GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111978677


From: "Dale E. Reddick" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Celts/Syria
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:01:10 -0500
References: <20050328023332.81919.qmail@web52107.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050328023332.81919.qmail@web52107.mail.yahoo.com>


Hi Folks,

Ellen is dead on correct. Other than for a few intrusive invaders, there
just ain't anything to this. Here and there some groups such as the
Hellenistic Phillistines managed to carve out a small swath of
settlement (on the shore of the Levant). The earlier Mitanni seem to
have been able to have done the same amongst the Hurrians and so
introduced some terminology to that language. The Medes and Persians
overran the Zagros mountains and settled what is now mostly know as Iran
(Iranian mostly equals to Persian and partially equates to Aryan).

It wasn't until the Galicians took over central Anatolia circa 300 B.C.
(I cannot recall the actual date, at present) that anyone finds any
Celtic culture or language East of the Bosporus.

Ann - please kill this thread. It is plainly and simply unsupported by
anything presently known to scientific and scholarly Archeological and
Linguistic studies of the Middle East.

Dale E. Reddick
________________________________


ellen Levy wrote:

>Dan:
>
>There are a lot of kooky, unfounded, unscientific
>claims on the internet proporting to discuss the
>"Semitic roots" of the Celts. No scientific evidence
>of such a connection exists. Not linguistic. Not
>archaeological. Not genetic. I have no idea why the
>Qatna site in Syria seems Celtic to you, but it's not.
> The Celts are not the genetic or cultural or
>linguistic descendants of the ancient Israelites,
>Aramaeans, Mesopotamians, or Egyptians. If you want
>to point me to a valid scientific study that supports
>these views, please do. I cannot figure why some
>people are so insistent of such a connection, despite
>all the evidence to the contrary, other than a need to
>connect genetically to the "cradle of civilization" as
>well as possibly biblical figures & people. These
>theories do a real diservice to the uniqueness and
>beauty of Celtic culture and languages.
>
>Ellen Coffman
>
>--- Daniel Jenkins <> wrote:
>
>
>>In resonse to Ellens posting regarding Syria
>>addressed to me.
>>
>>How does one explain why so many researchers make a
>>connection with later
>>Celts to the Hurrian/Mitanni-Urartu peoples who had
>>a definite presense in
>>the Middle East including Syria for 1700 years ? I
>>think from about 2400bce
>>onward. The description of the Qatna people in Nat.
>>Geo. seemed very Celtic
>>to me, but I will reread it . Have to buy one, as
>>one I read was not mine. I
>>would sure like to see someone come up with
>>timelines and geography for the
>>Phylogenetic Tree. I think an effort to get DNA
>>from any human source that
>>dates from10,000 years ago to about 2000 years ago
>>in varying geographical
>>sites in Russia , Middle East ,nearby Asia would
>>yield a good picture . Has
>>this already been done and has haplotype/haplogroup
>>info. been published
>>anywhere?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>
>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN
>>Search!
>>
>>
>>
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>>==============================
>>View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about
>>your ancestors, find
>>marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
>>http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>==============================
>Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
>Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>
>
>


This thread: