# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Romans, Alpine Celts and Belgae : close cousins ?

## Maciamo

Recent genetic data suggests that ancient Italic tribes, including the Romans, were closely related to the Alpine Celts who founded the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. In other words, the Romans conquest of Gaul was more like the final part of the unification process of the Italo-Celtic tribes.

*Genetic evidence*

The S28/U152 SNP was discovered as a subclade of haplogroup R1b about 2 years ago and tests have become more widespread over the last year. The original trend seem to point at a Celtic origin for this haplogroup, with a possible origin in the Black Forest or Switzerland. 

R1b-S28 was found in the area of extension of the La Tene culture, along the Rhine, Moselle and Meuse valleys north to Belgium, around the Alps in Eastern France (Lorraine, Vosges, Jura, and maybe as far as Auvergne), and in northern Italy, known as Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans. The haplogroup was also observed at lower frequency in Britain, which is compatible with the establishment of Belgic tribes there prior to the Roman conquest.

But it now appears that R1b-S28 is also the most common subclade of R1b in Italy, even in the south and in Sardinia. It could indeed be the original haplogroup of the Italic tribes, prior to the arrival of the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Phoenicians.

The coalescence age for R1b-S28 haplotypes is around 3,500 years ago, about 1,000 years before the beginning of the European Bronze Age. This makes it possible for a common origin of the Alpine Celts and Italic tribes. Little is known of the Italics before the mythical foundation of Rome in 753 BCE. 

In all likelihood, the ancestor of all/most R1b-S28 people lived in the Western Hallstatt culture, around the Black Forest. This happens to be the place where the highest STR diversity is found for this haplogroup, which usually means that it is the place of origin.

*Linguistic evidence*

This theory is further corroborated by linguistic evidence. Italic and Celtic languages belonged to the same Italo-Celtic family. It is known that at the time of Julius Caesar Gaulish dialects were still mutually intelligible with Latin, meaning that the two linguistic groups had not split so long ago.

*Archeological evidence*

Archeological evidence suggest that the Italics may not have colonised the Italian peninsula before 1,000 BCE. The nearest and most probable place of origin of the Italics was the Alps region, where the Hallstatt culture (1,200-475 BCE) flourished. 

This would explain why Roman helmets and other military equipment, were directly inspired by Alpine Celtic ones. 

The Romans became more technologically and culturally advanced than their northern cousins thanks to the influence of their Near-Eastern neighbours, the Etruscans (immediately north of Rome) and the Greeks (to the south). The Romans combined the best elements of Celtic and Greco-Etruscan culture and technology to become a superpower.

The Celts were said to be fiercer warriors than the Greeks, who were themselves stronger than the Persians (they never let themselves conquered, even in the heyday of Darius and Xerxes). Even Alexander the Great feared the Alpine/Danubian Celts, and made sure to secure peace with them before setting off to conquer the Middle East. The Celts invaded Greece a few decades after Alexander's death, and sacked Delphi in 279 BCE. Those were the same Alpine Celts that had sacked Rome in 390 BCE, and besieged it again in 367 BCE. 

Until the 3rd century, the Alpine Celts were the strongest military power in Europe, and the fastest expanding culture. The La Tène culture spread well beyond Gaul and Italy, to Iberia, Britain, the Balkans and Anatolia.

If the Romans were in fact close relatives of those Celts, equipped with the Greek advances in agriculture, ship-building, military strategy, and political structure, it is no wonder that they defeated everybody else so easily.

*Roman relations with their Alpine Celtic cousins*

Many Eastern Gaulish tribes (e.g. Sequani. Aedui) allied themselves to Julius Caesar during the Conquest of Gaul. In fact they had long had good relations with Rome and were the ones who requested Caesar's assistance to fight other tribes. Before Caesar's time the Aedui had attached themselves to the Romans, and were honoured with the title of brothers and kinsmen of the Roman people. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Romans had the hardest time defeating the tribes closest to them, the Suebi and the Belgae.

This also explains why the Romans called the Suebi and other Celts of modern south-west Germany the "Germani". The Latin _Germani_ comes from _germanus_ (from germen, "seed" or "offshoot"). The term was used to mean that they were the genuine Celts (descendants of the Hallstatt and La Tène Celts), as opposed to the other tribes of Gaul. Or it meant that they, Romans, descended from the same "seed" as these _Germani_ from the Black Forest, or saw each others as offshoots of the same tribe.

The Roman provinces of _Germania_ match exactly the regions where R1b-S28 has the highest frequency, around modern Belgium (Germania Inferior), and around the Baden-Württemberg (Germania Superior).

This may be why the name Germanicus was used in the Rome aristocracy, like for Emperors Caligula (Germanicus Julius Caesar) and Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus). It may have been a reference to the Roman's origins in _Germania_. In any case they didn't think of these _Germani_ as contemptible or inferior, otherwise they would not have named members of the imperial family after them. It was closer to an honorific title.

*Conclusion*

If this theory is confirmed, it would mean that the original Romans were an offshoot of the Alpine/Black Forest Celts, just like the Belgae, and the Galatians of Anatolia.

Naturally the Romans unified Italy and annexed Greece before conquering Gaul, so by the time of Julius Caesar, being Roman meant being Greco-Roman. It terms of haplogroups of the Y-chromosome, it means an admixture of Italo-Celtic R1b-S28 (and probably also G2a3, which arrived in Europe during the Neolithic) with Greco-Etruscan J2 and E1b1b.

----------


## Maciamo

It is interesting to note that there was a major collapse of Bronze-Age civilisations around 1,200 BCE from Greece to Egypt, just after the beginning of the Bronze-Age in Europe and the invention of the Naue Type II sword by the Proto-Celts from the Danube region. 

Barbarians invaded the palace-states of Mycenaean Greece, Hittite Anatolia, Assyria and Egypt, sacked their cities dry and caused a severe depopulation. Nobody knows for sure who these barbarians were, nor if it was a single group or various tribes from Europe, Central Asia and the Arabian peninsula. The worst hit region were Greece and Anatolia, suggesting that the invaders could well have been first and foremost European.

From this website:




> From archaeological evidence it would appear that the Griffzungenschwert [Naue Type II sword] evolved in the 'barbarian' regions of Austria and Hungary, some variants going back to ca. 1450 b.c. It was only around 1200, however, that the Naue Type II took the civilized world by storm. By no coincidence this was at the same time as the destruction of cities throughout Greece and the Near East; an era which saw the end of the Hittite Empire and the beginning of Egypt's final decline. The archaeological record shows that swords of the Naue Type II began to be adopted by the defenders of these besieged lands around 1200. Although there is no hard evidence, logic suggests that the sword was, out of sheer necessity, copied by the city-dwellers from the weapons used by the raiders who had come to destroy them.


A reversal in culture occurred between the Near East and Europe; the collapse of the former coincides with the rise of the Urnfield culture of the 12-13th centuries BCE, immediately followed by the Celtic Hallstatt culture (1200-475 BCE).

Archeologically, Celtic culture originated in southern Germany and Austria (Urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tène), then spread to the rest of Western Europe. The Proto-Celts had arrived from Romania through the Danube valley during the 2nd millennium BCE. They progressively moved westward, as attested by the early East Hallstatt, followed by the late West Hallstatt, then La Tène even further west. 

What if all the European R1b (M269) stem from these Proto-Celts and only colonised/conquered Western Europe after 1,300 BCE ? If the new Naue Type-II swords conferred them enough military advantage to destroy the powerful Near-Eastern civilisations, they would have massacred the Neolithic inhabitants of Western Europe. 

This would explain why a Neolithic population primarily composed of I2 and G2a (and maybe so E1b1b), has turned into a predominantly R1b society. I2 and G2a would have become isolated to mountainous regions like Sardinia, the Pyrennees and the Alps - and that is the case. They would have remained more numerous in Eastern Europe because they had mixed with R1b or R1a before the Celtic expansion. Northern Europe also mixed early with the R1b people of the Urnfield culture, so the consequences for I1 and I2b in northern Germany and Scandinavia were less severe than for I2a (and I2b ?) in the West.

----------


## Anlef

Interesting article! (And great work on your site by the way!)
Please allow me to offer some critical remarks.



> This also explains why the Romans called the Suebi and other Celts of modern south-west Germany the "Germani". The Latin _Germani_ comes from _germanus_ (from germen, "seed" or "offshoot"). The term was used to mean that they were the genuine Celts (descendants of the Hallstatt and La Tène Celts), as opposed to the other tribes of Gaul. Or it meant that they, Romans, descended from the same "seed" as these _Germani_ from the Black Forest, or saw each others as offshoots of the same tribe.


Linguistically speaking, _Suebi_ is an unmistakably Germanic name. As far as I know the Celtic languages didn't have names/words beginning with /sw-/. The name is a latinisation of Proto-Germanic _*Swēbōz_, the plural of _*Swēbaz_, which is derived from a Proto-Germanic root meaning something like 'of ones own, of the people' or 'independent'. The same root can be found in _*swēsaz_ 'own, familiar' (whence Gothic _swēs_, Old Norse _sváss_, Old English _swǣs_, Old High German _swās_).
If you want to call the Suebi Celts, then you might as well call all the Germanic tribes (an offshoot of the) Celts. However, the Germanic languages are not descended from the Celtic languages. Therefore, the Suebi were either germanised Celts, or a mix of Celts and Germanics, or just plain Germanics who had ousted earlier Celts.
From _Germania_ by Tacitus:
(*2.3*) But the term 'Germania', they say, is modern and recently applied, since those who first crossed over the Rhine and drove out the Gauls (and now are called the Tungri) were at that time called Germani. Thus the name of a tribe, and not of a people, gradually became dominant, with the result that they were all called Germani, at first by the conquered from the name of the conquerers because of fear, and then, once the name had been devised, also by the Germani themselves.So if we can lend Tacitus some credibility, there was ethnic self-awareness among the Germanics. They distinguished themselves from the Gauls, and their language was their own (i.e. non-Celtic). The name _Tungri_ can be explained as a latinisation of Proto-Germanic _*Tungrōz_, a derivation of the root of _*tangrijan_ 'to press together'. Their name could then mean something like 'those pressed together' > 'the united' or 'those under (demographic) pressure'.
Also, it is very plausible that _Germani_ is simply a Latin translation of Proto-Germanic _*Swēbōz_. That both meant 'those of the own seed'.



> This may be why the name Germanicus was used in the Rome aristocracy, like for Emperors Caligula (Germanicus Julius Caesar) and Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus). It may have been a reference to the Roman's origins in _Germania_. In any case they didn't think of these _Germani_ as contemptible or inferior, otherwise they would not have named members of the imperial family after them. It was closer to an honorific title.


As far as I know the title _Germanicus_ was honorary and first given to Nero Claudius Drusus (and his family) for his efforts in Germania as a military commander. This kind of nomenclature resembles that of Publius Cornelius Scipio, who was named Scipio _Africanus_ after his defeat Hannibal. _Germanicus_ and _Africanus_ are then rather examples of victory titles*; they do not indicate kinship or ancestry.
* The board won't allow me to post URLs, seeing as this is my first post, so you'll have to look it up yourself on Wikipedia.

----------


## Anlef

Apparently my formatting got lost in the process of posting. Since I am not allowed to edit my posts, I ask the reader to assume new paragraphs where they are due.

----------


## Anlef

Correction:

Where I said _*tangrijan_ I meant _*tangijan_.

----------


## Maciamo

> If you want to call the Suebi Celts, then you might as well call all the Germanic tribes (an offshoot of the) Celts. However, the Germanic languages are not descended from the Celtic languages. Therefore, the Suebi were either germanised Celts, or a mix of Celts and Germanics, or just plain Germanics who had ousted earlier Celts.


Considering that southern Germany was the expansion point of Proto-Celtic culture (Unetice, Tumulus and Hallstatt cultures), the 1st-century Suebi must have been mostly Germanised Celts (probably with a Germanic minority).




> Also, it is very plausible that _Germani_ is simply a Latin translation of Proto-Germanic _*Swēbōz_. That both meant 'those of the own seed'.


I like this theory that _Germani_ was merely a Latin translation of the meaning of _Suebi_.

----------


## Anlef

Alright, I decided to delve into my Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic to check my statement that "the Celtic languages didn't have names/words beginning with /sw-/." I was wrong. Proto-Celtic, like Proto-Germanic, retained the Proto-Indo-European /sw-/ at the beginning of words, although it is no longer present in modern Celtic languages. Yet Gaulish still had it. Take for instance the personal name _Suadurix_ 'sweet ruler'. Be that as it may, the Suebi are still Germanic.

However, I must say, it is tempting to think that Germanics are partly descended from some kind of Proto-Celts (from the Hallstatt Culture), and that the remaining Celts can be divided into Gauls and such. I mean, one moment the Celts were supposedly all over Central Europe, and the next a whole bunch of Germanics occupied swaths of that land.

To illustrate my point, I made family tree. Too bad I'm still not allowed to link. So copy and paste the below to your address bar.

i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq308/anlef/Europe.jpg

----------


## Maciamo

> To illustrate my point, I made family tree. Too bad I'm still not allowed to link. So copy and paste the below to your address bar.
> i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq308/anlef/Europe.jpg


I basically agree with your graph, except a few things. Indo-European was R1b1b + R1a, so :

- Western IE was R1b1b2

- the Northeastern (or just northern) IE branch split from PIE, not from 
Western IE. Balto-Slavic languages are closer to Indo-Iranian languages than to Italo-Celtic. It was indeed R1a.

- the Roman branch was R1b mixed with the Near-Eastern E1b1b, G2a, J and the Paleolithic I2a. The Celtic branch also had Near-Eastern E1b1b, G2a, J + I2a2 from the Carpathians + I2b from Central and N-W Europe. In other words you "skipped" the Neolithic admixture from the Near East/Balkans that spread with the LBK culture.  :Wink:

----------


## Neander

There is also in Albania, Alpine race by 10%, and S28 smw 10 to 15%. There has been a colonization of italic people during roman empire, and maybe today vlachs of Albania are of this stock.

----------


## rms2

Actually, testing for S28 (aka U152) by Ethnoancestry began in 2005. There has been nearly five years of data collection on U152.

I have serious reservations about making the early Celts exclusively R-U152. The clade's distribution also matches that of Allemannic Germans pretty well.

The latest interclade calculations posted on the Rootsweb DNA List also make U152 slightly older than what you have listed.

----------


## Maciamo

> Actually, testing for S28 (aka U152) by Ethnoancestry began in 2005. There has been nearly five years of data collection on U152.
> 
> I have serious reservations about making the early Celts exclusively R-U152.


Not exclusively. There would have been R-L21 and R-S116 as well (that's just for the Indo-European lineages, as the indigenous people from Old Europe who became assimilated to the Celts were E1b1b, G2a, J2 and I2).





> The clade's distribution also matches that of Allemannic Germans pretty well.


Not so much actually. It matches Baden-Württemberg, but the Alemani never lived in Belgium, France, England or Italy.

In any case S28/U152 almost certainly predates the IE invasion as it was found in Anatolia and Kazakhstan too. I guess that this lineage only became important during the Central European Bronze Age, either because their carriers were more lucky than others in the number/survival of offspring or because it was the lineage of some particularly prolific chiefs/kings.

----------


## Haganus

I understand that the Suebi were the first Germanic tribe who entered
south-Germany, Helvetia and France. They were really germanic, perhaps
they came from Sweden.

Probably the Belgae used to live at the east side of the Rhine. But why
not north of Rhine in the actual Netherlands? Many linguists who argue
that the Belgae and Germanic tribes in the Rhine area were celtic wrote
that their persons and tribenames had a celtic and not germanic origin.
They however forgot that perhaps celtic names were "en voque"with the
Germanic tribes as in the 18e century French names in Germany (Louis,
Charlotte) and English names in the Netherlands.

Caesar and Tacitus wrote about the pure Germans who lived in actual North of Netherlands and north and Central Germany and all had fair
hair and blue eyes! The Frisians, Chamavi and Cherusci were germanic
tribes. Probably their haplogroups were R1b, Ia and a little R1a.
The haplogroup Ia was original in North Europe and has arisen there.

But what was the relation between the Germanic Belgae and Germanic
Scandinavians? A difficult and disputed question: when did the Germanic
tribes arrive in Scandinavia? Did anybody read Juergen Udolph's book
about the Germanic places and waternames?

----------


## rms2

> . . .
> Not so much actually. It matches Baden-Württemberg, but the Alemani never lived in Belgium, France, England or Italy.
> 
> In any case S28/U152 almost certainly predates the IE invasion as it was found in Anatolia and Kazakhstan too. I guess that this lineage only became important during the Central European Bronze Age, either because their carriers were more lucky than others in the number/survival of offspring or because it was the lineage of some particularly prolific chiefs/kings.


While I think R-U152 is probably mainly Celtic, you cannot really argue that no Allemannic Germans ever made it to the places you named above. There was a settlement of Swabians in Anglo-Saxon England. They had a town named for them. Sorry I cannot remember the name of it offhand. The Lombards I believe are classed as an Allemannic tribe, and they most definitely settled in Italy. 

As for U152 in Kazakhstan and Anatolia, well, I wouldn't make too much of that quite yet. Those two places have precisely one U152+ apiece. There are plenty of ways one U152 could have ended up in Kazakhstan and one U152 could have wound up in Anatolia.

I think every clade probably had its share of both beggars and kings.

----------


## Maciamo

> While I think R-U152 is probably mainly Celtic, you cannot really argue that no Allemannic Germans ever made it to the places you named above. There was a settlement of Swabians in Anglo-Saxon England. They had a town named for them. Sorry I cannot remember the name of it offhand.


Eastern Britain (modern East Anglia and Kent) had close ties with modern Belgium and northern France since the bronze age. Hallstatt and La Tène artefacts were found in large quantities there, which I think account for the stronger presence of U152 in that part of England nowadays.




> The Lombards I believe are classed as an Allemannic tribe, and they most definitely settled in Italy.


The Lombards originated in northern Germany and Frisia, not in the Black Forest. 




> I think every clade probably had its share of both beggars and kings.


True, but that's not the point. Beggars rarely have the chance to reproduce and pass on their Y-DNA. Ancient kings typically had several wives, or at least concubines. There are enough cases of bronze-age tumuli of kings burried with more than one wife to be sure of it. It was also common practice for historical Germanic tribes, even in early Christian times. Charlemagne had (known) children with 10 women (4 wives and 6 concubines) despite being an ardent Christian. Pre-Christian societies were almost certainly more accommodating to polygamy. Rich Muslim, Hindu and Chinese men have had many wives/concubines throughout history. This is a natural human predisposition. That's why prehistoric and ancient kings or chieftains passed on more DNA and their personal haplotypes turned into haplogroups after a few centuries.

----------


## rms2

Well, there are dialects of Alemannic Walser German (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Walser_German) spoken in Northern Italy, but I won't belabor the argument that U152 could be associated with the Alemanni.

La Tene had a more northerly center of gravity than Halstatt and would fit better with the distribution of L21, but here's what I think. I think the Celtic-speaking peoples were mostly P312 (S116). Both U152 and L21 arose from within that milieu, U152 farther south and east, more in the vicinity of Halstatt, and L21 farther north, more in line with the mislabeled "La Tene" culture. Of course, Halstatt wasn't exclusively U152, and La Tene wasn't exclusively L21.

----------


## Maciamo

Historical linguist Brigitte Bauer has brought up substantial evidence* that Gaulish and Latin were highly similar languages. 

Nicholas Ostler has argued** in the same sense, saying that Latin could only have replaced Gaulish so quickly if the grammatical structure was (nearly) identical and the two languages shared enough similarity in vocabulary to allow for a word-to-word replacement, as was the case with the replacement of Aramaic by Arabic. Iberian and Dacian Celtic were probably also close to Latin, perhaps all derived from a Hallstatt Celtic mother tongue.


* you can read about this in Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French and The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives

** in this great book on diachronic sociolinguistics Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World

----------


## cordobesforever

Maciamo, a question, the Germanic genes (Lombard) have a strong presence in northern Italy, but it is superior to the genes of the Gauls?

----------


## LeBrok

> The original trend seem to point at a Celtic origin for this haplogroup, with a possible origin in the Black Forest or Switzerland.


Funny coincidence is that some of recent Slavic cultures begun in Black Forest too, actual name Charnoles (means exactly black forest) of NorthWest Ukraine.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Slavs



I wonder if Veneti/Venedi/Venethi (current Poland) are not the off-shot of La Tene culture. There are neighbors of Celts of Czech area and the timing is right. Also jump through mountains to the south and there are Adriatic Veneti.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Vistula_Veneti

What kind of R1b dominates in Poland?

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo, a question, the Germanic genes (Lombard) have a strong presence in northern Italy, but it is superior to the genes of the Gauls?


What do you mean by superior ?

----------


## cordobesforever

What wonder if the Germanic genes have more presence than the Gauls.

----------


## Maciamo

> What wonder if the Germanic genes have more presence than the Gauls.


No, Gaulish genes (well, at least Italo-Celtic haplogroup R1b-S116 and R1b-S28 + some G2a) are overwhelmingly dominant in northern Italy (50 to 70%), Lombardy included. The haplogroups that can be imputed to the Germanic invasions represent about 10% of the population.

----------


## Maciamo

> Funny coincidence is that some of recent Slavic cultures begun in Black Forest too, actual name Charnoles (means exactly black forest) of NorthWest Ukraine.
> http://wapedia.mobi/en/Slavs
> I wonder if Veneti/Venedi/Venethi (current Poland) are not the off-shot of La Tene culture. There are neighbors of Celts of Czech area and the timing is right. Also jump through mountains to the south and there are Adriatic Veneti.
> http://wapedia.mobi/en/Vistula_Veneti
> What kind of R1b dominates in Poland?


R1b is weak in Poland (about 15%) and confined mostly to the west and south, where there used to be a Germanic presence (not only until 1945, but also in ancient times, with the Goths). Eastern Poland is in a direct continuum of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in term of haplogroups. The Eastern Slavs descend from another branch of the Indo-European than the Celts, the one that stayed around Ukraine and Russia after all other branches left. 

One characteristic of the Eastern Slavs is their combination of R1a1a and I2a2 lineages. The I2a2 are probably the remnants of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture that flourished for 3,000 years from Eastern Romania to Central Ukraine until being absorbed by steppe people circa 2750 BCE.

Western Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats) are much more ethnically mixed. They are made up of Paleolithic, Near-Eastern, Proto-Slavic, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic lineages. It is not very clear to me why they speak Slavic languages at all, since they supposedly spoke mostly Latin after 400 years of Romanisation, then were invaded by Germanic and Turkic-speaking people (Huns, Alans, Khazars, Avars). It could only mean that they kept their language through 1000 years of foreign occupation, including the civilizing influence of the Romans. 

Then why did the Dacians adopt Latin and their descendants, the Romanians, have managed to resist the Slavic and Turkic influence when they were closest to the steppes and invaded the most times ? Is that only because the Dacians were Celtic-speakers like the Gauls, and their language was already close to Latin ? Is that why Slavic and Turkic tongues never got hold of the region ?

----------


## Neander

I think, usually the authocton cultures are saved by mountainous people.

The invasions always touch lowlands, and natives stay in hills, but after that began the process of colonization of the lowlands by highlanders, which send in the lowland not only their blood, but also their culture and language.

In the case of romans, they occupied all Dacia including highland, and romanized the people.

----------


## Haganus

Very interesting messages. But I have difficulties to accept that the 
Germanics mentioned by the Roman authors were not Germanic
speaking people. For me the Suebi are real Germanic tribes and came
maybe from Sweden. According to you: where did the Germanic speaking
tribes live during Caesar's arrival?

Where is the utmost norhtern limit of the Celtic haplogroup? Were the Eburones and Morini Celtic tribes? The Batavi, Canenefates and Frisii
were really Germanic speaking tribes.

----------


## Maciamo

> Very interesting messages. But I have difficulties to accept that the 
> Germanics mentioned by the Roman authors were not Germanic
> speaking people. For me the Suebi are real Germanic tribes and came
> maybe from Sweden. According to you: where did the Germanic speaking
> tribes live during Caesar's arrival?
> 
> Where is the utmost norhtern limit of the Celtic haplogroup? Were the Eburones and Morini Celtic tribes? The Batavi, Canenefates and Frisii
> were really Germanic speaking tribes.


Don't forget that languages can change, even when genes stay in great part the same. Tribes living at the boundary of the Celtic and Germanic realms, like the Suebi, Eburones, Nervii and Morini could very well have switched language over time. 

Many individuals could have been bilingual too. Speaking more than one language is not a recent phenomenon of educated societies. Tribes with no access to formal education in Africa, Amazonia or Papua are often multilingual. 

A third important point is that there may well have been Celto-Germanic tribes. It has always been common since prehistory for tribes to exchange wives with neighbours to secure alliances or to improve mutual relations. These people could quickly have become ethnically hybrid and shared cultural elements with both Celtic and Germanic peoples. That is surely the case of the Suebi and the Eburones, but probably also of the Cimbri, which is why it is so difficult to classify them as simply Celtic or Germanic. They should be described as Celto-Germanic, just like modern British, Belgian, Swiss and central to south Germans.

----------


## Haganus

Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
Why do they do it?

I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
descendants of the reindeerhunters. 

In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!

----------


## Maciamo

> Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
> Why do they do it?


Countless reasons. What makes you think they switch quickly ? A Celtic tribe with a high level of bilingualism sustained for many generations could easily stop using their original language if they lose contact with other Celtic tribes and start living among Germans. Or vice versa. Migrations were very common among Celtic and Germanic tribes.




> I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
> tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
> live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
> the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
> descendants of the reindeerhunters.


How should they know ? Were they anthropologists, archaeologists and geneticists ?




> In no area of the world you can meet so many fair haired and blue
> eyes people as the farmers and fishermen in the north of Netherlands,
> East-Frisia, Oldenburg and Jutland. More than in Sweden or Norway!
> Fair hair is a symbol of Germanic descendancy!


You can't compare a tiny region like East Frisia with a big country like Sweden. There are small enclaves in Sweden or Norway where 100% of the population is blond with blue eyes. Look at the bigger picture. Anyway fair hair and eyes most likely originated in the steppes as these features are found in pockets of populations all over Central Asia, Pakistan or Iran. If the incidence is higher in Frisia or Sweden nowadays it is due to a founder effect, genetic bottleneck or selective pressures. Germanic people expanded from a quite small Bronze Age population and are therefore among the least genetically diverse people on earth (compared to their current population). I suppose that is what you mean by "purity". Ironically (considering the Nazi obsession with racial pureness), the Jews share the same particularity. Both Scandinavians and Jews are known among geneticists for their higher incidence of genetic diseases (such as Haemochromatosis or Huntington's disease for Scandinavians, and Tay-Sachs or dysautonomia for Ashkenazi Jews). Note that excessive genetic "purity" is called consanguinity.

----------


## edao

> Both Scandinavians and Jews are known among geneticists for their higher incidence of genetic diseases (such as Haemochromatosis or Huntington's disease for Scandinavians, and Tay-Sachs or dysautonomia for Ashkenazi Jews). Note that excessive genetic "purity" is called consanguinity.


Thats interesting, Scotland has the highest number of MS cases in the world, I wonder if this has to do with in breeding within clans?

"There appears to be a genetic element. Orkney, for instance has the highest levels in the world - it has its own MS society - and scientists are showing that it is passed down through families there. It also appears MS may be a disease we have exported to other countries. In Canada, for instance, MS is particularly high in areas to which Scots emigrated."
Taken from the source below:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/scotla...t-why-1.836898

----------


## Maciamo

> Thats interesting, Scotland has the highest number of MS cases in the world, I wonder if this has to do with in breeding within clans?


The genetics component of MS is still elusive. It is generally considered to be an autoimmune disease, not a purely genetic one, because there are so many mutations involved, spread over at least 11 chromosomes, and not a single one of them is a cause of MS all by itself. That's very different from Huntington's or Tay-Sachs, for which a single SNP determines if a person is a carrier or not.

----------


## Haganus

I suppose that the Germanic tribes arose in Scandinavia and Jutland
about 2000 BC by intermingling with local inhabitants and neolithic farmers
or corded people. Is that correct? 

45 years ago I read that Germanic tribes lived complitely isolated from
the other Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia. They were the only tribes
who were not afraid of the sea unlike the Latins and Slavic tribes.
I was impressed by this text. So I obtained the especial idea about them and I supposed that they were descendants of the French Cro-Magnos rendeer hunters.
Now I understand that this is an false idea and ilusion.

But what are the mental diseases of the Scandinavians and Dutch?
I suppose neurotism and Alzheimer? Melancholy? I suppose that this
is typical disease of the Nordic and Faelish people.

----------


## Theodisk

> Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
> Why do they do it?
> 
> I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
> tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
> live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
> the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
> descendants of the reindeerhunters. 
> 
> ...


It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.

Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.

The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures. 

Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?

----------


## elly

When pertaining to Britain, one has to look at the Easterly distribution of U152's subclades. For example, L2* and L20+, are all East locales. The recent U152 paper, which concludes that U152 is found, overwhelmingly, in Southern England, must mean U152*, as, separate from L2* and L20+.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.
> 
> Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
> The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.
> 
> The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
> Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures. 
> 
> Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?


Blondism (light brown to light blond hair) in Germanics has been terribly exaggerated through the years. The native population of Germany has about 60% medium to dark brown hair. Light eyes (blue, grey, green) probably total ~ 50%.

----------


## Wilhelm

> It couldnt be that the most of the germanic, had fair hair and light eyes. Because the most of the continental germanic had the haplogroup R1b1b2 and when you compare it with the studies of robert frost, you could see, that there where R1b1b2 in the prehistory was(compare south England, Wales, Cornwall and south Sweden, west Norway, Danmark, Northwestgermany also Netherlands.
> 
> Also i think, you cant do germanic and nordic in one pot. Because the people of the nordic-bronze-age were most I1 and R1a, and became assimilated by the first germanic, which were most R1b1b2 and less R1a.
> The germanized nordic people, developed own nordic dialects and a few years later they had a own part of a germanic language, the northgermanic(nordic). Some archaeologists says, that the nordic culture isnt a germanic culture, they were only assimilated by the early germanic (pre-celts) during the iron age.
> 
> The most of the germanic (not nordic) couldnt have fair hair and eyes.
> Its more possible, that it was half/half. So ca. 50% had brown hair, and brown eyes and ca. 50% had blond hair and blue eyes and also all possible mixtures. 
> 
> Maciamo, how do you think about that, what i sad?


There is no way. Germany has about 30% of blondism. See this study 

Southern Germany *18.4-24.5*Central Germany *25.3 - 32.5*Northern Germany *33.5 - 43.3*Germany whole *31.8%* 
Here it is at page 14: 
http://ia340930.us.archive.org/2/ite...00serguoft.pdf

----------


## Theodisk

> Blondism (light brown to light blond hair) in Germanics has been terribly exaggerated through the years. The native population of Germany has about 60% medium to dark brown hair. Light eyes (blue, grey, green) probably total ~ 50%.


Yes, i know, im a german and i have medium brown hair and green eyes with brown and yellow(look at my profil picture).

The studies of robert frost, support that what you sad ;).

But light eyes also be some, which have a medium or great part of light pigments, with brown pigments. So hazel, amber, greybrown and also my eye color, greenbrown are light, because you see the light pigments good, but also the light brown pigments. 
When my pupils are very small, my eyes are light green, but when the pupils are very big, it looks like amber. 
But why shouldnt they be light, when this eyes have a (not small) part light pigments?!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Yes, i know, im a german and i have medium brown hair and green eyes with brown and yellow(look at my profil picture).
> The studies of robert frost, support that what you sad ;).
> But light eyes also be some, which have a medium or great part of light pigments, with brown pigments. So hazel, amber, greybrown and also my eye color, greenbrown are light, because you see the light pigments good, but also the light brown pigments. 
> When my pupils are very small, my eyes are light green, but when the pupils are very big, it looks like amber. 
> But why shouldnt they be light, when this eyes have a (not small) part light pigments?!


Then we have to completely revisit what "light eyes" really mean. However, the big problem is that physical anthropologists have never attempted comprehensive, highly structured scientific field studies to establish light eyes percentages that approach reality. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because such an effort may be perceived as racist. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Theodisk

> Then we have to completely revisit what "light eyes" really mean. However, the big problem is that physical anthropologists have never attempted comprehensive, highly structured scientific field studies to establish light eyes percentages that approach reality. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because such an effort may be perceived as racist.


Yes, i know what you mean. Thanks for your post  :Good Job: .

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> There is no way. Germany has about 30% of blondism. See this study 
> 
> Southern Germany *18.4-24.5*Central Germany *25.3 - 32.5*Northern Germany *33.5 - 43.3*Germany whole *31.8%* 
> Here it is at page 14: 
> http://ia340930.us.archive.org/2/ite...00serguoft.pdf


I can't find it.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Unbelievable thing for me that tribes can switch so quickly their languages!
> Why do they do it?
> 
> I remember that Caesar and Tacitus wrote with emphasis that Germanic
> tribes are absoluty pure and that nobody from elswere should like to
> live in those ugly and unpleasant areas (Tacitus). According to Tacitus
> the Germanic tribes were autochtone and maybe without any interruption
> descendants of the reindeerhunters. 
> 
> ...


You are clearly getting carried away...

----------


## Regulus

"As far as I know the title _Germanicus_ was honorary and first given to Nero Claudius Drusus (and his family) for his efforts in Germania as a military commander. This kind of nomenclature resembles that of Publius Cornelius Scipio, who was named Scipio _Africanus_ after his defeat Hannibal. _Germanicus_ and _Africanus_ are then rather examples of victory titles*; they do not indicate kinship or ancestry."

Sorry, The above is a quote from ANLEF but I messed up and couldn't figure out how to get it in Italics. (Sorry, Anlef!)

I would definitely go with Germanicus being an honorary title for Drusus since he would be recognized for his punitive expedition. I believe that Scipio was the first to get such a title. Numidicus was also given to one of the Metelli for actions in the Jugurthine War. Drusus' expedition seems to have been a result of the disaster in the Teutoburg Forest. Augustus had lost the three legions under Varrus. He so stung by this that he decided to abandon any further attempts at conquest in Germania. Roman honor, though, required that something be done about it. Tacitus gives a good account of the expedition by my measure.

Although I would agree that often the lines were blurred when we are trying to figure out Celto-Germanic, Germano-Celtic, etc., I tend to go with the Suebi (Marcommanic, Quadi, later Bavarians) as being Germans.
They may have been culturally influenced by Celts as they did have Kings on more or less a regular basis, but they appear fall on the German side as far as being overall more cultural, ethnically, and much more linguistically German.

As far as the more mixed tribes go, I would think more along the lines of the Rhine frontier, especially after Gaul itself was brought under Roman rule. It would be a reasonable assumption that many would have crossed the Rhine to remain free, especially when we think of the young, unmarried Gaesatae types. Some hold that the Chatti, Cherusci, and the later amalgamated mega-tribe of the Franks may have had a signifigant admixture of Celts.

The word Germani appears to have been something that certain groups of Celts used to describe themselves, possible intending to convey that they were the real thing. It is interesting that the words Germani and Teuton, both now used exclusively to describe those whom we today recognize as German, both seem to originally have referred to Celts. Germani and Germania seem to have been used a by the Romans more as a geographic term to denote those who live in that area regardless of ethnicity and the Tueton name goes back to one of the tribes later defeated by Marius.

I would like to hear from anyone who may be aware of a common word or name that Germanic types may have used to describe themselves. I have to think that a relatively cohesive group like they were would have had something that they used.


I hope that this post does not ignite a firestorm.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Although I would agree that often the lines were blurred when we are trying to figure out Celto-Germanic, Germano-Celtic, etc., I tend to go with the Suebi (Marcommanic, Quadi, later Bavarians) as being Germans.
> They may have been culturally influenced by Celts as they did have Kings on more or less a regular basis, but they appear fall on the German side as far as being overall more cultural, ethnically, and much more linguistically German.


Suebi is good candidate as in Slavic languages word "Svabe" is used as not formal word for Germans, while formal one is Nemci (derived from "not speaking") 
However, I think word Germans is also initially related to haplogroup I carriers, as province in Persia in Iran carries name Kerman/Germania/Zermanya and looks to me as possible origin of haplogroup I...

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...3&postcount=25




> Some hold that the Chatti, Cherusci, and the later amalgamated mega-tribe of the Franks may have had a signifigant admixture of Celts.


Franks origin from Sicambri, which is term probably related to earlier Cimbri
both terms Sicambri and Cimbri bare resemblance to what seems to be pattern for tribal name of haplogroup I people (Swedes, Suebi, Srbi (Serbs), Sarbans, Sardinians...)

other tribes whose tribal names might be derived from common haplogroup I tribal name pattern might be Sherdana (sea people), Scordisci, Siraces, Sarmatians, Cimbri, Cimmerians...





> The word Germani appears to have been something that certain groups of Celts used to describe themselves, possible intending to convey that they were the real thing. It is interesting that the words Germani and Teuton, both now used exclusively to describe those whom we today recognize as German, both seem to originally have referred to Celts. Germani and Germania seem to have been used a by the Romans more as a geographic term to denote those who live in that area regardless of ethnicity and the Tueton name goes back to one of the tribes later defeated by Marius.


can you explain why do you think that words Teuton and Germani are originally related to Celts? 

I think Teuton just meant "people" ... as similar word for it existed in proto-IE, and as e.g. in Illyrian word 'teuta' had that meaning ( http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/illy.htm )...

word Germania was used by Romans indeed as geographic term, but also as cultural term... difference used to classify between Sarmatian and Germanic tribes for Roman historians was that Germanic people are those that live in households, while Sarmatian people are those who live as nomads... thus, for Roman historians any Celtic (or whatever origin) non-nomadic tribe on territory north of Roman empire would also be called Germanic...

However, as explained above, I do believe that word Germani origins from haplogroups I1 and I2b1, perhaps from all I haplogroups initially....

----------


## Regulus

Firstly, I am happy that there is discussion instead of the firestorm that I feared.

Attributing a Slavic origin to the Suevi is interesting, and I would like to hear more of it. At this point I think it is a big push to go with anything other than German. At the time that history becomes aware of the Suevi, we don’t have the Slavs anywhere near the Rhine/Danube angle yet. The Romans, in my opinion, would have been able to recognize that there was something appreciably different in these people from those they knew as Germans had the Suevi actually been Slavic. We must call to mind that they did have considerable contact with the Marcomanni and Quadi, which were Suevic tribes. (someone help – was the Marcomannic King spelled Maroduus?) Also, the Bavarians are believed by many to be a remnant of the Suevi left behind after many left to raid and later settle in Hispana. These were days before the Slavs began their big expansion.

I was aware of most accounts of Frankish origins. I meant to add that there was a good chance that they had a decent amount of Celts who may have settled among them and also became Franks.

My position on the words Germanni and Teuton is based on how the words are treated in classical sources. As far as differentiating them from Iranians, Germans and Celts were both described as “unmounted Scythians” by the Greeks early on. 

Germanni was a term kind of thrown about by many peoples such as the Belgae. To them, they appeared to be saying that they were the real thing.(Like our Germane) The Romans knew of the area they called Germania, but did not seem to think that it was peopled only by those we know to be Germans until the time of Tacitus. There was a group of Celts that some historians refer to as the "Germanni group of Northern Celts."

Teutons, I agree, has a root word that is common among the IE peoples. My position is that, in this case, it is more likely that the Teutones of the great invasions defeated by Marius, were believed by many to have originated in that area and therefore were most likely the main cause of other groups from there being called "Teutonic". Recall that they are often referred to, along with the Cimbri, as “Germanni”. (I think it would be a good idea for someone to start a thread on that specific topic. It would probably get a lot of input)
The Romans mostly used terms such as Germanni in earlier days, along with Teutons to the point that it was established for that region by the time that those we know as Germans began their long and drawn out expansions. I am not knowledgeable on the German language, but it was my understanding that the Modern Germans use “Teutonic” to apply to speakers of the Low German languages (any help on that point?)


As far as Haplogroups go, I know very little and I want to learn about those. That is my main reason for being here. Please do not assume that I am anti-Slav or anything like that. I am probably more interested in the Slavic peoples than any other IE group. I personally believe that Slavs may very well represent the one subgroup that in the main has the least amount of non-IE ancestry.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Firstly, I am happy that there is discussion instead of the firestorm that I feared.
> 
> Attributing a Slavic origin to the Suevi is interesting, and I would like to hear more of it. At this point I think it is a big push to go with anything other than German. At the time that history becomes aware of the Suevi, we don’t have the Slavs anywhere near the Rhine/Danube angle yet. The Romans, in my opinion, would have been able to recognize that there was something appreciably different in these people from those they knew as Germans had the Suevi actually been Slavic. We must call to mind that they did have considerable contact with the Marcomanni and Quadi, which were Suevic tribes. (someone help – was the Marcomannic King spelled Maroduus?) Also, the Bavarians are believed by many to be a remnant of the Suevi left behind after many left to raid and later settle in Hispana. These were days before the Slavs began their big expansion.


I did not attribute Slavic origin to Suebi... on contrary, I claimed that Suebi are key Germanic component among Germans....

What I tried to say is that Slavic people tend to use tribal name derived from name of Suebi for all Germans... which means not that Suebi were Slavic, but
that people from whom Slavic people originate did see it as German = Suebi




> My position on the words Germanni and Teuton is based on how the words are treated in classical sources. As far as differentiating them from Iranians, Germans and Celts were both described as “unmounted Scythians” by the Greeks early on.


Perhaps they were both Scythian people (though at the moment it seems that Scythians at least in Asia were dominantly R1a carriers)...

But I fail to see how would that in any way imply that tribal names Germani and Teutons do in any way correspond to Celtic people rather than to Germanic tribes...




> Germanni was a term kind of thrown about by many peoples such as the Belgae. To them, they appeared to be saying that they were the real thing.(Like our Germane) The Romans knew of the area they called Germania, but did not seem to think that it was peopled only by those we know to be Germans until the time of Tacitus. There was a group of Celts that some historians refer to as the "Germanni group of Northern Celts."


that group were obviously just Celts who lived in Germania and thus Germanni group of northern Celts... that is where all R1b in Germany comes from... But the name Germania comes from real Germans and those are I think tribes like Suebi, Cimbri, Swedes..





> Teutons, I agree, has a root word that is common among the IE peoples. My position is that, in this case, it is more likely that the Teutones of the great invasions defeated by Marius, were believed by many to have originated in that area and therefore were most likely the main cause of other groups from there being called "Teutonic". Recall that they are often referred to, along with the Cimbri, as “Germanni”. (I think it would be a good idea for someone to start a thread on that specific topic. It would probably get a lot of input)


Teutons, Cimbri, Goths, Suebi, Swedes... are tribal groups... Germanic is name on higher level that is about their common origin... what is so hard to understand there?





> As far as Haplogroups go, I know very little and I want to learn about those. That is my main reason for being here. Please do not assume that I am anti-Slav or anything like that. I am probably more interested in the Slavic peoples than any other IE group. I personally believe that Slavs may very well represent the one subgroup that in the main has the least amount of non-IE ancestry.


I do not think that you are anti-Slavic...
I never claimed Suebi has anything to do with Slavic people....
What I claim is that there is common origin of haplogroups I1, I2b1, I2a1 and I2a2 that goes tens thousands years in past, and that nations who dominantly origin from that people did keep tribal names that are derived from same word...

that split between haplogroups probably happened much before Germanic/Slavic/Celtic cultures evolved from proto-IE people... so when I speak of common origin of tribal names Serbs (I2a2), Suebi (I1), Swedes (I1), Sardinians (I2a1), I do not talk of Germanic or Slavic cultures, as that probably did not exist in times when haplogroups did split... 

however, tribal name Germani might have existed, as province in Persia in Iran that shows traces that (at least on a map) look as possible origin of haplogroup I, has name Kerman/Germania/Zermanya...

----------


## Regulus

Ok, I apologize for misunderstanding your point about Slavs using the word for Suevi to apply to Germans in general. My fault, then.

I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me on the origins and early meanings of the words Germanni and Teuton. There has been considerable disagreement on this topic by eminent published historians, so we can’t be surprised that you and I have taken up different sides in this case. I would have to hold, though, that the name Germania predates any appreciable knowledge of classical people about those we know to distinctly have been Germans. The Belgae, who described themselves as Germans,(Cesear -Gallic War) are known to us to have been Celts. I will allow that they could have meant either that they were originally from Germania or that they were the "real thing". Maybe more discussion and input from you and others will tilt me over to your side.

My original reply was mainly to clarify my opinion that Suevi would fall within the German group as opposed to Celts. It looks like you and I were both in agreement on that point.


I can’t comment at all on the Haplogroups. I came across this forum while looking for answers on R1b, R1a, and the I groups.

----------


## how yes no 2

> I would have to hold, though, that the name Germania predates any appreciable knowledge of classical people about those we know to distinctly have been Germans. The Belgae, who described themselves as Germans,(Cesear -Gallic War) are known to us to have been Celts. I will allow that they could have meant either that they were originally from Germania or that they were the "real thing". Maybe more discussion and input from you and others will tilt me over to your side.


Belgae were Germans in sense of living in area of Germania. By origins they probably were Celts. However, area of Germania has likely originally got its name from people who were Germanic. I think that most of Celtic people in Germania probably moved to north only after being pushed by spread of Roman Empire...
I do believe that this large influence of Celtic tribes is represented in gene pool of Germany with R1b haplogroup, while original Germans are represented with I1 and I2b1 haplogroups...

Btw. in case you wondered, I am not Dutch... I just currently live in Netherlands...




> I can’t comment at all on the Haplogroups. I came across this forum while looking for answers on R1b, R1a, and the I groups.


 A very small part of genes is transfered directly from father to son. It is possible to isolate and analyse that part. That is how it is established that all so far tested humans have shared ancestry. Mutations (random deviation from original value) on that part of genes happens as anywhere else in genetic code. However, when there is a mutation on this particular part of gene, than altered DNA sequence is transfered from father to son as well. 

Thus, if we know that part of gene of every man who ever lived, we could easily sort them in a father-son hierarchy. Even with limited number of samples it is possible to reconstruct to some extent this tree. Branches in this tree are given names according to letters in alphabet (A, B, C, D,E,..I, ...R......), their subbranches got extra digit, subbranches of subbranches got letters again... This stream of letters and digits that represent particular branch in this tree we call Y-DNA haplogroup.


Now, people in western Europe are predominantly R1b, people in east Europe are predominantly R1a. People in Scandinavia in addition to R1a and R1b whose zones of influence are overlapping there have dominant I1 haplogroup, Germans have very strong R1b, I1 and I2b, while Slavic people of Balkans have dominant I2a2, and people in Sardina have dominant I2a1. Haplogroup G is for instance very strong in Caucasus and spread in few percentages accross Europe. Haplogroup E-V13 is strong in south Balkan and spread accross most of Europe.

Assumption of many people, and I belong there, is that R1b is very related to spread of Celtic people, while I1 and I2b1 are very related to spread of Germanic people... 

e.g. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_h..._ethnic_groups

Dutch 70.4% R1b 3.7% R1a	26.7% I 8% E-V13
Germans 47.9% R1b 8.1% R1a	37.5% I 6.2% E-V13	
French 52.2%R1b	0% R1a 17.4% I 8% E-V13
Spanish 68% R1b	2% R1a	10% E-V13
...

alternatively, you can look at data per countries at Eupedia site as well
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

I give preference to wikipedia table as it lists the scientific paper that is source of data, which is not the case on Eupedia site...


keep in mind that the data from different sources vary as scientific researches are typically done on relatively small number of samples (e.g. 100 to 150)

----------


## Regulus

Thanks for the lesson on Haplogroups. I have only been on the forum for a short while but I can say with certainty that I have gleaned more in that time than I knew prior to joining. 

I had been looking around after running into a whole lot of sites that were championing the cause of any and all R1b coming from the original inhabitants of Europe. I am of Italian and Irish ancestry and it just did not make sense to me that, if this were true, that so much of the Celtic languages became spoken is Ireland, etc. without a significant IE component. Invaders who constitute a small minority rarely succeed in getting another population to take on their tongue lock, stock, and barrel. It is usually the opposite in that case. In the example of Gaelic, it appears that only some grammatical rules survived from those who lived there prior to IE people showing up. After coming across this forum, particularly an article from Maciamo where the older branches of R1b and the branches that came from it were described and mapped out, I felt that this was the place to be.
It all started to make sense from that point.

----------


## Reinaert

Hmm.. AFAIK the name German is in etymology derived from Ger-Man, what means a man with a spear. 
In the same way the name Gerhard or Gerard means "strong with a spear".

In Dutch "geer" is an old word for a pike formed piece in a cloth.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Hmm.. AFAIK the name German is in etymology derived from Ger-Man, what means a man with a spear. 
> In the same way the name Gerhard or Gerard means "strong with a spear".
> In Dutch "geer" is an old word for a pike formed piece in a cloth.


this makes lot of sense in fact...

I think that it is very possible that tens of thousands years ago proto-tribe made of haplogroup I carriers was initially distinguished from other tribes by the skilled usage of spears...

in Latin, spear is word "Sibyna" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyna

the word "Sibyna" meaning spear is also one of only few preserved illyrian words... already, some time ago while reading preserved illyrian words I was wondering could word "Sibyna" be related to origin of Serb tribal name...

this is direct link between linguistic origin of words Germanic and of words that I call haplogroup I tribal name pattern - Swedes (I1), Suebi (I1), Srbi (Serbs - I2a2), Sarbans (I?), Sardinians(I2a1) implying with the pattern grouping that all those tribal names are derived from the same source...

similarly, word "Sarissa"/ "Sarisa" is about using long spears in battles e.g. by Macedonian phalanx (earlier *dory* spear was somewhat shorther)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa



in fact, Dory meaning spear, is perhaps origin of tribal name for Greek Dorians (e.g. later Spartans and ancient Macedonians)... 
about origin of Dorian name:



> A second popular derivation was given by the French linguist, Émile Boisacq, from the same root, but from Greek δόρυ (doru) 'spear-shaft' (which was made of wood); i.e., "the people of the spear" or "spearmen", emphasizing the warrior ferocity of the Dorians.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians

in fact, let's check whether areas settled by Dorians are hotspots of haplogroup I in Greece...

looking at data collected by Dienekes from 3 scientific papers
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05...aplogroup.html

haplogroup I hotspots are: 
Agrinion 23.8% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrinion)
Serrai 36% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrai)
Thessaloniki 20% *ancient Macedonia* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki)
Rethymnon 22.7% (*Crete* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rethymnon)
Mitylene 18,5% (island near Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitylene)
Lerna/Franchthi 21,2% (*east Peloponese* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myloi,_Argolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchthi)

and Dorians lived in: Crete, southeast Peloponese, area around Agrinion...

http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/thucyd...re/sixty_f.htm

Herodotus also clearly put ancient Macedonians among Dorians...



> Afterwards he turned his thoughts to the alliance which he had been recommended to contract, and sought to ascertain by inquiry which was the most powerful of the Grecian states. His inquiries pointed out to him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held from very, early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original seats, while the other had been excessively migratory; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of *Macedni*, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...us-history.txt

only Mitylene on Lesbos island looks as outlier.. all other hotspots of haplogroup I seems to clearly match Dorian settlements.. Lesbos settlement might be I haplogroup not related to Dorians...

I would also add that Sarmatians (whom I consider to be likely dominantly of I2a2 haplogroup) are well known for their spears (while Scythians are well known for their arrows)

e.g. see page 119 verse 150 in book of Seneca
http://books.google.com/books?id=tpD...matian&f=false

that mentions Sarmatians by spear, Scythians by arrows...

----------


## Reinaert

Well.. A spear can be used in different ways. 
And as a consequence different tactics that go with it.

But the main difference with a sword and shield is, the spear is easier to make.

Different methods..

The use of spears pointing towards cavalry is well known.
The back end of the spear is also pointed so it can easily be stuck in the soil.

The use of a spear as a close combat weapon. Hands in the middle of the spear. Use like a rifle with bajonet.

Use as a swinging weapon. The warrior swings the spear round in circles.

Of course spears are also accompanied by swordsmen and archers.

The throwing of a heavy spear is rather stupid. 
The enemy can throw the thing back at you. 

The Romans used the pilum only to penetrate and immobilize the shields of their enemies.
The iron point would bend when thrown, so becoming rather useless for the enemy to throw back.

----------


## Regulus

Good mention of the Pilum - It should be noted, though, that the bending or breaking of the shaft was a design that is attributed to Marius's modification. Prior to that, Pilum were used to immobilize or kill. Remember that, at the time when they were changing tactics from spearmen in longer formations to manipular tactics with heavy and light javelins, they were creating a force better able to deal with onrushing Celts, a number of whom would not have shields. On many occasions the Romans inflicted tremendous casualties on naked Gaesatae, who would have at most a shield and sword. In the days before Javelin use, the Roman army resembled something closer to that of Hoplites. In its really early days, it was probably indistinguishable from a Hoplite army.
The bending or breaking design (basically a shear pin) was brought about during the days of the middle of the second century BCE (Cimbri and Teutones).

----------


## how yes no 2

> this makes lot of sense in fact...
> 
> I think that it is very possible that tens of thousands years ago proto-tribe made of haplogroup I carriers was initially distinguished from other tribes by the skilled usage of spears...
> 
> in Latin, spear is word "Sibyna" 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyna
> 
> the word "Sibyna" meaning spear is also one of only few preserved illyrian words... already, some time ago while reading preserved illyrian words I was wondering could word "Sibyna" be related to origin of Serb tribal name...
> ...


actually, the name from which tribal names of haplogroup I derive might have had religious connotation....

a possible match among Slavic deities would be this goddess:




> *Živa*, also *Šiva*, Siva, Siwa, Żiwia, *Sieba* or *Razivia*, was the Slavic *goddess of love and fertility*. She was worshipped throughout what is now *Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Germany (and especially the Elbe (Labe) river valley)*, before Christianity expanded into the area. *Her name means "living, being, existing.*" Sieba's consort was Siebog, her male equivalent.


both tribal name of Suebi and Serbs might be derived from name of Sieba goddess of love, marriage, fertility...

phenomena of deriving tribal/nation name from name of goddess we have in the case of Ireland, so it was not unusual to do so...




> In Irish mythology, *Ériu* (Irish pronunciation: [ˈeːrʲu]; modern Irish Éire), daughter of Ernmas of the Tuatha Dé Danann, was the eponymous matron goddess of Ireland. Her husband was Mac Gréine (‘Son of the Sun’).[1]
> The English name for Ireland comes from the name Ériu and the Germanic (Old Norse or Old English) word land.
> The fact that Ériu is represented as goddess of Ireland, she is often interpreted as a modern day personification of Ireland, although since the name "Ériu" is the older Irish form of the word Ireland, her modern name is often modified to "Éire" or "Erin" to suit a modern form.
> The University of Wales' reconstructed Proto-Celtic lexicon gives *Φīwerjon- (nominative singular Φīwerjō) as the Proto-Celtic etymology of this name.[4] This *Celtic form implies Proto-Indo-European *piHwerjon*-, likely related to the adjectival stem **piHwer*- "fat" (cf. Sanskrit pīvan, f. pīvarī and by-form pīvara, *"fat, full, abounding"*) hence meaning "fat land" or "land of abundance", applied at an early date to the island of Ireland. The Proto-Celtic form became *īweriū [5] in Q-Celtic (Proto-Goidelic). ...


lol, fat, full, abounding...
obviously, it is about fertility as well...
so, it was likely also godess of love, marriage and fertility...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89riu

----------


## how yes no 2

> The word *Germani* appears to have been something that *certain groups of Celts used to describe themselves*, possible intending to convey that they were the real thing. It is interesting that the words Germani and Teuton, both now used exclusively to describe those whom we today recognize as German, both seem to originally have referred to Celts. Germani and Germania seem to have been used a by the Romans more as a geographic term to denote those who live in that area regardless of ethnicity and the Tueton name goes back to one of the tribes later defeated by Marius.
> 
> I would like to hear from anyone who may be aware of a common word or name that Germanic types may have used to describe themselves. I have to think that a relatively cohesive group like they were would have had something that they used.
> 
> 
> I hope that this post does not ignite a firestorm.






> Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the *Germans*, who, though they* vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair*, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said9 the Celti are. And *I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name “Germani,” as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were “genuine” Galatae, for in the language of the Romans “germani” means “genuine.*”10 [3]


Strabo
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...ok=7:chapter=1

Ok, so Strabo thinks that Germans is not self-identity tribal name, but name used by Romans to pinpoint real, genuine, Celts and not assimilated ones...well, we see it today as well...Germans do not call themselves Germans...they call themselves Deutch

----------


## Regulus

I first came across this topic a number of years ago while reading The Conquest of Gaul where the Belgae are described as referring to themselves as Germans. I can't remember if Caesar was able to figure out why. I'll have to read it again. 
Thank you for that post, I need to get a copy of Strabo myself.

----------


## Reinaert

Be aware that names can be tricky to depend on.

As I said before "german" is a man with a spear. Part of the original Celtic tribes could have used that tactics in areas where there was a lot of wood, and less iron. I don't have to explain how effective a short spear can be. The use is comparable with a rifle with fixed bayonet.

So there are the " germans" with a spear, which could also be Celts.
And there are "saxons" who have a short sword. They might have the same tactics as a standard Roman soldier.
Then we would also have other groups that use a bow.

In my area, the name Taxandria can both mean "Right side of the river", but also the land where the Taxus grows. A tree that has very good wood to produce a strong bow.

A modern example of incorrect name giving is the name for my region.
I am from Brabant, the southern part of The Netherlands.
The country is often referred to as "Holland".
The Dutch as a people live in "The Netherlands", and Holland is just a part of it. It would be the same as if we would call people from the USA " New Yorkers" or "Yankees".

I know that a lot of citizens of the USA hate to be called a Yankee.  :Innocent: 

BTW Deutschland means "land of the people you can understand" and Dutch is the English version of that meaning. The Netherlands and Germany, and also France once were part of the same empire.

----------


## Pater

> the Romans conquest of Gaul was more like the final part of the unification process of the Italo-Celtic tribes.


Seriously you are kidding me right? It meant the slaughter of thousands of Kelts. The Lions in amphitheater feasted on Celtic meats.

Ancient Romans were ofcourse Greco-Roman, similar culture, religion, very close languages. And probably appearance. Which would mean the Indo-European Balkan/Greek type. 

Sure after the collapse of the original Roman empire the country was invaded by the Celts we all know that. But don't put them so close as you like. Don't let Italian historians read these strange theories of yours.

----------


## Pater

* The Celts' last stand; Remains of 'warriors killed by Romans' are found in a mass grave.(News)* 

Publication Daily Mail (London) 
Byline: Luke Salkeld 
THEY died, gruesomely, at the hands of the Roman army, launched into eternity by the swift removal of their heads from their bodies. 
For 2,000 years, the bones of the young men lay undisturbed and forgotten beneath the soil of a Dorset hillside. 
But now the land has given up its secrets after work began on building an [pounds sterling]87million relief road. 
So far, 45 skulls have been found in a mass grave measuring 20ft in diameter. Another part of the pit contains torsos and leg bones. 
The decapitated skeletons, found on Ridgeway Hill near Weymouth, are believed by archaeologists to date from the Iron Age. …

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-201662410.html

----------


## Pater

http://www.clannada.org/time_390bce.php

The Senonian Tribe of Celts was by now firmly established in the Po Valley. The Clusians (Etruscans) were fearful of the Celtic expansion, and asked Rome for help. Rome had no real ties to Clusium, but had been hearing about the Celts, and was also concerned about their expansion. Therefore, the Romans sent three envoys from the Fabii family to mediate between the Clusians and the Celts. 
According to one source (Gerhard Herm), the Celts met with the Roman envoys and agreed to not wage war in exchange for land. The Clusians refused, and the Celts began fighting. The Clusians then got assistance from one of the Roman envoys, Quintis Fabius, who killed a Celtic chief. Another source (Peter Beresford Ellis) states that the Romans were not there to mediate at all, but actually to help the Clusians fight the Celts, and that it was Ambustus Fabius who killed the Celtic chief.

----------


## Pater

Diodorus notes that: Their aspect is terrifying...They are very tall in stature, with rippling muscles under clear white skin. Their hair is blond, but not naturally so: they bleach it, to this day, artificially, washing it in lime and combing it back from their foreheads. They look like wood-demons, their hair thick and shaggy like a horse's mane. Some of them are clean-shaven, but others - especially those of high rank, shave their cheeks but leave a moustache that covers the whole mouth and, when they eat and drink, acts like a sieve, trapping particles of food...The way they dress is astonishing: they wear brightly coloured and embroidered shirts, with trousers called bracae and cloaks fastened at the shoulder with a brooch, heavy in winter, light in summer. These cloaks are striped or checkered in design, with the separate checks close together and in various colours. 

[The Celts] wear bronze helmets with figures picked out on them, even horns, which made them look even taller than they already are...while others cover themselves with breast-armour made out of chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle...Weird, discordant horns were sounded, [they shouted in chorus with their] deep and harsh voices, they beat their swords rhythmically against their shields. 
Ordinary Celtic soldiers, often naked except for golden neck torcs, worked themselves into a fury before entering into battle and then fought wildly like beasts. After battle a victorious Celt would ride off with the heads of slain enemies dangling from the neck of his horse. Later, the heads would be nailed to the doors of their homes or embalmed with cedar oil in order to be publicly displayed. Typically, this preservation treatment of heads was reserved for distinguished, high-ranking enemies. Diodorus also describes how the Celts cut off their enemies' heads and nailed them over the doors of their huts, as Diodorus states: 
In exactly the same way as hunters do with their skulls of the animals they have slain...they preserved the heads of their most high-ranking victims in cedar oil, keeping them carefully in wooden boxes. - Diodorus Siculus, History.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha.. Typical Roman propaganda. By telling the Celts were enormous enemies, they pumped up their own self esteem.
The Romans were interested only in one thing: Loot.
Especially the gold the Celts had.

----------


## Chronicle

I just have one question
The Romans are probably the second biggest ethnic group in France after the Gauls. The Celts are described as tall, pale, fair haired, and bigger than the Romans, who are smaller, dark skinned haired and eyed. If the Romans were so closely related to the Celts, then why is there such a substantial amount of Mediterranean blood in France? That blood being widely regarded as Roman. Shouldn't France be twice as Celtic genetically instead of Gallo-Roman?

----------


## Angela

> I just have one question
> The Romans are probably the second biggest ethnic group in France after the Gauls. The Celts are described as tall, pale, fair haired, and bigger than the Romans, who are smaller, dark skinned haired and eyed. If the Romans were so closely related to the Celts, then why is there such a substantial amount of Mediterranean blood in France? That blood being widely regarded as Roman. Shouldn't France be twice as Celtic genetically instead of Gallo-Roman?


The Romans, the Gauls and every other ancient population in Europe is made up of differing proportions of three main ancestral populations.

Read Lazardis et al 2014 or the preprint from 2013 including all of the supplement

See:
Attachment 6711

Also read any of the Lucotte et al papers on pigmentation.

It's a good idea to use the search engine here too.

----------


## PHXHawk

Do we know with certainty what the original Romans looked like, as far as stature and complexion? What effect on their appearance did the migration of people from all over the Empire to Italy have? Then there is the fact that the army eventually became largely Germanic. It seems that we might be wrong to think of Caesar looking much like a present day Italian.

----------


## Angela

Here we go again. 

These Romans don't look Italian to you????? What do they look like? Germans?







[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Jovialis

> Do we know with certainty what the original Romans looked like, as far as stature and complexion? What effect on their appearance did the migration of people from all over the Empire to Italy have? Then there is the fact that the army eventually became largely Germanic. It seems that we might be wrong to think of Caesar looking much like a present day Italian.


Actually, we have a good idea of what Caesar looked like. I'm not exactly referring to that idiotic recreation, per se. But we learned that he indeed had dark eyes and hair, which is obviously more characteristic of Southern Europeans. Julius Caesar, a Roman patrician, was not a Germanic.

Moreover, light features does not necessarily indicate the person is "germanic".

Personally, my guess is that the Romans, are more or less similar to the people of Central Italy. Their ethnogenesis is probably a merger of SBA and ABA, along with the previous inhabitants of the area (i.e farmers)

----------


## gandalf

> Historical linguist Brigitte Bauer has brought up substantial evidence* that Gaulish and Latin were highly similar languages. 
> 
> Nicholas Ostler has argued** in the same sense, saying that Latin could only have replaced Gaulish so quickly if the grammatical structure was (nearly) identical and the two languages shared enough similarity in vocabulary to allow for a word-to-word replacement, as was the case with the replacement of Aramaic by Arabic. Iberian and Dacian Celtic were probably also close to Latin, perhaps all derived from a Hallstatt Celtic mother tongue.
> 
> 
> * you can read about this in Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French and The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives
> 
> ** in this great book on diachronic sociolinguistics Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World


At last this evidence is coming out , that Gaulish tongues and Latin where very close :
just an exemple with Rex in Latin and Rix in Gaulish .
Furthermore if you listen to the sound of the Latin language , it sounds dark like a language from the north .
So my conviction is that actual french is in fact gaulish that has been latinized , as the latin had the advantage to be written .
From all the so called romance languages the French is the one that sounds the most like Latin , because it latinized Gaulish , 
and Latin was a close cousin to Gaulish .
Then it destroys the awkward theory that Gaulish languages disappeared , and the Gauls got rid of their langages to adopt the Latin .
No group of people abandon their language unless they are overwhelm by superior numbers .

And I would add another hypothesis ; it is well known that English is the closest germanic language to the Romance languages .
The mainstream explanation is it's because of the latin and the french conquests .
It could be also because the celtic tribes in England where speaking the same Gaulish languages , 
as an example the word "car' probably derive from the gaulish " Char" .
( In England at this time you could find tribes with the same names found in France : the Parisii , the Catalauns , etc )

----------


## gandalf

The prononciation of gaulish ( obvious links with french and latin ) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0haiE3U-Rk

----------

