New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts. Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.
 
The term Celt was used very loosely by Roman and Greek chroniclers. Much later, during the early years of the Church, in the East the term Celt was used interchangeably with Frank to refer to a Latin Christian and the term Frank was used exclusively to refer to a crusader. Each period and source of chronicle utilizes the term Celt according to period-specific biases/needs. Celt or Frank as terms are still used in a derogatory manner within the East today. The crusaders were often termed Franks but we know that many were from Normandy, Burgundy, Provence and Anjou. The term Frank refers to Western Germanic culture but the words French or Frankryk or any other derivative denotes the region we today know as France. Its a geopolitical and semantic quagmire.
 
All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts.

Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.

Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.

Yes, Gaelic/Goidelic and Brythonic are branches of the Celtic language family, and it is absolutely correct to refer to them as speakers of Celtic languages. But that is not the point. My point is that the speakers of these languages did not consider themselves to be "Celtic" until the 19th century.

The term Celt was used very loosely by Roman and Greek chroniclers.

Yes, it was used loosely, but it was never applied for the Irish or Britons in Antiquity, and it was only appied inconsistently for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.

Much later, during the early years of the Church, in the East the term Celt was used interchangeably with Frank to refer to a Latin Christian and the term Frank was used exclusively to refer to a crusader. Each period and source of chronicle utilizes the term Celt according to period-specific biases/needs. Celt or Frank as terms are still used in a derogatory manner within the East today. The crusaders were often termed Franks but we know that many were from Normandy, Burgundy, Provence and Anjou. The term Frank refers to Western Germanic culture but the words French or Frankryk or any other derivative denotes the region we today know as France. Its a geopolitical and semantic quagmire.

I have never heard about this usage of the term "Celt" before, nor have I seen anybody claim the usage of the term in the medieval ages, or claim that it was interchangable with "Frank". It also utterly eludes me why you bring in the term "Frank" her because it has nothing to do with the Celts. The Franks were a Germanic people who conquered Gaul in the 5th/6th century, and yes, the term "Frank" was also used as a general term for anybody from Christian Western Europe during the medieval ages, but this is completely unrelated to the term "Celt".

EDIT. You earlier claimed this:

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.

This is also not completely true. The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".
 
Last edited:
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 is this reason

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.

what is my idea.

The boii , unless i read wrongly originated in lorraine/alsace area and migrated to 2 places bohemia and north central Italy with other celtic people Semones and lingones. This was pre- Roman expansion into central Italy. They then ended up in pannonia

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.


I agree

Greek script says the Boii where Boetians, but then how far back is this?
 
what is this reason

As I said, it was a permanent frontier area for the Roman empire, and also it was relatively small.

what is my idea.

The boii , unless i read wrongly originated in lorraine/alsace area and migrated to 2 places bohemia and north central Italy with other celtic people Semones and lingones. This was pre- Roman expansion into central Italy. They then ended up in pannonia

There is no evidence that the Boii ever were in Alsace/Lorraine. The Gaulish tribes in those areas were completely different ones such as the Leuci and the Mediomatrici. As far as I understand it, Bohemia was their original homeland, and they migrated from there to Italy and Pannonia.

I agree

Greek script says the Boii where Boetians, but then how far back is this?

I don't know, that does not make much sense. Just because their names were vaguely similar-sounding does not automatically mean they were related.

Completely unrelated, there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.
 
there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.

I must add with a pinch of salt, probably the Venetians who 'owned' Crete for nearly 500yrs and went for a stroll to central Anatolia.:innocent:

Or possibly the expedition of 279BC by the Gauls into Northern Greece.:useless:
 
Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.

The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".

Your reasoning is circular and goes something like this: The Irish only claim they were Celts from the 19th cent. therefore a survey would not tell us if they really saw themselves as Celts in antiquity. Then you go on to say that the Brythonic people in all their glory did not consider themselves as Celtic because some arbitrary people whom the modern Welsh (great source) call 'Pryden' and around and around you go. What are you trying to say? Are you claiming that the Celts did not see themselves as Celts and therefore they were not Celtic? Or are you convinced that the Irish are not a Celtic people?
 
Your reasoning is circular and goes something like this: The Irish only claim they were Celts from the 19th cent. therefore a survey would not tell us if they really saw themselves as Celts in antiquity. Then you go on to say that the Brythonic people in all their glory did not consider themselves as Celtic because some arbitrary people whom the modern Welsh (great source) call 'Pryden' and around and around you go.

It's not circular reasoning. Look into Irish or Welsh literature from the medieval ages. The term "Celt" is completely absent there. The fact alone that ancient authors refered to the Irish as "Iverni"/"Hibernoi" and the British as "Priteni"/"Britanni" and NOT "Keltoi"/"Celtae" should tell you something, namely that they did not consider themselves "Celts".

What are you trying to say, God forbid you may have made an error and the reference for your elaborate fumble is neither Irish nor Welsh.

I have not made any mistake. The idea that the Irish or any other modern Celtic peoples consider themselves "Celts" is a product of 19th century romanticism. To claim anything else is completely unfounded and ahistoric.

Read Caesar's commentary on the Gallic War.
 
I have not made any mistake. The idea that the Irish or any other modern Celtic peoples consider themselves "Celts" is a product of 19th century romanticism. To claim anything else is completely unfounded and ahistoric.

You are in error because you claim the Irish are not a Celtic people and never were. You base your claim on what Caesar may or may not have said and a story about the 'Pryden'. Do you always blame others for your mistakes, don't blame me for exposing your revisionist rubbish.

My comment concerning the Venetians was not aimed at you, sorry I should have stated that it was in relation to what zanipolo said, a direct quote of his actually.:LOL:
 
You are in error because you claim the Irish are not a Celtic people and never were. You base your claim on what Caesar may or may not have said and a story about the 'Pryden'. You are the *****, don't blame me for exposing your revisionist rubbish.

I did not claim that they never were a Celtic people. They spoke/speak a Celtic language, by that definition they are Celts. There is no doubt about that. But they never called themselves "Celts" until the 19th century. By your logic, the Vikings refered to themselves as "Germans" because they spoke a Germanic language.

I am not a revisionist in any kind.

My comment concerning the Venetians was not aimed at you, sorry I should have stated that it was in relation to what zanipolo said, a direct quote of his actually.:LOL:

In that case, I will apologize.
 
The fact alone that ancient authors refered to the Irish as "Iverni"/"Hibernoi" and the British as "Priteni"/"Britanni" and NOT "Keltoi"/"Celtae" should tell you something, namely that they did not consider themselves "Celts".

Many names for many different peoples so what, this proves nothing except that ancient authors used the term 'Iverni/Hibernoi' in relation to the Irish. The Greeks were not called Greeks until mutch later, in fact they did not even refer to themselves as Greek but Ellines/Hellenes. Does this reasoning work for you?
 
Completely unrelated, there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.

that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations and hotspot in north Italy might fit idea of Boii, thing is Boii didnot stay to live in north Italy, so their contribution to genetics of the region should be minor, and most important:


Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia..

hotspot in Asia minor seems to be Phrygia and not Galatia...

800px-Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygians

Phrygia location backs up my hypothesys that Franks were earlier known as Phrygians (as attested in Serbian name Fruzi (singular Frug) for Franks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruska_gora) and by myth of origin of Franks themselves that places them among Trojans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks) ...

Phrygians lived in Asia minor and were in turn before known as Bryges who lived in Balkan and migrated from south Albania via Macedonia to Asia minor perhaps explaining south Balkan elevated levels as well..... if you look at known position of Bryges it is north line of this haplogroup spread.... the fact that haplogroup is than spreading further to south speaks that remaining Bryges must have been incorporated in hellenic people rather than into northern barbarians....

Map_of_ancient_Epirus_and_environs.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryges

as for UK, well there was tribe known as Brigantes there as well..their position is matching northern part of spread of the haplogroup...Brigantes were Celtic...but important to note is that tribes change language and culture under influence of environment, but their tribal name is their identity and key to their historically (and often genetically) dominant origin.....

250px-Map_of_the_Territory_of_the_Brigantes.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes

number 10 here, curiously 11 are Parisi which may again bear relation to Troy...
ironage_native_britain_tribes.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

perhaps, using same cap is no coincidence:
Phrygian cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_cap

Phrygia:
150px-Bust_Attis_CdM.jpg


France:
65px-Marianne_Symbol_of_french_republic_3.jpg

82px-Louis_le_dernier3.jpg

220px-Sansculottes.jpg



not sure about Italy.... could be Germanic people who brought it there.... or it was that from long time ago e.g. Ligurians...
 
that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations

The Balkan and Anatolian civilizations are older than the rest of Europe and this is evident by the variety of Haplogroups from the near east and their higher frequencies within Greece and Turkey. Therefore a frequency of U152 nearing 5 or more percent suggests that its introduction occurred long ago most likely long before 279BC when the Gauls invaded Greece.

if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia...hotspot in Asia minor seems to be Phrygia and not Galatia...

The position of U152 in Anatolia suggests the Eastern Roman city of Antiochia. They called it Antiochia in Pisidia and sometimes Antiochia in Lycaonia. This region was also known as Cappadocia, your map is not detailed enough. Not to be confused with Antiochia in the middle-east.

Phrygia location backs up my hypothesys that Franks were earlier known as Phrygians (as attested in Serbian name Fruzi (singular Frug) for Franks

The Phrygians are believed to have R1b L23- in Anatolia, akin to the Armenian R1b found throughout the region.
 
Well... It still exists. :grin:

strumf+poster+film.jpg


In The Netherlands and Germany there were also little humans called "kabouter/dwerg" and "zwerg".
Meaning dwarf.

They were good folks. Helped people with their work, at night.
But when the evil people came (Romans) they fled to Ireland.

The Franks came into Western Europe when the Roman Empire already started to collaps.
I haven't seen this cap in the Merovingian or Karolingian period.

So, I guess the use of the Frygian cap by the French must have been inspired by the renaissance.
And has nothing to do with the Franks.
 
that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations and hotspot in north Italy might fit idea of Boii, thing is Boii didnot stay to live in north Italy, so their contribution to genetics of the region should be minor, and most important:


Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia..


not sure about Italy.... could be Germanic people who brought it there.... or it was that from long time ago e.g. Ligurians...

There is a possibility that this anatolian marker is the hittite one, since they began to leave to the west as part of the great bronze age migration - 1200 BC. As haplogroups grow in percentages over time, they also retract in percentages over time.
 
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.


R1a protoslavic?

where you extract that?

better read the markers.

R1a is also connected with Non Slavic pop, Like ancient Greeks and Norway and British Islands which share same analogy of subs
R1a is connected with Iran and ancient Persia and armenia giving the explain of Greaco-aryan
R1a is connected also with India,
and R1a is connected with slavic
R1a is also connected with a non IE race in Georgia,
R1a is not a founder effect of Slavic people
 
Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.



Yes, Gaelic/Goidelic and Brythonic are branches of the Celtic language family, and it is absolutely correct to refer to them as speakers of Celtic languages. But that is not the point. My point is that the speakers of these languages did not consider themselves to be "Celtic" until the 19th century.



Yes, it was used loosely, but it was never applied for the Irish or Britons in Antiquity, and it was only appied inconsistently for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.



I have never heard about this usage of the term "Celt" before, nor have I seen anybody claim the usage of the term in the medieval ages, or claim that it was interchangable with "Frank". It also utterly eludes me why you bring in the term "Frank" her because it has nothing to do with the Celts. The Franks were a Germanic people who conquered Gaul in the 5th/6th century, and yes, the term "Frank" was also used as a general term for anybody from Christian Western Europe during the medieval ages, but this is completely unrelated to the term "Celt".

EDIT. You earlier claimed this:



This is also not completely true. The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".


In Byzantine empire and in Greek language there is a big difference,

Greeks call France, Gallia and the language Gallika (gaulish)
but the term Franks means Germanic, not Celtic gaulish, it is a a difference that was from Byzantine times,
so when Byzantines and Greeks say Franks and FranKish means a the Franks and not the gauls,
but when they say Gallia they mean the gauloises and the celtic part of France,
Byzantines made a clear difference of the area south and west of modern France, and the Ron's valley
while they named Paris, Bezanzon etc as Frankia,
same differences were also in other areas,
example in Italy Byzantines made clear diefference of cities,
Venice Savoy Firence Genova, Lombardia considering them as different from the rest of Italians
all the rest Italians were Romans but the above where not Romans

Spain, Spanish were only the Spania area, Catalans the North of Spagna and the rest Iberians,
so when you refer to Spanish in Byzantines you do not mean the castilians but the area south of Bercelona until Gibraltar
(I think modern name is Murcia)
 
All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts. Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.


you are talking about Q-celtic

try to read about P-celtic and compare it with Homeric
 
The Brygians is still a mystery much solved but not clear,

Brygian were considered Thracians, But Greco Brygian is the primary language from were both jump,
Brygian words still exist in Greek language,

we are sure that Brygians had no connection with Pelasgians
so less of J2 G and E-V13
in the area were were Brygian lived and in the area they moved and from History we know that the Brygian that stayed Behind unite with Makedonians to one nation,

the cut of Gordium by Alexander and why Alexander honored Gordium gives the connection,

the Brygian that did not Leave were named Mygdonians,

a search in Mygdonian pop could help us more,
 

This thread has been viewed 174809 times.

Back
Top