Question concerning the Celts of the British Isles

[Eberhard]

I've been seeing more and more references that the British Celts aren't even considered as "Celts" anymore because of culture differences between the mainland Celts. Are these sources to be trusted, meaning everything written in the history books is to be false? I'd like to know if any Celtic history buffs agree with all of the British Isles hype that's been going around lately, because it could change the game dramatically.

Personally I find it ridiculous that the Celts of the British Isles are to be excluded from the culture because of a few recent studies from seemingly hateful sources.

[Laundreu]

As far as I have been seeing/hearing, it's less 'they're not Celts' and more 'they were Celts by cultural assimilation rather than by fire and sword'. Thing is, 'Celt' is so ill-defined that there is quite a bit of wiggle-room there - were the Gaels/Goidels Celts? They had a helluvalot of Iberian influence, after all. What about the Picts? Hell, some historians think that the Sweboz were Celtic tribes as well (though I don't agree with that interpretation personally).

[khelvan]

I think if Ranika saw this he would start bleeding from his eyes.

[Barbarossa82]

Surely they were true celts, at least after the Gaels supplanted the Brythonic people? ~:confused:

[Watchman]

I've been told the whole category "Celt" is a bit vague umbrella moniker for vast numbers of rather different peoples chiefly connected by the style and technology of their artefacts - the spread and diffusion of which happens easily enough without great shifts in population patterns AFAIK.

But I'll readily admit my ignorance on the topic.

[Tellos Athenaios]

AFAIK the 'Celts' is a word for a variety of tribes, spreading all the way from Anatolia to Ireland, and is based on a similarity in some cultural aspects.

Compare it to what is called 'Western' today. In some ways, France an the US have a cultural bond, but that doesn't mean that both cultures are the same, far from it.

On the Britons: I thought that they were the result from Celtic 'invasions' and the local people mixing into, what in Celtic terms is, a rather outdated set of tribes.



But I'll readily admit my ignorance on the topic.


The same for me here. :yes:

[Eberhard]

I think if Ranika saw this he would start bleeding from his eyes.
I'm pretty irked by it as well, but I mean to set the record straight. Maybe Ranika can offer his infinite wisdom on the subject, since I only consider myself somewhat versed in its intricacies.

I've thought for quite some time now that the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe and began to flourish in the northern Alps region, or modern Switzerland and Austria. From there the culture spread down into Northern Italy, to the East into modern Turkey, to the West in parts of Iberia, to the Northwest into the British Isles as well as throughout France.

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

Possibly many of the Paleo-Atlantids of the British Isles just remained less touched by Celtic influence, or even mixed their cultures in a different way compared to the mainland Celts. Which could explain certain "dark" characteristics of the Gaels, Picts, etc. and even the modern Celtiberians. The dark look of many modern day Irish doesn't necessarily mean Iberian or Mediterranid influence, but perhaps recessive genes showing themselves. The whole Basque/Irish thing comes to mind as an example.

As a side note, I'm not saying that the Celts were a unified people by any means. Only an extremely common culture and language held them together.

[Tellos Athenaios]

the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe

Somewhere in what's nowadays called Hungary/Romania.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The issue is not really whether they were "Celts" its more about how you define "Celt." Certainly a fairly Celtic culture suplanted what went before but there is a bigger question of whether the Celtic race supllanted the local islanders.

Previously it was thought they did, now it is though they not. Personnally I would say the Celts did exactly what the Saxons did later. The decapitated or supplanted the local elite and took over.

[-Praetor-]

I think that it`s more proper, and eludes a lot of troubles, to designate the peoples not as Celts, but as the culture to which they belonged, such as Hallstatt A-B-C-D or La Téne. That way you classificate the groupings by their tecnological development, and subsequently by historical periods, rather than by Gaul Celts, Celtiberians, etc.

For example, talking about La Téne celts, you incluide every celt in the med world by I BC, without the risk of letting anyone outside...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Celts_800-400BC.PNG

Image provided by wikipedia.

Cheers!

PS: BTW, I`m a total ignorant about the Celts, I`m just saying what my common sense dictates :beam: .

[zakalwe]

As an ex-archaeologist who worked primarily on Iron Age Scotland sites - I'm generally a suporter of this way at looking at the British Iron Age - I dislike the terminology of 'Celt' or 'Celtic' with reference to this period, although i would agree that it has its place regarding the Linguistic Group and artistic styling. The archaeological evidence is more and more interpreted as emphasising the diversity and regionalism of IA Britain rather than a 'pan-celtic' grouping

I really don't have time to get into the arguments behind this except to say that there are obviously differeneces of opinion but the theories are certainly considered mainstream in archaeological circles. They certainly are nothing to do with any concept of anti-modern celts, pro english nationalism or post-devolution opinions despite the claims by some (eejit imho) commentators and old school archaeologists.

I would recommend reading

Simon James' 'The Atlantic Celts' - http://www.amazon.com/Atlantic-Celts-Ancient-People-Invention/dp/0299166740/sr=8-10/qid=1162647982/ref=pd_bbs_sr_10/104-8366920-2572713?ie=UTF8&s=books
John Collis - The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/publications/books/celts.html
Malcolm Chapman - The Celts - The Construction of a myth

Simon James has some info on the issues on his website -
http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/stj/intro.htm

All very respected UK academic archaeologists.

It is easy to react to the claims which are interpreted by the usual hysterical media. They usually rant about 'offensive', hate and all that crap without even reading any of books and articles or speaking with the proponents. In fact the arguments are well thought out and i believe credible. They will probably change and develop over the years, but i think that they have give a real boost and needed adrenaline shot to the study of the iron age in the UK. Even many of the traditional names - like Cunliffe - have taken alot out of these arguments and bought into many of the elements of reassessing our previous approaches.

I do believe that Ranika and I will find ourselves in the opposite side of this debate though :p (the debate often divides down archaeologist vs historian/linguist lines)

Anyway just passing for the first time in a couple of months and couldn't resist posting :)

[Eberhard]

Thank you for those sources, zakalwe, I'll definately pick up those books from the local store.

I hardly even know what the real evidence is behind the claims made concerning Atlantic origins. It'll be a good change to see the actual text which is causing so many arguments.

[Loghova]

The Welsh and Irish have been linked genetically to the Basques.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

Not saying where they came from, just saying they are pretty similar genetically.

[-Praetor-]

The Welsh and Irish have been linked genetically to the Basques.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

Not saying where they came from, just saying they are pretty similar genetically.

A possibility might be that the migratory currents of the Celts should have produced a mix between the invading Celts with the native peoples of Ireland and Wales. Those Welsh and Irish natives may have belonged to a wide culture that may have stretched through the entire atlantic part of europe, a culture that might have been subdued by the celts and other indoeuropean invaders, thus dissapearing from the history annals...

Of that culture, all the vestigies that remain might be the Basques, which were very much isolated because of their mountanious homeland, so they were less afected to foreign influences, invasions, migrations, etc...

So their gene pool might have been preserved during a longer time... same with the irish and welsh, less frequently invaded through the history than other european peoples...

PS: I remember reading something about it, but don`t remember where... :uhoh2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An achaeologist here (Exeter) told me the Basques were the last vestiges of the people who first colonised Britain.

I think that there are problems with archeaological groupings as well as cultural groupings and art styles. I had just this arguement the other week. The conclusion we more or less agreed on was that there was a good chance the elite in Britain were Celts, while the peasents were "original" Britons.

[Loghova]

Good stuff guys. I dont think any of this is provable with anything we have at our disposal today but its cool hearing the theories.

[-Praetor-]

Wikipedia has some basic (and pretty interesting) stuff about it, here:

Pre-Indoeuropeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Indo-European)


An achaeologist here (Exeter) told me the Basques were the last vestiges of the people who first colonised Britain.

Well, the the most accepted and solid theory is that they are, in fact, vestigies of the first modern humans that colonised europe, well before the indoeuropeans. There are others, amongs them an alledged relation with the Iberians, so far discarded due to language dissimilarities. More about it, here:

Origin of Basques in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people#Origin_of_the_Basques)


The conclusion we more or less agreed on was that there was a good chance the elite in Britain were Celts, while the peasents were "original" Britons.

And those britons being the subdued pre-inhabitants of the isles, which belonged to a pre-indoeuropean culture, similar to the basques. That might be the reason behind the genetic similarities between both human groups...

[KARTLOS]

I've been seeing more and more references that the British Celts aren't even considered as "Celts" anymore because of culture differences between the mainland Celts. Are these sources to be trusted, meaning everything written in the history books is to be false? I'd like to know if any Celtic history buffs agree with all of the British Isles hype that's been going around lately, because it could change the game dramatically.

Personally I find it ridiculous that the Celts of the British Isles are to be excluded from the culture because of a few recent studies from seemingly hateful sources.

its not that they were not celts, its more that there is an increasing understanding that the celts werer not a mono-ethnic group and their culture spread by diffusion more than by the sword.

[KARTLOS]

I'm pretty irked by it as well, but I mean to set the record straight. Maybe Ranika can offer his infinite wisdom on the subject, since I only consider myself somewhat versed in its intricacies.

I've thought for quite some time now that the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe and began to flourish in the northern Alps region, or modern Switzerland and Austria. From there the culture spread down into Northern Italy, to the East into modern Turkey, to the West in parts of Iberia, to the Northwest into the British Isles as well as throughout France.

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

Possibly many of the Paleo-Atlantids of the British Isles just remained less touched by Celtic influence, or even mixed their cultures in a different way compared to the mainland Celts. Which could explain certain "dark" characteristics of the Gaels, Picts, etc. and even the modern Celtiberians. The dark look of many modern day Irish doesn't necessarily mean Iberian or Mediterranid influence, but perhaps recessive genes showing themselves. The whole Basque/Irish thing comes to mind as an example.

As a side note, I'm not saying that the Celts were a unified people by any means. Only an extremely common culture and language held them together.

im a geneticist, so just a quick pointer on recessive genes. Dark genes are generally always dominant, i.e dark hair, brown eyes etc are always dominant over blonde/blue. skin colour is slightly more complicated as it is controlled by more genes. speaking generally the stereotypical freckly complexion and inability to tan of the gaelic people is recessive.

because of this they actually think that blonde and red hair are dying out in england.

its important to understand how genes work. many dark haired/brown eyed people can have fair children. eg my father is ginger with blue eyes, as these are recessive qualites he must have two copies of the genes for eye and hair colour. my mother is brown/ brown as theses are dominant she may only have single copy for these genes. therfore it is possible for them to have a mixture of dark and fair children, which was actually thre case.

it is thought that the original settlers of the british isles were darker more mediteranean type people. with fairer people arriving later. people are right to make analogies with the saxon invasion. the so called celtic invasion or immigration had greatest genetic impact on the english heartland. the original inhabitants were pushed to the extremeties of the region. in places like cornwall, western island. the roman and saxon invasions both also had their biggest impact in southern england, withthe celtic culture surving in the extremeties.
this left the strange situation that those who were left with, or kept the celtic culture were the people with the weakest genetic link to the culture.

[Slartibardfast]

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.
"The Song Of Amergin"(can't remember the author) is a fictional novelisation of the Milesian invasion from "The Book of the Conquests of Ireland". Well researched using Phoenician, Carthaginian and other know historical texts and maps to give it a plausable historical grounding. Well worth the read.

One of the Irish mythological cycles,the "Densachas?", sorry I'm not good with Gaelic spellings, is a series of stories explaining the origins of many Irish place names. Evain Macha "hill of the twins of Macha", was a drunken bet about one Rieghs' Da Dannan wife, the heavily pregnant Macha, being able to outrun two prime race horse belonging to another Riegh. The laymans defensive argument to opposition to the validity of these stories is usually "Then why did they call it that in the first place?" which kind of makes sense.

Also I don't think your giving enough credit to the human endeavor of sea exploration and colonisation. The original inhabitants of South America where of Australoid stock with most being killed and eaten by the Mongoloid Amerindians coming down from the north. This has been confirmed with genetic tests on skeletal finds, and on the last two pure bloods in Terra Del Fuego.(Two old ladies that I think are now dead.)

If a population of Australian Koori's, Murri's or Tiwi's managed to get across the Pacific to colonise South America some 35-25,000 years ago, the Galecians emmigrating from North Western Spain across a small stretch of the Atlantic to Ireland dosn't sound that far fetched.

I've always leaned towards Celtic as a language group being a sort of a "Lingua Fraca", a trade language. Trade tends to rub off as an exchange of not only commodities, but also words, customs, fashions, beliefs and ideas.

[KARTLOS]

please post links to the austroloid colinisation of america, it sounds interesting

[-Praetor-]

Also I don't think your giving enough credit to the human endeavor of sea exploration and colonisation. The original inhabitants of South America where of Australoid stock with most being killed and eaten by the Mongoloid Amerindians coming down from the north.

...Eaten? :wreck: Figuratively, right?


please post links to the austroloid colinisation of america, it sounds interesting

There is a number of theories concerning the American colonyzation of South America, amongst them:

Inmigration through Beringia, an land bridge that united alaska with siberia throug a period comprising roughly from 50000 BC and ending 8000 years ago. Through that period, succesive waves of peoples colonyzed the North and South Americas. The mongoloid peoples that came through that route comprises the 90% of the genetic material of the current american indians (missing source BTW).

A second theory is the Oceanic one, that proposed a movement of polinesic peoples by ships and rafts that arrived in the Californian and Mexican coast, following marine currents. According to Rivet, that migration occurred some 4000 years ago, and it`s totally confirmed by common weapons, houses and general instruments between both human groups, and also by language similarities.

The third theory (Mendez Correa) is one about australian migration through the antartic coast. According to that theory, some 6000 years ago the climatic conditions were such, that made possible the appearance of some islands on the southern seas, which enhanced gratly the communication between australia and the south cone of South America. This theory is confirmed by common ethnic, language and cultural parameters between both human groups (Lack of knowledge of hammocks and ceramics, hive-like huts, similar builded barges and boats, etc.)

A pretty bizarre one was from an argentinian paleontologist (Florentino Ameghino), that sayed that the actual cradle of manking was located in South America (yup, you guessed right, in his country...), not in Africa.

The fact is that the guy was caught falsing some bones (he tried to make pass a femur of a feline and parts of a relatively modern man`s skull as archeologycal evidence of an extraordinarily old hominid - the alledged broken link of Darwin -. It actually was hilarious when I heard that in school!!!

Anyway, and excellent page is this one:

LINK (http://www.umce.cl/~cipumce/cuadernos/facultad_de_historia/monografias_tematicas/cuaderno_22/cultura_paleoindia_teoria_hipotesis.htm)

But, alas, it`s in spanish.

And the good old wikipedia:

Migration theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#The_Bering_Strait_Land_Bridge_Theory)
More Migration Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World)
Monte Verde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde)
Pre-Siberian Aboriginies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines)

Cheers to all! :2thumbsup:

PS: Eaten? :speechless:

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.


On the other hand: Greeks were able to sail all the way from Greece towards Brittain and Northern France, in more or less the same timeframe.... Then it's maybe not all that far fetched to assume that 'Celts' or related tribes, who most likely maitained the same sort of trading connections, could embark in Spain on a lot of ships and disembark on the shores of Brittain too... :juggle:

[Slartibardfast]

please post links to the austroloid colinisation of america, it sounds interesting
Became aware of it from a documentary. It's a fairly new as theories go and is getting the usual prove/disprove arguments from the scientific community, like homo florensis. They definately stopped off in New Zealand getting to South America but the Mouri ate them and most of the Moriori as well.

Most of my spare times going into helping out with the EB 0.8 betatesting but I'll have a look and try and find some for you and post them here.

k_raso...Eaten? Figuratively, right?
No liturally. There is some evidince of Amerindian cannibal practices at some of the early Pueblo sites, posibly ritual and last I heard this too was being disputed, so there's some precedent. Human teeth marks on human bones is a bit of a dead give away if you'll pardon the pun. This and other incidences are probably the basis for the origins of the Windigo.

Also the open seamanship and sea worthyness of the ships of "Celtic" groups like the Venetti, whose huge ocean going vessels designed for the Atlantic gave G.J.Ceasars suborninate a really hard time with his low gunwaled vessels designed for use on the Mediteranian. Also the red gold of Middle Kingdom Egyptian Pharoes came from Ireland.

An little anicdote to show how seemingly accurate some myths can be...

My friends mothers people originate from the area around Coronation Hill, and her people have a story about said hill.
In a nut shell it goes like this, there's supposed to be a demonic monster imprisoned under the Coronation Hill by the creator spirits during the dreamtime. If it was ever to escape from its prison it would destroy the world.

Coronation Hill is now one of the biggest Uranium mines in the world.

[Reverend Joe]

An little anicdote to show how seemingly accurate some myths can be...

My friends mothers people originate from the area around Coronation Hill, and her people have a story about said hill.
In a nut shell it goes like this, there's supposed to be a demonic monster imprisoned under the Coronation Hill by the creator spirits during the dreamtime. If it was ever to escape from its prison it would destroy the world.

Coronation Hill is now one of the biggest Uranium mines in the world.
:stunned:

[Lusitani]

Alot of south american natives practised cannibalism when both the portuguese and the spaniards got there...and they probably still do in the isolated(and still unexplored areas) of the amazon basin. Actually head hunters (which also practised ritual cannibalism) were still doing it some 30 years ago.

Human sacrifices were common among the celts and other ppl's...who knows if a couple of druids didnt have a snack of human flesh from time to time to gain the favour of the Gods. :)

About the colonization of Ireland by ppl from the Iberian Peninsula...thats perfectly logic for me. Not only because there was a somewhat visible commerce with nowadays Britanny (one of the areas occupied by the Venetii if i am not mistaken) but also because there were exchanges from Britanny to the british isles. So i guess it makes sense, those ppl could probably understood themselves well...can´t see why not. I guess we are used to think that tribes and villages were simply isolated from the rest of the world...and probably alot of them were...but the sea and rivers are a very good highway.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, so the original Irish and Welsh possibly came from the Goidils, or Celtiberian tribes, and then they mixed in with the later Celtic invaders such as the Belgae. Have I got it right?

Also, about the Caledonians (Scottish tribe). Julius Caesar claimed they were very similar to the Germanic tribes. Perhaps some Sweboz settlers? I don't really know anything about this topic just another theory perhaps...

[Slartibardfast]

Ireland and Scotland had a long history through sea trade, marriages, and the occassional wholesale migrations, the first wave of Scoti into the western Iles and mainland Scotland just prior to the Romans. From memory long before it was a christian monestary the island of Iona was supposed to be the sight of a sword school run by a woman. Both Irish and Caledonian warriors including the likes of Cu Chullain, trained with her and ended up on opposing sides during the Coolie Cattle Raid.

[Slartibardfast]

please post links to the austroloid colinisation of america, it sounds interesting
Found this at
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/

"It poses some real problems trying to explain how you have people (arriving) in Central Asia almost at the same time as people in the Eastern United States," said Theodore Schurr, anthropology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a curator at the school's museum.
"You almost have to hope for instantaneous expansion ... We're talking about a very rapid movement of people around the globe." which seems to have set the cat amoungst the pigions for earliest americans.
and at,http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_1.htm

The first research on living Native American tribes showed they were comprised of four distinct mtDNA haplogroups called A, B, C, and D. This means that the Native Americans are derived from four different lineages. These haplogroups were also found in native populations in Central and South America. Utter mtDNA research utilizing ancient remains recovered in the Americas validated these four haplogroups. Three of these haplogroups. A, C, and D are found primarily’ in Siberian Asia The B haplogroup, however, is found only in aboriginal groups in Southeast Asia. China, Japan. Melanesia, and Polynesia.
Both of which were interesting in relation to the origins of the earliest Americans.

My appologies, I feel such a burk after bringing it up but after 2 hours I'm yet to find anything on the net specific on Australiod colonization. If I could remember the name of the TV Documentary which was on SBS out here it might be different.

[Bert Preast]

As a sailor, for me it's more likely that the Basques arrived in Iberia from the British Isles than the other way about. Prevailing winds and surface currents in summer all tend to try to throw anything leaving the Cantabrian coast straight back onto it.

Also if you read up on the tin trade in Cornwall the Britons went to quite some trouble to make sure foreign merchants never saw the mines or the settlements of the miners, indicating they were on the whole quite an insular bunch. If they'd been that way since the channel flooded some 8 to 10 thousand years before it's likely they were culturally quite different to the continental Celts.

As for what they looked like, they were reported to be blond or red haired with large moustaches. Like this?

[Bert Preast]

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/barnard/biology/biobc3361/orangutan.gif

Try again.

[Watchman]

I recently read a passing mention (in Braudel's Mediterranean, if it matters) that thanks to the uncooperative seas, winds and the notoriously stormy Bay of Biscay ships sailing from the Iberian peninsula aiming for the English Channel or thereabouts not rarely found themselves on the coast of Ireland instead. Given that AFAIK the dwellers of the Atlantic coastline had figured out that fishing was a neat profession and quickly widened their nautical horizons to include long-distance trade (and raiding) very early, that at least would make it sound perfectly credible a fair few ancient Iberians would have ended settling down in the British isles.

[Bert Preast]

I don't doubt it. I just think it's more likely that the greater migration was in the other direction.

[Gaelic Rebel]

Basques did not settle the British Isles

Check this link out: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/abs/5201482a.html

Let me introduce to you the DNA of the Cheddar Man (Britain), 9,000 BC.

Cheddar Man - mtDNA(mtDNA is the female side)

Cheddar Man is U5a haplo group, 16192T, 16270T haplotype
This mtDNA comes from southern Sweden, 9,000 BC in Britian. First skeleton in Britian is not Basque, it's Swedish.

Please see footnote [1], http://atlantisinireland.com/DNA/Eur...s/image092.png

In addition, we have to explain the I1b haplotype in Ireland and Britain. I1b haplotype is found in greater numbers in Britain and Ireland than in Basque or Iberian populations. I1b is also 7,000 years older. The newer R1b (7390 bp age) came for Europe and joined Ireland's earlier I group (13147 bp age), at according to the Cheddar Man, 9,000 BC, right after the ice cleared from the northeast of England, he was not Basque and he joined even more indigenous 18,000 year old I1b haplotype Britons and Irish already habitating there.

2005, John McEwan: DNA gene Dating.
Native Briton and Irish genetic groups pre-date the European R1b gene date.
R1b dates to 7300 BC: http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asd.htm
I1b dates to 21000 BC: http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asdfull.htm


"R1bSTR19 aka North West Irish, or IMH

Perhaps the more surprising is the estimates from the “well established” R1b STR clusters, R1bSTR19, R1bSTR22 and R1bSTR47. The Irish cluster has a particularly recent TMRCA of 3362 (SEM=609) yrs bp, and its best estimate is rather more recent than both the Scots and Irish clusters. The cluster itself is quite distinct from R1b, so this could infer that this group must have rapidly expanded from a small group around that time. Based on its current geographical distribution it is thought that this group represents the original hunter/gatherer population that inhabited Ireland after the LGM (~9000 yrs bp). "

Please see footnotes [2][3]

Which clarifies the current evaluation or the type of Irish R1b. The tables also well document the I1b haplotype's dating, which is before, during and after the last LGM (last glacial maximum), giving the I1b haplotype natives the claim to Ireland and Britain as the first human settlers.

2005 J.D. McDonald: DNA gene Location and Predominance.
Haplotype I and R1b groups of Y-DNA are in larger amounts in Ireland and Britain than in Iberia (or Basque). Larger means origination.
Y-DNA haplogroup Map: http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF
Y-DNA haplogroup Map and Legend:http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/W-MAP.GIF

The I1b haplotype of Y-DNA is a higher percentage in Britain-Ireland than in Iberia-Basque, meaning that it began there (18,000 BC) before moving to Iberia in stages before, during and after the LGM.

Please see footnotes [4][5].

This could mean that native Irish and Britons carrying the I1b Y-DNA gene were the ones who originally settled the entire Iberina region. I don't think the Basques populated the British-Irish Isles, and in fact the Irish and British may have populated Iberia and Basque region with the I1b haplogroup, while the contintental European tribes gave both Britian-Ireland and Iberia it's R1b majority bloodline. In other words Iberia (Basque as well) was populated by Irish-Brits with I1b haplotype before the last LGM at 15,000 bp, and again re-populated by Europeans with R1b after the LGM at 7,000 bp.

Because the Cheddar Man has his mtDNA from southern Sweden, and the Y-DNA Census of 2003 of Ireland and Britian show a 20% avg. I1b haplotype, which predates the LGM at 21,000 yr bp. In other words Iberia was populated as we see it today by two waves of northern Europeans, the Irish-Brits at 18,000 BC (with Halpotype I1b) before the LGM and then the Celts at 9,000 BC (with halpotype R1b).

References

[1] Cheddar Man, mtDNA of U5b: http://atlantisinireland.com/DNA/Eur...s/image092.png
[2] Y-DNA haplogroup Map, 2005 J.D. McDonald. : http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF
[3] Y-DNA haplogroup Map and Legend, 2005 J.D. McDonald.: http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/W-MAP.GIF
[4] Age of DNA, John McEwan 2005 : http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asd.htm
[5] Age of DNA, John McEwan 2005 : http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asdfull.htm
[6] Nature, 2005, Spanish reseachers: Basque and Celtic: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201482a.html
[7] European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 1293–1302. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201482; published online 10 August 2005
The place of the Basques in the European Y-chromosome diversity landscape

[Caratacos]

Because the Cheddar Man has his mtDNA from southern Sweden, and the Y-DNA Census of 2003 of Ireland and Britian show a 20% avg. I1b haplotype, which predates the LGM at 21,000 yr bp. In other words Iberia was populated as we see it today by two waves of northern Europeans, the Irish-Brits at 18,000 BC (with Halpotype I1b) before the LGM and then the Celts at 9,000 BC (with halpotype R1b).

I'm confused. Celtic --the branch on the Indo-European family tree -- is not 11000 years old. IE is itself supposed to have been spoken c2000bce... so unless we're talkin' time machines here, something is wrong.

P.S sorry for bringing up an old thread but i just could not let this be the last word. :2cents:

[Fleeb]

Genetics =/= language

[Caratacos]

Genetics =/= language

That's exactly my point. But Language = Culture. Genetics isn't the issue. If you told a Roman citizen of the Empire that they weren't in fact a "True Roman" because of their genes they would, quite rightly, dismiss you.

As interesting as the information provided by Gaelic Rebel was he makes a terrible mistake in misapplying the term "Celt" to a people of 9000BC. The Language/Culture did not exist then, so to call them "celts" is error-- no matter how genetically related they may have been. The same goes with his use of "Irish" and "British". I do understand that he is only using these terms for geographic reasons but there is the danger of muddling the issue and confusing people (perhaps the use of Proto-Irish etc. would have been easier)

The fact is "celt" as it is used now is a blanket term that covers people who shared similar language, art/craftwork and customs etc. It is not an Ethnicity in this respect.

Well that sated the need to rant in me.

Always a pleasure :beam:

[Julian the apostate]

what would a bronze age population have done if another culture had a monopoly on not only a strait like the english channel and sea of (between ireland and england) but also a near monopoloy on tin. i believe the islands also have large coal and some peat deposits so they have plenty of material to burn.
it seems like eventually everyone else would get sick of it.

[QwertyMIDX]

Because the Cheddar Man has his mtDNA from southern Sweden, and the Y-DNA Census of 2003 of Ireland and Britian show a 20% avg. I1b haplotype, which predates the LGM at 21,000 yr bp. In other words Iberia was populated as we see it today by two waves of northern Europeans, the Irish-Brits at 18,000 BC (with Halpotype I1b) before the LGM and then the Celts at 9,000 BC (with halpotype R1b).

I'm confused. Celtic --the branch on the Indo-European family tree -- is not 11000 years old. IE is itself supposed to have been spoken c2000bce... so unless we're talkin' time machines here, something is wrong.

P.S sorry for bringing up an old thread but i just could not let this be the last word. :2cents:

It might also be worth pointing out that the Celts are not from northern Europe. Proto-Celtic culture and language developed in central/eastern Europe; centered in modern Austria the south of modern Germany, and the eastern portion of modern Switzerland really. The fact that the celtic culture seems to have arrived in parts of iberia before it arrives in ireland is another point worth considering. Celtic seems to have devloped sometime between 1300 and 700 BC, and by the time the celts enter the historical record (in about 600 BC) the language had already split into a number of distinct languages and the culture had already spread over much of Europe. Of course one of major problems here is defining what exactly 'celtic culture' is. The line between proto-Celtic and Celtic is certainly very vague, and the problems caused by developments of Celtic culture in the core areas that don't spread to the fringe, places like the British isles, until much after their initial appearance if ever, chariot burials are a good example of this, being a key marker of early Celtic warrior burials on the continent, but not arriving in Britain until the late 7th century at the earliest and never, as far as I know, appearing in Ireland. Still, this is a topic for better left for another day.

[The Unknown Guy]

That's exactly my point. But Language = Culture. Genetics isn't the issue. If you told a Roman citizen of the Empire that they weren't in fact a "True Roman" because of their genes they would, quite rightly, dismiss you.

aah, but they wouldn´t. See, being an Italian proper did count for them. For instance, Trajan was tollerated as a non-Italian emperor because his family was, in fact, Italian, but settled in southern Hispania.

[Artorius Maximus]

aah, but they wouldn´t. See, being an Italian proper did count for them. For instance, Trajan was tollerated as a non-Italian emperor because his family was, in fact, Italian, but settled in southern Hispania.

Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Traian was of Iberian descent. Maybe his family did have Italian-Roman origin. Did many Italic-Romans settle in Hispania/Iberia?

[cmacq]

Marcus Ulpius Traianus Maior was Traianus' dad, and a member of gens Ulpius and was of the newman (senatorial) class. Traianus Maior was originally from Spain, but was of Roman descent. His paternal ancestors migrated from Italy and settled in Italica in the Roman Province of Hispania Baetica, near Seville. His sister was Ulpia Traiana, who was the mother of praetor Publius Aelius Hadrianus Afer, the dad of Emperor Hadrian. To your second question; yes.

[beatoangelico]

aah, but they wouldn´t. See, being an Italian proper did count for them. For instance, Trajan was tollerated as a non-Italian emperor because his family was, in fact, Italian, but settled in southern Hispania.

these differences were pretty much eliminated over the time. There isn't a single italian emperor in the late empire IIRC. What counted, among the elite, was the knowdledge of latin.

[Artorius Maximus]

these differences were pretty much eliminated over the time. There isn't a single italian emperor in the late empire IIRC. What counted, among the elite, was the knowdledge of latin.

Really? I suppose you're right, many of the Late Roman Emperors were Illyrians.

[paullus]

wow....crazy thread resurrection strikes again!

[blitzkrieg80]

completely OT nonetheless :7wizard:

I heard there were these Roman senators who came from Africa even...

[Justinian II]

...Eaten? :wreck: Figuratively, right?



There is a number of theories concerning the American colonyzation of South America, amongst them:

Inmigration through Beringia, an land bridge that united alaska with siberia throug a period comprising roughly from 50000 BC and ending 8000 years ago. Through that period, succesive waves of peoples colonyzed the North and South Americas. The mongoloid peoples that came through that route comprises the 90% of the genetic material of the current american indians (missing source BTW).

A second theory is the Oceanic one, that proposed a movement of polinesic peoples by ships and rafts that arrived in the Californian and Mexican coast, following marine currents. According to Rivet, that migration occurred some 4000 years ago, and it`s totally confirmed by common weapons, houses and general instruments between both human groups, and also by language similarities.

The third theory (Mendez Correa) is one about australian migration through the antartic coast. According to that theory, some 6000 years ago the climatic conditions were such, that made possible the appearance of some islands on the southern seas, which enhanced gratly the communication between australia and the south cone of South America. This theory is confirmed by common ethnic, language and cultural parameters between both human groups (Lack of knowledge of hammocks and ceramics, hive-like huts, similar builded barges and boats, etc.)

A pretty bizarre one was from an argentinian paleontologist (Florentino Ameghino), that sayed that the actual cradle of manking was located in South America (yup, you guessed right, in his country...), not in Africa.

The fact is that the guy was caught falsing some bones (he tried to make pass a femur of a feline and parts of a relatively modern man`s skull as archeologycal evidence of an extraordinarily old hominid - the alledged broken link of Darwin -. It actually was hilarious when I heard that in school!!!

Anyway, and excellent page is this one:

LINK (http://www.umce.cl/~cipumce/cuadernos/facultad_de_historia/monografias_tematicas/cuaderno_22/cultura_paleoindia_teoria_hipotesis.htm)

But, alas, it`s in spanish.

And the good old wikipedia:

Migration theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#The_Bering_Strait_Land_Bridge_Theory)
More Migration Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World)
Monte Verde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde)
Pre-Siberian Aboriginies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines)

Cheers to all! :2thumbsup:

PS: Eaten? :speechless:

There's also the Solutrian theory, which is that Clovis spear technology is based on Solutrian points from Ice-Age europe--people hunting seals and whales along the icepack eventually made it to america in that way...

Personally, I'm inclined to think that people got here in a lot of different ways. It's rarely, if EVER, so simple as to have one origin, or one reason, for anything.

[cmacq]

wow....crazy thread resurrection strikes again!


Right,

WTFrak is up with this thread?