The Irish are Not Celts

[Riastradh]

In several descriptions of Gaelic units, they are described as warriors of various celtic tribes. The Irish are not celts and their warrior culture had nothing to do with celtic tribes. In fact, the idea that there was some kind of a mass celtic invasion(peaceful or otherwise) into Ireland has been disproven. Here is a quote from an article on the subject.


The Irish are not Celts, say experts
Jan Battles
The Times

THE long-held belief that Ireland’s population is descended from the Celts has been disproved by geneticists, who have concluded that they never invaded Ireland.
The research at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) into the origins of Ireland’s population found no substantial evidence of the Celts in Irish DNA, and concludes they never settled here en masse.


The study, part-funded by the National Millennium Committee, has just been published in The American Journal of Human Genetics. It was one of four projects funded by the government under the Genetic History of Ireland programme, which aimed to provide a definitive survey of the origins of the ancient peoples of Ireland.
Part of the project’s brief was to “discover whether there was a large incursion by Celtic people about 2,500 years ago” as was widely believed. After comparing a variety of genetic traits in Irish people with those of thousands of European and Near Eastern inhabitants, the scientists at TCD say there was not.
“Some people would go as far as saying there was total replacement of the population (of Ireland) 2,500 years ago,” said Brian McEvoy, one of the authors. “But if that happened we would definitely be more related to people in central Europe, because the Celts were supposed to have come from there. We’re just not seeing that. We’re seeing something earlier. Our legacy is the result of the first people to settle in Ireland around 9,000 years ago.”
About 15,000 years ago, ice covered Ireland, Britain and a lot of northern Europe so prehistoric man retreated back into Spain, Italy and Greece, which were still fairly temperate. When the ice started melting again around 12,000 years ago, people followed it northwards as areas became habitable again.
“The primary genetic legacy of Ireland seems to have come from people from Spain and Portugal after the last ice age,” said McEvoy. “They seem to have come up along the coast through western Europe and arrived in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It’s not due to something that happened 2,500 years ago with Celts. “We have a very old genetic legacy.”
While we may not owe our heritage to the Celts, we are still linked to other populations considered Celtic, such as Scotland and Wales. McEvoy said: “It seems to be more a cultural spread than actual people coming in wiping out and replacing everyone else.”
A PhD student in Trinity’s department of genetics, McEvoy will present the findings tomorrow at the Irish Society of Human Genetics annual meeting.
He and Dan Bradley of TCD took samples of mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother, from 200 volunteers around Ireland using cheek swabs. They also compiled a database of more than 8,500 individuals from around Europe and analysed them for similarities and matches in the sequences.
They found most of the Irish samples matched with those around Britain and the Pyrenees in Spain. There were some matches in Scandinavia and parts of northern Africa.
“Of the Celtic regions, by far the strongest correspondence is with Scotland,” said Bradley. “It corresponds exactly with language.” While that could be due to the Plantation of Ulster, Bradley said it was more likely due to something much older because the matches occur throughout the whole of Ireland and not just the north.
The geneticists produced a map of Europe with contours linking places that were genetically similar. One contour goes around the edge of the Atlantic, around Wales, Scotland, Ireland and includes Galicia in Spain and the Basque region.
“This isn’t consistent with the idea of a large invasion here around 500BC,” said Bradley. “You would expect some more affinity with central Europe if we owed the bulk of our ancestry to a movement from central Europe but we don’t.”
Some archeologists also doubt there was a Celtic invasion because few of their artifacts have been found in Ireland.

[Celtic_Punk]

Link please?

Also the fact that you say they had NOTHING to do with the culture, is totally unfounded... read the article yourself.. they just said its more of a culture invasion than genetic.... lol I love when someone tries so hard to be special they end up making an ass of themselves.

They fought in a celtic fashion, because thats how they were taught... thats like saying "oh because athenian democracy didnt allow women to vote, means its not a democracy at all..."


btw im not just goin off because of my heritage. I'd go off like this if you said Swedes arent actually vikings or something like that.

[blitzkrieg80]

how is anything completely proven when we don't have a clear understanding of the human genome? i don't care how forcefully someone says something about genetic markers, its THEORY like everything else. btw, scientific theory is what hasn't been disproven yet, not higher truth...

the Irish have many elements that compose their primordial beginning, some of which are not Halstatt / La Tene... 'Celts' is not appropriate for the timeline in question, and Halstatt / La Tene isn't even wholly Celtic people only, it's a CULTURE, not ethnicity. the Megalithic culture spanning from N.Africa to the British Isles is a good example - ironically that quote / article says EXACTLY THAT. they refer to the Megalith builders! they are indeed an interesting and important culture... and linked with Gaul and Celts

we all (fans and members) do appreciate discussion on these things, whether we're always right or not, and in this case a good point has been made and that is that we cannot completely attribute 'Celt' to the peoples the form the later identity known as Gael or Goidel despite a clearly Celtic language-speaking culture by the time of Old Irish. there are a good deal of non-Indo-Europeans in Europe who should not be underestimated. EB will be re-evaluating for EB2 the identification of all the peoples of the various lands such as with the Irish / Casse who might have a tad bit of theory stated as if it were fact... the bad side is that if some theory wasn't speculated on, then there would be nothing to say... saying how mysterious and undocumented a people is isn't very helpful for educational purposes, but we can certainly make sure it is known that we don't know for sure when things are questionable

we should also keep an eye out for interesting scientific studies, but i wouldn't buy too much into scientific procedures that haven't been fully developed yet. how many years have we scientifically verified genetic markers to correlations of ethnicities? oh wait, we haven't. let's not generalize something a lot more complicated than implied, and this was a long time ago even ~;p

[Anastasios Helios]

I guess you could say the same thing about English people then...they probably came from the same migrations that originally settled the British Isles, but they have the "Anglo-Saxon" culture so it makes them Germanic. I'm sure that despite most of Europe speaking Indo-European languages, ethnically, many people there probably aren't of true "Indo-European origin." Languages and culture tend to spread by assimilation and conquest...less by changing the gene pool. The Gauls spoke a Celtic language, but it doesn't mean that they all migrated from wherever the Indo-Europeans lived long ago. They were probably mostly descended from the old Megalithic peoples as well as most other Europeans...that's my theory.

[Celtic_Punk]

yes Blitz that is also true. The loose knit "celtic empire" was primarily a culture takeover. Take a look at southern canada if you will. The culture there is hugely influenced by american media and tourism. but go 200km north, and you see a totally different people.

Celtiberians, different genetics than all other celts. Massalians is another one! Sure they didnt fully assimilate, but their culture sure did change a whole lot. and they still had greek genetic roots.

Today what makes you irish is not being irish by blood. There are millions of us around the world, due to the dispora. But what makes you irish is how you conduct yourself. Your culture.

act american? you are american. act french, yer a frenchman! Your culture determines who you are. Not your blood.

unless you are a welshman... Once a welshman.. Always a welshman :clown:

[Anastasios Helios]

I know that the French have their cheese and bread and Asterix, but how can one "act American?"

[TheStranger]

act american? you are american. act french, yer a frenchman! Your culture determines who you are. Not your blood.

unless you are a welshman... Once a welshman.. Always a welshman :clown:

I don't share that opinion with you, because I think that this is a very nationalistic and/or stereotypical thinking.

@Anastasios Helios
But the Netherlands and Switzerland are also famous for their cheese. So your antionality is Dutch and you don't like cheese you're no Dutch? Your postings imply such old-fashioned thinking.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Well i learned something tonite. I didnt know the Gaelic blood was different than Celtic. But in the end i guess it doesnt matter a whole lot, cuz the Celts invaded the main British Isle, and so for 500+ years the Irish had only Celts to trade with. Result=MAJOR celtic influence and finally cetic cultural conversion uponthe Irish. The only people in the world to retain the original Proto-European blood in the truest sense are the Basque people in northern spain.

[artavazd]

Well i learned something tonite. I didnt know the Gaelic blood was different than Celtic. But in the end i guess it doesnt matter a whole lot, cuz the Celts invaded the main British Isle, and so for 500+ years the Irish had only Celts to trade with. Result=MAJOR celtic influence and finally cetic cultural conversion uponthe Irish. The only people in the world to retain the original Proto-European blood in the truest sense are the Basque people in northern spain.

You know Ive read some theories, which state that the Basque have connections with the Kartvelian speaking people of the Caucasus namely the Georgians.

[cmacq]

Of course, I would have to weigh-in on this subject?

And I will, but just not now, because I need some snooze time, muy pronto.

At this juncture, I will say I agree with Riastradh’s statement about Kelt, yet I may add that the study cited offers no actual evidence of its claim. I shall, explain this in greater detail at a later date. For example, most people are largely unaware of the rather selective and dramatic changes in the demography of Great Britain in the last two centuries. It is extremely easy to either be totally unaware of patterns or purposefully obscure patterns. My experience tells that most, for one reason or another, simply do not recognize patterns, primarily because of the nature of the sample and the methods used to organize the data. This reminds me of the Neanderthal genome project, which it turns out was a minimally interesting exercise in genetics, but by all means had nothing to do with actual Neanderthal DNA, despite repeated claims to the contrary. Otherwise, please see Kelts vs Britons, Neds, Pikeys, hangers-on, various sundries of all sorts, and other fellow travellers.



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

I'd just like to point out that mitochondrial DNA is evidence only of descent from the mothers, which does not preclude, for example, invasions of 'Celt' warriors, raping as they went. If every aboriginal, non-Celt Irish male had been killed and all the women impregnated by Celts, the mtDNA would still not show any Celt influence. (I'm not proposing that this is what happened, just pointing out that there are limits as to what may be inferred from mtDNA).

Another issue is that Celt is now generally not held to have been an ethnic designation, but one of language, material culture and myth, which are things that would not necessarily show up in mtDNA. So McEvoy and Bradley's findings, while very interesting, are not really apropos. The apparent fact that the matrilineal ancestors of Ireland came up from the Iberian peninsula after the last Ice Age does not mean that Ireland was never a heavily Celtic culture. A parallel example might be Roman Gaul- what is now France was eventually 'Romanized' in terms of language, architecture, material culture and political structures, but genetically the population were not all Romans.

By the way, here is the home page of the authors of the study quoted by the OP.
http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molpopgen/index.php

[Olaf Blackeyes]

To be honest Europe is one of the least RACIALLY divied places on Earth. The conflict usually come from centuries old ETHNIC and/or RELIGIOUS conflicts.
EX take the Balkans. The Serbs vs Croats. All that murder was inspired by the fact that Serbs and Orthodox and the Croats are Catholic. Thats one of the FEW ways they are different. They are both of Slavic desecent, they live in geographically similar areas, eat pretty much the same stuff, speak the same language or close to the same language, Ect....

BTW i read this info like three years ago in a paper book so if someone wants to prove me wrong go for it.:2thumbsup::2thumbsup:

[Celtic_Punk]

Thanks for that informative post oudysseos. I didn't actually know that Paternal DNA didnt show up in those types of tests. So even if it was consensual or not, the celtic warriors who would have gone to Eire and left their... erm trace... would not show up at all in the tests. misleading the conclusions in its entirety. Thus rendering this "irish are not celts" statement false until more conclusive tests are made.

[satalexton]

interesting.....but sorry I LOLed at that title. This thread is surprisingly more intelligent than it appears....

[oudysseos]

I've looked into this a little, being an interested party, as it were. The OP may have had good intentions on posting an interesting article, but he is very guilty of over-interpreting one popular science version of serious genetic research to make a huge claim in order to criticize the EB team. Unfortunately that is not what the scientists or the journalist said at all.

1.


The Irish are not Celts and their warrior culture had nothing to do with Celtic tribes

There are some problems with this statement. Let's define some terms.

Celts: in modern terms the word Celt is used to describe any one of the many European peoples who speak, or spoke, a Celtic language. The Goidelic/Gaelic languages (spoken in Ireland) have been identified as part of the Celtic language group since the 17th century or so. That kinda makes the Irish 'Celts' right there, by definition.
Of course, the Celts were not a monolithic homogeneous people: they didn't all speak the same language and were never united politically. Their common cultural and linguistic heritage never prevented them from whuppin ass on each other at every opportunity. The Irish and Gauls could be very different from each other (even genetically) and still both be Celts.

In any event McEvoy and Bradley are not asserting that the Irish were not Celtic in language, material culture or myth, but rather that they did not acquire their Celtishness (neologism, anyone?) genetically.
There are some authors that it would be worthwhile investigating if you're interested in this subject; Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles
http://books.google.ie/books?id=-w1yAAAAMAAJ&q=blood+of+the+isles&dq=blood+of+the+isles&client=firefox-a&pgis=1
Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0786718900/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link

In fact an example drawn from Sykes perfectly illustrates what's wrong with Riastradhs statement: genetically less than 2 per cent of the English are descended from the Normans. Would you conclude on this basis that the Normans never conquered England? And the Roman genetic contribution is even smaller. Does that mean that Agricola was only a myth? Who built Hadrian's wall then?
Using genetic markers to make statements about culture is very chancy. According to Sykes the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean. But the culture of the British Isles is not Neolithic or Iberian. So maybe, just maybe, sex is not the preferred method for diffusing culture.

2.

Another problem with Riastradhs statement is that he asserts that he knows what Irish warrior culture [in the EB timeframe] was like (i.e. not Celtic).

There are no Irish written source from the EB timeframe, and damned little written about Ireland by anyone else, so I wonder on what grounds does Riastradh base his knowledge of Irish warrior culture? He referenced the Tain in another thread. The earliest manuscript for the Tain comes from the 12th century ce, and was considered a fable by one of the scribes who wrote it down. There is some evidence that the oral tradition for the Tain goes back to the 6th century ce, which is remarkable, but hardly takes us into the EB time frame.

All in all, I would think that the onus is on Riastradh to prove that he has better information about Irish warrior culture in the 3rd century bce than the EB team.

3.


In fact, the idea that there was some kind of a mass celtic invasion(peaceful or otherwise) into Ireland has been disproven (sic).

"Disproven" is a little extreme. There appears to be a general academic consensus that Celtic culture in Ireland developed gradually and continuously, and that the introduction of Celtic language and elements of Celtic culture was a result of cultural exchange with Celtic groups on South West continental Europe from the neolithic to the Bronze Age. However, this is not universally accepted by all scholars, according to a TCD source of mine who unfortunately must remain anonymous. I think that the consensus is probably true, but even so Riastradh has got the wrong end of that stick if he wants to beat someone with it. To wit: none of these geneticists or scholars dispute the existence of Celtic Culture in Ireland, just its origin. True, there does not seem to be genetic evidence for a massive Celtic invasion in 600 bce, but Celtic culture was prevalent in Ireland by the time people started writing about it. It got there somehow.

[Celtic_Punk]

Plus you gotta accept the fact that Ireland is really now the least influenced celtic culture on the planet. Its one of the few places on earth you can find towns that purely speak gaelic.

I mean most of the Welsh either cant speak Welsh or can speak both (whether they want you to know it or not... buggers) Same with scotland. I dont know about the cornish or the Bretons. But those are the ONLY surviving celts.

[Anastasios Helios]

@Anastasios Helios
But the Netherlands and Switzerland are also famous for their cheese. So your antionality is Dutch and you don't like cheese you're no Dutch? Your postings imply such old-fashioned thinking.

I was being sarcastic mate. I've never been to Netherlands or Switzerland before, but i'm sure that their cheese is great. :2thumbsup:

[TheStranger]

Yeah I supposed that; my post was more referring to Celtic Punk :)

[Yyrkoon]

I haven't read all of the comments, so forgive me if this has been brought up before.

What I found interesting about the study is that they used MtDNA which tracks who a person's female ancestors were. Most of what I've read concerning genetic origins deals with finding a person's male ancestors for one simple reason: 60% of all women who have ever lived have living descendents, only 20% of men do. A factor in this is conquest. "Population Replacement" doesn't simply mean killing everyone and settling. It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women. They should probably be looking at the Y chromosome.

[Yyrkoon]

I know that the French have their cheese and bread and Asterix, but how can one "act American?"

:2thumbsup:Travel the world wearing khaki shorts, a hawaiian shirt, white socks, sandals, and a baseball cap and talk really loud and slow at people in foreign countries because obviously if you talk to them like they'er both stupid and four, they'll understand you better. Oh and get ripped off by every street vendor on your travels. Back home, you have to be a religious fanatic apparently and not believe in evolution.:laugh4:

I say all of this as an American, so take it as that :clown:

[Sumskilz]

Yyrkoon makes a good point concerning the use of mtDNA in the study. This only determines the direct female ancestry of a population. There are several reasons this can be misleading. An example of this is the case of modern Mexico. As we know from historical records a significant number of Spanish men came over from Europe to settle in New Spain while a very insignificant number of women came along with them. The native population which would have initially outnumbered the Spanish by a considerable margin was reduced drastically by disease and mistreatment. Furthermore discriminatory laws prohibited men of native ancestry from owning most types of wealth making it more appealing, from a survival point of view, for women of native ancestry to marry men of Spanish ancestry. The DNA evidence supports this story in that the vast majority of Mexicans have a Y haplotype (Male) of European (or other old world) origin and an mtDNA haplotype of Native American origin. If one didn’t know the history and examined only the mtDNA of modern Mexicans they would assume erroneously that the population was almost entirely of Native American ancestry when in fact they are quite mixed.

[oudysseos]

Actually the TCD study that the OP quoted did in fact consider y-chromosome DNA as well, as did the Sykes book and I believe the Oppenheimer book. The conclusion was more or less the same: not much genetic evidence for massive, genocidal invasions of Continental Celts in the British Isles.

I have to point out that the whole invasion model is very old, coming from various mythological sources and transmitted through the Book of Leinster and the Book of Invasions. It has been a while since anybody took the Fir Bolgs, Fomorians and Tuatha de Dannan seriously.

Doesn't mean the Irish weren't Celts themselves.

[Sumskilz]

To elaborate on the difficulty of determining a population’s complete ancestry based on haplotypes, I give myself as an example. I’m a US citizen, but my father’s family is French Canadian (Quebecois). My mother’s family is mostly Dutch American. My Y haplotype is of Middle Eastern origin (J2). As individuals interested in history, I’m sure you can all come up with reasonably possible explanations why a haplotype of Middle Eastern origin would be present in about 6% of the Southern French population. Nevertheless if someone went by my Y haplotype alone, they would be most likely to determine that I’m of Iraqi or Syrian ancestry - Iraq and Syria being the nations where my haplotype is most common.

[IrishHitman]

Eh, I'm fairly sure the Celts came in and just took over the upper classes.

[Sumskilz]

Well if the study did use Y haplotypes as well, its conclusions would be more accurate, but there are still many factors that could cause the frequency of haplotypes of a specific origin to be disproportionate to the frequency of genes of other origins. I have my mother and fathers haplotypes which only give evidence of two direct lines, not of all the other individuals that contributed to my DNA’s makeup. At this point in our understanding, haplotypes are just a convenient starting point.

IrishHitman's hypothesis is perfectly plausable based on the evidence, as are many others.

[cmacq]

This same theory was proposed for GB.

I see three huge red flags;

1) part-funded by the National Millennium Committee
2) The American Journal of Human Genetics
3) “The primary genetic legacy of Ireland seems to have come from people from Spain and Portugal after the last ice age,” said McEvoy. “They seem to have come up along the coast through western Europe and arrived in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It’s not due to something that happened 2,500 years ago with Celts. “We have a very old genetic legacy.”

_____________________________________________________

First, the National Millennium Committee is the haunt of those, similar to others which inhabit National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers or NCSHPO in the US, that have a very narrow agenda.

Second, although the study of human genetics uses basic archaeological background information to support theories, in the strictest sense, genetic studies can only provide reliable information about relatively modern populations.

Third, using genetic data McEvoy’s statement is totally speculative; the assumption here is that the composition of Europe’s population in the past was as it is today. Also using McEvoy’s logic western France, Normandy, and England should be the same as well? Now from what I understand, this has been proposed for GB, which is strange because of McEvoy’s further statement about the similarities of the Irish and Scot populations?

For example how could this study discern between the DNA of what may be called continental Celts of the 3rd century BC (that were also present in northern Spain and Portugal, form the extremely ill-defined populations the occupied the extremes of western Europe seven thousand years ago??? It is extremely easy to drown a host of relatively discrete populations into a huge mass of gobblety gook that may appear similar to one glob and different to another. I’ve seen this done with dentition studies. Established relationships depend on the qualifiers and the type of analysis used to sort the data.

With this said, I personally have never viewed the multi-faceted Irish, Scot, Welsh, Briton, nor Breton populations as being Kelt in the strictest use of the term. I view the use of Celt as a modern invention with very little evidence to support it. Its sort of like the tail wagging the dog. For example the term was used by the Greeks and Latins to specifically identify a continental ethnicity associated with the Gallic Culture within a well defined time frame. Of this Gallic Culture we know it was initially centered in southeastern France, Switzerland, southern Germany, and Austria, yet have very little actual evidence of their language. In the modern use Ireland and GB only became Celt after it was discovered that the once dominant language were somewhat related to that used by the former Gallic Culture that was called Kelt.





CmacQ

[Riastradh]

Ok first I would like to point out that most of you have seemed to miss the last line of the article,


Some archeologists also doubt there was a Celtic invasion because few of their artifacts have been found in Ireland.
While there is some evidence of celtic culture in Ireland, it is very slight.

Also I would like to come out and say a few things about my intentions. I did not mean to sound like I was attacking the EB team, I love what u guys do and respect you for it. Second my reasoning in posting this is mearly because I do not think using the term celt when refering to the Gaelic troops is the best choice nor accurate and from what I've seen EB is all about Historical accuracy.

Next. The Reason why I made my statement and then posted the article I did was mainly to give you a piece of scientific research to back up my statement a bit and not just seem like someone just talking out their ass. What I meant by the statement, "The Irish warrior culture had nothing to do with the celtic tribes." was that the Irish troops and warfare system was it's own, not that there was never any influences from other peoples "Period". The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects. I will go more into these differences later.

Also using the term "Disproven" may have been a little overly final as well. A better wording would be to say it is slowly, but surely becoming apparent that the previously held belief of the celtic invasion into Ireland is not historical reality.

Again I would like to say that my post was not to "attack" or be "critical" of the EB team, but more so to show them a difference than what they had put into their excellent mod. My main point was that they should not refer to the Gaelic warrior units as "celtic" in any future developments and instead simply refer to them as just "Gaelic, Goidilic or Goedelic".

I will post some new info later after work, typing this on my lunch break :laugh4:

[Shylence]

Plus you gotta accept the fact that Ireland is really now the least influenced celtic culture on the planet. Its one of the few places on earth you can find towns that purely speak gaelic.

I mean most of the Welsh either cant speak Welsh or can speak both (whether they want you to know it or not... buggers) Same with scotland. I dont know about the cornish or the Bretons. But those are the ONLY surviving celts.



Ill have to correct you there. There is not anywhere left in the "celtic" world which speaks a mongolot "Celtic language" They either only know English or both there is no Irish only.

Infact I was in the Connemara not long ago with a cousin and her bf. Now her Bf was wearing a Northern Ireland top. and as he entered the people in the shop changed from English to Irish.
Knowing of course that we were outsiders.


I can say with 99% certainty that there are, sadly, no mongolot Irish speakers left. To not understand the English language in Ireland would really dis-advantage you in life. which is funny because its one of the main reasons why the "celtic" languages have declined.

[Celtic_Punk]

there are a few islands off the west coast mate. these gaelic only communities are few and far between sadly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok first I would like to point out that most of you have seemed to miss the last line of the article,


While there is some evidence of celtic culture in Ireland, it is very slight.

Also I would like to come out and say a few things about my intentions. I did not mean to sound like I was attacking the EB team, I love what u guys do and respect you for it. Second my reasoning in posting this is mearly because I do not think using the term celt when refering to the Gaelic troops is the best choice nor accurate and from what I've seen EB is all about Historical accuracy.

Next. The Reason why I made my statement and then posted the article I did was mainly to give you a piece of scientific research to back up my statement a bit and not just seem like someone just talking out their ass. What I meant by the statement, "The Irish warrior culture had nothing to do with the celtic tribes." was that the Irish troops and warfare system was it's own, not that there was never any influences from other peoples "Period". The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects. I will go more into these differences later.

Also using the term "Disproven" may have been a little overly final as well. A better wording would be to say it is slowly, but surely becoming apparent that the previously held belief of the celtic invasion into Ireland is not historical reality.

Again I would like to say that my post was not to "attack" or be "critical" of the EB team, but more so to show them a difference than what they had put into their excellent mod. My main point was that they should not refer to the Gaelic warrior units as "celtic" in any future developments and instead simply refer to them as just "Gaelic, Goidilic or Goedelic".

I will post some new info later after work, typing this on my lunch break :laugh4:

I'm afraid you are behind the curve really. The only "gnetically" Celtic people identified in Britain today are Cornish and Devonian. This is the epicentre (as far as we know) of Gallic/Celtic immigration, and there is some evidence in the artisic decoration of, for example, bronze mirros in the centuries BC to indicate that Celtic culture spread from here outwards.

Ireland was far from cut off from the rest of Europe and Irish geography could probably account for as many differences in Irish culture as could any issolationist theory.

This was all put foward for the Saxon invasion. The conclusion was that there were never more than 200,000 invaders in all, versus 2 Million Romano-Britons. The Saxons took over a little bit at a time and many married/raped local women. The result is a Germanic people, with a greater prepondance to dark hair and eyes.

[Berg-i-dum]

The only people in the world to retain the original Proto-European blood in the truest sense are the Basque people in northern spain. Not at all, there arent a "Basque people" differenced. The ancient basques were sheperds of the Pyrinnees who obtained celtic lands from the romans (they were their allies) so they were mixed with the defeated celts (by the romans) as the called "nervii" of NE Spain. They adopted the celt culture but only maintained their language. Nowadays there arent almost any difference between basques and other spaniards.


You know Ive read some theories, which state that the Basque have connections with the Kartvelian speaking people of the Caucasus namely the Georgians.
They are only proto indoeuropeans, as the ancient Picts and so.

But there are a lot of theories to explain this, one strange said that they can come from the deserctionist of the Hannibal armies who didnt cross the Pyrennes and Alps and they would become sheperds in the mouintains stablishing themselves there. This could explain the absence of basque culture ...until they robbed the celtic one in the Rome time. And it could explain too other language and racial issues. But it is not an approved theory.


It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women. They should probably be looking at the Y chromosome.
Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors. Spain was a really little country with few population to assimilate in that way the hughe population of South America. Remember how only a few hundreds of spaniard were sent to conquer Aztec empire or Inca. After conquest they were only governor elite ...not only women rapers :D. It was a mix culture in latin america, but not so big to say that almost all south americans have europeans ancestors.


About the celt problem in the thread, I think that the celts is a culture and fashion of a determinated time in ancient europe, not only a ethnic stuff. But the celts in british islands, Spain and Gaul came from the Bronze atlantic culture, the protocelts, I mean it can be true that there wasnt invasions, only a long way from the bronze age that finally produced what we identify as celt culture. This could explain the genetic similarities between iberians and ancient britons, a *"common bottom" in bronze age in all the atlantic shore: proto celts / pre indoeropeans. :juggle2:

Sorry about my english.

[lobf]

Not at all, there arent a "Basque people" differenced. The ancient basques were sheperds of the Pyrinnees who obtained celtic lands from the romans (they were their allies) so they were mixed with the defeated celts (by the romans) as the called "nervii" of NE Spain. They adopted the celt culture but only maintained their language. Nowadays there arent almost any difference between basques and other spaniards.

As a one-time resident of the Basque country, I can tell you they wouldn't appreciate that one bit. :P

[Berg-i-dum]

As a one-time resident of the Basque country, I can tell you they wouldn't appreciate that one bit. :P
Yeah I know, I am spaniard he he. There are a lot of romanticism there. But this is the truth.

I am galician, the "celtic" land of Spain and there are some of this topics here too.

[gamerdude873]

They should probably be looking at the Y chromosome.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways

[desert]

Actually, the sperm contains a lot of mitochondria. You didn't think it got all of its energy magically, did you?

In fact, paternal mtDNA can get into the egg, albeit very rarely. It usually doesn't because all the mitochondria are located in the part of the sperm that falls off when it reaches the egg, though I can't for the life of me remember what exactly that part is.

EDIT: Yeah, so only the top/head goes into the egg, and the mitochondria are in the midpiece, so they're screwed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways

It's accurate but incomplete. The Y Chromosome doesn't chage (accept through mutation) that's why it's so paltry these days. The point is, you have your Dad's Y, the same one, and he has his Dads, also the same.

You can track that back a fair way and it is a good indicator of paternal ancestry.

[Riastradh]

This thread has gotten off the topic and instead is now on genetic testing. My point in posting that article was to give you some scientific evidence to back what I was trying to get across. Regardless of this, I am going to post a link to an article I think most of you would like to read, whether you be hear for the talk on Irish origin/classification or genetics specifically. Enjoy.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

[Intranetusa]

how is anything completely proven when we don't have a clear understanding of the human genome? i don't care how forcefully someone says something about genetic markers, its THEORY like everything else. btw, scientific theory is what hasn't been disproven yet, not higher truth...

I agree with your other statements, but I'mma gonna be nit picky here...

A scientific theory is used differently from the layman's use of the word theory, which generally means a guess. Technically, a scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has survived scrutiny by the scientific method, and exists to explain scientific laws. Thus laws such as the law of universal gravitation are supported and explained by theories such as the theory of gravity and theory of relativity.

[Sir Edward]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it, this would be very difficult/nigh impossible. The y chromosome has very little actual " understand that the Y is fairly generic. I'm fresh from high school bio, and i did very well in it. One of the things my teacher taught was why men get screwed when it comes to genetic disease. Women, in order to have a recessive genetic disease, need to have both of their X chromosomes to have that disease. Men only have one X, so all it takes for a man to have a recessive genetic disease is for that X to be defective. The point of this is, many fewer genes exist on the Y than X, so like I said, the Y has very fewer features to track. Besides, there are many other chromosomes and genes that one could track much more easily, I think.

For all those that care or don't understand:
Mitochondrial DNA is also extranuclear, meaning outside the nucleus. It is located with mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria are all inheirited from the mother, because the sperm contains only DNA, and could not possibly donate mitochondria paternally.

Unless my teacher and book are asses, i think this is pretty accurate. Just my 2 cents anyways
Well I'll clear up some mistakes here. By 'recessive genetic disease' I take it you implicitly meant an X linked recessive trait like color blindness and hemophilia A. While it is true there are very few functional genes, only 86, are found on the Y chromosome (compare this to ~2000 on the X chromosome) there is still plenty of genetic material present or features as you put it, over 58 million base pairs (153 Mbp for X chromosome).

The Y chromosome has some unique quality that makes it a nice target for population genetics. For one because all males (there are some rare exceptions) have only 1 Y chromosome there is no homologous recombination. Meaning the Y chromosome a person inherits is the same one their father had, and their paternal grandfather and so on and so forth. This genetic material passed exclusively from father to son allows for a paternal line to be created. If a mutation occurs in the Y chromosome of a germline cell, this mutation will be inherited in ALL male descendents. The accumulation of these unique mutation events in each line give geneticist a tool to determine how close two populations are.

Also I think you have a misconception about what geneticist look at when they are comparing DNA sequences. Forgive me if I am reading you wrong but your statement sounds like they look at the genes in the Y chromosome when really it is the opposite. You don’t want to look at mutations with in a functional gene because these mutations often have an effect negative/positive on the health of an organism. This change in fitness puts evolutionary pressure on the mutation, and can change the rate it appears in the population. When genetic genealogists do research on the Y chromosome they look at non coding DNA, commonly called by the misnomer Junk DNA (specifically they count short tandem repeat (STR) & look for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)). They look here because in non-coding DNA these mutations are neutral and have no impact on the health of the organism*.

To show my point that the Y chromosome is indeed useful for studying this issue of the inhabitants of ancient Britain take a look at this NYT article that highlights arguments from both camps.A United Kingdom? Maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06brits.html?scp=1&sq=british%20celt%20gene&st=cse)

*(Disclaimer non-coding DNA can effect gene expression in complex ways)

[Sumskilz]

At the risk of overdoing the Latin America analogy here is a link that explains how a genetic admixture study is done:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7234.full?ck=nck

Latin America is much easier to study than prehistoric Ireland for the obvious fact that the genetic evidence can be referenced against the historical record.

[gamerdude873]

Geez, its always whats most obvious that i overlook. DUH. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. I completely forgot about all the EXTRA DNA thats in there too, even if there is a lot less. Don't listen to me. They all know alot more!

[cmacq]

At the risk of overdoing the Latin America analogy here is a link that explains how a genetic admixture study is done:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7234.full?ck=nck

Latin America is much easier to study than prehistoric Ireland for the obvious fact that the genetic evidence can be referenced against the historical record.

Actually, in Mexico the Spanish colonial authorities kept meticulous census records. Think head count and income. I’ve used copies of several examples to make correlations between residential architecture and demography, then applied this to prehistoric settlements in the southwest US. Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.


CmacQ



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

Riastradh, I guess I'm a little confused by what you are trying to say, although I appreciate that your intentions and tone are good. Let me put this to you in the form of questions,

1.How precisely do you think that 'Gael' is different than 'Celt'. Bearing in mind that that the Gaelic languages are considered to be branches of the insular Celtic languages. Do you disagree with that?

2.
The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland Celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects. What do you have to back up this position? I sincerely hope it's more than the Tain.

I don't dispute the early genetic origin of the population of the British Isles, but that statement is a very limited one, really. Oppenheimer, Sykes et al never ever say that Ireland was not a Celtic culture, but rather that it didn't acquire said culture through massive genocidal invasions. It's a question of alternate origin, not of a whole different identity.

You are making some huge statements about an era for which there is not much evidence of any kind. It doesn't help that terms like 'Celt' and 'Gael' are broadly and poorly defined (by everyone, not just you). I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong just because you're from Kerry, just that you have made some assertions, and that the sources you have cited don't support them.

P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist.:mickey:
http://www.fionasplace.net/irishjokes/Kerrymanjokes.html

[IrishHitman]

Before someone comes out with the "Scottish culture is close to Irish culture, therefore Irish culture is Celtic" argument, Ireland invaded Scotland (The Scotii group gave Scotland its name) and England in the aftermath of the Romans pulling out of key areas of Britain.

i.e. they're similar because Irish warfare and conquest caused a cultural exchange, with language being the main Irish export.....

[Sumskilz]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.


Riastradh,

I question your conclusions, however that’s not to say that you didn’t bring up an interesting topic that no doubt requires further investigation. I think one issue lies in the fact the term Celt is so vaguely defined. How many of the people that we feel comfortable calling Celts would have called themselves Celts, or Gauls, or Germans for that matter. The categorizations are convenient for modern scholarship but don’t reflect the ancients’ self-identities.


IrishHitman,

I agree, so should Irish culture then be compared to Breton, Cornish, or Welsh culture? How can all the various cross-cultural influences be sorted out? I don’t think modern cultural comparisons are very useful in this case? We probably are served best by archeology and the earliest primary sources.

[Riastradh]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

[IrishHitman]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

I would have to agree.

[Starance Quintus]

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.

[blitzkrieg80]

[edit]
Riastradh, ah i see what the issue seems to be even though we've gone over it...
#1 - Q Celtic is not related to invasion by Celts / mainland or P-Celtic speakers who have been coined as 'THE CELTS' of antiquity, thus everyone is confused because nobody ever claimed this to be so. Now, if you disagree on what defines 'Celt' that is another discussion entirely and one that doesn't have much bearing on the origin of Ireland because it spans a much wider issue. When we speak of Celts game-wise and in descriptions, it means Celtic-speakers, and we can discuss if the description should or should not mention that aspect.

what is your evidence to associate 'Gaels' with pre Indo-Europeans, other than some side-commentary about population and current theoretical gene-tests concerning the area in general? how do you know 'Gael' has anything to do with them? if they were a population before Celtic-speakers, then would they not use an identity based NOT in Indo-European language? so you must be speaking of the people we term Gaels who are a conglomeration of peoples who we do not know about other than some related material culture rather than the Gaelic-speakers themselves? because 'Gael' as an identity is of Indo-European origin with much more substantial proof illustrating this than some non-verifiable speculation that the term is somehow based on those true pre Indo-Europeans peoples who existed before and beside them... you don't even mention the cultural traits / material related to the people you are referring, which makes me think you are not even sure who you're talking about... if we know so much about Megalithic culture, then why are we not discussing this? if so much is known about the Iberian roots and relation of the culture to first inhabit Ireland, why are these extra facts excluded from the discussion? all i read from you is that you read a scientific article that agrees with your theory and there was once a material culture reaching to the British Isles that no one disputes to have existed... where is your evidence that there is a direct connection? missing links... missing links [wait- is there an iceman i don't know about?]

we don't know the identity or language of pre-Celtic/Gaelic invaders in Ireland, so claiming you know they were pre Indo-European makes no sense, when you can't even verify WHERE the Indo-Europeans came from or at what extent they inhabited Europe during pre-history and before writing and linguistic tracing.

btw, those who rule the culture (Celtic aristocracy) at the time of the Gaels, would be called 'Gaels' and thus are Celtic, thus why they use Celtic language... saying the citizens of the Persian Empire are not Persian, or the Romans are not Roman, might be true (although only partially) yet it's not helpful or descriptive at all either, unless someone is trying to say they are ALL Persian and you're trying to make a point. we have not disagreed with you, that all citizens of Ireland at the time of EB are Celtic, we agree there were more to them than meets the eye...
_________________

so, if we don't call them Celts, we should call them Gaels? but Gael is just as much inaccurate because that would imply Celtic-speaking people, whether you think so or not. Politically-correct or making people happy with what they are comfortable hearing is not the issue. so then we must have a frame of reference for peoples before them, yet there is no record of a unified or related people before them... see where this is going?... call ancients 'British' instead of 'English' to signify non-Anglo-Saxons is very similar because it is WRONG. At no point in ancient or medieval time were the inhabitants of all Great Britain referred to as 'British' or 'Briton' by their own words... the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refer to the Bretons as Bretwelas versus other Welsh (Celts) which means specifically that not all Celts in Britain even had the same identity. So, to make modern Celts in Great Britain happy, it would NOT be correct to call them 'British' other than for their own modern identity. The only reason Great Britain is the name of the island is because the Roman name was the first appropriate name and otherwise it had no identity. Hibernian were not same identity as ancient Irish either. There is no known name, if there was ever a collective identity which was lost. Sorry, that is a fact. Byzantines are similar too... they didn't call themselves Byzantines, but we use the term today!

__________________

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.
believe it or not, Islamic is not a language ~;p

[Berg-i-dum]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.


I am sorry but I can not be agree with this.

If those "estimates" were right then today almost all the population of South America would be european, ... as the population in North America nowadays is. So hard and terrible disease wich killed the 90%... , it would be clear and well-known in History and it would be change the ethniticy of America, and all this didnt happen. If you go to Mexico, Perú, Colombia you will see the most of population is native or a bit mixed in some areas and upper classes. There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

I can be agree only in the case of the Isle of Cuba, first place being colonized, where in the begining of the conquest there was terrible massacres, and nowadays the most of population are descendents of slaves since the natives were murdered or died by disease or hardworks. This was what Bartolomé de Las Casas (and Bernal Díaz) saw in Cuba, and in response Catholic Kings and after Charles I created laws to protect indians: Spain was the only State in his time which had Laws (Leyes de Burgos 1512 and Leyes Nuevas de Burgos 1542) that spoke about the natives as subjects/humans not as people without soul, as it is said the recognition of native rights put Spain at the historical vanguard of modern natural and international law. Of course the laws werent always applied. But in North America there werent any law to protect natives and it was where the real genocide happened, not in the mixed Latin America, spaniards married natives, but englishmen, dutchs killed them or appart them from his new (european) society (racial segregation).

But yes, spaniards are always the bad guys in the History lessons, specially in english History lessons. More "Black Legend and Historical truth" :book:

Sorry again about my english and may be about the off topic :wall:

[cmacq]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today.

I think this was what I may have posted, higher up. What, no mention of the Epidii/Επίδιοι???


With this said, I personally have never viewed the multi-faceted Irish, Scot, Welsh, Briton, nor Breton populations as being Kelt in the strictest use of the term. I view the use of Celt as a modern invention with very little evidence to support it. Its sort of like the tail wagging the dog. For example the term was used by the Greeks and Latins to specifically identify a continental ethnicity associated with the Gallic Culture within a well defined time frame. Of this Gallic Culture we know it was initially centered in southeastern France, Switzerland, southern Germany, and Austria, yet have very little actual evidence of their language. In the modern use Ireland and GB only became Celt after it was discovered that the once dominant language were somewhat related to that used by the former Gallic Culture that was called Kelt.

Seemingly in conflict, I also view very few Irish or Scots as being Gaels, with most being Cruithne and nearly none being Celts. On the other hand, I've come around to equating the Belgae peoples with the P-Celt Brythonic, yet see very few Welsh or Britons, as Belgae, nor all but few being Celt. As far as the Belgae being German, indeed with no doubt this is the case, however much as with the modern misuse of the word Celt, this word German is from the Latin germane, which has a number of related meanings. These include; full, own, seed, original, genuine, and of the same parents. The Latins used the term to indicate the extremely close connection between the culture and language of the Celts and the people they called Germans (not the Culture that modern English speakers call German), whom were not at all Deutsch. So, I’ll admit that the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones where not Celts per se, yet I would view them as both German and Brythonic. I hope no one is confused?






CmacQ

[Frostwulf]

I pretty much have to agree for the most part with cmacq on the Belgae(drifting thread) as backed up by Caesar,Tacitus and the modern authors of Maureen Carrol and Simon James.
" But a more important point is that the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Gauls were actually highly diverse, and some of them, especially some of the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Belgae were culturally and perhaps linguistically more like the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and *perhaps* already among themselves)-Germans than like (say) Aquitanian Gauls. 'The Germans', especially in the 1st cent BC, were probably mostly a construct in Roman minds, rather than a self-defined or definable group of peoples with similar social structures, or other qualities (substitute 'generic American Indians' for 'Germans' and you see what I mean)."-Simon James.

[blitzkrieg80]

awesomely put examples, CmacQ and Frostwulf... that illustrates the point i was trying to get at

so now you guys have stirred up some interesting conversation pieces... would then the Cimbri be part of that configuration or at least the Celtic-like component which we see in the Gundestrup cauldron? i think so, at least the Celtic part... and also, what about the Lugii? maybe not Przeworsk, but Oskywie... or Tacitus' implied P-Celtic-speakers of Veneti? who stand out so sharply in 'No Man's Land'? this reminds me of your work, CmacQ, on the global 'disaster' in ancient Denmark and wanderings in the East... could this be related to:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Megalithic_architecture.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Neolithic_Expansion.gifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Middle_Neolithic.gifhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Atlantic_Bronze_Age.gifhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Old_Europe.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Corded_Ware_culture.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chariot_spread.pnghttp://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/figure-3.jpg
i'm intrigued... too bad we still have the same information, hehe, but this conversation doesn't happen by many!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses#Genetics

The present-day population of R1b, with extremely high peaks in Western Europe and measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) at the Last Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12,000 BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps. The most common subclade is R1b1c9, that has a maximum in Frisia (the Netherlands). It may have originated towards the end of the last ice age, or perhaps more or less 7000 BC, possibly in the northern European mainland.[3]

Developments in genetics take away much of the edge of the sometimes heated controversies about invasions. While findings confirm that there were population movements both related to the beginning Neolithic and the beginning Bronze Age, corresponding to Renfrew's and Gimbutas's Indo-Europeans, respectively, the genetic record obviously cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken by these groups. The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic, suggesting that languages tend to spread geographically by cultural contact rather than by invasion and extermination, i.e. much more peacefully than was described in some invasion scenarios, and thus the genetic record does not rule out the historically much more common type of invasions where a new group assimilates the earlier inhabitants. This very common scenario of successive small scale invasions where a ruling nation imposed its language and culture on a larger indigenous population was what Gimbutas had in mind:[citation needed]


The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups.

Seems to agree!

[cmacq]

Right,



the Veneti and those pesky Lugii. From the Belgae, the Istaevones, and Ingaevones may have formed a cultural bridge to the west Balts; in this case it would be the Aestii, or as the Saxons called it Æstum? That is a bridge that was smashed by the entry of the Irminones/Hermiones, who were without doubt the dad of the Deutsch, with Irmin from the Old Norse jǫrmun (meaning strong?). So Tactius tells us that Irmin's dad was Mannus, who was simply put; Human Kind. However, despite what Tactius wrote about the Istaevones/Istriaones/Istriones their name implies they were somehow associated with a Istros/Istri/Histria/Ιστριη progenitor, possibly a deity associated with flowing rivers or a coastal region (Rhine and/or North Sea?), and shellfish (Ostrea???).

On the other hand the Ingaevones, or followers of Ing, seem to have been affiliated with a deity, that was roughly analogous to what the Medieval Irish called Angus/Aengus/Oengus, the Tuatha De Danann god of love, youth, and fine words. It seems that Ing was the predecessor to the later Norse Freyr, which simply means, Lord. The Norse Freyr also seems to have been given Ing's attributes, which were similar to those of Aengus/Oengus. So, Ing-landia ='s England; no way! or way? Maybe that’s one reason why it seems difficult for researchers to find so-called Saxon-DNA in Britain?

Interestingly, Jordanes claimed that the historic Hermanaric/Irmanaric, or as Beowulf had it, Eormenric, subjected these British-like-speaking (from Tactius) Aestii. That would be a hoot if the name Aestii was taken from Eesti/Estonia: so that in Prussa and northern Poland, here would be a Finnic basal population with a western Balt aristocracy that was first allied with Veneti and Lugii and a little latter subjected by the Goths, whom were of course, Deutsch. Alls well as far as the archeaology, yet what about those pesky Lugii???

Again, I'd put the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones as predominatly Brythonic; center, southwest, and southern Germany as Celt; and only extreme northeast Germany as Hermiones or Deutsch. Of course, this in the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, after which the picture changed very quickly, and very dramatically. All I can say is they; that is the Lugii, were considered Germans but not Celt, not Belgic, not Deutsch, most likely not Balt, and by all means not Slav. However, with that said, the attributes of this ethnos appear to have been usurped by, and eventually came to characterize the Deutsch speakers. I’m speculating this process began in the very late 4th century, but more likely to have occurred in the late 3rd BC. However, it is clear that it wasn’t until after the Cimbric event of the late 2nd century that the followers of Irmin became the dominant force in northwest Germany, which lead to significant territorial expansion to the east, west, and south. Of course, these expansions were greatly facilitated by the a dramatic shift to a much cooler-dryer global climate, the relative depopulation of Nordic Scandinavia with a steady demographic flow of the displaced south into northern Germany and Poland, as well as the late Gallo-Roman and early Germano-Roman wars of the 1st centuries BC and AD. Nonetheless, an interesting scenario that fits the archaeology very well.



CmacQ

[IrishHitman]

B]Europe is set to become completely Islamic[/B], and that English will not be the 1st language.

Eh, no.
It will just be another major religion is all.

[lobf]

There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

:inquisitive:

[Berg-i-dum]

:inquisitive:
Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

[Celtic_Punk]

what I do not understand is why anyone can think a people aren't who they are when the archaeological evidence supports original thinking, language supports it, and (though there is little) written history supports it.

Lets look at it this way. Despite Britain taking over Jamaica, the culture of Jamaica changed but did not conform to British. Result? Jamaicans are Jamaican not British.

massalia was subjugated by rome. For a time they stayed their original greco-celt culture. but due to massive influence from rome they became romanized. end result? Massalians became ROMAN

You become Canadian by living here and assimilating into the culture. Anyone in Canada who fares well in snow and can take the cold, who can speak either English or French, and well... Acts Canadian (eh!) is a Canadian. I was not born in Canada but I've changed from an Irishman to a Irish Canadian because I have taken in the culture. Anyone who doesn't fare well in cold and snow, does not simulate the social structure (no you don't have to say eh all the time, eh) and ESPECIALLY cannot speak English or French, is not a Canadian, and is still whatever culture they retain.

Culture determines not your ethnic origin (which there is no celt ethnicity, we are caucasian) but who you are. Therefore if Ireland grew acustomed to celtic goods, warfare, celtic gods, and their way of socializing and doing things, and emulated them, they became celtic.

You mistake the subtle differences for being completely different. By your(the OP) way thinking any people living outside the original site of celtic culture is not celtic, but their own form of plagiarized culture. This however is totally false. Celt influence spread over such a vast area by people accepting celtic culture into their daily lives. So for example, instead of an immigrant becoming Canadian, per say, its the Canadians who are becoming the immigrant's culture. They are STILL THE SAME GENETICALLY! but on the outside they've changed.

[lobf]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never been to agentina and I won't pretend to know anything about its terrain, so correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? If so thats why it would be sparsely populated.

Off topic: I'd love to go on a 3 week journey through the Amazon or another massive thick jungle. Obviously properly equipped, and physically ready. I'd have to rough it though... no GPS or anything electronic.

[-Praetor-]

It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women.

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.

This:


Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.

is a more accurate description to what happened.


Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors.

What? :wreck:


Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

:wreck:

:inquisitive:

It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted. :wall:


What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.


I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

A large part of Argentina is pampa, a large steppe (52% of total surface) fit only for cattle and hydrocarbon exploitation. And another large part is Andine mountains. Most of the fertile land lies to the northeast.


correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Yup, you're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Argentina#Land_use)

[Sumskilz]

Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.

[Berg-i-dum]

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.

The south extreme of South America wasnt almost populated before the came of the europeans. Dont know exactly why. May be it was the bad wheater, long distances,... The Argentine Pampa and Tierra del Fuego havent almost trees or so, there are deserted prairies. Those prairies are fertile if you have cows and so, ...but there wasnt cows before europeans. And no, it isnt like Vietnam or Amazonas :laugh4:,it isnt mountainous, it is a big plateau.

[Berg-i-dum]

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.



It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted. :wall:

[/URL]
I am absolutely agree with the first paragraph.

About the second, yeah Chile it wasnt a desert like Pampa but well you will be agree in that it wasnt really so big populated as Mexico or Venezuela, Colombia.


Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.
Your study is about a reduced area of Colombia heavily colonized by spaniards. This dont explain nothing in general. The vast majority of latin america is native in the most of Latin America, you can go there and check it. No study is neccesary, just kidding hehe. The principal reason is that spaniards nor diseases didnt kill the most of population and the colonizers were a really bit porcentage of population that came across the ocean, Spain was a really little country to manage and to make a so big influence in latin america population much more bigger than spanish one...

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

[Sumskilz]

There was another study led by Dr. Andres Ruiz-Linares that studied 13 populations across Latin America from Chile to Mexico that found very similar results as the study I posted, except that there was a bit higher percentage of native genes in the Andes and Central Mexico where the Native populations had been higher prior to contact. It also showed that a small number of male lineages contributed a lot of DNA which fits with the idea of there having been very few Spanish colonists. There exists primary source documentation for about 55,000 individuals emmigrating from Spain to Latin America prior to 1600. The people that look native to you mostly carry European genetics. They are mixed. I agree with you that most of Latin America is native except that they are also of European ancestry. Very few individuals in Latin America even identify themselves as native, they usually call themselves Mestizo.

I don’t know if I buy the 90% figure either, but it’s thrown around a lot by scholars on the subject. It seems very difficult to estimate such a thing.

I don’t think this is really relevant to EB anymore though.

[cmacq]

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

I'm not real sure I've ever run across any of these Black Legend stories? However, in the American Southwest population levels do seem to have decreased about 80% in some areas and even more in others. I fact, large regions appear to have been effectively abandoned. Interrestingly, this demographic drop was not associated with the arrivial of the Iberians. In a pan-regional sense, the initial phase of depopulation occurred between AD 1150-1165 and again from 1275 to 1300. As in the case of the Fremont Culture, Virgin Anasazi, and the first abandonment of Chaco in the second half of the 12th century AD. Then in the late 13th century another set of regions were all but abandoned, for example the Mesa Verde, the San Juan, and for the second time the McAlmo phase Chaco.

In the Tonto-Lower Verde area, which I'm most familiar with, the Roosevelt Phase cultural florescence was cut short and the population dropped by more than 80%. Between AD 1300 and roughly 1350 there was somewhat of a recovery, however population remained less that a quarter of the 13th century levels. After AD 1350 the bottom seems to have dropped out and with the exception of the consolidated proto-Hopi and proto-Zuni all of Arizona and New Mexico were abandoned between the Colorado and Rio Grande, north of Tucson possibly as early as AD 1400. Right there were several O'odham remnents, but these were very small, and it wasn't long before the various Pai affiliates trikled into the vacoum. Still, these were but a very small fraction of what the 13th century population levels had been.

Now the first Spanish expedition to the Caribbean arrived, in what, 1492? Now, my math skills aren’t that good, but I seem to always come up with a difference of about 100 years. Strange, every two or three years or so, another energetic young archaeologist new to the area seems to want to make a difference and send that 100 years to the Cornfield. The reason they want to whittle these years away is because if they can make the period of mass abandonment appear to have occured a century later, and match it with first contact, then they'll have a causality for said abandonments; European induced disease. Think jamming a square peg into a round hole; to the untrained eye it may look feasible, problem is, it doesn't fit, 'period!'

In other words they want whys, and in contrast, I ask why not; Or they say tomato, I say potato, or better yet, tater-tot. This is because I seem to remember somewhere reading about, the dendro-based paleo-climatic reconstructions which demonstrate two significant periods of extended drought within this time frame; the first occurred in the middle 12th century (AD 1150-1165) and the second much more sever, between AD 1275 and 1295. Actually, this is why we know the abandonment dates of an individual structure, settlement, and whole regions; from the cutting dates of timber used to build new roofs. When there are no new cutting dates found within an intire region, and contemperary uncut timber has extremely narrow grouth rings, we know when a given area was no longer occupied.

I also remember that after AD 1350 there reoccurred short periods (about 5 to 15 years) of sever drought followed by sever flooding (of one to three years) until around AD 1850. Then a little farther afield I may recall the collapse of the Middle Mississippian Culture (which covered much of the central US) between AD 1150 and 1300. Also I think the high altitude Tiwanaku went down the tube about the same time (starting around AD 1150), and lets not forget the infamous disappearance of the Norse Greenland colony (decline starting around AD 1150-defunct by 1450), as well as the demise of the Viking expansion (decline starting around AD 1150-more or less defunct by 1300), Great Famine (1315-1317), Black Death (1346-1351), and of course least I forget; the Curse of One Rabbit (now its high-tide dendro-dated between 1332 to 1543).

I suppose the big picture here is that due to repeated drought, flood, and famine associated with the Little Ice Age, already nutritionally stressed global populations were more susceptible than ever to the evolving new range of Variola. In fact, upon contact, the natives of the western hemisphere were nothing special; the pox was known to reap a far wider swath when the sandbox was bigger. As later as the 18th century it claimed an average of several hundred-thousand every year in Europe alone. It seems that the Romans of the Imperial Period also saw their fair share of Variola. Strange, how the pox only wants to come out and play big-time whenever moma-earth decides its time to get cold?




CmacQ

[lobf]

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.


The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.


No, southern Chile wasn't controlled by the Inca empire. But much of modern day Chile was. It follows to me that people existed beyond the borders of a particular political state. And considering Inca interest in the areas around southern Chile/Argentina, it wasn't individuals roaming deserts.

Edit- My point is there were Mapuches in enough numbers to resist the Incas.

Double edit- Which means bunches of Mapuches.

[oudysseos]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-Before-Columbus-Charles/dp/1862078769/ref=sr_1_1/180-6799611-0508267?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

[cmacq]

Chile and Eire; potatos, I guess? Actually, it seems these were offered as examples of population replacement vs augmentation.




CmacQ

[Berg-i-dum]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-Before-Columbus-Charles/dp/1862078769/ref=sr_1_1/180-6799611-0508267?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?
I never have said that it was a desert or tried to say it, may be it was my bad english, I said *almost desert, of course the only really desert area of the world is Antartica.

I know that book, but I dont consider ir a reference book since the author is a journalist, not a historian, and it is evident that he is trying to make a polemic/ controversial new history of prehispanic America as he said. I havent read it and it is in my list from long time but I could recommend other authors, with an academical reputation and veteran historians, but they are spaniards and of course their books werent translated to english :beam:

About the theories cmacq exposed, I consider them really interesting. Of course this could explain too or be part of an explanation about the downfall of Mayas/ Majan. But well I think all this process is difficult to demostrate. And of course it is much more easier to blame the spaniard conquest.

Sumskilz, I really dont think the most of latin americans like to call themselves mestizos or even be proud to have spanish ancestors, The nowadays fashion is to blame the conquerors and exalt native cultures. So little spanish genetic there can be spread like visigoths genetic can be in the spanish population, yeah we can be mixed in a really bit porcentage but not to aseverate we are visigoths or we are goth mestizos. And you will be agree 55.000 colonizers cant change a population of millions. It depends on the areas, of course Antioquia region in Colombia it was heavily colonized and other regions but I dont think in general. A general genetica study could be help but as far as I know that study doesnt exist, and we must consider that genetical sciencie it isnt still developed, we must compare his conclusions with historical ones to make a better vision.

And yea I think this is not relevant to EB too and may be the thread itself, sorry about that.

[Celtic_Punk]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-Before-Columbus-Charles/dp/1862078769/ref=sr_1_1/180-6799611-0508267?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?


I concur... when did "celts not irish" become "chile and argentina are deserted....?

[Riastradh]

Blitzkreig, first I'm rather suprised in you attacking me, especially when you have only proven that you can't read what I wrote. Let's take a look shall we? This is what I said,

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

Now, you proceeded to attack me and say I have no proof of this along with many other pieces which can all be cast aside by the simple fact of this part of the description,

Instead it is THOUGHT

Never did I say anything about the Gaels origins to be complete fact, nor did I ever say that the Irish were called Gaels in Antiquity. In fact, I even stated that they were called the Scoti/Scotti by the Romans which IS factual. While YOU may not agree with the finding and usage of genetic testing, that doesn't change the fact that many in the science community do. I never said this is a 100% fullproof science nor did I say that there is no other possible explanations. However, the present day Irish people according to genetic studies are more and more so thought to be very closely related to the Basque people, who are actually thought quite possibly to be a pre-indo-european people. Does that mean the Irish and Basques are absolutely related? No it doesn't. Does that mean the Basques are without a doubt pre-indo-european? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that genetic studies and testing are a load of uncredible BS? Absolutely not.

All I did was make a clear definition of who the celts of antiquity are and who the gaels are, since everyone kept saying that using celt/celtic was vague. I also simply stated that the use of the term Gael or gaelic would be more appropriate/accurate which it is. Call them Cruithne, Scoti/Scotti, Hibernian if you want I could care less which term you use as all of them are more appropriate than celt/celtic.

There was no reason for you to attack me, and try to say I don't know what I'm talking about. I have been very respectful and thoughtful in my posts and argument. I've also supplied some articles and such which give some credit to what I've been trying to say. You saying that certain sciences or arguments are uncredible is ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows for certain whether the genetic testing results are 100% correct. Fact is, what I have said isn't simply a load of crap out of nowhere and you acting like an ass in uncalled for.

[blitzkrieg80]

this last post is a much more objective post [except the end] - your much clear-er statements are appreciated.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin)You said THIS as if it is fact, that the Gaels WERE the ancient inhabitants of Ireland which is not true, which was my point... or are you suggesting that the ancient Irish ARE Q-Celtic-speakers who arrived much earlier? Gaelic is a Celtic language- FACT. Therefore, Gaels is not a better term. You still have not proven this to be the case. You make a good argument and we appreciate your thoughtful discussion of the topic, but Celts and Celtic-speaking peoples are not the same as Gauls / continental Celts or Brythonic or P-Celtic speakers or La Tene / Halstatt culture-practitioners. There is no need to argue whether your opinion on 'Celt' is correct (which we agree it is, in the Classical sense), because Celtic language is a commonly accepted usage, just like Germanic is, despite 'German' being a designation for different people than Deutsch and its related parentage. Similarly, I don't plan on arguing for Deutsch, Teuton, or Theuthisk instead of 'Germanic' just because it sounds better to me (and IS more accurate): believe me, I would argue that! Perhaps the usage of English language is the issue? Is 'Celtic' more specific in Gaelic? Because in English academia, Celtic is appropriate for Celtic-speakers- that's all I am saying. This is the reason Celtic-speakers are described as Celtic. I don't need proof of this because all of academia supports it... or prove me wrong. The Gaels are a specific people who are important to Ireland's history but far from the definition or ethnic origin.

We agree that we can expand the future descriptions concerning the people to encompass non-Celts... maybe this wasn't clear? I will truly remember this conversation and make an attempt to change this stuff in EB2, because you have a point and I believe in supporting attempts at truth and objective perspective. Honestly, I already mentioned this internally with other members as an issue, because of the 'theory' involved in Irish pre-history and the voice of certainty that is a little too much. Other fans have also voiced their concern on this kind of thing, some more polite than others, but without much convincing evidence, which is why we might seem over-sensitive to the matter.

My objective was to try and show that there is no reason to make a big fuss, and if i was overly aggressive, I apologize, because you brought up a legitimate concern, even if presumptuous, and it has turned out to be an interesting discussion, if a little OT. Yet, you cannot deny that you tried to claim authority on the matter, which is why you receive such a reaction. I don't state something as if it is fact then wonder why people try to disprove it. you're right we won't find new information to prove anything on either side, so i for one am willing to postulate that you are indeed correct, even if there is evidence to the contrary.


Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows for certain whether the genetic testing results are 100% correct.
we know this isn't possible, actually... this should be known, if one truly understands science and theory. there is no single scientist in the history of mankind who got it all right on the first try, never needing to have further amendments or refinement to their science, theory or method.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you have been posting about for the past three pages is research done 5-10 years ago which, after the initial hooh-hah was ultimately placed in the "yes, and?" pile.

Your basic thesis is that the population of the British Isles in general and Ireland in particular is not Celtic, but rather of Basque descent. One of the articles posted declared that the Northern population of Britain was Germanic in its extraction, and spoke a Germanic language.

As a Medievalist I have to say that this last doesn't pan out very well. While, as I said, there may only have been 200,000 Sais invaders that doesn't change the fact that it was a 200,000 odd ARMY that came over, big bastards with beards and swords, axes and all manner of high-tech death-dealing hardware.

The rejection of the "Invasion and Extinction" by modern scholarship is quite right, but the very recent attempt to replace it with "immigrated and settled down" is as much a facet of out desire to re-write history as a reflection of any of the evidence. Our ancestors didn't write the Chronicles as fiction. Increasingly we find that the basic thread throughout is surprisingly accurate, even with something as removed as the Trojan War.

To be honest you haven't said anything I haven't read before, and much of it has been largely rejected as not really historically relevant.

[Sumskilz]

When we consider that Gaelic is a Celtic language, isn’t saying that the Irish are not Celts like saying the French are not Latin? I mean they are and they aren’t. We have ample historical evidence regarding the Roman conquest of Gaul and the subsequent invasions, if genetic testing were to be done on the French, would it be able to tell us the complex story that we know from history? I doubt it, and we just don’t have much of a record to go on when it comes to prehistoric Ireland, so there is very little evidence against which the results of genetic testing can be framed.

[oudysseos]

Riastradh, I have gone over Blitzkriegs posts and I cannot see anywhere that he 'attacked' you. Indeed, until you called him an ass, I thought that this thread was both very interesting and refreshingly polite.
And really, you haven't overcome the objections to your original position. You said that the Irish aren't Celts. Well then, who are they? Gaels, you say. O.K., who are the Gaels? Celtic-speaking peoples. :tredmil:
In fact, 'Gael' might have been considered an insulting description by the 3rd century BCE people of Ireland, as it appears to derive from Guoidel in Old Welsh, meaning "pirate", or "raider". Perhaps the best description for the Irish in the EB time period would be 'Scoti' or 'Attacoti'. Both appellations are from a later period than EB, but still might be more accurate than 'Gael' or 'Celt'.

You said their Warrior culture had nothing to do with Celtic tribes. Since there are no primary written sources from Ireland in the period in question, this is really a moot point. But you do have to expect to be challenged on assertions and assumptions, and it is not an attack on you personally to ask that you support a statement like
nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today
by quoting and/or citing some of these scholars, scientists and archaeologists.

For example, Barry Cunliffe, whose authority on the Celts is generally conceded, has theorized that the
profusion of archaeological evidence for exchange relations among the different Atlantic-facing sectors of the European coast, including Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Galicia and Portugal in the late Bronze Age, 1200-200 BC, indicates that 'Atlantic Celtic' may have grown up as a lingua franca, or perhaps an elite language, among the various communities of the eastern seaboard (quoted in Empires of the Word, Nicholas Ostler). Cunliffe is an eminent archaeologist, has done work in Ireland, has found Celtic artifacts here, some of which are in the National Museum of Ireland on Kildare Street. This isn't directly about 'Warrior Culture' but does speak to the identification of the people in Ireland. Cunliffe, one of those scholars, scientists and archaeologists you mention, thinks that they were Celtic speaking.

Another interesting aspect of Insular Celtic is its possible relationship with Punic. From Empires of the Word


Another hypothesis is ... the theory of Celtic spread by navigation along the Atlantic coast, by noting that major partners in this network, for most of the first millennium BC, were the Phoenicians, many of them (specifically the Carthaginians) based in North Africa, and quite capable of maintaining links along the whole Mediterranean. Now it so happens that in the North African language families, Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber, there are direct parallels for at least seventeen of these curious characteristics of British and Irish Celtic, characteristics that are quite unparalleled in any Indo-European language, let alone their Celtic cousins, and which are indeed extremely rare globally. If Celtic was indeed spread as a coastal lingua franca, these North Africans, in trade and exchange, would have been among its speakers, and effective in moulding it.
But there is no direct linguistic evidence for any of this at the moment: as to the spread of Gaukish across most of Europe, and the origins of Celtiberian, and the Celtic languages of the British Isles, we are in the realm of speculation and reconstruction.

Here is an overview of the consensus of academic, scholary and archaeological opinion on Insular Celtic culture by D.W. Harding, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6, chapter 9.


By contrast with continental Europe, our knowledge of the early Iron Age in Britain derives almost exclusively from the study of settlements and fortifications rather than cemeteries. In consequence, though the evidence for settlement patterns and economy, particularly in southern England, is substantial, the material assemblages from these sites reveal a limited range of types and a markedly insular character compared to the extensive cemetery inventories of Central Europe. Cross-channel connexions are none the less attested from the late Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age, the Channel itself serving as a natural route for trade and exchange rather than as a barrier to cultural communication. Population movements are notoriously difficult to substantiate archaeologically, but linguistic evidence alone requires the introduction of Celtic-speaking people into Britain and Ireland by a date which can hardly be later than the middle of the first millennium B.C. A simple equation between areas of Celtic settlement and the distribution of La Tene artefact types is plainly untenable here, since this would effectively exclude large parts of Scotland and Ireland which none the less have abundant evidence of Iron Age occupation. In Ireland, the contrast between the distribution of La Tene metalwork in the northern half of the country (coincident broadly with the distribution of beehive rotary querns) and its relative absence in the south west, where later prehistoric settlement is attested notably in small, stone forts (cashels, cathairs), has given rise to the use of the term 'non-La Tene' Iron Age for this variant of insular Celtic culture. The origins of Ireland's Celtic settlement are contentious, since the surviving linguistic evidence is Q-Celtic, predominantly if not exclusively, by contrast to P-Celtic in Gaul and southern Britain. Scottish Gaelic is generally reckoned not to have been transmitted across the North Channel until the invasions of the Scotti around the fourth century A.D. and thereafter, but it is not impossible that a Q-Celtic language was introduced earlier into Atlantic Scotland along a west coast route from Iberia and south-western Ireland. In archaeological terms, such an Atlantic cultural axis would be essentially non-La Tene, so that La Tene metalwork in Ireland would need to be explained as a separate introduction, perhaps involving reciprocal influences with northern England and southern Scotland, but not necessarily requiring population movements on any significant scale.

My emphases throughout. Clearly, the Irish are considered to be 'Celtic' by scholars, scientists and archaeologists by at least the EB time period, even if they are not related to the Gauls. In fact I retract my earlier suggestion about Scotti: Gael, Scotti and Attacoti are designations that cannot be firmly tied to the 3rd century BCE, no matter how appropriate they might be for later time periods. 'Celt', however, by being general, subsumes all of these appellations, and is therefore the best name for the Celtic speaking people of Ireland in 272 BCE.


P.S. I'm not dogmatic about Irish origins just 'cos I'm Irish. I'm sticking with Celt 'cos it seems the best general description, not 'cos my world will collapse if I can't call myself a Celt. I mean, who cares? we're all homo sapiens at the end of the day.

[cmacq]

from another thread

A Branch Way Too Far

http://www.geni-genealogist.com.au/images/family_tree.jpg

Sometimes it doesn't take too long to find the fatal flaw in these thingy’s. Right, I've looked into this population replacement/augmentation thing, by way of the archaeology, for a good deal of time now, and I've noticed several interesting patterns. I'll share them, but first I've got to get myself to work, as its both a field day, and I'm thinking a rain day.

In the meantime, can anyone familiar with the genetic study in question, tell me the number of actual individuals used in the study and how these plot out geographically, what were the range of attributes identified; and of these how many clusters were noted and how do they plot out geographically. I'm thinking that what we have here is a case of scientific slight of hand. For example; we have an island called X were 20 related women and 20 related man live (total 40 with no children). Then on year one a group of 65 adult men with no women invade island X and kill all but 5 of the adult native men. This group of 65 newcomers now represents about 2/3s of the total population, and they go on the bred and have children with all 20 of the native women. However using the type of DNA the study used, 1000 years later the newcomers would be represented in about 0/0 percent of the sample. If I'm correct, then these genetic studies are yet another huge waste of time and money. In other words, a wee bit meaningless.



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

I can't comment on the utility of these genetic studies, but I can provide Cmacq (what does that mean?) with a link to the data. http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molpopgen/resources.php
I reckon that the study originally referred to by Riastradh in his first post is the last one on this page, i.e. The Longue Duree of genetic ancestry: multiple genetic marker systems and Celtic origins on the Atlantic facade of Europe, McEvoy B, Richards M, Forster P, Bradley DG. According to the readme text, the study considered 300 individuals in Ireland. There are additional files detailing the results and providing the data used, but I have no idea what all the numbers mean :surrender2:.

:bullseye:Late breaking developments: here is the full text of the study. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15309688

Riastradh, I respectfully suggest that you take a look at this. It neither says that Irish culture wasn't Celtic or that they unequivocally came from Iberia.


The recolonization of western Europe from an Iberian refugium after the retreat of the ice sheets ~15,000 years ago could explain the common genetic legacy in the area. An alternative but not mutually exclusive model would place Atlantic fringe populations at the “Mesolithic” extreme of a Neolithic demic expansion into Europe from the Near East.
An alternative explanation might simply be restricted patterns of long-term gene flow within these two major ecogeographical zones in Europe, facilitated by the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaways. It is difficult to distinguish genetically between a common Paleolithic origin and more recent contacts. However, haplogroup R1b3f Y chromosomes, which have a recent origin in Iberia (Hurles et al. 1999), have not been found in Ireland (Hill et al. 2000), arguing against the migration of very large numbers of men by this route, at least, in the past 2,000–3,000 years.
What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers—or former Celtic speakers—of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age.

What it does say is that the genetic evidence does not support a central European origin for the people of the British Isles. The monolithic common origin of all Celtic speaking peoples was proposed by Edward Lhuyd in 1707 and has not been the major academic consensus for a long time, so this isn't really news, eh?

Anyway, Cmacq, I hope this is what you're looking for.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Op says 200 people in Ireland compared to 8,500 samples from Europe and N. Africa.

200 people is really a tiny minority, the population of Ireland was already into the several million by the turn of the first millenium.

[oudysseos]

I should really be working.

But I found this article on the web and don't know what to make of it. I was hoping someone with more expertise could let me know what they think. It's about the Gaels and purports to show that the Leabhar Gabhala Eireann can be taken literally. Interesting reading, anyway.

http://www.ctv.es/USERS/ocalitro/

[cmacq]

Whence comfort seemed to dwell,
discomford no sooner swelled,
so go Gallowglasses and skippy Kerns,
both compelled...

to trust their heels?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/Gallowglass_-_D%C3%BCrer.png/300px-Gallowglass_-_D%C3%BCrer.png

I've always thought that the use of Gallowglass/Gallóglaigh by the Scotts and Irish as being 'foreign-Infantry,' was initially derived from their word for the Guals. We have Gall- from Gallus, meaning Gaul, and gal meaning valour, war, or might. Additionally, og-, óc-, or óac- young; and -laoch, -laigh or -lach, warrior. Then, those with some understanding of the subject will note the Old Irish word 'cruithnecht,' meaning wheat (literally; that which is 'cut' or 'harvested). Thus, the word Cruithne (Cruithni) most likely meant something like '[those] that harvest' or 'farmers?'

Also, there is a very old family tradition about a personage called the Muirannach or 'Sea Rover' and a lady from the far south called Gríanach or 'Sunshine.' This tradition has something to do with seasonal change and concludes that the clan was directly descendant from the above union by day, and by night the seal (you know Phoca vitulina). I believe a number of other clans from Scottland's western isles and some from parts of Ireland have similar traditions. And then there is the symbolic Salmon, as the clan totem and all of what that entails, and it goes on and on. I wonder if the Sunshine story was a adaptation of the Egypt story?




CmacQ

[Elmetiacos]

In fact, 'Gael' might have been considered an insulting description by the 3rd century BCE people of Ireland, as it appears to derive from Guoidel in Old Welsh, meaning "pirate", or "raider". Perhaps the best description for the Irish in the EB time period would be 'Scoti' or 'Attacoti'. Both appellations are from a later period than EB, but still might be more accurate than 'Gael' or 'Celt'.
Using the modern classification "Gael" or "Celt" doesn't imply that the people so classified used that designation themselves; if we say Old Norse is a Germanic language, that doesn't mean 11th Century Norwegians called themselves Germans. The Attacotti are not Irish (necessarily) they simply got assigned to Ireland or the far North of Scotland because no historian could think of anywhere else they came from, assuming they were a tribe at all - the name suggests "Those who returned to the old ways". As with the Corionototae, it could be mistaking a social or political movement for a tribe.


Another interesting aspect of Insular Celtic is its possible relationship with Punic. From Empires of the Word
For years and years I've heard this bit of wrongness passed on and repeated. It originates in the mid-18th Century with an attempt to show the antiquity of Welsh by demonstrating its proximity with Hebrew, believed at that time to have been spoken in the Garden of Eden and therefore the oldest language in the world. It works by drawing parallels between modern Welsh or modern/mediaeval Irish and either Phoenician or Berber. It omits to mention that all these similarities are only with modern Celtic: they don't work at all when you compare the forms of these languages as we think they were spoken in 200BC.

P.S. I'm not dogmatic about Irish origins just 'cos I'm Irish. I'm sticking with Celt 'cos it seems the best general description, not 'cos my world will collapse if I can't call myself a Celt. I mean, who cares? we're all homo sapiens at the end of the day.
The Irish are called Celts because the Irish language is Celtic. The term comes with a lot more baggage than any other designation, but in the end it only means with certainty Celtic-speakers - after that arguments like this thread start.

[cmacq]

There may be some that could find this of interest.


As I posted above, that the Old Irish word 'cruithnecht,' means wheat (literally; that which is 'cut' or 'harvested). Thus, the word Cruithne (Cruithni) most likely meant something like '[those] that harvest' or 'farmers?' A meaning for Cruithne better yet, is 'the peasantry,; or 'not of the ruling class.' Now remember that in Britain, which was initially called Albion, the term Cruithne was morphed into pryteni, supposedly by the first users of P-Celt sometime in the 4th century BC. If indeed Cruithne and Pryteni were the same word, the term Briton may actually have meant ‘the peasantry,’ as well. This may suggest that the culture of Britain/Albion, before the P-Celts move in, was very similar to that found in Ireland at a later date. Please don't fixate on the use of Celt in the term P-Celt, it in fact has nothing to do with the Celts, its just a well established and common usage.

Now for the interesting part; I tracked down the origin of the term Gael and its a relatively recent invention. It seems to have come from Scots (English; aka Doric, Lallans, or Teri) as derived from of the Scots Gaelic term for a Scottish Islander or Highlander; Gaidheal. Its first documented use was in 1596. From Scots English it went to English proper, and in the 1800s was adopted into both Scotland and Ireland as the proper name of the native lingo. Therefore the word Gaelic is actually an English term, derived from a Gaelic word that was in due course intergraded into the Gaelic language as the name of said language. I’ll get back to this gael thingy in a moment, but first…

The actual Old Irish term used to refer to the ruling class Irish and Scots was Goídeleg. This particular word has a very interesting meaning. The root is derived from the Irish Goid/Goídim, meaning steal, thieve, or seize, which was from the Early Irish Gatam/Gad-doi; its root being Gad/Ghad. The latter means to seize, hold, or contain. Thus in this context the term Goídeleg pertains to ‘those that hold.’ Its very possible that Cruithne actually refers to the peasantry and Goídeleg, the ruling class without an attempt to address ethnicity. With the exception of slaves, this was more or less how the class system was set up in Ireland in the Pre- and Roman Iron Age. However, it seems that early on the meaning of Goídeleg, in a larger context may have been influenced by the retendition of goidel within Brythonic (as it appears in Old Welsh) to mean pirate or raider. This calls to mind the Roman use of Scotti, to mean Irish pirates, as taken from the Gaelic scaoth, scaoith or skoiti meaning; a swarm (like bees), or in this context, 'a swarm (of warriors).'

The kicker is that with the use of Gal, to mean foreigner, as this actually was an indirect reference to the Gauls, the Latin form of which Kelt was the Greek, for the same ethnicity, even the ancient Irish were telling us very clearly, that they were indeed not Celts. So whom is one to believe; the ancient Irish themselves?






CmacQ

[oudysseos]

the ancient Irish were telling us very clearly, that they were indeed not Celts
In a celtic language. Can we agree that they were a celtic-speaking peoples? Or do you think that q-celtic is misidentified and not related to continental celtic languages? And if I may ask, what do you think is an appropriate term for the Irish in the EB time period?

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).


Historically, early Ibero-Celtic Ireland was populated by numerous tribes with an overking, from which spawned the seat of the high king that fell into constant contest by the time Rome fell, and the sub-kingdoms of Ireland were rendered into warring splinters. However, despite the varying periods of relative stability with a kind of warring states period, the Goidils always relied on a tribal model, with each family being headed by an elected chief, who acted as the tribe's spokesman to the mounting tiers of officials.

Historically, the Goidils were not a single group of Celts, but intermingled blood of Gauls, Britons, Belgae, and even Iberians.

I'm asking about this because my (lay-man's) interpretation of the genetic evidence that we have been discussing is that the ethnic heritage common to Ireland and Iberia dates to the meso- or neo-lithic, thousands of years before q-celtic language and culture became part of Irish life. The McEvoy study says explicitly that two to three thousand year old Iberian haplogroups are not found in Ireland. To put it another way, the people who built Newgrange were not Celts/Gaels/Goidels/whateveryouwantotcallthem. So does a stone-age connexion between the Irish and Iberian populations warrant identifying an Ibero-Celtic culture? I'd say not, but there may be other information that those with more expertise have knowledge of.

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge, but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA890&lpg=PA890&dq=A+Typological+Evaluation+of+Celtic/Hamito-Semitic+Syntactic+Parallels&source=web&ots=p_TChayA1I&sig=4JGxWytPzjHDctIfvs0IbWqHItM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX4nY2x3UC&printsec=frontcover#PPA125,M1

[Celtic_Punk]

Cmaq... You also gotta think that perhaps they were looking for their own identity? To them there were only gauls and britons as foreigners. Sure they'd get the odd tale from a bard of places distant, but the people whom they'd have contact with would be (for the lack of a proper inoffensive word) other celts.

Even now the surviving Celtic peoples have very different identities, you really can't compare an Irishman and a Breton or a Scotsman or a Corn(on the cob).

Lets just take a step into a hypothetical world. In a widespread culture (Celt) it would be of utmost importance to me to be different to my neighbours, to have my own identity. Such as Adeui Averni, they'd most likely consider themselves Celts, but they wouldn't say they were the same as the other. In their bid to distance themselves from old enemies, or just to gain their own identity in the world, you might just be confusing it with them telling you who they really are.

Of course this is just theoretical. Still food for thought.
No matter I will still hang on to my Celtic identity. A culture that brought the world soap, fine long swords, good helms, one of the first to have semi-equal rights for women (see Queen Bodicca) and an all round bad ass rep on the battlefield.


oh and did I forget Guiness? :ireland: "A Pint of the black stuff, guv"

[Riastradh]

Oudysseos, first I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia, nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way. I never stated that my argument was 100% fact and that there is no other way. I was simply trying to point out the use of the term "Celt or Celtic" for the ethnic Irish is not a proper term. I also never said that Gael was the best term, I simply stated that it was more appropriate and it is. Gael refers to people of Irish, Scottish and Manx ethnicity or peoples who speak Gaelic(Irish,Scottish,Manx). Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward.

In my descriptions of Celt and Gael I did include as much info which is accurate. In my description of Gael, I also included that fact that the Irish were called the Scoti/Scotti by the Romans, though admittedly didn't make that clear enough. In my response to Blitz I also said that they could be called Scotti, Cruithne, Hibernian w/e as they are all more proper designations for the Irish people. Celtic Punk may be right about the different tribes of Gaul trying to distinguish themselves from one another, but I think he overlooks the fact that it is very likely that the would have all refered to themselves as Gauls/Celtae/Gaulish. Especially considering they united to fight Gaius Julius Caesar and the Roman conquest of Gaul.

My whole reason for this thread is that I believe Celtic/Celt or anything thereof is not the right term when refering to Irish units. I have stated this, backed it up with a real description of what a Celt was and is, and given some alternatives. You don't have to necessarily choose from those alternatives as there could be a more accurate term. Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean. Those are modern usages nothing more and would definately not have been used for such in the Iron Age. In the Roman empire, a great many people would have spoken latin. However, a great many of those people were not Romans, nor did they consider themselves to be.

Lastly, concerning myself saying that Blitz's post was an attack, that may have been a little over the top. However, telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about, or that you don't think/believe they know what they're talking about, is really just a more polite way of saying you think/believe someone is stupid and/or ignorant. It was a rude thing to say and I believe it was quite uncalled for.

[Elmetiacos]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).
The unit notes on the EB website seem to take O'Rahilly's model of Irish history as the absolute truth. While that isn't quite completely discredited, it isn't a very popular view anymore.

[oudysseos]

I descended into pedantry long ago, I suppose. I still have some problems with some of the things you write, Riastradh, but I think that we are splitting increasingly microscopic hairs, here.


I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia post 86

they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago. post 46


nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way post 86

The Irish are not celts and their warrior culture had nothing to do with celtic tribes post 1

It is perfectly o.k. to nuance your position as you become aware of information that is new to you, but you ought to acknowledge that you have done so.

I'll try to get to the kernel of the argument. Please correct me if I misrepresent you in any way. Throughout, you seem to use terms like 'Gael' and 'Celt' ethnically and/or racially. You have never denied or addressed the linguistic use of these terms: Whatever you call them, everyone seems to agree that the people living in Ireland spoke a Celtic Language by the latter half of the first millenium BCE. I'll get back to this in a minute.

You object to Celt because
1. Genetic evidence suggests that the Irish are not descended from Central European La Tene"Celts".
2. "Celt" is a modern term that the Irish people of 272 BCE would not have applied to themselves.

But a Cmacq pointed out, 'Gael' is as much, if not more, of a modern construct as 'Celt'. If you object to Celt because they didn't call themselves that, then you have to reject all other terms that aren't indigenous to the people in question. That leaves out Roman terms like Scotti or Attacoti and modern English terms like Gael and Celt. It seems like Goideleg (not synonymous with Gael) is all we're left with. I'd go along with describing the Irish as a 'Celtic-speaking peoples who may have referred to themselves as Goidelegs'.

However, I don't think that, in the context of EB at least if not generally, a strictly ethnic or racial definition of Celt is appropriate.

Q Celtic is not related to invasion by Celts / mainland or P-Celtic speakers who have been coined as 'THE CELTS' of antiquity, thus everyone is confused because nobody ever claimed this to be so. Now, if you disagree on what defines 'Celt' that is another discussion entirely and one that doesn't have much bearing on the origin of Ireland because it spans a much wider issue. When we speak of Celts game-wise and in descriptions, it means Celtic-speakers, and we can discuss if the description should or should not mention that aspect.
Blitzkriegs formulation cannot be improved upon. The truth is that all of the terms that exist to describe these people are words that were applied to them by foreigners, and in the absence of contemporary indigenous names, a term that is base on linguistic affiliation and that has universal acceptance seems to be appropriate. Welcome back, Atlantic Celt.

I still don't see where Blitz said that you don't know what you're talking about. What he did say (and I concur) is that you are wrong about some things. It's not rude to disagree with you. And you have demonstrated a predilection for making statements as if they were recognized universal truths and only presenting evidence and arguments for them after you have been challenged. For example,

Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean. Actually, just because academics, scholars and archaeologists (like the many that I have referenced) use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a Celtic language or had some Celtic parts of their culture does in fact absolutely mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually means to the people using the term. I have yet to see one case of a scholar objecting to the use of 'Celtic' to describe Irish culture, even though everyone knows how problematic it is.
I don't think that you'll find much support for defining Celt as meaning only someone who was born in La Tene Switzerland. If I'm wrong, and you do have someone who can support your mega-restrictive use of Celt, then by all means quote, link or cite them. At the very least you need to admit that your position on nomenclature is contrary to standard usage.

Ultimately, disagreement seems to stem from usage: Riastradh, you assert that Celt means only Gauls.
Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward. By this standard of course the Irish are not Celts. But your usage is so out of step with what is now commonly accepted that you will have to make a serious case for your position, which I am afraid you have not done. Why are Cunliffe, Ellis, Harding, Waddell, O'Rahilly and on and on wrong when they use Celt to mean 1. Celtic speakers, 2. Celtic material culture and/or 3. Celtic belief system. The Irish are in on all 3 counts.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge,A very dangerous thing to do! :yes:

but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&pg=PA890&lpg=PA890&dq=A+Typological+Evaluation+of+Celtic/Hamito-Semitic+Syntactic+Parallels&source=web&ots=p_TChayA1I&sig=4JGxWytPzjHDctIfvs0IbWqHItM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX4nY2x3UC&printsec=frontcover#PPA125,M1
The link to the dissertation doesn't work, alas. The problem with it is what I said; it relies on backdating grammatical quirks of Irish and Welsh to a period where we don't have them documented, assuming that Brythonic wasn't grammatically similar to Gaulish (although the signs are the languages were mutually intelligible) then supposing these quirks couldn't have come from any source but Afro-Asiatic languages and then supposing that there was never a native form of Afro-Asiatic spoken in the Islands (which Alex Kondratiev and me, some years ago speculated there might have been... that's something for another time)

[Lusitani]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

Not so long ago europeans got payed for every dead native in what is now southern Argentina and Chile. No wonder there arent many left....

[blitzkrieg80]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units)
[...]
I'm asking about this because my (lay-man's) interpretation of the genetic evidence that we have been discussing is that the ethnic heritage common to Ireland and Iberia dates to the meso- or neo-lithic, thousands of years before q-celtic language and culture became part of Irish life. The McEvoy study says explicitly that two to three thousand year old Iberian haplogroups are not found in Ireland. To put it another way, the people who built Newgrange were not Celts/Gaels/Goidels/whateveryouwantotcallthem. So does a stone-age connexion between the Irish and Iberian populations warrant identifying an Ibero-Celtic culture? I'd say not, but there may be other information that those with more expertise have knowledge of.

Oudysseos, I actually think this correct, besides a very good point! as mentioned by Elmetiacos, much of it seems based on O'Rahilly's model... but I would go further to suggest the rub is in assumed truthiness of Iberian/Ivasion legend from Irish oral tradition. As you make good points, there is not so much evidence to point to a truely late Iberian invasion of Ibero-Celts or whatnot, but there is some late Iberian material culture that doesn't dispel the entire notion and which leaves it on the menu as 'theory,' but the descriptions don't say this. I actually mentioned this as the head of my argument (sorry I don't mean to take away from your poignant argument- just showing some how I have made efforts on the issue) with other EB members in our own discussion to why the Goidelic and Brythonic British Isles stuff in the future needs some tweaks, imo - my own studies have shown this all the be theoretical and should be treated as such, but that doesn't mean we have to un-do everything but it does mean we need to take out those extra bits that spout as if fact and replace them with 'it is thought' and extra tidbits of comparative knowledge. The whole wiki thing in the future should also greatly help this by listing sources and showing the base openly which we've used- the only drawback is all the time it will take for us to log entries into it.

PS - we're not patting each other on the back... I was going to type this before he made a nice post defending the attempt at truth in my words. ~:thumb: much thanks for not assuming the worst. i do admit i am rubbed by 'the rub' far too often

PROOF I am an annoying person, sometimes rabble-rouser... AND PROOF, EB is not close-minded:

I must say that I myself question some of the theoretical assertions made as fact such as the Iverni/Milesians being Iberian, based solely on these unorthodox 'Cycles' as has recently come up, and concerning the Iverni/Milesians, Irish people may SAY it is true but it has just as much historical reality as Wessex being ruled by Odin's descendants. I thought it was based on Megalithic [or Atlantic Bronze] culture (which is theoretical but much more convincing than a specific family story) but it seems to be a folk legend made fact in our game.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100255 (thread questioning Celtic invasion which I have helped answer with one of my not so great for Celtic but good IE summation sources)

some of it seems to be in relation to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels and Míl Espáine, Fir Bolg, as well as T. F. O'Rahilly's model?
[...]
Maybe this kind of stuff is more appropriate for the building descriptions (such as temples- it's mythology after all) rather than ethnicities and units? If Anthony can help us with this there might be a way to preserve Ranika's great work without leaving somewhat mythological/nationalistic (no offense intended at all- I am Irish myself. it's no suprise that Germans want to have a rich history or Irish either- but it can lead to bias) information in places it really should not be? we don't have to touch it either- i'm not assuming my way is best or will be agreed with... might we all agree though that very theoretical history, esp. based in mythology shouldn't be in the faction histories? i dont mind synthesizing and having information not commonly known, esp. concerning oral cultures / barbarians, but that doesn't seem to be the case from the little i have looked into this.
Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 03-13-2008 at 14:34.

[oudysseos]

I'd be happy to help typing entries into a Wiki database, or indeed any other clerical scut-work you've got going.

[cmacq]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

Good question, although to tell the truth, I've never actually thought about it. At least in this venue, when I research something, its not with the ultimate goal of changing a given application per se, rather its to provide evidence that either supports, rejects, or defines a given argument. Now, about this genetic evidence; my gut tells me, its not what it appears, although I must say, I've yet to read your post on it. This I'll do today, and will get back to ya, on it, most licitly-split. Yes indeed prejudged, as I know the ways of my kind. This serves not to prejudice my investigation against, rather it will be more critical.




CmacQ

[cmacq]

The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe


Brian McEvoy, Martin Richards, Peter Forster, and Daniel G. Bradley

The American Journal of Human Genetics; Published online 2004 August 12.


Right, the McEvoy study sample consisted of 200 analyzed mtDNA sequences from maternally unrelated subjects from Ireland. To this 100 mtDNA sequences from previous Irish studies were added. The study also reanalyzed the published European and Near Eastern mtDNA hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences from 8,533 individuals from 45 discrete populations. Now, this is very strange; samples from some small and/or isolated populations were excluded from the analysis. These included all samlpes from the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland. I believe the paper states that collectively, these were compared with the Y-chromosome and autosomal markers of the same individuals to determine the extent to which genetic markers within this group shared or differed from the demographic histories that have been reconstructed for the Atlantic zone of Europe.

Basically, what the first stage of their analysis demonstrated was that from the sample of 300 Irish, 155 discrete haploid genotypes were identified, with only one sample that could be classified as within the western Eurasian haploid genogroup. There also was no significant difference between samples from eastern vs western Ireland, which stands in stark contrast to the Y-chromosome pattern. Apparently, the significant difference in the Y-chromosome data among individuals from eastern and western Ireland is a well established pattern.

The second stage analysis compared different mtDNA lineages by examining the levels of nucleotide diversity accumulated around haplotypes matched to dominate examples found in the Near East. The study states that haplogroups J, T1, and U3, are proposed to represent this category, and of European samples on average 20% of these haplogroups have been documented. Of the Irish sample about 13% was noted, which is comparable to Scandinavia and the western Mediterranean samples. This appears to be consistent with the dilution of the genetic impact based on the distance from the source area. Moreover, these haplogroups did not reflect the east/west pattern noted above and were rather evenly distribution throughout Ireland. Now, to me this relationship with the Near East together with the even distribution pattern actually suggests that these haplogroups represent founding population, and I believe the study makes the same observation.

The third stage analysis plotted the supplemental sample of the 8,533 individuals as per the 45 discrete populations, using the weight value of distance form source and I believe sample composition. This data is displayed below. One may note that the BA, or Basque Country sample is situated at what would be the far western extreme of the graph. In contrast, although the Irish sample is found on the western edge of the main cluster, it is more similar to the samples from Scotland, France, Switzerland, and England than to the Basque.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1182057&blobname=AJHGv75p693fg1.jpg
MDS plot of interpopulation ΦST values calculated from mtDNA control-region sequence data. The matrix has been condensed to two dimensions, which account for 82% of the original variation. Population labels are as follows: AL = Albania; AR = Armenia; AU = Austria; AZ = Azerbaijan; BA = Basque Country; BE = Belgium; BR = Brittany; BU = Bulgaria; CZ = Czech Republic; CO = Cornwall; DE = Denmark; EN = England; ES = Estonia; FI = Finland; FR = France; GA = Galicia; GE = Germany; GR = Greece; HU = Hungary; IC = Iceland; IQ = Iraq; IR = Ireland; IT = Italy; JO = Jordan; KA = Karelia; KU = Kurdistan; NO = Northern Ossetia; NY = Norway; PA = Palestine; PC = Portugal Central; PN = Portugal North; PO = Poland; PS = Portugal South; RO = Romania; RU = Russia; SA = Sardinia; SC = Scotland; SE = Sweden; SI = Sicily; SN = Spain North; SS = Spain South-Central; SW = Switzerland; SY = Syria; TU = Turkey; and WA = Wales.


So far the claims of a Basque affinity do not appear to be supported by the data. I’m not at all sure were this study is headed? Again, I’ll have to reread as well as finish reading the entire article. I still find their claims strange, as the data seems to demonstrate that the dispersal points for the majority of 146 Irish mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) are centered in Austria/Hungry. More to follow.





CmacQ

[Shylence]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread so far.

[Sumskilz]

I’ve a few things to get done right now, and as their second stage analysis is a bit confusing, I’ll have to review it again. However, I find their claims strange, as they seem to demonstrate that the dispersal points for the majority of 146 Irish mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) are centered in Austria.

You mean right between Hallstat and La Tène? Hmmm....

[oudysseos]

You mean we might be....[drumroll]....CELTS?

Who'd a thunk it?

[Berg-i-dum]

[B]One may note that the BA, or Basque Country sample is situated at what would be the far western extreme of the graph. In contrast, although the Irish sample is found on the western edge of the main cluster, it is more similar to the samples from Scotland, France, Switzerland, and England than to the Basque.




Hey but they are pretty close to Galicia (NW region of Spain, That it is known by his "celtic" heritage in Spain) (and where I live :beam:). It is interesting to see as Wales and Scotland are close to Galicia too. Well I think we must think in megalith age or better in Late Bronze Atlantic to understand these connections and explain the celtic concept itself in these regions (proto-celts long way, more than Iron Age invasions). If somebody understand spanish this study about Galician genetic can be useful: http://archivo.50megs.com/genetica1/galicia_caboverde.htm

After all basque people it is an ancient preindoeuropean people but in Spain we dont think we can call them Iberians -well there are some theories but the ones wich indetify them as the "last" live iberians are almost forgotten (vascoiberismo)-, they arent the same people and they probably are even more ancient than them ( :dizzy2: if they dont came with Hannibal as a strange theory I tried to explain supra -I dontk think so-). May be the iberians you shall search are those galicians or people from the north shore of Spain that went to British Islands, not the basque, they arent the same people and I think that this study about Ireland and the other famous one about England are actually referring to Iberians not "Basques". But it is easy to confuse them.

To explain a bit more this if my english works: the Ancient Iberian language and the nowadays Basque language arent the same, and even the basque cant help to translate iberian. There are some theories about the origin of Iberians: they are the megalithic mediterranean people and probably the first settlers in Neolithic in the same way as ancient Picts (here it is where they can be confused with basques depending on the theories). Or they came from North Africa later, or they are as Etruscians and came from east mediterranean.

[Ibrahim]

@ cmaq: of the Basque sample, how many were there? were there equal numbers of each?


@ everyone else: either way, Its still too early to call this conclusive for sure, but one thing is clear: if the results are accurate, then we're dealing with an indo european (or Cletic to be exact), substrate.

[cmacq]

Right,



I've read this article five times now and I can not understand how the data supports their claims? I've looked the data over, looked at the graphs, and collectively this supports an entirely different conclusion. It's possible that the pertinent part of the paper is missing? I'm going to post the forth stage analysis below, and if anyone can figure out how this data supports a Basque affinity for the Irish sample, please let me know how.

________________________________________
[4th Stage Analysis]
Focusing on the relationships between Ireland and its neighbors, we investigated the geographical provenance of matches to Irish mtDNA haplotypes. This was implemented by comparing each haplotype found in Ireland (positions 16093–16362) with a world database of mtDNA HVS-I sequences assembled from previous studies (Röhl et al. 2001). By use of the geographical information system “mtradius” (Forster et al. 2002), which uses information on the location and frequency of the closest matching haplotypes, we calculated a center of gravity (or center of distribution), with an SD in kilometers (km) as an indication of the dispersal range of the haplotypes. Higher SDs tend to occur with common ancestral haplotypes that have widespread distributions, which are phylogeographically rather uninformative. The less widely and more recently dispersed haplotypes were identified here as point estimates, with an SD of <500 km and an intermediate category of 500–1,000 km.

The results are displayed on a map of Europe in figure 3. The most frequent Irish haplotypes, represented by larger circle size, also have high SDs, indicating that they are widespread throughout Europe. Haplotypes with intermediate SDs are more common in western Europe, whereas haplotypes with low SDs are concentrated almost exclusively in Atlantic and (to a much lesser extent) Mediterranean Europe. The concentration of center-of-gravity estimates with low and intermediate SDs within or adjacent to the Atlantic zone (seen in fig. 2A) is notable. However, the most striking result is the very strong sharing of localized haplotypes with Britain, particularly Scotland. These are widely distributed throughout Ireland and are not concentrated in particular areas. A lesser degree of sharing is also apparent between Ireland and Pyrenean Spain. It is also noteworthy that particular mtDNAs that are characteristic of central Europe, such as J1a (Richards et al. 1998), are virtually absent from the Atlantic facade.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1182057&blobname=AJHGv75p693fg3.jpg
Figure 3
Estimated “dispersal points” (centers of gravity) for the 146 mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) found in Ireland. Each circle represents a distinct haplotype. Circle size indicates the frequency of that type in Ireland, with the largest representing the CRS (n=56) and the smallest indicating a frequency of 1; intermediate frequencies are proportional to circle area. SDs are indicated as follows: black = <500 km, gray = 500–1,000 km, and white = >1,000 km. Eleven centers (ten in Asia and one in Africa) are outside the range of this map.

Previous studies of Y-chromosome variation demonstrated strong levels of differentiation within Europe (Rosser et al. 2000), and variation in autosomal loci often exhibits a similar structure (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). However, a detailed portrait of mtDNA structure in Europe has hitherto remained elusive. Yet concordance between different marker systems is an important means of demonstrating that geographical patterns are the result of demographic history and not (for example) of selection. These results strongly suggest—for the first time, to our knowledge—that the demographic histories of Europe, in general, and Ireland, in particular, are similarly recorded in loci with different inheritance patterns. The use of a very large data set that was checked for quality, analyzed at the level of individual lineages, and subdivided into fine population units appears to have been a key factor in the identification of the hitherto-undetected mtDNA patterns seen here.

[Conclusion]
Previous studies indicated particular affinities within the Atlantic zone of Europe on the basis of the distribution of both the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b (which reaches frequencies approaching 100% in some parts of western Europe) and the mtDNA haplogroup V (which, however, amounts to <5% of European mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001; Hill et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; Wilson et al. 2001). During the last glaciation, human habitation is thought to have been largely restricted to refugial areas in southern Europe; one of the most important of these is likely to have been in southwestern France and the Iberian Peninsula (Dolukhanov 1993; Housley et al. 1997; Gamble et al. 2004). The recolonization of western Europe from an Iberian refugium after the retreat of the ice sheets ~15,000 years ago could explain the common genetic legacy in the area. An alternative but not mutually exclusive model would place Atlantic fringe populations at the “Mesolithic” extreme of a Neolithic demic expansion into Europe from the Near East.

In any event, the preservation of this signal within the Atlantic arc suggests that this region was relatively undisturbed by subsequent migrations across the continent. The identification of likely dispersal points for some Irish haplotypes in northern Spain and western France is further evidence for links between Atlantic populations. Cunliffe (2001) has used Braudel’s term, the “longuedurée,” to describe the long-term sedimentation of traditions on the Atlantic facade, which he suggests may stem from the late Mesolithic period, perhaps even predating the arrival of agriculture in the region. Our results support the view that the genetic legacy, at least, of the region may trace back this far and perhaps even to the earliest settlements following recolonization after the Last Glacial Maximum.

An alternative explanation might simply be restricted patterns of long-term gene flow within these two major ecogeographical zones in Europe, facilitated by the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaways. It is difficult to distinguish genetically between a common Paleolithic origin and more recent contacts. However, haplogroup R1b3f Y chromosomes, which have a recent origin in Iberia (Hurles et al. 1999), have not been found in Ireland (Hill et al. 2000), arguing against the migration of very large numbers of men by this route, at least, in the past 2,000–3,000 years. This would be consistent with the suggestion that most contacts over this period would have been small scale, rather in the manner of the Kula ring in the western Pacific (Cunliffe 2001). On the female side, the presence of putatively Neolithic mtDNA haplogroups in Ireland does indicate some gene flow from the continent after the initial peopling of the island (~9,000 years before the present) following the postglacial reexpansion (see Wilson et al. 2001), although this could have been at any time in the past 6,000 years or so.

A degree of genetic heterogeneity in the British Isles is apparent, at least on the Y chromosome and much more tentatively on the mtDNA, with southeastern England tending to show a greater affinity to neighboring areas of continental Europe. Anglo-Saxon mass migration has been proposed as the explanation for this pattern in Y-chromosome variation (Weale et al. 2002; Capelli et al. 2003). Such explanations may seem feasible for the Y chromosome, given the high levels of drift that might be associated with disproportionately high numbers of offspring among conquering elite males. However, the weight of archaeological evidence is against population replacement associated with the Anglo-Saxon conquest (Esmonde-Cleary 1989), suggesting that alternative explanations should be considered. It may be that the genetic landscape of southeastern Britain has been shaped by older links with the continent, perhaps during the Neolithic period or even before the filling of the North Sea, when Britain was still connected to the continent via the Doggerland plain (Coles 1998).

The multiple mtDNA links between Ireland and Britain, particularly Scotland, are especially striking (see O’Donnell et al. 2002). Archaeological evidence supports contacts during prehistory, and early historical accounts describe the establishment of Irish colonies in Scotland from at least a.d. ~500 (indeed, the name “Scotland” derives from the Latin word for “Ireland” at this time). Linguistically, modern Scottish Gaelic is a clear derivative of the Irish language. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the plantation of Ulster led to the arrival of substantial numbers of settlers moving in the opposite direction. However, the widespread distribution of these mtDNA haplotypes within Ireland suggests they may be largely the result of earlier contacts.

What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers—or former Celtic speakers—of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age.


______________________________________________________

Thanks in advance for any help,

CmacQ

[Sumskilz]

Their conclusion makes sense until the last paragraph which just seems irrational when referenced against the evidence as illustrated in figure 3. Am I missing something?

[Shylence]

YES CMACQ!!!


Can you or somone else perhaps translate this into a form of english an idiot would understand?!?! :help:

I think i understand what it means, and it kinda makes sense to me. That The people who live on the Atlantic coast of Europe from Gaelicia to Stornoway share the same genetic material with a good smattering of genes from central europe. Given the time scale and population migrations within history and pre history this makes sense??! YES?! NO?!?! im lost

[Elmetiacos]

Without understanding a bit more of the methodology of this geographical information system “mtradius” they talk about, it doesn't seem to make sense... here's this massive circle showing that the Irish can trace their matrilineal heritage back to smack in the middle of the Hallstatt and La Tene cores, and so they conclude there was no Iron Age migration? Huh? Or is that exactly what it doesn't say?

EDIT: it seems the method was developed for DNA evidence in criminal cases, to speed things up by narrowing the search to populations most likely to yield a match. So I just don't follow their argument here.

[cmacq]

I think i understand what it means, and it kinda makes sense to me. That The people who live on the Atlantic coast of Europe from Gaelicia to Stornoway share the same genetic material with a good smattering of genes from central europe. Given the time scale and population migrations within history and pre history this makes sense??! YES?! NO?!?! im lost

Please read this line from the last para; What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers.

However, Figure 3 suggests basically what you wrote.


Now, can anyone tell me why I always caution about trust and science? The more technical the study, the less trust should be given the claim.






CmacQ

[blitzkrieg80]

seems to clearly support early Frank, Jute, Anglo-Frisian DNA colonization that composed the identity of early Britain and was subsequently misunderstood to be absent by the time of greater cultural invasion later under Germanic cultures.

let's not forget that all Indo-Europeans would have a similar DNA at some point before mixing with the wonderously large population of native Others so it really doesn't make much sense to suppose that Germans are genetically different than Celts and all that... pale, ruddy, blond and blue at times, with other varieties, of course... :ahh: (awaiting the anti-Aryan backlash...ever present)

[cmacq]

Just want everyone to know that I found another paper about a Basque genetic study conduce after the Irish study. This study indentified the same features concerning the outlier nature of the Basque sample, however it attributes this to other factors. In effect the second study, more or less refutes the basal interpretation of the Irish study.

Need sleep now, I’ll post a link tomorrow.



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

I'm glad that cmacq has had a look at the study as I read it twice and reached the same conclusion but had no confidence in the value of my own opinion. I do wonder, cmacq, what you think a good label would be for the Irish?

I did just want to say to Riastradh that I have enjoyed this thread immensely, even though I disagree that Gael is a better term (than Celt) to describe the inhabitants of Ireland in 272 BCE. It has been a popular thread (and I hope it's not dead yet) with a lots of replies and views, so well done!

[Elmetiacos]

seems to clearly support early Frank, Jute, Anglo-Frisian DNA colonization that composed the identity of early Britain and was subsequently misunderstood to be absent by the time of greater cultural invasion later under Germanic cultures.
You can't really say that, because it's not a general map of European haplotypes; only the ones common in Ireland are considered.

[cmacq]

I do wonder, cmacq, what you think a good label would be for the Irish?

With all do respect and not to sound flippant, but the word ‘Irish’ has always worked for me. In fact it seems to have been common to name Islands and the associated inhabitances after a particular deity. For example we have Skye, Latin Scitis or Scetis, which is clearly a reference to Scathach (shadowy one), the warrior goddess. Then the Orkneys, Latin Orcades, possibly associated with an underworld goddess. Others include the isle of Lewis, in Latin Danu, of the Tuatha Dé Danann; Mull, Latin Malaius, possibly associated with Mil. So the Greeks called Ireland Ἰουερνία and Ἰέρνη which appears to represent īwerion, a reference to the goddess Erin.



CmacQ

[Disciple of Tacitus]

Now I've been absent from the EB forums for a few months now. In truth, a bit turned off by what I saw as self-serving folks bashing other folks. You may wish to replace folks with other choice words. However, the biggest reason - to be honest - was b/c my computer crashed big time and to date I am still without it. When you don't play the game, sometimes the forum loses it's pull. I happened across this thread by chance and was reminded of why I love this game and have for years now.
This conversation - for the most part - has been informative and interesting. Thanks for pulling a lost EBer back into it.

[blitzkrieg80]

With all do respect and not to sound flippant, but the word ‘Irish’ has always worked for me. In fact it seems to have been common to name Islands and the association inhabitances after a particular deity. For example we have Skye, Latin Scitis or Scetis, which is clearly a reference to Scathach (shadowy one), the warrior goddess. Then the Orkneys, Latin Orcades, possibly associated with an underworld goddess. Others include the isle of Lewis, in Latin Danu, of the Tuatha Dé Danann; Mull, Latin Malaius, possibly associated with Mil. So the Greeks called Ireland Ἰουερνία and Ἰέρνη which appears to represent īwerion, a reference to the goddess Erin.



CmacQ

so... Orcish it is

[cmacq]

The only way that the claims of the McEvoy study could match the data on Figure 3, is that their key info, is incorrect. In this case the black circles would represent the Irish data and the White ones the 8,000 plus individuals of the comparative sample. However, clearly this is not what the key says. The problem is the value (n=?) of the individual circles is not displayed so there is no way of checking this, short of contacting the authors.





CmacQ

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

To throw my own theory on the table:

Irish Wales and Scotland all have a common characteristic in classical history.
They were never fully conquered by the romans.
Meaning they never had the same genetic diversity, nor the european mixed blood (to the same degree)

Now lets take all the rest of celtic europe that these researchers are talking about.
They were conquered by the romans.
They did receive mixed european blood mingling.

Answer - the current European blood being compared to the Irish blood OBVIOUSLY doesnt match, its been through 2000 years of diversification.

As an Irishman I can tell you that any research done in my country can be taken with a pinch of salt. The researchers probably had a heavy night the night before and came up with this bafflingly ignorant theory nursing a hangover and a heavily fortified coffee....

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

I might add that art, history and the basic literature in the form of poetry etc. of this period markedly mirrors Celtic influence

[oudysseos]

I do have to point out, LCS, that there is very little evidence of Roman genetic material in the English gene pool. This somewhat invalidates your dichotomy.
Even the Normans have only 2 %, according to Stephen Oppenheimer. For a good overview of the situation you might want to take a look at his book The Origins of the British.

[Shylence]

History does seem to show that after the romans left Britain. The language of power still seemed to be brythonic, It would seem they didnt have much impact at all.

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

I do have to point out, LCS, that there is very little evidence of Roman genetic material in the English gene pool. This somewhat invalidates your dichotomy.
Even the Normans have only 2 %, according to Stephen Oppenheimer. For a good overview of the situation you might want to take a look at his book The Origins of the British.

I didn't say Roman, I said mixed European. Within roman controlled borders peoples were mixed through auxiliary soldiery, forced en mass migrations, voluntary familial migrations, slavery. The gene pool expanded in Britain, not in the Celtic countries. I would laugh at the idea of the population of any city having any serious impact on an entire nation.

[Sumskilz]

I didn't say Roman, I said mixed European. Within roman controlled borders peoples were mixed through auxiliary soldiery, forced en mass migrations, voluntary familial migrations, slavery. The gene pool expanded in Britain, not in the Celtic countries. I would laugh at the idea of the population of any city having any serious impact on an entire nation.

Yes, we have to make a distinction between the genetic affect of being a part of the Roman Empire and genetic influence of having been settled by people specifically from Latium. By the time of Claudius, what percentage of the Empire's population would have been of primarily Latin Ancestry? Of course there were Latin Colonae all over the empire but I doubt they made as significant of an impact genetically as they did culturally.

[Elmetiacos]

I don't think anyone has ever suggested the Roman conquest affected the genetics of anywhere in Britain (or any other country apart from Romania, possibly) but that's a separate topic in any case.

[lobf]

I don't think anyone has ever suggested the Roman conquest affected the genetics of anywhere in Britain (or any other country apart from Romania, possibly) but that's a separate topic in any case.

Post #113.

[Elmetiacos]

I meant any professional, not anyone on the forum.