Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. Latium (< *Latiom) is most certainly related to "latus" and simply means "flatland". It is as if we had the word Flattium.
    1
  2. Agreed. That is correct. And even George Buchanan in 1582 admitted the Irish and Scottish could only be said to speak Celtic languages because those languages were brought there "by the Celts of Spain who call themselves Celtici". Those wore the original Celts as identified by Herodotus and the only Celts who self-identified as such in their personal items and cemeteries.
    1
  3. The Irish never called themselves Celts and were never called Celts by anyone in ancient history. They're not Celts.
    1
  4. You got it. Saying "Celts don't exist" is the actual ethnic cleansing here. Metatron is ignorantly doing what he preaches against.
    1
  5. Irish and Scottish are not Celts, just Celtic-speakers.
    1
  6.  @wellgaroa  If you're Brazilian then you're likely more Celtic than anyone in the British Isles (and yes I include Ireland in the term British Isles). "Celtic culture" can only rightfully come from a people who called themselves Celts, not from a people who simply speak a Celtic language and as such are only Celtic speakers, not Celts. The Lusitanians are said to be the ancestors of the Portuguese. However, what is not very widely known is that in their tombstones, they never use the name "Lusitani", but they do use the name "Celti". And they don't just use that name, they use that name more than any other tribe in Europe. And that name is not found once in any British Isles. Have a nice day, my Celt friend (real Celt, not "Celtic speaker" who stretches that fact to call themselves "Celts", which would be like Brazilians stretching the fact they speak Romance to proclaim they are the Romans).
    1
  7. He is 100% incorrect. The Max Planck Institute just released a genetic-linguistic study that everyone is talking about and which invalidates what the host of this video just said. This directly contradicts Metatron's idea that there can be no genetic-linguistic studies.
    1
  8.  @stevenkobb156  Listen, the studies that Metatron criticized in the video are garbage and I agree with Metatron's criticism. I just wish he then would have said "now, outside of those news, the Irish are not really Celtic because no one in ancient times ever called them such, and there were actual tribes who called themselves Celts in Iberia".
    1
  9.  @stevenkobb156  If you want to check out the Max Planck Institute research I cited, it's called "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages".
    1
  10. Your TLDR is incorrect, because your definition of "Celtic" is incorrect. Please read Patrick Sims-Williams pivotal paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the West and Celtic from the East". The Irish have nothing to do with the name "Celt". The only people in ancient times who called themselves Celts were Lusitanians as anyone can verify in any free, online epigraphic database by searching "celt" and observing the location of the results.
    1
  11. You are right about it being a Victorian invention (finally someone here who knows this) but not right about the Celts being a "culture" - the name "Celt" was first used natively by tribes in western Iberia - today's Galicia and Portugal - to call themselves in their tribal names and personal names. Herodotus himself first located the Celts "as the westernmost people of Europe bordering on the Cynetes" which is exactly where the Lusitanians are. The Lusitanians called themselves "Celts" in their own tombstones.
    1
  12. The theory that Irish are Celts was also supported by ONE CASE, ONE PASSAGE, namely a misreading of Herodotus. Outside that ONE CASE there was really nothing connecting the Irish to the Celts - and there still isn't.
    1
  13. Exactly. How Metatron missed this is insane. John Collis makes this exact point in his lecture Celts And The End Of Roman Britain, available here on YouTube.
    1
  14. No. None of those people would recognize the word "Celt" if you said it to them. The only people in antiquity who called themselves Celts were the Lusitanians. You can verify that yourself online by going to any epigraphic database and searching for the name "celt". The others were called "Gallic" peoples. Not Celtic.
    1
  15. 13:52 - stop calling Britons "Celtic". The Iberians weren't "Roman" and the Britons weren't "Celtic". Those were simply LANGUAGES they spoke, NOT PEOPLE.
    1
  16. You know so much about how Viking can be used incorrectly as a term but you use "Celtic" outside of linguistics incorrectly as a term for native Briton people and that is wrong!
    1
  17. Why would the Irish be Celtic if no one knew their ancestors as Celts? The people called "Celts" by ancient Greeks and Romans were located in Portugal.
    1
  18. Good question. The answer is, there is proof that there was a Celtic people who called themselves Celts. Go to any epigraphic database online and search for "celt". You will see they lived only in Lusitania. Sorry that doesn't fit with your expectations.
    1
  19. Brazilians are not Latin, not even the Romans had the audacity to call themselves "Latin" and they were the first to speak Latin outside of the Latini tribe who invented the language. I wonder how dare modern people call themselves Latino when not even the Romans called themselves that. Unbelievable amount of disrespect. I wonder why a people would so quickly steal the name of a foreign tribe for themselves instead of using their own native tribal names.
    1
  20.  @TheBusyHoneyBee  "Portuguese, spanish, french, italian are all latin languages from latin people. " And what I'm saying is that that is WRONG. Not even the Romans themselves DARED to called THEMSELVES "Latinos" since they RESPECTED the actual Latini tribe who lived there. They called their language "Lingua Latina" giving credit to the Latini, INSTEAD of STEALING the name of the Latini for themselves and taking credit themselves. Do you see the difference? You should not bathe yourself in the glory of another tribe's name, that is impious. You told a whole story but when were the Latini involved there? Never. Oh, because they birthed the language a long time ago? And how does that give some Brazilian the right to call themselves Latino? Again, NOT EVEN THE ROMANS DARED CALL THEMSELVES LATINO. How DARE YOU?
    1
  21. It is all wrong. Hallstatt and La Tene are not even associated with Celts anymore.
    1
  22. Also he is still repeating outdated Romanticist Victorian Nordicist myths about the Celts, so his attention to detail is not that great. Most of what he said has already been refuted by the current president of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
    1
  23. This is entirely incorrect. Gaul and Gallia are not cognates.
    1
  24. That is what a post-modernist would say. No, "Celtic" is not up for grabs by language and culture. It is an ethnic, tribal name reserved for the western Iberians who first used it for themselves, as you can verify for yourself by searching "celt" in any epigraphic database online.
    1
  25.  @alpharius8264  " @jboss1073 : Uetymology is not the same as definition. By that logic, we should only use the term "Greek" for the inhabitants of the city-state from which the name is derived. " Please stop this desperation of trying to find an excuse fort the Irish to be Celts. They aren't and they never were. No amount of your acrobatic arguments will make the Irish "Celts". People are not named after languages. The example of Greek you gave is not parallel to this Celt issue, because no one is stealing the name "Greek" from anyone - "Greek" is an exonym and the Greeks themselves call themselves "Hellenes".
    1
  26. Why?
    1
  27. "The Irish are certainly Celts in every sense, including racial - they come from tribes of people of archaeological la Tene culture who came to the Irish islands and not just speak one of the Celtic languages" Wrong. That "Hallstatt and La Tene" equals "Celtic" is an outdated theory already - simply read a paper called "an alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams, the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, and you will learn this. The Irish are in no way genetically Celtic as they never called themselves Celt in any time of their history.
    1
  28. "look further understandable that they found what is called "Neolithic farmers" the ancestors of southern Europeans from the Middle East are, of course, not Celts or Indo-Europeans at all. " What nonsense. The EEF people were obviously Indo-European and in no way related to Middle Easterners.
    1
  29. No ancient historian ever called the Irish "Celts".
    1
  30.  @kaankanca4634  Yes. WEF is leftist - they want centralized control and no individual liberties - just like the mustache guy. Both are leftists.
    1
  31. Nothing is being protected here, he is ignorantly contributing to British Romanticists from the 17th century who stole the name "Celts" from the Iberians. Watch Celts and The End of Roman Britain and you will learn something up-to-date.
    1
  32. Irish mythology NEVER mentions the name "Celts".
    1
  33. Almost right. "The term Celtic is meaningless" is another way that the British use to dismiss the real Celts from Iberia.
    1
  34. Elie Wiesel had to choose between those two and he declined the gulag. He went with the not-sees. He says so in his own book.
    1
  35.  @joespinelli5421  Stop lying, right in his book he explains he left with the Nazis before the Soviets arrived. Here is a summary: "While he is in the hospital recovering, the rumor of the approaching Russian army gives him new hope. But the Germans decide to evacuate the camp before the Russians can arrive. Thinking that the Jews in the infirmary will be put to death prior to the evacuation, Eliezer and his father choose to be evacuated with the others. After the war, Eliezer learns that they made the wrong decision—those who remained in the infirmary were freed by the Russians a few days later. With his injured foot bleeding into the snow, Eliezer joins the rest of the prisoners. " "Why would the Nazis send him to a Gulag in 1944?" No one said that, you're just utterly confused. "Your comment makes no sense." Read his book. He chose the Nazis over the Soviets. My point is done here.
    1
  36.  @joespinelli5421  If the Soviets saw him there when they got to the camp where he was which they were approaching, whatever the Soviets would have done to him, he preferred his faith with the Nazis. That's my point.
    1
  37. "Still, the CULTURE which prevails in Ireland is clearly Celtic" This is begging the question. How do you know the culture in Ireland is "clearly Celtic"? You cannot assume what you intend to prove.
    1
  38. Here's my help to children with cancer: stop eating carbs. Look up into carnivore, ketogenic and lion diet. Look up elimination diets.
    1
  39. The "Hallstatt and La Tene" being (pre-)Celtic theory is completely outdated today - please read the paper "An alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams who is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
    1
  40.  @garnix6390  The "Hallstatt and La Tene" being (pre-)Celtic theory is completely outdated in the Archeological Field today - please read the paper "An alternative to celtic from the east and celtic from the west" by Patrick Sims-Williams who is the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
    1
  41.  @garnix6390  Did you read the paper? Saying "Nope it isn't" isn't a refutation. Read the paper and refute it.
    1
  42.  @thomasmarren2354  No. Speaking Celtic does not make anyone "ethnically Celtic". Also it is not the proper way to derive ethnic names from languages. Language names are actually derived from ethnicities. You cannot call people "Celtic" because they speak a Celtic language just as you cannot call a people Roman for speaking a Romance language. It's the other way around. Irish, Scottish, etc are Gaelic people and therefore they speak Gaelic languages. Only academics call incorrectly "Celtic" some things.
    1
  43. The Spanish and the Portuguese are the only genetically Celtic peoples. All others do not have ancestors who called themselves "Celts" by tribe name and personal name the way the Iberians did. The Iberians only changed languages but they did not change their Celtic DNA as you correctly pointed out.
    1
  44. The information on this video is completely outdated.
    1
  45.  @crusaderACR  Read Patrick Sims-Williams's paper entitled "An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West'". He is the current President of the International Congress of Celtic Studies. Long story short: The British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, were never called Celts historically. The same Greeks who lived among the Celts of Iberia and southern France also visited Britannia and Hibernia (Ireland) and they never identified the people there as Celts, even though they sometimes called even the Basques and Lusitanians Celts. The British, Irish, etc, only started calling themselves Celts with the Romanticism movement of the 18th century which had lasting influences in academia up until today. These Romanticist ideas were usually associated with Biblical origins - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with British Israelism - as well as with Nordic people - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with Nordicism. The now-known erroneous association between Celts and Hallstatt and La Tene came from only three facts, all of which have come to be refuted: (1) Herodotus was misread to have located the Celts "at the source of the Danube river" which is correctly in modern-day southern Germany, when instead he said the opposite, i.e. he was trying to locate not the Celts by referring to the river Danube, but instead he was trying to locate the source of the river Danube by referring to the Celts. In other words, he had the location of the Celts secure in his mind, and the location of the source of the Danube was the thing in question which he was guessing where it started. Hence why he says with certainty that the Celts were the [1] westernmost people, [2] living beyond (western of, from the perspective of Greek sailors) the Straits of Gibraltar, and [3] neighbors of the Cynetes (who lived in modern-day southern Portugal), hence locating the Celts with 3 separate references without needing the source of the river Danube to locate them, and locating the Celts in Lusitania where currently the highest number and density of individuals named Celti have been found in local inscriptions, where it appears over a hundred times and which appears nowhere else more than once, and which also shows the idea of who was a Celt was not based on what language they spoke, but on blood relations. Therefore, Herodotus was not locating the Celts in southern Germany, but instead he was incorrectly locating the source of the Danube river in the Pyrenees (he says "Pyrene" also incorrectly), "in the land of the Celts" which he just described to be Iberia with 3 other references as I explained above. (2) the "Celtic town of Nyrax" in one of the old Greek texts was incorrectly assumed to be the old town of Noreia in modern-day Austria. However, it turned out to be a town in Sardinia, again keeping with the theme of Celts being southwestern Europeans like southern French and western Iberians. In Sardinia there are many towns called Nura, Nora, Nurac, and Nurace. (3) the Celtic place names in southern Germany and Austria were thought to be among the oldest, thereby proving the origin of the Celts to be there; however, those place names turned out to actually be among the most recent, from a Roman-time eastern migration of southeastern French Gauls. Finally, the so-called Celtic languages were named incorrectly based on the now-known wrong conception that the modern-day Bretons are the direct descendants of the Gauls when in fact they are Medieval-Age British transplants from Britain. Indeed, the so-called Celtic languages were first called "Gallic languages" and if this had remained so, the British, Irish etc would have wrongly associated their identity with Gauls instead of wrongly associating it with Celts. As well, being a speaker of a language family does not make one that name of that language - for instance, being a Romance speaker does not make the Iberians or the Romanians "Romans". Just like speaking Latin did not make the Romans "the Latini" - instead, they knew they spoke the language of the tribe of the Latini, showing that language names came from people names, not the other way around. Hence, speaking a Celtic language cannot make the British, Irish etc "Celts" not only because Romance speakers are not "Romans", but because whatever language the Irish speak has to be called a word derived from the name of the Irish, hence "Irish" is also the name of their version of Gaelic, and should also be the name of their language family - something like Britanno-Hibernian would be fine. People name languages; languages do not name people. I tried my best to summarize why the name "Celts" does not belong in any way, shape or form to the British and Irish etc according to the latest research which I cited above and invited you to read.
    1
  46.  @martinjackman2943  "The greeks referred to all those populations North of the Balkans as 'kelto'i which translates as hidden or unknown .." Not true - quote the passage you base that assertion on. It doesn't exist.
    1
  47. Exactly that.  @dannyboywhaa3146 
    1
  48. The original Ancient Romans were genetically identical to modern-day Iberians. Source: "Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean"
    1
  49. ​ @SockAccount111  They did not. That is just something historians say because they have very little sources to go off of and need to come up with interesting stories to tell. First of all, different cultures don't usually mix. The moors were genetically Natufian and of a newly-invented muslim religion. They were also much prouder of their ancestry than Iberians at the time, so that the moors would not want to mix their blood with that of the vanquished. But most importantly, we know there was no mix because Iberian autosomal DNA still plots exactly in the same place it did in the Copper Age, much earlier than the moors' invasion of Iberia. Therefore whatever happened between the Copper Age, after Germanic people mixed with EEF southern Europeans to form the Bell-Beakers, and today, is as good as not having happened, as it had no effect on the current gene pool of Iberians. In other words the only mixture that can be detected in Iberians is the Germanic admixture of 2,500 BC when Corded-Ware peoples of the Eastern Bell-Beaker culture entered Iberia which was 100% EEF at the time and mixed with them leaving them at 60% EEF and 40% Yamnaya. Since the Copper Age, the gene pool of Iberians has remained constant and unchanged. However, the Iberians are not an exception - the gene pool of all of western Europe has not changed since 2,500 BC.
    1
  50. 15:55 - "In the 5th BC the Iberian Peninsula was infiltrated by the Celts; there was a reasonable relocation of some Celtic tribes which brought their culture" No one believes in that in academia anymore. What are your sources for that? There was never any "Celtic" people infiltrating Iberia, rather a Steppe-admixed people infiltrated Iberia in 2,500 and "Celtic" arose in western Iberia naturally over the course of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. (Source: Koch, Celto-Germanic papers).
    1