New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

[zanipolo]

There surely was a massive settlement of Germanic people in Austria, otherwise there is no reason that the region should be German speaking nowadays. It was traditionally a strongly Celtic, then Latin speaking region. If North Italy and France still speak Romance languages despite the Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths and Lombards, the only way Austria would have become German-speaking at the boundary of the Latin and Slavic worlds is through the implantation of a very large Germanic population (which IMHO is represented by R1b-U106 because Austria doesn't have that much I1 or I2b).

I still hold the belief that raeti and illyric people occupied Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

And that their genetics had some G. The german migration only came in the form of bavarian migration which is why austrians speak a bavarian dialect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language#Samples_of_Bavarian_and_Austrian

The interesting thing would be to find the similarity of genetics of bavaria and eastern austria

 

[Dubhthach]

Interesting the distrubition you put for Ireland, are you mapping it along Leath Cuinn versus Leath Mogha?

It is theorised after all that there was some La Tène influence introduced into northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- Conn's half) probably from Northern Britain. This can be seen with certain archaelogical items such as Beehive quern stones which are restricted to northern half of Ireland (line drawn from Galway to Dublin)

 

[Taranis]

Nothing excludes that some S28 in Poland dates from Urnfield, and the rest from the Germanisation of Poland from the late Middle Ages to 1945.

Good points. There is no reason the Haplogroup is there for just a single reason, anyways. That approach almost never works out, anyways.

Unfortunately data about S28 in Catalonia is sparse. The region wasn't tested by either Myres or Cruciani et al., and all the other regions tested in Spain had between 1 and 4% of S28 (except 6% in Valencia). Iberianroots has the most extensive commercial data for Spain, but only reports 1% of S28/U152 for Catalonia, out of a very reasonable 193 samples. Most of the Catalan R1b is M269 or S116 (50% of the population) and SRY2627 (22%). It could be that some of the M269 members didn't test for subclades, but even so, there is at present 20x more SRY2627 than S28, so I don't see how S28 could exceed 5-6%, or 10% at the very most.

Yeah, I see your point. The question for Catalonian U152 just came to my mind because the Urnfield Culture extended into Catalonia, and if U152 was indeed connected with Urnfield, we should be able to see it. At the same time, I absolutely agree that it's unlikely to exceed 5%.

There surely was a massive settlement of Germanic people in Austria, otherwise there is no reason that the region should be German speaking nowadays. It was traditionally a strongly Celtic, then Latin speaking region. If North Italy and France still speak Romance languages despite the Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths and Lombards, the only way Austria would have become German-speaking at the boundary of the Latin and Slavic worlds is through the implantation of a very large Germanic population (which IMHO is represented by R1b-U106 because Austria doesn't have that much I1 or I2b).

This is a very good point, especially when comparing against the situation in France. We would expecting the area of modern Austria to speak a Romance language of some kind, and since this isn't the case this argues in favour of a large-scale immigration. This is also very elegant because it solves A LOT of problems associated with the distribution of U106 and U152.

I still hold the belief that raeti and illyric people occupied Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

And that their genetics had some G. The german migration only came in the form of bavarian migration which is why austrians speak a bavarian dialect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language#Samples_of_Bavarian_and_Austrian

The interesting thing would be to find the similarity of genetics of bavaria and eastern austria

I told you before that there is no evidence that the Norici were Illyrian, and why you still continue to hold that believe despite contrary evidence eludes me. The traditional view is that western Hallstatt was Celtic, but eastern Hallstatt was Illyrian, but this is a 19th / early 20th century view which has actually little basis. The situation in Antiquity is very clear: Noricum was clearly Celtic (by place names, by inscriptions and by what ancient authors wrote about them). If you go to the north into Bohemia, you have a Celtic substratum and recent Germanic newcomers (the Marcomanni and other tribes, who migrated there and subjugated the Boii in the 1st century BC), but there is no evidence of Illyrians.

Besides, if you assume that Austrian U106 somehow stems from a pre-Celtic population (which I find dubious), you would have to rather seek ties with pre-Germanic or proto-Germanic peoples from the north, rather than the Illyrians from the south. It just makes no sense.

 

[Maciamo]

Interesting the distrubition you put for Ireland, are you mapping it along Leath Cuinn versus Leath Mogha?

It is theorised after all that there was some La Tène influence introduced into northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- Conn's half) probably from Northern Britain. This can be seen with certain archaelogical items such as Beehive quern stones which are restricted to northern half of Ireland (line drawn from Galway to Dublin)

No, it's based on the distribution of S28/U152 members from the FTDNA Ireland Project. It has nearly 5000 members, yet there isn't a single R1b-U152 (or its L2 subclade)in the south.

 

[Angela]

In the Po valley in Emilia-Romagna, roughly between Milano and Bologna, where the frequency of R1b can exceed 70%, and at least 60% of it is S28.

Could you supply a source for that figure as it applies to Emilia Romagna, or explain how it was computed?

The highest frequencies for R1b that I have seen were in the Di Giacomo et al study, which found a frequency of 76.2% for P*(not R1a) in the Garfagnana in northwest Tuscany. The next highest frequency was in the Val di Non in the Trentino.

Neither is in Emilia, although it could be argued that the Garfagnana is part of Lunezia, a cultural area that also includes Parma and Modena.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf

(The map is particularly interesting.)

The following study does show a high frequency for R1b in Modena, which indeed is in Emilia, but the figure is 67.6%, lower than the Garfagnana and Val di Non figures in DiGiacomo. http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(08)00082-3/abstract

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found.It is a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b in the Rimini area.

http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/c34/Ferri 2008 Male haplotypes and haplogroups in Romagna%
20region%20yNorth%20Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the old Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf I couldn't find the exact source of the data within Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and Val di Non are very high in U-152, perhaps higher than in Emilia.

However, the triangular hotspot on your U-152 map does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara(north west Tuscany), Emilia from Modena up to Piacenza, and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and Lucca to the south. http://translate.google.com/transla...0QHdicTVCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum. La Spezia, which was sometimes included, is more typically Ligurian, and therefore probably a little lower in R1b. (Genoa-48.3)

I think Emilia could very well be the "heart" of U-152 in Italy,(with the Val di Non and Garfagnana numbers inflated because of their isolation and the subsequent drift) and you can find evidence for Villanovans, Ligures, Etruscans, and Celts in the area. The group that had the most impact, however, was probably the Ligures.​

 

[Angela]

I apologize for the prior two posts. It won't let me finish the posts, and it won't let me delete them. If someone could get rid of them (Not the first one!) I would be grateful.

This is my last try.

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/ibl...plogroups in Romagna region yNorth Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf. I couldn't find the exact source of the data in Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and the Val di Non are very high in U-152, and perhaps even higher than Emilia.

However, the triangular hot spot in Italy in your map of U-152 does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara (North West Tuscany), Emilia from around Modena up to Piacenza and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and La Spezia and Lucca to the south, although La Spezia looks more Ligurian to me. (Genova levels for R1b are around 48%) http://translate.google.com/transla...g.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivns

I think I could make a good argument that Emilia is the "heart" of U-152 in Italy, if that is defined as the area of highest frequecy. (with the Garfagnana and the Val di Non numbers inflated because of their isolation and subsequent drift), and you can find evidence there for the Villanovans, the Ligures, the Etruscans, and some Celts.

 

[zanipolo]

I told you before that there is no evidence that the Norici were Illyrian, and why you still continue to hold that believe despite contrary evidence eludes me. The traditional view is that western Hallstatt was Celtic, but eastern Hallstatt was Illyrian, but this is a 19th / early 20th century view which has actually little basis. The situation in Antiquity is very clear: Noricum was clearly Celtic (by place names, by inscriptions and by what ancient authors wrote about them). If you go to the north into Bohemia, you have a Celtic substratum and recent Germanic newcomers (the Marcomanni and other tribes, who migrated there and subjugated the Boii in the 1st century BC), but there is no evidence of Illyrians.

Besides, if you assume that Austrian U106 somehow stems from a pre-Celtic population (which I find dubious), you would have to rather seek ties with pre-Germanic or proto-Germanic peoples from the north, rather than the Illyrians from the south. It just makes no sense.

I was talking bronze age and you are talking iron age.

see this link
http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

You do know that the first documented naming of Austria occurred in 998AD , u do realise on post #1 there is a void of percentages due to the areas of eastern austria and bavaria. You do realise that the majority of 'germanic" people into eastern austrai was the bavarians.
You do know that celts assimilated illyrians in pannonia and illyric lands.
I really do not know why you start history only from the iron age.

And yes, I agree, noricum was named after the norici celtric tribe in the iron age. There was also the catali, cotini, osi as well in the area ( up to the danube )

http://www.u152.org/index.php?optio...yres-and-cruciani-studies&catid=1:latest-news

 

[zanipolo]

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/ibl...plogroups in Romagna region yNorth Italyp.pdf

.

The map on post #1 does show that Emilia and not Romagna was the centre .

this link below does excplain it in more detail

http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

and


www.u152.org/

 

[Maciamo]

I apologize for the prior two posts. It won't let me finish the posts, and it won't let me delete them. If someone could get rid of them (Not the first one!) I would be grateful.

This is my last try.

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/ibl...plogroups in Romagna region yNorth Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf. I couldn't find the exact source of the data in Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and the Val di Non are very high in U-152, and perhaps even higher than Emilia.

However, the triangular hot spot in Italy in your map of U-152 does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara (North West Tuscany), Emilia from around Modena up to Piacenza and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and La Spezia and Lucca to the south, although La Spezia looks more Ligurian to me. (Genova levels for R1b are around 48%) http://translate.google.com/transla...g.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivns

I think I could make a good argument that Emilia is the "heart" of U-152 in Italy, if that is defined as the area of highest frequecy. (with the Garfagnana and the Val di Non numbers inflated because of their isolation and subsequent drift), and you can find evidence there for the Villanovans, the Ligures, the Etruscans, and some Celts.

Thanks for the links, Angela. I actually didn't have the Ferri and Scozzari studies. They will be very useful to fine-tune all the haplogroup maps. Scozzari 's data for Corscia and Sardinia is a real boon. I wish I had access to the supplementary data of Ferri's Modena study.

Nothing I have seen contradicts the hotspots around Emilia (or Lunezia if you prefer). It is true that the total R1b is even higher in Lombardy and Trentino, but that is because the Lombards settled Alpine Italy and brought a lot of R1b-S21 (and some L21) with them. In that particular region the incidence of S28 may well be lower than 50% of R1b (so probably between 30 and 40% of all lineages, or even just 20 to 30% in the foothills, as shown on the map).

 

[Dorianfinder]

The Vandals carrying U152 seems unlikely. The Przeworsk culture often viewed as the precursor culture to that of the Vandals is in the proto-Slavic R1a region of Europe. Byzantine source state that all the Vandals who survived Belisarius' campaign in Africa were taken to Asia Minor where they were incorporated into the Byzantine military.

 

[Angela]

The map on post #1 does show that Emilia and not Romagna was the centre .

this link below does excplain it in more detail

http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf



I provided the study as confirmation, and because I wasn't sure that Maciamo was including that study in his calculations.

As for Dr. Faux's arguments; I am aware of them, it's just that I'm not totally persuaded by them.

 

[Angela]

I hate to disagree with someone who has just thanked me, or perhaps I'm just not understanding your post. Just for clarity, I'm talking here about R1b as a whole. The Trentino isn't Lombardia, and the samples were taken from a very isolated region. So were the ones from the Garfagnana in Tuscany, so an argument could be made that they shouldn't be weighted as highly, but for map purposes, the data is the data. Therefore it seems to me there are two hot spots from the data we have, with the largest hot spot in north west Tuscany for R1b, (76.2), the next one in the Trentino (73.3), and the third in Modena, Emilia (67.6). Lombardia comes in fourth with 61.1%. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf and http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...082-3/abstract

A question just occurred to me; are the maps based on counting all the samples? Some of these samples are, as you know, larger than others, although I was surprised at how large some of them are.

As for U-152, I know you have to use the typed data you have. My only point was that the area from north west Tuscany to Piacenza and west to Modena still seems to be the hotspot, as it would be if you took a kind of straight percentage from the R1b data. The only exception, of course, would be the Trentino data, but I would argue that the percentage of U=152 might actually be lower there, because I would think there might be more 106 there.

I have a link to an Onofri study on central Italy on my computer. It is behind a pay wall, but I will include a link to it later as perhaps someone might have access.

Regards, Angela

 

[Angela]

Here is the link to the Onofri study. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513105014305

You may already be using this large study of Sardinian Y-dna, but if you aren't, http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001430. Their conclusions are certainly debatable, but understandable, given the way that they compute the TMRCA of these Y dna lineages. Still, the data is good.

 

[Taranis]

I was talking bronze age and you are talking iron age.

see this link
http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

How does this relate? The Illyrians are not mentioned in a single instant in that file. Besides, if you take things back into the bronze age, this arguably just makes things even worse. As I said, if you go back into the bronze age, you get the Urnfield Culture, which in my opinion is a good candidate for spreading U152.

You do know that the first documented naming of Austria occurred in 998AD , u do realise on post #1 there is a void of percentages due to the areas of eastern austria and bavaria. You do realise that the majority of 'germanic" people into eastern austrai was the bavarians.

Yes, Austria was "originally" (at start of the medieval ages, that is), part of Bavaria. But how does this relate to the question of the thread?

You do know that celts assimilated illyrians in pannonia and illyric lands.
I really do not know why you start history only from the iron age.

Yes, this is the case. But that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence for Illyrians in what today is Austria. There is also no specifically "Illyrian" marker in Austria that would link the area of Austria with the Pannonian basin or the western Balkans.

And yes, I agree, noricum was named after the norici celtric tribe in the iron age. There was also the catali, cotini, osi as well in the area ( up to the danube )

The Cotini lived much farther to the east, in what today is Slovakia (in the Western Carpathians), and they were also Tacitus explicitly mentions them as Gaulish.

http://www.u152.org/index.php?optio...yres-and-cruciani-studies&catid=1:latest-news

The sample size for Austria is ludicrously small (18 samples!). I suspect that this may be just a sampling error hence and U152 is actually more common in Austria.

Sorry Zanipoli, I just do not understand why you are so focused on the Illyrians.

The Vandals carrying U152 seems unlikely. The Przeworsk culture often viewed as the precursor culture to that of the Vandals is in the proto-Slavic R1a region of Europe. Byzantine source state that all the Vandals who survived Belisarius' campaign in Africa were taken to Asia Minor where they were incorporated into the Byzantine military.

The Przreworsk Culture occupied an area that half a millennium earlier was occupied by the Lusatian Culture, which was an offshot of Urnfield. If the Urnfielders were indeed carriers of U152, the Vandals who originally occupied an area that was located entirely inside the former area of the Lusatian Culture. Besides, to label R1a "Proto-Slavic" is quite a bit of a misnomer, because R1a was far from being uniquely associated with the Slavic peoples, and also because the Slavic peoples lived considerably further to the east in Antiquity.

What I do find valid is the fact that the Vandals were only relatively shortly in North Africa whereas the Romans were there for centuries. Hence, Romans are much more likely to be source of North African U152 than the Vandals because of a far longer presence.

In any case, when the Slavic peoples arrived in the area formerly occupied by the East Germanic peoples like and Vandals and absorbed the local population, it's certainly conceivable that this population carried U152 to some degree.

 

[zanipolo]

How does this relate? The Illyrians are not mentioned in a single instant in that file. Besides, if you take things back into the bronze age, this arguably just makes things even worse. As I said, if you go back into the bronze age, you get the Urnfield Culture, which in my opinion is a good candidate for spreading U152.



Yes, Austria was "originally" (at start of the medieval ages, that is), part of Bavaria. But how does this relate to the question of the thread?



Yes, this is the case. But that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence for Illyrians in what today is Austria. There is also no specifically "Illyrian" marker in Austria that would link the area of Austria with the Pannonian basin or the western Balkans.



The Cotini lived much farther to the east, in what today is Slovakia (in the Western Carpathians), and they were also Tacitus explicitly mentions them as Gaulish.



The sample size for Austria is ludicrously small (18 samples!). I suspect that this may be just a sampling error hence and U152 is actually more common in Austria.

Ok, i did not know who was in noricum , and was using Geza Alfoldy book , Noricum and also John Williams book , Illyrians to see what culture was in Noricum. Now I have found other details via relatives. Below it s in English

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ribe&hl=en#v=onepage&q=taurisci tribe&f=false

So, the Taurisci where a Gallic-ligurian people makes sense as the friuli who speak gallic language ( still today) and where the Carni tribe of the ancient times, fits well with this.

In the other matter, since Maciano has placed U-152 and u-106 maps recently, I do not know why you say that the austrians ( and Bavarians ) would be U-152, when clearly the maps show a percentage void in these areas fro U-152. Why is this?

It would seem to me that the raeti where u-152 while the vindelici ( bavarians ) where u-106. If this is correct, then we must assume that gallic-celts where different from germanic-celts ( as per a thread I started in eupedia)

The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.

 

[Taranis]

In the other matter, since Maciano has placed U-152 and u-106 maps recently, I do not know why you say that the austrians ( and Bavarians ) would be U-152, when clearly the maps show a percentage void in these areas fro U-152. Why is this?

Stop twisting my words and start finally reading my posts more thoroughly. I never claimed that Austrians would be predominantly U152. I merely wanted to say that I thought to find an explanation why U152 is not dominant in Austria. Given the otherwise strong correlation of U152 with the spread of Hallstatt and La-Tene (though not exclusively so, because U152 clearly also has an Italic component), this raises the question why it is not common there today.

Maciamo brought up the good point that this strong concentration of U106 might have arrived in Bavaria/Austria from a large-scale migration during the migrations period, which upon contemplating I find quite convincing: Maciamo brought up a very strong case for this that the Bavarians/Austrians obviously speak a Germanic language today, whereas looking from Antiquity we would expect these areas today to speak a Romance language like the French do.

It would seem to me that the raeti where u-152 while the vindelici ( bavarians ) where u-106. If this is correct, then we must assume that gallic-celts where different from germanic-celts ( as per a thread I started in eupedia)

There clearly is relatively little continuity between the Vindelici and the Bavarians/Austrians, except a few towns such Bregenz (Brigantium) or Kempten (Cambodunum), primarily because this was a frontier area that was frequently ravaged in the subsequent centuries. There is a reason why the province of Vindelicia was lumped to the province of Raetia later in the Roman period.

What also speaks against your idea, in my opinion, is the fact that you forget the situation further to the north: the Boii for instance originally dwelled in Bohemia (which derives it's name from the Boii), and the Boii also migrated into the Pannonian basin, to Galatia and Italy (the city of Bologna derives it's name from the Boii). A part of the Boii also migrated into Gaul alongside the Helveti during the Gallic Wars.

The original 'Bohemian' Boii were conquered by the Germanic Marcomanni in the 1st century BC and subsequently the region was heavily settled by Germanic tribes, which reached the Danube by the 1st century AD. Strabo refers to the region as "Boiian Desert".

Also, the connection is frequently made between the name "Bavari" (Baiovarii) and "Bohemia" (Boiohaemum). I think it makes more sense to assume that the modern Bavarians (and Austrians, though Austria obviously was originally part of the tribal duchy of Bavaria) are descended from Germanic tribes who migrated from Bohemia during the migration period.

The more I contemplate this, the more I find Maciamo's explanation for Austrian U106 convincing.

 

[Dorianfinder]

zanipolo wrote, 'The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.'

Celtic was a broad term used to distinguish between Europeans of the typically Western-type [Frisian (West Germanic), Southern Germanic, Iberian & Brythonic etc.] and the Eastern-type [Balkanic, Slavic and Greco-Italic]. When I see the word Celto-Italic I know it not to refer to ancient Italic but the later introduction of Lombard (Frankish Germanic) and Gallic input. In central European terms, Celtic is a very broad and inclusive term that is more a phenotype nowadays than a cultural or linguistic classification. I only use Celtic to refer to Irish Celts and perhaps the Welsh & some Scots. This distinction I make as both the Irish and Welsh have Celtic physiognomy, Celtic dialects and Celtic culture (i.e. druid priests). Europe was heavily influenced by the Roman-Christian age.

 

[Taranis]

zanipolo wrote, 'The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.'

If you mean that the Celtic-speaking never constituted a homogenous ethnic group, I agree.

Celtic was a broad term used to distinguish between Europeans of the typically Western-type [Frisian (West Germanic), Southern Germanic, Iberian & Brythonic etc.] and the Eastern-type [Balkanic, Slavic and Greco-Italic]. When I see the word Celto-Italic I know it not to refer to ancient Italic but the later introduction of Lombard (Frankish Germanic) and Gallic input. In central European terms, Celtic is a very broad and inclusive term that is more a phenotype nowadays than a cultural or linguistic classification.

"Italo-Celtic" is a linguistic term. It generally refers to the close relationship of the Celtic and Italic language families and common innovations. Some other, non-Celtic and non-Italic languages such as Lusitanian and Venetic also share these innovations. Although it is disputed amongst linguists if there was an Italo-Celtic proto-language, it is clear that the Celtic and Italic languages have a lot of commonalities which argue for a close proximity between the area where the Celtic and Italic languages originated. Some people have also suggested the Beaker-Bell Culture as the original speakers of Italo-Celtic languages. Also, generally, I find any phenotypical distinction completely nonsensical.

I only use Celtic to refer to Irish Celts and perhaps the Welsh & some Scots. This distinction I make as both the Irish and Welsh have Celtic physiognomy, Celtic dialects and Celtic culture (i.e. druid priests). Europe was heavily influenced by the Roman-Christian age.

I must admit, I find your definition of Celtic funny because neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.

 

[Dorianfinder]

Taranis wrote, 'neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.'

Your statement suggests a general ignorance regarding the Irish. I said Irish, Welsh and some Scots; the terms Briton, British or Brython are all interchangeable and were introduced for the sole purpose of modern nation building (see United Kingdom) and are too inclusive to mean anything regarding the Celtic culture. These constructs reflect British attempts to isolate Brittany from France as the historical name dispute documents. I prefer to specify regarding the Celtic Irish, Welsh (Gaelic) and Scottish (Gaelic) than lump them into a false group. Irish Celtic Christianity was documented for its 'peculiarities' during Roman times and although the Irish claim Celtic Christian as uniquely Irish the Roman chroniclers did not distinguish between Irish and the rest of the regions inhabitants (so-called Britons). This last observation testifies to the degree of Roman ignorance regarding the Irish as a distinct group, similar to your ignorance I might say.

 

[Taranis]

Taranis wrote, 'neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.'

Your statement suggests general ignorance of the Irish identity. I said Irish, Welsh and some Scots; the term Briton is a construct for unifying the British Empire and is clearly too inclusive to mean anything specific. It also smacks of British attempts to isolate Brittany from France as the historical name dispute documents. I prefer to specify regarding the Celtic Irish, Welsh (Gaelic) and Scottish (Gaelic) than lump them into a false group. Irish Celtic Christianity was documented for its 'peculiarities' during Roman times and although the Irish claim Celtic Christian sources as Irish the Roman chroniclers did not distinguish between Irish and the rest of the regions inhabitants (so-called Britons).

I'm not ignorant of the Irish identity. The Irish considered themselves as "Gaels", not as "Celts". Which is exactly my point. The "Celtic" identity of the Irish is a fabrication of modern times.

You have a point that the Brythonic identity is essentially also a modern concept (based on linguistic affiliations), but this only enforces my point: that the concept of "Celticity" (that is, a common "Celtic" identity of Irish, Manx, Scottish Gaels, Bretons, Cornish and Welsh) is a fabrication of modern times.

Usage of the term "Celt" (Latin "Celtae", Greek "Keltoi") was generally used only for the Gauls, as well as their eastern cousins. Likewise, it was inconsistently used for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula. The only Celtic-speaking peoples who, in Antiquity probably considered to themselves as "Celts" were the Gauls and related peoples such as the Norici and the Galatians.