R1b S28 and R1b S116 Best Bronze and Iron age warrior DNA marker

[Fire Haired]

Maciamo(head of Eupedia) just made a thread which shows a map of Italo Celtic Y DNA R1b S116 .



As you can see it dominates western Europe most Italo Celtic R1b S116 spread in the Iron age. proto Germanic Italo Celtic speakers with Y DNA R1b L11/P310 migrated to central Germany from the Steppes(central Russia) first about 5,000 years ago.

The Italo Celts split from Germanics about 4,500ybp in Germany. Germans split into R1b S28/U106 and migrated towards Denmark and southern Scandinavia . The Italo Celts split into R1b S116 and migrated towards Austria and France.


The Italo Celtic languages and R1b S116 3,200ybp only existed in modern Austria, Switzerland, most of modern day France, and possibly Britain and Ireland. Italo Celts in the Urnfield culture around modern day Austria 3,200ybp with R1b S28/U152 where some of the earliest Iron workers in Europe and the world.

Iron triggered Italic R1b S28/U152 invasion and conquering of Italy from Austria and Slovania 3,200-3,000ybp and Hallstat/La Dene Celtic R1b S28/U106 invasion and conquering of Iberia, France, parts of eastern Europe, and central Turkey. The Hallstat Celts conquered France in more of a Culturally way because most Italo Celtic R1b S116 in France is not R1b s28/U152 but the Hallstat Celts from Austria still where the dominate group.

R1b S28/U152 is the marker of these very early Iron age beast Italo Celtic warriors from central Europe

Here is a map of R1b S28/U152.



In my opinion the Iron age Italo Celts warriors are one of the greatest warriors in history. They completely dominated western Europe. The ancient Celts still had the traditional Italo Celtic culture and lived in the areas Italo Celts began.


It is not a surprise the Celts where known as wicked warriors. The Romans and Greeks write about Celts actulley conquering people groups like the Etruscan's the same way earlier Italo Celts did. The Celts Still had that warrior culture and fighting spirit earlier Italo Celts did.

Here is a map of the furthest expansion of the Celts almost all of these areas they conquered in the Iron age.





Here are some modern depictions of Celtic warriors

Ancient art depicting Celtic warriors


Almost all of these statues where made by Greeks and Romans of Hallstate/La Dene Celts. Who all originated around Austria and had been migrating and raiding many areas in Europe. All of them most likely had R1b S28/U152. The Greeks and Romans where very big enemies of these Celts. So most of these statues where made to celebrate victories they had over Celts.

As u can see almost all of the warriors are naked. This was a tradition for Celts naked warrior depictions have been found in Austria dating back 2,800 years. So it might be a Italo Celtic tradition that started in the Iron age, R1b S28/U152 Urnfield culture.







It was Celtic tradition to kill your self and your wife instead of becoming a prisoner of a ememy. Celtic tribes would commit mass sucide when lossing a major battle.


This is the type of Gaulic warrior Ceasar most likely fought. This statue was made in 100bc many Gauls had been influenced by Rome and the Mediterranean world. So they left the tradition of fighting naked. Instead they had very advanced Armour. They also began to Cut their hair short and shave their facial hair. He probably had R1b S116 but not R1b S28/U152

Roman coins depicting Gaulic prisoners. They where apart of Hallstate/La Dene culture but most likley had a different R1b S116 subclade than R1b S28/U152. Or they had another haplogroup like G2a or I2a1a.

It was traditional for Celtic warriors to spike up their hair for battle it also made their hair a yellowish white color. Warriors all over the Celtic world it probably went back over 3,000 years.


a video which reconstructs Celts in battle(exaggerated) from the show deadliest warrior so it also has many parts with Persian Immortals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVnKojz_z-U&feature=player_detailpage<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVnKojz_z-U&amp;feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">


Video trubute to Celtic warriors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbm0v...yer_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMN2z...yer_detailpage


It was these type of warriors that dominated bronze age and early iron age western and central Europe. The Celts even as recent as 2,200ybp where still conquering people and spreading their language if Romans(who where also Italo Celts but left the Italo Celtic culture) did not conquer the Celtic world. The Celts probably would have conquered most of eastern Europe and much of Italy(which was already Italic). It was warriors like Celts Romans and Greeks knew that spread R1b S116 and the Italo Celtic language.

In my opinion early iron age Italo Celtic warriors are the second greatest warriors in history. The greatest i think where the Roman centurion they dominated much more and had a long lasting empire for about 500 years. The Romans where Italic but from what i know they had lost the original Italo Celtic culture and where Greekified.

Romans though had a very strong warrior culture that went back to early Italic tribes and the founding of their city 2,753 years. Also Romans had mainly R1b S28/U106


The roman military was not like traditional Italo Celtic military. It was organized they had ranks, the solders where paid, not all the men in the tribe where forced to be warriors, they fought in battle as one unit not 5,000 men going on their own path. It took Rome hundreds of years to conquer Italy they conquered other Italic tribes, Celtic tribes in Italy, and non Indo European mid eastern Estrucans. They had all of Italy by 218bc.

After that Rome conquered almost all of western Europe(which was just about all Celtic), much of eastern Europe mainly the Balkans, and the Mediterranean coast of north Africa and the middle east by 117ad.

here is a map of Rome's greatest extent in 117ad


The Roman military dominated like none other in history. No one could beat them the Romans defeated the greatest warriors of Europe, middle east, and north Africa. The Roman military was tougher, bigger, and smarter than any in the world.

They where in my opinion 10 times better than any warriors in India, China, or any where else in the world at that time. The western and eastern Roman empire existed from 27bc-476ad even after being constantly attacked by powerful enemies at their borders.

Here are modern people in Rome dressing in ancient Roman warrior equipment.



Ancient Depictions of Roman warriors

Roman warriors fighting Thracen tribes in modern day Bulgairia.





Julis Ceasar possibly the greatest genral of all time.






Roman pot celebrating victory over Germanic tribes.

Video tributes to Roman warriors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lT8y...yer_detailpage


In my opinion the Bronze age R1b S116 and mainly early Iron age R1b S28/U152 Italo Celts where the greatest warriors of their time. And the ancient Romans in the late Iron age who spoke a Italic language and had mainly R1b S28/U152 where the greatest warriors in history.

So from 1,200BC-476AD the greatest warriors carried mainly Italo Celtic R1b S28/U152 and other R1b S116 subclades 1,200BC-476AD is pretty much the whole European and middle eastern Iron age. R1b S28/U152 is what i call the beast Iron age warrior marker. Other R1b S116 subclades count as beast Iron age and Bronze age warriors.




30-50% of modern western European men direct paternal line goes back to these warriors. This does not mean 30-50% of their ancestry just a direct line. Modern Day Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish(mainly highlander Scottish) and Britanny people have almost 100% ancestry from early Italo Celts.

French,Swiss, alps people, and north Italians probably have the most ancestry Iron Age R1b S28/U152 Italo Celts. Mainly people in central France and Switzerland because that is where R1b S28/U152 began. north Italians got a significant amount of mid eastern blood during the Greco Roman age, French and Swiss got a alot of mid eastern blood while being apart of the Roman empire.

All modern western Europeans at least partial descend from Italo Celtic warriors. Then of course i am not even mentioning Germanic R1b S21/U106. It was the Germanic Italo Celtic speakers from the steppes(central Russia) who brought R1b L11/P310 to western Europe and also most likely brought red hair 5,000ybp. Then Germans split into R1b S21/U106 Italo Celts split into R1b S116 about 4,500ybp. German warriors conquered Denmark and south Scandnavia 4,000ybp but they did not complete replace the native Y DNA which was I1a2 and other I1 subclades. Germans warriors also are one of the main reasons the Roman empire fell. After Rome fell western Europeans where defenseless they had lsot their traditional celtic culture and depended on Romes military. So Germans conquered all of western Europe(except Scotland and Ireland) after Rome fell and migrated to almost every spot in Europe raiding and conquering.

Then of course the Germanic Vikings who where the last Europeans to truley keep their traditional Indo European culture and not become Romanized. Vikings mainly came from the begging of Germanic culture and the center of the Germanic world Denmark they where probably the best warriors in Europe at that time. They raided most of western Europe, Slavs in Russia, and Muslims in Iberia. Vikings spread Y DNA R1b S21/U106 and I1a2 so those are Germanic Warrior DNA markers.

[adamo]

R1b R-S28 is primarily linked to gallic tribes (Arverni,ambarri,cenomani,senones,bituriges) belgic tribes (lingones etc.) and swiss tribes (helveti for example.) at some point or another R-S28 poured from the swiss/bavarian alps into italy, what remains to be told is wether even the original romans where high u152 or if it was a result of later gallic invasions, either way, for the past several thousand years, 50-60% of italian males are R1b, most is u152

[Maciamo]

I am glad to see some improvement in your spelling (spell checker ?), punctuation and length of paragraphs, Fire Haired. It may not seem important to you, but it makes a real difference for people reading your posts. Watch out that 'where' is used to ask questions (like all adverbs/pronouns starting with wh-) about a place, while 'were' is the past of 'are'.

I mostly agree with what you've written. The Celts may have been brave warriors but they were too individualistic and lacked discipline and organisation (a bit like modern speakers of Romance languages). The Romans were much more organised and team-spirited (more like modern German speakers, in spite of any genetic connection), which assured their military success. The Romans were probably the best warriors of their age since they won against pretty much anyone they fought (except Germanic tribes, but that may be due to a lack of trying because their cold land was not worth the trouble for the Romans).

I explained before that the Romans were allied to many Gaulish tribes while fighting others, which greatly facilitated their annexation of Gaul. The Gauls readily adopted Latin language and Roman culture and customs because they were relatively close cousins and the Gauls respected the more 'civilised' Roman ways. In contrast, North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean never became predominantly Latin-speaking regions, as they spoke languages too different from Latin, and ordinary folks just couldn't learn Latin properly.

[Fire Haired]

adamo

Romans spoke a Italic langauge which is in the same family as Celtic so u should except to see alot of R1b S116 subclades like R1b S28 in Italy. The first Indo European culture in Italy was Villnovan culture which migrated to Italy from the alps and i think Slovania about 3,200-3,000ybp. It is the brother to Celtic Hallstatt culture both where some of the earliest Iron makers in the world. Celtic Hallstatt had R1b S28 we know this because today the areas they migrated to in eastern europe and central Turkey have R1b S28. Also R1b S28 is very popular in the area where Hallstatt culture began and the area where Hallstate and Villnoven culture father existed.

So it is not a suprise R1b S28 is so popular in Italy mainly in areas Villnovaen existed. There is no doubt that R1b S28 and the Italic language came to Italy with Villnovaen culture (Rome was born in villnovaean culture in 753bc). There was Gaulic presence in Italy it was La Dene/Hallstate Gauls Rome around Austria who where already full of R1b S28. I doubt they made a major genetic influence on northern Italy. Maybe they did i dont know.

[Fire Haired]

Maciamo, yes i do use spelling check a lot. Thanks for the advise on where and were.

Actually Germans and Romans are genetically connected R1b L11/P310 which comes from proto Germanic Italo Celtic speakers. I doubt cold weather is what stopped Romans from conquering Germans. Germany is not that much colder than Britain or northern France. The Romans probably saw no use to conquering Germans it would be a waste of man power same reason they did not conquer Ireland and Scotland.

The Gauls language had been separated from Romans language for over 1,500 years. The Gauls kept a very traditional Italo Celtic culture while Romans were influenced by Greeks and other Mediterranean people so they lost the traditional Italo Celtic culture. There were probably some traditions Gauls and Romans had that where similar but very few.

Romans saw Gauls as foreign they had no idea their languages where related. Also genetically Gauls and Romans where very unrelated sure both had high amounts of R1b S116 but that is just a direct lineage Romans were mainly descended of pre Italic people who lived in Italy and also had significant amount of middle eastern. It would have been much easier for Greeks to learn Roman culture than for Gauls. I am sure Gauls looked up to Roman civilized culture like people today look up to America and Europe but they hated Rome with a passion they would have learned roman culture because they had too. From what Ceasar says Gauls where already being Romanized before he conquered them they had started a coin system and where becoming organized and civlized. I showed the difference between statues of gaulic warriors from 300bc and 100bc. The Gauls where actulley pretty advanced and civilized by the time Cesar conquered them they probably would have formed city states by the AD's. Ceasar also said the Gauls in the old days where very war like and tough but he said civilization made the everyday Gaul much softer and it was easier to conquer civilized Gauls. The Belgae in far northern Gaul he said where the toughest because they where farthest away from civilization.

Also that the Germans where conquering Gaulic land in eastern France and that Gauls in the old days probably meaning 300bc used to conquer Germans. This might mean Germans where already in Germany in 300bc like i was trying to say before. Also i want to make the point that Hallstatt/LA Tene Celts showed the same type of migrations and invasions earlier Italo Celts did. Celts still had the same type of culture as Urnfield and Unetice culture. The Celts from before 200bc i think had the same warrior culture that the italics that conquered Italy had and the Celts who conquered the British isles. Romans and Greeks wrote books about Celtic invasions and Celtic warfare this will give an idea of how Italo Celts and Germanic speakers conquered western Europe.

I have noticed everywhere Indo Europeans went they dominated there was something about Indo European culture that made them dominate.Indo Europeans did not just spread language they spread Indo European religion, Indo European culture like Kurgen burials, Indo European weapons like chariots. I Think there is a indo european war culture and warrior mind set which is the main reason they conquered so much. I think it is possible to figure out what that Indo European warrior culture was. These are some of the reasons i think Indo Europeans dominated and conquered 1. nomadic lifestyle, 2. warrior culture, 3. Most important Gods are war like for example Indra and Thor, 4. when competition for resources with other tribes comes up indo Europeans win, 5. Advanced technology that can be used for war and other parts of life there are probably many other reasonsSomehow this Indo European type culture started around the Steppes (central Russia). I know u think Indo European langauge started in the north caus mountains but i think the culture started in Russia and Ukraine and indo European languages where spread by those people. The Indo Europeans 6,000ybp where a mix of differnt ethnic groups around Russia and Ukriane. I just heard they had pigmentation genes from 6,00 year old indo european cultures in russia they said they where white and had almost all brown eyes and the people in that area today are white and have almost all brown eyes. I think the non Slavic ethnic groups in volga Russia directly descend from very early indo europeans. Also Urlaic comb cermic culture conquered indo European yamna culture about 4,000-5,000ybp today people in that area are uralic but i think they descend from yamna people.Also it seems red hair in western Europe is from Indo Europeans. also Indo Iranians who migrated to Asia also had red hair. Today the uralic udmurt people in volga Russia who i think descend from yamana culture are evidence red hair was very popular in some early indo European cultures. red hair probably only existed in some indo European ethnic groups. Indo Europeans and udmurt people probably hold the key to the origin of red hair. i think red hair began in Paleolithic hunter gathers around volga Russia 12,000-20,000ybp then indo Europeans spread it.sorry i got off topic.

[Maciamo]

Actually Germans and Romans are genetically connected R1b L11/P310 which comes from proto Germanic Italo Celtic speakers. I doubt cold weather is what stopped Romans from conquering Germans. Germany is not that much colder than Britain or northern France. The Romans probably saw no use to conquering Germans it would be a waste of man power same reason they did not conquer Ireland and Scotland.

Yes, there is a distant genetic relationship between Germanics (esp. continental) and Romans.

The Gauls language had been separated from Romans language for over 1,500 years. The Gauls kept a very traditional Italo Celtic culture while Romans were influenced by Greeks and other Mediterranean people so they lost the traditional Italo Celtic culture. There were probably some traditions Gauls and Romans had that where similar but very few.

The Italic migration could have taken place circa 1200 BCE. So at the time of Caesar, the Gauls would have been separated from the Italics about 1150 years. However there were also lots of Gauls who settled in northern Italy and Romans who settled in Mediterranean France, so the two had been close neighbours for a while before Caesar and knew each others well.

The Celts and Romans shared Indo-European culture and traditions, notably their polytheistic pantheon (like with the Greeks, only the names were different, but the gods were roughly the same). Militarily, both Celts and Romans used similar Indo-European chariots, Hallstatt-style helmets and long shields (although Roman ones were squarer), and both liked to use a combination of javelins and swords. The Gauls were heavy importers of Roman wine.

The main difference between Gauls and Romans was that the Romans were more "urban and educated" while the Gauls were rural, mostly illiterate, and even sometimes semi-nomadic (migrating with their chariots, like the Helvetii that Caesar first defeated). But like everywhere in the world in history (even recently in Africa and South Asia), illiterate rural people crave to become urban and literate. That's a natural aspiration. That is why the Gauls embraced Roman culture so readily. Immediately after Caesar's conquest, Gauls started adopting Roman names, togas and lifestyle. Caesar even made some Gaulish warlords senators in Rome. If he had thought of them as lowly barbarians he would never have done it. As I said above, many Gaulish tribes (like the Aedui of Burgundy) were allied to Rome.

Romans saw Gauls as foreign they had no idea their languages where related.

That's not true. Latin and Gaulish were so close that they could understand each others speaking their own language (a bit like between Italian and Spanish today).

Also genetically Gauls and Romans where very unrelated sure both had high amounts of R1b S116 but that is just a direct lineage Romans were mainly descended of pre Italic people who lived in Italy and also had significant amount of middle eastern.

Both the Gauls and the Romans were an admixture of Italo-Celtic R1b and Neolithic lineages (G2a, E1b1b, J1, J2, and so assimilated Palaeolithic I2). The Romans probably had more Middle Eastern through the Etruscans and Greeks from Magna Graecia, but the ethnic differences was that that huge. The Gauls also weren't a single ethnicity, just like modern French and Italians aren't a single ethnicity. Actually south-eastern Gauls might have been closer to the Romans than to the Gascons/Basques or the Belgic tribes.

It would have been much easier for Greeks to learn Roman culture than for Gauls. I am sure Gauls looked up to Roman civilized culture like people today look up to America and Europe but they hated Rome with a passion they would have learned roman culture because they had too. From what Ceasar says Gauls where already being Romanized before he conquered them they had started a coin system and where becoming organized and civlized. I showed the difference between statues of gaulic warriors from 300bc and 100bc. The Gauls where actulley pretty advanced and civilized by the time Cesar conquered them they probably would have formed city states by the AD's. Ceasar also said the Gauls in the old days where very war like and tough but he said civilization made the everyday Gaul much softer and it was easier to conquer civilized Gauls. The Belgae in far northern Gaul he said where the toughest because they where farthest away from civilization.

I am aware of the level of civilisation of the Celts. Have you read my Interesting facts about the Celts ?

[Fire Haired]

Yes, there is a distant genetic relationship between Germanics (esp. continental) and Romans.

Germans and Romans are connected by R1b L11/P310 so are Celts and Romans. The Celts where known for blonde hair and light eyes this is what romans said but Romans where dark haired and eyed right there is a genetic difference. Romans mainly decended from the pre Italic's of Italy like Sardine people and they also had significant mid eastern and significant amount from Italic speakers who migrated there from the alps the Italics where genetically identical to Gauls.

The only connection with Celts and Romans is R1b S116 only connection with Germans and Romans R1b S116.

The Italic migration could have taken place circa 1200 BCE. So at the time of Caesar, the Gauls would have been separated from the Italics about 1150 years. However there were also lots of Gauls who settled in northern Italy and Romans who settled in Mediterranean France, so the two had been close neighbours for a while before Caesar and knew each others well.

But didn't Celtic and Italic languages split much earlier. They would have coexisted in austria 3,200ybp. I know Gauls settles northern Italy Romans say those Gauls where foigien. when Gauls sacked Rome which was one of Rome's biggest embarssments. They say the Gauls phiscalley looked differnt. had barbaric clothing and hair styles and acted unlike a tradtional Roman. They saw Gauls as the oppiste of a real Roman. I know Gauls and Romans had connections but i mean this is like a very simple think in history Gauls and Romans are like oppistes. I thought every historian thought that Gauls where the barbarians Romans where the civilized.

Celtic Hallstatt and Italic Villnoaven had alot of trade with each other going back 3,000 years. So i agree that they had always known each other. I remeber a greek writer saying the ligurans where like Romans in race but Celts in lifestyle. maybe he meant they where Italic's like Romans but lived like Celts in culture. Italics 2,800ybp would have probably been just like Celts in culture but then they where totally changed by Greek influnce.

The Celts and Romans shared Indo-European culture and traditions, notably their polytheistic pantheon (like with the Greeks, only the names were different, but the gods were roughly the same). Militarily, both Celts and Romans used similar Indo-European chariots, Hallstatt-style helmets and long shields (although Roman ones were squarer), and both liked to use a combination of javelins and swords. The Gauls were heavy importers of Roman wine.

The main difference between Gauls and Romans was that the Romans were more "urban and educated" while the Gauls were rural, mostly illiterate, and even sometimes semi-nomadic (migrating with their chariots, like the Helvetii that Caesar first defeated). But like everywhere in the world in history (even recently in Africa and South Asia), illiterate rural people crave to become urban and literate. That's a natural aspiration. That is why the Gauls embraced Roman culture so readily. Immediately after Caesar's conquest, Gauls started adopting Roman names, togas and lifestyle. Caesar even made some Gaulish warlords senators in Rome. If he had thought of them as lowly barbarians he would never have done it. As I said above, many Gaulish tribes (like the Aedui of Burgundy) were allied to Rome.

Didn't everyone in the world believe in many Gods except the great stubborn Jews. I guess Gauls and Romans did have similar religions and Romans actulley said so in their writings so that is a good point their connection was probably both where Indo European religions.

Celts where an Iron age people they had very similar tools and weapons to all iron age people in Europe, middle east, and north Africa. exterme muslims use American and European weapons that does not exactly mean we think of each other as related. The weapons thing makes Gauls almost as connected to Parthiens as the are too Romans. Many people around the world love american beer and american food that does not exacley mean they are related.

I guess ur right Gauls probably did aspire Roman civilization. even before ceasar conquered them they were becoming more Roman they started to have short hair, shave more often, Armour, coin system, more organized government. The Gauls would have defintley been able to fit in with the civilized world in the meidtreaen aventulley. So it makes sense they adopted Roman culture. I still dont think the connections Romans and Gauls had went back to early Italo Celts Gauls kept Italo Celtic culture Romans left t and became like Greeks. One obvious reason why Romans did not have traditional Italo Celtic culture is they were civilized and just like Greeks in many ways.

That's not true. Latin and Gaulish were so close that they could understand each others speaking their own language (a bit like between Italian and Spanish today).

i totally agree on that. but langauge is not everything. I wonder how educated Romans reacted when they realized their language was related to Gauls who they thought off as the perfect example of what Rome was not.

Both the Gauls and the Romans were an admixture of Italo-Celtic R1b and Neolithic lineages (G2a, E1b1b, J1, J2, and so assimilated Palaeolithic I2). The Romans probably had more Middle Eastern through the Etruscans and Greeks from Magna Graecia, but the ethnic differences was that that huge. The Gauls also weren't a single ethnicity, just like modern French and Italians aren't a single ethnicity. Actually south-eastern Gauls might have been closer to the Romans than to the Gascons/Basques or the Belgic tribes.

Very good point southern Gauls probably where very related to Romans, They had similar Neloithic ancestry and Indo European ancestry. What does not make sense to me is Gauls where almost always said to be blonde haied and blue eyed but it seems modern french are not blonde haired at all. French are almost as dark haired as Italians or Spainish. Well i gues central France the same area where E1b1b, J1, and J2 are very popular. western france is more light haired and eyed.

Romans say the Celts of Britain had less yellowish hair than Gauls and had a darker complextion period. It seems modern Irish who have over 60% light eyes have a much lighter complexion than French. Maybe eastern French have more Gaulic and less mid eastern than the rest of France i dont know. The Romans though where right on when they said Britons where darker haired modern Irish have almost 80% dark hair and around 10-15% red, 10-20% blonde. so i guess we can trust them on the appearance of Gauls too. I know phiscal appearance is not the main issue for Gauls and Romans to feel related but it did matter.

getting DNA from modern French is what we need to know more about genetics of Gauls because French pretty much are Gauls. I guess they have some later middle eastern and German admixture.

E1b1b J1, and J2 i think are most likley not Neloithic lineages maybe E1b1b. out of 31 y dna samples of Neloithic western Europe 26 had G2a, 4 had I2a1a, and one in Spain had E1b1b V13. I have made a thread about this E1b1b, J1, and J2 in Europe are centered in Greece and Italy they are all three basically distributed the same way which means they came from probably the same event. Also J2 areas of 5% match the Roman empire. Rome spread these middle eastern haplogroups across Europe there are no traces of Italic R1b S28 spread by Romans only Celts. Also i dont think there is any I2a1a or G2a spread by Romans but i could be wrong. The fact that Greeks and Italians on globe13 aust. DNA test have 20-24% west Asian, 15-18% southwest Asian and the European average is 4-8% west Asian, and 1-3% southwest Asian shows they have a very significant amount of middle eastern ancestry from around Israel and Syria.also J1, J2, and E1b1b are so popular in Italy and Greece and it seems Rome spread no European Y DNA or Indo European just middle eastern this might tell something about the ancient Greco Roman world we don't know.

I am aware of the level of civilisation of the Celts. Have you read my Interesting facts about the Celts ?

it is kind of funny now we are talking about the civilization of Celts. Celts in the ancient world the perfect example of not civilized. It reminds me of when people call native american tribes civilizations.

[adamo]

INSUBRES ("Ivo t p3pes, "Ivvov,6poc), a Celtic people of upper Italy, the most powerful in Gallia Transpadana, inhabiting the country between the Adda, the Ticinus and the Alps. According to Livy (v. 34) they appear to have been a branch of the Aedui in Gallia Transalpina, though others assume that they were Umbrians, a view to some extent supported by the form Is-ombr-es. Livy states that Bellovesus and his Gauls, having crossed the Alps and defeated the Etruscans near the Ticinus, found themselves in the territory of the Insubres (also the name of a pagus of the Aedui). Here they built a city and called it Mediolanum (Milan), after the name of a village in their home in Gallia Transalpina. The name Insubres thus appears applied to the inhabitants (r) of the Aeduan pagus, (2) of the territory in Gallia Transpadana occupied by Bellovesus, (3) to the founders of Mediolanum. From 222 to 195 B.C. the Insubres were frequently at war with the Romans. In 222 they were defeated at Clastidium by M. Claudius Marcellus, who gained the spolia opima by slaying with his own hand their king Viridomarus (Virdumarus), and in 194 they were finally subdued by L. Valerius Flaccus

[adamo]

the celts that developped from italic golasecca culture, Isombres, are directly related to Ombrones (Those who survived the rains, first italics) who are directly related to the french gauls

[adamo]

when french Rex ( re in modern italian, roi in french = king) bellovesus crossed the alps with gaul/french tribes 1. Bituriges Cubi, 2. Aulerci Cenomani, 3. Carnutes 4. Aedui 5. Ambarri 6. Senones 7. Lingones ( bellovesus was of the central french bituriges cubi tribe) some 300,000-500,000 men total, he was surprised to encounter a gallic tribe, on the italian side of the alps (Insubres). Furthermore, the title insubres was the name of a "canton" of the south-central gallic Aedui tribe, the insubres arrived hundreds, or even thousands of years before Bellovesus. The Ombrones, another celtic group possibly related to the insubres , where the "first" italians. not to mention Brennus invasion and his sack of rome, and many cultures (Golasecca "geule seche" in modern french, este and polada celts, all linked to unetice/halstatt but particularly la tene gallic culture.)

[Fire Haired]

the celts that developped from italic golasecca culture, Isombres, are directly related to Ombrones (Those who survived the rains, first italics) who are directly related to the french gauls

according to this golasecca culture was very similar to Celts but was Italic and was conquered by migrating Celtic tribes around 500bc. So Celts did not develop from that culture i could not find any info in ombrones and isombres i have no idea how u know so much about all of these different tribes. I remeber reading that a gReek writer said a tribe in northern Italy where Italic by race but Celtic by culture i am pretty sure he was talking about Ligurians. what he means they where not Celtic but they had the same culture. Probably because they still kept the tradtional Italic culture romans lost i am sure that the pre Roman non Greekfied Italic tribes where extremely similar culturally to Hallstatt/ La Dene Celts.

Italic Villnovaen culture and Celtic Hallstatt Culture traded with each other since 1,000. I think Celts had always in some way been apart of the Italic world. But R1b S28 in Italy no doubt comes from italic tribes who migrated ti Italy from the Alps about 3,200-3,000ybp they did have alot of contact with Celtic tribes but i defintley dont think that is where the R1b S28 is from. most R1b S28 is in northern Italy any ways.

[Fire Haired]

when french Rex ( re in modern italian, roi in french = king) bellovesus crossed the alps with gaul/french tribes 1. Bituriges Cubi, 2. Aulerci Cenomani, 3. Carnutes 4. Aedui 5. Ambarri 6. Senones 7. Lingones ( bellovesus was of the central french bituriges cubi tribe) some 300,000-500,000 men total, he was surprised to encounter a gallic tribe, on the italian side of the alps (Insubres). Furthermore, the title insubres was the name of a "canton" of the south-central gallic Aedui tribe, the insubres arrived hundreds, or even thousands of years before Bellovesus. The Ombrones, another celtic group possibly related to the insubres , where the "first" italians. not to mention Brennus invasion and his sack of rome, and many cultures (Golasecca "geule seche" in modern french, este and polada celts, all linked to unetice/halstatt but particularly la tene gallic culture.)

Bellovesus is such good evidence Hallstatt Celts and Italics always knew each other he lived in 600bc. Romans where writing this from oral tradition. The Romans and Italics always knew who the Gauls where. I guess he did croos the alps and fought Italic tribes including Rome also Italic tribes back then probably where not Greekfied and would have had culture alot like Celts. Archielogy points to a Celtic migration into Italy from the alps in 500bc.

ur right there where many Celtic migrations into Italy probably from 1,000-390bc but onece again Italic tribes came from the same source as Hallstatt Celtic tribes so R1b S28 in Italy came from Italics not Celts. Also the area of constant Celtic settlment in Italy is eastern Italy R1b S28 in Italy is mainly in western.

how can Celts be the first Italians.

U really know alot about the Celtic and Italic tribes from before the Roman empire. Can u tell more about migrations and the tribes in Italy before Rome and if they ever mentioned their origin.

[Fire Haired]

INSUBRES ("Ivo t p3pes, "Ivvov,6poc), a Celtic people of upper Italy, the most powerful in Gallia Transpadana, inhabiting the country between the Adda, the Ticinus and the Alps. According to Livy (v. 34) they appear to have been a branch of the Aedui in Gallia Transalpina, though others assume that they were Umbrians, a view to some extent supported by the form Is-ombr-es. Livy states that Bellovesus and his Gauls, having crossed the Alps and defeated the Etruscans near the Ticinus, found themselves in the territory of the Insubres (also the name of a pagus of the Aedui). Here they built a city and called it Mediolanum (Milan), after the name of a village in their home in Gallia Transalpina. The name Insubres thus appears applied to the inhabitants (r) of the Aeduan pagus, (2) of the territory in Gallia Transpadana occupied by Bellovesus, (3) to the founders of Mediolanum. From 222 to 195 B.C. the Insubres were frequently at war with the Romans. In 222 they were defeated at Clastidium by M. Claudius Marcellus, who gained the spolia opima by slaying with his own hand their king Viridomarus (Virdumarus), and in 194 they were finally subdued by L. Valerius Flaccus

all of this stuff about long celtic settlements migrating from the alps in Italy. Totally makes me thing northern Italians must have a significant amount of Celtic blood. I wonder what the culture of the Italic tribes was before Rome how much like Celts where they and how many celts lived in italy. and didn't the Estrucans dominate Italy till like 500bc they ruled Rome. Also do u think the Estrucans where European based on their paintings i do not they almost all had brown skin also ancient writers say they came from Anatolia not Europe.

[zanipolo]

@fire haired

For clarity, La Tene and Halstatt never ever had Germanics involved in it

La tene was gaulish/celtic helveti people and Halstatt had Illyrian-pannonians mixed with celtic people. they created Noric steel.

The germanic people only arrived in the alps 800 years after the creation of these cultures.

So, celts had R1b and the germanics got the alpine R1b once they absorbed the local populations AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire.

When the Celts had superseded the Illyrians, Noricum was the southern outpost of the northern Celtic peoples and, during the later period of the Iron Age, the starting point of their attacks upon Italy. It is in Noricum that we first learn of almost all those Celtic invaders. Archaeological research, particularly in the cemeteries of Hallstatt, has shown that there was a vigorous civilization in the area centuries before recorded history, but the Hallstatt civilization was a cultural manifestation prior to the Celtic invasions and close to the earlier Illyrians. The Hallstatt graves contained weapons and ornaments from the Bronze age, through the period of transition, up to the "Hallstatt culture", i.e., the fully developed older period of the Iron age.

[zanipolo]

all of this stuff about long celtic settlements migrating from the alps in Italy. Totally makes me thing northern Italians must have a significant amount of Celtic blood. I wonder what the culture of the Italic tribes was before Rome how much like Celts where they and how many celts lived in italy. and didn't the Estrucans dominate Italy till like 500bc they ruled Rome. Also do u think the Estrucans where European based on their paintings i do not they almost all had brown skin also ancient writers say they came from Anatolia not Europe.

tell me, are Vindelici also celts - 17 tribes
tell me are Rhaetics also celts - 45 tribes
tell me are Venetics also celts - 6 tribes
tell me are helveti also celts

The etruscans clearly where not celts

answer these and you might know the answer

[Fire Haired]

@fire haired

For clarity, La Tene and Halstatt never ever had Germanics involved in it

La tene was gaulish/celtic helveti people and Halstatt had Illyrian-pannonians mixed with celtic people. they created Noric steel.

The germanic people only arrived in the alps 800 years after the creation of these cultures.

So, celts had R1b and the germanics got the alpine R1b once they absorbed the local populations AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire.

When the Celts had superseded the Illyrians, Noricum was the southern outpost of the northern Celtic peoples and, during the later period of the Iron Age, the starting point of their attacks upon Italy. It is in Noricum that we first learn of almost all those Celtic invaders. Archaeological research, particularly in the cemeteries of Hallstatt, has shown that there was a vigorous civilization in the area centuries before recorded history, but the Hallstatt civilization was a cultural manifestation prior to the Celtic invasions and close to the earlier Illyrians. The Hallstatt graves contained weapons and ornaments from the Bronze age, through the period of transition, up to the "Hallstatt culture", i.e., the fully developed older period of the Iron age.

so ur saying Hallstatt culture is older than the iron age meaning before 3,200ybp. i disagree iron seems to have created the Hallstatt culture sure Hallstatt has a bronze age ancestor which is urnfield but Hallstatt is Hallstatt because of iron. I know that Hallstatt made many invasions and settlements in northern Italy and eastern Europe as far back as 600bc and made constant invasions till 200bc.


ur also saying Hallstatt is a mix of Illyrian culture. just saying modern Yugoslavians have nearly 100% Illyrian ancestry the Illyrians lived in modern Yugoslavia they had over 40% y dna I2a1b that is why eastern Italy which faced Illyrian migrations has high amounts of I2a1b. Hallstatt is Celtic it started in Austria later they invaded Illyrians. I don't know alot about different ancient tribes and how they migrated and what culture they had but saying Hallstatt was started as a mix of Celtic and Illyrian does not sound right.

i guess a Hallstatt Illryain hybrid culture would have popped up from 600-200bc in northern Yugoslavia. Where Hallstatt R1b S28 is found today.

i never said Hallstatt was connected with Germans.

[Fire Haired]

tell me, are Vindelici also celts - 17 tribes
tell me are Rhaetics also celts - 45 tribes
tell me are Venetics also celts - 6 tribes
tell me are helveti also celts

The etruscans clearly where not celts

answer these and you might know the answer

Vindelici lived in northeast Switzerland and southwestern Germany they where most likely La Dene Gauls

Rhaetics lived in the eastern alps Pliny said they where a tuscan race(estrucan area) and where driven out by Gauls. Wikpedia says there are three arguments about their origin based on some Raetic writting

• a member along with Etruscan of a proposed Tyrrhenian language family, possibly influenced by neighboring Indo-European languages. Several recent works support this theory.^[1]
• an independent branch of the Indo-European language super-family, intermediate between Illyrian and Celtic, which was later influenced by Etruscan
• a language isolate, later influenced by Etruscan

Ventic lived in between Italy and Yugoslavia and the southeast alps. It seems they spoke Italo Celtic lagauge there might be exitcnt branches they existed around the alps. Also Illyrian may have been related to Italo Celtic.

Helveti where a very well known group of Hallstatt/ LA Dene Gauls. They lived in the Sweiss Plateau souther switzerland. It seems that people in around the alps where a mix of Celtic Italic and a tiny bit of Illyrian it is hard to say in what way modern people in that area descend from them. It seems the alps was mainly Celtic it may have been Celts who migrated down south into the alps like in 800-200bc who conquered other people. Since the Italic language emigrated to Italy from the alps in the same area Rheatics lived i would not be surprised if there where italics speakers who never migrated to Italy still in the Alps.

[zanipolo]

so ur saying Hallstatt culture is older than the iron age meaning before 3,200ybp. i disagree iron seems to have created the Hallstatt culture sure Hallstatt has a bronze age ancestor which is urnfield but Hallstatt is Hallstatt because of iron. I know that Hallstatt made many invasions and settlements in northern Italy and eastern Europe as far back as 600bc and made constant invasions till 200bc.

I am saying there was no germanic people in southern germany, austria, switzerland or italy until at least 300AD

so Halstatt culture was already long gone

ur also saying Hallstatt is a mix of Illyrian culture. just saying modern Yugoslavians have nearly 100% Illyrian ancestry the Illyrians lived in modern Yugoslavia they had over 40% y dna I2a1b that is why eastern Italy which faced Illyrian migrations has high amounts of I2a1b. Hallstatt is Celtic it started in Austria later they invaded Illyrians. I don't know alot about different ancient tribes and how they migrated and what culture they had but saying Hallstatt was started as a mix of Celtic and Illyrian does not sound right.

i guess a Hallstatt Illryain hybrid culture would have popped up from 600-200bc in northern Yugoslavia. Where Hallstatt R1b S28 is found today.

i never said Hallstatt was connected with Germans.

Halstatt culture was celtic mixed with illyrians ( pannonians ) in western Austria

[zanipolo]

Rhaetics lived in the eastern alps Pliny said they where a tuscan race(estrucan area) and where driven out by Gauls. Wikpedia says there are three arguments about their origin based on some Raetic writting

• a member along with Etruscan of a proposed Tyrrhenian language family, possibly influenced by neighboring Indo-European languages. Several recent works support this theory.^[1]
• an independent branch of the Indo-European language super-family, intermediate between Illyrian and Celtic, which was later influenced by Etruscan
• a language isolate, later influenced by Etruscan

Not logical........rhaetic people where there 4000 years before the etruscans turned up in Italy, so not the same people. Besides Etruscans are not celtic, if you say rhaetic are etruscans, then that says rhaetic are not celtic...conclusion with this is NO celts in the alps...wrong theory.

[Fire Haired]

how do u know Rheatic go 4,000 years before estrucans popped up in Italy. The Estrucans came over 3,000 years ago so ur saying Rheatic where like the last surviving non Indo European cultures in western Europe 2,000ybp. I know who would think estrucans where Celtic Estruucans and Celts are complete opposites. Maybe Theatics where Celtic i think they where either Celtic, Italic, related to Celts and Italics in some way, Estrucans or related to Estrucans, and they could be a unrelated people to esturcans and non Indo European.

Celts dominated the Alps at least it seems like that the alps was almost completely Celtic.

Wikpedia says that the Rheatics spoke a Tyrsenian language which is in the same family as Esturcan and a people group that lived in Turkey/Antolia. Estrucans in their paintings had brown skin the Romans had white skin and the Celts where always described as extremely white skinned. The Estrucans where not native to the Alps or Italy i think they came from Turkey/Antolia.

Etruscan paintings
The two blondes are probably a Celt(who where ofentlley described as blonde haired) from the alps or possibly a Italic from the Alps if there where still some Italics in the alps.


The white people are probably Celtic or Italic or a Etruscan with alot of Celtic and Italic blood


The redhead is deftley somehow connected to Italo Celts or Germans. because red hair was probably spread in western europe by those languages. I would guess Celtic but There are records of roman redheads.


I think it is obvious the Estrucans where not white aka European. it was not a style of art because when showing foreign Latin people or Celtic people they look white.

[zanipolo]

how do u know Rheatic go 4,000 years before estrucans popped up in Italy. The Estrucans came over 3,000 years ago so ur saying Rheatic where like the last surviving non Indo European cultures in western Europe 2,000ybp. I know who would think estrucans where Celtic Estruucans and Celts are complete opposites. Maybe Theatics where Celtic i think they where either Celtic, Italic, related to Celts and Italics in some way, Estrucans or related to Estrucans, and they could be a unrelated people to esturcans and non Indo European.

Celts dominated the Alps at least it seems like that the alps was almost completely Celtic.

Wikpedia says that the Rheatics spoke a Tyrsenian language which is in the same family as Esturcan and a people group that lived in Turkey/Antolia. Estrucans in their paintings had brown skin the Romans had white skin and the Celts where always described as extremely white skinned. The Estrucans where not native to the Alps or Italy i think they came from Turkey/Antolia.

Etruscan paintings
The two blondes are probably a Celt(who where ofentlley described as blonde haired) from the alps or possibly a Italic from the Alps if there where still some Italics in the alps.


The white people are probably Celtic or Italic or a Etruscan with alot of Celtic and Italic blood


The redhead is deftley somehow connected to Italo Celts or Germans. because red hair was probably spread in western europe by those languages. I would guess Celtic but There are records of roman redheads.


I think it is obvious the Estrucans where not white aka European. it was not a style of art because when showing foreign Latin people or Celtic people they look white.

red hair is thracian

Several Thracian graves or tombstones have the name Rufus inscribed on them, meaning "redhead" – a common name given to people with red hair.^[37] Ancient Greek artwork often depicts Thracians as redheads.^[38] Rhesus of Thrace, a mythological Thracian King, derived his name because of his red hair and is depicted on Greek pottery as having red hair and beard.^[38] Ancient Greek writers also described the Thracians as red haired. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired:

...Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.^[39]

Bacchylides described Theseus as wearing a hat with red hair, which classicists believe was Thracian in origin.^[40] Other ancient writers who described the hair of the Thracians as red include Hecataeus of Miletus,^[41]Galen,^[42] Clement of Alexandria,^[43] and Julius Firmicus Maternus.^[44]

[zanipolo]

unless I read this wrong

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181945/

the etruscans came from georgia area and the rhaetics from ossetian lands.

[Fire Haired]

The thraciens defintley did have some red hair but that does not mean they where the only ones. The Germans where also mentioned for having red hair same with Celts. Also Indo Iraniens in central asia like sythiens and cimmerians. red hair most likley started in central russia 12,000-20,000ybp. Then when Indo European languages spread in that area Germanic Italo Celts brought red hair to western Europe and Indo Iranians brought red hair to asia(even though very very few like 0,million people in those areas have signficant Indo Iranian blood or red hair). The udmurts in Central russia have 15% red hair. They speak a urlaic language but 5,000-4,000ybp Indo Europeans in central Russia where conquered by uralic cultures so they defintley descend from early indo Europeans.

Not all Indo European branches had red hair probably only Germanic Italo Celtic and Indo iranien. I am skeptical about how redhead the Thraciens and Dacens where they lived in Bulgaira where srouisly no one has red hair. Bulgariens are very dark haired and have s significant amount of mid eastern blood i cant image just 2,000ybp there where alot of redheads.

but 2,900 year old Greek poems mentioned their red hair proves they did. Maybe the thracens and daceins went extinct genetically but i doubt that.

Since i have red hair i like to try to figure out where it came from. My best theory is 12,000-20,000ybp in central Russia but what goes agianst the Russian Indo European theory. Is Samartiens in Isreal have red hair it is extremly unbelivble. The Samartiens are mentioned in the Bible they where orignalley jews but left the Jewish faith and mixed with gentiles so they where like half jewish half from people who lived near Israel. They have not inter married with non Samartiens for over 2,000 years there are only about 700 left. There have been Aust. DNA tests on all of them there is not a drop of European blood in any of them yet they look so white. I have seen one picture of a redhead Samaritan boy with freckles he also had brown eyes not blue eyes i heard that it is common for them to have red hair. And arnt Jews in Europe known for red hair maybe the ancient Israelite for some reason had some red hair. But the SMartiens are typical southwest Asians by aust. DNA, Y DNA, and mtDNA and if u take the European out of Jews so are they so if ancient Jews where southwest Asians why the heck would they have red hair.

Samrtiens during passover



These ones look mid eastern

[Fire Haired]

unless I read this wrong

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181945/

the etruscans came from georgia area and the rhaetics from ossetian lands.

how do they know for sure there just theoy's all we know is there was something mid eastern or just dark skinned Caucasian about them not light skinned caucasis aka europeans. so possibly north african.