Are Celts and Germanics A Fiction?

Collin Flaherty is my hero.

What Scandinavian DNA? Were talking migration TO Scandinavia, among other places.

I'm pretty sure mtDNA is not at all significant outside of Iberia. Prove me wrong.


Hardly. Main difference is genetic drift. Also why Ukrainian??? You actually think Ukrainians are from Ukraine 3k years ago? What the fuck is wrong with you people?


Yeah, you'd imagine. Instead of looking on a map.

Indo-Europeans were also the subsequent waves of conquering tribes

I'd love to see an article or study if you could back that up as it seems by your certainty that it has been proven beyond a doubt. I was under the impression that conclusions could not yet be drawn because of insufficient data, and was making an educated guess based on location and culture.


I'm finding it difficult to believe that farming was present in Europe before 8-6k BC. My understanding of the peopling of the world is that

70kya humans migrated OOA by two paths
Focusing on the Northern Path, some stayed in the fertile cresent (Southern Path goes through Horn of Africa to India)
And others kept spreading probably becoming the first European Proto-HGs
Here, a long long time passes and the ice age thaws out around 15kya
Around 8kya, Anatolian Farmers move northwards and westward into Europe bringing agriculture and oral tradition.
Same happens with Iranian Farmers on the East moving towards India.

I believe this is the beginning of Ancient Greek culture as well as the Indus Valley Civ. I also believe moat of the rest of the world was still hunting. This is because thw ibtroduction of farming frequently coincides with the ibtroduction of domesticated wheat, rye and barley which is native to the fertile crescent.

Important to note, there was a 2018 study on Indians that showed the introduction of new mtDNA into India at this time along with new YDNA. It is my belief that this means that the farmers integrated with these hunters, rather than conquering them.

This agricultural tradition continues spreading further westwards, and mixes with the original HG lines of Europe. A little before or after the Bronze Age Collapse, PIE enters the game through war and conquest. I assume conquest because the earlier cited study seems to indicate the introduction of mostly male YDNA with no new female mtDNA.

This is for me where I start separating Celts. The Celts will have WHG and Iranian Farmer, but much less PIE than the rest of Europe, unless my friend above can show me genetic studies between celts and other western euro people that shows closer genetic affinity than I am assuming (I have no study to back this claim and I am insinuating based on studies of other populations).

Calm the fuck down, your autism is showing. We are having a conversation, relax. I am not denying you.

If you want me to distinguish between classic terminology and modern terminology, I can, but your tone has turned me off so I won't.

You're upset about my claim that PIE are not white and only native Europeans are? Who's the kike?

First of all, I meant proto-Ukrainian, which is an example you yourself gave. So your first point is moot. Secondly, human beings generally, in conversation, will attempt to use common language in order to find middle ground. Hence my usage of your terms.

And mtDNA is not relevent outside of Iberia? What?

Your second point gives no argument (Hardly.) and furthers the argument on semantics and word definition. Now where have I seen this type of arguing before? hmmmm…

You're right about Indo-Aryans (kek) being the waves of future conquest and by saying this you have essentially shown that middle europe is higher in indo aryan YDNA than the Isles out West.

Anyway, why are we arguing if you're not a kikelberg? Has 8ch gone down in intelligence or are we just unable to have serious threads anymore?

Fuck you you piece of shit. You care so little about this topic that you can't even be bothered to do the bare minimum of research on it. This thread is just a giant shitpost you dumped on this board because you're too lazy to do anything on your own. You dumb nigger.
It's really that simple. They're distinct and different peoples.
It would take all of an hour to go through and compare the two language groups and come to the conclusion that they're different language groups entirely.
Another thing you can do is actually do some research on the cultural practices of the different groups and come to the obvious conclusion that they were different. Very different.

The same? No. Though southern Britain was culturally contiguous with Belgae. However they were Celtic. Like how Americans used to be Anglo-Saxons but not the exact same as the British.

They would be very related, thus the differences would be harder to spot, but genetically you can sort them out if you take certain groups as representative, due to their history i.e Welsh and Swedes, or better Bretons and Swedes. These groups differ not only in unipaternal lineages, but also autosomally. Essentially, the major difference is that Germans probably have slightly higher hunter gatherer ancestry and less anatolian farmer ancestry.
Celts like Italics probably originated within Bell Beaker cultures of central Europe. Germanics I think have a higher relation with the Corded ware horizon and so, in a way, kinda forma bridge between Celts and Balto-Slavs.

Celts are more purely Aryan than Germanics, which is confirmed by the predominance of paternal R1b lineages among Celtic populations (whereas the Germanic core of Scandinavia has many pre-Aryan I1 lineages) as well has having some of the highest steppe-like DNA.

This of course is not only genetically the case, but also in terms of cultural, religious, and social institutions. The Celts retained archaic Indo-European traditions that often find their closest equivalents in Vedic India.

That said both are largely descendants of steppe Bell Beakers/ proto-Northwest-Indo-Europeans and lived in close proximity to each other for centuries and hence are quite closely connected.

Of course we know that while Celtic and Germanic can describe cultures and languages, we also know that simply speaking a Germanic language or adhering to Germanic culture doesn't make one Germanic, i.e. an Anglophone Negro who fancies himself a worshiper of Odin is not a Germanic. Similarly, many so-called Germanic groups today, such as Englishmen, Flemings, Rhinelanders, Swabians, and Swiss are predominately descended from the ancient Celts.

This makes notions of Germanic superiority over Celts a ridiculous notions since one merely need compare the historic accomplishments of more purely Germanic groups such as Frisians, Danes, and Swedes with that of more Celtic groups, such as the British, French, Southern/Western Germans, Northern Italians, etc. and it becomes clear that it is indeed the descendants of the ancient Celts who have been the great race of history despite the retreat of their traditional languages to the fringes of Western Europe.

Attached: celtic_art1.jpg (656x1030 187.79 KB, 173.11K)

Celt and Germanic alliance forever.

Here you absolute morons
Haplogroups do not matter much.
Genetically closest to PIE/Yamnaya - Western Russians and Belarusians. After that Scandinavians and Balts and Celts, but it is not very different in Northern Europe. Also from non-European population - Tajiks and Avars are quite close to PIE

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (381x3000, 77.36K)

Also - light blue - WHG
light green - eef
dark green - ehg-related
brown - CHG
pink - natufian
Upper ones are ancient and below are modern
look these things through
nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1
reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature24476_final_1.pdf
reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature25738_Olalde_2.pdf
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1
These should give basic descriptions.