PDA

View Full Version : Romans, Alpine Celts and Belgae... OFFTOPIC about J2b and Indians



observatrix
16-05-11, 23:32
Ehm Maciamo?

You claim that Romans were close to Belgians doesn't make too much sense to me. The present day Keltid influence in Italy is ofcourse due the various Keltid invasions, we all know that. Your claim that Romans are a mixture of Kelts and Middle Eastern people again makes no sense. Romans were Indo-European descendants of most probably Greco-Balkan stock and not Middle Easterners. Let's not forget that newer studies on for example Greco-Balkan J2b probably suggest an Indian origin.

For example:

We already know about the connection of Sanskrit and Old Greek, The cultural connection such as the religious pantheon.
Now genetically could there be a connection in the 2 peaks of high J2b in both regions?

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=81052&d=1305524627

observatrix
16-05-11, 23:33
We already know that haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) A substantial presence of J2b is found in the Balkans and neighboring parts of Greece in the West, and in both tribal and caste populations of the Indian subcontinent to the East. The high variance of J2b2 in South Asia indicates a probable pre-Neolithic migration.


Newer study suggests:

Lately, J2 (M172) lineage has been studies in India in detail. Its study in India shows that its frequency is 19% in Dravidian speaking castes, and only 11% in Aryan speaking castes.Among the tribes, its frequency is 11%.Hence its arrival through northwest Indian corridor into India is ruled out. Because it was found that in the northwest India its frequency is less than that in south Indian caste population. Its good presence in all segments of Indian society proves that either this haplogroup originated in India, or this haplogroup is fixed from very old days in India, possibly since Pleistocene, and not just 8,000 years back.

Sengupta and colleagues (2006) found that age of J2b (M12), which is a branch of J2, is about 17,600 years to 10,000 years (mean age 13,800 years) in India. On the other hand thesame figures for Europe for J2 were only 8,700 years and 4,300 years (mean 6,500 years). That means age of J2b, a descendant of J2, in West Asia and Europe is further less than 6500years. The date of J2b expansion in India is thus much before the supposed date of onset of farming into India. This is enough evidence to suggest that J2 and J2b originated in India.

s 18,000 ybp.Age of J2b (M12) in Anatolia is 8,600years (Cinnioglu, 2004, Table 2, p. 131). And that of its sub-lineage J2b2 (M241) is 13,800ybp (Sengupta, 2006, p. 216). Although Sengupta does not provide age of J2b, yet it must be older than its descendant’s age 13,800 years ago. Thus presence of J2b in India is far earlier than in Anatolia, where J2b is seen at the time of Neolithic at 8,600 years back. Sengupta and colleagues (2006) found that age of J2b (M12), which is a branch of J2, isabout 17,600 years to 10,000 years (mean age 13,800 years) in India. On the other hand thesame figures for Europe for J2 were only 8,700 years and 4,300 years (mean 6,500 years). That means age of J2b, a descendant of J2, in West Asia and Europe is further less than 6500years. The date of J2b expansion in India is thus much before the supposed date of onset of farming into India. This is enough evidence to suggest that J2 and J2b originated in India. Genetic diversity is a marker of age of a haplogroup in any area. HG J2 exhibits a genetic diversity of 0.702 and lineage diversity of 0.999 in India (Trivedi et al 2008).This means an early settlement and insidious origin of J2 in India.

Sengupta (2006) showed that J2 is well distributed in Indian population.Sengupta et al (2006) found that the haplogroup J2 had a quite high variance, and hence deep time-depth in Indian tribes and castes too. Moreover the frequency is higher in the Dravidian speaking south Indians (19%) than the Indo-European speaking north Indians (11%). This doubts the Aryan migration into India from West Asia hypothesis of Bellwood (2003 and 2005). The inference what we can derive from Sengupta and colleagues study’s data is that J2 haplogroup originated in India during Last Glacial Maximum, and migrated out of India when climate permitted. J2 is 18.7% in south Pakistan, the central place of Indus civilization.Lineage J2 and its derivatives are 23% in Iran and 22.2% in Turkey. (Regueiro et al.2006).But their variances are less than in India. Semino (2004) gives 18,000 ybp as the time of origin of J2. The variance was also high indicating indigenous origin of the haplogroup in India. J2 as well as its sub-clade J2b2 show a decreasing variance from India to the Balkans.

Source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72780746...-Indo-European (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72780746/DNA-and-linguistic-evidence-for-Indo-European)

observatrix
16-05-11, 23:36
Furthermore:

"The ancestry of J2e1 is J2, defined by marker M172 was suggested to originate from Anatolia (Cinnioglu et al. 2004), with genesis estimated to be 18.5 +/- 3.5 kyears (Semino et al. 2004). The subsequent mutation J2e–M12 is associated with diffusion into Europe from the southern Balkans (Semino et al. 2004). At present, the final known maker of this lineage is J2e1–M241 (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Shen et al. 2004), which was reported in 0.96% Turkish males (Cinnioglu et al. 2004), 5.22% in India, 2.27% in Pakistan (Sengupta et al. 2006), 6.49% in Nepal Kathmandu and 1.5% Nepal Newar (Cadenas et al. 2006). These distributions suggest the origin of J2e1–M241 may reside within or near the Indian subcontinent. This suggestion is now further supported by the concentration of J2e1 AMELY null among ethnic Indian (Table 1). The J2e1 haplogroup is found in approximately 3% of Singapore Indian, 1.8% Malay and 0% Chinese, while other J2 (non-J2e1) is found in 7.3% Singapore Indian, 2.7% Malay and 0% Chinese (unpublished data). Based on the principle that the accumulation of STR variations within a group of chromosomes originating from the same mutation event could provide an indicative age of the event (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004), we analyzed the Y-STR variation of nulls within similar haplogroup using Singapore database as background. The estimated age of J2-M172 genesis was calculated to be 25.2 +/- 7.2 kyears, while J2e1–M241 was approximately 13.1 +/- 3.1 kyears. The Yp11.2 deletion event was postulated to arise soon after the emergence of J2e1 since its estimated age was 13.5 +/- 3.1 kyears. Among this regional set of J2e1 null samples, a novel polymorphism was identified at Y-GATA-H4 locus (17181855G > A). The frequency of this SNP is similar in both Singapore and Malaysia, with 0.6% Indian and 0% in Malay and Chinese. In comparison to our regional background populations, this SNP represents a phylogenetic branch occurring after the primary J2e1 Yp11.2 deletion event, with an age of about 10.7 +/- 5.2 kyears. Interestingly, we also noted a more recent J2e1 null sub-branch which has self-declared Malay ethnicity, with an estimated age of 3.6 +/- 1.5 kyears, reXecting the social history in our region." Rita Y. Y. Yong et al. - Molecular characterization of a polymorphic 3-Mb deletion at chromosome Yp11.2 containing the AMELY locus in Singapore and Malaysia populations // Hum Genet (2007) 122:237–249 // DOI 10.1007/s00439-007-0389-

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/m102/default.aspx


So the J would not be of Middle or Near Eastern origin. But probably Asian conform with Indo-Europeanism.

So yes sure Indo-Europeans are all related but your claim sounds more like propaganda. Have you ever been to Lazio? The descandants of original Romans can be found there around the city of Rome, near villages. You will see they still have Meditereannean and Dinarid features, and do not look Keltid at all. Their phenotype is too different.

observatrix
16-05-11, 23:38
And yes The West Indo-European dialects are Celtic, Italic and Tocharian. Cousins but not as close as you might think.

observatrix
16-05-11, 23:40
The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages is the same as that which preoccupied Greek studies for the last half of the 20th century. The Indo-Europeanists for Greek had hypothesized (see Dorian invasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion), Proto-Greek language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language)) that Greek originated outside of Greece and was brought in by invaders. Analysis of the lexical items of Mycenaean Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek), an early form of Greek, raised the issue of whether Greek had been formed in Greece from Indo-European elements brought in by migrants or invaders, mixed with elements of indigenous languages. The issue was settled in favor of an origin of Greek in Greece.
A proto-Italic homeland outside of Italy is equally as elusive as the home of the hypothetical Greek-speaking invaders. No early form of Italic is available to match Mycenaean Greek. The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian and Faliscan inscriptions dating to the 7th century BC. The alphabets used are based on the Old Italic alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_alphabet), which is itself based on the Greek alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet). The Italic languages themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language) and somewhat more from the Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) languages. The intermediate phases between Italic and Indo-European are still in deficit, with no guarantee that they ever will be found. The question of whether Italic originated outside of Italy or developed by assimilation of Indo-European and other elements inside of Italy, approximately on or within its current range there, remains. Sylvestri says:[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages#cite_note-sylvestri325-3)

"...Common Italic ... is certainly not to be seen as a prehistoric language that can largely be reconstructed, but rather as a set of prehistoric and proto-historic processes of convergence."
Bakkum defines Proto-Italic as a "chronological stage" without an independent development of its own, but extending over late PIE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIE) and the initial stages of Proto-Latin and Proto-Sabellic. Meiser's dates of 4000 BC to 1800 BC (well before Mycenaean Greek) he describes as "as good a guess as anyone's."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages#cite_note-4)

observatrix
16-05-11, 23:44
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areal_%28linguistics%29) proximity of Proto-Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic) and Proto-Italic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic) over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.

zanipolo
17-05-11, 02:49
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areal_%28linguistics%29) proximity of Proto-Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic) and Proto-Italic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic) over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.

then what do you make of the ancient italic language being only umbro-oscan (sabellic) , as it seems that etruscan, venetic, rhaetic, ladin, illyric, sicel, sardo and ligurian are foreign to Italy.
unless you can test genetics from ancient graves, then you seem to be "fishing" for the makeup of italy in genetic terms.
Italy had too many races, migrate or "visit" to determine the real originals. I cannot beleive Italy was void of an ancient race/s.

To conclude, Italy and the balkans seem the hardest areas to plot true ancient genetic groups

Maciamo
17-05-11, 08:49
Ehm Maciamo?

You claim that Romans were close to Belgians doesn't make too much sense to me. The present day Keltid influence in Italy is ofcourse due the various Keltid invasions, we all know that. Your claim that Romans are a mixture of Kelts and Middle Eastern people again makes no sense. Romans were Indo-European descendants of most probably Greco-Balkan stock and not Middle Easterners. Let's not forget that newer studies on for example Greco-Balkan J2b probably suggest an Indian origin.

For example:

We already know about the connection of Sanskrit and Old Greek, The cultural connection such as the religious pantheon.
Now genetically could there be a connection in the 2 peaks of high J2b in both regions?

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=81052&d=1305524627

Why are you bringing up J2b ? This thread is about R1b-U152, which is a dominant haplogroup in both Italy (25 to 40% in Central and North Italy) and Belgium (10%, but 18% in the Romance South). J2b only makes up 2% of Italian lineages (http://italydna.blogspot.com/) and 1% of Belgian ones (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25463-Belgian-Y-DNA-from-the-Brabant-Project). So much for your nice theories.

Have a look at this (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25463-Belgian-Y-DNA-from-the-Brabant-Project&p=356733&viewfull=1#post356733) too.

Taranis
17-05-11, 10:37
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areal_%28linguistics%29) proximity of Proto-Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic) and Proto-Italic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic) over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.

There is a major catch with this theory of commonalities due to "areal proximity": the common Italo-Celtic forms are attested in all branches of the Celtic and Italic languages. This means, the close areal proximity would have have to be between Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic. It's very clear that by the middle of the 1st millennium BC, both the Italic and Celtic language families are already long-since split up (Umbrian is attested from the 7th century BC onward, Lepontic is attested from 6th century onward). This mean, if this was due to "areal proximity" and not though descendant from a common proto-language, it would have to be consdierably earlier.

Also, as Zanipolo noted, there are the various other non-Celtic and non-Italic languages in Italy, in particular Ligurian and Venetic which were neither Celtic nor Italic yet clearly related. There is also the Lusitanian language from the Iberian penninsula, which is usually classified as "Para-Celtic", but also exhibits similarities to the Italic languages thanks to archaisms.

observatrix
17-05-11, 18:02
Why are you bringing up J2b ? This thread is about R1b-U152, which is a dominant haplogroup in both Italy (25 to 40% in Central and North Italy) and Belgium (10%, but 18% in the Romance South). J2b only makes up 2% of Italian lineages (http://italydna.blogspot.com/) and 1% of Belgian ones (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25463-Belgian-Y-DNA-from-the-Brabant-Project). So much for your nice theories.

Have a look at this (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25463-Belgian-Y-DNA-from-the-Brabant-Project&p=356733&viewfull=1#post356733) too.


This was only an example.
There is also 30% R1b in certain tribes in India, so?

The Romans already described the Kelts in ancient texts distinguishing them. And this is not only in looks. The Kelts were described as mostly fair haired and of a tall structure and pale. And don't forget they mentioned the Belgae being one of the dumbest of Keltic tribes they had encountered. They didn't have a hard time conquering the Belgae.

The Romans were of Mediterannean appearance and stock, and closest related to the Greeks and certain tribes where now is the Balkans. Sure there are linguistic similarities between. Roman and Celtic but so there are similarities between Keltic and Germanic and Slavic.

observatrix
17-05-11, 18:05
Greek Gods - The Sanskrit Connection

The myths of Greece and Rome have inspired the people and literature of the West from time immemorial. Though the Gods are originally Greek, their latin (Roman) names have been used more frequently in art and poetry. For example:

Roman name Greek name
Jupiter Zeus
Juno Hera
Minerva Athena
Diana Artemis

Also it is now widely accepted that the classical languages Latin, Greek and Sanskrit have a common source in a much older language, which is extinct today. To illustrate this point it is customary to demonstrate the similarity of the most common words. For example, the word "father" is:

Sanskrit, pitri Latin, pater
Gothic, vader Greek, p�tair

Thousands of such words are there.

Mythologies of ancient India and Greece have some similarities here and there. Some of the vedic gods have counterparts in Greek mythology. Thus Uranus in Greek mythology is Varuna in the vedic literature. Mars is Marut in Indian mythology. But what is not generally known is the astonishing fact that the names of Greek gods and heroes have in a great measure been found to correspond with Sanskrit names of physical things! It is important to emphasize the fact that some of these names are not related to gods or heroes in Indian mythology itself, but merely names of just physical things, though Dyaus is the Vedic creator and sky god and father of Surya the sun god and Agni the god of fire.

A simple list follows:

Greek God/Hero Sanskrit word meaning
---------------------------------------------------
Zeus dyu, Dyaus shine, sky, day; sky god
Hera soar bright sky
Uranus var conceal, cover
Daphne Dahana dawn
Ixion Akshanah one bound to a wheel
Paris Panis night demons
Athene ahana the light of daybreak
Prometheus Pramanthas Stick used to kindle Fire(Agni) (More)

These are some obvious connections. An expert in the field will be able to find many more.

Why this is not known?
Though many linguists have accepted the common origin of Indo-European Languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin) when it comes to Indo-European race we find less agreements (rightly so). Also Indo-Greek connection has been a less explored area than the general Indo-European language link. One reason the Greek-Sansrit connection was under-explored is because of the political prominence of the Roman Empire in the later European and Christian history. Even the Greek Gods were better known by their Roman names.

Once the Romans took political control, Greek Mythology never got the status which Vedic Mythology got in India. "The role of the Mysteries is hard to define since much of their ritual was secret, and at a later date information about them was suppressed by Roman and Christian alike, but we do know that the Mysteries proliferated and dominated Hellas spiritually for more than a millennium , and were the most effective mass religious cult in the Greco-Roman world."


The Greek Link to India, though accepted, has been sidelined by the later Western Researchers. Internet is giving valuable information in this regard. "Perhaps it was not there in the first place, perhaps a basic folk-memory encompassing historical data ranging back some thousands of years was recast in Greece in the mould of myths which had emanated from India along with a handful of the Indo-European sky god personalities. There may even have been other influences from India early in the first millennium BC. ,which we are not aware of, just as there were later influences from India bearing on the philosopher, and the appearance, in the generation of Socrates if not before, of "Aesopic� tales", which are obviously recast from the materials of the Sanskrit Hitopade�a and Pan�atantra."

Some Proofs emerging
In this internet era, more information is out there for public eyes. It's impossible to hide anything now. So recently I came across (2002 Jan) some information underlying what I wrote almost five years ago. But the following was in fact written 125 years ago, though not known to many people!

Alexander Murray, Manual of Mythology (London, 1874), 326-40.
For example, many names unintelligible in Greek are at once explained by the meaning of their Sanscrit equivalents. Thus, the name of the chief Greek god, Zeus, conveys no meaning in itself. But the Greek sky-god Zeus evidently corresponds to the Hindu sky-god Dyaus, and this word is derived from a root dyu meaning "to shine." Zeus then, the Greek theos, and the Latin deus, meant originally "the glistening ether." Similarly other Greek names are explained by their counterparts, or cognate words in Sanscrit. Thus the name of Zeus's wife, Hera, belongs to a Sanscrit root svar, and originally meant the bright sky: the goddess herself being primarily the bright air. Athene is referred to Sanscrit names meaning the light of dawn, and Erinys is explained by the Sanscrit Saranyn.

. . . . .

DYAUS was, as we have already indicated, the god of the bright sky, his name being connected with that of Zeus through the root dyu. As such Dyaus was the Vedic (Indian) rain-god, i.e., primarily, the sky from which the rain fell. That the god-name and the sky-name were thus interchangeable is evident from such classical expressions as that "Zeus rains" (i.e., the sky rains), and meaning a damp atmosphere. In such expressions there is hardly any mythological suggestion: and the meaning of the name Dyaus, � like those of the names Ouranos and Kronos in Greek, � always remained too transparent for it to become the nucleus of a myth. Dyaus, however, was occasionally spoken of as an overruling spirit. The epithet, Dyaus pitar, is simply Zeus pater � Zeus the father; or, as it is spelled in Latin, Jupiter. Another of his names, Janita, is the Sanscrit for genetor, a title of Zeus as the father or producer. Dyaus finally gave place to his son Indra.










What does this say to us? Yes all Indo-Europeans were related linguistically. So were the Romans and Greeks cousins of ancient Aryans in India. Sure. Are the a different tribe? Yes, ofcourse.

Taranis
17-05-11, 18:13
I'd like to point out that reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European "sky father" also existed in Germanic (Tiwaz, later Tyr) and Lusitanian (Revo).

Maciamo
17-05-11, 18:15
This was only an example.
There is also 30% R1b in certain tribes in India, so?

There is no R1b-U152 in India to my knowledge. This subclade is specifically Italo-Celtic, and encompasses the historical territories of the Hallstatt-La Tène Celts and their offshoots (e.g. Belgic Celts and Cisalpine Celts) as well as Italic tribes such as the Latins, Oscans and Umbrians. More discussion about R1b-U152 here
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25962-R1b-U152-S28-more-Gaulish-or-Roman).

Taranis
17-05-11, 18:23
There is no R1b-U152 in India to my knowledge. This subclade is specifically Italo-Celtic, and encompasses the historical territories of the Hallstatt-La Tène Celts and their offshoots (e.g. Belgic Celts and Cisalpine Celts) as well as Italic tribes such as the Latins, Oscans and Umbrians. More discussion about R1b-U152 here
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25962-R1b-U152-S28-more-Gaulish-or-Roman).

Btw, Maciamo, what's your opinion/explanation for the R1b-U152 peak in Poland? The most plausible I've come up with thus far is that the people of the Lusatian Culture (which in itself was an offshot of Urnfield) were, to a considerabler percentage, bearers of R1b-U152. What do you think?

observatrix
17-05-11, 19:33
This R1b only means that Celts have lived in Northern Italy and the Celtic invasions, and has not much to do with the Romans.
Let me remind you again that the Celts were the enemies mostly of the Romans and did not look similar as described in ancient Roman texts. They were 2 different people. Your claim to make them look similar fails "Maciamo"

Besides it is wrong to associate R1b with the spread of Celtic peoples. I agree it is a typical Western European haplogroup but that's it.


Although it is rare in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia), some populations show relatively high percentages for R1b. These include Lambadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambadi) (Andhra Pradesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh)) showing 37%,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Kivisild_et_al._2003-23) Hazara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people) 32%[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Sengupta_et_al._2005-24) and Agharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agharia) (East India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India)) at 30%.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Sengupta_et_al._2005-24) Besides these, R1b has appeared in Balochi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_people) (8%), Chenchu (2%), Makrani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makrani) (5%), Newars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newars) (Nepal) (10.6%), Pallan (3.5%), Punjabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_people) (7.6%) and West Bengalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal) (6.5%).

You want to tell me now that the Agharia of India are close to the Celts aswell?

And even if you want to think R1b in Europe is some sort of Celtic marker,the Gauls (and Germanics) were still the enemies of Roma and they were the ones responsible for the end of the Roman Empire and after this they mass migrated to Italy this is what mostly explains this contribution of these genes.

I'm not going to explain further.

observatrix
17-05-11, 19:39
Besides the common Italian still looks Dinaro-Mediterannean instead of Keltid/Northern in appearance. Let's not talk about Lombardia here which is ofcourse heavily mixed with people from north. Southern Italians (From Lazio to Napels etc) are closest to the original ones and most have still Greek features. (Magna-Grecia)

observatrix
17-05-11, 19:40
This thread is ridiculous.

spongetaro
17-05-11, 19:48
This R1b only means that Celts have lived in Northern Italy and the Celtic invasions, and has not much to do with the Romans.
Let me remind you again that the Celts were the enemies mostly of the Romans and did not look similar as described in ancient Roman texts. They were 2 different people. Your claim to make them look similar fails "Maciamo"

You still don't understand that only R1b U152 is linked with Celts

Taranis
17-05-11, 21:04
Although it is rare in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia), some populations show relatively high percentages for R1b. These include Lambadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambadi) (Andhra Pradesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh)) showing 37%,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Kivisild_et_al._2003-23) Hazara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people) 32%[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Sengupta_et_al._2005-24) and Agharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agharia) (East India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India)) at 30%.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29#cite_note-Sengupta_et_al._2005-24) Besides these, R1b has appeared in Balochi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baloch_people) (8%), Chenchu (2%), Makrani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makrani) (5%), Newars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newars) (Nepal) (10.6%), Pallan (3.5%), Punjabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_people) (7.6%) and West Bengalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal) (6.5%).


Most, if not all, of the R1b in Asia is of the subclade R1b-M73, which is, from the European perspective, an outgroup that separated near the end of the last ice age. I definitely know that the Hazaras are R1b-M73.

European R1b is basically exclusively R1b-M269. Specifically, R1b-U152 is part of the subclade R1b-P310, which in turn dominates R1b-269 in Western Europe.

Reinaert
17-05-11, 21:10
Hey, what about me?

yDNA R1b1b2a2* SNP P312

Am I a Celt or what?

Reinaert
17-05-11, 21:12
This thread is ridiculous.

No thread is ever ridiculous.
Maybe your flood of articles...