A new theory for European populations and languages genesis .

[gandalf]

Mr Michael Goormachtigh

has developped a whole theory of european genesis ,
here : http://www.proto-english.org/index.html

"How old is English" is the name of his site .

He basically explains that there haven't been any major replacement
of population nor language since the end of the last ice area .

http://www.proto-english.org/o1.html

Very interesting , and it destroys the mainstream theory , for sure .

[gandalf]

" " English was not imported by the Anglo-Saxons

This is how the events of the 5th century AD and the origin of the English language are declared in every history book, in every schoolbook, worldwide :
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.

So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
1)
Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change.
2)
English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire?
3)
How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century?
4)
Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons?
5)
Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift? " "

This is the motivation of the study but it goes much further and
gives a survey of the genesis of the main language families of Europe .

It also questions the famous theory of the Indo-European conquest ,
whitch were not massive human migrations but more a cultural spread .

[GeistFaust]

" " English was not imported by the Anglo-Saxons

This is how the events of the 5th century AD and the origin of the English language are declared in every history book, in every schoolbook, worldwide :
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.

So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
1)
Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change.
2)
English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire?
3)
How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century?
4)
Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons?
5)
Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift? " "

This is the motivation of the study but it goes much further and
gives a survey of the genesis of the main language families of Europe .

It also questions the famous theory of the Indo-European conquest ,
whitch were not massive human migrations but more a cultural spread .


This is very interesting and it makes sense the Germanic influence on the British Isles was much lighter than I people make it out to be. The reason is that a lot of Germanic populations over the century travelled in small numbers and did not emigrate en masse they usually subdued larger population areas that were non Germanic and tried to assimilate them into their culture and sometimes ethnic background. I still think there is a strong Germanic component that is present in the area of the North Sea and you can not deny that the high rate of Blonde hair and Borreby and Falish traits in the eastern parts of England have to due with the influence of Germanic peoples such as the Danish Norse Vikings. I believe the Anglo Saxons pushed most of the Celtic peoples of England to Wales and Scotland but there are quite a few British surnames that still maintain their Brythonic roots and origin. It is quite interesting to speculate and I recall a researcher had tested the genetic composition of the British Isles and found Britain to be almost as Celtic as Germanic ethnically.

[Oreka Bailoak]

This is very interesting and it makes sense the Germanic influence on the British Isles was much lighter than I people make it out to be. The reason is that a lot of Germanic populations over the century travelled in small numbers and did not emigrate en masse they usually subdued larger population areas that were non Germanic and tried to assimilate them into their culture and sometimes ethnic background. I still think there is a strong Germanic component that is present in the area of the North Sea and you can not deny that the high rate of Blonde hair and Borreby and Falish traits in the eastern parts of England have to due with the influence of Germanic peoples such as the Danish Norse Vikings.

A couple of things.
1) the people that colonized the British Isles came from the south and from the east. (which was actually connected to the mainland and the English channel hadn't developed yet) This means that even if the Germanic migration was small (only 5%-10% of modern day genetics) there is STILL a larger migration from that same area long ago and during previous times probably especially greatest from just after the last Ice Age (and also colonization in the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age). The Genetic similarity (between modern day Germans and British) is much older than the Germanic migration or even the creation of the Germanic language family.

2) How do you know that only Germanics had blonde hair and Faelish racial types. With the estimation of the development of blonde hair reaching thousands of years ago, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Blondes existed in the British Isles long before any recent migration of the last 2000 years. There is evidence of large migration going back to the ice age between modern day Netherlands/Germany and British Isles.


It is quite interesting to speculate and I recall a researcher had tested the genetic composition of the British Isles and found Britain to be almost as Celtic as Germanic ethnically.
There's no such thing as a Celtic or a Germanic genetic identity. The Celtic groups are hypothesized as originating in Southern German along the Danube. They once stretched from Ukraine to Turkey to Spain to Ireland. When you look at the current Celtic people there is a huge genetic variance. Compare for example a Scotsman to a Welshman- when you look at their DNA it is obvious how different they are- you can see the different ancient population migrations that resulted in the current groups. The Welsh being more influenced by southern immigration than the Scots, and the Scots being more influenced by eastern Immigration than the Welsh.

Also when you look at Germanics it's the same scenario.


I believe the Anglo Saxons pushed most of the Celtic peoples of England to Wales and Scotland but there are quite a few British surnames that still maintain their Brythonic roots and origin.
You can look at the pt-DNA to see that this is largely not the case. More recent lines originating on the continent only exist in small amounts in England (5-10%).

I got these ideas from the book "Origin of the British" by the way. I've seen a few posters talk bad about that book but I have yet to see any evidence to disprove its genetic findings. I've asked members on here who talked bad about the book for any scientific evidence that disproves it and they never replied back. The research looks sound to me.

[GeistFaust]

A couple of things.
1) the people that colonized the British Isles came from the south and from the east. (which was actually connected to the mainland and the English channel hadn't developed yet) This means that even if the Germanic migration was small (only 5%-10% of modern day genetics) there is STILL a larger migration from that same area long ago and during previous times probably especially greatest from just after the last Ice Age (and also colonization in the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age). The Genetic similarity is much older than the Germanic migration or even the creation of the Germanic language family.

I agree with this for the most part now.


2) How do you know that only Germanics had blonde hair and Faelish racial types.

Actually the Brythonic peoples had some Blonde hair and red hair so if anything that is not purely a Germanic trait but I think the Faelish racial type definitely is because it is found primarily in the Germanic core of Europe.

There's no such thing as a Celtic or a Germanic genetic identity. The Celtic groups are hypothesized as originating in Southern German along the Danube. They once stretched from Ukraine to Turkey to Spain to Ireland. When you look at the current Celtic people there is a huge genetic variance. Compare for example a Scotsman to a Welshman- when you look at their DNA it is obvious how different they are- you can see the different ancient population migrations that resulted in the current groups. The Welsh being more influenced by southern immigration than the Scots, and the Scots being more influenced by eastern Immigration than the Welsh.

Also when you look at Germanics it's the same scenario.


You can look at the pt-DNA to see that this is largely not the case. More recent lines originating on the continent only exist in small amounts in England (5-10%).

[aherne]

" " English was not imported by the Anglo-Saxons

This is how the events of the 5th century AD and the origin of the English language are declared in every history book, in every schoolbook, worldwide :
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.

So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
1)
Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change.
2)
English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire?
3)
How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century?
4)
Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons?
5)
Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift? " "

This is the motivation of the study but it goes much further and
gives a survey of the genesis of the main language families of Europe .

It also questions the famous theory of the Indo-European conquest ,
whitch were not massive human migrations but more a cultural spread .

I don't think you have the ability to read between the lines. Some people really have nothing to contribute to the topic, thus have to validate themselves by putting forward really outlandish theories (of exactly the same quality as creationist babble against "Darwinism"), which, through their worthless "alternative" approaches, they claim, dispel large scale conspiracies made by "19th century right-wing historians" to justify colonialism, nazism and name every other thing Jews hate. By showing their slavish allegiance firmly from the start, they hope to gain money as well as recognition for their "groundbreaking" contributions. Until they get that, they believe they are misunderstood geniuses.

In other words, the titles-craving modern "historians" are people of the same ilk as modern "artists", absolutely worthless parasites that should be firmly sent to labor camps to pay back society for the air they breathed until now.

Of course there are exceptions (there are a few historians who actually use history for a higher goal, gaining a fundamental knowledge that is), but they are so rare and so discouraged (because they say things Jews hate), that it's safe to say they should not even be taken into consideration (they are about as common as those nice hardworking intelligent niggers shown by jewlywood).

[GeistFaust]

I don't think you have the ability to read between the lines. Some people really have nothing to contribute to the topic, thus have to validate themselves by putting forward really outlandish theories (of exactly the same quality as creationist babble against "Darwinism"), which, through their worthless "alternative" approaches, they claim, dispel large scale conspiracies made by "19th century right-wing historians" to justify colonialism, nazism and name every other thing Jews hate. By showing their slavish allegiance firmly from the start, they hope to gain money as well as recognition for their "groundbreaking" contributions. Until they get that, they believe they are misunderstood geniuses.

In other words, the titles-craving modern "historians" are people of the same ilk as modern "artists", absolutely worthless parasites that should be firmly sent to labor camps to pay back society for the air they breathed until now.

Of course there are exceptions (there are a few historians who actually use history for a higher goal, gaining a fundamental knowledge that is), but they are so rare and so discouraged (because they say things Jews hate), that it's safe to say they should not even be taken into consideration (they are about as common as those nice hardworking intelligent niggers shown by jewlywood).


You could not have said it any better my friend. History has been distorted to fit the mindset of people who resent themselves. Those people who did great things, are inclined to doing great things, and are capable of doing great things being suppressed and oppressed in today's society that gives too many advantages and attaches too many positive connotations to those who have been victims of the powerful blonde beasts who have oppressed and suppressed those who are just disadvantaged by nature. Its all become one big pity party for those who can't and so they have to make negroes feel adequate about themselves by claiming their dicks are longer and bigger than Northwestern European's men its all such a joke. That's why I hate anything that is over sexualized in any way because it probably has a Jewish connotation hidden behind it in the disguise of some crass joke.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Alright guys here's some scientific pictures...

Colonization after the last ice age into Britain.
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImage.jpg

Evidence for Germanic migration (English continuity or replacement?)
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImagedf.jpg

Norwegian influence in Britain
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImage-2.jpg

^All of these were from Origin of the British.

Since we're talking about the original indo-europeans might as well show this interesting chart...
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_wheel_horse_and_language.jpg
^If you're interested about the expansion of Indo-European languages I'd recommend the book "10,000 year explosion" along with this Wheel Horse and Language book (which I have to admit I cannot read it though).




You could not have said it any better my friend. ......victims of the powerful blonde beasts who have oppressed and suppressed.... make negroes feel adequate about themselves by claiming their dicks are longer and bigger than Northwestern European's men .... over sexualized ... probably has a Jewish connotation hidden behind it in the disguise of some crass joke.
LOLOLOL I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. This thread is about the English identity in the British Isles and how in the world did you come to that rant?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

I've asked members on here who talked bad about the book for any scientific evidence that disproves it and they never replied back.

:eek:You had that experience too?

[Osweo]

This 'theory' is stupid as fuck. :yo:

Why is there ANY Celtic toponymy in eastern England, if the present language has been there since forever?

Why are English and Frisian identical in the migration period, if they did not have an immediate common ancestor?

Why was a woman from what is now East Anglia known as 'Boudicca' in Latin sources, instead of Sige- something!?

Why did the Anglo-Saxons themselves speak all the time of their arrival in this island from the Continent?

Honestly, it's fucking depressing to see people taken in by this sort of shite. :tsk:

[Breedingvariety]

5) Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift?
Why do more than 300 million Americans speak English, when they came from all over? Why 190 million Brazilians speak Portuguese when they descend from all over?

- Language can shift in one generation.

[aherne]

You could not have said it any better my friend. History has been distorted to fit the mindset of people who resent themselves. Those people who did great things, are inclined to doing great things, and are capable of doing great things being suppressed and oppressed in today's society that gives too many advantages and attaches too many positive connotations to those who have been victims of the powerful blonde beasts who have oppressed and suppressed those who are just disadvantaged by nature. Its all become one big pity party for those who can't and so they have to make negroes feel adequate about themselves by claiming their dicks are longer and bigger than Northwestern European's men its all such a joke. That's why I hate anything that is over sexualized in any way because it probably has a Jewish connotation hidden behind it in the disguise of some crass joke.

Real historians write truth:

Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which [the Jews] committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind.[28]
^ Sounds familiar, doesn't it?:(

Just think about it: the guy who wrote this (Edward Gibbon) also wrote a history of Rome 200 years ago, before the major advances of archaeology. Yet, by virtue of his far reaching intelligence, his book "The History of Decline and fall of Roman Empire" is second only to Mommsen's "Roman History" (also written 150 years ago) in its importance on the subject. How did these "19th century historians" managed to survive for what amounts to eternity in history, whereas modern historians' "groundbreaking alternative findings that force us to look at history in new light" come and go like dragonflies on the pond? The answer is simple: modern historians produce theories like flies laying eggs on a carcass. It doesn't matter what will come out of it, what matters is having your sack emptied:)

[Treffie]

I don't think you have the ability to read between the lines. Some people really have nothing to contribute to the topic, thus have to validate themselves by putting forward really outlandish theories (of exactly the same quality as creationist babble against "Darwinism"), which, through their worthless "alternative" approaches, they claim, dispel large scale conspiracies made by "19th century right-wing historians" to justify colonialism, nazism and name every other thing Jews hate. By showing their slavish allegiance firmly from the start, they hope to gain money as well as recognition for their "groundbreaking" contributions. Until they get that, they believe they are misunderstood geniuses.

In other words, the titles-craving modern "historians" are people of the same ilk as modern "artists", absolutely worthless parasites that should be firmly sent to labor camps to pay back society for the air they breathed until now.

Of course there are exceptions (there are a few historians who actually use history for a higher goal, gaining a fundamental knowledge that is), but they are so rare and so discouraged (because they say things Jews hate), that it's safe to say they should not even be taken into consideration (they are about as common as those nice hardworking intelligent niggers shown by jewlywood).

Seriously, what do the Jews have to do with this? :confused:

[Comte Arnau]

English was not imported by the British to the USA either, according to another theory, still in its building phase. Tribes like the I 'mahawk and the Kick-a-poo already spoke it, apparently.

[aherne]

English was not imported by the British to the USA either, according to another theory, still in its building phase. Tribes like the I 'mahawk and the Kick-a-poo already spoke it, apparently.

We won't have to wait much longer for some "historian" argue about exactly this: the colonization of America by Europeans was more of a cultural process than a real migration. Those who argue otherwise are nazis.

[Logan]

This 'theory' is stupid as fuck. :yo:

Why is there ANY Celtic toponymy in eastern England, if the present language has been there since forever?

Why are English and Frisian identical in the migration period, if they did not have an immediate common ancestor?

Why was a woman from what is now East Anglia known as 'Boudicca' in Latin sources, instead of Sige- something!?

Why did the Anglo-Saxons themselves speak all the time of their arrival in this island from the Continent?

Honestly, it's fucking depressing to see people taken in by this sort of shite. :tsk:

I've yet to see Sykes, Oppenheimer etc... update their theories though it is now known that 'Old English People' had a variety of haplogroups. They seem as tardy as this Frenchman as antiquated as those fixed upon head form.

[aherne]

Seriously, what do the Jews have to do with this? :confused:

With this they have nothing to do directly. But these "historians" are Jew tools: frequently they pepper their papers with references to Hitler and "never again" rhetoric. German "historians", especially, seem to have an obligation to insert at least one (but being docile servants, they try to insert as many as possible) reference to Hitler and Holocaust. Papers about the "Indo-Europeans" will have at least one chapter dedicated to that. The whole "cultural contact rather than ethnic diffusion" trend is directed against the issue of Aryans. Even referring to them by their rightful name, that which they themselves used, amounts to "anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust denial":)
So much paper was wasted trying to deny, minimalize, trivialize or derail this subject, with "alternative" stories extremely encouraged (Indo-Europeans being born in Anatolia, Indo-Europeans being born in Balkans, Indo-Europeans being merchants trading goods and languages in Europe and Asia, Indo-Europeans being a "19th century right wing historians" invention). The issue of Aryans is absolutely banned in all Jews' media: I've seen no documentary, not a single reference to our ancestors, except under a kosher circumstance (how Hitler invented the Aryans to justify German superiority, how he holocausted Jews because of his racial ideas, and so on). But truth exists in independence of those who try hard to hide it: based on both factual and circumstantial evidence, there is no "controversy" regarding who they were, where they originated from, what was their racial typology, what was their legacy.

I kid you not I've noticed this even as a child, noting a point of similarity between some Romans (ex. Augustus), Germans I've seen, Slavs I've seen. This pointed towards some level of shared ancestry. The more I've inspected, the more I've found convergent patterns: sub-types vary by a well defined pattern. Germanic versions of Aryan don't have their own look for no reason: the latter is itself a product of admixture between Aryans and Danubian farmer types (before settling S Scandinavia) plus typologies acquired from previous inhabitants in S Scandinavia. How Germans look today is wholly a product of their history. Our look is proof alone of our ancestry.

BTW, using genetics to prove people's ancestries has proven worthless. Whole tribes in Central Africa have "European" DNA (R haplogroup), while many people in Romania, even have "African" DNA (E haplogroup). Geneticists have attempted to explain this using hypothetical population movements that really have never existed. The most viable explanation is that all of present haplogroups were already in existence in founding population, thus the whole patterning present now is pretty arbitrary and under no circumstance excludes history as a primary tool to uncover people origins.

For the origins of English, some geneticists say they are wholly Germanic, while trendier ones say they are wholly Celtic. Historical and racial evidence prove they are both clueless. The English people is, both Germanic and Celtic, just as Romanians are both Dacians and Slavs.

[Logan]

Genetics are a bit more complicated. Visual observations have their worth. Your last statement is best taken for its final word.

[Logan]

Instead of amending my post, yours from the stop at worthless, I will make another in reply.

Perhaps the worlds best minds are in error, and instead you have a more accurate presentation. Perhaps, but it seems a bit simular to the first in this topic. I prefer the scientific method. It is not without error, but it should not be discarded.

[aherne]

Perhaps the worlds best minds are in error.

It's not that much that they are in error, but that they operate in a totalitarian climate, which requires constant ideological observance and has so much stiffled free thinking that today, that one still has to rely on sources prior to WW2 to gain a fair idea into a historical subject. That's how much historiography has degraded under semitism...

[Osweo]

The whole "cultural contact rather than ethnic diffusion" trend is directed against the issue of Aryans. Even referring to them by their rightful name, that which they themselves used, amounts to "anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust denial":)
Look, Aherne, I am not an idiot. I am often as cynical about the motives of historians and geneticists as you are. But I have never been convinced that the original PIE speakers called themselves 'arya'. Persuade me otherwise.

So much paper was wasted trying to deny, minimalize, trivialize or derail this subject, with "alternative" stories extremely encouraged (Indo-Europeans being born in Anatolia, Indo-Europeans being born in Balkans, Indo-Europeans being merchants trading goods and languages in Europe and Asia, Indo-Europeans being a "19th century right wing historians" invention).
The emboldened phrase refers to theories older than the 'Semitist' ascendancy.
Viktor Rydberg was not far from it (though I think he had in mind more 'central' than Balkan Europe). You are intent on defending the Steppe version, I know, but again I've never been convinced of this.

I agree that Anatolia (especially in Renfrew's version) is highly unlikely, if not stupid in some of its versions.

[aherne]

But I have never been convinced that the original PIE speakers called themselves 'arya'.
Let's start all over again. Certain proof:
- arya (Indo-Iranians), self-name
- orja (in Baltic Finnic, far remote of any Indo-Iranians), meaning "slave"
- Aryomen (Aryaman among Indo-Iranians, Eremon among Irish, Irmin among Germanics), a god of family and Aryan society
Plus many more appearances in daughter languages as nouns for "noble" (ariston: Greek), warrior (ari: Hittite), free man (aireann: Gaelic) personal names (Ariovistus). All of these are disputed as deriving from *arya.


The emboldened phrase refers to theories older than the 'Semitist' ascendancy. Viktor Rydberg was not far from it (though I think he had in mind more 'central' than Balkan Europe).
I've never claimed semitically-approved historians have invented all false theories. There was never a consensus on Aryans' issue even before the war. In Nazi Germany, official dogma claimed they originated from Germany, Scando-Nordids being their purest representatives. The reason for the lack of consensus certainly wasn't lack of evidence (evidence always pointing towards S Russian steppes as a starting point), but simply lack of desire to accept it because it conflicted with nationalist agendas. Another issue that polluted and bagatelized the Aryan issue is a deep involvement of Romanticism: historians wanted to project their ideal world view upon Aryans, hence loads of books of questionable value dedicated to phantasies and extrapolations. So Romanticism, Nationalism and Semitism have wasted the potential this subject had and turned many to avoid it (so as not to fall into the traps of their predecessors).


You are intent on defending the Steppe version, I know, but again I've never been convinced of this.
The steppe version coincides with cultural, archeaological, linguistic and racial evidence. It is simply the right version, no more questionable than the Moon and the Sun.

[Osweo]

Let's start all over again. Certain proof:
- arya (Indo-Iranians), self-name
Agreed. Add the Alans and (Ossetian) Iron, too.


- orja (in Baltic Finnic, far remote of any Indo-Iranians), meaning "slave"
To rule out an Iranic root here is going too far. The Iranians were certainly the 'significant other' to the Volga Finnics. The word could have moved north (perhaps along WITH captured Arya).


- Aryomen (Aryaman among Indo-Iranians, Eremon among Irish, Irmin among Germanics), a god of family and Aryan society
Irmin (Eormen in English):
yrmen ; adj. A word occurring mostly as a prefix with the idea of greatness, universality. In the following passages it occurs independently :-- Faraþ geond ealne yrmenne grund go through the whole earth, Exon. 14 b; Th. 30, 18; Cri. 481. Ofer ealne yrmenne grund, 66 a ; Th. 213, 14; Jul. 10. [O. Sax. irmin- : Icel. jörmun-, e. g. jörmungrund the earth. See Grmm. D. M. 104-7 : 325, sqq.] . v. eormen-.
i.e. the term is a long way from a remembered ancient ethnonym.

(H)Érimón is a figure from Irish pseudohistory. The name was written by monks in genealogies constructed to link their royal patrons (of the 8th and 9th Centuries) with ADAM from the Hebrew cosmogony. If his name is connected to 'arya', then why is there ALSO another Irish word that you connect with it that is spelt quite differently? 'aire'?


Plus many more appearances in daughter languages as nouns for "noble" (ariston: Greek), warrior (ari: Hittite), free man (aireann: Gaelic) personal names (Ariovistus). All of these are disputed as deriving from *arya.
All these instances help to explain the Indo-Aryan self-designation. They explain the semantics of 'arya', but do NOT indicate that all the other branches of IE speakers descend from men who named themselves 'arya' as an ethnonym.


I've never claimed semitically-approved historians have invented all false theories. There was never a consensus on Aryans' issue even before the war. In Nazi Germany, official dogma claimed they originated from Germany, Scando-Nordids being their purest representatives. The reason for the lack of consensus certainly wasn't lack of evidence (evidence always pointing towards S Russian steppes as a starting point), but simply lack of desire to accept it because it conflicted with nationalist agendas. Another issue that polluted and bagatelized the Aryan issue is a deep involvement of Romanticism: historians wanted to project their ideal world view upon Aryans, hence loads of books of questionable value dedicated to phantasies and extrapolations. So Romanticism, Nationalism and Semitism have wasted the potential this subject had and turned many to avoid it (so as not to fall into the traps of their predecessors).
There is some sense in what you're saying about motives. But Rydberg seems more honest than that. He didn't say the Urheimat was in Germania. His main argument was that 'if most branches are in the west, with only three in the east, we should expect to find the trunk in the west.' Which seems sensible to me.

If I'm wrong, why didn't your original Aryans aryanise more of Asia? Why is IE less varied in the region which you purport to be its oldest home?

It's a usual biological principle that the region of greatest variety saw the origination of a type of animal or plant.


The steppe version coincides with cultural, archeaological, linguistic and racial evidence. It is simply the right version, no more questionable than the Moon and the Sun.

It is a strong version. But so is the Danubian!

[gandalf]

The benefits with this theory is that it explains for example


why there is apparently close to nothing left of the keltic languages
that were suppose to be in East England , and in the whole France .

Actually the East of England was already into a kind of germanic close to dutch ,
and the gaulish languages had little to see with the Keltic of Britanny .

Those things are exposed here :

http://www.proto-english.org/o1.html

[Osweo]

Mon cher Gandalf, this theory has no benefits.

It just multiplies possibilities. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

Le rasoir d’Occam ou rasoir d’Ockham est un principe de raisonnement que l'on attribue au frère franciscain et philosophe Guillaume d'Ockham (xive siècle), mais qui était connu et formulé avant lui :
« Les multiples ne doivent pas être utilisés sans nécessité » (« pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate »).
L'énoncé « Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem », littéralement « Les entités ne doivent pas être multipliées par delà ce qui est nécessaire », est une variante souvent attribuée à Guillaume d'Ockham sans cependant qu'il y en ait trace dans ses écrits.
Une formulation plus moderne est que « les hypothèses les plus simples sont les plus vraisemblables ». C'est un des principes fondamentaux de la science.

Guillaume d'Ockham (1319) : « Une pluralité ne doit pas être posée sans nécessité. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate » (Quaestiones et decisiones in quatuor libros Sententiarum cum centilogio theologico, livre II) (1319)

If you start saying 'maybe this', 'maybe that', all you end up with is a creaking tower of maybes with no cement to hold it together.

There is a LOT of Celtic left in France and England. It's not my fault that you haven't learnt about it.

Breton is the descendant of Britannic, which WAS near identical to Gaulish, but underwent several phonetic shifts during and after the Imperial period.


Please, don't just read this theory. Try to reason with your own logic. Look at the facts. We have LOTS of British place-names recorded in Roman times and almost all are blatantly Celtic, and identical in form and elements with those of Gaul and Spain. How can 'English' have been spoken here then!?

Bede and Alfred agreed that the English had come from Angeln, now in Schleswig Holstein. How does some internet amateur know better than them?!

Why are Welsh traditions unanimous on the nature of the English as invaders of their island?

I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
:shrug:

[gandalf]

Osweo ,

I am aware of the main theories , those you mentioned .
But for the French side , of course celtic people did the main
population , but does it implies that there language was close to Welsh or Britannic ?

I tend to answer no , and this theory help to understand this .
Read it , from the Doggerland to the end .
Changing the language is something very rare for a population .

So East Brits , like Gauls didn't really adandonned their language ,
it evolved , but no drastic break up .

[Osweo]

Osweo ,

I am aware of the main theories , those you mentioned .
But for the French side , of course celtic people did the main
population , but does it implies that there language was close to Welsh or Britannic ?
Yes. C'est TRES facile demonstrater that Welsh evolved from the sister language of Gaulish.

LOOK:
Gaul: Argentomagus
Britannia: Blatomagus

Magos was 'field' and gave Modern Welsh 'Maes'. Argentomagos = Maesarian = 'field of silver'. Blatomagos = Maesbloddeu = Field of Flowers.

It's all SOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo simple! :rage

In Gaul you had Uxellodunum = Welsh Din Uchel = 'High Fort' (Puy d'Issolud, Vayrac, Lot Dept.). etc........


I tend to answer no , and this theory help to understand this .
Read it , from the Doggerland to the end .
You are quite simply wrong.


Changing the language is something very rare for a population .
In the context of the collapse of an Empire, it is almost the USUAL phenomenon.


So East Brits , like Gauls didn't really adandonned their language ,
it evolved , but no drastic break up .Why did the Anglo-Saxons never call themselves 'British'?

Honestly, this 'theory' is madness.

[aherne]

To rule out an Iranic root here is going too far. The Iranians were certainly the 'significant other' to the Volga Finnics. The word could have moved north (perhaps along WITH captured Arya).
Could have. But it is present in all Finnic languages, including those that never were in contact with Iranians (such as Finns). Also, if Iranian, it should have had a different spelling: airya (which soon became iran/iron in all Iranian languages as early as Roman republican times). It all looks like an inherited word designing Finns' southern neighbors (which can only be Aryans since Finns and Aryans divided about the same time).


Aryoman, Irmin & Eremon
It's not just a coincidence in names, but a hint of a common god. Here is a good description of the god that stood behind these ancient figures:
Indo-European poetry and myth, by Martin Litchfield West (http://books.google.com/books?id=LMtaQ508cs4C&pg=PA142&dq=aryomen&hl=ro&ei=p0r7TZyrDcGCOun4nbkJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aryomen&f=false)


All these instances help to explain the Indo-Aryan self-designation. They explain the semantics of 'arya', but do NOT indicate that all the other branches of IE speakers descend from men who named themselves 'arya' as an ethnonym.
The great zest by which semiticized historians "deconstruct" each "Aryan" etymology to validate their agenda (that Aryans calling themselves Aryan is a Nazi myth) and the dishonest way they treat evidence in this particular case (while in the same time accepting really questionable etymologies) proves their worth. Etymology is educated guesswork. I can be wrong: Aryans, like most other peoples of the age, may have had no name for themselves (evidence hints, though, to the contrary), but tell me why it's more acceptable to call them Indo-European. Certainly they did not use this contrived term, which is factually incorrect. Aryan doesn't equal neither Indian, nor European. It's just one of the language families spoken in this region.


There is some sense in what you're saying about motives. But Rydberg seems more honest than that. He didn't say the Urheimat was in Germania. His main argument was that 'if most branches are in the west, with only three in the east, we should expect to find the trunk in the west.'
Just what I've called in a previous post: "theories for the sake of it, without factual backing behind". Evidence speaks clearly of an origin in S Russian steppes. The cultures of Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Iranians, even as late as early historical times, were very obviously derived from the same stem. If we trace this stem to its roots, the ultimate place of origin is the Samara steppe in Middle Volga basin around 4000 BC. Here the earliest form of Kurgan culture originated and every single Aryan-derived culture was a derivative of it. Think of waggons, horses, herder-warrior lifestyles, kurgans, cremation, met by Christian monks in Scandinavia four thousand years after Aryans moved in Scandinavia. This is an amazing level of cultural conservativism for an illiterate people...


If I'm wrong, why didn't your original Aryans aryanise more of Asia?
"Why didn't they" is not an argument. Arguments concentrate on existences... But to explain this is simple: Asia already held superior civilizations who resisted Aryanization, plus the Himalayas, whereas in Europe Aryans were the ones most advanced (with the sole exception of Minoans).


Why is IE less varied in the region which you purport to be its oldest home?
When? One has to remember Indo-Iranians formed in Kazakh steppes and moved in S Russia during historical times (1st millennium BC), displacing Cimmerians and other groups present there. Also, varied substratums is the number one driving force in linguistic diversification. Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Slavic, bare traces of different languages they displaced. One can even go further and attempt to reconstruct the morphologies of these ill fated tongues based solely on substrate and things that do not align with Aryan parent tongue.


It's a usual biological principle that the region of greatest variety saw the origination of a type of animal or plant.
This principle stands only when conjuncture doesn't drive off animals from their homeland. Consider for example that horses originated from North America and then moved into Eurasia, only to become extinct in homeland and achieve diversity there. Aryan homeland was overrun by Turkic tribes from 500 AD to 1500 AD, when Aryans (Russians) started to slowly recover our ancestral homeland. Still, despite those events, Russians still hold the greatest diversity of Aryan-race individuals, tribute of Slavs' homeland in immediate proximity to Aryan urheimat (and probably early Russians absorbing not a few Steppe Iranians among them). The people who actually held greatest diversity (Steppe Iranians), more or less pure Aryans, happened to disappear, but the evidence left behind proves great many variants of "Nordid" types (from robust to elongate), of which only a fraction survive to this day (which is exactly expected, because this race is NOT native to the region it currently occupies).


It is a strong version. But so is the Danubian!
There is no Danubian element in early Indo-Iranian culture. Kurgan elements abound.

[Barreldriver]

We won't have to wait much longer for some "historian" argue about exactly this: the colonization of America by Europeans was more of a cultural process than a real migration. Those who argue otherwise are nazis.

Which is why the majority of US citizens who are DNA tested cluster 100% with Amerindians with slight English admixture in a few rare cases, these being in the upper class who had married the odd English person for political reasons. The Natives of America adopting the English language in order to expand the consumer base for cotton, molasses, lumber and spirits. :D Some of them have the appearance of black Africans as well, this being the result of coal mining disaster which permanently altered the skin tone of these folks and their descendants.

[Logan]

A few thoughts on the first bit of French Romanticisim.


1)

Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change.

Then why did do we speak English not Welsh?


2)

English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire?

In France the population change was not so great, less than the Norman was in latter England.


3)

How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century?

How could a few thousand Germans conquer France on a few occasions? Not cowards but losers.


4)

Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons?

It has been established, through Ydna, that there were areas that were let to submit and survive, and that the female population was largly unaltered.


5)

Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift?

Why did the Romans not record their conquest of a Germanic Isle?

Most of this theory seems rather of a childish mind.

[Barreldriver]

I've yet to see Sykes, Oppenheimer etc... update their theories though it is now known that 'Old English People' had a variety of haplogroups. They seem as tardy as this Frenchman as antiquated as those fixed upon head form.

They never updated their theories methinks because it would take dollars out of their pockets, the loss of credibility would put a hamper on the sales of their books and such.

I've yet to see a recent publication corroborate the information of Sykes and Oppenheimer. Most of the outdated theories are centered around the Paleolithic Basque refuge of R1b and later spread through the rest of Western Europe, lately the look is quite the opposite the more recent studies focusing on Neolithic population movements, Myers work in 2010 as an example, compare to the research from 2002 - 2006 when the nomenclature was still quite basic no room was left for considering new subclades their ages and where they most frequent, the field has come a long way since and to rely on Oppenheimer and Sykes in 2011 is really no different than relying on Coon's typology for accurately organizing human diversity. Even the newer works are not set in stone, especially when dealing with clades of R1b, in particular P312/S116, so even today's information will change for the better.

[Logan]

Which is why the majority of US citizens who are DNA tested cluster 100% with Amerindians with slight English admixture in a few rare cases, these being in the upper class who had married the odd English person for political reasons. The Natives of America adopting the English language in order to expand the consumer base for cotton, molasses, lumber and spirits. :D Some of them have the appearance of black Africans as well, this being the result of coal mining disaster which permanently altered the skin tone of these folks and their descendants.

A load of rubish.

[Logan]

They never updated their theories methinks because it would take dollars out of their pockets, the loss of credibility would put a hamper on the sales of their books and such.

I've yet to see a recent publication corroborate the information of Sykes and Oppenheimer. Most of the outdated theories are centered around the Paleolithic Basque refuge of R1b and later spread through the rest of Western Europe, lately the look is quite the opposite the more recent studies focusing on Neolithic population movements, Myers work in 2010 as an example, compare to the research from 2002 - 2006 when the nomenclature was still quite basic not considering new subclades their ages and where they most frequent, the field has come a long way since and to rely on Oppenheimer and Sykes in 2011 is really no different than relying on Coon's typology for accurately organizing human diversity.

A bit more sense here.

[Barreldriver]

A load of rubish.

But how else can English be spoken in the United States?!?! It's so obvious that the English never colonized it! It was gradual language shift due to the upper elites in Injun society needing to communicate with English customers interested in Injun molasses, corn, and cotton! :D

[Breedingvariety]

Aischiai is what Baltic tribes used to call themselves.

[Logan]

But how else can English be spoken in the United States?!?! It's so obvious that the English never colonized it! It was gradual language shift due to the upper elites in Injun society needing to communicate with English customers interested in Injun molasses, corn, and cotton! :D

Reminds one of an idea for a Monty Python sketch. You might also give us your version of British India.

[gandalf]

I know it is hard to accept new ideas ,
your sarcasms prove it ,
but I find a lot of answers in this theory ,
for example

1 ) the fact that West European's genes are close
from Portugal , west-Spain , west-France to West-England ,
this could be explained by the common origin from the Basque refuge ,
2 ) and the Azelian language group of west Europe
would explain both celtic and romance remains .

This doesn't exclude the arrival of people from the East ,
Keltic and German tribes , but it is simply a new vision that
each wave did not erase the previous one ,
culturally and genetically .

[gandalf]

http://www.proto-english.org/img/ligurian%20language%20zone%201000bc.jpg

[gandalf]

http://www.proto-english.org/o2.html

Two languages emerged in England .

[Logan]

I thought it was about what credible evidence points to.

Aliens and ancient Egyptian constructions? Most any historical subject might be viewed with too much romantic or imaginative posibilities.

[Logan]

http://www.proto-english.org/o2.html

Two languages emerged in England .

Interesting. It seems simular to what Robert Howard imagined. I think it has elements of fact but only elements.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Myers work in 2010 as an example, compare to the research from 2002 - 2006 when the nomenclature was still quite basic no room was left for considering new subclades their ages and where they most frequent, the field has come a long way since ....... Oppenheimer and Sykes

Can you send me a link to Myers work? I tried looking for it but I cannot find it.

If most of the ancestors of the current day British didn't live in the Basque Ice Age Refuge where did they live during the Ice Age?

(And as to the OP Oppenheimer says that English Language may have arrived in England sometime during the Roman occupation in small numbers from Germanic mercenaries hired by the Roman Empire but he isn't sure if this influenced English. So he takes no stance on this issue.)

[Osweo]

Aherne can wait for a while (though he can probably predict what I'll say!)...


I know it is hard to accept new ideas ,
your sarcasms prove it ,
Sometimes sarcasm is deserved.


but I find a lot of answers in this theory ,
And I find none in your posts. I have asked several questions, the answers to which render this 'theory' impossible.


for example

1 ) the fact that West European's genes are close
from Portugal , west-Spain , west-France to West-England ,
this could be explained by the common origin from the Basque refuge ,
But wait: The BASQUES don't speak English, do they!? When did these Iberians who came to Britain begin speaking my Germanic language?


2 ) and the Azelian language group of west Europe
would explain both celtic and romance remains .
Que?

I searched for 'Azelian'. Nothing.

I searched for 'la langue Azelien', and found:

Coté son, le travail de Saori Kobayashi, et Mariko Nanba sur les musiques sublime tout simplement l’atmosphère graphique. Je me souviens encore que la manette m’est tombée des mains le jour où pour la première fois j’ai entendu le thème de l’écran titre. Puis tout au long du jeu c’est quasiment le sans faute jusqu’au thème de fin où cette fois on pense à pauser le pad pour éviter d’en violenter un autre. Respectivement « Ecce Valde Generous Ale » puis « Sona Mi Areru Ec Sancitu » constituent l’apothéose de cette OST. Fait peu courant pour l’époque, le jeu était doublé. On pouvait y entendre deux langues distinctes : le japonais et le patois Azelien. Le jeu possède effectivement sa propre langue ce qui tend à renforcer encore le coté unique et hors du temps de cet univers.
http://nyoron.free.fr/index.php?post/Impressions-JV-%3A-Azel-Panzer-Dragoon
What the fuck?


This doesn't exclude the arrival of people from the East ,
Keltic and German tribes , but it is simply a new vision that
each wave did not erase the previous one ,
culturally and genetically .
Everyone accepts a degree of genetic and cultural survival. We're talking about language, though.

English was NOT spoken in 'England' in Roman times, as the place-namesca and onomasti in the east include:

Camulodunum.
Boudicca
Lindum
Eboracum
Trisantona
Tamesis
Petuarium
Brigantes
...

Clearly Celtic. :rolleyes:

[Logan]

Sense is foreign to some as most of the proponets of this theory.

There are categories of literature and this is not credible accepted history.

[Barreldriver]

Can you send me a link to Myers work? I tried looking for it but I cannot find it.

If most of the ancestors of the current day British didn't live in the Basque Ice Age Refuge where did they live during the Ice Age?

(And as to the OP Oppenheimer says that English Language may have arrived in England sometime during the Roman occupation in small numbers from Germanic mercenaries hired by the Roman Empire but he isn't sure if this influenced English. So he takes no stance on this issue.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36888766/A-Major-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-R1b-Holocene-Era-Founder-Effect-in-Central-and-Western-Europe

The gist is R1b spread from the East to West, in particular the M269 subclade coming from the Near East moving through Anatolia during the Neolithic, then further subclades like S116 aka P312 forming in the Danubian basin moving to the West of Rhine while U106 being more prominent East of the Rhine and if R1b-M269 was in Europe prior to the Neolithic Southeast Europe is a better candidate than Southwestern Europe.

A quote: "Interestingly, attempts to date the Y-STR-based diversity of R1b-M269 chromo- somes in populations from Europe and Turkey have yielded Holocene expansion times in both regions.

These findings have led to the reappraisal that R1b-M269 in Europe is young and likely associated with a Neolithic demic expansion from the Near East through Anatolia."

If R-M269 a descendant of the basic R1b group came from the East to West during the Neolithic it doesn't make much sense for it to have been part of the Iberian refuge.

This theory and others drawing upon it are more accepted from what I've seen than the older theories of Oppenheimer and Sykes.

On another note, the only time I've heard of an English like language being spoken in Britain prior to Anglo-Saxon involvement was with the few things floating around regarding traders and such from the Low Countries and the odd Roman foederati that might have been stationed in Britain.

[Oreka Bailoak]

The gist is R1b spread from the East to West, in particular the M269 subclade coming from the Near East moving through Anatolia during the Neolithic, then further subclades like S116 aka P312 forming in the Danubian basin moving to the West of Rhine while U106 being more prominent East of the Rhine and if R1b-M269 was in Europe prior to the Neolithic Southeast Europe is a better candidate than Southwestern Europe.

So most of our male ancestors during the last Ice Age lived in Turkey/Iran/Iraq. For example, the Basques have 86% of their male ancestors (the R1b) from the middle east during the Ice Age. And 84% of Welsh male ancestors lived in the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b).

Similarly Bosnia-Herzegovina only has 4% of their male ancestors from the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b). And Greece only has 12% of their male ancestors living in the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b).
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

This seems extremely counter intuitive to me. I would expect the areas nearest to the middle east to have the largest percentage of male ancestors from the middle east during the last Ice Age. Especially considering the expansion of the R1b would have to go through those areas. But the study shows that the areas most far from the middle east, Walsh and Basques, have the highest percentage of male ancestors from the middle east.

Am I misinterpreting something? Maybe this is really how it happened though? The middle east farmers just went straight through Greece/Bosnia-Herzegovina with their animals where they couldn't dramatically get rid of those males and straight into western Europe where they killed/out-bred all the males there.

(I just realized I forgot to correct for E1b1b and a few other later ptDNA's. But still the model doesn't change for this particular R1b Neolithic immigration where it skips over SE-Europe for the most part and TOTALLY changes west Europe- which seems very odd to me)

[Rochefaton]

Can you send me a link to Myers work? I tried looking for it but I cannot find it.

If most of the ancestors of the current day British didn't live in the Basque Ice Age Refuge where did they live during the Ice Age?

(And as to the OP Oppenheimer says that English Language may have arrived in England sometime during the Roman occupation in small numbers from Germanic mercenaries hired by the Roman Empire but he isn't sure if this influenced English. So he takes no stance on this issue.)

The Myers study can be found in my 23andMe thread. I thought I sent you a PM with a link to it, but I somehow didn't...? :confused:

[Oreka Bailoak]

I found the answer for my question about why most western European male ancestors lived in the middle east during the last Ice Age (86% of Basque/84% of Welsh male ancestors lived in the middle east during the last Ice Age while a VERY low percentage of southeast Europeans did- 4% of Bosnian male ancestors did for example)


The present-day R1b frequency forms a gradient from the Atlantic fringe of Europe (highest percentage) to Central and Eastern Europe (lowest), the rises again in the Anatolian homeland. This is almost certainly because agriculture was better established in Eastern, then Central Europe, with higher densities of population, leaving R1b invadors more outnumbered than in the West. Besides, other Indo-Europeans of the Corded Ware culture (R1a) had already advanced from modern Russia and Ukraine as far west as Germany and Scandinavia. It would be difficult for R1b people to rival with their R1a cousins who shared similar technology and culture. The Pre-Celto-Germanic R1b would therefore have been forced to settled further west, first around the Alps, then overtaking the then sparsely populated Western Europe.


This is really mind blowing.

[Barreldriver]

So most of our male ancestors during the last Ice Age lived in Turkey/Iran/Iraq. For example, the Basques have 86% of their male ancestors (the R1b) from the middle east during the Ice Age. And 84% of Welsh male ancestors lived in the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b).

Similarly Bosnia-Herzegovina only has 4% of their male ancestors from the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b). And Greece only has 12% of their male ancestors living in the middle east during the last Ice Age (R1b).
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

This seems extremely counter intuitive to me. I would expect the areas nearest to the middle east to have the largest percentage of male ancestors from the middle east during the last Ice Age. Especially considering the expansion of the R1b would have to go through those areas. But the study shows that the areas most far from the middle east, Walsh and Basques, have the highest percentage of male ancestors from the middle east.

Am I misinterpreting something? Maybe this is really how it happened though? The middle east farmers just went straight through Greece/Bosnia-Herzegovina with their animals where they couldn't dramatically get rid of those males and straight into western Europe where they killed/out-bred all the males there.

(I just realized I forgot to correct for E1b1b and a few other later ptDNA's. But still the model doesn't change for this particular R1b Neolithic immigration where it skips over SE-Europe for the most part and TOTALLY changes west Europe- which seems very odd to me)

There are decent numbers of R1b in the Near East and Anatolia, just unmutated from beyond M269 for the most part, they are ancestral. The majority left the Near East in accordance to these theories and mutated into the main subclades of Europe we know as S116/P312 and U106 with respective submutations. As to the Y-DNA types in Europe prior to the R's (R1b's and R1a's) haplogroup I has been tossed around in the past year or so.

Also there are R1b M269 descendants in SE Europe unlike you're suggestion with the "skip over" spiel, the fact is still out that there's a sample bias in Western Europe still to this day so the Southeastern numbers aren't well known due to this, even so it still shows up in some number.

Another explanation for the lesser numbers in the SE except for sample bias is a different later migratory/invasion history, the SE being exposed to other groups that the West would not have been exposed to until a much later date allowing for R1b M269 descendants to persevere in the West easier than in the East.

[Rochefaton]

There are decent numbers of R1b in the Near East and Anatolia, just unmutated from beyond M269 for the most part, they are ancestral. The majority left the Near East in accordance to these theories and mutated into the main subclades of Europe we know as S116/P312 and U106 with respective submutations. As to the Y-DNA types in Europe prior to the R's (R1b's and R1a's) haplogroup I has been tossed around in the past year or so. This is not to say that R1b M269 descendants aren't in SE Europe like you're suggesting with the "skip over" spiel, the fact is still out that there's a sample bias in Western Europe still to this day so the Southeastern numbers aren't well known due to this, even so it still appears. Another explanation for the lesser numbers in the SE except for sample bias is a different later migratory/invasion history, the SE being exposed to other groups that the West would not have been exposed to until a much later date allowing for R1b M269 descendants to persevere in the West easier than in the East.

Here is a visualization of distribution of R-M269 subclades throughout the Near East and Europe. This was made using data from the Myers study.

[Rochefaton]

Oreka and I were discussing lactase persistance in Europeans and its relation to the Indo-Europeans, and since I can't send him attachments in a PM, I'm going to post a couple of maps here.

The first map shows the distribution of the 13910 C/T SNP, that is the SNP that allows Europeans to digest milk in adulthood, throughout the Old World and the second map shows the frequency of Y-DNA R subclades in the Old World. As anyone should be able to see, both have a similar distribution. Even in Africa the 13910 C/T makes a small presence in the areas that R-V88 is present.

One thing to note about the LP map is that in Eastern Europe, the low levels of the LP SNP are due to the sampling bias. I think they used the Roma for the Polish sample; can't remember the exact odd group, but it wasn't ethnic Poles. Polako would know. He pointed it out to me a few years back.

I have attached the study that I pulled the lactase persistance map from too.

[Riki]

"I will also challenge the very existence of Celts as a distinct people, but not the existence of a Celtic culture."

We all know that the Celts was a Culture with more than one ethnicity.
This is not new.
And for is theory,I`m sorry to say but it seems more of English propaganda.

"The English language was explained as an 'unfortunate and imported accident".

They would know,they(Celts or Kelts)were there.

[aherne]

Even though DNA has proven to be extremely unreliable as a way to trace people origins (many Europeans belonging genetically to Negroes, many Negroes belonging genetically to Europeans), "predicted" population movements to explain current Y-dna distribution that did not exist in reality (left absolutely no archaeological evidence). DNA testing of remains from antiquity have uncovered totally different distribution patterns in Western Europe, even though no major population movements have occurred in that area from a very long time (if we exclude the last fourty years of third world flood).

But if we are to take these findings without a grain of salt, how can we explain that R1 genes have greatest diversity among Indians and Persians, whereas Cro-Magnons tested in Europe belonged to N clade (like most Uralics), and thus should be closely related to Siberian Mongoloids? Romanians who belong to E clade, by contrast, should be closely related to Negroids (more related to Negroids than to other groups). Isn't that complete bullshit?

[Rochefaton]

But if we are to take these findings without a grain of salt, how can we explain that R1 genes have greatest diversity among Indians and Persians, whereas Cro-Magnons tested in Europe belonged to N clade (like most Uralics), and thus should be closely related to Siberian Mongoloids? Romanians who belong to E clade, by contrast, should be closely related to Negroids (more related to Negroids than to other groups). Isn't that complete bullshit?

Source for the part in bold? I haven't heard anything about Cro-Magnon remains being tested for aDNA.

Y-DNA means virtually nothing when trying to see how related two groups are. The Basque and Spanish have similar Y-DNA, but when looking at how related the two groups are autosomally, they are not closely related at all. The Cameroonian R1b guys are more similar to their African neighbors autosomally than they are to Europeans that are also R1b guys.

Also, the E1b1b guys in the Balkans don't cluster any closer to the SSA's than their non-E1b neighbors in Europe, which shows that sex specific markers are not good indicators of recent ancestry.

[Barreldriver]

Speaking of the Camaroonian R1b's, they're of a completely unrelated clade of R1b than the Europeans, the SNP being V88, that V88 SNP and the ancestral P25 being spread into Africa from the Near East. Go figure that it's highest in Africa among Chadic speakers, an Afro-Asiatic language group, the Asiatic part of the Afro-Asiatic language spreaders being evident with V88 and P25. So any relation between Europeans and Africans based on R1b is dubious at best, it only shows that haplogroups from the East made it into Africa via the ancestors of those who brought the Afro-Asiatic languages.

@aherne, the diversity of the ancestral R1 in Persians and Indians doesn't need explaining especially when Persians, Indians and Europeans have ancestors with the Indo prefix i.e. Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Indo-European. I should have saved a digital copy of a paper I wrote on this subject illustrating the parallels in the non-Christian religious tales between these peoples (might still have a copy of it saved in my email, have to check) and coincidentally they share the ancestral base R1 to match it in a sense especially considering the migrations that are stated in the old religious tales, in this paper I had gone on a limb to illustrate a possible correlation between certain haplogroup spreads and the migrations mentioned in religious spiels like the Veddas. This is not to say the peoples are identical, just that they share a very very distant and rather slight similarity, the slightness of the similarity being due to different mixtures throughout the respective histories of these peoples.

[Barreldriver]

A timeline for my part of the post directed towards aherne:

R1 originates somewhere in Asia around 25,000 ybp - 30,000 ybp, it's still up for grabs whether it's South Asia, Central Asia, or West Asia there's a number of authors out there defending their respective points on this issue

-> R1a and R1b both mutate from this both around 18,500 ybp R1a said to be the more recent of the two either way we're looking at a time near 16,489 BC, R1b mutating in Southwest Asia while R1a came to be in South or Central Asia

-> Dienekes in an entry back in 2009 cited something about R1a1a's coming about in the Indus Valley around 14,000 years ago (11,989 BC), 11,000 years ago in Europe (8,989 BC). 3,000 years or so for R1a1a carriers from Asia to have made it into Europe, a lot of time for people to travel and move and for them to come into contact with many peoples.

-> as stated in the Myer's study posted around the time agriculture starts to spread into Europe we have the European R1b's (M269's) comes about somewhere in the Middle East moving through Anatolia and Southeast Europe. The agriculture cultures showing up in places like Greece around 7,000 BC. Again moving peoples coming into contact with many other peoples.

A degree of rather distant common ancestry exists via these R1 based haplogroups yet it does not mean that Europeans belong genetically to Asians or that Asians belong genetically to Europeans like your stated comparison of "some Europeans belonging genetically to Negros, some Negros belonging genetically to Europeans", it just means that there was a very very very ancient lineage group that spread and branched off, in the act of branching off some branches stayed behind and mingled with other groups nearby while other branches left and mingled with other groups that they encountered in their travels. The respective autosomal admixtures of various groups reflect the various encounters resulting from either staying put or migrating.

Now regarding the paper that I mentioned writing (found it in me emails) looking back some of the correlations between the mythic migrations and haplogroups that I made seem erroneous to a degree if one takes myths as always describing contemporary events, but myths don't always do this.

At times myths of an very ancient root are altered to fit in the context of contemporary events they recollecting something very old in a distant root of a culture history, and some parallels can be drawn regarding the populations sharing roots with Indo prefix peoples like Indo-Iranics, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Europeans and such. The parallels not being only in having haplogroups that branched off of the R1 ancestral root, but in the cultural structure itself take the Germanic Rig tale illustrating a class structure similar to the caste structure of India, the parallels between the Asir of the Germanics and the Asur of the Vedic myths, the word Danu on another example, the prefix "da" meaning river in Indo prefix languages just to name a few. It cannot be coincidence that these groups share these very specific things yet it does not mean Europeans are Asians or that Asians are Europeans it just means they have some similarities.

This all being similar to the comparisons between European R1b's and Chadic R1b's, yes they both share the R1b root from Asia, but their respective migrations and mutations were different the European R1b's being defined largely by the M269 mutation, the Chadic R1b's defined by the V88 mutation, so in short those R1b-M269 subclade descending Europeans are just that R1b-M269 descending Europeans, the Chadics likewise R1b-V88 descending Chadics.

[aherne]

Source for the part in bold? I haven't heard anything about Cro-Magnon remains being tested for aDNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

I was wrong (seems like it's Haplogroup N mitochondrial DNA):

A 2003 sequencing on two Cro-Magnons, 23,000 and 24,000 years old Paglicci 52 and Paglicci 12, mitochondrial DNA, published by an Italo-Spanish research team led by David Caramelli, identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N.[19] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and represent the northern branch of the out of Africa migration of modern humans. Its descendant haplogroups are found among modern North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American populations.[45]
^ What do North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American have in common other than being human? It strengthens my point that genetics is pretty much worthless to determine peoples origins: if current predictions would be right (distinct populations movements for each major clade), they would not appear as randomly as they are now.

[Barreldriver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

I was wrong (seems like it's Haplogroup N mitochondrial DNA):

^ What do North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American have in common other than being human? It strengthens my point that genetics is pretty much worthless to determine peoples origins: if current predictions would be right (distinct populations movements for each major clade), they would not appear as randomly as they are now.

They do not appear randomly as you state, there's a reason that some clades are at peak frequency in certain areas that is the opposite of random as there is a center then spread for each of the groups that line up with historic population movements, look at Myers study on European R1b's back in 2010, the conclusions hardly look random.

[Jaska]

This doesn't exclude the arrival of people from the East ,
Keltic and German tribes , but it is simply a new vision that
each wave did not erase the previous one ,
culturally and genetically .
Of course they did not erase earlier waves culturally and genetically - only linguistically. You (and your source) don't seem to understand that continuity in culture or genes cannot prove continuity in language. Please read this - the conclusion concerns continuity argument in EVERY language.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html

It is just utter ignorance and madness to claim that English has been there since the Ice Age! :eek: :crazy: English is a daughter language of Proto-Germanic and even Northwest-Germanic, and because the oldest Runic inscriptions - dating from the first centuries AD - represent the latter level, English must be later than its parent language.

NOTHING in culture or genes cannot disprove this linguistic result.

[Curtis24]

Sykes argued that the Belgae - an Iron Age Low Countries tribe often disputed to be either Celtic or Germanic-speaking - were in fact Germanic, and it was they who spoke Proto-English, when they ruled England at some point in the Iron Age.

I never liked Oppenheimer or Syke's theories. They seemed like "no-racers" from the very beginning - and Sykes flippantly rejected centuries of linguistic study by saying that "linguists were too afraid to come up with new theories".


We all know that the Celts was a Culture with more than one ethnicity.
This is not new.


"Celt" is ultimately a linguistic term. Historians have noticed that all these tribal people in the Iron Age Western Europe spoke very similar languages. Thats it. Culturally, it was very diverse - Irish Celts had a very different society than, say, what you find in Gaul.

That being said, in my opinion, the Celtic languages and iron-working technology were spread through warfare and actual migrations,