Germans. So Frisii were known before the German migration. A few centururies later (about the Frankish expansion) the name Frisian and Friesland was again in use.

That's the story based on Frisian history/archeology (literature enough Rms2)

So in this respect you can't compare us with the English or whatsoever. Basta.

So if you want to show I'm wrong prove it, give the sources!

Finn
06-14-2018, 05:32 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not you are tired of my statements, Finn.

You are wrong in this case.

The Frisians were a Germanic tribe who gave their name to the place now called Friesland. The place wasn't called Friesland all along and gave its name to whatever people happened to live there.

The people who lived in what is now called Friesland before the Frisians arrived were NOT Frisians. That's not hard to understand. If they spoke some form of Celtic, which is an open question, then they were some sort of Celtic people, but they weren't Frisians.

Would one call the various tribes living in Britannia before the Anglo-Saxons got there Anglo-Saxons? Probably not, unless he is a really silly, anachronistic sap.

No, those Celtic peoples had their own tribal names. They are known collectively as Britons.

Similarly, before the Germanic Franks arrived and established their suzerainty over Gaul, the place wasn't called France, the Kingdom of the Franks, i.e., Frankreich. The people living there weren't the French. They were Celtic Gauls.

Why the ardent desire to make Celts out of the Frisians, Finn? Germanophobia?

Some quotes from Dutch wiki (google translate):


Confusion between Frisii and the Frisians [edit]
It is sometimes thought that the current inhabitants of Friesland come directly from the Frisii of antiquity. The term Frisians, however, does not refer so much to the old Frisii from Roman times but is only the collective name for Angles, Saxons and other Germanic tribes that populated the very sparsely populated area north of the Rhine around 400 AD. Possibly these tribes mixed with a small group of Frisii left behind. At the same time, the British islands were bombarded by the same tribes.



In the fourth century the number of Frisii declined so dramatically that around 400 the area was practically uninhabited. Germanic tribes from the North, presumably Angels, Saxons, and Jutes, populated the area and became known under the name of their predecessors.

Believe me that when this all were weird, out of the box ideas this would be immediately corrected!

rms2
06-14-2018, 05:39 PM
Hmmm.

From what I have read, the word Frisian was Germanic in origin and not Celtic. So, the Frisian "predecessors" would have been a Germanic people and not a Celtic people.

Unless you can show that the word Frisian or Frisii is Celtic in origin. I don't see how it could be, because the Frisii are never spoken of as a Celtic tribe, and I have never seen a map that shows Friesland within the Celtic orbit.

I don't like to refer to Wikipedia, but take a look at its List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Celtic_peoples_and_tribes). No Frisians or Frisii there, as of today, anyway, and there won't be, unless someone goes in and edits that Wikipedia article.

As I said, that mirrors everything I have read (which is a fair amount). I have never seen the Frisians or Frisii listed anywhere as a Celtic tribe. They've always been referred to as Germanic.

Finn
06-14-2018, 06:01 PM
Hmmm.

From what I have read, the word Frisian was Germanic in origin and not Celtic. So, the Frisian "predecessors" would have been a Germanic people and not a Celtic people.

Unless you can show that the word Frisian or Frisii is Celtic in origin. I don't see how it could be, because the Frisii are never spoken of as a Celtic tribe, and I have never seen a map that shows Friesland within the Celtic orbit.

I don't like to refer to Wikipedia, but take a look at its List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Celtic_peoples_and_tribes). No Frisians or Frisii there, as of today, anyway, and there won't be, unless someone goes in and edits that Wikipedia article.

As I said, that mirrors everything I have read (which is a fair amount). I have never seen the Frisians or Frisii listed anywhere as a Celtic tribe. They've always been referred to as Germanic.

We only know that that the Frisians after the migration undoubtfull belonged to the Germans and Germanic culture. Before that it’s simply unclear. May be an in between language. They were certainly not hardcore, La Tene kind of, Celts. But the Celts were nearby and their culture was expansive. May be more cultivated and developed than the Germans at that time... The Frisans of the (pre) Roman time were not a remote tribe, so influences of the Celtic civilization are not weird to presume...

Finn
06-14-2018, 06:16 PM
This also makes clear why in genetic sense especially my father and I plot close to the early Anglo Saxons. My mother inland North Dutch, more population continuity, has somewhat more older residu (pre Germanic migration).

adrianuslucas
06-14-2018, 06:50 PM
rms2, Finn is referring to the Dunkirk_transgression. Google for it.
To explain why there have been 2 populations in Frisia with a different genetic composition.
The transgression may be the main reason why the Franks moved to the other side of the Rhine about 370AD. They got wet feet.

MitchellSince1893
06-14-2018, 07:01 PM
Before the Frisians there was also a Frisii tribe during the Roman period, but they are described as being Germanic.


In his Germania Tacitus would describe all the Germanic peoples of the region as having elected kings with limited powers and influential military leaders who led by example rather than by authority. The people lived in spread-out settlements.[13] He specifically noted the weakness of Germanic political hierarchies in reference to the Frisii, when he mentioned the names of two kings of the 1st century Frisii and added that they were kings "as far as the Germans are under kings".

Radboud
06-14-2018, 07:07 PM
We should not forget that Romans had intensive contact with the tribes of The Low Countries. They identified the Frisii as Germanic. We should not take this identification as a given, but the Romans(Tacticus in particular) never mentioned anything about a relationship between the Frisii and Belgae/Celts like the language, personal names, interpreters, rivers etc.


If i remember correctly, the Frisii leaders Verritus & Malorix considered themselves as Germanic and their names can easily have a Germanic origin aswell. The Frisii also had socio-military ties with other Germanic tribes.

Finn
06-14-2018, 07:50 PM
We should not forget that Romans had intensive contact with the tribes of The Low Countries. They identified the Frisii as Germanic. We should not take this identification as a given, but the Romans(Tacticus in particular) never mentioned anything about a relationship between the Frisii and Belgae/Celts like the language, personal names, interpreters, rivers etc.


If i remember correctly, the Frisii leaders Verritus & Malorix considered themselves as Germanic and their names can easily have a Germanic origin aswell. The Frisii also had socio-military ties with other Germanic tribes.

Indeed Radboud! The Romans used the Caesarian shift right of the Rhine is Germanic. But that was roughly. Certainly at that time no one identified themselves with those labels. They certainly represent no sharp differentiated people. Celtic and Roman had al their influences on the Frisians. (And again and again NO I don’t see old Frisians as Celts...).The Frisians did not life in a vacuum. The language of the old Frisians has never been undoubtly seen as Germanic, in earlier days we had the Northwest block theory. Now we have Schrijver he stated that the Frisian anguage has a kind of Celtic heritage.... book (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=schrijver+frisian+celtic&source=bl&ots=N92Jp0tojv&sig=xSEmivh3bRvOs_nTT3biGM9pDME&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG4paA8tPbAhVLrRQKHW4cCuAQ6AEwBnoECAEQA Q#v=onepage&q=schrijver%20frisian%20celtic&f=false)

No one replied this man here on a fruitful way.....he has made clear based on a qualified paper...he based it on the vowels. When someone says this is bullshit than he has to show why Schrijver got it wrong.

rms2
06-14-2018, 07:55 PM
Yeah, I had actually looked up the Frisians in Tacitus but didn't get a chance to post because I got busy at work.
Tacitus classed them among the Ingvaeones, which was one of his three major divisions of the Germani, so pretty obviously they weren't regarded as Celts.

Finn
06-14-2018, 08:07 PM
Interesting wiki page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

Before the Germanic migration the situation between Rhine and Weser is kind of blur...

After that the North Dutch became part of the Germanic, Nordic world. The new Frisian elite was close connected to the Nordi one.

Until the Frankish ursupators claimed the Frisian lands.....

rms2
06-14-2018, 08:08 PM
Finn, do you know of any other linguists besides Schrijver who think the Frisians once spoke Celtic? BTW, is that actually his view, or is he merely saying there was a Celtic substrate that influenced the development of Frisian?

And didn't you say Schrijver claims there is a Celtic element in Old English? That I've definitely never heard before, in fact just the opposite. I've read that Old English is notable for its lack of Celtic influence.

And also, btw, what I said was that if there were Celtic-speaking people at one time in what is now Friesland, they weren't Frisians.

Finn
06-14-2018, 08:10 PM
Finn, do you know of any other linguists who think the Frisians once spoke Celtic? BTW, is that actually his view, or is he merely saying there was a Celtic substrate that influenced the development of Frisians?

And didn't you say Schrijver claims there is a Celtic element in Old English? That I've definitely never heard before, in fact just the opposite. I've read that Old English is not able for its lack of Celtic influence.

And also, btw, what I said was that if there were Celtic-speaking people at one time in what is now Friesland, they weren't Frisians.

As you please already there before you request it see above!! northwestblock....

Saetro
06-14-2018, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I had actually looked up the Frisians in Tacitus but didn't get a chance to post because I got busy at work.
Tacitus classed them among the Ingvaeones, which was one of his three major divisions of the Germani, so pretty obviously they weren't regarded as Celts.

The very term "German" was used by Julius Caesar in the sense that the people who he found as relatively recent arrivals on the western bank of the Rhine were the same as those on the eastern bank. They were german = family/related

rms2
06-14-2018, 08:28 PM
Of course, I was referring to Tacitus, who wrote in the first century and was more careful in his analysis than Caesar was more than a hundred years earlier.

rms2
06-14-2018, 08:32 PM
As you please already there before you request it’s see above!! northwestblock....

Of course, Nordwestblock is an unconfirmed hypothesis, and it isn't supposed to be Celtic anyway but a language neither Celtic nor Germanic.

Interesting that the Wikipedia article on Nordwestblock mentions that the Belgian linguist Luc van Durme says Celtic toponyms are very nearly or completely absent from the Low Countries.

Finn
06-14-2018, 08:51 PM
Of course and you can cherry pick some things out of it, but the basic line is that the language situation in the North Dutch case is in the pre Germanic migration time fare from clear.....and certainly not easily to pinpoint it to either German or Celtic. May be in this case this dichotomy is to simple....

IMO you can’t make definitive statements about this.

The Romans saw this all with another perspective than you do Rms2.

Finn
06-14-2018, 09:03 PM
And about Schrijver it’s so easy to comment and to shoot at it....
But every time I see no single reference to his work so you fire with blanks.

vettor
06-14-2018, 10:20 PM
The percentage refers to language and not always ethnicity....check net for Balkan celts......illyrians became celts from late bronze age to circa 300bc in serbia.....celts in bulgaria......bologna in italy created by the celtic boii tribe etc etc

rms2
06-15-2018, 12:17 AM
You cite one linguist, Finn. That's pretty weak. I could cite two or three at least to argue for Paleolithic Continuity (which I think is utter garbage).

Besides, Nordwestblock is not Celtic, and there is no evidence the Frisians/Frisii ever spoke Celtic. The Roman historian Tacitus includes them among the Germani, one of the Ingvaeone tribes.

Appealing to authority isn't evidence, and Schrijver is just one man. AFAIK, besides you, he could be the only man in the world who thinks Frisian was substantially influenced by a Celtic language.

Finn
06-15-2018, 04:56 AM
You cite one linguist, Finn. That's pretty weak. I could cite two or three at least to argue for Paleolithic Continuity (which I think is utter garbage).

Besides, Nordwestblock is not Celtic, and there is no evidence the Frisians/Frisii ever spoke Celtic. The Roman historian Tacitus includes them among the Germani, one of the Ingvaeone tribes.

Appealing to authority isn't evidence, and Schrijver is just one man. AFAIK, besides you, he could be the only man in the world who thinks Frisian was substantially influenced by a Celtic language.

First of all you didn’t have the break in Frisian history sharp. You supposed continuity.
Second I don't rely on authority. I have red his work, he explains his language theory and I compared it with the historical development. And that’s pretty congruent. In the sense that like the archeologist state that with the migration time the Frisians became undoubtfull part of the Nordic world (incl language).
If he is the first or only one with this theory is not related to the fact if he is wrong or not. Sometimes someone has to be the fiirst. As stated earlier Schrijver could be wrong, but than you have to show why is theory based on the vowel system is wrong. If you can’t or not interested in it also OK. But IMO it’s not Ok when you are using strong verbs to say he is wrong. But don’t deliver evidence on which point he got it wrong. In other words he based his theory on Celtic vowels in the Frisian language: were this vowels not Celtic or aren’t they used in Frisian? Than you got a reasonable discussion....

But in some kind of way it seems you can’t life with the idea that a tribe above the Rhine could have been affected with a kind of Celtic. Than it all gets fired. Calm down. If a bunch of old Frisians spoke a Celtic affected language what the heck? Now I get almost get the impression they aren’t supposed too....as if this breaks the well ordered lines in your thoughts....

epoch
06-15-2018, 05:32 AM
First of all you didn’t have the break in Frisian history sharp. You supposed continuity.
Second I don't rely on authority. I have red his work, he explains his language theory and I compared it with the historical development. And that’s pretty congruent. In the sense that like the archeologist state that with the migration time the Frisians became undoubtfull part of the Nordic world (incl language).
If he is the first or only one with this theory is not related to the fact if he is wrong or not. Sometimes someone has to be the fiirst. As stated earlier Schrijver could be wrong, but than you have to show why is theory based on the vowel system is wrong. If you can’t or not interested in it also OK. But IMO it’s not Ok when you are using strong verbs to say he is wrong. But don’t deliver evidence on which point he got it wrong. Iin other words he based his theory on Celtic vowels in the Frisian language: were this vowels not Celtic or aren’t they used in Frisian? Than you got a reasonable discussion....

But in some kind of way it seems you can’t life with the idea that a tribe above the Rhine could have been affected with a kind of Celtic. Than it all gets fired. Calm down. If a bunch of old Frisians spoke a Celtic affected language what the heck? Now I get almost get the impression they aren’t supposed too....as if this breaks the well ordered lines in your thoughts....

The chances that Celtic was spoken in Frisia in, say, the Roman period is negligible for these reasons:

- There is a name known of a Frisian farmer, Cruptorix (https://taaldacht.nl/2017/12/05/cruptorix/), from the 1st century AD which cannot be anything but Germanic.
- There is a votive stone found in Frisia proper (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hludana-steen)dedicated to Hludana, which undoubtedly is a Germanic godess name.
- It is undeniable that in the area people spoke Germanic languages as Pliny the Elder mentioned that in the Low Countries people called geese "Ganta".

Finn
06-15-2018, 06:25 AM
The chances that Celtic was spoken in Frisia in, say, the Roman period is negligible for these reasons:

- There is a name known of a Frisian farmer, Cruptorix (https://taaldacht.nl/2017/12/05/cruptorix/), from the 1st century AD which cannot be anything but Germanic.
- There is a votive stone found in Frisia proper (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hludana-steen)dedicated to Hludana, which undoubtedly is a Germanic godess name.
- It is undeniable that in the area people spoke Germanic languages as Pliny the Elder mentioned that in the Low Countries people called geese "Ganta".

Thanks epoch. Indeed that is pointing to a Germanic influence.... But Cruptorix also shows the Latin influence! So as more often the case language could be pretty volatile. Pro Schrijver is that he is based on the language structure. Based on the Celtic vowel in the post Germanic migration Frisian....that's at least more than name giving.

But with the vowels Schrijver could be wrong, but I saw no one replied on this.

Seen the position of North Dutch/Frisians, between the Belgae, the Britons and the Germans (Jastorf) and later on some Roman influence it's no surprise if all of them got their influence on the North Dutch/Frisians. Especially the Celts (pretty advanced at that time) could have influenced the North Dutch (and for Rms2 no that doesn't make them Celtic). Especially on a seafaring and negotiating tribe like the Frisians were! (not somewhere hidden in the woods or Dutch mountains ;)

Of course the tremendous influx of the A-S/Nordic flushed it (mostly) away....

Radboud
06-15-2018, 06:48 AM
Indeed Radboud! The Romans used the Caesarian shift right of the Rhine is Germanic. But that was roughly. Certainly at that time no one identified themselves with those labels. They certainly represent no sharp differentiated people. Celtic and Roman had al their influences on the Frisians. (And again and again NO I don’t see old Frisians as Celts...).The Frisians did not life in a vacuum. The language of the old Frisians has never been undoubtly seen as Germanic, in earlier days we had the Northwest block theory. Now we have Schrijver he stated that the Frisian anguage has a kind of Celtic heritage.... book (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=schrijver+frisian+celtic&source=bl&ots=N92Jp0tojv&sig=xSEmivh3bRvOs_nTT3biGM9pDME&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG4paA8tPbAhVLrRQKHW4cCuAQ6AEwBnoECAEQA Q#v=onepage&q=schrijver%20frisian%20celtic&f=false)

No one replied this man here on a fruitful way.....he has made clear based on a qualified paper...he based it on the vowels. When someone says this is bullshit than he has to show why Schrijver got it wrong.

Caesar just met the Germanic world, so he did not know much about Germanic tribes, let alone the Frisii. But even Caesar commented that some Germanics lived west of the Rhine and some Celts lived east of the Rhine. Yeah, the border was kinda blurry, but the Romans had already an idea about the languages the tribes spoke.

Tacticus on the other hand, had way more information on it's hands after intensive contacts with the tribes in The Low Countries. Of course, we should not accept Tacticus' identifications that easily, but they do have weight. Imo, some people disregard these identifications to easily.

Verritus and Malorix did not literally considered themselves as Germanics but they did mention ''that above the Germans there is no mortal that excel in weapons and loyality''. Interesting article for you here: https://taaldacht.nl/2017/11/26/hoe-keltisch-waren-de-friezen/

I will read Schrijvers' work, but I wonder what other linguists like Michiel de Vaan has to say.

Finn
06-15-2018, 06:52 AM
Sometimes I got the idea the stress on celtic or germanic is something especially from identity obsessed Americans.....

I'm raised in a through and through Germanic culture, but no one stressed I or we were Germanic (more like a fish not aware of the water ;)

My grandfather stressed the use of a lower saxon (ingveaonic) dialect because of a kind of egalitarian kind of attitude (speaking Dutch= cocky) not because of a Germanic identity reason.

So that stress either Germanic or Celtic identity thing looks a modern US kind of thing....

Finn
06-15-2018, 07:05 AM
C considered themselves as Germanics but they did mention ''that above the Germans there is no mortal that excel in weapons and loyality''. Interesting article for you here: https://taaldacht.nl/2017/11/26/hoe-keltisch-waren-de-friezen/


Agree, consider themselves Germanic is indeed tricky business, less or no written sources and another mindset, an embryonal 'national' thought came much centuries later....

ffoucart
06-15-2018, 09:30 AM
Interesting wiki page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

Before the Germanic migration the situation between Rhine and Weser is kind of blur...

After that the North Dutch became part of the Germanic, Nordic world. The new Frisian elite was close connected to the Nordi one.

Until the Frankish ursupators claimed the Frisian lands.....

In any case, if it existed, the Nordwestblock disappeared with La Tène expansion (and with the early Germanic expansion), so well before the Roman Conquest.

Some Belgae could have been Germanic in origin, even if this is debatable (like the Nervii, the Treveri or the Eburones). And you are right: Germans were influenced culturally by Celts.

But, it means that the Frisii of the Roman Era were already germanised.

And the tribes who federated themselves into the Franks were already on the Rhine at this time (like the Chaucii).

At the time of the Roman Conquest, the Northern part of Low Countries were therefore already fully germanised. It didn't change since then.

Franks, Frisian and Saxons were all cited as raiders in the North Sea before the Migrations, and we they were culturally (and linguistically) closely related.

Finn
06-15-2018, 09:44 AM
In any case, if it existed, the Nordwestblock disappeared with La Tène expansion (and with the early Germanic expansion), so well before the Roman Conquest.

Some Belgae could have been Germanic in origin, even if this is debatable (like the Nervii, the Treveri or the Eburones). And you are right: Germans were influenced culturally by Celts.

But, it means that the Frisii of the Roman Era were already germanised.

And the tribes who federated themselves into the Franks were already on the Rhine at this time (like the Chaucii).

At the time of the Roman Conquest, the Northern part of Low Countries were therefore already fully germanised. It didn't change since then.

Franks, Frisian and Saxons were all cited as raiders in the North Sea before the Migrations, and we they were culturally (and linguistically) closely related.

Floucart, let's zoom in. During the Roman period it is most probable (but not fully sure) that the Chauci went to nowadays Groningen and outmost Nord Drenthe and more ore less integrated there.

Nowadays Friesland (let alone Holland) is another case.....

As said I consider the language situation of the North Dutch most probably blurred anywhere on the cross roads between Celtic (from the stongholds in Belgium and South Dutch) and the Britonics en face Friesland and the Germanic heirs of the Jastorf like the Chauci.

In the end it's clear they (or we) belonged to the Germanic culture, the wind blowed full force form the NE in the fifth and sixth century.

See:
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/41443811/Chauken_2017.pdf

ffoucart
06-15-2018, 10:12 AM
Floucart, let's zoom in. During the Roman period it is most probable that the Chauci went to nowadays Groningen and Nord Drenthe and more ore less integrated there.

Nowadays Friesland (let alone Holland) is another case.....

As said I consider the language situation of the North Dutch most probably blurred anywhere on the cross roads between Celtic (from the stongholds in Belgium and South Dutch) and the Britonics en face Friesland and the Germanic heirs of the Jastorf like the Chauci.



Thx for the link.

And as I said, if the situation in Belgium was blured (and not Celtic stronghold), not North of the Rhine. Except perhaps the Batavii, the era was already fully germanised way before the Roman Conquest. I don't see many authors contesting this.

Finn
06-15-2018, 10:32 AM
Thx for the link.

And as I said, if the situation in Belgium was blured (and not Celtic stronghold), not North of the Rhine. Except perhaps the Batavii, the era was already fully germanised way before the Roman Conquest. I don't see many authors contesting this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum#Belgium/Luxembourg/Netherlands ?????

And I don't consider Frisii as Celts, but an language influence on the Frisii is not absurd.....

rms2
06-15-2018, 10:54 AM
Sometimes I got the idea the stress on celtic or germanic is something especially from identity obsessed Americans.....

Oh, wait a minute! You are the one obsessed with making Celts out of the Frisians, whom everyone and his brother says were and are Germanic, from Tacitus on down.

I think it has something to do with this strange desire you have to make U106 Celtic. You weren't able to do that via the genetic evidence, so you're trying to back door it in by way of Schrijver and the Frisians. If you can make the Frisians Celtic at the supposed pre-German point in their history, that will make U106 Celtic, since the Frisians have so much U106. That seems to be your wild reasoning.



. . . So that stress either Germanic or Celtic identity thing looks a modern US kind of thing....

Finn, if it's a "US kind of thing", why are you the one popping up in thread after thread, first trying to make U106 Celtic, contrary to all the evidence, and now trying to make the Frisians Celtic, so you can back door U106 into Celtic status by way of the Frisians?

I think it's a Finn kind of thing, and I'm not talking about people from Finland.

epoch
06-15-2018, 11:38 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum#Belgium/Luxembourg/Netherlands ?????

And I don't consider Frisii as Celts, but an language influence on the Frisii is not absurd.....

In Tacitus time the area of Atuatuca Tungrorum was considered settled by Germanics. Tacitus even makes the case that the word "German" originally was their tribe name. That these Germans were heavily influenced by Celts is clearly demonstrated that their godess of choice seemed to be a Celtic one: Viradectis (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viradectis). That name is interesting as it is clearly a Celtic name but has a suffix unknown in Celtic but much used in Germanic as female suffix: "-is/-es".

So at the onset of the Roman times the contact zone was far more south.

Mind you, the Frisiavones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisiavones) are considered to have lived south of the Canninafates.

tchekitchek
06-15-2018, 11:39 AM
Sometimes I got the idea the stress on celtic or germanic is something especially from identity obsessed Americans.....

I'm raised in a through and through Germanic culture, but no one stressed I or we were Germanic (more like a fish not aware of the water ;)

My grandfather stressed the use of a lower saxon (ingveaonic) dialect because of a kind of egalitarian kind of attitude (speaking Dutch= cocky) not because of a Germanic identity reason.

So that stress either Germanic or Celtic identity thing looks a modern US kind of thing....

I think you are right about that, Americans often tend to have a "Huntingtonian" way of looking at the world, with big cultural spheres "celtic" "germanic" "roman" "latino" "anglo" who are supposedly like oil and water. It became the dominant view.

rms2
06-15-2018, 11:48 AM
I think you are right about that, Americans often tend to have a "Huntingtonian" way of looking at the world, with big cultural spheres "celtic" "germanic" "roman" "latino" "anglo" who are supposedly like oil and water. It became the dominant view.

Says the European, whose continent birthed fascism, which was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and the map of which is divided into numerous small nations, each with its own ethnic and national identity, and which is home to a multitude of mutually unintelligible languages and dialects.

Oh, yeah, dividing the world into different kinds of people is a uniquely American idea.

tchekitchek
06-15-2018, 12:22 PM
Says the European, whose continent birthed fascism, which was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and the map of which is divided into numerous small nations, each with its own ethnic and national identity, and which is home to a multitude of mutually unintelligible languages and dialects.

Oh, yeah, dividing the world into different kinds of people is a uniquely American idea.
Never said Americans were the only ones, it's just an observation.

Finn
06-15-2018, 01:22 PM
Oh, wait a minute! You are the one obsessed with making Celts out of the Frisians


tchekitchek hit the nail on his head:

with big cultural spheres "celtic" "germanic" "roman" "latino" "anglo" who are supposedly like oil and water


In my general understanding of history this is indeed contrary, I consider hybrides, mixes etc more evident than clear cut cultural spheres (intern congruent so people, language even into genetics).

So indeed it's possible for me to consider that the old Frisii were seen as Germanic by the Romans (roughly said that was not ethnographic meant by the Romans but more barbaric= Celt, super barbaric is German ;) and at the same time can spoke a Celtic colored language, no oil and water to me.....

rms2
06-15-2018, 01:29 PM
Well, sorry to break the news to you, but Americans are fully aware that various peoples and cultures are not "like oil and water" and do in fact blend and mix and produce hybrids. American culture itself is such a hybrid, with multifarious elements.

It would be nice if in the future we could avoid moronic characterizations of what Americans believe.

rms2
06-15-2018, 01:33 PM
And, by the way, Finn, you seem to be the only one here obsessed with the whole Celt versus German question in your never-ending quest to make Celts out of both U106 and the Frisians.

The big mystery is why you continue to do this.