| Author |
Message |
|
Neal Matheson
|
 Posted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 3:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes I agree that Durers' work is wonderfully detailed. The heart/sapwood on the yew bow is the wrong way round. For a fantastically detailed bow this is a bit weird. I suspect he could have marked it down on his notes and got muddled, the limbs also seem very thick for such a short weapon.
Individual choice on the leine? They look far more practical (and stylish!) than other depictions of leine.
Neal
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
   |
 |
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | Yes I agree that Durers' work is wonderfully detailed. The heart/sapwood on the yew bow is the wrong way round. For a fantastically detailed bow this is a bit weird. I suspect he could have marked it down on his notes and got muddled, the limbs also seem very thick for such a short weapon.
Neal |
Ah now this one isn't really down to Durer. I can't remember where, but I'm sure that I've read that Durer didn't do the colour on this piece. Supposedly it was added by a different artist.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
 |
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | Lewis A. wrote: | | Neal Matheson wrote: | Hello Lewis,
I think the "Gall" in Gall-Gaidheal refers to the Norse component. Like Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Irish.. |
Yes, Gall means "foreigner" in Gaelic, just as Walha means "foreigner" in Germanic. The Norse-Gaels would have been looked upon as foreign Gaels by the Gaels proper.
The Gaelic names Fingall and Dugall mean "fair stranger" and "dark stranger", referring to the Norse and the Danes accordingly.
|
Which is very weird since Norwegians and Danes basically look exactly the same, so it must have some other meaning.
It seems both Norwegians and Danes were more red haired back then, so neither really fits.
So Fingall might be Norwegians because they the “first strangers“ and the Dugall were the “new strangers“ (Danes) as I have seen attempt to explain the difference.
It could be a difference in dress, banners or something else? |
No, I think it was a reference to their coloring, either hair or complexion or both.
You have to remember the Danes are genetically in an entirely different group from the Norse. Danes tend to be R1b Y-DNA (U106), whereas Norwegians are more often I1a Y-DNA.
Although the populations have experienced significant exchange in the past 500 years, there are even today many dark-haired Danes:
Danish people celebrate their Queen Margrethe II's 40 years on the throne at the Copenhagen City Hall Square, in Copenhagen, capital of Danmark, Jan. 14, 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another mistake made by the person who coloured Durer's piece. If you look at the mail clad figure. Notice how the colour of his leine, at knee level, does not match the colour of his sleeve. Also it always struck me as strange that this guy seems to have no padding under his mail.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | Lewis A. wrote: | | Neal Matheson wrote: | Hello Lewis,
I think the "Gall" in Gall-Gaidheal refers to the Norse component. Like Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Irish.. |
Yes, Gall means "foreigner" in Gaelic, just as Walha means "foreigner" in Germanic. The Norse-Gaels would have been looked upon as foreign Gaels by the Gaels proper.
The Gaelic names Fingall and Dugall mean "fair stranger" and "dark stranger", referring to the Norse and the Danes accordingly.
|
Which is very weird since Norwegians and Danes basically look exactly the same, so it must have some other meaning.
It seems both Norwegians and Danes were more red haired back then, so neither really fits.
So Fingall might be Norwegians because they the “first strangers“ and the Dugall were the “new strangers“ (Danes) as I have seen attempt to explain the difference.
It could be a difference in dress, banners or something else? |
No, I think it was a reference to their coloring, either hair or complexion or both.
You have to remember the Danes are genetically in an entirely different group from the Norse. Danes tend to be R1b Y-DNA (U106), whereas Norwegians are more often I1a Y-DNA.
Although the populations have experienced significant exchange in the past 500 years, there are even today many dark-haired Danes:
Danish people celebrate their Queen Margrethe II's 40 years on the throne at the Copenhagen City Hall Square, in Copenhagen, capital of Danmark, Jan. 14, 2012. |
Well that Y-chromosomes only give the direct male line and doesn't really tell so much again about hair colour, since you would receive brides from other places.
The picture you show is clearly from more recent immigrants or mixed people (not because of hair colour), but because their facial features are clearly not Scandinavian. Many Spanish soldiers also got babies with Danish women in the Napoleonic wars where Franch and Spanish troops were here (1807-1814) and they were accepted even outside marriage (because they were well-like compared to the French soldiers). Especially prominent around Kolding in Jutland.
For instance Scandinavians are dominant dolichocephalic (long-headed).
All Scandinavian countries have had extensive immigration since the 1980's; but it's not very relevant for a discussion about how vikings looked 1000 years ago.
The Danish y-chromosome studies are sadly not so extensive and it's not accounting for different geographical regions [it's taken likely from a Copenhagen sample (194) where you have the most extensive non-scandinavian immigration - in the 1700's around half the city was German/Dutch and not Danish] but it still shows today an almost equal number of I1a (38%) and R1b (36%) + also have a significant number of Ra1 (16,5%). The I1a could very well be higher if taken from Danish rural areas.
Source: http://www.isfg.org/files/ea84de9e210d90fc6b6...329979.pdf
I wouldn't call 38% I1a low, for a sample not taking geographical areas within Denmark in account (and neither it specify any research into the family history of the Danes researched). I know it can go as high as 45%-50% in some parts of Scandinavia, but that is also areas with less historical immigration.
So I think it's fairly easy to assume that 1000 years ago it was pretty identical between Danes and Norwegian. In fact Danes have more genetic similarity to Norwegians than it has to Swedes.
The overall number of I1a for Norway is in fact lower than for Denmark. A study shows that BR (*DE, J, N3, P) - which is I1a + others, but excluding those with brackets in 37,3% [off course Norway have some Sami population, but number wise that would be only a tiny amount to the overall picture.]
Norway have more R1a (26%) compared to Denmark (16,5%), and thus less R1b (31,5) - they call it P (*R1a) - than Denmark 36%).
Source: http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Dupuy_2005...ay_FSI.pdf
Conclusion is that I1a distribution is the same between Danes and Norwegians and they also look almost the same to me that is Danish and have family in Norway and go there on occasion. Whereas Swedes (Skåne doesn't count) are actually often somewhat different looking. After Norwegians Danish people are most closely related to Dutch (people from Skåne and Slesvig-Holstein will because of history genetically be “Danish“) and not Swedes or Germans.
There is actually “real“ Norwegians with dark complexity which is probably Sami influence and genetic drifts in small isolated communities.
Important to know that Norway have some geographic differences that haven't be researched at all in Denmark yet.
So Danes are not a different genetic group from Norse (I assume you mean Norwegian? by that word).
All Scandinavians (also those peoples immigration to Iceland, Faroese Island, Normandy, Scotland, England etc) are “Norse“, but their seem to be a observable genetic difference because of the huge forest areas (Småland) that separated Danes and Swedes.
Overall Genetic similarity map of Europeans:
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/1...1a_600.jpg
Notice good overlap between Norwegians (No) and Danes (DK), but fully separated from the Swedish cluster (SE).
..and Finns are really something else :-) (FI)
Note the DE1 German samples are taken very close to the Danish border and will include many from Slesvig-Holsten that were Danish from maybe 500AD to 1864. Probably why some of the cluster goes into the Danish, Norwegian one.
The weird looking UK cluster shows two different population that has partly mixed (looks like a Danish Anglian, Northgerman Saxon and Dutch Frisian immigration makes up for half as they are close to people from these areas.
Surprisingly most Irish are more continental than some of the UK samples!!
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Thu 18 Sep, 2014 9:05 am; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | "this guy seems to have no padding under his mail."
you've done it now! |
Not sure what you mean here Neal. We have clear literal, and pictorial evidence that gallowglass wore padded cotúns under their mail.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah it was just a joke about some of the fun threads about this for earlier periods. I can't bring myself to use emoticons, maybe I should have....smiley face!
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's what I thought, but without the  I wasn't sure.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Harley
Location: Melbourne, Australia Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The picture you show is clearly from more recent immigrants or mixed people |
Are you suggesting there was once an 'unmixed people'?
Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth - Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
Well that Y-chromosomes only give the direct male line and doesn't really tell so much again about hair colour, since you would receive brides from other places.
The picture you show is clearly from more recent immigrants or mixed people (not because of hair colour), but because their facial features are clearly not Scandinavian. Many Spanish soldiers also got babies with Danish women in the Napoleonic wars where Franch and Spanish troops were here (1807-1814) and they were accepted even outside marriage (because they were well-like compared to the French soldiers). Especially prominent around Kolding in Jutland.
For instance Scandinavians are dominant dolichocephalic (long-headed).
All Scandinavian countries have had extensive immigration since the 1980's; but it's not very relevant for a discussion about how vikings looked 1000 years ago.
The Danish y-chromosome studies are sadly not so extensive and it's not accounting for different geographical regions [it's taken likely from a Copenhagen sample (194) where you have the most extensive non-scandinavian immigration - in the 1700's around half the city was German/Dutch and not Danish] but it still shows today an almost equal number of I1a (38%) and R1b (36%) + also have a significant number of Ra1 (16,5%). The I1a could very well be higher if taken from Danish rural areas.
Source: http://www.isfg.org/files/ea84de9e210d90fc6b6...329979.pdf
I wouldn't call 38% I1a low, for a sample not taking geographical areas within Denmark in account (and neither it specify any research into the family history of the Danes researched). I know it can go as high as 45%-50% in some parts of Scandinavia, but that is also areas with less historical immigration.
So I think it's fairly easy to assume that 1000 years ago it was pretty identical between Danes and Norwegian. In fact Danes have more genetic similarity to Norwegians than it has to Swedes.
The overall number of I1a for Norway is in fact lower than for Denmark. A study shows that BR (*DE, J, N3, P) - which is I1a + others, but excluding those with brackets in 37,3% [off course Norway have some Sami population, but number wise that would be only a tiny amount to the overall picture.]
Norway have more R1a (26%) compared to Denmark (16,5%), and thus less R1b (31,5) - they call it P (*R1a) - than Denmark 36%).
Source: http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Dupuy_2005...ay_FSI.pdf
Conclusion is that I1a distribution is the same between Danes and Norwegians and they also look almost the same to me that is Danish and have family in Norway and go there on occasion. Whereas Swedes (Skåne doesn't count) are actually often somewhat different looking. After Norwegians Danish people are most closely related to Dutch (people from Skåne and Slesvig-Holstein will because of history genetically be “Danish“) and not Swedes or Germans.
There is actually “real“ Norwegians with dark complexity which is probably Sami influence and genetic drifts in small isolated communities.
Important to know that Norway have some geographic differences that haven't be researched at all in Denmark yet.
So Danes are not a different genetic group from Norse (I assume you mean Norwegian? by that word).
All Scandinavians (also those peoples immigration to Iceland, Faroese Island, Normandy, Scotland, England etc) are “Norse“, but their seem to be a observable genetic difference because of the huge forest areas (Småland) that separated Danes and Swedes.
Overall Genetic similarity map of Europeans:
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/1...1a_600.jpg
Notice good overlap between Norwegians (No) and Danes (DK), but fully separated from the Swedish cluster (SE).
..and Finns are really something else :-) (FI)
Note the DE1 German samples are taken very close to the Danish border and will include many from Slesvig-Holsten that were Danish from maybe 500AD to 1864. Probably why some of the cluster goes into the Danish, Norwegian one.
The weird looking UK cluster shows two different population that has partly mixed (looks like a Danish Anglian, Northgerman Saxon and Dutch Frisian immigration makes up for half as they are close to people from these areas.
Surprisingly most Irish are more continental than some of the UK samples!! |
By "Norse" I meant the descendants of the Gothi/Geats (I1a Y-DNA) as opposed to the descendants of the Gallic/Belgic (R1b) peoples.
We know that the Cimbri who inhabited Denmark were culturally more allied with the Belgae and other Gallic tribes (as evidenced by their use of Gallic personal names and the gods they worshiped, visa ve the Gundestrup Cauldron which depicts specifically Gallic (as opposed to Germanic) deities. And we know that the descendants of other R1b Gallic peoples tend to have darker hair than the Germanic Scandinavians.
The Gothic or Gettic peoples (I haplogroup) appear to have been descendants of the Hattians, whereas the Gallic tribes claim descent from ancestors who migrated into Western Europe out of Scythia - the Cimbri are said to be the descendants of the Cimmerians who anciently inhabited the Crimea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Harley wrote: | | Quote: | | The picture you show is clearly from more recent immigrants or mixed people |
Are you suggesting there was once an 'unmixed people'? |
I can't answer for Niels, but I personally ascribe to the Kurgan hypothesis of Multi-Regional Evolution.
We know, for instance, that Early Modern Humans who are the ancestors of the European peoples (they used to call them Cro Magnons), evolved outside of Africa, whereas the people of Sub-Saharan African descent would have evolved from some other type of Archaic homonid which would have been geographically restricted to within Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: |
By "Norse" I meant the descendants of the Gothi/Geats (I1a Y-DNA) as opposed to the descendants of the Gallic/Belgic (R1b) peoples.
The Gothic or Gettic peoples (I haplogroup) appear to have been descendants of the Hattians, |
Again, the problem is that there's really no way to firmly connect any ancient groups with particular haplogroup...
We have only guesses, and haplogroup, at the end of the day only means that given two males had common father some very long time ago, and it can straight out omit what had happened 'between'.
There are black people in Africa with same R1b haplogroup as stereotypical blond dudes in Finland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartek Strojek wrote: | | Lewis A. wrote: |
By "Norse" I meant the descendants of the Gothi/Geats (I1a Y-DNA) as opposed to the descendants of the Gallic/Belgic (R1b) peoples.
The Gothic or Gettic peoples (I haplogroup) appear to have been descendants of the Hattians, |
Again, the problem is that there's really no way to firmly connect any ancient groups with particular haplogroup...
We have only guesses, and haplogroup, at the end of the day only means that given two males had common father some very long time ago, and it can straight out omit what had happened 'between'.
There are black people in Africa with same R1b haplogroup as stereotypical blond dudes in Finland. |
Proving that Europeans really got around.
While it may not be proof, we do have a number of accounts of the origins of various groups of European peoples that have been handed down to us by ancient writers such as Strabo, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Jordannes, as well as very old texts based on oral histories such as the Lebor Gabala Erenn, whose claims as to the origins and migration patterns of ancient European tribes appear to be supported by genetic evidence made available to us through DNA and haplogroup research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Harley wrote: | | Quote: | | The picture you show is clearly from more recent immigrants or mixed people |
Are you suggesting there was once an 'unmixed people'? |
Yes it's called geographic isolation. Dorset people in Greenland was genetically isolated for 4000 years. Scandinavians were pretty much a rural people for most of history, who didn't move a lot around except for an aristocratic upper class. Vikings were upper class people with retainers from warrior families and the retainers went home to their area to marry after getting rich as the many runestones show.
So to figure out what people were like genetically in the viking age you have a fairly unmixed population where some emigrates overseas and then becomes progressively mixed with time (Norwegians in Scotland, Danes in England and Normandy, Swedes in Finland and Russia) but others stayed put in their home country.
This quiet isolated Iron age population was again the end result of a mixing of different people in the Bronze Age where some had a much higher degree of mobility. The mix is between the original Mesolithic kitchenmidden people (likely those with predominately Haplotype I1a), then incoming Neolithic farmers (predominately R1b making the passage graves) and from the Bronze Age Indo-european speaking (if not already some early proto-germanic) nomads (with predominately R1a). These last Bronze Age people seem to have been very mobile the first hundred years entering Denmark and then slowly through the Bronze age getting more and more sedentary. The mixing seem to be more or less complete when we enter the Iron Age.
Denmark doesn't have any significant Sami contribution as do Norway and Sweden.
A totally specific Scandinavian culture (in art, dress etc) is observable from the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age and Viking Age, before we become “Europeans“ with Christianity.
Until the industrialisation Denmark was a rural society with 90% farmers that lived and married locally. You can still find old people that have never been more than 10 km away from their native village.
Only people from Copenhagen and the aristocracy married outside the local area (mostly from Sweden, Norway, Germany. Holland). In 1850 Odense was the second largest town in Denmark with 5.000 people and Denmark was a rural society until the 1950s'. That is why a Copenhagen sample is quiet skewed compared to what would be the real bulk of Danish population (if you exclude recent immigration from the 1970's and onwards).
So what constitutes the Danish population [as the concept Danes are from the Iron Age] were a quite unmixed population (outside Copenhagen) until recent times. From the Bronze Age to beginning of German immigration in the Middle ages, there are no people settling within Denmark (apart from a few Wends in Lolland-Falster that was driven of).
So it's unmixed in that respect that some “general features“ both morphological and genetic were developed during that isolation. From 2000 BC to 1000 AD that's 3000 years........
Different European population have facial features that are typical. Some people just look archetypical “English“ or "Swedish" or "Russian" etc
So we all know that.....
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Fri 19 Sep, 2014 8:19 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis A. wrote: |
By "Norse" I meant the descendants of the Gothi/Geats (I1a Y-DNA) as opposed to the descendants of the Gallic/Belgic (R1b) peoples.
We know that the Cimbri who inhabited Denmark were culturally more allied with the Belgae and other Gallic tribes (as evidenced by their use of Gallic personal names and the gods they worshiped, visa ve the Gundestrup Cauldron which depicts specifically Gallic (as opposed to Germanic) deities. And we know that the descendants of other R1b Gallic peoples tend to have darker hair than the Germanic Scandinavians.
The Gothic or Gettic peoples (I haplogroup) appear to have been descendants of the Hattians, whereas the Gallic tribes claim descent from ancestors who migrated into Western Europe out of Scythia - the Cimbri are said to be the descendants of the Cimmerians who anciently inhabited the Crimea. |
OK the Gothic people are tribes from South Central Sweden (Götaland) and the Island of Gotland and people of that affiliation that settle in the Polish North Sea coast and then went south during the Iron Age.
Neither Danes, Norwegians and original Swedes (from Svealand) are “Gothic“. Being Gothic is having a mythological descend from “Gaut“ - so it is a tribal affiliation from the Iron Ages. The Haplotype I1a is much much older than that as are R1b. They do not equate to specific Iron Age tribes, but much broader and older groupings.
Haplotype I1a are with all likelihood the Mesolithic population of Scandinavia as it occur still in high frequency all over Scandinavia, but mostly in the south as in ancient times the Sami (called Finns) lived much more southernly as well and was really first starting to be pushed north (or moved north as it got hotter) in early Viking age.
As R1b is highest in Basques, it's probably not Celtic but likely created in the Pyrenees refugium after the ice-age and spreading from there as you find it also in high percentage in Berbers in North Africa, West coast Irish and Welsh. They have typically pale skin, black hair and shorter stocky stature in general. Celts are much taller and more fair-haired according to classical authors and are described more or less like other Indo-European people.
So R1b people might be part of the old population that had spread along the Atlantic east coast and later in the Bronze Age was under dominance from an elite incoming Indo-European speaking Celtic population. [Basque and perhaps Aquitani retained that older language].
The R1b probably spread to Denmark in Neolithic times [but could also be the result of much later middle age immigration from more western countries], since we suddenly have tons of passage graves and the like that is the same as what you find on the Atlantic seaboard. [But that spread is before the Indo-europeans and thus before “Celts“].
But R1b is very much debated at the moment. But it seems to be ancient Atlantic seacoast “marker“ and so way before any Indo-European people calling themselves Celts/Galli speaking Celtic language.
If you read Julius Caesar the Belgic people seems a mix between Celtic people and incoming Germanic settlers. [apparently he states a bit of both through his work].
The Belgae occupied both area in modern Belgium and in England (as the sea united and land divides).
Caesar states this about Gaul: that is it inhabited by the Aquitani in the southwest, the Gauls of the biggest central part, who in their own language were called Celtae, and the Belgae in the north.
So Belgae are not Gauls or Celtae (!) according to Caesar and the Aquitani are probably related to the Basque.
The Cimbri are a Germanic people (aristocrats intermarry so some could have a celtic name), but the people certainly are not.
Strabo says this: “Of these people, they say the Belgae are bravest (who have been divided into fifteen tribes, the tribes that live along the ocean between the Rhenus and the Liger); consequently they alone could hold out against the onset of the Germans — the Cimbri and Teutones“.
The Gundestrup Cauldron is by the way Thracian and not Celtic (we know Thracian craftsmanship, but not much about their religion). The Gundestrup Cauldron was brought home to Denmark by surviving people (that also carried home a lot of Etruscan stuff that has been found) but the cauldron was left openly for hundreds of years in a bog, before it slowly was covered indicating it was not useful within Cimbrian Religion. [clearly it was tabu since it still exists today - nobody touched it or used it]. If you want Germanic Iron Age religion from Jutland you can see all the bog finds and graves etc
So it is the result of a plunder........
Celtic people lived in Oppia hill forts whereas you had NO towns in Scandinavia before the first craftsman towns in the early viking age (Ribe maybe the first in 704AD). Then we talk about 50-100 people for Ribe, whereas Oppias in Gaul could have thousands.
The Cimbric people have female offering priests and not male priests (druids) as Celtic people. All ancient scholars agree they are Germanic and they come from Jutland (old Himbreland, modern Himmerland) where you have no Celtic place names at all.
Germanic sound change would make K sounds into H-sounds. So the native name was Himbre/Himber, but it became for latin people Cimbri.
I know Strabo says this: “that the Cimbri, being a piratical and wandering folk, made an expedition even as far as the region of Lake Maeotis, and that also the "Cimmerian" Bosporus was named after them, being equivalent to "Cimbrian," the Greeks naming the Cimbri "Cimmerii“.
This etymological guesswork is very common in ancient times and unfortunately wrong as it is based on word likeness and not sound changes.
Like the sound of “Danes“ doesn't mean they are in any way related to the Hebrew Dan tribe or the Greek Danaens etc
Celts and Germanic people were related [both having indo-european roots], but they had totally different lifestyles and also different religious practices. Celtish languages are closest to Italic languages (like Lain) where Germanic is a bit of a mystery, but mostly believe it is closer to Balto-Slavic than Celto-Italic.
Gallic leader Ver-cingeto-rix means by the way “over-walker-king“ where walker is in the meaning of warrior [~ Top-warrior-King].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis A.
Location: United States Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri 19 Sep, 2014 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the information you have posted is pretty much 20th century textbook standard "we know more today about prehistoric peoples than those stupid Greeks and Romans did 2000 years ago" type rote learning.
I disagree with much of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
Attachment: 175.85 KB
