PDA

View Full Version : The Cimbri - Celtic or Germanic?



falconson1
04-21-2015, 12:14 PM
It has been years since I have considered the topic, however the thread on "The Blood of the Celts" has given me pause to reflect once again on this subject.

The Cimbri appear to have been a Celtic - speaking people settled in an enclave deep within Germania. They burst on the world's stage about 119 BC after flooding and crop failures forced almost the entire tribe to leave their northern Jutland home and set about a perambulation which would take them across almost the entire extent of the Celtic world - from the Balkans to Iberia. After destroying a number of elite Roman troops (e.g., at Orange, France), they and their Celtic tribal allies, were decimated by the Romans (as I recall) in 101 BC along the Ligurian coast. The remnants fled north, returning to their former home in what is today known as Himmerland, Jutland, Denmark.

Their story is epic, the archaeological treasures (most Celtic or Celtic - inspired) recovered from their homeland spectacular (I have seen them in the National Museum in Copenhagen), and the linguistic record (including toponyms) is decidedly Celtic. It has always surprised me that so little attention has been given to them in the literature - although given due contemporary consideration by Tacitus etc.

Years back I was convinced that the Y chromosome haplogroups of descendants from Jutland would show Celtic traces (e.g., R-U152). While the data show that the original hypothesis cannot be ruled out, it seems clear that it requires substantial modification. It is interesting to note, however, that the pattern seen in Denmark today could be explained by Bede's statement that the Angle homeland was almost completely depopulated during the time of the migrations to Britain. The present distribution of R-U152 in England is predominantly in the Angle and Danish Viking settled areas of England (and almost none at all in Ireland or the west of the UK in general).

I wrote a 96 page study of the Cimbri, and it occurs that before writing her new book on the Celts, Jean may wish to consider the controversy around the origins of the Cimbri, and the evidence that they were culturally Celtic. Here is the link to my study of many years past: http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf.

Agamemnon
04-21-2015, 12:44 PM
Well, R1b-U152 also seems to correlate with the presence of the La Tčne culture in the Isles, so there's that. Personally, I think that associating R1b-U152 with the Anglo-Saxons isn't all that parsimonious, even though it still is a possibility of course.
It's equally possible that a sizeable share of U152 in the Isles could've come with the Romans... We're in dire need of ancient DNA at this point anyway.

Reith
04-21-2015, 01:29 PM
Could be L21 that far North as well. Bell Beaker went into Jutland....

falconson1
04-21-2015, 02:21 PM
Well, R1b-U152 also seems to correlate with the presence of the La Tčne culture in the Isles, so there's that. Personally, I think that associating R1b-U152 with the Anglo-Saxons isn't all that parsimonious, even though it still is a possibility of course.
It's equally possible that a sizeable share of U152 in the Isles could've come with the Romans... We're in dire need of ancient DNA at this point anyway.

Absolutely correct Agamemnon. I know full well that no one is going to accept my original association of the Cimbri and U152 without ancient DNA - and rightly so. Alas, the soil conditions in Jutland are very acidic and with some notable exceptions, most of the finds are from bogs into which people appear to have tossed (intentionally) broken swords and even combs (in one instance they could be traced to a specific fjord in Norway). Apparently the surviving warriors were hung and alas the bone material seldom survives unless in anaerobic conditions. The famous Tollund Man who was likely a Cimbri chieftain sacrificed to encouraged the gods to look more favourably upon the people, is virtually intact but I suspect that the acidic conditions of the bog has removed any hope of recovering ancient DNA - although any surviving teeth would be a best option. It always amazed me that one of the greatest of all ancient DNA specialists, Willerslev, is Danish, but has focused his interests elsewhere (e.g., the Americas) instead of his own backyard.

About 10 years ago a study of the Cimbri people of the Tyrol region of Italy, who claim direct descent from the retreating Cimbri after the defeat of 101 BC, and the people of Himmerland was conducted. No relationship between the two "Cimbri" groups was detected - although this was before the days of the discovery of S28/U152. There is, however, a competing theory of origin of these Alpine peoples - as descendants of Bavarian zimmers (carpenters, wood workers) who arrived in the Middle Ages. Ancient DNA please.

falconson1
04-21-2015, 02:25 PM
Could be L21 that far North as well. Bell Beaker went into Jutland....

I think that L21 in the area can be explained via more recent movements - but once again, we are left to speculate until Dr. Willerslev or one of his students decides that Denmark presents an incredible tapestry upon which we can paint a detailed canvas of events that link with the astounding Bronze and Iron Age artifacts discovered in the area.

MitchellSince1893
04-21-2015, 05:40 PM
It has been years since I have considered the topic, however the thread on "The Blood of the Celts" has given me pause to reflect once again on this subject.

The Cimbri appear to have been a Celtic - speaking people settled in an enclave deep within Germania. They burst on the world's stage about 119 BC after flooding and crop failures forced almost the entire tribe to leave their northern Jutland home and set about a perambulation which would take them across almost the entire extent of the Celtic world - from the Balkans to Iberia. After destroying a number of elite Roman troops (e.g., at Orange, France), they and their Celtic tribal allies, were decimated by the Romans (as I recall) in 101 BC along the Ligurian coast. The remnants fled north, returning to their former home in what is today known as Himmerland, Jutland, Denmark.

Their story is epic, the archaeological treasures (most Celtic or Celtic - inspired) recovered from their homeland spectacular (I have seen them in the National Museum in Copenhagen), and the linguistic record (including toponyms) is decidedly Celtic. It has always surprised me that so little attention has been given to them in the literature - although given due contemporary consideration by Tacitus etc.

Years back I was convinced that the Y chromosome haplogroups of descendants from Jutland would show Celtic traces (e.g., R-U152). While the data show that the original hypothesis cannot be ruled out, it seems clear that it requires substantial modification. It is interesting to note, however, that the pattern seen in Denmark today could be explained by Bede's statement that the Angle homeland was almost completely depopulated during the time of the migrations to Britain. The present distribution of R-U152 in England is predominantly in the Angle and Danish Viking settled areas of England (and almost none at all in Ireland or the west of the UK in general).

I wrote a 96 page study of the Cimbri, and it occurs that before writing her new book on the Celts, Jean may wish to consider the controversy around the origins of the Cimbri, and the evidence that they were culturally Celtic. Here is the link to my study of many years past: http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf.

If the Angles had significant amounts of U152 and the reason there isn't much U152 in Jutland today is because most the Angles left, one would also have to assume that the Saxons were genetically different, y-dna wise, from the Angles; because we know many/most Saxons stayed behind in Old Saxony for centuries after the Anglo-Saxons invasion of Britain.

Charlemagne battled the Saxon tribes in the 800s. Yet percentage wise there is not a lot of U152 in the Old Saxon areas.

vettor
04-21-2015, 06:41 PM
I once dated a cimbrian girl from Veneto ( surname Cester, typical veneto low alpine er ending for surname) and her parents and grand parents stated the cimbrians where bavarian people from the south side of the danube river.

below is a map from 2013 IIRC showing the last isolated cimbrian dialect in italy.........check out near Trento, the brown patches

http://digidownload.libero.it/alpdn/Mappe/LinguePadanesi.png

BTW, the map is only about different dialects/languages for north-italy and its neighbours

rms2
04-21-2015, 07:13 PM
Well, R1b-U152 also seems to correlate with the presence of the La Tčne culture in the Isles, so there's that. Personally, I think that associating R1b-U152 with the Anglo-Saxons isn't all that parsimonious, even though it still is a possibility of course.
It's equally possible that a sizeable share of U152 in the Isles could've come with the Romans... We're in dire need of ancient DNA at this point anyway.

It seems to me U152 in Britain is more likely to have come first with the Belgae and then received a reinforcing shot with the Romans than it is to have had anything to do with the Angles or the Cimbri. It would be interesting to hear Rich Rocca's take on all this, however, since he is far more conversant with the latest U152 subclade developments than I am.

In Britain, U152 is most frequent in what is now SE England, at least according to Busby, but it isn't nearly as frequent in Busby's Leeds sample location, which I believe would have been within the old kingdom of Northumbria, which was an Anglian kingdom.

Still, as you said, ancient y-dna is what is needed. All these arguments from modern haplogroup distributions are so seven years ago.

Peccavi
04-21-2015, 07:35 PM
No - Leeds was in the centre of the British Kingdom of Elmet until eliminated by the Anglian Northumberians (about 603AD if my memory is correct). The latest genetic data tends to confirm That West Yorkshire is quite distinct from the majority of England.

I believe you will find there was little Anglian immigration.

falconson1
04-21-2015, 08:34 PM
If the Angles had significant amounts of U152 and the reason there isn't much U152 in Jutland today is because most the Angles left, one would also have to assume that the Saxons were genetically different, y-dna wise, from the Angles; because we know many/most Saxons stayed behind in Old Saxony for centuries after the Anglo-Saxons invasion of Britain.

Charlemagne battled the Saxon tribes in the 800s. Yet percentage wise there is not a lot of U152 in the Old Saxon areas.

Indeed, I would predict that ancient DNA will show the Saxons to have been largely I1a and R-U106/S21 (as is the case there today). U152 is largely found in the area south of Frankfurt to the Alps, and deep into the Italian Peninsula. Thus the Cimbri, whose artifact assemblage strongly suggests Celtic, were likely an enclave containing whatever Celtic haplotypes were common in say the area around Lake Constance (where they found their most staunchest allies). Indeed, U152 would have been likely but one of a number of key haplogroups. I am hoping that Jean addresses the probable Y haplogroups of the core Hallstatt and LaTene areas - which would in turn provide a hint as to what one might expect in Iron Age Himmerland, Denmark.

falconson1
04-21-2015, 08:37 PM
No - Leeds was in the centre of the British Kingdom of Elmet until eliminated by the Anglian Northumberians (about 603AD if my memory is correct). The latest genetic data tends to confirm That West Yorkshire is quite distinct from the majority of England.

I believe you will find there was little Anglian immigration.

Yes Elmet in West Yorkshire appears (from all available sources) to have been a Brythonic enclave which somehow managed to keep the marauding Angles and Saxons from overrunning their homeland. Thus finding low levels of haplogroups such as U152 is precisely what would be expected considering that the latter hugged the eastern coastal areas.

Webb
04-21-2015, 08:42 PM
I personally feel if P312 made it as far north as Scandinavia to birth L238, then certainly it would be expected to find P312 in amongs Danes, Jutes, Angles, Frisians, and Saxons. I really believe that the German migrations brough P312 back into areas that it was already present. The only way to distinguish would be ADna and specific downstream clades of larger P312 clades that seem specifically extreme northern European.

falconson1
04-21-2015, 08:44 PM
My fascination with the Cimbri began with the knowledge that this people buried what must have been likely their most prized treasures (including the Tollund Man?), probably to appease the gods and keep the floods at bay. The most impressive artifact of all is entirely Celtic in iconography, but was likely made in the Balkans (Illyrium included an eastern Celtic people who apparently migrated from Gaul - eventually reaching central Anatolia).

Here is an overview of the Gundestrup Cauldron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundestrup_cauldron. The sheer beauty of the object, and the hints as to the cultural practices of the people who made or possessed it, make it an object of wonder. Seeing it up close gave me an attack of the vapours. Fortunately my wife who is a nurse of Southern Appalachian ancestry, was there to revive me :-)

Jean M
04-21-2015, 10:12 PM
it occurs that before writing her new book on the Celts, Jean may wish to consider the controversy around the origins of the Cimbri.

Before writing it? The book was written last year. :) There have been changes to text during the process of knocking it into shape for publication. I have been squeezing in the latest papers until the last minute. But I am now in the final round of proof-reading. It will be handed over to production shortly.

MitchellSince1893
04-21-2015, 11:07 PM
Indeed, I would predict that ancient DNA will show the Saxons to have been largely I1a and R-U106/S21 (as is the case there today). U152 is largely found in the area south of Frankfurt to the Alps, and deep into the Italian Peninsula. Thus the Cimbri, whose artifact assemblage strongly suggests Celtic, were likely an enclave containing whatever Celtic haplotypes were common in say the area around Lake Constance (where they found their most staunchest allies). Indeed, U152 would have been likely but one of a number of key haplogroups. I am hoping that Jean addresses the probable Y haplogroups of the core Hallstatt and LaTene areas - which would in turn provide a hint as to what one might expect in Iron Age Himmerland, Denmark.
If the Angles were predominately U152/S28 with little U106/S21, then one would have to explain how so much U106 got into the Angle occupied areas of Britain.
If one assumes the Angles and Saxons were both predominantly U106 then the distribution of U106 in Britain is much easier to understand.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif
http://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Britain-8001.gif

MitchellSince1893
04-21-2015, 11:34 PM
It seems to me U152 in Britain is more likely to have come first with the Belgae and then received a reinforcing shot with the Romans than it is to have had anything to do with the Angles or the Cimbri. It would be interesting to hear Rich Rocca's take on all this, however, since he is far more conversant with the latest U152 subclade developments than I am.

In Britain, U152 is most frequent in what is now SE England, at least according to Busby, but it isn't nearly as frequent in Busby's Leeds sample location, which I believe would have been within the old kingdom of Northumbria, which was an Anglian kingdom.

Still, as you said, ancient y-dna is what is needed. All these arguments from modern haplogroup distributions are so seven years ago.
Could you clarify the time frame when you say the Belgae arrived in Britain?

I ask because I recently learned some sources refer to the "first Belgic invasion" and the "Second Belgic invasion" of Britain. These sources equate the first one to La Tene's arrival in Britain and the 2nd refers to their arrival around the 100BC to 75BC time frame.

Prior to learning this I assumed everyone was referring to the more recent time frame and thus all my previous posts on the Belgae were based on this later arrival. I've always referred to the "first Belgic invasion" as La Tene.

Just want to make sure we all singing from the same sheet of music.

rms2
04-22-2015, 12:11 AM
No - Leeds was in the centre of the British Kingdom of Elmet until eliminated by the Anglian Northumberians (about 603AD if my memory is correct). The latest genetic data tends to confirm That West Yorkshire is quite distinct from the majority of England.

I believe you will find there was little Anglian immigration.

Well, all of what is now England belonged to the Britons before being taken over by the Anglo-Saxons. I believe if you look at the map of old Northumbria, you will find that Leeds was eventually in Northumbria. Its status as part of Elmet prior to becoming part of Northumbria is irrelevant to that fact.

Honestly, I don't know how much Anglian immigration there was to the area of Leeds, but it was in Northumbria, and that was an Anglian kingdom, and the people there did come to speak English. The autosomal distinction of the modern people of that area is not really the topic at issue in this case. The idea being proposed was that U152 in England should be associated with Angles. Its relatively high frequency in SE England was suggested as some evidence of that. However, since Northumbria was an Anglian kingdom, one would expect, if U152 is really connected to the Angles, an elevated U152 frequency there, as well. Since that is not the case, perhaps the U152=Angles hypothesis is incorrect.

rms2
04-22-2015, 12:12 AM
Could you clarify the time frame when you say the Belgae arrived in Britain?

I ask because I recently learned some sources refer to the "first Belgic invasion" and the "Second Belgic invasion" of Britain. These sources equate the first one to La Tene's arrival in Britain and the 2nd refers to their arrival around the 100BC to 75BC time frame.

Prior to learning this I assumed everyone was referring to the more recent time frame and thus all my previous posts on the Belgae were based on this later arrival. I've always referred to the "first Belgic invasion" as La Tene.

Just want to make sure we all singing from the same sheet of music.

I had the later arrival in mind.

falconson1
04-22-2015, 02:10 AM
Before writing it? The book was written last year. :) There have been changes to text during the process of knocking it into shape for publication. I have been squeezing in the latest papers until the last minute. But I am now in the final round of proof-reading. It will be handed over to production shortly.

Surely this could amount to a "hold the presses" situation. I mean we are talking about the Cimbri here :-)

falconson1
04-22-2015, 02:22 AM
Well, all of what is now England belonged to the Britons before being taken over by the Anglo-Saxons. I believe if you look at the map of old Northumbria, you will find that Leeds was eventually in Northumbria. Its status as part of Elmet prior to becoming part of Northumbria is irrelevant to that fact.

Honestly, I don't know how much Anglian immigration there was to the area of Leeds, but it was in Northumbria, and that was an Anglian kingdom, and the people there did come to speak English. The autosomal distinction of the modern people of that area is not really the topic at issue in this case. The idea being proposed was that U152 in England should be associated with Angles. Its relatively high frequency in SE England was suggested as some evidence of that. However, since Northumbria was an Anglian kingdom, one would expect, if U152 is really connected to the Angles, an elevated U152 frequency there, as well. Since that is not the case, perhaps the U152=Angles hypothesis is incorrect.

As I recall, and I don't have the most current maps at my disposal (am bouncing between homes), U152 is elevated all along the eastern coast even into Scotland. I recall that Dr. Jim Wilson called S28/U152 an "east coast haplogroup". If Northumberland is a little low in the U152 department, it is entirely possible that migrations were family and village events (as indicated by the historical and archaeological sources) and that U152 would have been a very significant part of those who became East Angles, and tapering off in the northern Angle sectors. We don't know key data. Was U152 higher in say the Arhus area and U106/S21 common further south in Schleiswig? Present day distribution may be deceptive if the area was largely depopulated. I hope to hang around long enough to see European maps of Iron Age YDNA maps. If I am very lucky, perhaps I will learn how my L20 ended up in East Anglia (perhaps by network analysis if sample sizes increase by a factor of 10).

Jean M
04-22-2015, 02:45 AM
Surely this could amount to a "hold the presses" situation. I mean we are talking about the Cimbri here :-)

We seem to have a philosophical difference here. You feel that it is an urgent necessity for me to deliver a critique of an online essay that you haven't thought about in years, while I feel that it is an urgent necessity for me to collapse in a heap and catch up on my sleep, after many months of solid slog. :biggrin1:

falconson1
04-22-2015, 03:20 AM
We seem to have a philosophical difference here. You feel that it is an urgent necessity for me to deliver a critique of an online essay that you haven't thought about in years, while I feel that it is an urgent necessity for me to collapse in a heap and catch up on my sleep, after many months of solid slog. :biggrin1:

Ok Jean, you have uncovered one of my few and fleeting flaws - a wee bit of procrastination. You are absolutely correct, I had not thought of this subject since my return from Scandinavia 4 years ago - and have not written a word about the topic since the date on my manuscript.

To be fair to myself, I only joined this forum a week ago and did not know of your books (I thoroughly enjoyed your earlier book which I ordered the day I joined the forum, and which arrived a few days ago). Realistically all I can do is advocate for this fascinating Iron Age tribe, trusting that they be given due consideration in your update to "Ancestral Journeys".

vettor
04-22-2015, 06:43 AM
Indeed, I would predict that ancient DNA will show the Saxons to have been largely I1a and R-U106/S21 (as is the case there today). U152 is largely found in the area south of Frankfurt to the Alps, and deep into the Italian Peninsula. Thus the Cimbri, whose artifact assemblage strongly suggests Celtic, were likely an enclave containing whatever Celtic haplotypes were common in say the area around Lake Constance (where they found their most staunchest allies). Indeed, U152 would have been likely but one of a number of key haplogroups. I am hoping that Jean addresses the probable Y haplogroups of the core Hallstatt and LaTene areas - which would in turn provide a hint as to what one might expect in Iron Age Himmerland, Denmark.

Lake Constance has many names for many periods of time and also named differently between the upper lake and the lower lake.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/venetus_zpsgwdtehli.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/venetus_zpsgwdtehli.jpg.html)

We assume with great correctness that the vindelici tribe where celts because they created La Tene , but lacus Venetus ( lower lake ) was always under Rhaetian control


Mela, Livy, Strabo, Pliny and a few other Roman historians all had different versions of the area and its people

rms2
04-22-2015, 11:18 AM
As I recall, and I don't have the most current maps at my disposal (am bouncing between homes), U152 is elevated all along the eastern coast even into Scotland. I recall that Dr. Jim Wilson called S28/U152 an "east coast haplogroup". If Northumberland is a little low in the U152 department, it is entirely possible that migrations were family and village events (as indicated by the historical and archaeological sources) and that U152 would have been a very significant part of those who became East Angles, and tapering off in the northern Angle sectors. We don't know key data. Was U152 higher in say the Arhus area and U106/S21 common further south in Schleiswig? Present day distribution may be deceptive if the area was largely depopulated. I hope to hang around long enough to see European maps of Iron Age YDNA maps. If I am very lucky, perhaps I will learn how my L20 ended up in East Anglia (perhaps by network analysis if sample sizes increase by a factor of 10).

All of Busby's sample locations in England are in the east except the one in Exeter. U152 reaches its English maximum in the England SE sample, where it was 15.4% (and U106=27%, P312xL21,U152=21.2%). A little farther north, in the east England sample, U152=8.1%. In Busby's Central England sample, U152=9.7%. A little farther west, in the England Central sample borrowed from Myres, U152=0%. The Exeter sample from SW England showed U152=8.3%. At the sample location in Leeds, U152=6.4%. Busby's NE Scotland location showed U152 at 4.5%. Its Orkney location showed U152 at 3.6%, and its NW Scotland location showed U152 at 0%.

Of course, all that is modern stuff and doesn't really tell the story conclusively.

Denmark is pretty low in U152: 2% in the southeast and 4.8% in the north. But you're arguing from Bede that that is to be expected because the Angles pulled out lock, stock, and barrel. Maybe.

I just think it makes more sense that the Angles were probably not much on the U152 side but were more typically Scandinavian, probably largely I-M253 and R1b-U106. I would look for the source of the U152 in what is now England in areas that have more U152 in them than England has and that we know contributed people to the English mix. For example, we know the Belgae settled in what is now England beginning in the 2nd century BC. There were Belgic tribes in what is now SE and SW England; the latter would explain the relatively high level of U152 in Busby's Exeter sample, which would be hard to attribute to Angles. We also know the Romans conquered what is now England, and their settlements were thickest where U152 is also thickest.

It is remotely possible that the Cimbri were largely U152 and that the Angles were descendants of theirs who became Germanized before taking part in the movement to Britain in the immediate post-Roman period. But that seems a stretch to me with nothing really to commend it, especially when there were known movements of population to what is now England from places that are much more plentiful in U152 than the old home of the Angles was ever likely to have been.

But who knows? Anything is possible. Maybe some ancient y-dna will turn up and prove you right. Stranger things have happened.

falconson1
04-22-2015, 12:34 PM
But who knows? Anything is possible. Maybe some ancient y-dna will turn up and prove you right. Stranger things have happened.

Indeed. I can continue to make various arguments that may have some pretty good face validity, but am well aware that it is just words and that the simplistic association of Central European Celtic = U152 may be shown to be completely off the wall inaccurate when we have ancient DNA to offer us the clarity we need. I am still predicting, however, that the Hochdorf Prince will test U152, and that we will find Celtic / U152 enclaves in predicted (e.g., associated with the Baltic amber trade along the northeastern shores of Jutland) and unpredicted / surprise regions. What most of us want is simply the truth, and we can only hope that population geneticists put as much effort into studying Iron Age remains as they have in studying Neanderthal samples.

falconson1
04-22-2015, 01:34 PM
Lake Constance has many names for many periods of time and also named differently between the upper lake and the lower lake.

It makes sense that the people of Lake Constance and surrounds are descendants of the Lake Dweller tradition that involved Alpine areas of Italy, Germany, and of course Switzerland. What was their relationship to the La Tene people, or the various tribes who lived in the Lago Como region at the time of Livy's history of the region? I tried to tie together all the streams of evidence available circa 2005, and somewhere have the pdf I wrote on the subject. Hopefully it will surface and was not a casualty of one of the various computer crashes experienced of late. It all became more meaningful or 3 dimensional when I visited one of the recreated Lake Dweller sites in Switzerland some years back - purchasing two replica pendants, copies of those found at that particular site. It is only through visiting open air museums such as this and the complex at Heunenberg that one gets a robust understanding on the rich cultural heritage of Europe (primed by reading every book available on the subject). I had exactly the same experience (enthusiastic wonder) in visiting Kyongju in Korea, touring the burial mounds of the Korean monarchs, and seeing the Buddhist Temple built on the legendary site of the origin of the first Kim (my first grandchild's paternal lineage). There is a world beyond the Cimbri :-)

R.Rocca
04-22-2015, 02:21 PM
It is remotely possible that the Cimbri were largely U152 and that the Angles were descendants of theirs who became Germanized before taking part in the movement to Britain in the immediate post-Roman period. But that seems a stretch to me with nothing really to commend it, especially when there were known movements of population to what is now England from places that are much more plentiful in U152 than the old home of the Angles was ever likely to have been.

I agree, there is no data that points to this being a realistic scenario.

Peccavi
04-22-2015, 02:30 PM
Well, all of what is now England belonged to the Britons before being taken over by the Anglo-Saxons. I believe if you look at the map of old Northumbria, you will find that Leeds was eventually in Northumbria. Its status as part of Elmet prior to becoming part of Northumbria is irrelevant to that fact.

Honestly, I don't know how much Anglian immigration there was to the area of Leeds, but it was in Northumbria, and that was an Anglian kingdom, and the people there did come to speak English. The autosomal distinction of the modern people of that area is not really the topic at issue in this case. The idea being proposed was that U152 in England should be associated with Angles. Its relatively high frequency in SE England was suggested as some evidence of that. However, since Northumbria was an Anglian kingdom, one would expect, if U152 is really connected to the Angles, an elevated U152 frequency there, as well. Since that is not the case, perhaps the U152=Angles hypothesis is incorrect.

Afraid you are quite wrong.

If you know anything about the area you will realise that Elmet had quite a long history for a British Kingdom in England. In the latter stages it was squeezed by Mercia from the South and Northumberia from the East and North. The excuse for the Northumberian invasion being that it was harbouring a pretender to the Northumbrian throne. Whilst the elite would have been replaced - the royal family fled - the area is mostly Pennine, hilly, poor soil and rather unattractive if you are an Anglian farmer from the Vale of York. If you need more convincing, I would be happy to provide more explanation. But it would not surprise me that the current population has a low percentage of Anglo-Saxon genes (please excuse the my complete lack of knowledge of genetics - I am stronger on history).

rms2
04-22-2015, 03:32 PM
I was wrong about Leeds being in what became Northumbria? I was right.

You can argue that the Angles did not go there, and the population in the area of Leeds remained virtually unchanged after it became part of the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria. I don't really believe that; after all, U106 from Busby's Leeds sample location was 21.3%, and it got there somehow.

vettor
04-22-2015, 06:43 PM
It makes sense that the people of Lake Constance and surrounds are descendants of the Lake Dweller tradition that involved Alpine areas of Italy, Germany, and of course Switzerland. What was their relationship to the La Tene people, or the various tribes who lived in the Lago Como region at the time of Livy's history of the region? I tried to tie together all the streams of evidence available circa 2005, and somewhere have the pdf I wrote on the subject. Hopefully it will surface and was not a casualty of one of the various computer crashes experienced of late. It all became more meaningful or 3 dimensional when I visited one of the recreated Lake Dweller sites in Switzerland some years back - purchasing two replica pendants, copies of those found at that particular site. It is only through visiting open air museums such as this and the complex at Heunenberg that one gets a robust understanding on the rich cultural heritage of Europe (primed by reading every book available on the subject). I had exactly the same experience (enthusiastic wonder) in visiting Kyongju in Korea, touring the burial mounds of the Korean monarchs, and seeing the Buddhist Temple built on the legendary site of the origin of the first Kim (my first grandchild's paternal lineage). There is a world beyond the Cimbri :-)

Thanks

To finalise this...........there are many many people who assume a celtic origin for a place becuase of its name, an example, Augsburg
The city was founded in 15 BC by Drusus and Tiberius as Augusta Vindelicorum (Latin pronunciation: [awˈɡuːsta wɪndɛlɪˈkoːrʊ̃] English pronunciation of Latin: /aʊˈɡuːstə vɪnˈdɛlɪˌkoʊrəm/[4]), on the orders of their stepfather Emperor Augustus. The name means "Augusta of the Vindelici". This garrison camp soon became the capital of the Roman province of Raetia.

Early development was due to a 400-year affiliation with the Roman Empire, especially because of its excellent military, economic and geographic position at the convergence of the Alpine rivers Lech and Wertach, and with direct access to most important Alpine passes

we clearly have a celtic name for a town, where no town existed prior to Romans arriving ..........but given a "celtic" name by the Romans, but is it celtic or just Roman in origin. The year of 15BC was the time when Rome conquered the 45 tribes of the alpine areas.

The other issues are the Roman system of adding tribes/people of the same ethnic origin within a designated Roman named province ( Regio )

An example, of Regio .........where Romans placed the same people in the same area for administration and "punishment" issues against Rome

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/ItaliaAlTempoDiAugusto_%28expo_-25_contrasto_25%29.jpg

The Vindelici and Rhaetia where joined under Raetia regio ..................!

falconson1
04-22-2015, 07:34 PM
I agree, there is no data that points to this being a realistic scenario.

I wouldn't be quite so hasty and adamant. Actually the U152 that does appear in Denmark is mostly in Northern Jutland and Funnen, the specific territory of the Cimbri in ancient times. The archaeological evidence shows that there were many battles in the area up to circa 400 AD by which time the Angles and Jutes had largely left for greener pastures in Britain. These conflicts must have been very intense and likely resulted not only in the apparent destruction of the invading Scandinavians and Slavs, but also probably took its toll in the numbers of warriors able to fend off further attacks. A scenario repeating that of 119 BC where almost the entire tribe, men, women and children, left Jutland to seek a new home is precisely what seems to have happened 500 years later - history repeating itself except that this time the "target" was the UK, not aimlessly wandering across Continental Europe. It is a viable hypothesis, and must be left as such, one of perhaps many, until more data can shoot it out of the water or provide some substantial support. There were dozens of other fascinating tribes in the area at the time (e.g., Eudoses) - what ever happened to them - absorbed into greater Denmark by King Gorm? Everything is on the table right now, we know by for example contemporary pottery and female broaches that in all likelihood the same person (or group of artisans) made these items in both Denmark and East Anglia, but we have only speculation as the the YDNA signatures of the migrants and even that of the "home stock". Time will tell, but an open mind is critical until such time. I already have a lot of egg over my face for insisting many many years ago, that R1b was ensconced in the Franco - Iberian Refugium at the end of the Paleolithic. Clearly I (and many others) were wrong, but it is only subsequent evidence including ancient DNA which has washed away any trace of this abandoned theory. Maybe I will be wrong about the origin of U152 in the UK, but no one at this time has the evidence to be in a position to convincingly refute the hypothesis re U152. If I am wrong, I will be the first to acknowledge it.

moesan
04-22-2015, 07:35 PM
Y-RU152 is not completely absent in Wales and more importantly is common enough in East Scotland too, in lands supposed to have receiced some alpine celtic tribes, (I 'm not sure but maybe at Urnfield times) before the name of Pict came in the wind - by the way, the Belgae were supposed by some scholars as coming first from Bohemia and close Bavaria, they were not the first Celts in N-W Europe where some celtic R-L21/S145 could have preceded them -

R.Rocca
04-22-2015, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't be quite so hasty and adamant. Actually the U152 that does appear in Denmark is mostly in Northern Jutland and Funnen, the specific territory of the Cimbri in ancient times. The archaeological evidence shows that there were many battles in the area up to circa 400 AD by which time the Angles and Jutes had largely left for greener pastures in Britain. These conflicts must have been very intense and likely resulted not only in the apparent destruction of the invading Scandinavians and Slavs, but also probably took its toll in the numbers of warriors able to fend off further attacks. A scenario repeating that of 119 BC where almost the entire tribe, men, women and children, left Jutland to seek a new home is precisely what seems to have happened 500 years later - history repeating itself except that this time the "target" was the UK, not aimlessly wandering across Continental Europe. It is a viable hypothesis, and must be left as such, one of perhaps many, until more data can shoot it out of the water or provide some substantial support. There were dozens of other fascinating tribes in the area at the time (e.g., Eudoses) - what ever happened to them - absorbed into greater Denmark by King Gorm? Everything is on the table right now, we know by for example contemporary pottery and female broaches that in all likelihood the same person (or group of artisans) made these items in both Denmark and East Anglia, but we have only speculation as the the YDNA signatures of the migrants and even that of the "home stock". Time will tell, but an open mind is critical until such time. I already have a lot of egg over my face for insisting many many years ago, that R1b was ensconced in the Franco - Iberian Refugium at the end of the Paleolithic. Clearly I (and many others) were wrong, but it is only subsequent evidence including ancient DNA which has washed away any trace of this abandoned theory. Maybe I will be wrong about the origin of U152 in the UK, but no one at this time has the evidence to be in a position to convincingly refute the hypothesis re U152. If I am wrong, I will be the first to acknowledge it.

I don't think I did said anything adamantly...and I certainly stand by my statement...there is nothing in the genetic data we have today (U152 frequency, phylogeny nor ancient DNA) that supports a heavy U152 scenario as something realistic.

avalon
04-22-2015, 08:23 PM
No - Leeds was in the centre of the British Kingdom of Elmet until eliminated by the Anglian Northumberians (about 603AD if my memory is correct). The latest genetic data tends to confirm That West Yorkshire is quite distinct from the majority of England.

I believe you will find there was little Anglian immigration.

If you are referring to the recent POBI project then West Yorkshire did form its own autosomal cluster but you will see from the branch lines in the top right corner of the map that the blue triangles of West Yorkshire are very closely related to the main red English cluster. The difference between them is very small.

4413

It may be that this difference is due to a British holdout in Elmet but that was 1400 years ago and in the intervening time there has undoubtedly been more mixing of people in this area. Authun made the point that the Norse Vikings also had an impact from the Irish Sea through Lancashire to the Pennines so they may also have had an impact on the blue triangles of West Yorkshire.

falconson1
04-23-2015, 12:42 AM
I don't think I did said anything adamantly...and I certainly stand by my statement...there is nothing in the genetic data we have today (U152 frequency, phylogeny nor ancient DNA) that supports a heavy U152 scenario as something realistic.

Is there any ancient DNA study which reported U152 - anywhere in the world? If so I must have been residing on another planet (well LA is a world unto itself).

R.Rocca
04-23-2015, 02:39 PM
Is there any ancient DNA study which reported U152 - anywhere in the world? If so I must have been residing on another planet (well LA is a world unto itself).

Of course not.

vettor
04-23-2015, 07:41 PM
I wouldn't be quite so hasty and adamant. Actually the U152 that does appear in Denmark is mostly in Northern Jutland and Funnen, the specific territory of the Cimbri in ancient times. The archaeological evidence shows that there were many battles in the area up to circa 400 AD by which time the Angles and Jutes had largely left for greener pastures in Britain. These conflicts must have been very intense and likely resulted not only in the apparent destruction of the invading Scandinavians and Slavs, but also probably took its toll in the numbers of warriors able to fend off further attacks. A scenario repeating that of 119 BC where almost the entire tribe, men, women and children, left Jutland to seek a new home is precisely what seems to have happened 500 years later - history repeating itself except that this time the "target" was the UK, not aimlessly wandering across Continental Europe. It is a viable hypothesis, and must be left as such, one of perhaps many, until more data can shoot it out of the water or provide some substantial support. There were dozens of other fascinating tribes in the area at the time (e.g., Eudoses) - what ever happened to them - absorbed into greater Denmark by King Gorm? Everything is on the table right now, we know by for example contemporary pottery and female broaches that in all likelihood the same person (or group of artisans) made these items in both Denmark and East Anglia, but we have only speculation as the the YDNA signatures of the migrants and even that of the "home stock". Time will tell, but an open mind is critical until such time. I already have a lot of egg over my face for insisting many many years ago, that R1b was ensconced in the Franco - Iberian Refugium at the end of the Paleolithic. Clearly I (and many others) were wrong, but it is only subsequent evidence including ancient DNA which has washed away any trace of this abandoned theory. Maybe I will be wrong about the origin of U152 in the UK, but no one at this time has the evidence to be in a position to convincingly refute the hypothesis re U152. If I am wrong, I will be the first to acknowledge it.

IMO, the only logical place for the origin of U152 is along the middle or upper Rhine river areas. Areas from Baden-Baden to Alsace. I cannot see anywhere east of this or anywhere near the Danube river. Rivers where the highways of the ancients and the Danube and Rhine never met until modern times

falconson1
04-23-2015, 08:27 PM
IMO, the only logical place for the origin of U152 is along the middle or upper Rhine river areas. Areas from Baden-Baden to Alsace. I cannot see anywhere east of this or anywhere near the Danube river. Rivers where the highways of the ancients and the Danube and Rhine never met until modern times

I don't for a nanosecond suggest that U152 originated among the Germanics along the Baltic Sea. The Cimbri and their allies the Teutons etc. are likely Celtic tribes which like others are merely outliers or enclaves that capitalized on the amber trade with Rome.

The origin of U152 is, in my estimation, after studying it for many years (my company came up with the marker - S28, later called U152 due to a publication later in a forensic Croatian journal), in the Rhineland area. However in exploring my own variant, S144/L20, it seems that this coincides nicely with Livy's description of a group of Gauls (Celts) who expanded from the Bourges area of France in two directions, towards the Hycenium Forest and the Po Valley perhaps 600 BC. Some appear to later have radiated from Bourges to Brittany. It is the group from the Hycenium Forest region (not far from Frankfurt, extending east - west) who probably brought the marker north as far as Denmark, and areas of Norway and Sweden immediately to the north - all in the search for amber. Still, this is all on shaky ground and will be until we have hundreds of European ancient DNA samples from Iberia to the Balkans. It is a tentative, relatively weak hypothesis, but you have to start somewhere in theory building. For the moment, the historical, archaeological and even linguistic evidence is far more interesting when attempting to understand the uniqueness of the Cimbri.

Kopfjäger
04-23-2015, 08:55 PM
Actually the U152 that does appear in Denmark is mostly in Northern Jutland and Funnen,

Rather than attributable to the Cimbri, the presence of U152 (and other subclades of P312) in Northern Denmark may be a relic of the Bell Beakers. In fact, Northern Jutland, in contrast to other areas of Denmark, is known for flint materials manufactured by the Bell Beaker culture, and this is further corroborated by P312 and subclades reaching a maximum in the Vendyssel-Aalborg-Limfjord area.

GoldenHind
04-23-2015, 11:11 PM
Rather than attributable to the Cimbri, the presence of U152 (and other subclades of P312) in Northern Denmark may be a relic of the Bell Beakers. In fact, Northern Jutland, in contrast to other areas of Denmark, is known for flint materials manufactured by the Bell Beaker culture, and this is further corroborated by P312 and subclades reaching a maximum in the Vendyssel-Aalborg-Limfjord area.

Although we are sorely in need of a good survey of Ydna in Denmark, my recollection of the data we do have is that both U106 and P312 reach their highest amounts in Denmark in north Jutland.

TigerMW
04-24-2015, 02:07 AM
I did not see the final paper/article but the most comprehensive view I know of Nordic R1b is from the Old Norway project.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Nordic-Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map_by_2011.jpg

It looks like U106 is heaviest in the Northern Jutland versus the Scandinavian Peninsula. The same would go for U152 but U106 is dominant in the Northern Jutland.

Other than the Northern Jutland and Skaraborg, U152 hardly exists in the Nordic region.

As long as you include L21, P312 is strongest in Norway, inland or on the coasts, but has a nice showing in Sweden too.

You can see why I think P312 (encompassing L21 and U152) must have been in the Nordic Countries early. There are a lot of them there!

Neither P312 nor U106 is uniformly penetrating across the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312 is more dominant on the western side of the Scandinavian Peninsula and P312 is weakest in the Denmark, if you assume U152 was johnny-come-lately to Denmark, which would make sense if it drove northward to the Lower Rhine. The converse is that U106 was johnny-come-lately to the Scandinavian Peninsula, particularly as you move west.

falconson1
04-24-2015, 01:32 PM
I did not see the final paper/article but the most comprehensive view I know of Nordic R1b is from the Old Norway project.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Nordic-Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map_by_2011.jpg

It looks like U106 is heaviest in the Northern Jutland versus the Scandinavian Peninsula. The same would go for U152 but U106 is dominant in the Northern Jutland.

Other than the Northern Jutland and Skaraborg, U152 hardly exists in the Nordic region.

As long as you include L21, P312 is strongest in Norway, inland or on the coasts, but has a nice showing in Sweden too.

You can see why I think P312 (encompassing L21 and U152) must have been in the Nordic Countries early. There are a lot of them there!

Neither P312 nor U106 is uniformly penetrating across the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312 is more dominant on the western side of the Scandinavian Peninsula and P312 is weakest in the Denmark, if you assume U152 was johnny-come-lately to Denmark, which would make sense if it drove northward to the Lower Rhine. The converse is that U106 was johnny-come-lately to the Scandinavian Peninsula, particularly as you move west.

Your argument seems cogent and in line with available evidence.

The one large question mark that has as yet not received much if any consideration is, "what happened to the large number of Irish and Western UK slaves sold at the Dublin markets?" Without a doubt most of these unfortunates would have been L21 (based on the distributions of today's haplogroups in the region). We have ample evidence that in relation to Iceland, about 20% of the Y chromosomes are from Irish sources, and 80% of the mtDNA lineages are also Irish Sea. Without a doubt many males and females from the Irish Sea were taken back to Norway, and their destination would have been the homes of their captors (or purchasers). Does this explain the distribution of L21 seen in Scandinavia without proposing any earlier migration? I really don't know, but the question must be asked.

I think much the same of the Italians taking whole Gaulish Celtic tribes into captivity (e.g., so that Caesar could pay his debts), and many probably landed in the Italian Peninsula. Hence how many U152 there are descendants of say Urnfield peoples who migrated there directly, and how many are descendants of the slave population largely obtained from Gaul?

R.Rocca
04-24-2015, 01:44 PM
Rather than attributable to the Cimbri, the presence of U152 (and other subclades of P312) in Northern Denmark may be a relic of the Bell Beakers. In fact, Northern Jutland, in contrast to other areas of Denmark, is known for flint materials manufactured by the Bell Beaker culture, and this is further corroborated by P312 and subclades reaching a maximum in the Vendyssel-Aalborg-Limfjord area.

See page 205 for a map of Bell Beaker materials in Denmark:

https://www.academia.edu/1368836/History_in_prehistory_the_later_Neolithic_Early_Me tal_Age_Norway

...and pages 29 and 30 here:

http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/23

We know the most frequent R1b clades in modern Denmark are U106, L21, P312(xL21,U152) and finally U152. Until we get ancient DNA, I'd agree with you and would be reluctant to exclude any of these subclades from Bell Beaker consideration.

TigerMW
04-24-2015, 01:48 PM
This has been hashed over quite a bit so you might want to look through some old threads.

Undoubtedly some Y haplogroups in Scandinavia are the result of Vikings bringing back people, but I also doubt if there was anywhere near the majority as far as P312 or L21. You noted that a lot of trade was women, anyway, and these subclades fared quite well, so they were not necessarily and underclass.

The biggest test I can see is the ratio of M222 in the L21. It is lower in Scandinavia than in Ireland so we do see the mix is different.

There is also long history of trade across the North Sea so movement back and forth would have happened before the Viking period and after.

Your argument seems cogent and in line with available evidence.

The one large question mark that has as yet not received much if any consideration is, "what happened to the large number of Irish and Western UK slaves sold at the Dublin markets?" Without a doubt most of these unfortunates would have been L21 (based on the distributions of today's haplogroups in the region). We have ample evidence that in relation to Iceland, about 20% of the Y chromosomes are from Irish sources, and 80% of the mtDNA lineages are also Irish Sea. Without a doubt many males and females from the Irish Sea were taken back to Norway, and their destination would have been the homes of their captors (or purchasers). Does this explain the distribution of L21 seen in Scandinavia without proposing any earlier migration? I really don't know, but the question must be asked.

I think much the same of the Italians taking whole Gaulish Celtic tribes into captivity (e.g., so that Caesar could pay his debts), and many probably landed in the Italian Peninsula. Hence how many U152 there are descendants of say Urnfield peoples who migrated there directly, and how many are descendants of the slave population largely obtained from Gaul?

falconson1
04-24-2015, 03:20 PM
Undoubtedly some Y haplogroups in Scandinavia are the result of Vikings bringing back people, but I also doubt if there was anywhere near the majority as far as P312 or L21. You noted that a lot of trade was women, anyway, and these subclades fared quite well, so they were not necessarily and underclass.

I doubt that those captives brought to Scandinavia remained an underclass for more than a generation, those with any sort of skill (e.g., blacksmith) would likely "join the ranks" of Viking warriors much as seems to have happened in Iceland.

The key part is that we don't really have any substantial info from any source that would allow us to get a handle on how much of the L21 in Scandinavia and the U152 in Italy is due to early (e.g., Bronze Age) or late (Viking or Caesar). Yes, the ratio of L21* to M222 is useful but can be explained in more than one way. Perhaps these are simply questions which will need to await data from "Big Y" projects - then patterns may be discerned. I don't know or pretend to know any answers - I just have questions which are probably just as well shelved for now. I really don't care what the specifics of the ultimately uncovered "answer" is, but I care very much that we are able to find the truth - the sooner the better as we have been hashing this over for over 10 years with little improvement in clarity.

rms2
04-24-2015, 03:37 PM
Since Danish Vikings settled in eastern England, as David has pointed out, and L21 reaches its low ebb in eastern England, slaves coming from there would be less likely to have been L21 and more likely to have belonged to the y haplogroups commonest in eastern England, like U106 and U152. Perhaps that is why U152 is relatively scarce in Denmark: rather than looking to the Cimbri as its source, perhaps that source was English thralls (and perhaps French and other thralls) carried back to Denmark.

I mean, we can't suppose the Danish Vikings carried dna test kits with them, tested their male victims and only grabbed those with an L21+ result, can we?

I don't doubt that some of today's Scandinavian L21 descends from British and Irish thralls, but it is well to keep in mind that thrall-snatching applies to any and all y haplogroups found in places frequented by the Vikings.

Why would anyone think any kind of U152 found just about anywhere originated in Scandinavia? Isn't it more likely the little bit of U152 found in Scandinavia had its origin somewhere else where U152 is far more frequent? I mean, apply the logic to U152 that David is applying to L21.

falconson1
04-24-2015, 04:09 PM
Why would anyone think any kind of U152 found just about anywhere originated in Scandinavia? Isn't it more likely the little bit of U152 found in Scandinavia had its origin somewhere else where U152 is far more frequent? I mean, apply the logic to U152 that David is applying to L21.

I don't have any answers, just data from any and all disciplines which I accumulated while attempting to understand the distribution of my haplogroup in England. I have discussed the Cimbri, and the Angles, and now will focus on the Belgae and so have started a new thread on that subject. Considering the strong eastern clustering of U152 in England, this is best explained by a relatively recent (not Bronze Age) migration from the Continent. Since there are many possibilities I came up with three hypotheses which seemed to make the most sense. Please read the study focusing on the third, a possible Belgae source, if of interest.

GoldenHind
04-24-2015, 08:31 PM
I did not see the final paper/article but the most comprehensive view I know of Nordic R1b is from the Old Norway project.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Nordic-Old_Norway_Project_Y_Hg_Map_by_2011.jpg

It looks like U106 is heaviest in the Northern Jutland versus the Scandinavian Peninsula. The same would go for U152 but U106 is dominant in the Northern Jutland.

Other than the Northern Jutland and Skaraborg, U152 hardly exists in the Nordic region.

As long as you include L21, P312 is strongest in Norway, inland or on the coasts, but has a nice showing in Sweden too.

You can see why I think P312 (encompassing L21 and U152) must have been in the Nordic Countries early. There are a lot of them there!

Neither P312 nor U106 is uniformly penetrating across the Scandinavian Peninsula. P312 is more dominant on the western side of the Scandinavian Peninsula and P312 is weakest in the Denmark, if you assume U152 was johnny-come-lately to Denmark, which would make sense if it drove northward to the Lower Rhine. The converse is that U106 was johnny-come-lately to the Scandinavian Peninsula, particularly as you move west.

I never tire of pointing out the following from the Old Norway data:

In Norway Coastal, P312* (xU152,L21,SRY2627,etc.) alone outnumbers U106. Much, but I suspect not all of this reflects L238. P312 combined appears to outnumber U106 in all three Norwegian samples.

The combined P312 total is larger than U106 in Skaraborg and approximately equal in Östergötland/Jönköping, both in Sweden.

I know some have tried to explain this as the result of Viking slavery, Aberdeen merchants, Scottish mercenaries or whatever. However my guess is that a mixture of P312 subclades arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with either Bell Beakers and/or Corded Beakers.

falconson1
04-24-2015, 09:57 PM
I never tire of pointing out the following from the Old Norway data:

In Norway Coastal, P312* (xU152,L21,SRY2627,etc.) alone outnumbers U106. Much, but I suspect not all of this reflects L238. P312 combined appears to outnumber U106 in all three Norwegian samples.

The combined P312 total is larger than U106 in Skaraborg and approximately equal in Östergötland/Jönköping, both in Sweden.

I know some have tried to explain this as the result of Viking slavery, Aberdeen merchants, Scottish mercenaries or whatever. However my guess is that a mixture of P312 subclades arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with either Bell Beakers and/or Corded Beakers.

In looking at "recent" articles published in prestigious journals, relating to Sweden, I see that in 2006 they were still using "archaic" terms such as R1b3 to encapsulate the diversity of Y chromosomes in that country. In other words the deepest level of genotyping in the vast R1b domain is M269 - which is basically useless, nothing more that a blunt instrument which gives only the broadest most general data to work with. See http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n8/full/5201651a.html and weep.

What is also frustrating is that people here, posting to an earlier forum, refer to the "Old Norway Project" and note slide 38 of the following work (Harding et al. re their Wirral Peninsula study):

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/-sczsteve/Gothenburg_13Oct2011.pdf.

There are only 34 slides and there is no mention of L21 or U152 - only that the data will be published in 2012. Has there been a delay of some sort?

rms2
04-25-2015, 12:34 PM
. . .

I know some have tried to explain this as the result of Viking slavery, Aberdeen merchants, Scottish mercenaries or whatever. However my guess is that a mixture of P312 subclades arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with either Bell Beakers and/or Corded Beakers.

And as I pointed out a few posts ago, since U106 is quite frequent in England, slaves taken from there were as likely to be U106 as anything else found in England. Even some of the I-M253 found in Scandinavia could be Anglo-Saxon thrall I-M253. As Gwynn Jones pointed out in his book, A History of the Vikings, the Vikings' favorite slave-hunting ground was the Baltic, and that area is light on P312.

The thrall sword has two edges, so those wielding it should cut carefully, lest they cut themselves.

mbreedlove49
05-28-2016, 04:42 PM
Bad post. Still learning. The correct one is below.

mbreedlove49
05-28-2016, 04:44 PM
It has been years since I have considered the topic, however the thread on "The Blood of the Celts" has given me pause to reflect once again on this subject.

The Cimbri appear to have been a Celtic - speaking people settled in an enclave deep within Germania. They burst on the world's stage about 119 BC after flooding and crop failures forced almost the entire tribe to leave their northern Jutland home and set about a perambulation which would take them across almost the entire extent of the Celtic world - from the Balkans to Iberia. After destroying a number of elite Roman troops (e.g., at Orange, France), they and their Celtic tribal allies, were decimated by the Romans (as I recall) in 101 BC along the Ligurian coast. The remnants fled north, returning to their former home in what is today known as Himmerland, Jutland, Denmark.

Their story is epic, the archaeological treasures (most Celtic or Celtic - inspired) recovered from their homeland spectacular (I have seen them in the National Museum in Copenhagen), and the linguistic record (including toponyms) is decidedly Celtic. It has always surprised me that so little attention has been given to them in the literature - although given due contemporary consideration by Tacitus etc.

Years back I was convinced that the Y chromosome haplogroups of descendants from Jutland would show Celtic traces (e.g., R-U152). While the data show that the original hypothesis cannot be ruled out, it seems clear that it requires substantial modification. It is interesting to note, however, that the pattern seen in Denmark today could be explained by Bede's statement that the Angle homeland was almost completely depopulated during the time of the migrations to Britain. The present distribution of R-U152 in England is predominantly in the Angle and Danish Viking settled areas of England (and almost none at all in Ireland or the west of the UK in general).

I wrote a 96 page study of the Cimbri, and it occurs that before writing her new book on the Celts, Jean may wish to consider the controversy around the origins of the Cimbri, and the evidence that they were culturally Celtic. Here is the link to my study of many years past: http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf.

I read your Cimbri-Chronology paper some time back (together with the ones on La Tene culture and the Angles). A very good set of papers.
My genetic testing is R-U152 - Z56 - S47, currently classified as Italo-Gaulish. FamilyTree matches show a small group of apparently related surnames that share a set of genetic marker values that seem to point to a common ancestor within historic time frames. These names include Newton, Hoskins, Johnson and Fraser. The later two do not seem to match well to their own name groups. All of us have unique marker values that separate us from the standard, slow-mutating U152 markers, specifically dys391=10, dys392=15, dys454=12 and dys455=10. There is also a mysterious Morris, who seems to test closest of all, but has a 'tough' privacy wall. Obviously, these surnames are from the British Isles. So, while we may test Italo-Gaulish, some of these 'boys' found their way up north. Your paper provided me with one option by which our Y-DNA may have transferred to England in the Angle-Saxon waves. Others have suggested movement via Roman legionaries.

My line (surname Breedlove) appears in Virginia ca 1708. The 'Old' geneologists (when they actually had to visit the courthouse) have established that 'all' Breedloves are related (some irregular birth or adoption exceptions) but they have all been stymied by 'the Pond'. Our progenitor shows up in Essex County, VA as a witness on a document in 1708. He SIGNS his name (educated - unusual outside the gentry of the day). He marries well ... a Parr, whose father left her a Manor Plantation, but never owned any land in his own name. Also unusual given marriage as a social class contract. One of the 'Old Ones' has a pet theory of Huguenot. Perhaps, but we have those genetic connections to 'other' English surnames. There appear to be some Breedlove references pre-1700 in England via Ancestry records, but few and far between. If we could match our unique markers to some individuals whose families never left the Old World, we might get a little farther.
But, I applaud your research and hope we see more of it.

Captain Nordic
07-26-2016, 11:53 PM
The Cimbri were clearly Celtic: Culturally, historically and linguistically. The supporters of the germanic origin theory of the Cimbri are mostly Nationalistic Scandinavians.

Tomenable
07-27-2016, 12:19 AM
But didn't the Cimbri originally live in Denmark? Were there Celts that far north?

Captain Nordic
07-27-2016, 12:31 AM
But didn't the Cimbri originally live in Denmark? Were there Celts that far north?

I belive they would have migrated there from the Unetice culture.
This article will answer all of your questions :)
http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf

Simply everything points towards a Celtic origin of them, really.

Captain Nordic
08-30-2016, 03:54 PM
Countering the argument of a Celtic origin is the literary evidence that the Cimbri originally came from northern Jutland, an area with no Celtic placenames, instead only Germanic ones.

This is weird as there are so many arguments pointing towards a Celtic origin of the Cimbri. Yet, if they were Celtic, why are there no Celtic toponyms in the region where they used to live?

MitchellSince1893
08-30-2016, 04:41 PM
Countering the argument of a Celtic origin is the literary evidence that the Cimbri originally came from northern Jutland, an area with no Celtic placenames, instead only Germanic ones.

This is weird as there are so many arguments pointing towards a Celtic origin of the Cimbri. Yet, if they were Celtic, why are there no Celtic toponyms in the region where they used to live?

FWIW if you zoom into Jutland on map below by going to the link you can see this comment

Stella
The Gallic inscription for Lugos a Celtic God, appears on this ceremonial slab from Tommerby, Denmark dating from 200 BC

Also there is a cauldron from Gundestrup, Denmark with scenes of Celtic mythology.

https://www.nationalgeographic-maps.com/media/catalog/product/X/N/XNG197705b_2.jpg

https://www.nationalgeographic-maps.com/media/catalog/product/X/N/XNG197705b_2.jpg

Captain Nordic
08-30-2016, 05:26 PM
FWIW if you zoom into Jutland on map below by going to the link you can see this comment


Also there is a cauldron from Gundestrup, Denmark with scenes of Celtic mythology.

https://www.nationalgeographic-maps.com/media/catalog/product/X/N/XNG197705b_2.jpg

https://www.nationalgeographic-maps.com/media/catalog/product/X/N/XNG197705b_2.jpg

I know Celtic artefacts have been found in Denmark and Sweden but i find it interesting that there are no Celtic placenames in Jutland, something you might have expected from such a powerful tribe like the Cimbri if they were Celtic.

Jean M
08-30-2016, 06:45 PM
Also there is a cauldron from Gundestrup, Denmark with scenes of Celtic mythology.

The Gundestrup Cauldron was not made locally. It therefore cannot tell us anything about the culture that deposited it in Jutland. It could have been war booty.


In style ... the cauldron looks like Thracian silver work. However, several of the objects depicted are Celtic, such as the helmets and the Celtic war trumpet (carnyx). It is most likely that the cauldron was made where Celtic and Thracian peoples lived close together, probably in southwest Romania or northwest Bulgaria. We do not know how this magnificent piece of work reached Denmark.

http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-early-iron-age/the-gundestrup-cauldron/

MitchellSince1893
08-30-2016, 09:19 PM
The Gundestrup Cauldron was not made locally. It therefore cannot tell us anything about the culture that deposited it in Jutland. It could have been war booty.



http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-early-iron-age/the-gundestrup-cauldron/

The funny thing is, I was googling "Celt map" to see if any maps showed the Celts actually reaching Jutland. None of them did...closest any map showed was the Celts got to the Netherlands and Lower Saxony. I then came across that old National Geographic Celtic map. I remember first seeing it when I was a kid as we had a subscription to N.G. I kept that map for years as the Celts fascinated me.

rms2
08-30-2016, 10:10 PM
I know Celtic artefacts have been found in Denmark and Sweden but i find it interesting that there are no Celtic placenames in Jutland, something you might have expected from such a powerful tribe like the Cimbri if they were Celtic.

Three possibilities:

1. The Cimbri pulled up stakes, lock, stock, and barrel, and were replaced by Germans, leaving little or no trace behind;

2. The Cimbri had a ruling Celtic elite but the substrate was Germanic;

3. The Cimbri weren't actually from Jutland.

MitchellSince1893
08-30-2016, 11:39 PM
Three possibilities:

1. The Cimbri pulled up stakes, lock, stock, and barrel, and were replaced by Germans, leaving little or no trace behind

If option 1; then did their descendants later come back as the Angles only to leave again with little to no trace?

I discussed this issue in another thread with Tomenable.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8045-Map-of-Germanic-Y-DNA-in-Italy-by-Passa&p=176386&viewfull=1#post176386

1. Were the Cimbri primarily P312 or U106?

2. If P312, were they primarily from a particular subclade e.g. U152?

3. Were the Angles descendants of the Cimbri?

4. Were the Angles primarily P312 or U106? Present day distribution in England leads one to the conclusion that the Angles were primarily U106. If the Cimbri and Angles are one and the same then the Cimbri would also be primarily U106. If the Angles weren't primarily U106 then what is the source for U106 in Eastern England?

5. Making the Angles primarily U152 doesn't work based on present day distribution in England. U152 isn't very well represented in Northumbria, and is more common in Cumbria, which never really had longterm Angle presence. Plus there is very little U152 in Denmark today. The latter is often explained away by saying the Cimbri and Angles left little trace in Denmark and that present day distribution has no bearing on ancient distribution. That is true to a point, but then one has to say that the neighboring Jutes to the North, and Saxons to the south of the Angles were predominately different y-dna groups. Because Hampshire, Isle of Wight (both Jute areas), Wessex, and Sussex, and present day Lower Saxony all have very little U152...and unlike the theory about the Angles all leaving, we know from history that there were plenty of Saxons still in the area during the 9th Century AD. The only exception is Kent which was settled by the Jutes and has significant U152 today. However Kent is also closest to U152 rich Northern France.

Option 2. "The Cimbri had a ruling Celtic elite but the substrate was Germanic" could be, and makes the most sense to me.

Option 3. "The Cimbri weren't actually from Jutland". Well Jutland is sometimes known as the Cimbri Peninsula. Yet the Roman historians often made geographic and tribal identification mistakes.

GoldenHind
08-30-2016, 11:50 PM
Three possibilities:

1. The Cimbri pulled up stakes, lock, stock, and barrel, and were replaced by Germans, leaving little or no trace behind;

2. The Cimbri had a ruling Celtic elite but the substrate was Germanic;

3. The Cimbri weren't actually from Jutland.

I believe the origin of the Cimbri from Himmerland in Jutland, long championed by Danish historians, is regarded as unproven by many archaeologists. I think it is the same with the claim that the Vandals originated in Vendsyssel, in the far north of Jutalnd. If the Cimbri did originate in Denmark, I think the most likely solution is that they were originally Germanic, but joined up with numerous Celtic tribes during their meanderings across Europe.

rms2
08-31-2016, 12:04 AM
. . . I think the most likely solution is that they were originally Germanic, but joined up with numerous Celtic tribes during their meanderings across Europe.

That could be, but I understand the recorded names of their leaders were all Celtic.

rms2
08-31-2016, 12:06 AM
If option 1; then did their descendants later come back as the Angles only to leave again with little to no trace?

I discussed this issue in another thread with Tomenable.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8045-Map-of-Germanic-Y-DNA-in-Italy-by-Passa&p=176386&viewfull=1#post176386

1. Were the Cimbri primarily P312 or U106?

2. If P312, were they primarily from a particular subclade e.g. U152?

3. Were the Angles descendants of the Cimbri?

4. Were the Angles primarily P312 or U106? Present day distribution in England leads one to the conclusion that the Angles were primarily U106. If the Cimbri and Angles are one in the same then the Cimbri would also be primarily U106. If the Angles weren't primarily U106 then what is the source for U106 in Eastern England

Highly doubtful. I think the indications are that the Angles were mostly R1b-U106 and I-M253. I don't believe there is any real connection between the Cimbri and the Angles.

MitchellSince1893
08-31-2016, 12:33 AM
Highly doubtful. I think the indications are that the Angles were mostly R1b-U106 and I-M253. I don't believe there is any real connection between the Cimbri and the Angles.

I only make the connection between the Cimbri and Angles because others have previously done so and was illustrating the hoops one has to jump through to make this work.

As I said earlier, your option 2 makes the most sense to me.

rms2
08-31-2016, 12:05 PM
I only make the connection between the Cimbri and Angles because others have previously done so and was illustrating the hoops one has to jump through to make this work.

As I said earlier, your option 2 makes the most sense to me.

I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect they might not actually have come from Jutland. I am definitely not an expert on the Cimbri, however.

09-01-2016, 08:04 AM
I have pondered about this topic for many years, when one reads the classics, on the Roman Empire, of course we get the explicitly Roman perspective. Jumping forward in time to a mature Roman Empire, in the North the Rhine, became the defacto divide between what we call today Gauls and Germanic, I have read also at the beginning of the Empire this was not necessarily the case, and the Germanic Speakers were on the far side of the Elbe, in my own experience, I have lived in Hamburg, and interestingly it has an old name "Trevor", some old references to this name can be seen in the city, there was a shop with this name across from where we lived, Claudius Ptolemy calls it “Treva", this sounds definitively Celtic to me, (ok keep with me we are getting closer to Jutland)
I suppose this now begs the question on where the Celtic/Germanic language divide really was at this time, where was the Proto Germanic cradle? was in Southern Sweden and S Norway? or Jutland, when the Germanic peoples poured into Northern Europe, were they already there speaking a Germanic tongue or did they migrate on boats from Scandinavia?, I have read that the Romans sent a Gaul into the Cimbri camp to spy on them, its odd to send a Gaul, unless he could somhow pass for a Cimbri? and speak the lingo?
well thats my two bit worth anyway, I cannot conclude anything more.

Captain Nordic
09-01-2016, 10:14 AM
I have pondered about this topic for many years, when one reads the classics, on the Roman Empire, of course we get the explicitly Roman perspective. Jumping forward in time to a mature Roman Empire, in the North the Rhine, became the defacto divide between what we call today Gauls and Germanic, I have read also at the beginning of the Empire this was not necessarily the case, and the Germanic Speakers were on the far side of the Elbe, in my own experience, I have lived in Hamburg, and interestingly it has an old name "Trevor", some old references to this name can be seen in the city, there was a shop with this name across from where we lived, Claudius Ptolemy calls it “Treva", this sounds definitively Celtic to me, (ok keep with me we are getting closer to Jutland)
I suppose this now begs the question on where the Celtic/Germanic language divide really was at this time, where was the Proto Germanic cradle? was in Southern Sweden and S Norway? or Jutland, when the Germanic peoples poured into Northern Europe, were they already there speaking a Germanic tongue or did they migrate on boats from Scandinavia?, I have read that the Romans sent a Gaul into the Cimbri camp to spy on them, its odd to send a Gaul, unless he could somhow pass for a Cimbri? and speak the lingo?
well thats my two bit worth anyway, I cannot conclude anything more.

Germanic peoples were definately more widespread than the far side of the Elbe.
Even IF the Cimbri were Celtic speaking then there's no need to rethink the borders between Celts and Germanics. The Cimbri would then just be Celts who settled among a sea of Germanics.
Germanic peoples probably were settled North of the Rhine and Celts below it (although areas like Belgium and Southern Netherlands seem to have been of mixed Celto-Germanic):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Imperium_Romanum_Germania.png

09-01-2016, 10:25 AM
Germanic peoples were definately more widespread than the far side of the Elbe.
Even IF the Cimbri were Celtic speaking then there's no need to rethink the borders between Celts and Germanics. The Cimbri would then just be Celts who settled among a sea of Germanics.
Germanic peoples probably were settled North of the Rhine and Celts below it (although areas like Belgium and Southern Netherlands seem to have been of mixed Celto-Germanic):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Imperium_Romanum_Germania.png

Hey Captain N, my point was in the early Roman Republic, the map you have is of a mature Roman Empire

Captain Nordic
09-01-2016, 10:55 AM
Hey Captain N, my point was in the early Roman Republic, the map you have is of a mature Roman Empire

Well, here's a map of 200 BC europe:
11307

The line between Germanics and Celts still seem to have been the Rhine.

09-01-2016, 11:03 AM
Well, here's a map of 200 BC europe:
11307

The line between Germanics and Celts still seem to have been the Rhine.

Hey again, adding a random map, does not really do justice to the conversation, or to the fact that Hamburg (Trevor by its Celtic name) was a part of the early trade routes that the Romans used, later to be abandoned at the end of the republic. like I said I have no conclusion either way. There are sources that at this early time that Germanic speakers were still east of the Elbe (Google it, I have no time at the min).

Captain Nordic
09-01-2016, 11:47 AM
Hey again, adding a random map, does not really do justice to the conversation, or to the fact that Hamburg (Trevor by its Celtic name) was a part of the early trade routes that the Romans used, later to be abandoned at the end of the republic. like I said I have no conclusion either way. There are sources that at this early time that Germanic speakers were still east of the Elbe (Google it, I have no time at the min).

Just because a word sounds Celtic, does not mean it is. As far as i know, there are very few Celtic placenames anywhere north of the rhine (except for belgium and large patches of Southern Netherlands).
This is a map of Celtic placenames in europe. I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to confirm that your theory of Germanics only being a collected group east of the Elbe until the early Roman age, does not add up as there would have been more placenames of Celtic origin:
11308

The random patches in Northern Germany and the Netherlands are interesting but i guess it isn't suprising as we know there were early contacts between the Celts, who were collected south of the rhine, and Germanic peoples, who lived north of the rhine.

The fact that we find evidence for early Germanic languages being spoken near, or in, the territory of the ancient Belgae tribes for example, placenames of germanic origin and archaeological evidence strengthens my view and the view of the majority of linguistics specialised in this subject

Gravetto-Danubian
09-01-2016, 12:03 PM
The problem is that "Celtic" & "Germanic" were largely territorial terms, with the former west of the Rhine, and latter east, eg as described by Caesar. This might not 100% correlate with linguistics.
In fact, we know that it doesn't. Celtic speakers lived well east of the Rhine into the norther Balkans, and remained so into the early Roman period. For example, the Quadic king Vannius bore a distinctly Norican-Celtic name, as found by several inscriptions in pre-Roman Noricum.

Specifically about the Cimbri, Thomas Burns (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PaRNJOLnRMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rome+and+the+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cimbri&f=false) argues they were a Celtic tribe from near the Roman frontier, not Denmark. The names lack the Germanic sound shift, and the few "Celtic" items in Scandinavia are nothing but imported exotica, not an actual "celtic culture.

Captain Nordic
09-01-2016, 12:47 PM
The problem is that "Celtic" & "Germanic" were largely territorial terms, with the former west of the Rhine, and latter east, eg as described by Caesar. This might not 100% correlate with linguistics.
In fact, we know that it doesn't. Celtic speakers lived well east of the Rhine into the norther Balkans, and remained so into the early Roman period. For example, the Quadic king Vannius bore a distinctly Norican-Celtic name, as found by several inscriptions in pre-Roman Noricum.

Specifically about the Cimbri, Thomas Burns (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PaRNJOLnRMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rome+and+the+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cimbri&f=false) argues they were a Celtic tribe from near the Roman frontier, not Denmark. The names lack the Germanic sound shift, and the few "Celtic" items in Scandinavia are nothing but imported exotica, not an actual "celtic culture.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Celts never lived east of the Rhine. What i was saying is that i do not agree with sgdavies opinion that before the Roman empire, the line between Celts and Germanics was at the elbe river, making large patches of Northern germany and the Netherlands Celtic recently.

I guess it's possible that the Cimbri weren't from Denmark and it would explain the lack of Celtic placenames in the upper Jutland region.

rms2
09-01-2016, 01:45 PM
The problem is that "Celtic" & "Germanic" were largely territorial terms, with the former west of the Rhine, and latter east, eg as described by Caesar. This might not 100% correlate with linguistics.
In fact, we know that it doesn't. Celtic speakers lived well east of the Rhine into the norther Balkans, and remained so into the early Roman period. For example, the Quadic king Vannius bore a distinctly Norican-Celtic name, as found by several inscriptions in pre-Roman Noricum.

Specifically about the Cimbri, Thomas Burns (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PaRNJOLnRMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rome+and+the+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cimbri&f=false) argues they were a Celtic tribe from near the Roman frontier, not Denmark. The names lack the Germanic sound shift, and the few "Celtic" items in Scandinavia are nothing but imported exotica, not an actual "celtic culture.

That was my guess, too, although I am not an expert on the Cimbri. It makes sense and solves a lot of problems if the Cimbri just never were from Denmark. Otherwise, there are all sorts of difficulties and weird solutions to them.

Jean M
09-01-2016, 04:29 PM
The problem is that "Celtic" & "Germanic" were largely territorial terms, with the former west of the Rhine, and latter east, eg as described by Caesar.

Not exactly. The modern confusion between geography and ethnos was caused by the Greek and Roman tendency to name territories after the people in them (as far as they knew). So Celtica = region where Celti lived; Germania = region were Germani lived; Gallia = region where Galli lived; Iberia = region where Iberi lived, etc. The confusion that this has caused is manifold.

Greek or Roman traders could call a region after the people they happened to initially meet there, as coastal or river traders, in complete ignorance of tribes of the interior, or living in more remote parts of the territory. Hence Iberia. Hence the (to us) strange notion of Sarmatia spreading north to the Baltic. Hence the fact that Caesar knew perfectly well that the Aquitani in SW Gaul were not Galli and said so. Yet the name Gallia had clearly been arrived at before his day as a term encompassing Aquitania.

So by the time Ptolemy was trying to create a scientific geography, a number of incongruities were locked onto the map.

moesan
09-01-2016, 05:07 PM
Roman "historians" thought Cimri and Teutons were from the North shores; a year +5 maritime expedition would have found Cimri in Jutland; it's sure they were settled in Jutland at some stage of History, but since when exactly? German scholars are divided here: some think the story of Jutland origin is correct, others think Cimri and Teutons were Celts, being the Cimri a branch of the Helvetii from Germany (Helvetii settled in Switzerland).
Until lately enough Germanics were yet settled in South Sweden and South Norway plus Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein and a SMALL part of the Southern Hamburg region + extreme North of East Germany (N-Mecklemburg /Pommern). Between 2nd and 1st Cy Celts (archeologically speaking) were still as high as South Netherlands and borders of South Lower-Sax and North Hesse, same latitude, so relatively northernly. We know very little about the regions between first Germanics and Celts; it seems I-E old western dialects were spoken in N-W Europe, showing kind of proto-meta-italic traits. Maybe an element of the proto-germanic language whose achieved typical features are the result of the imperfect learning by North Europe autochtones? (guess only).
Celts in S-Scandinavia? uneasy to say. Bronze Age Scandinavian - for the few we have - seem autosomatically a bit Central-southern Europeans, less northern than the supposed Celts studied during IA in E-England, even less northern than the BBC mean (BBC mean upon a very heterogenous cloud of individus it's true). The question of Celts first concretion is still there: Bronze? Urnfields? Iron? ( I bet for Bronze but?...)

vettor
09-01-2016, 05:55 PM
The problem is that "Celtic" & "Germanic" were largely territorial terms, with the former west of the Rhine, and latter east, eg as described by Caesar. This might not 100% correlate with linguistics.
In fact, we know that it doesn't. Celtic speakers lived well east of the Rhine into the norther Balkans, and remained so into the early Roman period. For example, the Quadic king Vannius bore a distinctly Norican-Celtic name, as found by several inscriptions in pre-Roman Noricum.

Specifically about the Cimbri, Thomas Burns (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PaRNJOLnRMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rome+and+the+barbarians&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cimbri&f=false) argues they were a Celtic tribe from near the Roman frontier, not Denmark. The names lack the Germanic sound shift, and the few "Celtic" items in Scandinavia are nothing but imported exotica, not an actual "celtic culture.

correct and we also know that Glauberg was the site of celtic royal burials.............Glauberg is in central Germany ............another proof that Germanics only resided in northern Germany in the ancient times.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg


and this site below ..............features only celts in the balkans

https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/balkan-celts/


We also have the naming of lands based on peoples within it ..................Same as what Jean mentioned some posts above
Illiyicum for Illyrians
Noricum = for the Norici
Epirus Nova for Albanians
Rhaetica prima and Rhaetica seconda = for the Raetic peoples of the alps
etc etc

Captain Nordic
09-01-2016, 08:12 PM
correct and we also know that Glauberg was the site of celtic royal burials.............Glauberg is in central Germany ............another proof that Germanics only resided in northern Germany in the ancient times.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg


and this site below ..............features only celts in the balkans

https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/balkan-celts/


We also have the naming of lands based on peoples within it ..................Same as what Jean mentioned some posts above
Illiyicum for Illyrians
Noricum = for the Norici
Epirus Nova for Albanians
Rhaetica prima and Rhaetica seconda = for the Raetic peoples of the alps
etc etc
Errm, how did you come to that conclusion?! Are you honestly suggesting that all parts of Germany (except the Northern part) were occupied by Celts and only became Germanised very recently? If so, how recently?

Obviously Central Germany came under a significant influence of the Celtic Hallstatt/Early La Téne people who lived just a bit south of them but these people were later on either killed, driven away or assimilated by the invading Germanic tribes which is why they speak Germanic today and why there are relatively few Celtic placenames in that region.

This did not happen very recently. Here's a Map of the distribution of Germanic dialects around AD 1 (around 2000 years ago):
11313

Most parts of Germany are clearly speaking Germanic at that time.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-01-2016, 09:41 PM
Not exactly. The modern confusion between geography and ethnos was caused by the Greek and Roman tendency to name territories after the people in them (as far as they knew). So Celtica = region where Celti lived; Germania = region were Germani lived; Gallia = region where Galli lived; Iberia = region where Iberi lived, etc. The confusion that this has caused is manifold.

Greek or Roman traders could call a region after the people they happened to initially meet there, as coastal or river traders, in complete ignorance of tribes of the interior, or living in more remote parts of the territory. Hence Iberia. Hence the (to us) strange notion of Sarmatia spreading north to the Baltic. Hence the fact that Caesar knew perfectly well that the Aquitani in SW Gaul were not Galli and said so. Yet the name Gallia had clearly been arrived at before his day as a term encompassing Aquitania.

So by the time Ptolemy was trying to create a scientific geography, a number of incongruities were locked onto the map.

I agree partly, and, that Romans transferred the name of a small Tribe to large areas is a basic given (they did it in Illyria, Graecia, Brittania, Arabia, etc); but you're missing the point Jean.
But why did the Romans insist on categorising Celt vs German at the Rhine; which was otherwise ethni-linguistically porous; and did not actually run according to Jastorf vs La Tene areas (which spread east<->west; not up along the Rhine ) ? .

The crux is that the Romans needed to create Germani as a different category to Celtoi on the basis of justifying their not being able to/ or bothered to conquer "Germania" (ie the terrier prows east of the Rhine and north of Danube). Hence the distinction: celts are conquerable and worth romanising; Germani are not (as pointed out by clever scholars like Peter wells and John Collis)

Jean M
09-01-2016, 10:02 PM
The Romans created Germani as a different category to Celtoi on the basis of justifying their not being able to: or bothered to conquer "Germania". Hence the distinction: celts are conquerable and worth romanising; Germani are not (as pointed out by clever scholars like Peter wells and John Collis)

Here is what I had to say (without having a read a word on the topic by either Wells or Collis) in a lecture on the Migration period in 2014:


> Slide 4 : Roman Empire
The Roman Empire held so much of Europe in its grip that the fall of its western half shook society for millions. Here we see the empire at its height. In continental Europe the frontier ran mainly along two great rivers - the Rhine and the Danube. The exception was Dacia, on the other side of the Danube, which was the province last won and first lost. Beyond the frontier lay the barbarians – the Germani in Germania, as you might expect.

> Slide 5 : Roman economy/trade
The Romans were interested in good agricultural land and mineral resources. Iberia had the lot – gold, silver, copper, wine and olive oil. So that was an early target for Rome, as was Greece. Julius Caesar and his great-great grandnephew Claudius added the richest of the Celtic-speaking lands to the north: Gaul and most of Britain. The Germanic economy was too poor at the time to repay the effort of conquest in either in booty or taxes. Tacitus reported that Germania had no metals and its people were fierce fighters. Indeed Roman legions found that out the hard way. So the Romans settled for the Rhine as their border. By so doing the Romans established a firm frontier between the haves and have-nots. The normal human urge to seek better fortune elsewhere, if times are hard at home, was thwarted. Waves of have-nots threw themselves against the barriers.


The Romans did not need to manufacture some notion of different ethnicity in order to justify not conquering Magna Germania. They contented themselves with Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.


But why did the Romans insist on categorising Celt vs German at the Rhine

They didn't. See above. Germania Inferior was a Roman province located on the west bank of the Rhine. Germania Superior was to the south of Germania Inferior. Jointly they made up Lesser Germania. Some Germani had already crossed the Rhine (despite all efforts by the Belgae to keep them out) before Caesar took Gaul.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-01-2016, 10:27 PM
Here is what I had to say (without having a read a word on the topic by either Wells or Collis) in a lecture on the Migration period in 2014:



The Romans did not need to manufacture some notion of different ethnicity in order to justify not conquering Magna Germania. They contented themselves with Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.



They didn't. See above. Germania Inferior was a Roman province located on the west bank of the Rhine. Germania Superior was to the south of Germania Inferior. Jointly they made up Lesser Germania. Some Germani had already crossed the Rhine (despite all efforts by the Belgae to keep them out) before Caesar took Gaul.

That has nothing to do with it
They created a Dacia south of the Danube also, which was never actually "Dacian", or recently settled by such.

I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing about, really. It seems your are trying to force fit your preformed ideas about Celticity
Anyhow; I'll stick with my understanding , and you can stick with yours
My major premise is that a lot of "psychology" went into Roman ethnography, not just geography and "objective indicia"

Jean M
09-01-2016, 11:20 PM
I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing about, really.

My point is not vitally important for the vexed question of the Cimbri, though the latter do come into the quote below. :)

I was simply objecting to the idea that "Germanic" was essentially a geographical term for Caesar. In fact he and other Roman writers used "Germani" for the people and "Germania" for the region(s) that they perceived as holding Germani. The problems for translators of Caesar's Latin comes in the more complex forms of the name, as in Commentaries on the Gallic War, Book II.4:


Cum ab iis quaereret quae civitates quantaeque in armis essent et quid in bello possent, sic reperiebat: plerosque Belgos esse ortos a Germanis Rhenumque antiquitus traductos propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse Gallosque qui ea loca incolerent expulisse, solosque esse qui, 2 patrum nostrorum memoria omni Gallia vexata, Teutonos Cimbrosque intra suos fines ingredi prohibuerint; 3 qua ex re fieri uti earum rerum memoria magnam sibi auctoritatem Illagnosque spiritus in re militari sumerent.

Translated by W.A. McDevitte and W.S. Bohn. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1869, as:


When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do, in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was, that, from the recollection of those events, they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters.

More modern translation by S.A. Handford 1951


On being asked for the names of the tribes that had taken up arms, and particulars of their numbers and military strength, the envoys stated that most of the Belgae were descended from tribes which long ago came across the Rhine from Germany and settled in that part of Gaul on account of its fertility, expelling the former inhabitants. The Belgae, they said, were the only people who half a century earlier, when all the rest of Gaul was overrun by the Teutoni and the Cimbri, prevented the invaders from entering their territory - the recollection of which made them assume an air of much importance and pride themselves on their military power.

Incidentally, it doesn't really sound as though the Cimbri were regarded as a Gallic tribe.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-02-2016, 12:36 AM
I was simply objecting to the idea that "Germanic" was essentially a geographical term for Caesar. In fact he and other Roman writers used "Germani" for the people and "Germania" for the region(s) that they perceived as holding Germani. The problems for translators of Caesar's Latin comes in the more complex forms of the name, as in [I]Commentaries on..


Why couldn't one agree that Germania was - at least in part- a geopolitical construct; esp when it is defined exactly by geography: the Danube, the Rhine, the Vistula & "Great North Ocean"; and this is the emerging opinion of specialists. ?

The actual ethnolinguistic mosaic of Roman-era central - Europe did not neatly correspond with Rome"s division of "Gallia", "Germania" & "Sarmatia".

That the Belgae are said to have "Sprung from Germania" merely confirms rather than retorts my view- simply they came from across the Rhine



Incidentally, it doesn't really sound as though the Cimbri were regarded as a Gallic tribe.

indeed they were not "Gallic", because they're not from Gallia, but they are (most probably) Celtic-speakers from Germania
QED ;)

vettor
09-02-2016, 05:43 AM
Errm, how did you come to that conclusion?! Are you honestly suggesting that all parts of Germany (except the Northern part) were occupied by Celts and only became Germanised very recently? If so, how recently?

Obviously Central Germany came under a significant influence of the Celtic Hallstatt/Early La Téne people who lived just a bit south of them but these people were later on either killed, driven away or assimilated by the invading Germanic tribes which is why they speak Germanic today and why there are relatively few Celtic placenames in that region.

This did not happen very recently. Here's a Map of the distribution of Germanic dialects around AD 1 (around 2000 years ago):
11313

Most parts of Germany are clearly speaking Germanic at that time.

If you believe that Germanic are celts then that's your theory............I have never heard of this

I see that Central and south Germany where gallic/celtic people and the germanics moved from the north into central Germany over time, but never crossed into southern germany until after 350AD

The Romans state that there where no Germans south of the Danube river . The only Germans that , according to Roman historians who mis=xed with the celts happened on the modern Belgium -German border ( but Jean will discount this Caesar report)

vettor
09-02-2016, 05:45 AM
I agree partly, and, that Romans transferred the name of a small Tribe to large areas is a basic given (they did it in Illyria, Graecia, Brittania, Arabia, etc); but you're missing the point Jean.
But why did the Romans insist on categorising Celt vs German at the Rhine; which was otherwise ethni-linguistically porous; and did not actually run according to Jastorf vs La Tene areas (which spread east<->west; not up along the Rhine ) ? .

The crux is that the Romans needed to create Germani as a different category to Celtoi on the basis of justifying their not being able to/ or bothered to conquer "Germania" (ie the terrier prows east of the Rhine and north of Danube). Hence the distinction: celts are conquerable and worth romanising; Germani are not (as pointed out by clever scholars like Peter wells and John Collis)

But there are many many celtic burials and other archaeology in Central Germany...............these are Celtic and not Germanic "goods"

vettor
09-02-2016, 05:49 AM
Why couldn't one agree that Germania was - at least in part- a geopolitical construct; esp when it is defined exactly by geography: the Danube, the Rhine, the Vistula & "Great North Ocean"; and this is the emerging opinion of specialists. ?

The actual ethnolinguistic mosaic of Roman-era central - Europe did not neatly correspond with Rome"s division of "Gallia", "Germania" & "Sarmatia".

That the Belgae are said to have "Sprung from Germania" merely confirms rather than retorts my view- simply they came from across the Rhine



indeed they were not "Gallic", because they're not from Gallia, but they are (most probably) Celtic-speakers from Germania
QED ;)

I think you should exclude the Romans and check the association of Celts and germani in Germany ............Archaeology states near 100% celtic system

Thunor
09-02-2016, 06:47 AM
Magna Germania needed at least 8 Roman Legions plus 50.000 auxilia troops (mostly Celtic and Gallic light infantry) to be conquered, but it was not possible to send supplies from the Mediterranean sea to Beyond the Rhine, so the Romans just pulled out and decided to invade Britain, Dacia, Iberia (modern Georgia),... Etc which were much richer than Germania.

The Romans controlled a large part of Germany east of Rhine anyway. The so called Agri Decumati.

Jean M
09-02-2016, 10:05 AM
Why couldn't one agree that Germania was - at least in part- a geopolitical construct

I think we can indeed agree on that, with one caveat. It is all too easy for modern readers, steeped as we are in the system of the modern nation state, to imagine that if the Romans put Germania or Gallia or whatever on the map, that they saw it as a united nation with citizenship etc, and as having established, permanent boundaries for all time. The Romans did not think in that way. Not remotely. They had a concept of Roman citizenship of course (which changed over time). But they knew that most of the peoples they encountered were tribal.

If we read Caesar alone, we can see that he did not have the concept of the Rhine as a boundary that would look after itself. Quite the contrary! He declared his belief that if the Germani were not stopped by Rome, they would take over the whole of Gaul. (And he was right. They later did.) He cleared out a lot of Germani who had been brought in as mercenaries in 60s BC by the Arverni and Sequani, and who then started to throw their weight around. That was his excuse for taking over Gaul. Rome would protect Gaul from the encroaching Germani with their greedy eyes on all that fertile soil and lovely weather. He fixed on that nice big river the Rhine as a suitable boundary that the Romans had a reasonable chance of holding.

It just so happened that, when Caesar came along, the Rhine was the boundary that the Belgae had had most success in holding, after relentless pressure westwards by the Germani. It was that expansion which had forced the Belgae west over the Rhine, that pressurised the Helvetii west in desperation, that was in the process of forcing the Boii west etc.

It was the assumption by the 1869 translator of Caesar II.4 that the Rhine had always been the boundary between Celts and Germani that led him into error. He thought that if the Belgae had their origin east of the Rhine centuries before, then the Belgae must be Germanic. Not so. A large part of what is now Germany is dotted with La Tčne settlements, burials, etc and even has some Celtic place-names.

[Corrected] I just realised that I had a senior moment and put the Helvetii as Gemanic! Tut! Tut! Fixed.

Captain Nordic
09-02-2016, 10:57 AM
If you believe that Germanic are celts then that's your theory............I have never heard of this

I see that Central and south Germany where gallic/celtic people and the germanics moved from the north into central Germany over time, but never crossed into southern germany until after 350AD

The Romans state that there where no Germans south of the Danube river . The only Germans that , according to Roman historians who mis=xed with the celts happened on the modern Belgium -German border ( but Jean will discount this Caesar report)

Every single map that i've seen seem to put the Germanic arrival to Central germany at around 2000 years ago.

Cellachán
08-03-2019, 06:57 PM
Bump. I recall someone online trying to demonstrate a connection between Cimbri, North Jutlanders, and Danish Vikings in the UK. I would be interested to see a paper on Denmark like they recently did with France...although I do not expect as much genetic variation among ethnic native Danes.

JonikW
08-03-2019, 10:19 PM
Bump. I recall someone online trying to demonstrate a connection between Cimbri, North Jutlanders, and Danish Vikings in the UK. I would be interested to see a paper on Denmark like they recently did with France...although I do not expect as much genetic variation among ethnic native Danes.

I'd be interested to see that paper too, but conducted far more rigorously than the French one. Sadly, I guess the connection would be that all three came from the same place and had some descendants who moved to Britain. We'd need a lot of ancient samples to start what might be the impossible task of telling groups in that region apart, and we don't have those yet.

Cellachán
08-04-2019, 02:08 AM
I'd be interested to see that paper too, but conducted far more rigorously than the French one. Sadly, I guess the connection would be that all three came from the same place and had some descendants who moved to Britain. We'd need a lot of ancient samples to start what might be the impossible task of telling groups in that region apart, and we don't have those yet.

Yeah, I’m sure folks would wanna see other fish fried first before Denmark. No ones probably expecting Danes to differ all that significantly. Going from one end of the country to the next, it’s probably the case it’s a meeting of a southern Swedish-like Cline and a north German like Cline beginning, naturally, by the German border. Jutland I understand received an extra pulse from Beakers compared to most other scandos, or so I hear, so maybe that would be cause for slight intrigue. I dunno.

rms2
08-07-2019, 01:28 PM
Bump. I recall someone online trying to demonstrate a connection between Cimbri, North Jutlanders, and Danish Vikings in the UK. I would be interested to see a paper on Denmark like they recently did with France...although I do not expect as much genetic variation among ethnic native Danes.

That was someone who shall remain anonymous for now who was claiming that the Cimbri were predominantly R1b-U152. Since he believed that the U152 connection to the La Tene Celts was self evident, the only way he could get U152 to SE England in the bodies of Danish Vikings was via the Cimbri, whom he derived from La Tene Celts who had moved north at some point.

I'm not sure he believes any of that anymore.

At the time, he predicted that Denmark and the Oslofjord region of Norway would be loaded with R1b-U152. They aren't, but no one knew that back then.

anglesqueville
08-11-2019, 07:40 AM
Bump. I recall someone online trying to demonstrate a connection between Cimbri, North Jutlanders, and Danish Vikings in the UK. I would be interested to see a paper on Denmark like they recently did with France...although I do not expect as much genetic variation among ethnic native Danes.

"Nationwide Genomic Study in Denmark Reveals Remarkable Population Homogeneity" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068857/ . Much more serious study that the two recent ones which were devoted to France.

anglesqueville
08-11-2019, 07:45 AM
That was someone who shall remain anonymous for now who was claiming that the Cimbri were predominantly R1b-U152. Since he believed that the U152 connection to the La Tene Celts was self evident, the only way he could get U152 to SE England in the bodies of Danish Vikings was via the Cimbri, whom he derived from La Tene Celts who had moved north at some point.

I'm not sure he believes any of that anymore.

At the time, he predicted that Denmark and the Oslofjord region of Norway would be loaded with R1b-U152. They aren't, but no one knew that back then.

I'm not sure I'm well understanding what you mean. Do you mean that you want him to remain anonymous, or that you just don't remember his name? In the second case, I can help.
edit: by the way my very recent "adventures" with Anders Morup and the Y haplo U152-Z367 recalled me "his" theories. The fact is that finding a south-scandinavian nest for the subclade R-A14636 would be a bit interesting, if those markers were not so recent: 32350

anglesqueville
08-11-2019, 08:04 AM
This one? http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf

Of course.

GoldenHind
08-11-2019, 05:44 PM
"Nationwide Genomic Study in Denmark Reveals Remarkable Population Homogeneity" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068857/ . Much more serious study that the two recent ones which were devoted to France.

Is there a table which shows the YDNA results of the participants? I couldn't find one.

anglesqueville
08-11-2019, 09:13 PM
There is none in this study. There is a FTDNA Danish project https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/denmark/dna-results but its results don't seem to be available.
I know https://www.isfg.org/files/ea84de9e210d90fc6b60188b862dcc26772e235c.03016352_ 452495329979.pdf , but it is an antique study (2004), not very useful today. Sure there are some infos somewhere, but where? Don't know.

spruithean
08-12-2019, 02:18 AM
I've yet to be convinced that the Cimbri were Celtic. There are several Germanic chieftains/kings who have Celtic names and trade between the two "groups" was obviously something that happened quite heavily.

anglesqueville
08-12-2019, 01:49 PM
But wait. This Celtic Cimbri theory is based on this guy website?
Yes, he is a doctor but in psychology:) http://davidkfaux.org/files/BIOGRAPHYDKF.pdf

No real academic source?

Right. I don't know much about David K. Faux. Afaik he is not a geneticist, but he was neither an outsider in the field of populations genetics. I mailed him one time, many years ago, and told him about my own haplo and the fact that the cradle of my paternal Normand origins is known (*) to be a nest of Angles. He replied very politely and said to me that he was not interested anymore in this topic. I don't remember having been very convinced by his theses, and I confess that I've forgotten almost everything from them.

(*) likely wrongly. The adjective "Anglesque"/"Englesque" in the Normand toponyms A/Englesqueville is more probably related to the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Scandinavian settlers from the Kent or the Dorset.

rms2
08-13-2019, 01:56 PM
I'm not sure I'm well understanding what you mean. Do you mean that you want him to remain anonymous, or that you just don't remember his name? . . .

I know who he is, but since what I was posting was somewhat negative, I did not want to appear to be badmouthing a particular person by name.

However, I see that others have stepped up and identified him, which I guess was inevitable.

rms2
08-13-2019, 02:14 PM
Right. I don't know much about David K. Faux. Afaik he is not a geneticist, but he was neither an outsider in the field of populations genetics. I mailed him one time, many years ago, and told him about my own haplo and the fact that the cradle of my paternal Normand origins is known (*) to be a nest of Angles. He replied very politely and said to me that he was not interested anymore in this topic. I don't remember having been very convinced by his theses, and I confess that I've forgotten almost everything from them.

(*) likely wrongly. The adjective "Anglesque"/"Englesque" in the Normand toponyms A/Englesqueville is more probably related to the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Scandinavian settlers from the Kent or the Dorset.

That is a surprising response given how prolific he once was on that topic. He used to be part owner of the genetic testing firm Ethnoancestry but evidently sold his interest in it before it became BritainsDNA. He once filled pretty much the same role later held by Alistair Moffat.

He was all over y-dna testing back in the days when Rootsweb was the main forum for discussing it and U152 was known as S28.

GoldenHind
08-13-2019, 05:25 PM
That is a surprising response given how prolific he was once was on that topic. He used to be part owner of the genetic testing firm Ethnoancestry but evidently sold his interest in it before it became BritainsDNA. He once filled pretty much the same role later held by Alistair Moffat.

He was all over y-dna testing back in the days when Rootsweb was the main forum for discussing it and U152 was known as S28.

He was also a prolific poster on the now defunct DNA Forums, where many of us crossed swords with him on several subjects, including his Celtic Cimbri thesis.
I remember his statement from that time that there were no further SNPs to be discovered. That was before the discovery of P312, DF27 and L21 etc., when those of us who were R1bXU152,U106 were classified as R1b1c*, and referred to as Atlantic fringe aboriginals.

rms2
08-13-2019, 08:26 PM
He was also a prolific poster on the now defunct DNA Forums, where many of us crossed swords with him on several subjects, including his Celtic Cimbri thesis.
I remember his statement from that time that there were no further SNPs to be discovered. That was before the discovery of P312, DF27 and L21 etc., when those of us who were R1bXU152,U106 were classified as R1b1c*, and referred to as Atlantic fringe aboriginals.

Oh, yes. I remember when we were all stuck at M269, and he said that was it for us. Our ancestors were "the cast of thousands" who formed the faceless backdrop for the heroic exploits of his ancestors, the La Tene Celts-cum Cimbri-cum Danish Vikings.

He was a big advocate of the term "invader y-dna" to refer to I-M253 (the old I1a), R1b-S21 (U106), and, first and foremost, to R1b-S28 (U152) in the British Isles. The rest of us were descended from the lowly native cavemen, who were really Basques (we were supposed to be thrilled about that).

He was also amongst the most ardent holdouts for the Iberian LGM Refuge, although he subsequently admitted he was wrong on that score and apologized for it.

George van der Merwede invited him from Rootsweb over to dna forums and considered it a big coup when he accepted and showed up, since DKF was considered kind of a dna celebrity back in those days.

rms2
08-13-2019, 08:52 PM
BTW, some years back I exchanged a few emails with him. He's actually a decent guy. I think he just got carried away with the excitement of finding out he is "S28" (U152). Since he is bright and well read, naturally he turned to tracing what seemed to him the proper history of his y-chromosome ancestors.

anglesqueville
08-13-2019, 09:20 PM
That is a surprising response given how prolific he once was on that topic. He used to be part owner of the genetic testing firm Ethnoancestry but evidently sold his interest in it before it became BritainsDNA. He once filled pretty much the same role later held by Alistair Moffat.

He was all over y-dna testing back in the days when Rootsweb was the main forum for discussing it and U152 was known as S28.

I think he had fallen back from his Celtic-Danish dream and from his "hour of glory". Maybe a little depressed. But the years have passed and it is also possible that I have not kept a very faithful memory of his words. One thing is sure: he took time to answer a mail sent by an unknown French newbie, as a genuine gentleman.

rms2
08-13-2019, 09:27 PM
I think he had fallen back from his Celtic-Danish dream and from his "hour of glory". Maybe a little depressed. But the years have passed and it is also possible that I have not kept a very faithful memory of his words. One thing is sure: he took time to answer a mail sent by an unknown French newbie, as a genuine gentleman.

Yes, as I said above, he really is a decent guy. Had he merely gloried in the exploits of his own ancestors and left the rest of us alone, he would not have stirred up the hard feelings he did. But he felt it necessary to tell the rest of us that we were the descendants of Basque aborigines.

So, on the one hand I kind of like the guy, but on the other I'm glad ancient dna kicked his ass.

He wasn't the only one though. I recall another dork on Rootsweb, shortly after L21 was rediscovered, who said that L21 men were in Britain digging in the dirt with deer antlers when his glorious ancestors were running the Bell Beaker culture on the Continent (literally, that's what he said). I forget what his y-dna haplogroup was, but he predicted the Amesbury Archer would belong to it. It might have been E-V13, but I'm not sure.

We know how that turned out.

anglesqueville
08-13-2019, 09:49 PM
Well, how some guys invest so much ego in their haplogroup Y always amazed me. My own secret greatest source of pleasure is my father's Mt. K1c1c, poor relic of a line of doubtless miserable women in a removed corner of Finland. To everyone his thing.

rms2
08-13-2019, 10:01 PM
Well, how some guys invest so much ego in their haplogroup Y always amazed me. My own secret greatest source of pleasure is my father's Mt. K1c1c, poor relic of a line of doubtless miserable women in a removed corner of Finland. To everyone his thing.

I'm pretty sure no matter what my y haplogroup had turned out to be, I would have found something to like about it, something to be interested and to glory in. That's kind of how I'm bent, plus I loved and practically worshiped my dad. I connect my y-dna with him (naturally), so whatever it is is more than sufficient for me.

Dewsloth
08-13-2019, 10:41 PM
Well, how some guys invest so much ego in their haplogroup Y always amazed me. My own secret greatest source of pleasure is my father's Mt. K1c1c, poor relic of a line of doubtless miserable women in a removed corner of Finland. To everyone his thing.

Well, all I know about mine is that (historically, from a sample size of two) they tend to die violently away from home :lol: :eek:

MitchellSince1893
08-13-2019, 11:56 PM
BTW, some years back I exchanged a few emails with him. He's actually a decent guy. I think he just got carried away with the excitement of finding out he is "S28" (U152). Since he is bright and well read, naturally he turned to tracing what seemed to him the proper history of his y-chromosome ancestors.

I have spoken to him as well via email. Nice guy who helped me update the History section of the FTDNA U152 page when I was an admin there. He does have a claim to fame as being the 1st person identified as U152/S28 via commercial testing. Dr Faux was a partner at EthnoAncestry testing. A week later, Charles Kerchner was the first customer to test positive for U152/S28. This was back in Dec 2005.

The actual first person identified as U152/S28 was an anonymous Utah man.

U152/S28 came to the knowledge of the scientific community through the publication of the paper Whole-Genome Patterns of Common DNA Variations in Three Human Populations by David A. Hinds et al. in Science on 18 Feb 2005. The single positive subject in the Hinds paper was NA07349, or CEPH1345-01, a Utah Mormon from the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphism Humain (CEPH) collection, available at the Coriell Institute. Dr. Pui-Yan Kwok at the University of California, San Franscisco (UCSF) had discovered this SNP prior to its submission to Single Nucleotide Polymorphism database (dbSNP) on 18 May 2004.
More here. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-u152/about/background..

As the actual date of U152's discovery is unknown, some time prior to 18 May 2004, I've unofficially adopted 18 May 2004 as the date of U152's discovery.

May 18th: U152 Day. Feel free to take that day off and take a drink of your favorite beverage from a replica Bell Beaker ;)

rms2
08-14-2019, 12:42 AM
I mentioned some of that back here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4369-The-Cimbri-Celtic-or-Germanic&p=591287&viewfull=1#post591287).

He is essentially a nice guy, once you get to know him, but he made himself obnoxious back in those early days with his Rootsweb and then dna forums posts, as almost any R1bxU152 guy who was around then can testify.

I have to remind myself of his email persona, because the more I recall his posts, the less charitable I feel.

rms2
08-14-2019, 06:08 PM
Funny thing. Apparently the OP (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4369-The-Cimbri-Celtic-or-Germanic&p=80496&viewfull=1#post80496) in this thread was written by DKF himself.

Time flies!

falconson1
08-17-2019, 05:47 AM
Rather interesting to note the comments about me reported above.

Actually ancient DNA has come to my rescue - big time. The Olalde et al., 2018 study shows that the majority of the Bell Beaker Y haplogroups (about 40) on the Continent were U152 + L2 (none L20). None were found in Britain (as predicted) where R-L21 was in the majority. Then there is the Margaryen et al., 2019 study of Viking era genomes which shows that on the Danish island of Funen 20% of Viking graves were R-U152 (one was L2 and the other L20 - yes, my haplogroup). Another L20 was seen on Langeland just below Funen (the predicted "hotspot" for the Cimbri descendants after the departure of the Angles after circa 447 AD). Another L2 was observed at Skara, Sweden in an area under Danish hegemony. One of the Danes murdered during the St. Brices' Day Massacre in Oxford, UK and dumped into a mass grave was R-U152. Autosomal data shows that all these R-U152/S28 had high "Danish-Like" DNA but also varying amounts of Southern European-Like DNA (as predicted since the Cimbri were in large part descended from the Celtic tribes of Switzerland and Italy who accompanied the former back to the Jutland area after the defeat by the Romans in 101 BC). The data is consistent with the original hypothesis dating back to 2005 - 14 years ago. Only ancient DNA would ever offer the icing on the cake in terms of evidence - that much I knew years ago. Surely it won't be long before we have ancient DNA data on the Angles of eastern Jutland and their descendants in eastern England (perhaps also samples from Normandy). I don't for a minute believe that U152 will predominate (likely I1 and R-U106 will outnumber all other haplogroups), but simply that R-U152/S28 will be "well representated" to the extent that it can explain the observation of a U152 affinity for the Angle regions of England, and the Danelaw.

anglesqueville
08-17-2019, 07:50 AM
If I'm well understanding that you, falconson1, are actually DKF ("the comments about me"). Just want to add to what I wrote earlier that I'll be really happy if your theses eventually appear to be confirmed, and I know some familiars in my Normand countryside who will be incredibly happy. I've carefully kept all of your texts in my archives and I'm going to read them again. I have not met only polite and tactful gentlemen since I started to interest myself in the genetic matters, far from it, but as I told I kept the remembering that you were one. Friendly greetings.

rms2
08-17-2019, 01:26 PM
. . .

Actually ancient DNA has come to my rescue - big time . . .

Really?

With regard to the Cimbri-cum-Vikings, that is debatable, not to mention highly doubtful, but on many other points it's pretty plain ancient dna did the opposite of rescuing you.

I remember how you championed the Franco-Cantabrian LGM Refuge for R1b long after most others had abandoned it, and how you said the Proto-Indo-Europeans were chiefly R1a. I also recall claims from you that L21 arose in Ireland in the bodies of the y-line descendants of the Mesolithic Basques who had arrived there when the ice retreated at the end of the LGM.

There was much much more, including your classic statements that for most of us M269 was it, that there simply weren't any more mutations downstream of M269 to be discovered, and that S21 and S28 (U106 and U152, for newbies who don't know the old names) were "sister clades". That last one was prior to the discovery of S116 (P312), which of course linked S28 to the rest of us lowly "Basque" serfs.

Those boners occur to me right off the top of my head, without going and searching old posts for more.

spruithean
08-17-2019, 02:07 PM
Actually ancient DNA has come to my rescue - big time.

It may have actually done the opposite...

MitchellSince1893
08-17-2019, 06:51 PM
Recognizing all the pitfalls of present day dna samples, there may be some correlation between:

I1 and Danes/Danelaw
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/61/a7/0561a7a716c1f5f210c5704f74a1cacb.png

U106 and Saxons & Jutes (Sussex/Wessex/Middlesex/Kent/Hampshire/Isle of Wight)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/73/c0/b473c059a7f151d041da466626729166.png

Haplogroup I2 shows a definite correlation with eastern England, historic Anglo-Saxon areas...less represented in traditionally Celtic areas in Cornwall, along the Welsh & Scottish borders.
it may be that I2 was most predominate in pre-beaker England, or that I2 made up a significant part of Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Vikings/Danes.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2c/a5/62/2ca5624c386710760ecddeb4e5245f08.png

And while there is some correlation between U152 and Angles in East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex), and lesser extent in Lincolnshire), the correlation is weaker in Yorshire where Angles and Danes had kingdoms.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/67/b2/e767b2360cdb604493ba3f96fbf4afa4.png

As I mentioned in another thread, 1.8% of the Viking samples were U152 (5 out of 276) EDIT: Using the study's spreadsheet, there are 248 males samples which would be 2.0%

Looks like not much has changed in the last 1000 years as the present day Myres study had U152 at:
2% of Southeast Denmark
4.8% of North Denmark

Of the 368 samples from Busby and Myres above, 11 were U152 which equals 2.99% today.

Currently in the FTDNA database
Denmark: 581 total, 15 are U152: 2.58%

If you combine Myres, Busby and FTDNA numbers:
Denmark: 18 of 671 are U152 (2.68%)

But as Dr Faux stated in his paper Y-DNA Haplogroup R-U152 in Britain: Proposed Link to the 5th Century Migration of the Angle and Jute Tribes from Jutland and Fyn, Denmark (Hypothesis B )

It is not expected that there will be many R-U152 in the homeland of the Angles (with the exception of Fyn) since there is historical and archaeological evidence that the entire area was depopulated circa 450 to 550 AD...
if the Angles and their likely possible ancestors the Cimbri were largely or partly R-U152 (other haplogroups would also be involved), thus we should not expect to find many men in southern Jutland today who belong to this haplogroup. This would be reinforced by the fact that the regions likely to supply the incoming haplogroups (eastern Sweden and eastern Denmark) are not likely to have included males with the R-U152 haplogroup

Within the Viking study for samples in present day Denmark
On Funen/Fyn, 14.3% of the male samples (2 out of 14) were U152+ (VK138 = U152>L2>Z49>Z142, VK373 U152>L2>L20+)
On Langeland, 5.9% of the male samples (1 out of 17) were U152+ (VK286 = U152>L2>L20+)
On Jutland, 0 out of 8 males samples was U152+
On Zealand/Sealand, 0 out of 11 males samples was U152+

In this small sample size, U152 has a higher percentage in Funen/Fyn than in other areas of Denmark, which would support Dr Faux's position.

While I don't disagree with Dr Faux that the Angles were partly U152, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence at this time to say they were "largely" or mostly U152.

Based on the available data, I also don't think Angles/Danes/Vikings are the primary historical source for U152 in England.
I tend to think the majority of U152 in Britain arrived earlier, especially from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, and Roman period (the later especially along the English/Scottish border). In part, this is based on U152 percentages in present day Northeastern France, Belgium/Flanders, and Western Germany...origin for many of the Bronze/Iron Age, Roman Era arrivals.

If additional data comes in that is in conflict with my opinion, I will need to reconsider this view.

falconson1
08-17-2019, 08:33 PM
Gosh rms2, talk about holding a grudge and perseverating. I have moved on and focused on autosomal DNA (e.g., entire maternal chromosome 21 from a Mohawk Valley NY German born 1736, and most of it (or all) from his documented ancestors born in the 1600s - tres cool). I only returned to the Y research a few weeks ago after Richard Rocca of the U152 and Subclades Project was kind enough to inform me of the Margaryan study.

As to the R1b and Franco - Cantabrian controversy (yes, still being argued about in the recent literature). Those who favor an origin of R1b in that area include Lucotte, Advances in Anthropology, 2015; Valverde et al., European Journal of Human Genetics, 2016 (can provide specific references if needed). As for myself, as of 2019, the data (including ancient DNA) seems to suggest that there was a massive migration from the Steepes during the Bronze Age which swept away much of the existing population structure and established R-M269 as the predominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Northwestern Europe (L21 predominating in the British Isles; DF27 in Iberia; U152 in the Alpine regions, and U106 in the "Germanic" areas of the north). As I said I have only made these inquiries in the last 3 weeks, surely you are much better versed in this topic than am I after 10 or more years of Y chromosome study.

As to what I said in 2005, some things have been supported, some not - which is what would be expected (unlike my great grandmother, I don't have a crystal ball).

falconson1
08-17-2019, 08:45 PM
Thank you anglesqueville!

Yes, wish we had a good sample of ancient (Viking Era) Normandy DNA. Wish I could send an update to the Cimbri study - actually it is only the DNA part that I have changed, not the history or archaeology. It is now 102 pages and the pdf won't send via either of my e-mail accounts. Maybe I could put it in dropbox. I am embarrassed to say this, but I totally forget how to access my website or I would upload it there.

Best wishes,

David.

falconson1
08-17-2019, 09:00 PM
Agree with pretty well everything you say MitchellSince1893. It would make sense (history, archaeology) that as the Iron Age merged into the "Dark Ages" that by then the Cimbri were no longer a cohesive group, did not exist under that name, and that U152 in their ancient homeland was no longer predominant (if it ever was - need ancient DNA data of course).

It is curious that my grandfather Faux from Norfolk (L20) married a woman from Lincolnshire whose father was also L20 - considering the relative rarity of this haplogroup. Thus was born my belief that the east coast of England, the Anglian and Danelaw areas, were home to individuals from Denmark. Whether Angle or Dane or other cannot be proved - perhaps the Big Y is in order, although would only work if they did "deeper" testing than simply L20 in the Margaryan study. I may approach Dr. Willerslev (primary author) and see what can be done - probably nothing, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Cheers,

David.

JonikW
08-17-2019, 11:19 PM
Recognizing all the pitfalls of present day dna samples, there may be some correlation between:

I1 and Danes/Danelaw
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/61/a7/0561a7a716c1f5f210c5704f74a1cacb.png

U106 and Saxons & Jutes (Sussex/Wessex/Middlesex/Kent/Hampshire/Isle of Wight)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/73/c0/b473c059a7f151d041da466626729166.png

Haplogroup I2 shows a definite correlation with eastern England, historic Anglo-Saxon areas...less represented in traditionally Celtic areas in Cornwall, along the Welsh & Scottish borders.
it may be that I2 was most predominate in pre-beaker England, or that I2 made up a significant part of Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Vikings/Danes.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2c/a5/62/2ca5624c386710760ecddeb4e5245f08.png

And while there is some correlation between U152 and Angles in East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex), and lesser extent in Lincolnshire), the correlation is weaker in Yorshire where Angles and Danes had kingdoms.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/67/b2/e767b2360cdb604493ba3f96fbf4afa4.png

As I mentioned in another thread, 1.8% of the Viking samples were U152 (5 out of 276) EDIT: Using the study's spreadsheet, there are 248 males samples which would be 2.0%


But as Dr Faux stated in his paper Y-DNA Haplogroup R-U152 in Britain: Proposed Link to the 5th Century Migration of the Angle and Jute Tribes from Jutland and Fyn, Denmark (Hypothesis B )


Within the Viking study for samples in present day Denmark
On Funen/Fyn, 14.3% of the male samples (2 out of 14) were U152+ (VK138 = U152>L2>Z49>Z142, VK373 U152>L2>L20+)
On Langeland, 5.9% of the male samples (1 out of 17) were U152+ (VK286 = U152>L2>L20+)
On Jutland, 0 out of 8 males samples was U152+
On Zealand/Sealand, 0 out of 11 males samples was U152+

In this small sample size, U152 has a higher percentage in Funen/Fyn than in other areas of Denmark, which would support Dr Faux's position.

While I don't disagree with Dr Faux that the Angles were partly U152, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence at this time to say they were "largely" or mostly U152.

Based on the available data, I also don't think Angles/Danes/Vikings are the primary historical source for U152 in England.
I tend to think the majority of U152 in Britain arrived earlier, especially from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, and Roman period (the later especially along the English/Scottish border). In part, this is based on U152 percentages in present day Northeastern France, Belgium/Flanders, and Western Germany...origin for many of the Bronze/Iron Age, Roman Era arrivals.

If additional data comes in that is in conflict with my opinion, I will need to reconsider this view.

I have no opinion on U152 and the Angles and agree with what you say. My personal view on the Cimbri is that they were Germanic. It's interesting to see though that U152 looks so high in Norfolk, given that this was where the bulk of the first Angles arrived in England. This was their initial heartland in the new country.

GoldenHind
08-17-2019, 11:19 PM
We have known since the Myres and Busby studies that U152 is present in small numbers in Denmark, so some turning up in the recent Viking era study comes as no surprise. Nor would I be surprised if U152 was present to some extent both among the Anglo-Saxons and those Danes who settled in the Danelaw in England. However that in no way proves that the Cimbri were of Celtic origin, or that they originated in Himmerland in Jutland, or that the Viking era U152 were descendants of the Cimbri.

As mentioned on another thread, P312 samples in the Viking era study were more frequent than U106 samples. Are we to conclude that all P312 in Scandinavia in the Viking Period are descendants of a putative Celtic Cimbri, or just U152? Besides the six U152 samples in the study, there were also fourteen L21 samples, four DF27, one DF19, one L238 and eight undifferentiated P312.

Garimund
08-17-2019, 11:51 PM
I have no opinion on U152 and the Angles and agree with what you say. My personal view on the Cimbri is that they were Germanic. It's interesting to see though that U152 looks so high in Norfolk, given that this was where the bulk of the first Angles arrived in England. This was their initial heartland in the new country.

On the Cimbri being Germanic, then what do you make of the obviously Celtic Gundestrup cauldron? While I can’t speculate all of Denmark were flowing with Celts, there was a Celtic presence there at one time.

U152 being present in East Anglia correlates with a La Tene presence in Iron Age England, so it’s hard to say what the actually origin of it is.

MitchellSince1893
08-17-2019, 11:57 PM
I have no opinion on U152 and the Angles and agree with what you say. My personal view on the Cimbri is that they were Germanic. It's interesting to see though that U152 looks so high in Norfolk, given that this was where the bulk of the first Angles arrived in England. This was their initial heartland in the new country.

I've wondered if the Iceni tribe in pre-Roman Britain might have been U152 heavy.


Iceni are also linked to the La Tčne period in Europe, thanks to the work of Hawkes (1931) and Childe (1940), both of whom are cited by Jones (1997). He noted that Childe interpreted the burials and stray objects regarded as characteristic of the La Tčne tradition in East Anglia as the culture of 'Marnian Chieftains' (Celts from the River Marne region) who established control of the 'Halstatt peasantry' and later founded the Iceni tribe. This would be typical of a late-arriving and more advanced Celtic group who established a new ruling elite over an existing body of earlier Celts.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5802-U152-numbers-and-percentages-in-Britain&p=128266&viewfull=1#post128266

JonikW
08-18-2019, 12:04 AM
On the Cimbri being Germanic, then what do you make of the obviously Celtic Gundestrup cauldron? While I can’t speculate all of Denmark were flowing with Celts, there was a Celtic presence there at one time.

U152 being present in East Anglia correlates with a La Tene presence in Iron Age England, so it’s hard to say what the actually origin of it is.

I agree about U152. I thought the cauldron was of Thracian origin. At least that's what the British Museum said when I first saw it on exhibition there. They said recent research suggests it was made in Bulgaria or Romania, where Celtic styles came into contact with the Thracians.

spruithean
08-18-2019, 12:13 AM
I agree about U152. I thought the cauldron was of Thracian origin. At least that's what the British Museum said when I first saw it on exhibition there. They said recent research suggests it was made in Bulgaria or Romania, where Celtic styles came into contact with the Thracians.

It has components of Gaulish, Thracian and Near Eastern design, mythological symbolism, etc. it can be reasonably explained via trade networks, which isn't a farfetched idea. The ancient world wasn't as isolated as we assume.

JonikW
08-18-2019, 12:23 AM
It has components of Gaulish, Thracian and Near Eastern design, mythological symbolism, etc. it can be reasonably explained via trade networks, which isn't a farfetched idea. The ancient world wasn't as isolated as we assume.

Yes, I'd be amazed if anyone still assumes that, or in fact whether they ever did since the first modern archaeological discoveries. There's no need to think the cauldron belonged to Celts in Denmark.

Garimund
08-18-2019, 02:02 AM
Yes, I'd be amazed if anyone still assumes that, or in fact whether they ever did since the first modern archaeological discoveries. There's no need to think the cauldron belonged to Celts in Denmark.

Well, you have a carnyx, Cernunnos and a possible Taranos on the cauldron. If we had to explain a bunch of P312 in ancient Denmark and have Celtic artifacts, logic tells us Celts were there. It’s not absurd to insist that ancient Celts were crossing over and settling into Germania. They were a force to be reckoned with prior to their destruction by Romans. We can’t approve or deny this one way or the other right now, but it’s not unreasonable, and hopefully archaeology and genetics will shed some light on this one day. I’ve read ancient Germanics learned the trade of metalworking from Celts. The word for iron, isarna is apparently the same in both languages, so there must have been plenty of cohabitation in the Iron Age.

glentane
08-18-2019, 04:13 AM
Well, you have a carnyx, Cernunnos and a possible Taranos on the cauldron. If we had to explain a bunch of P312 in ancient Denmark and have Celtic artifacts, logic tells us Celts were there.

Och aye. The famous wheeled elephant brigades of the Celts are also clearly represented on that fairly late elite gift-exchange nick-nack.
That silly tub was commissioned by Gauls at their furthest stable reach (therefore not Galatia), from skilled "Romanian" silversmiths.

Scarlet Ibis
08-18-2019, 08:22 AM
Alright alright. I'm personally invested in this topic, but folks, keep on board. Please.

GoldenHind
08-18-2019, 05:56 PM
On the Cimbri being Germanic, then what do you make of the obviously Celtic Gundestrup cauldron? While I can’t speculate all of Denmark were flowing with Celts, there was a Celtic presence there at one time.


From Wikipedia: Origins:

"The silverworking techniques used in the cauldron are unknown from the Celtic world, but are consistent with the renowned Thracian sheet-silver tradition. The scenes depicted are not distinctively Thracian, but certain elements of composition, decorative motifs, and illustrated items (such as the shoelaces on the antlered figure) identify it as Thracian work.[4][5]

Taylor and Bergquist have postulated that the Celtic tribe known as the Scordisci commissioned the cauldron from native Thracian silversmiths. According to classical historians, the Cimbri, a Teutonic tribe, went south from the lower Elbe region and attacked the Scordisci in 118 BC. After withstanding several defeats at the hands of the Romans, the Cimbri retreated north, possibly taking with them this cauldron to settle in Himmerland, where the vessel was found.[4][5]

Nielsen believes that the question of origin is the wrong one to ask and can produce misleading results. Because of the widespread migration of numerous ethnic groups like the Celts and Teutonic peoples and events like Roman expansion and subsequent Romanization, it is highly unlikely that only one ethnic group was responsible for the development of the Gundestrup cauldron. Instead, the make and art of the cauldron can be thought of as the product of a fusion of cultures, each inspiring and expanding upon one another. In the end, Nielsen concludes that, based on accelerator datings from beeswax found on the back of the plates, the vessel was created within the Roman Iron Age at a location somewhere in Central Europe.[1]"

There seems to be general agreement among scholars that it was not manufactured by phantom Celts in Denmark.

JonikW
08-19-2019, 08:06 PM
Agree with pretty well everything you say MitchellSince1893. It would make sense (history, archaeology) that as the Iron Age merged into the "Dark Ages" that by then the Cimbri were no longer a cohesive group, did not exist under that name, and that U152 in their ancient homeland was no longer predominant (if it ever was - need ancient DNA data of course).

It is curious that my grandfather Faux from Norfolk (L20) married a woman from Lincolnshire whose father was also L20 - considering the relative rarity of this haplogroup. Thus was born my belief that the east coast of England, the Anglian and Danelaw areas, were home to individuals from Denmark. Whether Angle or Dane or other cannot be proved - perhaps the Big Y is in order, although would only work if they did "deeper" testing than simply L20 in the Margaryan study. I may approach Dr. Willerslev (primary author) and see what can be done - probably nothing, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Cheers,

David.

Just wanted to say if you're still monitoring this thread that I downloaded and read your first two hypotheses today. I didn't agree with all you said, particularly on the linguistic evidence, but you've done a rigorous job of a kind that's rarely seen outside specialist academia. I particularly enjoyed the sections on the depopulation of the Anglian homeland and am grateful to you for making this available for all to read. I do have a question: I've seen a riposte to the Morimarusa theory but was particularly interested in this passage of yours because it seems to me the linguistic evidence is absolutely key: "Other evidence as to the language spoken by the Cimbri can be seen in the actions of the Roman intelligence service of Marius, run by Sertorius, which sent spies who spoke Gaulish Celtic into the Cimbri camp in 101 BC. They were able to understand the language of the Cimbri so they could report back details of importance to their masters." I'm not familiar with the primary source so would like to know whether it says the spies listened directly to the Cimbric leadership. Otherwise of course they could equally have overhead or spoken with the many Celts who scholars agree would inevitably have been picked up along the road by this stage. I'm sure you've considered all this but would appreciate more detail... I often wish the ancients could have anticipated our questions and firmed up more of their observations on tribes and peoples. Unfortunately it is what it is and I'm still grateful for what we have.

falconson1
08-20-2019, 08:01 PM
I agree about U152. I thought the cauldron was of Thracian origin. At least that's what the British Museum said when I first saw it on exhibition there. They said recent research suggests it was made in Bulgaria or Romania, where Celtic styles came into contact with the Thracians.

The Danish Museum and others believe that this item made of silver was indeed made in Thrace, but likely made for a Celtic chieftain, perhaps an ally in the 279 BC raid on the Shrine at Delphi, Greece. The iconography is strictly Celtic, including a depiction of the Celtic god Cernunos, the helmets sporting birds or other "toppings", the lurs (bronze horns) found in Danish bogs - all these described by Roman authors when discussing the Cimbri. Perhaps one of the most dramatic Celtic items is the scene showing an older woman holding a body over a cauldron - a very Celtic "tradition" - and consistent with a bog body from Jutland of that era found with his throat slit. Go panel to panel viewing this cauldron (I have seen the original in Copenhagen), it is all Celtic. Then there is the Braa cauldron (Celtic, and much bigger than the Gunderstrup cauldron), the Celtic wagons complete with typical "Celtic faces" seen much further south with hair slicked back (it was limed) and the characteristic mustache - dismantled and placed in a votive offering. Even the golden Gallehus drinking horns from Jutland circa 400 AD are (were, they are "lost") entirely Celtic in their iconography. This is the tip of the iceberg. All of this is reported in one of my earlier papers here http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf. This paper has been updated, but only with the population genetics data and ancient DNA reports now available.

glentane
08-21-2019, 01:51 AM
Perhaps one of the most dramatic Celtic items is the scene showing an older woman holding a body over a cauldron - a very Celtic "tradition" -
Dobber. In what way is that person a woman? Or even a gaidhilig speaker? Explain to a simple-minded Scotsman please. The very one wearing identical breeks to the so-called Cernunnos and every single one of the poor bloody infantry depicted?

This one. Rubbish tits for a start (my specialist subject, ladies), don't even think of defending the rest of "it".
https://thenewpagan.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/gundestrup_cauldron_dunking.jpg?w=300&h=242
tl;dr americans are mental there is no cure.
Desperate. Get yourselves a proper culture. Maybe ask the Appalachian folk if you can steal theirs?

falconson1
08-21-2019, 03:06 AM
Dobber. In what way is that person a woman? Or even a gaidhilig speaker? Explain to a simple-minded Scotsman please. The very one wearing identical breeks to the so-called Cernunnos and every single one of the poor bloody infantry depicted?

This one. Rubbish tits for a start (my specialist subject, ladies), don't even think of defending the rest of "it".
https://thenewpagan.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/gundestrup_cauldron_dunking.jpg?w=300&h=242
tl;dr americans are mental there is no cure.
Desperate. Get yourselves a proper culture. Maybe ask the Appalachian folk if you can steal theirs?

Won't dignify this ................ whatever it is, with a response, but rather call upon a Moderator to address the obvious.

falconson1
08-21-2019, 03:07 AM
Dobber. In what way is that person a woman? Or even a gaidhilig speaker? Explain to a simple-minded Scotsman please. The very one wearing identical breeks to the so-called Cernunnos and every single one of the poor bloody infantry depicted?

This one. Rubbish tits for a start (my specialist subject, ladies), don't even think of defending the rest of "it".
https://thenewpagan.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/gundestrup_cauldron_dunking.jpg?w=300&h=242
tl;dr americans are mental there is no cure.
Desperate. Get yourselves a proper culture. Maybe ask the Appalachian folk if you can steal theirs?

Think I will retreat from this thread - for obvious reasons. The USA has been very good to this Canadian with an Appalachian - Ozark wife, and I take great exception to slights by foreign people against the country which has given me so many opportunities.

JonikW
08-21-2019, 10:08 AM
Think I will retreat from this thread - for obvious reasons. The USA has been very good to this Canadian with an Appalachian - Ozark wife, and I take great exception to slights by foreign people against the country which has given me so many opportunities.

I'm sorry about this. I would like to have known more about what I asked in #137. Perhaps you could pm me? I'm genuinely curious, appreciate the scale of the work you've put into this area and have no desire to dissuade you from your views. Thanks.

falconson1
08-21-2019, 04:50 PM
Just wanted to say if you're still monitoring this thread that I downloaded and read your first two hypotheses today. I didn't agree with all you said, particularly on the linguistic evidence, but you've done a rigorous job of a kind that's rarely seen outside specialist academia. I particularly enjoyed the sections on the depopulation of the Anglian homeland and am grateful to you for making this available for all to read. I do have a question: I've seen a riposte to the Morimarusa theory but was particularly interested in this passage of yours because it seems to me the linguistic evidence is absolutely key: "Other evidence as to the language spoken by the Cimbri can be seen in the actions of the Roman intelligence service of Marius, run by Sertorius, which sent spies who spoke Gaulish Celtic into the Cimbri camp in 101 BC. They were able to understand the language of the Cimbri so they could report back details of importance to their masters." I'm not familiar with the primary source so would like to know whether it says the spies listened directly to the Cimbric leadership. Otherwise of course they could equally have overhead or spoken with the many Celts who scholars agree would inevitably have been picked up along the road by this stage. I'm sure you've considered all this but would appreciate more detail... I often wish the ancients could have anticipated our questions and firmed up more of their observations on tribes and peoples. Unfortunately it is what it is and I'm still grateful for what we have.

Hello JonikW, it is also frustrating that translations of early Greek and Roman works are often poor (inaccurate) and inconsistent between translated versions. I have kept all of the references to what appears in my Cimbri paper, and they mostly reside in two large sized ring binders - which I have not looked at in 15 or so years. Tempting as it was, fortunately I decided not to pitch them when we moved earlier this year. I am not sure how long it will take me to locate the source of the info you are seeking (especially considering my schedule for the next few weeks). If perchance the reference is within one of the books of translated "Classical" texts on my book shelves ...... well, I will chip away at the task and report back if / when I luck upon it.

JonikW
08-21-2019, 05:33 PM
Hello JonikW, it is also frustrating that translations of early Greek and Roman works are often poor (inaccurate) and inconsistent between translated versions. I have kept all of the references to what appears in my Cimbri paper, and they mostly reside in two large sized ring binders - which I have not looked at in 15 or so years. Tempting as it was, fortunately I decided not to pitch them when we moved earlier this year. I am not sure how long it will take me to locate the source of the info you are seeking (especially considering my schedule for the next few weeks). If perchance the reference is within one of the books of translated "Classical" texts on my book shelves ...... well, I will chip away at the task and report back if / when I luck upon it.

Much appreciated. I'm particularly intrigued based on something I posted at #22 here (http://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18103-Why-did-Germanic-peoples-want-to-move-en-mass-to-a-collapsing-hinterland-aka-Britain&p=593426#post593426) today regarding the possibility of Celts in 4th century Friesland. I'm always ready to have my assumptions overturned if the evidence is there.

falconson1
08-21-2019, 07:16 PM
Hello JonikW, it is also frustrating that translations of early Greek and Roman works are often poor (inaccurate) and inconsistent between translated versions. I have kept all of the references to what appears in my Cimbri paper, and they mostly reside in two large sized ring binders - which I have not looked at in 15 or so years. Tempting as it was, fortunately I decided not to pitch them when we moved earlier this year. I am not sure how long it will take me to locate the source of the info you are seeking (especially considering my schedule for the next few weeks). If perchance the reference is within one of the books of translated "Classical" texts on my book shelves ...... well, I will chip away at the task and report back if / when I luck upon it.

As luck would have it, I located my source re the above. I had put tabs and an index in the two binders listing the contents of each. Anyway, the secondary source is Henri Hubert, "The Greatness and Decline of the Celts", Chapter IV, "Celts and Germans", Legan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1934 (new edition published by Columbia University Press, 2003) - no page numbers in my copy. Hubert cites Mommsen, CCCLIX, ii, p. 172 as his reference for the statement. I am guessing that more can be found in Plutarch, "Life of Gaius Marius" in "Plutarch Lives", 1st ed., 11 volumes, translated by Bernadotte Perrin, London: W. Heinemann, 1914-1926. Good luck in tracking all this down, "if you should chose to accept the assignment".

I should further note that Hubert states, "Marius's intelligence service, run by Sertorius, took the trouble to learn Celtic, and found that language sufficient" (again Mommsen). So questions still remain, e.g., what does "sufficient" imply here? Perhaps even Plutarch may not give a precise statement which would clear up your original question.

JMcB
08-21-2019, 07:28 PM
Think I will retreat from this thread - for obvious reasons. The USA has been very good to this Canadian with an Appalachian - Ozark wife, and I take great exception to slights by foreign people against the country which has given me so many opportunities.

Hello falconson,

I wouldn’t let it bother you. No matter where you go there’s always one.

JonikW
08-21-2019, 07:30 PM
As luck would have it, I located my source re the above. I had put tabs and an index in the two binders listing the contents of each. Anyway, the secondary source is Henri Hubert, "The Greatness and Decline of the Celts", Chapter IV, "Celts and Germans", Legan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1934 (new edition published by Columbia University Press, 2003) - no page numbers in my copy. Hubert cites Mommsen, CCCLIX, ii, p. 172 as his reference for the statement. I am guessing that more can be found in Plutarch, "Life of Gaius Marius" in "Plutarch Lives", 1st ed., 11 volumes, translated by Bernadotte Perrin, London: W. Heinemann, 1914-1926. Good luck in tracking all this down, "if you should chose to accept the assignment".

I should further note that Hubert states, "Marius's intelligence service, run by Sertorius, took the trouble to learn Celtic, and found that language sufficient" (again Mommsen). So questions still remain, e.g., what does "sufficient" imply here? Perhaps even Plutarch may not give a precise statement which would clear up your original question.

Yes, there are nearly always questions and gaps. I often wish Caesar and Tacitus could have added a few words from dialects and languages, among many other things. I appreciate your reply, and thanks for rekindling my interest in a people who struck such terror into Rome.

GhostofBoiorix
01-10-2020, 07:25 AM
Dobber. In what way is that person a woman? Or even a gaidhilig speaker? Explain to a simple-minded Scotsman please. The very one wearing identical breeks to the so-called Cernunnos and every single one of the poor bloody infantry depicted?

This one. Rubbish tits for a start (my specialist subject, ladies), don't even think of defending the rest of "it".
https://thenewpagan.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/gundestrup_cauldron_dunking.jpg?w=300&h=242
tl;dr americans are mental there is no cure.
Desperate. Get yourselves a proper culture. Maybe ask the Appalachian folk if you can steal theirs?

I'm very confused by this statement. Does Appalachian culture not 'count' as American culture despite emerging out of Anglo-American settler traditions?

Odd thing. You limeys have a tendency towards a fatal combination of both ignorance and arrogance. Never a sensible sight when it rears its head.

Jessie
01-10-2020, 01:08 PM
Oh, yes. I remember when we were all stuck at M269, and he said that was it for us. Our ancestors were "the cast of thousands" who formed the faceless backdrop for the heroic exploits of his ancestors, the La Tene Celts-cum Cimbri-cum Danish Vikings.

He was a big advocate of the term "invader y-dna" to refer to I-M253 (the old I1a), R1b-S21 (U106), and, first and foremost, to R1b-S28 (U152) in the British Isles. The rest of us were descended from the lowly native cavemen, who were really Basques (we were supposed to be thrilled about that).

He was also amongst the most ardent holdouts for the Iberian LGM Refuge, although he subsequently admitted he was wrong on that score and apologized for it.

George van der Merwede invited him from Rootsweb over to dna forums and considered it a big coup when he accepted and showed up, since DKF was considered kind of a dna celebrity back in those days.

It is interesting looking back on old theories. A lot of people believed in the old Franco-Cantabrian Ice Age Refuge. Even then I couldn't understand how all these populations were from there and the differences in autosomal dna. How did people ever explain that? Was it ever mentioned in discussions?

Anyway a lot of water under the bridge now. :)

sktibo
01-11-2020, 11:19 PM
Think I will retreat from this thread - for obvious reasons. The USA has been very good to this Canadian with an Appalachian - Ozark wife, and I take great exception to slights by foreign people against the country which has given me so many opportunities.

Apologies for OT
But just so you're aware there is an individual we know as "Calas" who goes through a cycle of getting banned and re-making new accounts each time and often says some pretty outrageous or offensive things as this individual has some pretty strange ideas they want to perpetuate. The moderators do their best but this individual has persisted here in the time span of years now and I doubt they'll go away completely no matter how often they are banned. Most people here are pretty reasonable but you'll probably encounter this individual as well during your time here if you have not already.

vettor
01-12-2020, 01:44 AM
Note
The cimbri of jutland denmark have no association with tge cimbri from bavaria which went to north italy circa 12th century

vettor
01-12-2020, 01:45 AM
Note
The cimbri of jutland denmark have no association with tge cimbri from bavaria which went to north italy circa 12th century

spruithean
01-12-2020, 04:11 PM
Note
The cimbri of jutland denmark have no association with tge cimbri from bavaria which went to north italy circa 12th century

I think most are aware of this, but the Cimbri (from Jutland) of the Cimbrian War did make it into Italy. I don't think anyone can definitively say whether these Cimbri can be connected to the Cimbrian speakers (Zimbar) in Italy in the present.

etrusco
01-12-2020, 04:31 PM
I think most are aware of this, but the Cimbri (from Jutland) of the Cimbrian War did make it into Italy. I don't think anyone can definitively say whether these Cimbri can be connected to the Cimbrian speakers (Zimbar) in Italy in the present.



The link with the ancient Cimbri is due to a mistake of italian humanists. However from Wikipedia:

"The presence of Germanic-speaking communities in Italy was discovered in the 14th century by the Italian humanists, who associated them with the Cimbri who arrived in the region in the 2nd century BC.

Obviously they were wrong and the modern Cimbri are just bavarians that moved south during the low middle ages. The same movement of germanic ( in this case alemannic speakers) happened in the western alps at the border of Val d'Aosta and Switzerland. Their name is Walser.

vettor
01-12-2020, 04:59 PM
The link with the ancient Cimbri is due to a mistake of italian humanists. However from Wikipedia:

"The presence of Germanic-speaking communities in Italy was discovered in the 14th century by the Italian humanists, who associated them with the Cimbri who arrived in the region in the 2nd century BC.

Obviously they were wrong and the modern Cimbri are just bavarians that moved south during the low middle ages. The same movement of germanic ( in this case alemannic speakers) happened in the western alps at the border of Val d'Aosta and Switzerland. Their name is Walser.

The Cimbri had special compensation by the venetian republic....since they where all lumberjacks ...........supply timber and transport to Venice, grow and maintain new forests ......if this was done, then Tax to pay was zero
They mostly had Beech Forests, which was ideal for Oar making

some surnames...Velo, Fabris, Cester, Walzer