PDA

View Full Version : English, Dutch, German : more Celtic than Germanic



cbvnm
Tuesday, September 16th, 2003, 10:29 PM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand

Jack
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 04:29 PM
Any proof for this?

cbvnm
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 05:35 PM
ofcourse,

``A new survey of Y chromosomes in the British Isles suggests that the Anglo-Saxons failed to leave as much of a genetic stamp on the UK as history books imply1.

Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and Normans invaded Britain repeatedly between 50 BC and AD 1050. Many historians ascribe much of the British ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons because their written legacy overshadows that of the Celts.

But the Y chromosomes of the regions tell a different story. "The Celts weren't pushed to the fringes of Scotland and Wales; a lot of them remained in England and central Ireland," says study team member David Goldstein, of University College London. This is surprising: the Anglo-Saxons reputedly colonized southern England heavily.
``

from http://www.nature.com/nsu/030616/030616-15.html



and :

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf



Its also quite obvious when looking at the populations, especially the English and Dutch generally have much darker hair than Scandinavians but also the Germans are darkerhaired than Scandinavians.

Scandinavians are the real Germanics

The Dutch, English and Southern-Germans are predominant of celtic blood with a minority of germanic blood

Northern-Germans have more germanic blood. An estimate would be 50 % celtic - 50 % germanic for them

Allenson
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 05:37 PM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand


Let me guess, you're "1juice" from SF?!

I still hold that what you are calling "Keltic" is actually Upper Paleolithic....and these folks were in NW Europe long before any "Kelts" arrived on the scene.

BTW, I'm 'Ingleric' at SF in case you hadn't already figured that one out.

cheers

cbvnm
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 07:23 PM
ingleric :

so you are one of the followers of the theory that Central-West Europe in the paleolithic time was populated by non-aryan people and that the Celts were immigrants and mixed with these non-aryans?

I dont believe in this theory

According to me the Celts have lived in Central-West Europe since the paleolithic, just like the Slavs have lived in Eastern-Europe since the paleolithic. The Celts migrated to the iberian peninsula when the ice was covering great parts of europe. Just like the Slavs migrated to the Ukraine when the ices were covering great parts of Europe.

The Celts are the ancient West-Europeans
The Slavs are the ancient East-Europeans
The Germanics are the ancient North-Europeans
and the Romans are the ancient south-europeans (possibly a link to the neolithic immigrants who introduced farming, but this remains guessing)

Just like all history books imply.

I dont believe in the so called ``paleolithic pre-aryan people`` myth

The only non-aryan people that lived in Western-Europe were the iberians of Spain : a swarthy small dark seafaring people. These people also lived in the British isles. Spaniards, Basques and Portuguese still have a little bit of iberian blood, but its minimal. Iberians are almost extinct.

Even though the Iberians are almost extinct the Basques still speak an Iberian language. The Basque country got overrun by Celts from Central Europe resulting in the Celtiberian culture. Modern day Basques are mainly of Celtic ancestry (Basques are the same as Welsh/Irish etc on the y Chromosome).
Modern day Basques = Celts that speak an iberian language

Allenson
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 08:01 PM
Hi cbvnm,

I'm glad that you wrote what you did here. You clarified a few things for me and I wish to thank you.

I think the problem here is partially (if not wholly) in terminology. While Coon recognized a "Keltic Nordic" sub-race and I use this term from time to time when phenotypic classifications come up, I am more prone to think of Celtic (Keltic) as a cultural/linguistic term. Celtic culture and language did not arrive in western Europe until comparatively late....compared to the people who adopted this material culture and languange, that is. This is what I didn't undertand in all of your posts regarding the 'Celts' of central and western Europe and my major complaint with what you've posted is that which I have already mentioned; that being that the genetic markers common in NW Europe are much older than Celtic culture or language. It seems though that we are speaking of the same thing. What you call "Celtic", I call "Paleolithic"


"Paleolithic pre-Aryan people myth"

Hmmmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying, in contrary to what you wrote above, that there were no people in Europe in the Paleolithic or, that the folk of the Paleolithic were Aryan?

And what do you mean by "Aryan"? Indo-European speakers? Do you attribute the much sought after PIE homeland to continental Europe?

thanks

Stríbog
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 10:34 PM
Celtic as a cultural/linguistic type originated in Switzerland/Austria relatively recently, and did not make it to the British Isles until about 500 BC. The UP Brünns and Atlantid/Mediterranid Picts and Welsh had already been there for some time. Slavs, in the true linguistic-cultural sense, are mesolithic-neolithic. They were Corded/BA and Danubian types who originated in southern Russia/Ukraine and/or western Asia. I don't know what you mean by Paleolithic Slavs. I really haven't seen anything to indicate that Baltids are that old, either.

It's also incorrect to apply the British findings to the Dutch and Germans as a whole. I am not very familiar with Belgian and Dutch anthropology, so I will defer to Frans on that. However, I know that only southern Germany is significantly/predominantly Celtic. Northern Germany is far less than 50% Celtic ancestrally.

cbvnm
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 10:48 PM
The Celts have lived in Western-Europe since the paleolithic. Therefore ofcourse the Celtic languages also exists in Western-Europe since the paleolithic. And yes the Celts are ofcourse a subgroup of the aryans. The aryans have been in Western-Europe since the paleolithic.

Its all very simple

The Celts had many different racial types, but the most common and therefore the typical Celtic look = brown hair, light eyes (blue or green), mesocephalic, tall

Stríbog
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 01:12 AM
The Celts have lived in Western-Europe since the paleolithic. Therefore ofcourse the Celtic languages also exists in Western-Europe since the paleolithic. And yes the Celts are ofcourse a subgroup of the aryans. The aryans have been in Western-Europe since the paleolithic.

Its all very simple

The Celts had many different racial types, but the most common and therefore the typical Celtic look = brown hair, light eyes (blue or green), mesocephalic, tall

LOL what are your sources on this? You're prepared to discredit centuries of archaeological revelations like La Têne, Hallstatt, Urnfields, etc. based on your simple opinion that Celts are Paleolithic?

cbvnm
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 08:24 AM
``LOL what are your sources on this? You're prepared to discredit centuries of archaeological revelations like La Têne, Hallstatt, Urnfields, etc. based on your simple opinion that Celts are Paleolithic?``

Halstatt is in Austria
La Tene (Neuchatel) is in Switzerland

It is a widely accepted fact in the world that the Celts originated in Central-West Europe (switzerland, austria, france, southern germany, belgium, holland).

There are no books that claim the Celts were some immigrants from Asia 3000 years ago that migrated to West-Europe and mixed with so called ``paleolithic Europeans``. This sounds like a futuristic fairytale.

I noticed this fairytale exists on this site as well as on the Stormfront website

Loki
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 08:55 AM
``LOL what are your sources on this? You're prepared to discredit centuries of archaeological revelations like La Têne, Hallstatt, Urnfields, etc. based on your simple opinion that Celts are Paleolithic?``

Halstatt is in Austria
La Tene (Neuchatel) is in Switzerland

It is a widely accepted fact in the world that the Celts originated in Central-West Europe (switzerland, austria, france, southern germany, belgium, holland).

There are no books that claim the Celts were some immigrants from Asia 3000 years ago that migrated to West-Europe and mixed with so called ``paleolithic Europeans``. This sounds like a futuristic fairytale.

I noticed this fairytale exists on this site as well as on the Stormfront website

The Celts were Indo-Europeans, and thus came from a more eastern origin thousands of years ago. The recognised La Tene/Hallstatt cultures have only developed after the Celts had settled in central Europe. One must realise that the proto-IE age was many thousands of years ago, and archaeological testimony is scant in any way. This may have led to your misunderstanding. It is not a "fairytale" as you called it, but accepted historical fact.

cbvnm
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 10:23 AM
It is still unknown were the indo-europeans (celts, germanics, slavs, romans etc) came from. Historicists and scientists are still debating about it.

Untill that time nothing has been proven.

Even if the indo-europeans originally came from more eastern places, then this doesnt mean West-Europeans are not Celts but paleolithic people

The Celts have a short recent history. There were no Celts 10000 years ago, the ancestors of the Celts existed 10000 years ago, but the Celts themselves not.

The Celts originated in Central-Europe in the Bronze Age. Several different tribes mixed with eachother resulting in the end mix called the Celts.

The first time the Celts were mentioned in history was 1300 BC. This was the first time identifiably Celtic artifacts appear in the upper Danube.

Loki
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 11:47 AM
The Celts have a short recent history. There were no Celts 10000 years ago, the ancestors of the Celts existed 10000 years ago, but the Celts themselves not.



True, but seen in context - there were also no Germanics, no Italics, no Slavs... 10,000 years ago. So this is hardly a revelation. 10,000 years ago we are talking about proto-Indo-European, or maybe some early IE split. It is really not that long ago.

cbvnm
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 12:24 PM
I read something from you in another topic Loki :

``Recent genetic studies have confirmed that the areas most densely settled by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, namely eastern England, are virtually identical to northern Germany and Denmark``

This is incorrect.
Eastern-English are not the same in dna as the Danes. Eastern-English are the same as the Dutch Frisians.

The Dutch frisians territority in the north of the Netherlands is the part of the netherlands with the most germanic blood, but still this part is majority Celtic blood.

In the Netherlands and England there are no regions/area`s with a majority of germanic blood. Germanic blood is in all area`s a minority in England and the Netherlands.

So you mistake the Danes with the Dutch Frisians.

The dutch Frisians territority is the same in dna as East England. Denmark is very different in dna from East-England and Dutch Frisia.

Denmark :

38 % HG1
40 % HG2

Dutch Frisia :

56 % HG1
28 % HG2

East-England (York, Norfolk) :

57 % HG1
31 % HG2

Netherlands as a whole :

71 % HG1
22 % HG2

England as a whole :

68 % HG1
22 % HG2

You can clearly see the Dutch and English are very similar in dna (y chromosome) and the Danes are very different from the Dutch and English

Tore
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 08:01 PM
Welcome to Skadi 1juice!

I know we have had this discussion before on SF, and I somewhat agree with you, although not entirely, and here is why:

I think that you have made some good observations in affiliating the European Haplogroups with cultures/peoples/migrations. It is true that the places by which Hg 1 reaches its highest frequency in are generally connected to "Celtic Culture" (and I use the term very vaguely), such as Western Ireland and the British Isles in general, parts of Iberia, as well as in Central Europe. However, the problem is exactly that, in that such peoples are only bound by culture, and not (sub) race. An Irish Bruenn would almost surely show paternal lineages that cluster with Hg 1, although, having said this, the actual lineage would be much deviated from the Hg 1 lineage shown by a Spanish Mediterranean, and to a lesser extent, a German Borreby. My point is, the mutation defining Hg 1 is 23 000 YBP, and, although I think you are correct in identifying the affinity shown with Celtic culture, or what I would deem "Old European," I personally wish to approach things from a less simplistic manner.

cbvnm
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 08:27 PM
``An Irish Bruenn would almost surely show paternal lineages that cluster with Hg 1, although, having said this, the actual lineage would be much deviated from the Hg 1 lineage shown by a Spanish Mediterranean, and to a lesser extent, a German Borreby``

You are correct when you say the Irish for example are not the same as the Spaniards just because they are both predominant HG1.

The Spaniards look mostly mediterranean and the Irish look Central-European.

A possible reason why Spaniards and Basques look darker than the Irish, English, Dutch ETC is because the Spaniards and Basques probably also have a little bit of iberian, north-african or black slaves blood. The iberians were described as swarthy people (probably light brown skinned) and as we all know there is not much black blood needed to turn a whole population a lot darker. This could be a reason why spaniards and basques look much darker than English, Dutch, Irish ETC.

But dont get it wrong : just because some south europeans have a little bit of non-european blood doesnt mean they are not white anymore. Its only a small percentage and the great majority of Spaniards are white in my opinion despite their small amounts of non-european admixture.
(after all, all Europeans have a little bit of non-european blood, even the Swedes)

Stríbog
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 09:51 PM
First you claimed that Celts as a cultural and linguistic unit were Paleolithic. I then pointed out that Hallstatt and La Têne Celtic cultures were quite recent, and that there is no record of Celts in Britain before around 600 BC. You didn't really address that. Paleolithic and Aryan are by definition mutually exclusive. Aryans were Indo-Europeans who originated at a very specific time and place in S. Russia/Ukraine/West Asia. Almost all NW Europeans are non-Aryan in the true sense of the word. This doesn't mean they are 'darker' or 'less white,' just that they are pre-Indo-European. The Basque and Pictish languages/cultures are both examples of what existed in NW Europe before the IE migrations in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic. The claim that Aryans are Paleolithic is ridiculous. Claiming that the darker HG1's are Negroid is equally absurd. The Basques have no Negroid admixture indicated. Recent Moorish contributions in the South are an entirely different issue. The dark Upper Paleolithics are Cro-Magnids who possess darker pigmentation than the Brünns, that's all there is to it.

cbvnm
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 10:04 PM
Stribog :

so you claim the only Europeans that are aryan are the East-Europeans

in other words : Scandinavians are not germanic, Central-West Europeans are not Celtic and South-Europeans dont possess Roman blood ?

All history books are wrong?

dont you think this is a ridiculous view yourself?

Loki
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 10:08 PM
Stribog :

so you claim the only Europeans that are aryan are the East-Europeans

in other words : Scandinavians are not germanic, Central-West Europeans are not Celtic and South-Europeans dont possess Roman blood ?

All history books are wrong?

dont you think this is a ridiculous view yourself?

cbvnm you are talking rubbish and you know it. My guess is you are only here to stir trouble, or joke around, testing our patience.

Stríbog
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 10:22 PM
Stribog :

so you claim the only Europeans that are aryan are the East-Europeans

in other words : Scandinavians are not germanic, Central-West Europeans are not Celtic and South-Europeans dont possess Roman blood ?

All history books are wrong?

dont you think this is a ridiculous view yourself?

The Europeans with the most direct Aryan ancestry are Russian, Byelorussian, Polish, Ukrainian, yes. Germanic is a linguistic grouping rather than a racial grouping. Scandinavia has a fair amount of Aryan blood mixed with the HG1; Germany has somewhat less. Scotland, Ireland, Spain, France and most of Britain have very little. The Indo-European languages outcompeted the more primitive languages spoken by the UP inhabitants of Western Europe and spread to become the dominant languages of Europe, this does not mean that everyone in W. Europe magically became racially Aryan just because they learned an Aryan language.

cbvnm
Sunday, September 21st, 2003, 03:47 AM
if your comment that West-Europeans are not aryan is true, then it means the Celts are not aryan

There is no doubt that most West-Europeans are Celts.
When we speak of Celts we speak of the Gauls, Belgae and other celtic tribes that lived 3000 years ago in Central-Europe and introduced the Hallstatt and La Tene culture

if your comment is true then it means the celts were a non-aryan upper paleolithic people that adopted aryan languages from the east (celtic languages)

Stríbog
Sunday, September 21st, 2003, 08:48 AM
if your comment is true then it means the celts were a non-aryan upper paleolithic people that adopted aryan languages from the east (celtic languages)

Yes, this is the commonly held view. The stereotypical redheaded, ruddy-faced Irish or Scottish "Celt" is an Upper Paleolithic Brünn who speaks an Aryan/Indo-European language. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend or accept.

cbvnm
Sunday, September 21st, 2003, 02:39 PM
my problem with your statement is that you denie that west-europeans are Celts

I may agree with you that the Celts are not aryan : Cavalli and others wrote that the indo-european languages originated with the HG3 people (east-europeans)

so basically it means the Celts were a non-aryan people who adopted an aryan language

Loki
Sunday, September 21st, 2003, 02:48 PM
Damn... cbvnm has just broken the bad news to me.... I am not an Aryan!!! I'm gonna tell my mommy....

:weep

Tore
Sunday, September 21st, 2003, 05:34 PM
A possible reason why Spaniards and Basques look darker than the Irish, English, Dutch ETC is because the Spaniards and Basques probably also have a little bit of iberian, north-african or black slaves blood. The iberians were described as swarthy people (probably light brown skinned) and as we all know there is not much black blood needed to turn a whole population a lot darker. This could be a reason why spaniards and basques look much darker than English, Dutch, Irish ETC.

It's certainly possible, although even in this, the true rugged Bruenn Upper Paleolithic phenotype is rare among the Spanish, even among the Basques, with the gracile Ibero-Insular phenotype predominating.

Loki
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 08:06 AM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand

I am sick and tired of this "you are not Germanic" bullshit that is being propagated on our forum (the Germanic Ting). I know you are Slavic, so don't come and pollute our forum with this garbage. If you want to propagate this idea, rather post it in another forum. This one will remain friendly and honest about our Germanic heritage. I will move consequent threads posted to the Germanic Ting to other forums, or simply delete them. So don't waste your time again.

Regards

Loki

Rhydderch
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005, 06:17 AM
Northern Germany is far less than 50% Celtic ancestrally.In fact, as far as I know, there is very little evidence for Celts in Northern Germany at all.
If the Celts ever reached the Netherlands, it would have been only the south, and perhaps only as a ruling aristocracy; whereas in France and the British Isles there was a particular physical type associated with their migrations; in most parts of the British Isles at least, this type is predominant even today.

æþeling
Saturday, August 27th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Its likely that Celtic populations managed to penetrate into Denmark. Finds from Danish bogs would indicate this. Also remember that what we call Celtic and Germanic are in many respects artificial. Julius Caesar was the first to make the divide and he based it simply on the Rhine river. Nineteenth century historians then used it for nationalistic purposes, in particular German and English scholars who talked of "Teutonic supperiority". Anyone who has studied Celto/Germanic cultures will find more similiarities than divisions.

This map below is quite accurate:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/liffrea/celtmap.jpg

As I have posted before it is practically impossible to define a 100% "Germanic" or 100% "Celtic" culture in Europe today. We should be seeking to preserve our largely pan Celto-German northern culture in the face of Asian and African immigration.

The Black Prince
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 09:53 PM
Its likely that Celtic populations managed to penetrate into Denmark. Finds from Danish bogs would indicate this. Also remember that what we call Celtic and Germanic are in many respects artificial. Julius Caesar was the first to make the divide and he based it simply on the Rhine river. Nineteenth century historians then used it for nationalistic purposes, in particular German and English scholars who talked of "Teutonic supperiority". Anyone who has studied Celto/Germanic cultures will find more similiarities than divisions.

This map below is quite accurate:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/liffrea/celtmap.jpg

As I have posted before it is practically impossible to define a 100% "Germanic" or 100% "Celtic" culture in Europe today. We should be seeking to preserve our largely pan Celto-German northern culture in the face of Asian and African immigration.


Its likely that Celtic populations managed to penetrate into Denmark. Finds from Danish bogs would indicate this. Also remember that what we call Celtic and Germanic are in many respects artificial. Julius Caesar was the first to make the divide and he based it simply on the Rhine river. Nineteenth century historians then used it for nationalistic purposes, in particular German and English scholars who talked of "Teutonic supperiority". Anyone who has studied Celto/Germanic cultures will find more similiarities than divisions.

This map below is quite accurate:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/liffrea/celtmap.jpg

As I have posted before it is practically impossible to define a 100% "Germanic" or 100% "Celtic" culture in Europe today. We should be seeking to preserve our largely pan Celto-German northern culture in the face of Asian and African immigration.

I Agree.

First of all, the statement that the Celts once ruled over entire western Europe is ambiguous.

For the fact that England is more Celtic than Germanic, I don't know.
On school I learned that only the upperclass became AngloSaxon.
For a few years ago I read some articles telling 80% in Southeast England is from Frisia/North-West Germany, and 45% to 60% in the rest of England.
Now its again the other way around. http://forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon5.gif

cbvnm stated that their was almost no mixing with peoples from Nortwestern Germanic tribes. On the other hand he stated that these Northwest Germanic peoples were just as Celtic as people from Britons from 'Brittania' (:D where are these measurements than based upon, the genetic pure Irish and basques?, I think that these peoples are even more mixed by centuries of war/raping/pillaging/enslavery)

cbvnm also said that the Dutch are darker than the Germans or the Scandinavians(:D )
Have you ever been in the Netherlands? I think its very region dependant.
In Amsterdam people are general darker as the people from the Northern region. And I think that people from Southern-Germany are still darker.

AryanAmerican
Thursday, December 29th, 2005, 08:05 PM
Wow good debate..And its left my head spi nning:-O...lol

Guess I need to change my id..:D

Vestmannr
Friday, December 30th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Its true - the Classical world (Greek/Roman) had the most difficult time differentiating Celt, Gaul, and German (and sometimes even 'Scythian'). What we call Germanic and Celtic today are in fact recent cultures (late Classical) that grew out of a common Bronze Age/Early Iron Age super-culture. In fact, it seems that it was far harder to tell Celt and German apart than from any other 'barbarians' (or even Greeks or Romans.) In any case, I don't believe there was ever a time where there were sharp and clear lines dividing German and Celt (linguistically, genetically, phenotypically) - more a series of gradations. Consider especially the Belgae and Franks and how difficult it has always been for academics to label them as being more 'Germanic' or more 'Celtic' (and those who have, have done so by emphasizing a single characteristic - usually language.)

nurnberg
Friday, December 30th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Celtic is linguistic and cultural.
Celts overnight became Romans and some Romans became Celts.

Nothing biologically rooted that I can see there.

That some groups today identify as Celts and that they have a coincident biological ancestral component is irrelevant really.

You have people in France who are descendants of Phoenicians.

If one wishes to identify Celts as being equivalent to Germanic I suppose we can do the same for Italic or even Balkan groups.

AryanAmerican
Friday, December 30th, 2005, 02:31 PM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand

Ive read something similar to this also..the one I read said that the majority of Germans,Austrians,French,and Swiss were actually from the Celtic/Alpine branch of the Indo Europeans..and that the North Germans,Scandinavians and Danes were from the Teutonic/Nordic branch..Dont know if it was true or not but thats What I read..and it was noted that some Celts spoke Germanic languages and some spoke Gaelic type languages..

herr georg
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 05:01 AM
Its also quite obvious when looking at the populations, especially the English and Dutch generally have much darker hair than Scandinavians but also the Germans are darkerhaired than Scandinavians.

Scandinavians are the real Germanics

The Dutch, English and Southern-Germans are predominant of celtic blood with a minority of germanic blood

Northern-Germans have more germanic blood. An estimate would be 50 % celtic - 50 % germanic for them

Well, why do you ascribe dark hair to the celts?
southern germans are alpines, who are indigenous, where as the kelts
were invading indo-europeans. Upper paleolithics, too, are indigenous.
The ethnic Kelts were skandonordid, their hair colour was blond/red/light brown . Keltic is also an ethnolinguistic group, not a race. The same goes for Germanic.

Witukind
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 10:03 PM
Well, why do you ascribe dark hair to the celts?
southern germans are alpines, who are indigenous, where as the kelts
were invading indo-europeans. Upper paleolithics, too, are indigenous.
The ethnic Kelts were skandonordid, their hair colour was blond/red/light brown . Keltic is also an ethnolinguistic group, not a race. The same goes for Germanic.

I was about to say that. Nevermind that the Gauls (Celts/Keltoi is how the Greeks called them as opposed to Gaelic, Gallic, Galatians etc..) were always depicted as tall / blonde haired.

Wolfssangel
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I wonder who Germans are. Germans were the Celts, right? Because I have learnt the Gaulish-English dictionary in the website. Between Gaulish and German words are almost same words.

Look at Gaulish-German-Latin words:

Gaulish
nei (no)
ni (not)
nu (new)
sego (victory)
patír, ater (father)
ya, eo (yes)
mamm (mother)
famelo (family)

German
nein
nicht
neu
sieg
Vater
ja
Mutter
Familie

Latin
non
ne
novius
victoria
pater
ita vero
mater
familia

Touto- is but a Gaulish word for teuto-. Teuto- means people or ‘people, a tribe’. Teuto- is NOT a Germanic word and teuto- is a Gaulish. They called themselves Teutons. Do you know Teutonic is which Germanic or Celtic (or Gaulish) word? What to say for questions about wonder who Germans are. They're perhaps Celtic tribes? Cimbri and Teuton come from North Germania (Denmark). Cimbri looks like 'Cymraeg' is meaning Welsh. Cimbri is also Celtic. Their oldest language was closely from Britiannae languages. This suggest as both Belgic and British languages move to British Isles. Welsh and Breton are almost as same words.

Wolfssangel
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 04:32 PM
I think that Germanic languages are from both Celtic and Latin words.

The Horned God
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 05:25 PM
They're perhaps Celtic tribes? Cimbri and Teuton come from North Germania (Denmark). Cimbri looks like 'Cymraeg' is meaning Welsh. Cimbri is also Celtic. Their oldest language was closely from Britiannae languages. This suggest as both Belgic and British languages move to British Isles. Welsh and Breton are almost as same words.





Tuatha is the Irish word for people or tribe. In the Gaelic folklore the rulers of Ireland when the Gaels invaded from Spain were the known as the "Tuatha de Danann" or "the people of the goddess Danu". Denmark is suposedly called after Danu, so "Tuatha de Danann" could perhaps be interpreted as "the people of Denmark". I find it an interestng speculation anyway.

After the Gaels conquered Ireland theTuatha de, we are told, "disappeared into the fairy world" which is a sort of parallel world where they live unseen and can spy and play tricks on people whose actions displease them. The entrances to the fairy world are found beneath the ancient earth mounds which the Tuatha de Danann had created.

Wolfssangel
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Tuatha is the Irish word for people or tribe. In the Gaelic folklore the rulers of Ireland when the Gaels invaded from Spain were the known as the "Tuatha de Danann" or "the people of the goddess Danu". Denmark is suposedly called after Danu, so "Tuatha de Danann" could perhaps be interpreted as "the people of Denmark". I find it an interestng speculation anyway.

After the Gaels conquered Ireland theTuatha de, we are told, "disappeared into the fairy world" which is a sort of parallel world where they live unseen and can spy and play tricks on people whose actions displease them. The entrances to the fairy world are found beneath the ancient earth mounds which the Tuatha de Danann had created.

Tuatha de Danann gave it to North Germanic is called Denmark by the Gaels?

The Black Prince
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Germanic, Keltic, Slavic and Latin languages are all from Indo-European stock, most of the look alike terms are because of this.
Example a thread of Bismark about Keltic and Germanic:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=45226

However they furtherdeveloped apart from eachother thats why they have different names. About Protogermanic, Theudanaz made a thread:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36956

In later times they influenced eachother e.g during the Roman conquest for instance and/or the 'Volksverhuizing' and/or the desire of Renaissance higher social class to speak Latin languages.
No reason to think that NW-Europeans are descendants of the Kelts :thumbdown , genetic research has already proven that peoples from Central-Europe or Ireland are quitte different in genetic makeup than people from Northern Germany, Netherlands, Flemish or Scandinavia.

Thread of Westprussian about Germanic/Keltic (although one should let out certain parts of Norway):

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=45865

Parsifal made a thread about a genetic research under the Flemish, they were Germanic:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=46926



I would here by kindly ask the Skadi moderators to close this thread. ;)

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 01:31 PM
I think that Germanic languages are from both Celtic and Latin words.
The Germanic languages come from, funnily enough, Germanic words.

All you are proving with your lists is that Latin, Gallic, and Germanic all have cognate words, which is entirely expected seeing as they all evolved from the same language; Indo-European.

The main difference between the Celtic expansion and the Germanic ones, was that of colonisation. The Celts seemed to be very adept at conquering a native population, and enforcing their own culture, language and values onto them. Hence why the Celtic influence spread so quickly, over such a wide area.

Germanic conquests, on the other hand, always tended to be less successful at enforcing their own culture on the natives. The only Germanic conquests that became permanent (ie: England and her later colonies) were where the Germanics physically replaced the natives. In areas where the Germanics conquered (ie: almost all of Europe and N.Africa during the Volkerwanderung) and emplaced themselves as a ruling elite, they were eventually absorbed and assimilated into the local population.

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 11:38 AM
All you are proving with your lists is that Latin, Gallic, and Germanic all have cognate words, which is entirely expected seeing as they all evolved from the same language; Indo-European.That's one reason, however another reason is that in early times, the Celts had a strong influence on the Germanic people, and many words in the latter group's languages are of Celtic origin.




The main difference between the Celtic expansion and the Germanic ones, was that of colonisation. The Celts seemed to be very adept at conquering a native population, and enforcing their own culture, language and values onto them. Hence why the Celtic influence spread so quickly, over such a wide area.Again, I think the difference here is that the Germanic spread occured much later in history, when Europe was more civilised, with a much higher population. The Germanic peoples imposed themselves on populations which were more highly cultured (or at least equal) than themselves, and numerous. Whereas to a large extent the Celts were, at least in Western Europe, more cultured and had technology able to support a higher population, than those they conquered.



Germanic conquests, on the other hand, always tended to be less successful at enforcing their own culture on the natives. The only Germanic conquests that became permanent (ie: England and her later colonies) were where the Germanics physically replaced the natives.I think there is a different reason for England becoming Germanic-speaking. I'll get round to posting my theory on an appropriate thread.

Wolfssangel
Sunday, April 9th, 2006, 10:31 PM
my problem with your statement is that you denie that west-europeans are Celts

I may agree with you that the Celts are not aryan : Cavalli and others wrote that the indo-european languages originated with the HG3 people (east-europeans)

so basically it means the Celts were a non-aryan people who adopted an aryan language

But, I have a book for 'The Aryan Race'. My book say, Celts are the Aryans. :-O

Jäger
Sunday, April 9th, 2006, 10:39 PM
But, I have a book for 'The Aryan Race'. My book say, Celts are the Aryans. :-O
Too late, dude, too late.

Germaniathane
Friday, March 31st, 2017, 08:21 PM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand

Now to clear things up. Nope. The modern English, Dutch, German (especially North German) are now essentially Germanic, though they do have Celtic admixtures. The most common Y-DNA haplogroup R1b in England is R1b-S21/R1b-U106("Germanic") which also common across the North Sea in the Netherlands and Denmark. The frequency of the I1 Y-DNA haplogroup in East England is as high as in Scandinavia.



"A new survey of Y chromosomes in the British Isles suggests that the Anglo-Saxons failed to leave as much of a genetic stamp on the UK as history books imply1.

Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and Normans invaded Britain repeatedly between 50 BC and AD 1050. Many historians ascribe much of the British ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons because their written legacy overshadows that of the Celts.

But the Y chromosomes of the regions tell a different story. "The Celts weren't pushed to the fringes of Scotland and Wales; a lot of them remained in England and central Ireland," says study team member David Goldstein, of University College London. This is surprising: the Anglo-Saxons reputedly colonized southern England heavily."

from http://www.nature.com/nsu/030616/030616-15.html

and:
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

Its also quite obvious when looking at the populations, especially the English and Dutch generally have much darker hair than Scandinavians but also the Germans are darkerhaired than Scandinavians.

Scandinavians are the real Germanics

The Dutch, English and Southern-Germans are predominant of celtic blood with a minority of germanic blood

Northern-Germans have more germanic blood. An estimate would be 50 % celtic - 50 % germanic for them

The Dutch hair colour average is somewhat darker-haired and darker-eyed than that of Scandinavians, however blond hair is still a very common hair colour in the Netherlands and the most common eye colour is blue. 60% of the Southern Dutch have blue or green eyes, while 76% of the Northern Dutch have light eyes. The Dutch from the Groningen and Friesland provinces are as light as Scandinavian since 81% in Groningen province have light hair (blonde+light-brown) and 83% light eyes.

In terms of being Germanic, the Dutch are the most Germanic people of Europe, surpassing even Scandinavians. Having blond hair doesn't make one Germanic.

Germaniathane
Thursday, May 18th, 2017, 11:57 PM
according to dna studies the English, Dutch and Germans have more Celtic ancestors than germanic ancestors.

the first inhabitants of England, Holland and Germany were mostly Celts. When the germanic tribes from Scandinavia/North-Germany invaded these area`s they spread their germanic languages but did not replaceme the ancient celtic populations.

Scandinavia = mostly germanic blood

England, Holland, Germany = mostly celtic blood

as you see languages and race dont have to go hand in hand

Germans not only have Celtic, but also more Slavic blood than any Germanic people with the exception of the Austrians.

Germaniathane
Friday, May 19th, 2017, 12:34 AM
ofcourse,

``A new survey of Y chromosomes in the British Isles suggests that the Anglo-Saxons failed to leave as much of a genetic stamp on the UK as history books imply1.

Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and Normans invaded Britain repeatedly between 50 BC and AD 1050. Many historians ascribe much of the British ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons because their written legacy overshadows that of the Celts.

But the Y chromosomes of the regions tell a different story. "The Celts weren't pushed to the fringes of Scotland and Wales; a lot of them remained in England and central Ireland," says study team member David Goldstein, of University College London. This is surprising: the Anglo-Saxons reputedly colonized southern England heavily.
``

from http://www.nature.com/nsu/030616/030616-15.html



and :

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf



Its also quite obvious when looking at the populations, especially the English and Dutch generally have much darker hair than Scandinavians but also the Germans are darkerhaired than Scandinavians.

Scandinavians are the real Germanics

The Dutch, English and Southern-Germans are predominant of celtic blood with a minority of germanic blood

Northern-Germans have more germanic blood. An estimate would be 50 % celtic - 50 % germanic for them

The English are comparable to both Dutch and (North) Germans, not darker as you supposed. Actually the ratio of the Y-DNA haplogroup I1a in East England is similar to that in Scandinavian countries. The most common hair colour in England, the Netherlands, Germany is that of a light brown. Overall, if we combine with reddish hair, England would appear lighter-haired. Darker hair in England is usually linked to recent or distant Welsh, Irish, Highland Scottish ancestry.
% of blond hair

Dutch group
Friesland - 43.2%
Groningen - 41.3%
Drenthe - 39.4%
Flevoland - 35.7%
Overijssel - 35.5%
Gelderland - 34.4%
South Holland - 31.4%
North Holland - 31.2%
Zeeland - 28.4%
North-Brabant - 22.3%
Limburg - 21.8%

German group
Schleswig Holstein - 46%
Lower Saxony, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - 43%
Thuringia - 36%
North Brandenburg, Berlin area - 33%
Swabia - 32%
North Rhineland - 30%
Bavaria - 30%
Hesse - 22%
Ruhr - 21%
Saxony Free State - 20%
Rhineland Palatinate - 19%
Baden - 15%-20%
Frankish Bavaria - 15%-20%
Lusatia - 15%
Saarland - 15%

English group (South-East)
East Sussex - 44%
Hampshire - 41%
Kent - 38%
Buckinghamshire - 37%
Berkshire - 34%
Oxfordshire - 34%
Isle of Wight - 33%
West Sussex - 22%
Surrey - 34%

Germaniathane
Friday, May 19th, 2017, 04:13 PM
I read something from you in another topic Loki :

``Recent genetic studies have confirmed that the areas most densely settled by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, namely eastern England, are virtually identical to northern Germany and Denmark``

This is incorrect.
Eastern-English are not the same in dna as the Danes. Eastern-English are the same as the Dutch Frisians.

The Dutch frisians territority in the north of the Netherlands is the part of the netherlands with the most germanic blood, but still this part is majority Celtic blood.

In the Netherlands and England there are no regions/area`s with a majority of germanic blood. Germanic blood is in all area`s a minority in England and the Netherlands.

So you mistake the Danes with the Dutch Frisians.

The dutch Frisians territority is the same in dna as East England. Denmark is very different in dna from East-England and Dutch Frisia.

Denmark :

38 % HG1
40 % HG2

Dutch Frisia :

56 % HG1
28 % HG2

East-England (York, Norfolk) :

57 % HG1
31 % HG2

Netherlands as a whole :

71 % HG1
22 % HG2

England as a whole :

68 % HG1
22 % HG2

You can clearly see the Dutch and English are very similar in dna (y chromosome) and the Danes are very different from the Dutch and English

You have a wrong concept of what is meant by being Germanic genetically. You have limited the Germanic people to only one Haplogroup which is utter nonsense! There are subclades of the HG1/R1b which are in the Germanic branch that is R1b-U106. The Germanic people are the result of Germanic mixture of the I1a (Pre-Germanic) and R1b-U106, R1a-L664, R1a-Z284, I2b2b-Z161
Y-DNA haplogroup I1a accounts for;
Sweden = 40-50%
Norway = 40%
Iceland = 40%
Denmark = 40%
North Germany = 30%+
East England = 30%+

Y-DNA Haplogroups R1b and R1a account for:
Germany = 60-70%
England = 50-70%
The Netherlands = 50-70%
Iceland = 60%
Norway = 50%+
Sweden = 40%+

Germaniathane
Friday, May 19th, 2017, 04:25 PM
I Agree.

First of all, the statement that the Celts once ruled over entire western Europe is ambiguous.

For the fact that England is more Celtic than Germanic, I don't know.
On school I learned that only the upperclass became AngloSaxon.
For a few years ago I read some articles telling 80% in Southeast England is from Frisia/North-West Germany, and 45% to 60% in the rest of England.
Now its again the other way around. http://forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon5.gif

cbvnm stated that their was almost no mixing with peoples from Nortwestern Germanic tribes. On the other hand he stated that these Northwest Germanic peoples were just as Celtic as people from Britons from 'Brittania' (:D where are these measurements than based upon, the genetic pure Irish and basques?, I think that these peoples are even more mixed by centuries of war/raping/pillaging/enslavery)

cbvnm also said that the Dutch are darker than the Germans or the Scandinavians(:D )
Have you ever been in the Netherlands? I think its very region dependant.
In Amsterdam people are general darker as the people from the Northern region. And I think that people from Southern-Germany are still darker.

The Dutch are never darker than the Germans. There are many regions of Germany which are statistically darker than the darkest regions of the Netherlands or England for that matter.
Baden, Saarland, Lusatia, Ruhr, Frankish Bavaria are all darker than Limburg in the southern Netherlands or West Sussex in southern England.

Germaniathane
Friday, May 19th, 2017, 05:16 PM
Red hair which was seen as a "Germanic trait" by ancient historian Tacitus is much more common in England than in the Netherlands. Some have linked it to the Celts who lived in Britain long before the Germanics came and others even when as far as to the Vikings.

% of red hair
The Netherlands
Friesland - 2.5%
Groningen - 2.3%
Drenthe - 2.0%
Overijssel - 2.5%
North Holland - 2.4%
South Holland - 2.2%
Gelderland - 2.5%
Utrecht - 1.8%
Zeeland - 2.6%
North Brabant - 2.2%
Limburg - 3.3%

(southeast) England
East Sussex - 9%
Hampshire - 6%
Kent - 12%
Buckinghamshire - 10%
Oxfordshire - 8%
Surrey - 3%
Isle of Wight - 8%
West Sussex - 11%