# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Are Swabians related to Italians?

## JQP4545

Southern Germans do not cluster genetically with Northern Germans (making them not really German genetically). So who are they? Are they related to Italians?

----------


## Eldritch

Ever heard of variation between a country?
And no South Germans are more related to Austrians if anything.

----------


## sparkey

What is now Southwestern Germany would have been dominated by Helvetii and similar Celts until circa 111 BCE. After that, the region received many assorted Germanic migrations... but the lack of particularly strong similarity between Northern and Southern Germans indicates some genetic continuity from the Celts living in the area before 111 BCE. On the Y line in particular, the elevated levels of R1b-U152 and certain I2 subclades like I2-L38 give strong evidence toward some Celtic continuity in the area.

As for closeness to Italians: I haven't seen any evidence of strong similarity between Southern Germans and Italians. Southern Germans, at least Southwestern Germans, seem to cluster best with the Swiss, which makes sense, considering their common Helvetian+West Germanic mix. There is also some similarity with Austrians, but they don't have the eastern pull that Austrians do.

----------


## Nobody1

> Southern Germans do not cluster genetically with Northern Germans (making them not really German genetically). So who are they? Are they related to Italians?


Genetically speaking there is no such thing as the "Italians", the "Italians" are genetically diverse from each other. In fact the "Italians" are the most genetically divers Nation in Europe, which isnt much of a surprise since Italy only exists since 1861.
So you have to be a bit specific as to what kind of "Italians" the Southern Germans you think are related to.

The only (substantial) genetic link between Southern(west) Germans and Italians(north) would be the mutual high levels on [Y-DNA] Hg R1b-U152 (S-28). Other than that, not much.

----------


## nordicwarrior

"Italian DNA" is like saying "United States DNA". The Roman Empire was world's melting pot for a long time (actually more of a genetic salad bowl) so it's going to have quite an autosomal mix.

----------


## zanipolo

> Genetically speaking there is no such thing as the "Italians", the "Italians" are genetically diverse from each other. In fact the "Italians" are the most genetically divers Nation in Europe, which isnt much of a surprise since Italy only exists since 1861.
> So you have to be a bit specific as to what kind of "Italians" the Southern Germans you think are related to.
> 
> The only (substantial) genetic link between Southern(west) Germans and Italians(north) would be the mutual high levels on [Y-DNA] Hg R1b-U152 (S-28). Other than that, not much.


Your are correct, there was no Italians pre March 1861. The Italian constitution, their laws, all state this.

----------


## zanipolo

> What is now Southwestern Germany would have been dominated by Helvetii and similar Celts until circa 111 BCE. After that, the region received many assorted Germanic migrations... but the lack of particularly strong similarity between Northern and Southern Germans indicates some genetic continuity from the Celts living in the area before 111 BCE. On the Y line in particular, the elevated levels of R1b-U152 and certain I2 subclades like I2-L38 give strong evidence toward some Celtic continuity in the area.
> 
> As for closeness to Italians: I haven't seen any evidence of strong similarity between Southern Germans and Italians. Southern Germans, at least Southwestern Germans, seem to cluster best with the Swiss, which makes sense, considering their common Helvetian+West Germanic mix. There is also some similarity with Austrians, but they don't have the eastern pull that Austrians do.


who are the germanics in southern germany in 111BCE?

The only germanics I know where the Alemanni who arrived in southern germany in 260AD, give 50 years or more to assimilate the population and you are 400 years out.

The original people where only Vindelici ( most probably celtic people) and Rhaetians .

The bavarians arrived later and where not germanics, even the name Bavaria is not Germanic

----------


## sparkey

> who are the germanics in southern germany in 111BCE?


The Cimbri at first, and shortly after, the tribes commanded by Ariovistus (Suebi, Nemetes, Harudes...). The later Alemanni were probably related to, or even largely identical to, the Suebi of the region.




> The original people where only Vindelici ( most probably celtic people) and Rhaetians .


Modern Swabia would have included territory spanning multiple Celtic tribes, like the Helvetii and yes, the Vindelici. It depends somewhat on what time period you're talking about, actually, since the Helvetii in particular seem to have moved around a lot. Raetia (not the province, but the territory of the Raetians prior to Roman expansion) may have overlapped a little on the southern tip of Swabia, but was centered more on modern Grisons.

----------


## Nobody1

> who are the germanics in southern germany in 111BCE?


111 BCE is too early, wouldnt know about that either;

but as *Sparkey* already pointed out, _Ariovistus_ and his Suebic invasion [1st cen. BC] into Gallic territory is the first documentation of Germanic people in the Upper Rhine region. The Suebi were however driven back by the Romans under Caesar; 
During Roman times; the land behind the _Limes_ and between the Rhine and Danube was known as the_ "Dekumatsland_" - "*Agri Decumates*", and *Tacitus* (1st cen. AD) informs us that the inhabitants were still Gauls/Celts.
When the _Limes_ and the _Agri Decumates_ were abandoned by the Romans [~260 AD] the *Alamanni* (Suebi) started to settle the south-west of Germany, the former _Agri Decumates_ (Dekumatsland). 

The Agri Decumates was the triangle region between Rhein (Rhine) Donau (Danube) and Limes (Defense line)

http://geschichtsverein-koengen.de/KarteLimes10.gif

*Bavari*

The _Bajuwaren_ (Bavari) were like the _Langobarden_ (Langobardi) a mix of several remnant tribes of their region, they were not a Homogeneous people.

Example of the _Langobarden_:

*Paul the Deacon* - Historia gentis Langobardorum (799 AD) - [Langobard settlement in Gallia Cisalpina]
_"Whence, even until today, we call the villages in which they dwell Gepidan, Bulgarian, Sarmatian, Pannonian, Suabian, Norican, or by other names of this kind."_

The _Langobards_ (proper) still remained the most dominant element but far from the only.
I would imagine that the _Bajuwaren_ were a similar mix, with the _Marcomanni_ (maybe) being the dominant element. One always has to remember that the "tribes" of the _migration era_ were largely shaken up by the _Hunnic invasion_ and later simply merged with or subdued other remnant tribes.

The *Bavari* were of course a Germanic people/union (broadest sense) with a strong alliance to the *Langobardi* and distinguishing themselves from the _Slavs_ and _Avars_.

----------


## zanipolo

> 111 BCE is too early, wouldnt know about that either;
> 
> but as *Sparkey* already pointed out, _Ariovistus_ and his Suebic invasion [1st cen. BC] into Gallic territory is the first documentation of Germanic people in the Upper Rhine region. The Suebi were however driven back by the Romans under Caesar; 
> During Roman times; the land behind the _Limes_ and between the Rhine and Danube was known as the_ "Dekumatsland_" - "*Agri Decumates*", and *Tacitus* (1st cen. AD) informs us that the inhabitants were still Gauls/Celts.
> When the _Limes_ and the _Agri Decumates_ were abandoned by the Romans [~260 AD] the *Alamanni* (Suebi) started to settle the south-west of Germany, the former _Agri Decumates_ (Dekumatsland). 
> 
> The Agri Decumates was the triangle region between Rhein (Rhine) Donau (Danube) and Limes (Defense line)
> 
> http://geschichtsverein-koengen.de/KarteLimes10.gif
> ...


_Ariovistus only had an invasion by having an alliance with Gallic/Celtic tribes ( they dominated his army in numbers ), he could not do it on his own and failed anyway.

the longobards never entered Italy until after the collapse of the Roman empire....when did the Bavarians enter the known Roman empire's borders.?
We basically can say that there where no Germanic people in southern Germany until after 300AD_.

Language does not tell an ethnic people and should not be used to determine any kind of sovereignty of lands.
as an example, we both are communicating in English , yet neither of us are English ethnically.

----------


## zanipolo

> The Cimbri at first, and shortly after, the tribes commanded by Ariovistus (Suebi, Nemetes, Harudes...). The later Alemanni were probably related to, or even largely identical to, the Suebi of the region.


Both failed, I still say there where no Germanic people in southern Germany until 300AD

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

----------


## Nobody1

*at Zanipolo*

It depends how *you* define South Germany, in Germany the standard definition is everything South of the *Main* river (_broadest sense also the area south of the Mosel river_). 

By this definition, large parts south of the *Main* (east and north of the _Limes_ and_ Danube_) were already Germanic [*Juthungen*] during Roman times. 
The Romans abandoned the _Limes_ and the *Agri Decumates* ~260 AD, with the invading_ Alemanni_ settling it subsequently. Thus all the lands between Main and Danube were _Germanic_.

Germanic invasions 258-260 AD & the Alemannic gain of the _Agri Decumates_(green) ~260 AD
http://amoiltedesco.files.wordpress..../03/limes7.png

But if *your definition* of South Germany being everything south of the Danube, than that region wasnt _Germanic_ until *after* the _Hunnic invasion_, late 5th cen. AD

----------


## sparkey

> Both failed, I still say there where no Germanic people in southern Germany until 300AD
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarii


Not sure about the Cimbri, but I've read that the Suebi left remnants. Anyway, my point wasn't that by 111BCE, the Celts were replaced by Germanic peoples, I used that date to mark the beginning of the end of Celtic dominance. In fact, I don't think that the Celtic-origin genetics of the region were ever replaced significantly, even during the Alemannic migration.

----------


## zanipolo

> *at Zanipolo*
> 
> It depends how *you* define South Germany, in Germany the standard definition is everything South of the *Main* river (_broadest sense also the area south of the Mosel river_). 
> 
> By this definition, large parts south of the *Main* (east and north of the _Limes_ and_ Danube_) were already Germanic [*Juthungen*] during Roman times. 
> The Romans abandoned the _Limes_ and the *Agri Decumates* ~260 AD, with the invading_ Alemanni_ settling it subsequently. Thus all the lands between Main and Danube were _Germanic_.
> 
> Germanic invasions 258-260 AD & the Alemannic gain of the _Agri Decumates_(green) ~260 AD
> http://amoiltedesco.files.wordpress..../03/limes7.png
> ...


south of the danube...the Roman frontier...............so we agree :Cool V:

----------


## zanipolo

> Not sure about the Cimbri, but I've read that the Suebi left remnants. Anyway, my point wasn't that by 111BCE, the Celts were replaced by Germanic peoples, I used that date to mark the beginning of the end of Celtic dominance. In fact, I don't think that the Celtic-origin genetics of the region were ever replaced significantly, even during the Alemannic migration.


if you open the link to the 2012 languages in north italy...cimbro is seen in western veneto near trento ( see legend for colour)
http://digidownload.libero.it/alpdn/...uePadanesi.png

Where these cimbri even germanic ?......David Faux states in his article , that although they originated in jutland, they where not germanic?

----------


## Nobody1

*at Zanipolo*

Correct, David Faux compiles a good account about the_ Cimbri_ and their Historical kinship to the _Kelts_.
But keep in mind that _Cimbri_ is a terminology (with its many etymologies) that occurs throughout Europe and throughout the entire range of *Indo-Europeans*.

*Diodorus Siculus* - 1st cen. BC [ref. to Celts/Gauls] 
_"They are so noted for a fierce and warlike people, that some have thought them to be those that antiently overran all Asia, and were then called Cimerians, and who are now (through length of time) with a little alteration, called Cimbrians"_

*Cambrian Institute* - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
_"The Gomeridae of Gaul assumed the name of Kelts, or Galatai ; at a period when those of Britain, Germany, and Italy, adhered to the patriarchal one, Cimbri, Umbri, Cymry;"_

You find _Cimbric_ etymologies throughout *Indo-European* Europe in: UMBRI (Italy); AMBROnes (Helveti), sicAMBRI (Germanic), cYMRI (Wales), cIMBRI (Jutland) etc.

*Cambridge University* - Cambridge Essays (1856)
_"Moreover, Humber and Umbro connect themselves with the Gaelic amhainn or amhna, 'a river;' and supposing that the words Cambrian, Cumbrian, Cymru (which the Welsh divide as Cy-bru, Cym-bru, or Cyn-bru), Cimbri, Cimmerii bear the same relation to the words Humber, Umbro, &c,"_

Whether the Jutland _Cimbri_ were *Keltic* or *Teutonic* is a strenuous question, depending on the def. of _Keltic_ and the knowledge of the _Cimbri_, but Dr. Faux compiles a great account. The _Cimbri_ were definitely archaic Indo-Europeans akin to both.

*David Faux* - (found the study)
http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf

The _Cimbri_ of Alpine Venetia are however not related to the Jutland _Cimbri_, they are the descendants of Bavarian peasants that migrated to that region in the Middle ages. Their name _Zimberer_ (timberers) indicates their craft of Carpentry, and thats where their name originates. However, it is to note, that Strabo already recorded a tribe known as Symbri (sYMBRI) north of the _Veneti_ as early as the 1st cen. AD.
*Henry Malden*_ -_ History of Rome (1830)_
"It is possible however that the Symbri, whom Strabo mentions as a small community above the Veneti.H may have been a tribe detached from the Umbrians, or left behind in the course of national migration."_

*Zimberer* of _Alpine Venetia_
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl5gf-fvsc

----------


## Taranis

> *at Zanipolo*
> 
> Correct, David Faux compiles a good account about the_ Cimbri_ and their Historical kinship to the _Kelts_.
> But keep in mind that _Cimbri_ is a terminology (with its many etymologies) that occurs throughout Europe and throughout the entire range of *Indo-Europeans*.
> 
> *Diodorus Siculus* - 1st cen. BC [ref. to Celts/Gauls] 
> _"They are so noted for a fierce and warlike people, that some have thought them to be those that antiently overran all Asia, and were then called Cimerians, and who are now (through length of time) with a little alteration, called Cimbrians"_
> 
> *Cambrian Institute* - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
> ...


After the German linguist Wolfram Euler ("Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen"), the Cimbri can very well have been Germanic, rather than Celtic. Specifically if one assumes that the Proto-Germanic consonant shift (Grimm's Law) only occured in the 1st century BC. Also, with all respect for the love of all things Celtic, there is no evidence that there ever was a Celtic presence (linguistically speaking) on the Jutland peninsula.

The connection of Cimbri and Cimmerians is phonologically implausible because it requires the development *b > *m (the reverse is plausible, but obviously the Cimmerians are the older name).

The name "Cymru" is also unrelated, it derives from earlier *Com-brogi".




> The _Cimbri_ of Alpine Venetia are however not related to the Jutland _Cimbri_, they are the descendants of Bavarian peasants that migrated to that region in the Middle ages. Their name _Zimberer_ (timberers) indicates their craft of Carpentry, and thats where their name originates. However, it is to note, that Strabo already recorded a tribe known as Symbri (sYMBRI) north of the _Veneti_ as early as the 1st cen. AD.
> *Henry Malden*_ -_ History of Rome (1830)_
> "It is possible however that the Symbri, whom Strabo mentions as a small community above the Veneti.H may have been a tribe detached from the Umbrians, or left behind in the course of national migration."_
> 
> *Zimberer* of _Alpine Venetia_
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl5gf-fvsc


The Zimbern are completely unrelated with the Cimbri. As you wrote yourself, the name "Zimbern" derives from earlier 'timber' (High German consonant shift!). In my opionion the Zimbern are just Bavarians who migrated across the Alps during the Medieval Ages. The Cimbri/Zimbern connection is, from the perspective of the sounds involved, *k in "Cimbri" vs. ancestral *t in Zimbern totally implausible.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> After the German linguist Wolfram Euler ("Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen"), the Cimbri can very well have been Germanic, rather than Celtic. Specifically if one assumes that the Proto-Germanic consonant shift (Grimm's Law) only occured in the 1st century BC. Also, with all respect for the love of all things Celtic, there is no evidence that there ever was a Celtic presence (linguistically speaking) on the Jutland peninsula.
> 
> The connection of Cimbri and Cimmerians is phonologically implausible because it requires the development *b > *m (the reverse is plausible, but obviously the Cimmerians are the older name).
> 
> The name "Cymru" is also unrelated, it derives from earlier *Com-brogi".
> 
> 
> 
> The Zimbern are completely unrelated with the Cimbri. As you wrote yourself, the name "Zimbern" derives from earlier 'timber' (High German consonant shift!). In my opionion the Zimbern are just Bavarians who migrated across the Alps during the Medieval Ages. The Cimbri/Zimbern connection is, from the perspective of the sounds involved, *k in "Cimbri" vs. ancestral *t in Zimbern totally implausible.


A very positive contribution. 

I'm not that knowledgeable as regards Suevian migrations. From what little I've researched the majority seem to have migrated west, settling eventually in the north-west regions of the Iberian Peninsula.

----------


## zanipolo

> After the German linguist Wolfram Euler ("Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen"), the Cimbri can very well have been Germanic, rather than Celtic. Specifically if one assumes that the Proto-Germanic consonant shift (Grimm's Law) only occured in the 1st century BC. Also, with all respect for the love of all things Celtic, there is no evidence that there ever was a Celtic presence (linguistically speaking) on the Jutland peninsula.
> 
> The connection of Cimbri and Cimmerians is phonologically implausible because it requires the development *b > *m (the reverse is plausible, but obviously the Cimmerians are the older name).
> 
> The name "Cymru" is also unrelated, it derives from earlier *Com-brogi".
> 
> 
> 
> The Zimbern are completely unrelated with the Cimbri. As you wrote yourself, the name "Zimbern" derives from earlier 'timber' (High German consonant shift!). In my opionion the Zimbern are just Bavarians who migrated across the Alps during the Medieval Ages. The Cimbri/Zimbern connection is, from the perspective of the sounds involved, *k in "Cimbri" vs. ancestral *t in Zimbern totally implausible.



Unsure, but back to topic, there are too many nationalistic people who fail to see that there where no south germnaic or austrians etc....there was a DIFFERENT ethnic people there at the time and they lost out to assimilation over time. Clearly modern day writings have no clue or are forced to tow the nationalistic line .


IMO, some ancient alpine people regardless of which nation would have and should have some degree of similar ethnicity.
even in the middleages, the Scaliger of swabia ruled and brought people into verona, the Ezzelini's from augsburg did similar with San Zenone in Veneto. "southern germans" from Marling baden, settled in Merling, veneto ( now known as Merlengo) due to similarity with the people....these are not the germanic similarities we find.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Regarding the Nobody and Taranis conversation, here's a novel (and a bit weird) approach.

I think we can agree that David Faux's Cimbri writings are well researched and thorough. His claims that the Northern Cimbri had strongly Celtic genetics does match with what we see in Denmark today and also with the remains that have been found in Jutland. (Please note: the studies going on in Denmark will be key in either cementing the Faux theory or will open up this area to additional I1 Norse influence. The importance of these findings can't be understated in my opinion).

But back to topic-- so what if the Cimbri in Jutland were indeed heavy in Celtic genetics including y-haplogroup, but spoke a Germanic language? To see this scenerio played out in real life, we only have to look at the overwhelming success of modern English (a primarily Germanic language).

Simply put, I think the directness of Germanic speech out-compete the Celtic tongues. Don't get me wrong, the lyrically gifted Irish can surely pack more meaning and subtext in a couple sentences than the standard German can in 15 pages, but when put side by side I think the masses pick the simplier and more direct approach.

Case in point, almost all of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and really almost the whole world at this point are speaking English rather than Gaelic variations (and yes I know of the Celtic native language resurgence-- too small yet to make a pronounced splash) even though all of the British Islanders are incredibly R1b dominate.

----------


## nordicwarrior

The Continental Celtic/Germanic borders have always been fuzzy, maybe this helps explain what we see. The y-DNA favors R1b Celtic lines, but the language pulls toward Germanic or even Norse speech. Now we should look to communal autosomal results to see how the entire DNA patterns are structured.

----------


## MOESAN

> Regarding the Nobody and Taranis conversation, here's a novel (and a bit weird) approach.
> 
> I think we can agree that David Faux's Cimbri writings are well researched and thorough. His claims that the Northern Cimbri had strongly Celtic genetics does match with what we see in Denmark today and also with the remains that have been found in Jutland. (Please note: the studies going on in Denmark will be key in either cementing the Faux theory or will open up this area to additional I1 Norse influence. The importance of these findings can't be understated in my opinion).
> 
> But back to topic-- so what if the Cimbri in Jutland were indeed heavy in Celtic genetics including y-haplogroup, but spoke a Germanic language? To see this scenerio played out in real life, we only have to look at the overwhelming success of modern English (a primarily Germanic language).
> 
> Simply put, I think the directness of Germanic speech out-compete the Celtic tongues. Don't get me wrong, the lyrically gifted Irish can surely pack more meaning and subtext in a couple sentences than the standard German can in 15 pages, but when put side by side I think the masses pick the simplier and more direct approach.
> 
> Case in point, almost all of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and really almost the whole world at this point are speaking English rather than Gaelic variations (and yes I know of the Celtic native language resurgence-- too small yet to make a pronounced splash) even though all of the British Islanders are incredibly R1b dominate.


a general answer (and not too affirmative)
TARANIS: spite your big knowledge about I-e languages, I don't think a -mb- evolution to >> -mm- would be impossible at all - nor the contrary when 'm' is followed by a "liquid" consonnant -m+r >> -mb+r (we have more than an example)- but I agree with you that Cymru<<Combrog has nothing in common with Cimmerian -
ZANIPOLO: what defines ethny if languages is discarded??? (even if I agree language is not the unique criteria) could you think that collective language changes could have occurred so easily at ancient times in populations that did not know writing? have you some historic background to support this believing? our present days look smash crush the chronologic deepth of ancient times putting to believe a language change is a child play - 
concerning Cimbri and Teutons I think they was rather on the celtic side (D; Faux put some good arguments and some Y-R1b SNP in N-Jutland S Norway coulde very well have been carried there by Celts, and in antiquity the mixing between ethnies was not so evident as today: celtic tribes could have penetrated or rather passed trhough proto-germanic tribes without huge crossings between them AT FIRST TIME (today conditions are different) - archeology seems proving in S-Sweden that some propulations progressed through the land without perturb too much ancient populations - old times deportments are NEITHER completely different NOR completely identical to today deportments: quicksands here!

----------


## Taranis

> Regarding the Nobody and Taranis conversation, here's a novel (and a bit weird) approach.
> 
> I think we can agree that David Faux's Cimbri writings are well researched and thorough. His claims that the Northern Cimbri had strongly Celtic genetics does match with what we see in Denmark today and also with the remains that have been found in Jutland. (Please note: the studies going on in Denmark will be key in either cementing the Faux theory or will open up this area to additional I1 Norse influence. The importance of these findings can't be understated in my opinion).


Faux's hypothesis is basically that R1b-U152 arrived in Britain from Jutland via the Cimbri. To be honest, it doesn't make much sense to me: I can agree with Faux - based on the distribution of U152's subclades - that U152 originated north of the Alps (I wouldn't narrow it down any further than that). With regard for Britain I think that U152 can be correlated a lot better with iron age movements from the La-Tène areas towards Britain, as well as (possibly) population movements during the Roman occupation of Britain. Both strike me as more probable than linking it with an ethnic group in Denmark which may or may not have been Celtic.

I do agree though, that I am looking forward to that DNA data from Denmark.




> But back to topic-- so what if the Cimbri in Jutland were indeed heavy in Celtic genetics including y-haplogroup, but spoke a Germanic language? To see this scenerio played out in real life, we only have to look at the overwhelming success of modern English (a primarily Germanic language).
> 
> Simply put, I think the directness of Germanic speech out-compete the Celtic tongues. Don't get me wrong, the lyrically gifted Irish can surely pack more meaning and subtext in a couple sentences than the standard German can in 15 pages, but when put side by side I think the masses pick the simplier and more direct approach.
> 
> Case in point, almost all of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and really almost the whole world at this point are speaking English rather than Gaelic variations (and yes I know of the Celtic native language resurgence-- too small yet to make a pronounced splash) even though all of the British Islanders are incredibly R1b dominate.


You're underestimating two things: first off, how much languages change over time. Neither any of the modern Celtic, nor any of the modern Germanic languages (especially not English!) is particularly representative of what Celtic and Germanic languages were like 2000 years ago.

Also, the reason why the Germanic languages 'won out' over the Celtic ones (in terms of distribution and number of speakers) is a simple one: the Roman Empire conquered most Celtic-speaking areas in Europe, the languages of these areas was replaced eventually with Latin. The Germanic speaking peoples were left outside of the Roman Empire. It hadn't anything to do with language competitiveness, but with who was the conqueror and who was the conquered in history.

Also, I wouldn't put too much attention in the "R1b dominance" issue. If it was that black-and-white, Western Europe should be homogenously Basque, Celtic, Germanic or Romance, depending on what paradigm you prefer...  :Laughing: 




> a general answer (and not too affirmative)
> TARANIS: spite your big knowledge about I-e languages, I don't think a -mb- evolution to >> -mm- would be impossible at all - nor the contrary when 'm' is followed by a "liquid" consonnant -m+r >> -mb+r (we have more than an example)- but I agree with you that Cymru<<Combrog has nothing in common with Cimmerian


Sorry, yes I made a mistake there. You are right that the development *mb > *mm isn't impossible at all(btw, I used the wording 'implausible'), rather it is the more probable evolution. What I actually was going to say is that the reverse development (*mm > *mb, since the Cimmerians are the older ethnic group, ca. 6th century BC) is unlikely.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...You're underestimating two things: first off, how much languages change over time. Neither any of the modern Celtic, nor any of the modern Germanic languages (especially not English!) is particularly representative of what Celtic and Germanic languages were like 2000 years ago.
> 
> Also, the reason why the Germanic languages 'won out' over the Celtic ones (in terms of distribution and number of speakers) is a simple one: the Roman Empire conquered most Celtic-speaking areas in Europe, the languages of these areas was replaced eventually with Latin. The Germanic speaking peoples were left outside of the Roman Empire. It hadn't anything to do with language competitiveness, but with who was the conqueror and who was the conquered in history...


You're right-- these languages have morphed a bunch in that time period. I was using only using modern English as an example of how a more direct language might win out over a more complex one. I do think ancient Germanic/Norse was more blunt and simple than the Celtic tongues of the same time. 

And if the Roman victories apply to language choice, shouldn't we all be speaking Latin? The German princes never formed a great power block and basically ruled via a loose confederation of weak states (until you get to Hapsburgs). 

But again I'm no language expert and this certainly isn't my area of expertise. (I did study Beowulf pretty intensely in college because I had a professor who was obsessed with it.)

----------


## zanipolo

> a general answer (and not too affirmative)
> 
> ZANIPOLO: what defines ethny if languages is discarded??? (even if I agree language is not the unique criteria) could you think that collective language changes could have occurred so easily at ancient times in populations that did not know writing?


Language has to be of little relevance, because as an example, we are communicating in English, yet neither of us is ethnically English.
Besides, If the 4500BC old Varna Culture could communicate with all peoples residing on the black sea peoples and also Danubian/balkan peoples and beyond, then it clearly means that in the ancient world the small vocabulary of tribes learned many different languages from different tribes.

----------

