PDA

View Full Version : The Celts



Vinlander
Thursday, March 25th, 2010, 09:26 PM
Its a commonly known fact that Modern Irish, Scots, etc come from the Celtic branch of the Genealogical tree, and that the Celt's "pre"-Historic origins lie within the borders of modern day Germany, and they simply spread out from there.

What I'm curious about is if modern Irish (this is not taking into account the settlement of Ireland by the Norse in the medieval period), Scots, would still be considered a Germanic culture given the origins of the ancient Celts, or have they splint into an entirely new branch of their own, completely separate from the Germanic tree.

Then again you have the Saxons, etc who are obviously Germanic in the British aisles as well.

Grey
Thursday, March 25th, 2010, 10:11 PM
They're too complicated to be merely Celts, but they're certainly not Germanic either. Such terms aren't really applicable anymore or overlap in much of Europe anyway (France being a the best example IMO -- an amalgam of Celtic, Germanic, & Romance culture & ancestry).

Ediruc
Saturday, March 27th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Wouldn't they be regarded on racial terms? Also, the Scots have Germanic influences, such as some Anglo and Norse.

Is there a picture comparing a Celtic skeleton to a Germanic skeleton? I would think that to be very interesting to see.

Einarr
Sunday, March 28th, 2010, 01:35 AM
Wouldn't they be regarded on racial terms? Also, the Scots have Germanic influences, such as some Anglo and Norse.

Is there a picture comparing a Celtic skeleton to a Germanic skeleton? I would think that to be very interesting to see.

That's a funny question. Neither of them are wholly genetically distinct groups which you can label as "just germanic" or "just celtic." It is not that simplistic. They overlap too much to be separated in such a way.

Culturally speaking however, and also in how they identify themselves (on average), I do not consider Ireland and most of Scotland to be "Germanic." Discussing genetics though is another matter entirely.


Wouldn't they be regarded on racial terms? Also, the Scots have Germanic influences, such as some Anglo and Norse.

Well, so does Ireland (just as Scotland does). You wouldn't perhaps be reaching for that considering your listed ancestry, would you?

Ediruc
Monday, March 29th, 2010, 03:19 AM
Well, so does Ireland (just as Scotland does). You wouldn't perhaps be reaching for that considering your listed ancestry, would you?

As far as history goes, I know Ireland has had its share of Norse raids and settlements. From what I've read those said Norse raids and settlements had little effect on the general Celtic population of Ireland. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Vikings actually carried off their Irish brides to Iceland or whatever countries they came from, instead of staying in Ireland. As far as I know, Ireland hasn't had much Anglo-Saxon influence. We also have to remember that Scotland was first inhabited by the Picts, who have been theorized to be a Nordic people, and probably not Mediterranean or Celtic.

I know I should do more research and homework on Scotland, before I start making any assumptions, but just from what I read, Scotland seems to have had more a Germanic influence than Ireland.

As far as I'm concerned, Ireland is Celtic country 100%, with Wales, of course.

In fact, this topic was discussed and polled to death.

I know somewhere down my lineage there is an Irish, but there are so many Germans in my lineage too that the Celt got drowned out. I wouldn't consider any kinship to the Celts, but that doesn't mean they can't be considered friends.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128586

Angus
Monday, March 29th, 2010, 06:28 PM
Its a commonly known fact that Modern Irish, Scots, etc come from the Celtic branch of the Genealogical tree

http://versere.com/Resources/theme/smilies/rolleye.gif

Einarr
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010, 12:07 AM
As far as history goes, I know Ireland has had its share of Norse raids and settlements. From what I've read those said Norse raids and settlements had little effect on the general Celtic population of Ireland. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Vikings actually carried off their Irish brides to Iceland or whatever countries they came from, instead of staying in Ireland. As far as I know, Ireland hasn't had much Anglo-Saxon influence. We also have to remember that Scotland was first inhabited by the Picts, who have been theorized to be a Nordic people, and probably not Mediterranean or Celtic.

I know I should do more research and homework on Scotland, before I start making any assumptions, but just from what I read, Scotland seems to have had more a Germanic influence than Ireland.

As far as I'm concerned, Ireland is Celtic country 100%, with Wales, of course.

In fact, this topic was discussed and polled to death.

I know somewhere down my lineage there is an Irish, but there are so many Germans in my lineage too that the Celt got drowned out. I wouldn't consider any kinship to the Celts, but that doesn't mean they can't be considered friends.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128586

Have you ever looked at genetic mapping of Northern/NorthWestern Europe? Apparently not..

You cannot even define "celtic" as a genetic group, it is far too broad a term to be used to even explain what you mean. Why does Norway, the Netherlands, England, etc overlap with Scotland/Ireland so much? Why are North/NW Germany, Denmark, and Sweden close-by? Further, you cannot lump Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, etc all into one "genetic" category and simply call them "celtic."

I hate arguing this because it causes unnecessary strife for this forum, and it is a conflict of interest (for Skadi). Understand that I am not asserting that Ireland or even all of Scotland can be considered a "Germanic" country. I am not trying to force anything at all. I am simply saying that on a genetic basis, you cannot argue for total distinction and separation. If you could, then England itself would be on its way out too, as well as Iceland and so on. Culturally speaking however, and also in how they often identify themselves (Ireland/much of Scotland), then I do not consider them to be Germanic countries.

Méldmir
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010, 12:31 AM
Most Irish appear to be typical N-W Europeans in both apperance and DNA. Why Ireland is Celtic I do not know, but DNA doesn't care whether you are Celtic or Germanic. A majority of the Irish probably belong to some proto-Celtic/proto-Germanic people who settled Ireland a long time ago, and thus they are more closely related to other N-W Europeans instead of Central European and Spanish Celts.

Ćğele Wiğercwida
Wednesday, May 5th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Well, we should consider that an island is isolated and so forms its own unique culture.

From what little I know, the celts originated from the same place as the Germanics. In fact, they seem to be different tribes of the same group. Look at the art and the culture.

What is it that actually separates the Celts from the Germanics. Self-identification cannot be the issue here. For if it was, surely the Scandinavians would not be considered Germanic, or Britain (Christ! Try calling a Brit Germanic...they will go mental!) - and what would remain Germanic is merely Germany....which would not be accurate.

So, can we have a list of what exactly separates Celts form Germanics.

Méldmir
Wednesday, May 5th, 2010, 05:32 PM
Well, we should consider that an island is isolated and so forms its own unique culture.

From what little I know, the celts originated from the same place as the Germanics. In fact, they seem to be different tribes of the same group. Look at the art and the culture.

What is it that actually separates the Celts from the Germanics. Self-identification cannot be the issue here. For if it was, surely the Scandinavians would not be considered Germanic, or Britain (Christ! Try calling a Brit Germanic...they will go mental!) - and what would remain Germanic is merely Germany....which would not be accurate.

So, can we have a list of what exactly separates Celts form Germanics.

It can be a difficult question to answer indeed. In some areas, such as Iceland, eastern Ireland, northwestern England, Scotland etc we have had some areas where Celts and Germanics (like Vikings), have met and mixed and created some sort of society where both cultures have made marks, with the Norse-Gaels and all that. Sometimes the exact line between Celts and Germanics is blurry. That's why I sometimes use the term N-W European instead of Germanic, although I respect the term Germanic alot as well. It just seems that Irish people would have more in common with English than with Celts from Spain or Italy, this we can also see on DNA tests where Ireland cluster closely with England and other North European countries more than with southern Europe.

This is of course just my "theory".

Einarr
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 03:55 PM
Well, we should consider that an island is isolated and so forms its own unique culture.

From what little I know, the celts originated from the same place as the Germanics. In fact, they seem to be different tribes of the same group. Look at the art and the culture.

What is it that actually separates the Celts from the Germanics. Self-identification cannot be the issue here. For if it was, surely the Scandinavians would not be considered Germanic, or Britain (Christ! Try calling a Brit Germanic...they will go mental!) - and what would remain Germanic is merely Germany....which would not be accurate.

So, can we have a list of what exactly separates Celts form Germanics.

I shall comment on this one, since I mentioned something related to "self-identification." I was basically saying that out of respect for them, because many in Ireland and I assume Scotland are very into their "celtic" identity, and thus may not exactly accept the idea that they are Germanic related, per say. I just think that it is a little absurd however to say that the majority of people in either Ireland or Scotland are genetically separate from Germanics, to me that doesn't make any sense.

I do agree that some people within the British Isles/Ireland as a whole do not fall within the typical Germanic spectrum (name a country where you cannot say that for though), but I do not believe them to be anything more than a minority. Sean Connery is still a good example of this, someone who clearly shows mediterranid influenced features (in my opinion) mixed with other elements of a more Northern related phenotype. A phenotype such as his would be the outlier.

Entwulf
Saturday, May 8th, 2010, 02:05 PM
I'm not entirely sure to what degree Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British" is respected academicaly, infact, I've heard it isn't very reliable at all, but, none the less, it's an interesting read and sheds something of an interesting light on both English and more significantly, to this thread, Irish/Scottish/Welsh genetic, and to some degree, cultural and linguistic origins.

What he proposes is that the people who comprise the foundationary heritage of those who inhabit the westerly regions of the British Isles migrated to such an area from the Iberian ice age refuge during the paleolithic, traveling northwards with the recession of the ice after the LGM some 16,000 years ago. Oppenheimer suggests that the spread of the Indo-European language branch indeed moved alongside the spread of agricultural farming, however understands this as being a process of cultural diffusion rather than that of large scale migrationism and the dominance of a warlike society. He sees the insular 'Celts' of the British Isles as having been 'Celtic' long before the arrival of any Halstatt Celts from the continent. He does too, however, aknowledge the significance of Scandinavian genetic input to the foundation of the British Isles some time in prehistory, and, less significantly to this thread, he cites the Scandinavian input on the easterly regions of the British Isles, most prominantly modern day England, as being much more significant than the iron age Anglo-Saxon migrations, even going as far as to say that the English are more related to the Norwegians and Swedes than they are to the Frisians. In his words, during our distant pre-history, the land was a greater barrier than the sea, and so the westerly regions of the UK share more in common with the Atlantic fringe of France, Spain and Portugal, where as the easterly regions share more in common with Scandinavia and Germany, emphasising that this divide is more of a steady cline than it is a stark contrast - how well this correlates with the significance of Doggerland, I can't remember, I'd have to refresh my memory.

But this is merely genetic.

At the end of the day, all you have to do is briefly glance at some genetic mapping to see how related all of northern and western Europe is and with that I believe the divide between the Celtic peoples and the Germanic peoples is more so that of culture and language than it is an easily recognisable genetic differentiation. How this idea is applied to a process of self-identification or the identification of others, however, becomes more difficult in that the significance of ancestry is again highlighted, putting the emphasis back on genetics as a means of understanding 'who is who'. Using cultural diffusion as an example, we now see, in the modern world, people from all over speaking English, a primarily Germanic language, yet this, of course, does not make such people Germanic, rather, one element of what makes others Germanic has reached themselves. Baring this in mind, the aknowledgemet of not only culture and language, but the means by which culture and language cultivate over the course of time in relation to geographic location, becomes significant. That goes without saying, though.

By this reconing I believe Welsh, Irish and Scottish identities and languages cultivated alongside a 'Celtic' culture and those people who can trace their ancestry through the cultivation of that language and culture are 'Celtic'.

What's more interesting though, is the Picts! I've heard all sorts of wacky theories about those.

arcticdoctor
Sunday, May 9th, 2010, 06:10 PM
"What's more interesting though, is the Picts! I've heard all sorts of wacky

theories about those."

I have always been interested in the Picts, but also have heard all kinds of

conflicting reports. Can anyone enlighten us?

Entwulf
Sunday, May 9th, 2010, 08:55 PM
I have always been interested in the Picts, but also have heard all kinds of conflicting reports. Can anyone enlighten us?

The Picts have always been a particular point of interest for myself too, unfortunately (good) information is scarce. This is pretty interesting though, again taken from Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British":


"The Picts, supposedly painted, aboriginal tribes of northern Scotland, have always been a problem to place, since whatever language or languages they originally spoken have apparently dissapeared except for a few scraps of evidence. They seem to have been linguistically replaced at least in western Scotland by Scottish Gaelic and ultimately by English during the first millenium AD. Scottish Gaelic was spoken by people of the Irish Dalriadic kingdom, thought to have invaded from Ireland in the 5th century AD - although, as we shall see below, there is more than one opinion on their time of arrival.
A number of theories have been put forward as to what language or languages the Picts spoke, and argument still continues, but a careful article written as long ago as 1955 by Kenneth Jackson still covers most and rejects quite a few.
The main problem is the lack of direct evidence of almost all kinds used in language reconstruction, such as texts or surviving linguistic remnants, which could be used to compare with place names. Even celtic inscriptions, which are so useful in attesting to celtic languages in other non-English parts of the British Isles are absent in a large part of the areas supposedly occupied by the Picts.
The Medieval author Adamnan wrote in his 'Life of St. Columba' (completed around AD 692-7) that Columba used an interpreter to converse wth the Picts. Presumably this meant that they spoke a different language from Columba's, which was Irish Gaelic. Since Scottish Gaelic is similar to Irish Gaelic, that would tend to exclude Gaelic, unless Pictish was a particularly archaic form.
Bede refers to Pictish in his 'Ecclesiastical History' (AD731). Bede lived in Jarrow in the north of England at a time when Pictish was still being spoken in Scotland. His first-hand observation should, hopefully, be more useful than his historical compilations of Gildas, who was much more concerned about religion than accuracy. Twice, Bede clearly indicates that there were four indigenous languages spoken in Britain: Gaelic, Brittish (i.e, 'Brythonic'), English and Pictish. He describes the Picts as invaders who arrived windswept in Northern Ireland in longboats from Scythia. Not being allowed to settle there, they made their home in Scotland. How they reached the British Isles from Scythia, east of the Mediterranean, Bede does not make clear, but elsewhere in Medieval literature, the region of Scythia is sometimes alluded to as the ultimate Norse homeland in the Danish and Icelandic sagas. The longboats might imply the Picts were from Scandinavia, but in any case this story from Bede makes it clear that he did not think that they were either British or Irish. His linguistic skill should have been enough to work this one out for himself.
Bede also refers to the Pictish name for modern Kinneil at one end of the Antonine Wall (a Roman fortified defence, stretching between Edinburgh and Glasgow, north of Hadrian's Wall) as Peanfahel. While it appears to support the view that Pictish was not the sam as Gaelic, it would leave a puzzle. In a Brythonic language (also known as P-Celtic), pean or penn might mean 'end', but the second half of the name, -fahel, would appear to be Gaelic, meaning '[of] wall'. A name meaning 'end of wall' is appropriate for the location, but the word would be a compound mixture of Gaelic and some P-Celtic language. Kenneth Jackson points out that such compounds are no rarity, and gives the etymology for some other words and place-names that support the presence of a P-Celtic language north-east of Edinburgh. He argues that this was 'a Gallo-Brythonic dialect not identical with the Brittish spoken south of the Antonine Wall, different from Brittish-P-Celtic used south of the Antonine Wall, although related to it'. According to the place-name evidence this 'P'-Celtic language would have been distributed in Scotland north-east of Edinburgh and the Forth river. This distribution coincides with the main Scottish concentration of Celtic-inscribed stones on the east coast.
However, Jackson argued, from the evidence of Ogham inscriptions (Ogham being an alphabetic script used throughout insular-Celtic speaking areas often with Celtic-Latin bilingual inscriptions in the fifth century onwards), that there was a third language in northern Scotland apart from Scottish Gaelic and the P-Celtic language: 'The other was not Celtic at all, which would fit the relative abscence of Celtic place names in northern Scotland, nor apparently even Indo-European, but was presumably the language of some very early set of inhabitants of Scotland'. Jackson's concept of a third language is now viewed by some as a minority view, but Colin Renfrew in his book 'Archaeology and Language' chooses to take it seriously, referring to Jackson as having been 'the leading living authority'. German linguist Theo Vennemann has recently suggested on place-name and other evidence that this non-Indo-European Pictish language could have been derived from Semitic as a result of Neolithic intrusions of forebears of the Phoenicians.
This would leave ancient northern Scotland with three distinct languages, one of which was spoken to the west and two to the east of the Grampians for a large part of the first millenium AD. However, the western language, Scottish Gaelic, which apparently displaced the other two, is regarded as an intruder during this period. What is odd about the dissapearance of Pictish is that the Picts were in the ascendant during the Dark Ages, according to both Gildas and Bede. Their attacks on England were stated by Gildas as being part of the reason for inviting the Saxons, so why should both their putative languages have disapeared so comprehensively, when Gaelic was essentially the dominant language of the Argyll west of the Grampians?

They're something of a mystery, and things like this are massively intriguing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/HiltonofCadboll01.JPG/319px-HiltonofCadboll01.JPG
(a replica of the Class II Hilton of Cadboll Stone at the original location; the remains of the original are in the Museum of Scotland.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Serpent_stone.JPG
(Aberlemno Serpent Stone, Class I Pictish Stone)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/NiggReverse.jpg
(The Nigg Stone, 790-799 AD, Class II, shows a Pictish harp, beasts and warriors in a 19th century illustration, minus the top section.)

And, most interestingly, this:

http://images.ancient-scotland.co.uk/pics/bullion01.jpg

Which is almost reminicent of the image of Odinn riding Sleipnir with Huginn and Muninn over head.

This is seemingly getting off topic, however I do believe the significance of the Picts to Scottish identity is probably alot greater than aknowledged, and I believe their presence is important in the understanding of the spread of Indo-European, and further, the connection between the Scottish, the Norse, the Germanics and even the seemingly in your face connection between themselves and the Celts.

Astrid Runa
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:48 AM
I was lead to believe that the Celts originated in Gallia, and migrated to different places through-out the world, such as Helvetia and Hibernia.
I could be wrong, however, but I'm pretty sure the Gauls were some of the first Celts and originated in Helvetia.

nauthiz
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 08:03 PM
It is confusing. But I will say not one family member of mine has any mediteranean feature.
I'm discovering more and more about my lineage and have found more Norwegian that I even thought, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Landers
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:35 PM
Well, we should consider that an island is isolated and so forms its own unique culture.

From what little I know, the celts originated from the same place as the Germanics. In fact, they seem to be different tribes of the same group. Look at the art and the culture.

What is it that actually separates the Celts from the Germanics. Self-identification cannot be the issue here. For if it was, surely the Scandinavians would not be considered Germanic, or Britain (Christ! Try calling a Brit Germanic...they will go mental!) - and what would remain Germanic is merely Germany....which would not be accurate.

So, can we have a list of what exactly separates Celts form Germanics.

Is their a wiki reference or something for this, in regard to the Celts coming from area as Germanics?

Hrogar
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 11:39 AM
I think Celts and Germanics have a lot of similarities. Besides being genetically related, the religion and mythology of the Celts had mostly the same structure as the Germanics. Honour and courage were highly regarded in both groups. Both lived mostly in tribes and family-based settlements.

There are also some differences. But the relation between the two is quite close, especially compared to the mediteranean people. And along the river Rhine there was a lot of interaction between the two groups, in terms of strife, trade and cultural exchange.

Landers
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 12:00 PM
See the below:

Celts and Germans (http://www.oocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/celtsandgermansbymcnallen.htm) by Stephen A. McNallen

The Celts (http://www.oocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/CELTS.htm) by Nicholas John Griffin, MA (Hons.), Cantab.
In this article is:
* Part I: Their Origins and Prehistory
* Part II: Celtic Folkways and the Clash with Romans and Germans

Hrogar
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010, 08:50 AM
See the below:

Celts and Germans (http://www.oocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/celtsandgermansbymcnallen.htm) by Stephen A. McNallen

The Celts (http://www.oocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/CELTS.htm) by Nicholas John Griffin, MA (Hons.), Cantab.
In this article is:
* Part I: Their Origins and Prehistory
* Part II: Celtic Folkways and the Clash with Romans and Germans

I Like the articles. And although in a few parts there is a slight racial undertone in Griffin's work, these are also good articles with a solid argumentation. They clearly show the close ties between Celts and Germanics and their high level of civilization.

Today's society can (and should) still learn a lot from our Celtic and Germanic ancestors.

Zitchen
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 01:08 AM
I don't know about any of you, but have you ever been in a museum admiring some ancient piece of Germanic art only to come to find it's Celtic, or vice versa? I have had this happen several times, and the similarities are undeniable, and in their similarities are both distinctive from art from other places in the world.

Wynterwade
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:19 AM
First of all I think many of you are getting terms confused.
-Celtic is not a racial group.
-Celtic is a cultural-linguistic group. I read Henri Hubert's "Rise of the Celts".
-The Celtics stretched from Ireland to Spain to Turkey to Ukraine.
-They originated in Southern Germany along the Danube (Danu is the Celtic god).

Second of all, the Scandinavian racial influence on Britain is far less than many think. Studies have found that no more than 5% of eastern England has Scandinavian paternal DNA. Some areas in Scotland have huge amounts of Scandinavian DNA however around 50%.

The Celtic and Germanic cultures are not hard to understand if you do some research on your own. Read their entire wikipedia pages, read a book or two about each.

Rhydderch
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:25 AM
Its a commonly known fact that Modern Irish, Scots, etc come from the Celtic branch of the Genealogical tree, and that the Celt's "pre"-Historic origins lie within the borders of modern day Germany, and they simply spread out from there.

What I'm curious about is if modern Irish (this is not taking into account the settlement of Ireland by the Norse in the medieval period), Scots, would still be considered a Germanic culture given the origins of the ancient Celts, or have they splint into an entirely new branch of their own, completely separate from the Germanic tree.Opinions vary.

My own opinion, based on gathering together lots of different information, is that the key to understanding these similarities and differences in culture and ethnicity in Europe lies largely in the Bronze Age.

It appears to me that regions known to the Romans as "Germanic" roughly coincide with the area settled in the Bronze Age by the Corded people, and the Celtic regions roughly coincide with those settled by the "Dinarid" (of which, in my view, the so-called "Keltic Nordic" is only a slight variant form) people who developed a culture in Northern Spain, and subsequently spread to Northern France, Ireland, and then the Alpine Highlands and southern Germany.

My view is that these "Dinarids", who, before spreading across the mediterranean and into Northern Spain, had appeared first in Asia Minor, were the original Indo-Europeans.

The Corded people may have spoken a language which survives in some form in Finnish, Estonian etc.

Then some of these IE (or Celtic in this case) Dinarids went North into the Corded lands during the Bronze Age, the result being something of a mixture of culture and language, to the extent that the Dinarid group was basically absorbed into the Corded, but the language which prevailed was very roughly Indo-European.
But when Iron was developed by these IE/Celtic Dinarids in the Alps, this gave them a distinct advantage over the Northern Corded-based peoples, which resulted in the Hallstatt invasions, introducing Iron to Scandinavia and the rest of Germany (and also France and Britain), as well as reinforcing the IE, Celtic element to the Germanic languages.

I think this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Germanic languages are an unusual branch of Indo-European, more strongly influenced by non-IE than any other branch.


So to sum up, the people historically known as Celts are ethnically and linguistically descended from Indo-European people who were racially of a "Keltic" or Dinarid phenotype, and the Germanics are ethnically basically descended from the Corded people, but with a superstrate of influence from these Indo-Europeans, whose language largely prevailed.

Wynterwade
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:59 AM
Rhydderch,

There are a couple things I must say

1) The Indo-Europeans were originally from between the black and Caspian seas in modern day southern Russia. Read the book "the 10,000 year explosion". There is an entire section devoted to this. They are hypothesized to be a nomadic horse group that was able to conquer vast amounts of area like the Mongols did a few hundreds of years ago.

2) The Indo-Europeans didn't genetically influence Europe much. A few of their genes that were beneficial such as lactose tolerance were slightly favored overtime and became dominate in present day Europe. Other than that it is fairly obvious to assume that they didn't just JUMP from between the Caspian sea and the Black sea into modern day balkins where the Dinards live today.

3) People lived in Europe before the Indo-European expansion and probably spoke a Basque like language. We don't know exactly how the expansion happened. Maybe they took over one group then that group took over another and so on.

4) The Indo-European influence on Europe is largely a linguistic influence rather than a genetic influence!

Again read the book "10,000 year explosion" for detailed information on this.

Hrogar
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 08:56 AM
I think this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Germanic languages are an unusual branch of Indo-European, more strongly influenced by non-IE than any other branch.

Which non-IE language wiuld that be?

Rhydderch
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 01:46 PM
Which non-IE language wiuld that be?Well I guess we can only speculate. What's clear is that there is a very strong element in the Germanic languages which cannot be traced to proto-Indo-European, and is quite possibly derived from language groups now extinct, but as I suggested in my post, it may be that the Corded people spoke a language of which the modern Finnish group is largely a survival. Perhaps this ancient "Corded" language is responsible for much of the substrate in Germanic, but I don't really know.

Wynterwade
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 01:56 PM
Rhydderch,

I disagree...

1) Germanic languages ARE classified as an Indo-European language. Read about why they make this classification- it is very detailed. As for a major influence by a Non-Indo-European language- I highly doubt it- the top linguists will agree with me.

2) Finnish is the eponymous member of the Finno-Ugric language family and is typologically between fusional and agglutinative languages. It modifies and inflects the forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and verbs, depending on their roles in the sentence.

3) Germanic languages have influence by Celtic and Slavic languages and probably VERY LITTLE BY Finnno-Ugric languages. Look at the geographics- Germanic languges were surrounded by Celtic and Slavic tribes.

4) Before the Indo-European language expansion it is hypothesized that Europeans spoke languages similar to Basque.

5)
it may be that the Corded people spoke a language of which the modern Finnish group is largely a survival.
You cannot say that a certain skull shape spoke a certain langauge because when you look at archeological finds- they find within certain cultures- Le Tene for example- they find diverse skull shapes. I read the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert to understand this. The sub-races of our populations were mixed as far back as archeological finds go- pointing towards a very distant origin for these skull differences- and mixing between skull types.

Bernhard
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:13 PM
Rhydderch,

I disagree...

1) Germanic languages ARE classified as an Indo-European language. Read about why they make this classification- it is very detailed. As for a major influence by a Non-Indo-European language- I highly doubt it- the top linguists will agree with me.

Of course the Germanic languages are Indo-European, but this doesn't say anything about a possible pre-Indo-European substratum which could have influenced the Germanic languages. As far as I know linguists generally agree that there are quite some non-Indo-European influences in Germanic languages. We don't know which language; perhaps it was a language spoken by the people from the pre-Indo-European Megalith-culture.



5)
You cannot say that a certain skull shape spoke a certain langauge because when you look at archeological finds- they find within certain cultures- Le Tene for example- they find diverse skull shapes. I read the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert to understand this. The sub-races of our populations were mixed as far back as archeological finds go- pointing towards a very distant origin for these skull differences- and mixing between skull types.


Corded-ware is a culture. Probably they were the bearers of Indo-European language in contrast to the Megalith-culture with whom they merged to form the Germanic group.

OneWolf
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:23 PM
First of all I think many of you are getting terms confused.
-Celtic is not a racial group.
-Celtic is a cultural-linguistic group. I read Henri Hubert's "Rise of the Celts".
-The Celtics stretched from Ireland to Spain to Turkey to Ukraine.
-They originated in Southern Germany along the Danube (Danu is the Celtic god).

You are correct,Celtic is not a racial group.It is a cultural-linguistic group that
spread both far and wide.But do you know what the main difference is between
a Celt,German and Teuton?



Second of all, the Scandinavian racial influence on Britain is far less than many think. Studies have found that no more than 5% of eastern England has Scandinavian paternal DNA. Some areas in Scotland have huge amounts of Scandinavian DNA however around 50%.


I don't think I really believe this.I have seen so many different opinions on
this subject that sometimes I think there might be something Political behind
some of there findings.Take me for example,most of my people have been
in the U.S. for a long time.Most of my people came from Great Britain but most
of my paternal and maternal DNA results match with R1b/s21/u106 haplotype.
That Haplotype is mainly found in Denmark,Frisia and Holland.So either some
of my Ancient kinfolk where Anglo-Saxons or I am just a lucky American.
;)

Wynterwade
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 02:36 PM
Bernhard

1) Saying what you did shows that you understand little about linguistic differences. I've studied Basque myself (bought a textbook and audio CD) and the distance between it and Indo-European is massive. This is the type of linguistic difference that determines a non-indo-european influence. I could go through the examples (words like mother- ama, father- aita, words for animals etc.) but I'll leave the experts who agree with me to argue my case. There is a tremendous amount of work done on this subject- and the data is overwhelming- if you would take the time to read it. Read books on linguistics and a good place to start is on wikipedia.

If you'd like to argue that Germanic languages have non-indo-european influence please give me some scientific examples or names of linguists who agree with you.

2) Yes, they name cultures after skull shapes that they find- however- and this has happened countless times- they will find nearby during the same time period THE EXACT SAME CULTURE with different skull shapes- again read the book "Rise of the Celts" for examples. The populations were mixed as far back as well documented archeological findings go.

Onewulf-

I don't think I really believe this.I have seen so many different opinions on
this subject that sometimes I think there might be something Political behind
some of there findings.

Anyways, the data I used was from the most comprehensive study done on England- I have a quiz in a few minutes so I need to study- look it up. Also read the book "The blood of the Isles" - I think that is the name.

This is factual data- backed statistically- and is verifiable- It is not an opinion it is fact!

I will look up my sources this afternoon and post them on here.

Bernhard
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 03:15 PM
Bernhard

1) Saying what you did shows that you understand little about linguistic differences. I've studied Basque myself (bought a textbook and audio CD) and the distance between it and Indo-European is massive. This is the type of linguistic difference that determines a non-indo-european influence. I could go through the examples (words like mother- ama, father- aita, words for animals etc.) but I'll leave the experts who agree with me to argue my case. There is a tremendous amount of work done on this subject- and the data is overwhelming- if you would take the time to read it. Read books on linguistics and a good place to start is on wikipedia.

Saying what you did shows that you don't understand anything I've wrote. I am not going to be lectured by someone who thinks buying a book and a CD on Basque is the same as "studying Basque".
You don't understand that the term "influence" can refer to varying degrees of influence. You seem to think that when a Indo-European language is influenced by a non-Indo-European language this immediately means that the language as been altered massively in a way that it cannot be classified as Indo-European anymore. A good example of a language that has been influenced a lot (probably more than the influence I am talking about) by a completely different language is Estonian. Despite Germanic influences, this language is still classified as a Finnic language. The same goes for Germanic languages. As far as I know, Germanic languages have had more pre-Indo-European influence than most other Indo-European languages. Doesn't mean they aren't Indo-European.




If you'd like to argue that Germanic languages have non-indo-european influence please give me some scientific examples or names of linguists who agree with you.

Perhaps I'll have a look later on. I've read things concerning this topic during the years, so obviously I don't have direct sources at hand.


2) Yes, they name cultures after skull shapes that they find- however- and this has happened countless times- they will find nearby during the same time period THE EXACT SAME CULTURE with different skull shapes- again read the book "Rise of the Celts" for examples. The populations were mixed as far back as well documented archeological findings go.




What does this have to do with what I said?

Wynterwade
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 04:30 PM
but this doesn't say anything about a possible pre-Indo-European substratum which could have influenced the Germanic languages.

This is a very complex argument.

First it is important to understand 3 things
1) We don't know what the Pre-Indo-European (also phrased as non-indo-european) linguistic influence could be. Many linguists point towards a hypothetical Basque language family being the most likely possible language family throughout Europe. And also the Basque language has not been linked to any other language family and professional linguistics have not been able to find any concrete similarities to any other language- including Germanic.

2) This is very important to understand- the pre-indo-european language probably died out way before the creation of the Germanic languages. The official start of the Germanic languages was due to Grimms law during the 1st century BC. Before this language the people of the germanic lands spoke a form of proto-indo-european. Thus whatever Pre-Indo-European influence exists in the Germanic language family would probably also exist in its neighbor families who spoke the same language- proto-indo-european.

3) When you look at the development of the Germanic language family, according to Grimms law- the differences are more in 3 key areas-
a)Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops change into voiceless fricatives.
b)Proto-Indo-European voiced stops become voiceless stops.
c) Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops become voiced fricatives; ultimately, in most Germanic languages these voiced fricatives become voiced stops.
None of these changes from the Proto-Indo-European language to the Proto-Germanic language (that differentiate Germanic languages from other indo-european langauges) are caused by a Non-IE language influence.

From the books and scientific studies that I've read, Germanic languages are overwhelmingly rooted in Indo-European origins. If it were to have noticeable influences from a pre-indo-european origin (which is the same thing as saying influences from a non-indo-euroepan origin) most linguists think it would be more noticeable- thus the majority of linguists say the influence is negligible if at all. If you can find any evidence for a non-indo-european influence I would be happy to hear it.



What does this have to do with what I said?

Because you were trying to link the linguistic movement with the skull classifications of Europe. This doesn't hold for two reasons

1) European skull types were already diverse as far back as archelogical findings go. I evidenced the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert for evidence. This is also a difficult to understand point because frequently similar tribes had similar C.I. but another tribe a hundred miles away that is of the SAME culture has a different C.I. I think the ones for Hallstatt Culture were first found as dolycephelic and then they also found members not far away of the same culture that were mesocephelic if my memory is correct.

2) Because the Indo-European language expansion had negligible influence genetically on Europe (except lactose tolerance- because slightly favorable traits can grow to a majority overtime)- studies have found that their influence is merely a linguistic one- read the book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" for evidence about that including the evidence on lactose tolerance expansion.


Using DNA evidence, Sykes and Oppenheimer claim that even in the east of England, where there is the best evidence for migration, no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event.

Also, certain towns in Scotland have 50% Scandinavian paternal DNA lines.

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

Hammer of Thor
Saturday, October 30th, 2010, 05:48 AM
I believe that to some extent the Celts and Germanics arose from a common people. As the populations diverged and settled new areas they began their own customs, languages, etc., which eventually became distinct cultures.

As proto-Celts and proto-Germanics diverged and became separate tribes, their cultures began to diverge. A current day example would be European Americans. Although European Americans all had ancestors from Europe, they have developed a totally different culture. There may be no genetic divergence so to speak, but there is a more significant cultural change.

Additionally, genetic testing proves that Northwestern/Northern Europeans are very similar genetically and there is often a great deal of genetic overlap.

Some evidence to support this idea would be:

Genetically most Northern/Northwestern Europeans are very similar.
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/geneticmapofeurope.jpg

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/europevariation-752360.jpg

http://www.taiwandna.com/European_population_substructure.png

Celtic and Norse artwork is very similar and is often grouped together.

http://www.pinewoodforge.com/books/norse72.jpg

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Let me know what you guys think.

Hammer of Thor

Rhydderch
Monday, November 1st, 2010, 07:33 AM
1) Germanic languages ARE classified as an Indo-European language. Read about why they make this classification- it is very detailed. As for a major influence by a Non-Indo-European language- I highly doubt it- the top linguists will agree with me.I never disputed that Germanic languages are part of the Indo-European family. Indeed all IE languages have influence from non-IE languages, it's just a question of how much.
And although it's a while since I last delved into this, I believe it's well accepted among scholars of the subject that Germanic has strong non-IE elements or influences, possibly more so than any other IE branch.


3) Germanic languages have influence by Celtic and Slavic languages and probably VERY LITTLE BY Finnno-Ugric languages. Look at the geographics- Germanic languges were surrounded by Celtic and Slavic tribes.I won't push this issue too far, given that I was only speculating as to a possibility, however I would point out that any influence of this kind would have come from some sort of proto-Finno-Ugric. Even if my hypothesis is correct, modern Finno-Ugric languages are likely to be highly mixed (with other language families) and evolved descendants of this original Corded language, so any influence of this Corded language on Germanic in very early times would be extremely difficult to identify as a specifically Finno-Ugric link.


4) Before the Indo-European language expansion it is hypothesized that Europeans spoke languages similar to Basque.Yes, but I beg to differ. I believe Basque is probably derived largely from a language spoken by the "Atlanto-mediterranean" Megalith builders, given that the Basque region experienced strong settlement by these people. I simply cannot accept the idea that the earlier hunter-gatherers managed to retain their language, let alone linguistically absorb the incoming Megalithic people, who had a much more advanced culture.


5)
You cannot say that a certain skull shape spoke a certain langauge because when you look at archeological finds- they find within certain cultures- Le Tene for example- they find diverse skull shapes. I read the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert to understand this. The sub-races of our populations were mixed as far back as archeological finds go- pointing towards a very distant origin for these skull differences- and mixing between skull types.I nevertheless believe that they started out as distinct racial types, with a language of their own, and presumably a material culture largely peculiar to themselves.
Obviously once they arrived in Western Europe they will have been influenced by surrounding cultures, and also imposed much of their own culture on conquered peoples and indeed over many generations eventually become blended, so my idea that they were originally a distinct "race" is perfectly consistent with the archaeological evidence.

I would argue that the fact that consistently the same skull type is found over a wide area, generally associated with a roughly similar culture, but in later eras is found to be less distinct and more hybridised with earlier local types, is rather contradictory to the view you're promoting, and supports the idea I've stated above.

Wynterwade
Monday, November 1st, 2010, 01:26 PM
Rhydderch,

You should have tried to disprove my most recent post which was by far my strongest counterargument (where I actually pulled out books to look up evidence) against your disproved hypothesis.

Also if you're going to say that there is Non-IE influence in Germanic languages more so than other IE languages then show me some evidence. I have never read anything supporting such argument but I have read considerable amounts of evidence supporting mine.

A lot of your arguments give no consideration to time. Yes obviously distinct racial types lived at one point separate from others- but this was extremely long ago probably way before or during the last ice age. IE Languages are much more recent- the development hypothesized as beginning their divergence around 8,000 BC. With Germanic languages beginning its divergence from IE around the first millennium BC- and none of the differences that separate it from other IE were caused by a Non-IE language as I pointed out in my last post.

Landers
Monday, November 1st, 2010, 09:09 PM
Found this from Brian Bates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Bates):

http://www.wayofwyrd.com/forum_details.php?id=124

Rhydderch
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010, 12:14 PM
Rhydderch,

You should have tried to disprove my most recent post which was by far my strongest counterargument (where I actually pulled out books to look up evidence) against your disproved hypothesis.But it's no good quoting books and simply asserting that the point of view given in those books is correct, if you don't actually understand the issues. Don't simply swallow their claims, you need to ascertain whether they've actually made a good argument.

I've looked at many books, compared them and come up with my own conclusions as to what makes the most sense. There are all sorts of conflicting ideas and just because one can quote a book/books which back him up doesn't mean he's proved or disproved anything.

My views have come from so many different sources it's not always possible to quote them as coming from a specific source, besides the fact that it's some time since I've been studying it in detail.


Also if you're going to say that there is Non-IE influence in Germanic languages more so than other IE languages then show me some evidence. I have never read anything supporting such argument but I have read considerable amounts of evidence supporting mine.Have a look at this wikipedia article:

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

Note the statements:

"[The Germanic substrate hypothesis] postulates that the elements of the common Germanic vocabulary and syntactical forms which do not seem to have an Indo-European origin show Proto-Germanic to be a creole language: a contact language synthesis between Indo-European speakers and a non-Indo-European substrate language used by the ancestors of the speakers of the Proto-Germanic language."

And

"That the Germanic languages form a markedly distinct group within Indo-European is beyond question."

I've also read that a large proportion of Germanic vocabulary appears to be of non-Indo-European origin.


A lot of your arguments give no consideration to time. Yes obviously distinct racial types lived at one point separate from others- but this was extremely long ago probably way before or during the last ice age. IE Languages are much more recent- the development hypothesized as beginning their divergence around 8,000 BC. With Germanic languages beginning its divergence from IE around the first millennium BC- and none of the differences that separate it from other IE were caused by a Non-IE language as I pointed out in my last post.And what has prompted you to accept all this as fact?

Wynterwade
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010, 03:54 PM
Thanks for the information Rhydderch.


From wikipedia: More recent treatments of Proto-Germanic tend to reject or simply omit discussion of the Germanic substrate hypothesis.
Because I read recent scientific information must be why I have never heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis. After glancing over it does seem possible- but I would be cautious because Hawkins argument (that Germanic languages are 1/3 non-IE) is being downsized and refuted or ignored by a majority of the linguistic community. I can't find any information as to what the ratio is today. And considering it isn't mainstream this may be hard to find.

Do you know what the ratio is today? Because our entire arguments rest upon what the ratio is.


And what has prompted you to accept all this as fact?

Ok, first of all in the quote you have mentioned I have listed...
1) Racial types were distinct a very long time ago (probably before the last Ice Age or during it). And that racial types are diverse as far back as archeological evidence goes (at the end of the last Ice Age).
2) IE Language expansion began around 8,000 BC and had negligible genetic influence on Europe.
3) Germanic languages began around the first millennium BC.
4) The creation of Germanic langues had no influence from non-IE languages.

You want me to spend my entire day on here going over all these again?
For 1) Read Henri Huberts "Rise of the Celts" for 2) Read "10,000 year explosion" for 3) Read Grimms Law.

Also I actually did a good job describing evidence on #1, #2 and #3- I gave them in my posts on this thread.

I will grant you that my #4) Argument is possibly wrong. I should have said had negligible or no influence. (or maybe some depending on what the ratio is from the first part of this post).

Reading back over our posts it feels like we're fighting- I really don't mean to be rude.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010, 06:46 AM
Because I read recent scientific information must be why I have never heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis. After glancing over it does seem possible- but I would be cautious because Hawkins argument (that Germanic languages are 1/3 non-IE) is being downsized and refuted or ignored by a majority of the linguistic community. I can't find any information as to what the ratio is today. And considering it isn't mainstream this may be hard to find.One should certainly be careful accepting a non-mainstream view, however I feel that sometimes modern scholars decide to overturn a theory, commonly held in the past, for no good reason (often politically correct or something). I think often the older view makes more sense than the modern widely accepted one.


Do you know what the ratio is today? Because our entire arguments rest upon what the ratio is.I'm not sure what the ratio is today but I wouldn't say the entire argument rests on it, bearing in mind that it's well accepted even today that Germanic is somewhat distinct from the rest of the IE family.


Ok, first of all in the quote you have mentioned I have listed...
1) Racial types were distinct a very long time ago (probably before the last Ice Age or during it). And that racial types are diverse as far back as archeological evidence goes (at the end of the last Ice Age).
2) IE Language expansion began around 8,000 BC and had negligible genetic influence on Europe.
3) Germanic languages began around the first millennium BC.
4) The creation of Germanic langues had no influence from non-IE languages.

You want me to spend my entire day on here going over all these again?
For 1) Read Henri Huberts "Rise of the Celts" for 2) Read "10,000 year explosion" for 3) Read Grimms Law.But my point was, have they actually made good arguments for these claims? I understand you can't exactly show me the whole argument, however I was only making the point.

But I would argue that although there is generally some degree of mingling of types with particular material cultures, there is still a distinct correlation. For example wherever the Bronze Age beaker culture is found (in Northern Spain, Italy and later further north), there are also found skulls distinctly different from those generally found associated with Neolithic culture in the same areas.
So with many cultures there is a spread of a particular physical type with the material culture.

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/05-05.htm


I really don't mean to be rude.Me neither :)

SnorriThorfinnsso
Thursday, November 4th, 2010, 02:36 AM
First of all I think many of you are getting terms confused.
-Celtic is not a racial group.
-Celtic is a cultural-linguistic group. I read Henri Hubert's "Rise of the Celts".
-The Celtics stretched from Ireland to Spain to Turkey to Ukraine.
-They originated in Southern Germany along the Danube (Danu is the Celtic god).

Second of all, the Scandinavian racial influence on Britain is far less than many think. Studies have found that no more than 5% of eastern England has Scandinavian paternal DNA. Some areas in Scotland have huge amounts of Scandinavian DNA however around 50%.

The Celtic and Germanic cultures are not hard to understand if you do some research on your own. Read their entire wikipedia pages, read a book or two about each.

I tought Celts and Germanic tribes both were separated from the same branch (A.K.A) Hallstatt Culture in the Early Iron Age, from the 8th to 6th century BC. And it's proven by some ancient Halogrups like R1b1b2 (R1b1c) wich is Italo-Celto-Anatolian, then it mutated to R1b1b2a1 (Italo-Celto-Germanic) 6'000 years ago, wich changed in more recent times to R1b1b2a1a (R1b1c9) West Germanic (Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Lombard), R1b1b2a1a1 (R1b1c9b), R1b1b2a1a2, etc. So to me, they share same origins, in the Racial/Cultural even Genetic sense. I don't know tho, i'm not well-versed in Genetics. :P

Greetings.