Why do people treat them like southern Gauls?
the PCA we have show that they group closer to the EEF than any Celtic.
for example, despite the name, the Celtiberians were closer to the Serdinian people than to the Gauls....
remember that language literally means nothing
Are the Iberians superior? Yes, They are, but they are not Celtic
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
There’s no Celtic DNA.
Hello?
Ok
>For example, despite the name, the Celtiberians were closer to the Serdinian
Because Caesar, a contemporaney sources, wrote that they were of celtic customs, spoke Celtic, consider themselves celtic, and their people was gradually formed by small warbands of gauls invading Iberia and taking local women because Gaul proper was overpopulated. The phenomenom was still happening in Caesar's days and only stopped with his conplete conquest of Gaul.
Never read such a tremendous amount of shit. moron literally made shit up on the spot.
probably.
Its written on the De Bello Gallico and in the De Bello Civili. Cope.
He never mentionned anything like that stop making shit up.
Celtiberians had a totamly different haplogroup than gauls they werent gauls in any shape or form
>Never read such a tremendous amount of shit.
>and its people were gradually formed from small bands of Gallic warriors invading the Iberian Peninsula and capturing local women because Gaul proper was overpopulated
This is so problematic in so many ways that it's strange...
Well, why doesn't your DNA cluster with the Gauls? the Gauls were not mainly IE, but still had more than 20%, which is the Iberian standard.
but they are not genetically related.
And regarding the chronological question, when did this happen? Some articles are pushing the presence of "Celts" in Iberia to more than a mere 800 BC, and if so, perhaps the Hallstatt as a wider culture invaded Iberia rather than simply "Gauls"?
Caesar didn't know about Indo-Europeans, but if that's true, the Gauls weren't the first Indo-Europeans. they were actually the bell beakers, the Lusitanians were not Celts.
I think the OP is talking about racial meaning?
The Celts in Iberia had nothing to do with Gauls invading. They didnt even share the same haplogroup. Why are you inventing stupid stuff like that?
Read Caesar, he litterally asked the celtiberians about their origins and the migration was still happening during his military operation in the peninsula. was Caesar a liar?
Genetics are the least important when it comes to people; language and culture weigh more
no.
it is not.
otherwise, until today we would have moronic notions about the ancestry belonging of various peoples... marginal theories such as
"Latins came from Anatolia" would be taken into consideration.
or "Etruscans are native to the Aegean islands" and so on...
#LonglivePCAs 3:
Genetics tells you nothing on waht a people were like ; that doens't mean it's useless but using it to negat the cultural aspects like you are trying to do makes no sense
>Latins came from Anatolia
No one says this
they literally say.
the ancients thought that the Etruscans were from outside Italy, and there is a very old bullshit theory, even proposed by "historians" that the Etruscans were literally from Anatolia or the eastern Mediterranean more extensively.
in fact it says.
The SNP tells you what your physical characteristics were like, hair color, skin, eyes, etc.
even what type of predisposition to certain diseases people X could have.
and what cultural aspects am I denying my coconut candy? I just said that many of the things we always take as evidence, be it the example that the Celtiberians were "Celts", genetics proves that it is bullshit. they were culturally, but genetically, they were not.
I wrote with my ass
besides the Etruscans, the ancient Romans and some idiots believed that the Latins were from Troy
>"Latins came from Anatolia" would be taken into consideration.
>"Etruscans are native to the Aegean islands"
Both are 60-70% ANF
And?
this proves the old shit that they came from outside how?
The Etruscans having steppe ancestry, like the Romans, makes this a dead shit hypothesis.
Etruscans spoke ANF language.
Latin elites believed they came from troy but they were cremated so we don't have their dna. Plebeians were native
Real celts=
. Gauls
. Brythonic
. Goidelic
. Pictish (matrilineal chads)
Non-celts=
. Celtiberians
. Galicians
. Lusitanians
. Vettones
They were just (little) "celtized"
I forgot about the Basques
they are not Celtic.
and like the Picts, they are matrilineal, but they go beyond that, their women had more power in society than others, and were a type of "woman of the house"
I was surprised to learn that the El Argaric were still around 85-87% EEF despite being in the bronze age, a last fortified holdout of the EEF in the Iberian peninsula
Yes
Me 2
EEF chads
Why is this board so full of people who make up shit out of nowhere?
This is what the original celts looked like, they were far closer to Iberians than to Irish and such.
An entirely useless thread.
Because they were not southern gauls? Celtic settlement in Spain happened through different waves, starting when there wasn't even such a thing as a gaul, as there were already some protoceltic groups in Spain.
Also that map is full of shit, lusitanians were in central portugal and extremadura, not in southern and northern portugal; basques were further east, in Navarra and northern Aragon as well as SE Gaul, ironically not in most of what is now the basque country; Astures were actually in Asturias in addition to northernmost western current Castilla y Leon; Turdetani doubtfully were iberians, etc...
Also, Iberians were probably some type of berbers, aka moors, thus the lowest, bottom ethnicity in the world, right below bantus and papuans.
Source? My ass
No relation whatever between moors and ancient iberians
Is this thread a discord raid or something? How can there be so much nonsensical garbage in the same thread
There is a group there named "Celticos" Celticii and people still believe that they were not proper celtic? Ridiculous.
And it should not be just a cultural thing because somone from SW Europe could not get with a new culture from central Europe unless the people from central Europe moved and settled there.
Chora mais, bebe gorduroso.
Você percebe que está fazendo um jogo de semântica??
A geografia não é um bom argumento...
Oras;
Posso usar o mesmo argumento sobre os corded ware e suas vastas expansões.. "não é possível que o fatyanovo fosse diferente substancialmente dos andronovo, não é possível eles terem a mesma cultura" acontece que cultura e linguagem são facilmente intercambiáveis, a própria cultura urnfield mesclou vários povos da EEF.
>você
>fazendo
>mesclou
The brazilian cant even properly larp as european portuguese and defaults to his own dialect.
Me refute...
Eu duvido.
No one argued that they were fully celts but its pretty obvious they had a considerable celtic element. Ofc they werent gauls but rather an earlier branch of celts, more akin to italics.
>"mi refutshi"
Correct portuguese grammar would be "refuta-me" btw.
Você é moronado?
Percebe que "um ramo anterior aos gauleses" não faz sentido cronológico?
Os celtas ibericos "chegaram" provavelmente no final da Idade do bronze, entre 900~800 AC.
Sendo assim, Impossível ser "anterior aos celtas".
Eles foram, na verdade, às últimas (talvez a última) migrações dos celtas.
Oque havia antes dos celtas eram grupos hallstatt, que nem sequer consistiam em grupos etno-linguisticos.
Oque quero dizer, é que eles foram provavelmente "o menos celta" possível... principalmente culturalmente.
Não é à toa, que temos praticamente todo leste espanhol sendo não-IE.
moronado
The Lusitanians like Ligurians are considered para-celtic/proto-celtic as far as everyone knows
Also in regards to Hallstatt see this again
Suas amostras... literalmente provaram meus argumentos.
E os lusitanos são pre-celtas
>Acuses iberians of larping as celts while he, a brazilian larps as iberian and claims iberian superiority.
You realize they absolutely hate you over there right? Most portuguese people I've talked to even completely deny the brazilians having any connection to them other than language.
Eu não me importo com portugays.
Porque está me imputando isso?
well, they called themselves celtic
>In the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to North/Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age (Figs. 1C-D and and2B).2B). The increase was 10–19% (95% confidence intervals given here and in what follows) in 15 individuals along the eastern Mediterranean coast where non-Indo-European Iberian languages were spoken; 11–31% in 2 individuals at the Tartessian site of La Angorrilla in the southwest with unknown language attribution; and 28–43% in 3 individuals at La Hoya in the north where Indo-European Celtiberian languages were likely spoken (fig. S6 and tables S11–12). This documents gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18). Unlike central or northern Europe where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages (12), our results indicate that in Iberia increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages. This is consistent with present-day Basques who speak the only non-Indo-European language in western Europe but overlap genetically with Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/
summarize
the OP said about PCA, but no one posted anything
>In the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to North/Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age
Lol. Nordic lost haha