origin of Celtic and Germanic tribes

But please who can give me answer? I read testerday a website in which
it has been written that the Slavic R1a came from Russia and the R1a
(UK, Ireland and Scandinavia) originated in the Balkan. See the messages
of yesterday with website.
I don't have time to do that, but look through Eupedia archive there is a map of battle axe culture, central and north Europe. It was dominated by R1a and it extends through east to Ural mountains, and the Balkans are not included. It also corresponds exactly with herding cows and lactose tolerance map. I couldn't find any earlier settlements of R1a in central, south and north Europe. Looks like they cam from the east.
 
But did you read the Secher Bernard 's message from yesterday? See
the link with website "Genealogy". According to this message the
bearers of haplogroup R1a (Scandinavia and UK) originated from the
Balkan and not from the Ukraine.

Erik

Haganus : I don't think that R1a Scandinavian comes from the Balkan if Mr Secher said the Balkan this is again a wrong information so this man is used to that kind of bullshit :cool-v:
 
While R1b1b2 is most common in western Europe, some other lineages thought to have been brought into Europe by Neolithic farmers tend to be most frequent in the Near East, where the farmers started their journey. Their frequency in populations drops as one moves from the south-east to the north-west of the continent, the route taken by the agriculturalists.

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2010/100126.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119133508.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news183129440.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467623.stm
:LOL: We have already spoken about Balaresque paper. Once more Willy, you have no argument.
You forget Willy, that R1b1b2 ht15 emerged in copper age. The ancestors of ht15: ht35 lived in the east. So R1b1b2 arrived in Western Europe in copper age, not in neolithic times.
 
this man is used to that kind of bullshit :cool-v:
Insults is the speech of those who has no argument... Willy is used to insults because he asserts always the same things without any argument, and so he cannot support any discussion (this thread is a good demonstration).

I stop to speak with you Willy: your are just a poor guy!
 
:LOL: We have already spoken about Balaresque paper. Once more Willy, you have no argument.
You forget Willy, that R1b1b2 ht15 emerged in copper age. The ancestors of ht15: ht35 lived in the east. So R1b1b2 arrived in Western Europe in copper age, not in neolithic times.

Here is an other scientific study who support Renfrew's theory :
Gray and Atkinson (2003) - by glottochronological arguing, (using phylogenetic techniques from evolutionary biology) - dated PIE to the 8th or even 9th millennium, concluding that their findings support Renfrew's theory over the Kurgan model.
 
Last edited:
:LOL: We have already spoken about Balaresque paper. Once more Willy, you have no argument.
You forget Willy, that R1b1b2 ht15 emerged in copper age. The ancestors of ht15: ht35 lived in the east. So R1b1b2 arrived in Western Europe in copper age, not in neolithic times.


- If you know well your IE readings you should see that there is a serious problem to date the Indo European language in Gimbutas 's work and the estimated age or R1b1b2 ht15 in Europe so I am not sure you got it .

- R1b1b2 ht15 (some subclades of h15) emerged on Western Europe during the cooper age this is probably right so it does not mean "arrived from somewhere" to Europe . Excuse me Sir but you have a problem to understand the concepts .

- I can see on Eupedia :
M269​
R1b1b2 (R1b1c)
9,500 ybp​
Western Europe Italo-Celto-Anatolian
 
Last edited:
Insults is the speech of those who has no argument... Willy is used to insults because he asserts always the same things without any argument, and so he cannot support any discussion (this thread is a good demonstration).

I stop to speak with you Willy: your are just a poor guy!

Sir Secher , my argument are just scientific studies on R1b1b2 I do not see the same in your argument to convince me !
Your I.E theory is just some wind mixed to the haplogroup R1b1b2 ht15 and Indo European wrong Gimbutas 's ideas.
 
Last edited:
if i can add a few words. why r1b couldn't come via old turkey and across the Mediterranean, in ships and through land speaking IE and with the concept of agriculture while r1a, also IE, would originate north of the black sea and then expand. Gimbutus theory is correct, but only when stuck against northern type of IE and r1a. It hardly relates to r1b, because there is not much r1b north of the Black Sea. Besides, in IE mythology and language agriculture is well represented. No reason to make it nomad-only.
 
"There is not much R1b on the northen black sea" : CORRECT !

1 ) This is why that's difficult to associate R1b1 to the I.E according the Gimbutas 's theory So as you say in the IE mythology and language farming is well represented there is no reason to make it only nomad .

2 ) R1a match with Gimbutas and R1b match with Renfrew the " truth " is probably a mixture of that two hypothesis .
As we know according a recent study the IE languages are much more older than claims Gimbutas and this fact support Renfrew ' s hypothesis .

3) Some R1a tribes may have to come to Iran and India long time after the setting of the Atlantic haplogroup R1b1b2 ht15 on Western Europe . R1a - R1b1b2 ht15 paths are separated in time and space .

4) The R1b1b2 migration from Anatolia to Western Europe is clear according DNA evidence and also support Renfrew 's theory .

5) We must separate the " Indo-European ideology " according Gimbutas's view to the Indo European language .
All these wrong ideas about " patriarchal " and " matriarchal society " etc .. associated or not with Indo-European languages must be rejected. IE is only a linguistic concept !

6) Human cultures are not absolutely " warlike " or only " agricultural " the reality is more complex and we can see more of a mixture or an organization of these two functionalities precisely found among people who speak IE languages .

7) By definition language is transmitted in various types of human groups and at different times .

8) The R1a haplogroup seems mostly to be associated to a pastoral way of life . R1b1b2 haplogroup is seen as earlier Anatolian farmers. Some warlike powerful societies may have formed later within those two groups during the bronze age and further the Iron age .

9) Bronze and iron origin start in Caucasus so we notice a late spread of these technologies on the Western Europeans R1b1b2 comparing to the early Near East advanced civilizations . There was not a " R1b1b2 ht15 - IE Pontic " invasion on Western Europe. According Colin Renfrew this is a naive point of view .

My arguments are not univocal bibliographic references as Mr S.. proposes but are based on last DNA and linguistic scientific studies .
 
Last edited:
i came across this map of germanic tribes 400AD

http://www.rollintl.com/roll/germanics.htm

No scirii

LAke constance is Lacus Venetus ( named after Venetic script found there)

The bastanae and Peucini are missing

Vindelicia is not regarded as a germanic tribe

Silingae(i) are south east of burgundians and are a gothic tribe
 
I recently found a map on german tribes in link below


Just wanting to ask , that there are some names in larger print indicating to me, that the smaller printed tribes are branches of the larger print.

http://www.rollintl.com/roll/germanics.htm

other things I noticed

-Venedae ( venedi) are the baltic lithuanians , prussians or estonians

- sarmatians are very northernly , they might be west-slavs

- vindilicia , noricum are not germanic

- lagus Venetus , means venetic lake , strabo could be correct in indicating the venetic where there as well as recently found script OR are Vindelicia also venetic?
 

This thread has been viewed 72112 times.

Back
Top