The Irish are Not Celts

[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

*(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.
http://www.fionasplace.net/irishjoke...ymanjokes.html

[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.

[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

[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"

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

[lobf]

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