PDA

View Full Version : Blood of the Celts (2015)



Pages : [1] 2

Jean M
04-10-2015, 09:16 AM
My new book coming out this autumn is titled Blood of the Celts: The New Ancestral Story. As with Ancestral Journeys, the publisher is Thames and Hudson. It can be pre-ordered on Amazon, but they don't have a jacket image yet, so I thought you folks might like a sneak preview:

4302

From the jacket (I'm not responsible for all the boasting. The publisher puts that in.)


New discoveries in genetics have overturned the dogma of decades about the Celts. Today Celtic languages cling to precarious life on the northwestern fringes of Europe. Delve into the pre-Roman past and we find Celtic spoken across the continent. The heritage of the Celts turns up from Portugal to Romania, from Scotland to Spain. Yet debate continues about who exactly were the Celts, where ultimately they came from, and whether the modern Celtic-speakers of the British Isles and Brittany are related to the Continental Celts we know from ancient history. So a fresh approach is needed. Blood of the Celts meets this challenge, pulling together evidence from genetics, archaeology, history and linguistics in an accessible and illuminating way.

Jean Manco, author of the pioneering and acclaimed genetic history of Europe, Ancestral Journeys, has here written a vivid and compelling account that takes the reader on a voyage of discovery from the origins of the ancient Celts to the modern Celtic Revival. What emerges may seem startling. Earlier attempts to trace historic and prehistoric movements using only modern DNA from living people have been proved dramatically wrong by findings from ancient DNA.

Lovers of war, wine and song, the historic Celts strike us as a people with a great gusto for life. Yet they did not fear death, for they believed in an afterlife. Fate has granted them more kinds of immortality than they had in mind. As long as any Celtic language is still spoken, the linguistic chain from the ancient Celts remains unbroken. As long as the earliest Celts have living heirs, there is also an unbroken chain of DNA.


My approach was novel. I start not in prehistory, but with the earliest literature in any Celtic language, which was written in the British Isles. So the Celts tell us about themselves from the start. Then I track backwards in detective mode to uncover their deep ancestry, at which point we turn forwards again in time to follow their story right up to modern times. Chapter headings and subheadings:

Prologue
Timeline
Deduced timeline for the prehistory of the Celts
Timeline for the historic Celts
1: The voices of the Celts
Heroic ideals
Druids
Pseudo-history
Genetics: the first clues
Overview
2: The Gauls and Celtic
Chariots
Trump of war
Migration mystery
Genetics: ancient DNA
Overview
3: Bell Beakers and language
The bell-shaped pot
Way of life and death
Mobility
Genetics: Y-DNA R1b-P312
Celtic and Italic languages
Italo-Celtic
Old European IE (Alteuropäisch)
Overview
4: The Indo-European family
Indo-European homeland
From Siberia to Europe
Genetics: Mal'ta boy
Genetics: three main sources for Europeans
The Indo-European lifestyle
Indo-European dispersal
Overview
5: Stelae to Bell Beaker
People of stone
The stelae trail
Linking Stelae to Bell Beaker
The origins of Bell Beaker pottery
Bell Beaker routes and the development of Celtic
Bronze Age mobility
Genetics: R1b flows into the British Isles
Overview
6: The iron sword
Steppe nomads
Hallstatt aristocrats
Celtic caught in transition
La Tène warriors
Shape-shifting art
Oppida
Overview
7: On the move
The forces driving expansion
The surge southward
Iberia: the tangled skein
Genetics: Traces of the spread of the Gauls?
La Tène in the British Isles
Genetics: Traces of the spread of La Tène to Ireland?
Belgae in Britain
Overview
8: Celts vs Romans
Cisalpine Gauls
The struggle for Iberia
Caesar's conquest of Gaul
Britannia
Genetics: The Picts
Pagan Picts and Scots
Overview
9: Christian Celts
Ogham
Irish in Dyfed
Genetics: Déisi Mumhan
Early Christian Ireland
Genetics: The Cruthin
Anglo-Saxons and Britons
Genetics: Britons and Anglo-Saxons
Kingdoms of Wales
Britons abroad
Christian Picts and Scots
Overview
10: Loss and revival
Immigrants and emigrants medieval to modern
The dominance of English
Rediscovering a forgotten family
A passion for Celtic
Political pressures
Celtosceptism
Back to the future
Overview
Appendix: Surnames and DNA
Genetics: Irvine surname
Origins of surnames
Descendants of Brian Boru
Genetics: Descendants of Brian Boru
Royal Stewart line
Genetics: Royal Stewart
Clan MacFarlane
Genetics: MacFarlane

Notes
Bibliography

authun
04-10-2015, 09:22 AM
Bah eck tha's a brave lass Jean tekkin on this 'ere can o wurms.

Sterling effort!

Krefter
04-10-2015, 10:04 AM
This looks really interesting. Did you add Haak 2015 info, and DNA from the Iron age Britons?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-10-2015, 10:07 AM
Looks interesting. Definitely on my read list :)

Jean M
04-10-2015, 10:18 AM
Did you add Haak 2015 info, and DNA from the Iron age Britons?

Yes, even though the text was by then in design. I have a very understanding publisher. They are as keen as I am to be as up to date as possible. That's what the readers want in this fast-moving field.

Krefter
04-10-2015, 10:32 AM
Yes, even though the text was by then in design. I have a very understanding publisher. They are as keen as I am to be as up to date as possible. That's what the readers want in this fast-moving field.

When and with whom do you think DF27, U152, and L21 spread? My guess is it was long before the Celts Romans knew, and with their ancestors of very early Celts or IEs.

Jean M
04-10-2015, 10:49 AM
When and with whom do you think DF27, U152, and L21 spread?

My text for DF27 and L21 has already been posted on other threads, so we may as well have it here:


Today two subclades of R1b1a2a1a2 (P312) seem to echo the two Bell Beaker routes into the Isles that we see in the archaeology, though this can only be speculation in the absence of early Bell Beaker DNA from the British Isles. The predominant one is R1b1a2a1a2c (L21), which probably moved up the Rhine, across the Channel and from Britain to Ireland.

R1b1a2a1a2a (DF27) is common in Iberia. So the rare cases of R1b-DF27* (the basal form of DF27) in Ireland today may be a remnant of Bell Beaker movements up the Atlantic. If R1b-DF27 also travelled with Bell Beaker from Iberia into the Carpathian Basin, that would explain its present wide range. It has some subclades whose bearers cluster in south-western Europe, but others which are almost exclusive to northern Europeans and their descendants. Scandinavian branches of R1b-DF27 could have arrived in the Isles as late as Viking or Norman times.

For the forum discussion on this section, see http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3218-Draft-DF27-section-in-Celts-book

The material included on U152 is pretty much the same as in Ancestral Journeys (2013), but with a little bit added on the proposed Ligurian link which Richard R. has discussed on this forum.

Heber
04-10-2015, 11:09 AM
Congratulations Jean, this is a great achievement. I preordered the book and look forward to a good read.
Of particular interest is chapter 5 and 7 and how you interpret the Bronze Age Stelae People migrations and the later Iron Age Le Tene migrations and the genetic signatures of each.

"Estimated delivery date:
Friday, October 30, 2015 -
Thursday, November 19, 2015"

rms2
04-10-2015, 11:14 AM
Looks like a great book, Jean. You know I will buy at least one copy for myself and probably several others to give as gifts. I'm pretty sure I will be recommending it to all my project members, as well.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see the chapter section in which you reveal that British Celts were really Basques or the one in which you talk about the Basque-kirs of Basque-kortostan in Russia. ;)

alan
04-10-2015, 11:28 AM
I very much trust you will be using the Cruithin section to debunk the Adamson nonsense and using the DNA evidence for actual Cruithin surnames like McGuiness, McCartan, Lynch, Lavery etc

Hando
04-10-2015, 11:40 AM
Looking forward to this book. Please could you do a book on the Germanic peoples as well as the Mycenean Greeks?;)

Jean M
04-10-2015, 11:57 AM
Of particular interest is ... how you interpret the Bronze Age Stelae People migrations

There I have changed somewhat from Ancestral Journeys (2013) in that I suggest a dialect of IE spread with those who went to Portugal, rather than Proto-Italo-Celtic so early.

Jean M
04-10-2015, 12:02 PM
I very much trust you will be using the Cruithin section to debunk the Adamson nonsense and using the DNA evidence for actual Cruithin surnames like McGuiness, McCartan, Lynch, Lavery etc

Certainly have. In fact the McGuinness and McCartan evidence was cited in Ancestral Journeys (2013). It is quite an old study. I seem to have missed the Lynch and Lavery connection.

alan
04-10-2015, 12:08 PM
Dalriada was a subject I did my thesis on. I think it worth pointing out that Campbell ideas on the Scotti are almost entirely based on negative evidence which is very dubious considering we have practically no sites in NE Ireland dating to 0-500AD. Also his idea about using Eochaid as somehow linked to Epidi falls when you have a wider knowledge of early parts of prehistoric parts of Irish geneaologies which have Eochaids all over the place - including the Ui Neill of course. So its really just uninformed playing with words. Eochaid in king lists may be some sort of horse-sovereignty myth which is attested in Irish literature and even recorded by Geraldus. Its a very dubious model based on negative evidence and a poor understanding of old Irish geneaologies.

Also every tribal and placename pre-500AD is P-Celtic in Atlantic Scotland when its possible to distinguise between the two branches and the 'it was a Briton who translated the name' thing is something non-one could ever prove. The Dal form of the tribe and the various Cenel and Dal subdivisions in Senchus Fir nanAlban is all Irish terminology and clan structure. Most of the names of the people of Scottish Dalriada, with a few exceptions, are very much Irish rather than Brythonic or Pictish. P-Celtic placename substrate and on early records is well attested in north Atlantic Scotland pre-800 such as Applecross - Aber Crossan Even in Argyll the Cenel Loarn sat on Loch Aber - a P-Celtic form, the old name of Loch Linne recorded in the Life of Columba. I posted you a link some years ago with lots of evidence for non-Gaelic lineages in the NW of Scotland in the pre-Viking era. I doubt that Briton translating arguement for Ptolemy works or certainly is just a theory because there are both P and Q Celtic looking names in Ireland on Ptolemy.

Personally I think the Scotti may have gradually settled in western Scotland the early centuries AD a little post Ptolemy when the Irish population exploded and references to Irish naval activity commences a little before 300AD and the areas not defended by Roman forces would have been an easier target. IMO the transfer of the kingship to Ireland 200 years or so later is all that the c.500AD date represents. The evidence is slight but from memory Warner in his chapter I think in From the Stone Age to the 45 notes some Irish looking stuff like Iron Age spearbutts in the hebrides which may be the best evidence for pre-500AD settlement.

Oh and I would strongly advise against using Altigore cashel as some sort of evidence of a broch/Atlantic round house. Its very different-far bigger diameter etc and wall passages are known in cashels all across Ireland.

The big flaw in really pushing back Gaelic in the west is that from about 700BC-300AD is one of the biggest troughs in contact between Ireland and western Scotland with Atlantic Scotland radically different in archaeology, and up to 1000 years of divergence in language would be expected which is enormous in terms of divergence and doesnt match the identikit nature of early Scottish Gaelic and Irish. I have no doubt the two areas where very well connected from the Neolithic to the late Bronze Age but that big gap is a major discontinuity. I really dont think Campbell's theory is likely although I do agree that the Scotti probably appeared in western Scotland c. 200 years before 500AD.

Its also worth noting that Country Antrim is not a large place and a huge amount of different early Irish sources are very specific that the Cruthin element tribes was the DalnAraide and its subgroups the Latharna, Elne etc. Just next door on most of the coastal area of Antrim except a little bit around Coleraine and Larne were the Dalriada who are never considered Cruithin and where it is indicated they are considered Errain albeit that I think that was a rather blanket term. So, the annals are clear down to even what many would see as micro-geography of Antrim that the Dalriada were distinct from the Cruithin. So whoever the Cruithin were, the Dalriada were pointedly not.

Regarding the Cruithin, it is interesting to note that the Cruithin tribes in NE Ireland were, with a couple of exceptions around Larne, Coleraine and Belfast, almost entirely landlocked. The coast of north-east Ireland was dominated by the Dalriada of coastal Antrim and the Dal Fiathach of County Down. In both cases their inland neighbours are clearly always linked to the Cruithin while the coastal groups never are -and where there is a link made both of the coastal groups are linked to the Errain.

Reith
04-10-2015, 12:13 PM
Looking forward to ordering and reading this book Jean.

Been learning a lot about the Celts (specifically Gauls/Belgae) recently.

In your opinion, we know not all L21 left the continent to the isles, but what do you think about DF21? I traced all my ancestors to Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I am DF21 and currently ungrouped, but waiting on my FGC3213 results. Do you think this could be a Belgic marker (Hinxton grave) and my Y ancestor was pushed to the North via the Roman Empire?

Thank you.

alan
04-10-2015, 12:14 PM
Certainly have. In fact the McGuinness and McCartan evidence was cited in Ancestral Journeys (2013). It is quite an old study. I seem to have missed the Lynch and Lavery connection.

The problem with those names - they are names of the Antrim DalnAraide Cruithin tribe leading lineages - is duplication of names. Possibly also near death of these lineages. Unlike in the Cruithin in County Down the Antrim lines which survived in situ until the Plantation and beyond, the Antrim Cruithin were driven out by Normans and the Ui Thuirtre from west of the Bann and didnt survive into the Norman era. The most extreme case is Dalriada which left no surnames in Antrim as it was conquered by Normans, Bissets, then Hebrideans and partly the Ulster Plantation. So there are no names left to test. It is possible that the Lynch and Laverys in the area today are unconnected.

Little bit
04-10-2015, 02:19 PM
I'm definitely purchasing this book, not just an excellent reference, but it appears it will be of special interest to my family's genetic genealogy search. Congrats and kudos on this and the last book. I wish I lived in England as I'd try to get to a book signing. It would be fun to show my descendants that I personally consulted with a published historian on my genealogy. Thanks for all you do for us! :beerchug:

Jean M
04-10-2015, 03:13 PM
Dalriada was a subject I did my thesis on. I think it worth pointing out that Campbell ideas on the Scotti are almost entirely based on negative evidence which is very dubious ...

Er. I'm not following Ewan Campbell. He gets a mention only to be dismissed on linguistic grounds.


Oh and I would strongly advise against using Altigore cashel as some sort of evidence of a broch/Atlantic round house.

Um. I have never even thought about doing that. There is nothing in the book about brochs. Here's what I say online about them:


The north-eastern tip of Scotland is notable for its brochs - tall, round, stone-built, hollow-walled Iron Age tower-houses. Brochs are also found in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, Skye and the Outer Hebrides. Brochs were often sited close to the sea. They evolved from earlier hollow-walled defenses, one in a ring-fort on Shetland dated to the 6th century BC; associated pottery links it to Late Bronze Age Brittany. Promontory forts in the western isles with hollow walls were probably also built by new arrivals, in this case from southern England. It seems that settlers felt the need for defense against sea-borne attack. Brochs emerged on Shetland and Uist around the 4th century BC and slightly later in the Western Isles. While some brochs in NE Caithness show cultural links to Shetland, further south it appears that local people adopted the broch. In general broch-building societies appear multi-cultural. Some probably had chiefs of distant origin, but subordinates of more local origin. Most brochs were built between 200 BC and 100 AD and some remained in use as late as the 6th century AD. It was during this main burst of broch-building that a new type of quern appeared among the broch-builders. This adjustable disc quern was unknown elsewhere in Britain, but found in Iberia, and so hints at continuing contact with Brittany, which had trading links to Iberia.

Intriguingly a structure similar to a broch has been discovered in Central Spain. Bronze Age mounds dot the plain of La Mancha. The excavation of one - the Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real) - revealed a double-walled tower. It is earlier and more complex than any broch. So it remains unclear whether the concept travelled, or whether this is a case of parallel development. In the first century BC, the Veneti of what is now southern Brittany were outstanding navigators, with a huge fleet of ships, with which they controlled traffic with Britain, until they were crushed by Caesar. So we may guess that they were at least the intermediaries in a movement of people, goods and ideas to the north. Traffic along the Atlantic seaboard continued through and after the Roman period. The elites of Argyll imported wine, dyes, spices and fine wares from Aquitaine in the early historic period. Adomnan's Life of Columba mentions a vessel fresh from Gaul arriving in Argyll.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml

This will stay online, as will the stuff on specific tribes. My contract requires me to take down anything duplicated in the book, but I haven't yet decided what needs to go.

MJost
04-10-2015, 03:22 PM
JeanM,

I have your first book and just pre-ordered your latest one, along with pre-ordering two other books for my 7 & 8 year old grandsons they just love. Since you really want to know what popular books for their ages, they are:
Captain Underpants (George and Harold, and their doubles) & Ranger in Time #2 (Ranger is a time-traveling golden retriever).

Webb
04-10-2015, 03:27 PM
My text for DF27 and L21 has already been posted on other threads, so we may as well have it here:



For the forum discussion on this section, see http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3218-Draft-DF27-section-in-Celts-book

The material included on U152 is pretty much the same as in Ancestral Journeys (2013), but with a little bit added on the proposed Ligurian link which Richard R. has discussed on this forum.

That is pretty awesome Jean! Remeber please, that I coined the phrase Norwiberian, otherwise, it is available for use.

evon
04-10-2015, 03:43 PM
Will get it for sure, I prefer a paperback version, but I might get the hardback like with the last book..You are very productive :)

Jean M
04-10-2015, 03:46 PM
.. what do you think about DF21? I traced all my ancestors to Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I am DF21 and currently ungrouped .... Do you think this could be a Belgic marker (Hinxton grave)

You know (at least) as much as I do on this one at this stage. We know that Hinxton 4 was DF21 > Z246
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246

I'm afraid that I don't even have a date for DF21 in my notes, so that I could make a guess if some could have reached Denmark/Norway with Bell Beaker, or if it is more likely to have arrived in the Medieval period with Scottish merchants who settled there. This is a question to throw to the L21 project leaders, I think.

evon
04-10-2015, 03:58 PM
You know (at least) as much as I do on this one at this stage. We know that Hinxton 4 was DF21 > Z246
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246

I'm afraid that I don't even have a date for DF21 in my notes, so that I could make a guess if some could have reached Denmark/Norway with Bell Beaker, or if it is more likely to have arrived in the Medieval period with Scottish merchants who settled there. This is a question to throw to the L21 project leaders, I think.

Lots of Scots in particular settled in Western and Northern Norway during the 16-1700's, and its known here as the "Scottish era", mostly linked to Timber trade, but also in other areas. I found a relative yesterday whom seems to have immigrated in 1600's from Killin Scotland, and I think my own L21+ will be found out as derived from Scotland or Germany within the same time period..

Jean M
04-10-2015, 04:50 PM
Lots of Scots in particular settled in Western and Northern Norway during the 16-1700's, and its known here as the "Scottish era"..

I still remember a very instructive post by you on this topic in the old DNA forums. That led me to search for more. I mention Scottish communities in 16th and 17th-century Bergen and Gothenburg in Ancestral Journeys (2013), p. 209 as one possible source of L21 in Scandinavia today.

Helgenes50
04-10-2015, 05:13 PM
I still remember a very instructive post by you on this topic in the old DNA forums. That led me to search for more. I mention Scottish communities in 16th and 17th-century Bergen and Gothenburg in Ancestral Journeys (2013), p. 209 as one possible source of L21 in Scandinavia today.

It seems to me that the number of slaves in West Norway in the Viking Age was important and a lot of them were of celtic origin, mainly from Ireland and Scotland

J1 DYS388=13
04-10-2015, 05:21 PM
It seems to me that the number of slaves in West Norway in the Viking Age was important and a lot of them were of celtic origin, mainly from Ireland and Scotland

If you can recall that source, please cite it. Thanks.

evon
04-10-2015, 05:23 PM
I still remember a very instructive post by you on this topic in the old DNA forums. That led me to search for more. I mention Scottish communities in 16th and 17th-century Bergen and Gothenburg in Ancestral Journeys (2013), p. 209 as one possible source of L21 in Scandinavia today.

We all have our moments.

On the subject of Scots (or even Brits in general) settling in Norway, I have found that they adopted Norwegian names very fast, within one generation, but like with my recently discovered British ancestors, they married into each others family.

In contrast to this, is the many Germans whom settled here, which often kept their German names for several generations (they also intermarried other German families), and some even up to modern times, which is why if you look at old news paper ads from the late 1800's, it will be heavily dominated by German names, Neuman, Fasmer, Beyer, Meyer, etc.

Helgenes50
04-10-2015, 05:33 PM
If you can recall that source, please cite it. Thanks.

Yes of course!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Slavery_in_Scandinavia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-03/1301163863

Reith
04-10-2015, 05:55 PM
You know (at least) as much as I do on this one at this stage. We know that Hinxton 4 was DF21 > Z246
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246

I'm afraid that I don't even have a date for DF21 in my notes, so that I could make a guess if some could have reached Denmark/Norway with Bell Beaker, or if it is more likely to have arrived in the Medieval period with Scottish merchants who settled there. This is a question to throw to the L21 project leaders, I think.

My Y line goes back to Lower Saxony. Not many "Viking Slaves" element there that I know of.

Perhaps I would go on a limb and say could be a Scot mercenary during the 30 years war, but I do not have many Scottish matches.

Reith
04-10-2015, 06:02 PM
You know (at least) as much as I do on this one at this stage. We know that Hinxton 4 was DF21 > Z246
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3312-Ancient-Celt-from-Hinxton-DF21-Z246

I'm afraid that I don't even have a date for DF21 in my notes, so that I could make a guess if some could have reached Denmark/Norway with Bell Beaker, or if it is more likely to have arrived in the Medieval period with Scottish merchants who settled there. This is a question to throw to the L21 project leaders, I think.

I believe Bell Beaker was definitely found in Jutland...

Jean M
04-10-2015, 06:27 PM
I believe Bell Beaker was definitely found in Jutland...

Indeed it was. The people who made BB pottery also prospected around the southern tip of Norway, as we can tell from other objects characteristic of them which have been found there, though there is little of the pottery. Without ancient DNA though we don't know what Y-DNA they carried and if their descendants remained. The good news is that colder climates are good for the preservation of DNA in bones and teeth. So one day we may get BB results from Scandinavia. We already have older DNA from Sweden. See http://www.theatlas.se/

David Mc
04-10-2015, 07:00 PM
Thanks for giving us a peak, Jean. I pre-ordered "Blood of the Celts" back in March. You haven't hazarded any guesses as to the "fit" of DF49xM222 have you?

Jean M
04-10-2015, 07:38 PM
Thanks for giving us a peak, Jean. I pre-ordered "Blood of the Celts" back in March. You haven't hazarded any guesses as to the "fit" of DF49xM222 have you?

Nothing specific, no. I'm afraid not. Hope that's not too big a disappointment. M222 is in there.

David Mc
04-10-2015, 08:02 PM
Nothing specific, no. I'm afraid not. Hope that's not too big a disappointment. M222 is in there.

No, it isn't really a disappointment. There is still so little data for DF49xM222 that not much can be said yet. I just keep hoping that someone will produce the magic bullet that will solve the mystery for us. Your outline looks amazing!

Wonder_Wall
04-10-2015, 08:10 PM
Great news!

I started a year ago with a 23andMe test. As a Yank, I'm a mix of many things and had no idea what I was getting into with finding out I was R1b. I started with the Doggerland summary on the 23andMe website, then got utterly confused by Oppenheimer, and then via this site (mainly) wound up on the Steppe pondering the origin of Indo-European, Bell Beakers, and everything else. I never would have thought this DNA test would pique my interest to ideas/archaeology far beyond the concerns of my own ancestry.

That it has, and that the story is literally still unfolding before our eyes, is really what keeps me checking this forum. It's a real life detective story that is genuinely complex and interesting. The Celts are part of the story and I'm sure this book will pry open my eyes a bit wider.

Lots of you have been at this for years and I feel extremely green by comparison.

But also welcome, so thanks!

MitchellSince1893
04-11-2015, 12:13 AM
Lots of Scots in particular settled in Western and Northern Norway during the 16-1700's, and its known here as the "Scottish era", mostly linked to Timber trade, but also in other areas. I found a relative yesterday whom seems to have immigrated in 1600's from Killin Scotland, and I think my own L21+ will be found out as derived from Scotland or Germany within the same time period..

Maybe this is the source for my father's autosomal matches to 100% Swedish individuals. Thanks for the info.

Agamemnon
04-11-2015, 01:11 AM
I am definitely buying this... And I'm definitely going to nuke the linguistic section! Nah, just kidding about the last part ;) Glad to see you decided to address this topic, as it is often bypassed and vulnerable to the most bizarre theories out there (I can say with some confidence that some of the weirdest theories I've encountered surrounded the Celts).

Krefter
04-11-2015, 01:51 AM
Remember I'm very nubby when it comes to this subject. I'm confused how the most well known Celts: Gauls/continental Celts, can be associated with the spread of any R1b-L11 clades which look like they spread before the Iron age. I've asked this question before, but I'm still confused. The Gauls/continental Celts look like a young branch of an extended family of R1b-L11 rich IEs(Italics, British-Irish Celts, Germans, etc.) who spread in the Bronze age and slightly earlier.

How long were Roman writers conscious of the "Gauls' or "Celts"? If in 400BC Herodotus said the (continental)Celts were a known ethnicity living from east Europe to Spain, the Celtic/Gaulish(?) identity Caesar knew of must be old. I think I remember reading once early Romans fought a war against Celts/Gauls in as early as 600BC.

Could the Continental Celtic/Gaulish(?) identity be as old as the begging of the Iron age, and their cousins from the British isles be from a Bronze age migration? If Celts from Spain identified with Celts from central Europe, wouldn't this also mean they came to Spain recently? That puts a hole in the theory Celts brought R1b-Df27 to Spain, but earlier IE migrations could have.

IMO, Italics, British-Irish Celts, Germanic and the various differnt IE languages that existed in pre-Roman central-west Europe separated from the Gauls/continental Celts(?) in the bronze age, and so I don't see how DF27 can be associated with a recent expansion of continental Celts closely related to Gauls.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-11-2015, 06:16 AM
Krefter I think that's what I was trying to ask in another thread, in a less-informed way. I don't understand how the pre- Iron Age People of Britain just disappeared off the genetic map, replaced by a mass "Celtic" migration. John

Krefter
04-11-2015, 07:22 AM
Krefter I think that's what I was trying to ask in another thread, in a less-informed way. I don't understand how the pre- Iron Age People of Britain just disappeared off the genetic map, replaced by a mass "Celtic" migration. John

From the few facts I know an Iron age spread of Celts into Britain just doesn't make sense to me. Although a mass genetic replacement by Celts, maybe in the bronze age, does make sense. Modern British-Irish cluster right with German Bell beaker folk who were R1b-rich, so it's pretty obvious.

Why some people keep insisting Celts arrived in the isles as recently as 500BC, is a mystery to me. They'd be Gauls if they arrived that recently. There was a Greek explorer who meet up with Britons in 325BC, they were already there. Roman writers had no idea the Britons were close linguistic relatives of Gauls. It was so long ago no one remembered.

David Mc
04-11-2015, 07:39 AM
I think most here would agree that the Celtic languages came to the Isles in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen anyone here suggest that they came in a mass migration in the Iron Age. There are suggestions of some tribal movements during the Iron Age, though; particularly certain Belgic tribes.

Jean M
04-11-2015, 07:46 AM
Remember I'm very nubby when it comes to this subject. I'm confused how the most well known Celts: Gauls/continental Celts, can be associated with the spread of any R1b-L11 clades which look like they spread before the Iron age. I've asked this question before, but I'm still confused. The Gauls/continental Celts look like a young branch of an extended family of ... (Italics, British-Irish Celts, Germans, etc.)... who spread in the Bronze age and slightly earlier.

Yes indeed. Archaeologists are now coming round to the view that Proto-Celtic spread in the Bell Beaker period. I place it in late Bell Beaker, along with the related Italic and Ligurian languages. (Let's leave out Germanic, which seems to have a different, though neighbouring, trajectory and a much later flowering.) This will come as no surprise to people who have been following the debates on this forum, so I'm not giving away too much of the book to state that here. However I cannot cut-and-paste the entire book onto this thread. :)

Helgenes50
04-11-2015, 08:13 AM
There I have changed somewhat from Ancestral Journeys (2013) in that I suggest a dialect of IE spread with those who went to Portugal, rather than Proto-Italo-Celtic so early.

Do you know if your book will be translated into French.
Or is it an opportunity to improve my English

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-11-2015, 08:46 AM
Thank you Krefter. Do you think the earlier pre- Bronze Age peoples became integrated with the new arrivals or is there insufficient information available to know? I'm just curious personally because of my First Farmer motherline and apologise if the answers are obvious to the better-informed. :) John

evon
04-11-2015, 10:04 AM
Maybe this is the source for my father's autosomal matches to 100% Swedish individuals. Thanks for the info.

Western and Northern Norway isnt Sweden though ;) But there might be a similar history behind Scots in Sweden? I know there was a Scottish community in Gothenburg, but thats about as far as my knowledge on Swedish history and Scots goes..

evon
04-11-2015, 10:06 AM
Saw they have it at "The bookdepository" so I will pre-order it now:

http://www.bookdepository.com/Blood-Celts-Jean-Manco/9780500051832

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-11-2015, 12:52 PM
I seem to have missed reading a few posts, sorry. John

MitchellSince1893
04-11-2015, 01:53 PM
Western and Northern Norway isnt Sweden though ;) But there might be a similar history behind Scots in Sweden? I know there was a Scottish community in Gothenburg, but thats about as far as my knowledge on Swedish history and Scots goes..

Yes but because of your post I discovered
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was significant emigration from Scotland to Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Some of this was by economic migrants, mainly by merchants and craftsmen, in search of career opportunities, however the majority of Scots arrived in Scandinavia as soldiers of fortune seeking employment in the armies of Sweden and Denmark-Norway under leaders especially Gustavus Adolphus. The majority of migrants originated along the east coast of Scotland and the Northern Isles. Seafarers from Scotland were also sought by Scandinavian navies. John Cunningham from Crail in Fife, led a Danish naval expedition to Greenland and Labrador in 1605. Later he became governor of Vardohus and Finmark in northern Norway. Scots merchants were also prominent in cities such as Bergen, Gothenburg, and Stockholm. Gothenburg was the base of the Swedish East India Company which employed a number of Scots such as Colin Campbell who was sent to India in 1731 to establish trading links. Several Jacobites settled in Sweden after 1745, men such as George and James Carnegie from Angus who became merchants there. John McLean, son of McLean of Duart, became a banker in Gothenburg from 1619, was enobled under the name Macaleer in 1649. The industrialisation of Scandinavia was facilitated by Scots entrepreneurs such as James Dickson, William Gibson, Alexander Keillor, James Finlayson, David Carnegie, among others.

http://baronytitles.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=22&cntnt01returnid=19

It made me think it could explain this unknown connection to Sweden

Dubhthach
04-11-2015, 04:14 PM
I think most here would agree that the Celtic languages came to the Isles in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen anyone here suggest that they came in a mass migration in the Iron Age. There are suggestions of some tribal movements during the Iron Age, though; particularly certain Belgic tribes.

The question is though was it perhaps "Pre-Celtic" or "Para-Celtic" that spread at the time. We have for example evidence of "Para-Celtic" in the shape of Lusitanian from Iberia. My feeling is that we saw an early spread of Western Proto-IE, which over time differenated into various dialects, one of which eventually became the "Celtic" branch which gradually expanded among the closely related dialect groups (linguistically the deletion of Proto-IE /p/ is defining mark of Celtic branch)

David Mc
04-11-2015, 05:57 PM
The question is though was it perhaps "Pre-Celtic" or "Para-Celtic" that spread at the time. We have for example evidence of "Para-Celtic" in the shape of Lusitanian from Iberia. My feeling is that we saw an early spread of Western Proto-IE, which over time differenated into various dialects, one of which eventually became the "Celtic" branch which gradually expanded among the closely related dialect groups (linguistically the deletion of Proto-IE /p/ is defining mark of Celtic branch)

That wasn't actually the question. I was responding to a statement/question as to when the Celtic peoples entered the British Isles, and was speaking in generalities. If we want to speak with greater precision, we might argue that the language(s) brought in by the Beaker People were Proto-Celtic or simply an earlier form of Celtic that evolved along their own lines within the Isles. I wouldn't want to use the term "Pre-Celtic," myself, as that has historically been used to describe the non-Indo-European peoples who inhabited the British Isles first, and thus may add an element of confusion to the discussion.

Others on the forum might have more to say on this.

David Mc
04-11-2015, 06:21 PM
Yes but because of your post I discovered

http://baronytitles.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=22&cntnt01returnid=19

It made me think it could explain this unknown connection to Sweden

It is believed that up to thirty thousand Scots offered their swords to the Swedish crown during the Thirty Years War. A great number remained, tying themselves to the Oldenburg and Vasa dynasties. over the course of the next two hundred years a number of Scots served as military governors in Sweden and Finland (which was a Swedish possession at the time). I have what appears to be a close match in Finland, which I have always presumed to be Scots in origin (if not Manx).

You can read more on Scots in Sweden and Finland in Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers C. 1600-1800: A Study of Scotland and Empires by Andrew MacKillop and Steve Murdoch. You can access some of this information through the preview here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=XlFrbYjhEboC&dq

Arbogan
04-11-2015, 06:58 PM
Have you considered sendig copies of it to anthropological institutes? You could always put it up in academic networks. Who knows. Maybe there will be a Jean manco hosted TED talk someday :)

avalon
04-11-2015, 09:02 PM
From the few facts I know an Iron age spread of Celts into Britain just doesn't make sense to me. Although a mass genetic replacement by Celts, maybe in the bronze age, does make sense. Modern British-Irish cluster right with German Bell beaker folk who were R1b-rich, so it's pretty obvious.

Why some people keep insisting Celts arrived in the isles as recently as 500BC, is a mystery to me. They'd be Gauls if they arrived that recently. There was a Greek explorer who meet up with Britons in 325BC, they were already there. Roman writers had no idea the Britons were close linguistic relatives of Gauls. It was so long ago no one remembered.

How do we know that modern British/Irish cluster with the German Bell Beaker? I must have missed this but is this from the haak paper?

Krefter
04-11-2015, 09:09 PM
How do we know that modern British/Irish cluster with the German Bell Beaker? I must have missed this but is this from the haak paper?

Davidski and other people's analysis have shown Bell Beaker fits with Northwest Euros, while CWC is much more ANE. The Haak paper supports this. This shouldn't be a surprise considering the location and time the samples are coming. Davidski said the Bell beaker genomes look like the predecessors of the Iron age Celtic genomes from England..

avalon
04-11-2015, 09:34 PM
Thank you Krefter. Do you think the earlier pre- Bronze Age peoples became integrated with the new arrivals or is there insufficient information available to know? I'm just curious personally because of my First Farmer motherline and apologise if the answers are obvious to the better-informed. :) John

My understanding is that there is hardly any ancient DNA from Britain and Ireland so data from Neolithic Britons and Bronze Age Britons should help answer these questions.

My own view is that there probably was a large scale Celtic migration to the Isles but that they also mixed with the indigenous people. We know that R1b eventually became the dominant male lineage but less is known about the migrations of mtDNA, so maybe there was more continuity through the female lines from the Neolithic.

The haak paper suggested that in Central Europe, Indo-Europeans replaced 75% of the population but I am not sure if the same figure can be applied to the Isles.

King
04-11-2015, 11:09 PM
Wow, congratulations.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-12-2015, 05:53 AM
Thanks Avalon. Having had a bit of a browse around it seems at least some academics feel that there may have been greater genetic diversity in Britain and Ireland in the Celtic period and earlier than we currently believe.As you say, we won't know for sure until more is known about ancient DNA.

rms2
04-12-2015, 11:56 AM
Actually, the British Isles and Ireland have elevated levels of ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) when compared to adjacent areas of continental Europe like France and Spain, and the Celtic Fringe countries of the Isles generally have higher ANE than England. Beaker had a substantial Yamnaya component, and I recall reading that the Neolithic population of the Isles was suffering some difficulties and in decline just prior to the arrival of the Beaker Folk (can't recall the source of this info without hunting for it though).

As the Indo-Europeans moved across Europe to the Atlantic, they mixed with the people who had got there ahead of them. Thus they acquired more and more EEF and WHG the farther west and northwest they moved. In the places where the population descended from Near Eastern farmers was highest, i.e., closest to the Mediterranean, they acquired that much more EEF. In the places where the population descended from native hunter-gatherers was highest, i.e., farther north in Europe, away from the Mediterranean, they picked up that much more WHG. Everywhere they went they took their ANE and passed it on to their progressively more admixed descendants. The percentage of ANE they were able to pass on varied according to the density of the native population they encountered: in places with fewer people relative to the incoming Indo-Europeans, more ANE got passed along; in places with more people relative to the incoming Indo-Europeans, the more diluted the transmission of ANE became.

What we seem to be seeing in the ancient y-dna results is a change in the European population from a largely I2a set of men descended from native European hunter-gatherers plus a largely G2a set of men descended from Near Eastern farmers to the y-dna profile of the incoming Indo-Europeans, which was mostly R1. In Western Europe, the Indo-Europeans were largely R1b; in Eastern Europe, they were mostly R1a.

In the Isles, I think the pre-Beaker population was relatively higher on the WHG side than on the EEF side. I think ancient dna results will eventually show that.

4316 4317

avalon
04-12-2015, 04:30 PM
Actually, the British Isles and Ireland have elevated levels of ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) when compared to adjacent areas of continental Europe like France and Spain, and the Celtic Fringe countries of the Isles generally have higher ANE than England. Beaker had a substantial Yamnaya component, and I recall reading that the Neolithic population of the Isles was suffering some difficulties and in decline just prior to the arrival of the Beaker Folk (can't recall the source of this info without hunting for it though).

As the Indo-Europeans moved across Europe to the Atlantic, they mixed with the people who had got there ahead of them. Thus they acquired more and more EEF and WHG the farther west and northwest they moved. In the places where the population descended from Near Eastern farmers was highest, i.e., closest to the Mediterranean, they acquired that much more EEF. In the places where the population descended from native hunter-gatherers was highest, i.e., farther north in Europe, away from the Mediterranean, they picked up that much more WHG. Everywhere they went they took their ANE and passed it on to their progressively more admixed descendants. The percentage of ANE they were able to pass on varied according to the density of the native population they encountered: in places with fewer people relative to the incoming Indo-Europeans, more ANE got passed along; in places with more people relative to the incoming Indo-Europeans, the more diluted the transmission of ANE became.

What we seem to be seeing in the ancient y-dna results is a change in the European population from a largely I2a set of men descended from native European hunter-gatherers plus a largely G2a set of men descended from Near Eastern farmers to the y-dna profile of the incoming Indo-Europeans, which was mostly R1. In Western Europe, the Indo-Europeans were largely R1b; in Eastern Europe, they were mostly R1a.

In the Isles, I think the pre-Beaker population was relatively higher on the WHG side than on the EEF side. I think ancient dna results will eventually show that.

4316 4317

Looking at the Haak data, I wonder how we might explain the English having a higher Early Neolithic component than the Scottish? Perhaps the lowlands of England being more densely populated - therefore incoming Celts spread more thinly through the population?

In terms of ANE/EEF/WHG in the Isles, as far as I can tell the Eurogenes project doesn't have any Welsh samples and nor did the Haak paper. So, we need further data for Wales, particularly in the parts of Wales least affected by English input.

I suspect that Wales may have a different breakdown of ANE/EEF/WHG compared to other parts of the Isles. My thinking on this is linked to the POBI project which said that the Welsh clusters were the most separated from the rest of the UK (Orkney aside).

rms2
04-12-2015, 11:57 PM
I think one has to consider Roman input into what is now England, which would have delivered an additional injection of EEF.

Krefter
04-13-2015, 12:07 AM
I think one has to consider Roman input into what is now England, which would have delivered an additional injection of EEF.

I agree.

IMO, there's room for recent East Mediterranean admixture everywhere in Europe except probably Ireland, Scandinavia, Basque-SW France, and Northeast Europe. If Romans from Central Italy admixed with Gauls, even replacing 10-20% of the population, it'd be hard to distinguish between extra EEF ancestry.

I don't know anything about the history of the Roman empire though. But I doubt there's any historical or genetic evidence that could dismiss the possibility of Romans making a genetic impact in Europe.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-13-2015, 06:42 AM
The Romans were in Britain for such a long time and over such a wide area that it seems sensible to me that they must have had a genetic impact, recognizing of course that the Legions came from different parts of the known World. Possibly their diversity made their impact less obvious. I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced they were a minority which made little genetic impact.I understand that Roman Soldiers when they retired were given land in Britain and settlements were built to accommodate them, so where are their descendants? :) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caerleon.net%2Fhistory%2Farmy %2Fpage7.html&ei=y2ErVZqaOY7raJyWgJgH&usg=AFQjCNFQX1a3UVF5I-1yrEIizUpBcCt1EA
On the one hand the argument is that the Saxons were here in large numbers and made an impact, but that the Romans, Vikings and Normans were an elite and didn't. What about the Celts? Either they came here in large numbers and made a big impact or they could have been a conquering elite and basically over-laid a pre-existing population? I'm beginning to wonder myself in the absence of actual early DNA evidence if these cultural groups may have been more genetically diverse than we currently believe.:confused: John

Isidro
04-13-2015, 09:15 AM
This last comments I find interesting and somewhat coincides with results from this newer DNA testing company Tribecode.
I am still not clear if they are one step ahead or two behind the times since their results seem antiquated but they are using a method of larger blocs for matching and 10X the amount of DNA tested of leading companies like 23 and such.

Case in point to this thread... sample individuals from Scandinavia and British Isles score 100% European whereas French, Italian and Iberian (based on my results) score respectively around 13%, 18% and 12% of what they call West Asian but it seems to be what other runs like Eurogenes call Eastern Mediterranean.

Jessie
04-13-2015, 10:04 AM
In the new PoBI study I think they said the Romans left no influence or insignificant influence in Britain. Also relatively speaking all the populations are very closely related and they had to use very fine scale technology to tease out these clusters. I wonder if anyone possibly Krefter knows the difference in ANE across Britain and Ireland. Could the differences be down to possibly some populations being more isolated and just retaining some older genetics? Southern England just had more input over the years from populations with less ANE. Anyway it's a very interesting thread and discussion.

vettor
04-13-2015, 10:30 AM
Looking at the Haak data, I wonder how we might explain the English having a higher Early Neolithic component than the Scottish? Perhaps the lowlands of England being more densely populated - therefore incoming Celts spread more thinly through the population?

In terms of ANE/EEF/WHG in the Isles, as far as I can tell the Eurogenes project doesn't have any Welsh samples and nor did the Haak paper. So, we need further data for Wales, particularly in the parts of Wales least affected by English input.

I suspect that Wales may have a different breakdown of ANE/EEF/WHG compared to other parts of the Isles. My thinking on this is linked to the POBI project which said that the Welsh clusters were the most separated from the rest of the UK (Orkney aside).

In your first chart I see no sign of Haak... LBK_EN farmers
i0046, 48,56,57,100,659,821,795,54,22,25, and 26

Krefter
04-13-2015, 11:14 AM
This last comments I find interesting and somewhat coincides with results from this newer DNA testing company Tribecode.
I am still not clear if they are one step ahead or two behind the times since their results seem antiquated but they are using a method of larger blocs for matching and 10X the amount of DNA tested of leading companies like 23 and such.

Case in point to this thread... sample individuals from Scandinavia and British Isles score 100% European whereas French, Italian and Iberian (based on my results) score respectively around 13%, 18% and 12% of what they call West Asian but it seems to be what other runs like Eurogenes call Eastern Mediterranean.

I've never heard of TribeCode. They're like 23andme 2.0.

Isidro
04-13-2015, 11:18 AM
I've never heard of TribeCode. They're like 23andme 2.0.
It's definitely a new product.
There is a blog here in Anthrogenica.
It had a lot of criticism for their public relations and information about their service.
The results also seem odd.

rms2
04-13-2015, 12:02 PM
The Romans were in Britain for such a long time and over such a wide area that it seems sensible to me that they must have had a genetic impact, recognizing of course that the Legions came from different parts of the known World. Possibly their diversity made their impact less obvious. I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced they were a minority which made little genetic impact.I understand that Roman Soldiers when they retired were given land in Britain and settlements were built to accommodate them, so where are their descendants? :) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caerleon.net%2Fhistory%2Farmy %2Fpage7.html&ei=y2ErVZqaOY7raJyWgJgH&usg=AFQjCNFQX1a3UVF5I-1yrEIizUpBcCt1EA

I think Roman input is one reasonable explanation for the elevated EEF in England when compared with the Celtic Fringe countries. The Romans would have brought people from Mediterranean regions where EEF is considerably higher than it is in northern Europe. It also seems likely to me that Neolithic farmer settlement was higher in what is now England than anywhere else in the Isles because the best farmland in Britain is in England.

But I seem to recall someone saying the Hinxton genomes from circa AD 1 were relatively low in EEF. Is that right? If so, and if we take them as possible examples, then that would mean the EEF input would have had to have been boosted after AD 1, which would make the Romans the best candidates.



On the one hand the argument is that the Saxons were here in large numbers and made an impact, but that the Romans, Vikings and Normans were an elite and didn't. What about the Celts? Either they came here in large numbers and made a big impact or they could have been a conquering elite and basically over-laid a pre-existing population? I'm beginning to wonder myself in the absence of actual early DNA evidence if these cultural groups may have been more genetically diverse than we currently believe.:confused: John

I think the Celts came originally as Beaker Folk and probably spoke an early form of Celtic or Italo-Celtic, with full-blown Celtic developing as a lingua franca throughout what became the Celtic-speaking regions of western and central Europe. In the case of the Beaker Folk, we do have ancient dna evidence. All three Beaker y-dna results thus far were R1bxU106 (i.e., U106-), and one of those is a confirmed R1b-P312 (probably the other two were P312+ too). The distribution of P312 matches that of the ancient Celts pretty well.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 12:58 PM
Do you know if your book will be translated into French. Or is it an opportunity to improve my English

I don't yet know if there will be an edition in French. Thames & Hudson usually hopes to attract non-English language publishers to take on translations, but I have no news of any so far.

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 01:01 PM
^^ I don't think your book would be that popular in France, unfortunately... There's a general phobia of population genetics here.

sweuro
04-13-2015, 01:06 PM
I agree.
I don't know anything about the history of the Roman empire though. But I doubt there's any historical or genetic evidence that could dismiss the possibility of Romans making a genetic impact in Europe.
But neither there is something that could prove Roman input, because any genetic associated with romans can also be attributted to pre-historical times. But at least in Iberia we can have an idea of a low roman impact, because of it's unique R1b composition, we know that Italian R1b about half of it is U152, and it's very low in Iberia.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 01:28 PM
The question is though was it perhaps "Pre-Celtic" or "Para-Celtic" that spread at the time. We have for example evidence of "Para-Celtic" in the shape of Lusitanian from Iberia.

Maria Blanca Prósper is not happy to have Lusitanian classified as any variety of Celtic. It is neither pre-Celtic nor para-Celtic. It it is close to Italic and lacks any sign that it is a precursor to Celtic. (I treat it as a western variety of Ligurian.)


My feeling is that we saw an early spread of Western Proto-IE, which over time differentiated into various dialects, one of which eventually became the "Celtic" branch

That's non-controversial, I'd say. The arguments really revolve about the location in which Proto-Celtic developed.

Dubhthach
04-13-2015, 02:29 PM
Maria Blanca Prósper is not happy to have Lusitanian classified as any variety of Celtic.

There's a name I'm not familiar with, quick google found this on academia.edu (quite an interesting argument she puts across)

https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Some_observations_on_the_classification_of_Tartess ian_as_a_Celtic_language

As for where Proto-Celtic developed, I'd go for Gallia, after all we've got at least three of major P312 branches in situ there (namely DF27, U152 and L21) ;)

Jean M
04-13-2015, 02:57 PM
As for where Proto-Celtic developed, I'd go for Gallia

Gaul did not exist as a political or geographical entity at the time. I think if we stick with the Hallstatt Culture [region] we won't go too far wrong. The Heuneberg on the upper Danube is spot on for the Celts living around the head of the Danube, mentioned by Herodotus.

Dubhthach
04-13-2015, 03:25 PM
Gaul did not exist as a political or geographical entity at the time. I think if we stick with the Hallstatt Culture we won't go too far wrong. The Heuneberg on the upper Danube is spot on for the Celts living around the head of the Danube, mentioned by Herodotus.

Well don't agree with Hallstat, mainly as the oldest written Celtic inscriptions are found in Gollaseca material culture which was to south of Hallstat, what it shares of course with Hallstat is origins in Urnfield. I'd be interested specifically in zone of contact between Urnfield and "Atlantic Bronze Age" material cultures in period 1300-800BC which lie in what is now France (thence my nod to "Gallia" :p ) -- Hallstat material culture is notebaly absent in general from Ireland other than some local copies. (Considerably rarer than La Tene style finds in Leath Cuinn)

falconson1
04-13-2015, 03:31 PM
Gaul did not exist as a political or geographical entity at the time. I think if we stick with the Hallstatt Culture we won't go too far wrong. The Heuneberg on the upper Danube is spot on for the Celts living around the head of the Danube, mentioned by Herodotus.

Indeed, a few years ago I rented a BMW with an English GPS device, and my wife and I sought out the most likely "home base" of the Hallstatt Celts. I had done considerable (that is a monumental understatement) research on the subject (e.g., archaeological) and visited the wonderful burial sites of the Reinheim Princess and the Hochdorf Prince. Splendid local Hallstatt sites, but nothing on the scale of what one would expect of the "home turf". Upon reaching the Heuneberg site on the Danube in Germany, and seeing the massive fortifications and the many burial mounds it was clear that the scale of the place, and its strategic setting, was indicating a probable focal point of the Hallstatt Celtic Culture (yes, I recalled what Herodotus had written too). Magnificent site - the small area that had been reconstructed from the archaeological investigations there gave a sense of what might have been seen when the place was at its peak. There was something there that touched a deep emotional chord. It was the same feeling I had in visiting (on the same trip) the home towns of some of my German ancestors who came to NY in 1709, and Canada in 1784.

I am very anxious to get a copy of your book Jean. I use Amazon in the US, Canada and the UK. The earliest delivery date was August. To "tide me over" I purchased a copy of your recently published book - which should arrive today or tomorrow. Much as I enjoyed the newest Barry Cunliffe book, the rather cursory treatment of DNA evidence was a bit of a disappointment. I know that your focus is that of many of us here (not ignoring history and archaeology of course), giving DNA the place of prominence it deserves.

alan
04-13-2015, 03:36 PM
Looking at the archaeology of Portugal/Atlantic Iberia, its easy to see why Celtic didnt erase an earlier lusitanian and related dialects. That area was fairly isolated from the networks of north Atlantic and central Europe between the later beaker era and not long before 1000BC and indeed was closer linked to the Med than temperate Europe. That is 1000 years in which Iberia would have linguistically diverged or at least missed out on the innovations shared by the interacting elites of NW and west-central Europe. So, my feeling is the Celtic shifts arrived in Iberia from two directions in the period 1200-1000BC but then experienced a major drop off in contact with both in in the 7th century BC and because of that missed out on the Q-P shift. That needs nuanced and probably corrected a little but IMO that is the broad picture.

alan
04-13-2015, 03:57 PM
I would certainly say it gets exceedingly special pleading riddled if the core Celtic shifts are not placed in the period 2200-700BC. Before or after that is close to impossible IMO.

I personally would even say 700BC is too late as that represents the sort of period where the network started to badly fragment in parts of the future Celtic speaking world. I also think a period in which the shifts could properly establish themselves is needed. So, I would tend to push the period all the shifts associated with Celtic apart from the late non-uniform ones like P-Q shift probably happened c. by 1000BC.

My hunch though is that it was a continuous process and only appeared to have an end to unity because the Bronze Age network broke up by 700BC. Otherwise it would have continued in some random direction. Celtic as a wider family IMO is like a snapshot in time at the time of the breakup of the network c. 700BC albeit it is likey that the Celtic defining linguistic shifts happened many - but an unknown number of - centuries prior to this breakup. That Celtic vocab was still being passed about with a constant convergence mechanism is shown by some prot-Celtic words like Iron - known a good long time before it became commonly used - as well as shared vocab with pre-proto-Germanic some of which sounds more like it belongs in the middle to later Bronze age to me although inconclusive.

I suspect therefore that the process of Celtic evolving could have been pretty drawn out c. 2200-700BC but it seems clear that by the latter date proto-Celtic was complete and IMO almost certainly had its proto-Celtic defining features long before 700BC - I favour somewhere in the 2000-1000BC range, perhaps around the middle. I think though we have to remember that proto-Celtic is really a snapshot of a moment before divergence and therefore proto-Celtic probably existed right up to close to 700BC. There is an artificial aspect to trying to nail these things down as it was a fluid process.

I suppose but simply I believe that a large chunk of the Celtic world emerged gradually linguistically in tandem through elite interaction c. 2200-700BC and at some point in that various boxes were ticked linguistically. It was a process rather than a place with a start and an end. I think aspects of shared linguistic and cultural Celtic identity would have slowly built up within that network over 1500 years. As I said, some Celtic linguistic definers were probably set down early in that period while some linguistic and cultural shared proto-Celtic aspects could have been laid down late in the period c. 1200-700BC but no later IMO. Later than that and we regress back into the Celtis=Hallstatt C, D and La Tene defunct idea.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 03:57 PM
To "tide me over" I purchased a copy of your recently published book - which should arrive today or tomorrow.

That certainly will give you my thoughts c. April 2013 on the Celts. (I have changed my mind a bit since then.) A revised version of Ancestral Journeys is on the way, to coincide with Blood of the Celts, so that they both reflect the exciting developments of the last couple of years.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 04:01 PM
easy to see why Celtic didn't erase an earlier Lusitanian and related dialects.

In fact Celtic did creep over the area previously Lusitanian speaking, as shown by place-names ending in -briga. This seems mainly to be a development internal to Iberia - the spread of Celtiberian.

Dubhthach
04-13-2015, 04:12 PM
If anyone's ever been to Bray in North Wicklow they might be familiar with a cognate of -briga, likewise of course for Tara which sat in the Kingdom of Brega.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 04:30 PM
Well don't agree with Hallstat.. Hallstat material culture is notably absent in general from Ireland other than some local copies.

But I am not saying that Proto-Celtic developed within Hallstatt. Sorry if I gave that impression. As I said above, I think the earliest Proto-Celtic dates from Late Bell Beaker. I was indicating the Hallstatt Culture region (to avoid modern political boundaries, or even those of the Roman period.) Let's says around the heads of the Rhine and Danube. Early Hallstatt is part of the Bronze Age Urnfield culture, then we track back via Únětice to Bell Beaker.

alan
04-13-2015, 04:32 PM
One key of course to where Celtic was is where it clearly wasnt. I think its clear Celtic is grossly unlikely to be present in the Nordic Bronze Age which of course seems obvious but it also is too old to be proto-Germanic by a long long way. So, there were clearly phases of dialect evolution that left no surviving side branches because later dialect evolution and then dominance by one evolved dialect has erased them. I personally feel uneasy with the way linguists have put artificial staging posts defining languages. I know they have to to make sense of them but the reality is a continuous process not one of abrupt divisions. So to me proto-Celtic simply represents the stage on elite language network was at when it started to break down. You could argue proto-stage languages are just a node at the point when things are shared among all the group but about to start to fall apart. What is much more interesting is how long the proto-Celtic group existed before this node at the point of divergence. That is the great unknowable. I tend to think it was a continuous process and and its an irrational question in many ways. Firstly we really cannot know how long the shifts defining Celtic happened before the block started to diverge. All we can do is look at the kind of shared vocab of Celtic and perhaps the shared, not borrowed, vocab of Celtic and Germanic to try and date the sort of society. However, a lot of it is not date-sensitive and constructing the date of the emergence of shared social or religious/ritual vocab between Celtic and pre-proto Germanic is not easy. I think, like Mallory, that there are broad hints that SOME univerally shared Celtic vocab might be relatively late -1200BC or later and at the extreme even down to Hallstatt C. However, this does not tell us how long the pre-proto Celtic phase was when much of Celtic was already shared widely except perhaps a few later innovations. To some extent I think we are chasing moonbeams trying to really understand the period between late IE or Italo-Celtic and proto-Celtic which you could look on as the last moment before the group started to diverge.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 04:44 PM
I think, like Mallory, that there are broad hints that SOME universally shared Celtic vocab might be relatively late -1200BC or later and at the extreme even down to Hallstatt C.

The argument is that Proto-Celtic has to be Iron Age because the Celtic languages in which we know the word for 'iron' all have the said word in common. The problem with this is that words can spread with the related technology. The use of iron spread into the British Isles with other evidence of contact with Hallstatt and La Tene.

We have a complex situation in which Proto-Celtic did not break up at date X into daughter languages which then completely lost contact with each other. We see that in the shared changes in Gaulish and Brittonic.

alan
04-13-2015, 04:56 PM
In fact Celtic did creep over the area previously Lusitanian speaking, as shown by place-names ending in -briga. This seems mainly to be a development internal to Iberia - the spread of Celtiberian.

Agreed. I meant that there was a complex situation with overlay but some survival too. One way or another when it comes to Iberia I tend now to support the a variant on the traditional concept that it was only in the period when Urnfield from the east but in my view also north Atlantic influences coming down the west arrived that Celtic was brought to Iberia. I simply believe that because Iberia was rather out of the loop from the late beaker period to c. 1200-1000BC with much of the other areas where Celtic was later spoken. So I cannot see how Celtic could have been in Iberia before then - certainly without pushing Celtic right back to early in the beaker period, something I dont favour. I do of course believe IE that shared an upstream beaker period pan-European node was present in Iberia. However it surely diverged in a different direction over that long period. Another thing that struck me when reading into Iberia some time back is that after the beaker era a lot of Atlantic Iberia really seems very undeveloped with little evidence of any sort of hierachy or elite prior to 1000BC. So, the concept of an elite lingua franca runs into that difficulty in Atlantic Iberia prior to around 1000BC. It seems in terms of finer chronology that Atlantic Iberia was developmentally 2-300 years behind places like Ireland where hillforts for example appear before 1200BC. Basically Atlantic Iberia seems to have been out of the loop and undeveloped until some new or revived contact network linked it again to NW France and the isles beyond.

alan
04-13-2015, 05:06 PM
The argument is that Proto-Celtic has to be Iron Age because the Celtic languages in which we know the word for 'iron' all have the said word in common. The problem with this is that words can spread with the related technology. The use of iron spread into the British Isles with other evidence of contact with Hallstatt and La Tene.

We have a complex situation in which Proto-Celtic did not break up at date X into daughter languages which then completely lost contact with each other. We see that in the shared changes in Gaulish and Brittonic.

I agree. I think proto-languages in some ways could be looked at as the last hurrah of unity and tells us nothing about how long the proto-Celtic stage of much of it had been reached or anything about the journey to that stage. As you say iron could have spread late among people already proto-Celtic for a long time. Iron anyway may have had a word far earlier than the expansion of its use in Hallstatt C. Its sporadically known anywaylong before its period of use and perhaps even meteorites may have given some knowledge of it

Jean M
04-13-2015, 05:11 PM
I simply believe that because Iberia was rather out of the loop from the late beaker period to c. 1200-1000BC with much of the other areas where Celtic was later spoken.

The fact that Iberia was out of the loop would explain why Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic for which we have testimony. That is why I feel that Celtic arrived there with Late Bell Beaker with Eastern attributes. Think reflux.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 05:18 PM
Iron anyway may have had a word far earlier than the expansion of its use in Hallstatt C. Its sporadically known anyway long before its period of use and perhaps even meteorites may have given some knowledge of it

Interesting thought.

alan
04-13-2015, 05:18 PM
Anyone got any thoughts of the pre-proto Celtic phase. I mean by that the equivalent of the pre-proto-Germanic phase when it branched of PIE but had not reached the proto phase. Also, why is the term pre-proto-Germanic used for this sort of phase but it is less head of in terms of Celtic.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 05:22 PM
Also, why is the term pre-proto-Germanic used for this sort of phase but it is less heard of in terms of Celtic.

The term is needed for Germanic, as the period of its development is so lengthy before the development of Proto-Germanic, 'Proto' being the name linguists give to a parent language immediately before its break-up into daughter languages. The period between IE and Proto-Celtic has been hazier.

alan
04-13-2015, 05:22 PM
Interesting thought.

I imagine if iron had been noted in something very rare like meteorites they would have been seen as magic and perhaps the word would have been particularly passed along by any proto-druidic type of person. I wonder what the root of Iron in IE actually meant other than 'iron'.

alan
04-13-2015, 05:47 PM
The fact that Iberia was out of the loop would explain why Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic for which we have testimony. That is why I feel that Celtic arrived there with Late Bell Beaker with Eastern attributes. Think reflux.

Late beaker is something I should read up a bit more on.

I have heard a few time people saying they think there was a kind of reboot of the networks at the end of the beaker period/early Bronze Age after a short lull.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 05:58 PM
Late beaker is something I should read up a bit more on.

I don't know how you manage to find time to do any research not immediately needed for the day job. I had to virtually retire to do this book in the allotted time.

alan
04-13-2015, 06:09 PM
So in a nutshell I think the end of the proto-Celtic period is reasonably identifiable as Hallstatt C but the beginning of it is a whole lot more difficult. I think people often make the mistake of imagining the proto-Celtic as the beginning of something when it is really in some ways something just before the end of unity. I suppose there are hints in archaeology of later Celtic speaking areas such as Spain and north Italy where it would appear that non-Gaulish Celtic languages are suggestive that proto-Celtic stretches back beyond 1000BC. It just get harder to infer further back.

Jean - are you now thinking that the Urnfield south-France - parts of Iberia link c. 1150BC might relate to Ligurian type dialects.

falconson1
04-13-2015, 06:11 PM
I don't know how you manage to find time to do any research not immediately needed for the day job. I had to virtually retire to do this book in the allotted time.

Just thinking back to the days of "DNA Forums", I seem to recall (please correct me if I am wrong) that Alan is a retired archaeologist. Will see where that statement leads - how good my memory is - at 67, not so great I suspect.

alan
04-13-2015, 06:18 PM
I don't know how you manage to find time to do any research not immediately needed for the day job. I had to virtually retire to do this book in the allotted time.

LOL -yeah an unhealthy amount of my spare time. I also became a bit of a speed reader and typer with all the risks that brings. But yeah time limits means my own reading is random and non-systematic. I definitely couldnt do systematic study. There is a world of difference producing something for publication/peer review and random musing on a website. I find it easy to power read a lot of stuff but having to reference, justify etc would be way beyond my time resources. Its always just going to be a hobby in my case.

alan
04-13-2015, 06:19 PM
Just thinking back to the days of "DNA Forums", I seem to recall (please correct me if I am wrong) that Alan is a retired archaeologist. Will see where that statement leads - how good my memory is - at 67, not so great I suspect.

An still a current one - run an archaeological consultancy. Prob still 20 years away from retirement.

vettor
04-13-2015, 06:49 PM
But I am not saying that Proto-Celtic developed within Hallstatt. Sorry if I gave that impression. As I said above, I think the earliest Proto-Celtic dates from Late Bell Beaker. I was indicating the Hallstatt Culture region (to avoid modern political boundaries, or even those of the Roman period.) Let's says around the heads of the Rhine and Danube. Early Hallstatt is part of the Bronze Age Urnfield culture, then we track back via Únětice to Bell Beaker.

I read that LaTene was p-celtic and Halstatt was Q-Celtic ...............british isles, iberian peninsula and eastern alps retaining the first migration Q-celtic...while La Tene and Gaul got a second migration of P-Celtic ..................

In Iberia the 'kw' sound (such as 'qu') was the same, making the transition easy after conquest - and so even today Spanish and Portuguese are very similar to Italian and their mutual mother, Latin - all of them being based on the Q-Celtic of the First Wave. In France (Gaul) the old tongue had altered more, and so the Gaulish version of Latin was rather strange sounding (this was the P-Celtic of Celts of the Second Wave). Naturally not all linguists accept this version of events, but it is popular and also makes very good sense.
The difference between Q-Celtic speakers and P-Celtic speakers was mirrored in later progression, with the Latins regarding the P-Celtic-speaking Gauls to be an enemy that was to be ridiculed (as well as feared).

We also know that la Tene was a mix of celtic and Helvetic ( gallic tribe ) , while Halstatt was a mix of celtic and illyrian , which is why celtic absorbed and replaced most of the illyrian language before the Romans even set foot in the Balkans ..........celts absorbed the illyrians linguistically with Q-celtic

Jean M
04-13-2015, 06:58 PM
Its always just going to be a hobby in my case.

Don't say 'always'. Retirement may be 20 years away, but that's not forever. I wonder how much ancient DNA we will have then.

Jean M
04-13-2015, 07:02 PM
Jean - are you now thinking that the Urnfield south-France - parts of Iberia link c. 1150BC might relate to Ligurian type dialects.

That is it. But people really need to read the book to get the whole story.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 07:40 PM
Well don't agree with Hallstat... Hallstat material culture is notebaly absent in general from Ireland other than some local copies. (Considerably rarer than La Tene style finds in Leath Cuinn)

I've often wondered if there aren't more links between Hallstatt and Irish culture than we often recognize, particularly when viewed through the lens of elite/martial culture. Ireland seems to parallel Hallstatt C culture in some respects, particularly the introduction of fish-tail and Gundlingen style swords (some of which are continental, and some of which are locally made), and maybe even a Mindelheim type sword(?)

By the time Hallstatt D rolls around on the continent, the traditional longer swords are abandoned for the daggers or very short swords, with the spear as the primary weapon. Ireland seems to follow this martial shift, but it stays there when the rest of Europe moves on. What does this look like? When the Celtic peoples of Europe and the South of Britain transition towards La Tene accouterments, including longer cutting swords, the Irish and many of the northern British continue to use short stabbing blades. This could suggest that the values of the Hallstatt warrior culture, and perhaps the ritualised fighting styles, were so firmly ingrained that later La Tene culture had to adapt itself to the essentially Hallstatt D mentality of the Irish. You see this adaptation expressed in the beautiful La Tene style sword scabbards found around the Bann and at Lisnacrogher. In photos it is easy to think they are larger than they really are; most of them house blades that are no longer than 18 inches, though.

alan
04-13-2015, 08:24 PM
I've often wondered if there aren't more links between Hallstatt and Irish culture than we often recognize, particularly when viewed through the lens of elite/martial culture. Ireland seems to parallel Hallstatt C culture in some respects, particularly the introduction of fish-tail and Gundlingen style swords (some of which are continental, and some of which are locally made), and maybe even a Mindelheim type sword(?)

By the time Hallstatt D rolls around on the continent, the traditional longer swords are abandoned for the daggers or very short swords, with the spear as the primary weapon. Ireland seems to follow this martial shift, but it stays there when the rest of Europe moves on. What does this look like? When the Celtic peoples of Europe and the South of Britain transition towards La Tene accouterments, including longer cutting swords, the Irish and many of the northern British continue to use short stabbing blades. This could suggest that the values of the Hallstatt warrior culture, and perhaps the ritualised fighting styles, were so firmly ingrained that later La Tene culture had to adapt itself to the essentially Hallstatt D mentality of the Irish. You see this adaptation expressed in the beautiful La Tene style sword scabbards found around the Bann and at Lisnacrogher. In photos it is easy to think they are larger than they really are; most of them house blades that are no longer than 18 inches, though.

Problem with that theory is Hallstatt D is absent in Ireland. However,it is true that early La Tene swords were also short. The swords gradually got bigger as La Tene progressed. In dimensions the Irish La Tene swords are like early La Tene ones but decoratively the scabbards are like more developed La Tene.

I think the issue with the small Irish La Tene swords is that they are almost all only preserved because of their bronze scabbards. Swords without scabbards do not survive hardly at all. So it could be argued that the small la tene daggers with highly decorated scabbards are really more of a status insignia to wear with plain but larger swords in organic scabbards used for the fighting.

There are a number of decapatated and badly chopped up Iron age bog bodies and dryland burials in Ireland so they clearly did use more than short stabbing dagger-swords and spears in combat. They had the capabality and resources to build enormous royal sites and linear earthworks etc so knocking together or obtaining some heavy swords was far from beyond their means. It was either some sort of choice or,more likely IMO, more utilitarian larger swords with organic leather scabbards simply have not survived. Another simple arguement is that if they didnt have larger swords they simply wouldnt be able to defend themselves from outsiders so I find it unlikely that the little decorated scabbards represent the actual normal swords of the period.What the scabbards lack in terms of the sword inside them they make up in being exquisite and probably incredibly exclusive status items. So, I basically think it was all about the fancy scabard not the sword inside and they were a prestige insignia rather than practical weapons. If you look at some of them they dont even have a pointed blade which makes them kind of useless as daggers too.Maybe they used them for eating with LOL.

alan
04-13-2015, 08:40 PM
I've often wondered if there aren't more links between Hallstatt and Irish culture than we often recognize, particularly when viewed through the lens of elite/martial culture. Ireland seems to parallel Hallstatt C culture in some respects, particularly the introduction of fish-tail and Gundlingen style swords (some of which are continental, and some of which are locally made), and maybe even a Mindelheim type sword(?)

By the time Hallstatt D rolls around on the continent, the traditional longer swords are abandoned for the daggers or very short swords, with the spear as the primary weapon. Ireland seems to follow this martial shift, but it stays there when the rest of Europe moves on. What does this look like? When the Celtic peoples of Europe and the South of Britain transition towards La Tene accouterments, including longer cutting swords, the Irish and many of the northern British continue to use short stabbing blades. This could suggest that the values of the Hallstatt warrior culture, and perhaps the ritualised fighting styles, were so firmly ingrained that later La Tene culture had to adapt itself to the essentially Hallstatt D mentality of the Irish. You see this adaptation expressed in the beautiful La Tene style sword scabbards found around the Bann and at Lisnacrogher. In photos it is easy to think they are larger than they really are; most of them house blades that are no longer than 18 inches, though.

I tend to think the opposite. The short sword and spear combination is a lot more practical for organised army type fighting than long slashing swords as the Romans showed to the Celts cost. The long slashing swords seem to be more of an attempt at 'heroic' one on one combat and is kind of showy individualism.

Another possibility is a very different approach to fighting. If you read old Irish tales, especially of Finn McCool and his warband, who are probably based on youthful warbands, the big emphasis on agility almost acrobatics is noticeable. I know a guy who is an expert in both martial arts and ancient weapons and he believes that with the right cool, skill and athleticism a person with a dagger can overcome a heavily armoured person with a heavy long sword easily and this is especially true is a messy tight battle.

This emphasis on speed and agility and not being weighted down by heavy armour etc continues through to the high Medieval era. Notice that whatever the methods were that if you look through the Irish annals, the Irish defeated the Vikings more often than they were defeated and this is true right from the start of the viking raids over 200 years before Brian Boru. Whatever method the Irish were using against heavily armoured Vikings, it worked pretty well.

When the Normans came the Irish instead of emulating them again didnt adopt heavy armour or heavy horse but fell back onto rougher lands where heavy armour and horse simply didnt work and light fast men and horse had an advantage. The Irish seemed totally unwilling to change their social structure to accommodate the extremely expensive system of the heavily armoured High Medieval Knight on huge cereal fed horses and archers. This seems odd but the entire social structure would have had to be altered to a feudal type one in order to support this and it seems the Irish just didnt want to do that even if it meant they could no longer successfully fight the Normans on open lowland areas.

alan
04-13-2015, 08:50 PM
A lesser known fact is that the long dagger - almost a short sword - continued to be ubiquitous as a weapon right through into the 17th century in Ireland. They are not exactly swords but they are very large daggers clearly intended for hand to hand brutal fighting in a messy tight fight rather than posing about with a long sword. One of the most famous cases of Irish soldiers using this weapon to great effect was the Irish army in Scotland led by Alisdair McColla from Antrim during the Montrose's campaign where in the 1640s where they were able to get tightly among soldiers with guns and pikes and annihilated them in a tight ruck. I cannot remember which battle it was though.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 08:53 PM
Problem with that theory is Hallstatt D is absent in Ireland. However,it is true that early La Tene swords were also short. The swords gradually got bigger as La Tene progressed. In dimensions the Irish La Tene swords are like early La Tene ones but decoratively the scabbards are like more developed La Tene. I think the issue with the small Irish La Tene swords is that they are almost all only preserved because of their bronze scabbards. Swords without scabbards do not much survive. So it could be argued that the small la tene daggers in highly decorated scabbards are really more of a status insignia to wear with plain but larger swords in organic scabbards used for the fighting. There are a number of decapatated and badly chopped up Iron age bog bodies and dryland burials in Ireland so they clearly did use more than short stabbing dagger-swords and spears in combat. They had the capabality and resources to build enormous royal sites and linear earthworks etc so knocking together or obtaining some heavy swords was far from beyond their means. It was either some sort of choice or,more likely IMO, more utilitarian larger swords with organic leather scabbards simply have not survived. Another simple arguement is that if they didnt have larger swords they simply wouldnt be able to defend themselves from outsiders so I find it unlikely that the little decorated scabbards represent the actual normal swords of the period.What the scabbards lack in terms of the sword inside them they make up in being exquisite and probably incredibly exclusive status items. So, I basically think they were a prestige insignia rather than practical weapons. If you look at some of them they dont even have a pointed blade which makes them kind of useless as daggers too.Maybe they used them for eating with LOL.

The thing is, we have a number of swords from Yorkshire that are obviously fighting swords (clearly not high status, and with organic hilts) that are also very short. That's why I parallel it with Northern Britain in general-- although you do see longer swords coming into use later on in the north. One doesn't need a long blade to decapitate an enemy or prisoner-- the Romans did this handily enough using the gladius, which for most of its history was short indeed, and primarily made for stabbing (some of them have beautifully reinforced points). As for Irish swords, many seem to have a midrib which would fulfill a similar function; again, look at the Lisnacrogher blade. Later swords would follow continental styles, including the incorporation of a central fuller, but they were still very short. These latter ones typically had spatulate rather than sharp points, and lent themselves to viscious tip cuts. They could also be effectively used in the stab, though. All of this to say, given the effectiveness of short swords, which were the preferred style of both the Greek hoplite and the Roman legionary, I don't see the larger swords as being any more utilitarian. The longer Roman blades were used primarily by auxiliary forces and cavalry, none of which play a significant role in Irish warfare.

Another important point is the primacy of the spear. Hollywood has given us a rather false image of ancient warfare, wherein the spear is the weapon of the hoi polloi and the sword the weapon of the elite. Certainly the sword was an elite weapon, but it was always a secondary one. It's what you went for when your spear broke.

A few centuries later things began to change, with the introduction of pattern welded steel, and much larger swords (a la Frankish/Viking style weapons). Up until the Viking period, Irish swords still tended towards short blades. With the coming of the Vikings, the Irish were forced to adapt to the longer bladed slashing weapons, and of course the ax.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 09:02 PM
I tend to think the opposite. The short sword and spear combination is a lot more practical for organised army type fighting than long slashing swords as the Romans showed to the Celts cost. The long slashing swords seem to be more of an attempt at 'heroic' one on one combat and is kind of showy individualism.

Another possibility is a very different approach to fighting. If you read old Irish tales, especially of Finn McCool and his warband, who are probably based on youthful warbands, the big emphasis on agility almost acrobatics is noticeable. I know a guy who is an expert in both martial arts and ancient weapons and he believes that with the right cool, skill and athleticism a person with a dagger can overcome a heavily armoured person with a heavy long sword easily and this is especially true is a messy tight battle.

This emphasis on speed and agility and not being weighted down by heavy armour etc continues through to the high Medieval era. Notice that whatever the methods were that if you look through the Irish annals, the Irish defeated the Vikings more often than they were defeated and this is true right from the start of the viking raids over 200 years before Brian Boru. Whatever method the Irish were using against heavily armoured Vikings, it worked pretty well.

When the Normans came the Irish instead of emulating them again didnt adopt heavy armour or heavy horse but fell back onto rougher lands where heavy armour and horse simply didnt work and light fast men and horse had an advantage. The Irish seemed totally unwilling to change their social structure to accommodate the extremely expensive system of the heavily armoured High Medieval Knight on huge cereal fed horses and archers. This seems odd but the entire social structure would have had to be altered to a feudal type one in order to support this and it seems the Irish just didnt want to do that even if it meant they could no longer successfully fight the Normans on open lowland areas.

You write, "I tend to think the opposite," but nothing you say contradicts my post except your associating long-slashing swords with heroic societies. I agree with everything you say here except that association. The longer swords became associated with said societies only in the later Germanic period. The classic heroic society is the Homeric one, and it is associated (again) with the spear and the short sword, particularly the Mycenaean Type F and Naue II type swords. The Fenian cycles emphasis on athletic/gymnastic prowess seems to reflect precisely this type of fighting (spear, short blade, light or no armour).

David Mc
04-13-2015, 09:06 PM
A lesser known fact is that the long dagger - almost a short sword - continued to be ubiquitous as a weapon right through into the 17th century in Ireland. They are not exactly swords but they are very large daggers clearly intended for hand to hand brutal fighting in a messy tight fight rather than posing about with a long sword. One of the most famous cases of Irish soldiers using this weapon to great effect was the Irish army in Scotland led by Alisdair McColla from Antrim during the Montrose's campaign where in the 1640s where they were able to get tightly among soldiers with guns and pikes and annihilated them in a tight ruck. I cannot remember which battle it was though.

You're referring to the Irish skean/sgian. That's an interesting weapon. I think it is a cross between a langsax and a Scottish style dirk. It's quite different from the earlier blades and was probably used differently.

alan
04-13-2015, 09:08 PM
It is noticeable too that in the Early Christian period the Irish and indeed the Picts seem to have kept this preference for a small target shield, short swords and long spears and rarely if ever bothered with chainmail or helmets. You can see this very well in the Pictish stones where only the Anglo-Saxon army shown on one stone at Aberlemno seem to use helmets etc. They do not seem to have taken up the long shields of the Iron Age noted on the continent and in parts of Britain and almost no long swords if any have been found in the Pictish part of Scotland. Again the most obvious explanation for these preferences must surely relate to seeking speed and agility. If I had to guess why Ireland and Scotland didnt go down the road of heavier weaponry, armour of horses and wanted speed I would say it was likely down to the pastoral economy where the wealth was the cattle not the land and could be moved or stolen. So a tradition of standing firm to defend land in heavy armed lines was substituted for one where you moved your cattle out of harms way and hit and run at times of your own choice. The houses were low investment in Labour sort of structures so it was no biggie if they got burned and it was really the cattle you were interested in defending or stealing. Someone could then try to settle you land but you would just then hit and run and burn their houses down at a time of your own choice. You can see that iin the annals where the Irish constantly swept down and burned down the Norman settlements then melted away before the heavy horse and soldiers could assemble. Then when the Normans tried to strike back the Irish just melted away into the uplands with their cattle and baggage train and Norman horse and heavy armour was a massive liability on that terrain. That is in a nutshell why there was a kind of 500 year stalemate in Ireland.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 09:13 PM
Agreed. The Galloglaich/Gallowglass from the West of Scotland become the first instance of Irish shock troops. One of their primary tasks would be to hold the line while the cattle raid being was carried out.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 09:14 PM
Apologies, Jean, for taking this thread in a completely different direction. It is fascinating stuff, though.

alan
04-13-2015, 09:27 PM
You write, "I tend to think the opposite," but nothing you say contradicts my post except your associating long-slashing swords with heroic societies. I agree with everything you say here except that association. The longer swords became associated with said societies only in the later Germanic period. The classic heroic society is the Homeric one, and it is associated (again) with the spear and the short sword, particularly the Mycenaean Type F and Naue II type swords. The Fenian cycles emphasis on athletic/gymnastic prowess seems to reflect precisely this type of fighting (spear, short blade, light or no armour).

Fair enough - my think the opposite line was not the right words. I pretty well agree. I am uncertain though if we have the full range of Irish iron age swords. Maybe it was a choice maybe there were also bigger ones that dont survive - Ireland has horrendous conditions for preservation of Iron. The longer view does suggest it was a preference for a fighting method with the spears, dagger, small target shield, little armour combo that goes right through from 300BC to 900AD and has echos even beyond that is the heavy use of daggers as a cheap weapon right through to the 17th century. I recently saw a reconstructed Irish skean and it really is a nasty weapon.

I would go back again to the issue of a very pastoralist lifestyle which discouraged the need to allow the enemy to chose when a fight took place. This society would kick into a short distant mobile pastoralism at time of war when attacked. There are a lot of descriptions of the frustration of the English forces at the way the Irish would just move their cattle, dismantle there houses and melt away until the invading supply chain got stretched. Then the Irish would hit the army unawares at passes, fords and woods as they retreated. The Irish would descend on the lowland settlements in lightening raids then again melt away. The Irish tended to often destroy their own castles too on retreat to prevent anything being used for a garrison. Very messy cycle of stalemate. However, you can see in this sort of setup that the desire for speed was higher than the need to form heavy lines of armour for set piece battles. A consequence of this sort of society was that in its most unstable periods such as the high Medieval era and the Elizabethan era there are practically no remains of houses in Gaelic Ireland- they clearly felt it was not worth a high investment because of endemic raiding and the need to temporarily go nomadic to avoid organised armies

Mike McG
04-13-2015, 09:28 PM
... There are a number of decapatated and badly chopped up Iron age bog bodies and dryland burials in Ireland so they clearly did use more than short stabbing dagger-swords and spears in combat....

Alan

On this one point (which does not take away from the other points you make) there is some thought that perhaps these may have been "regicide" when it was perceived that the king/chieftain had not brought adequate prosperity to the tribe/clan. See https://www.academia.edu/11319364/The_Bog_Bodies_Project_Latest_Research._A_talk_in_ the_National_Museum_of_Ireland_13th_November_2014_ as_part_of_Science_Week_Ireland_9-16_November_2014 It was not necessarily "good to be king" if you were Irish.

Mike

alan
04-13-2015, 09:30 PM
Agreed. The Galloglaich/Gallowglass from the West of Scotland become the first instance of Irish shock troops. One of their primary tasks would be to hold the line while the cattle raid being was carried out.

That is exactly correct. They didnt take much part in the raid as they were weighed down too much but actually stood to the rear to let the faster but lightly armed Kerns raiders and horse to get away and hold back retaliation. Not a time I would like to have lived in.

alan
04-13-2015, 09:33 PM
Agreed. The Galloglaich/Gallowglass from the West of Scotland become the first instance of Irish shock troops. One of their primary tasks would be to hold the line while the cattle raid being was carried out.

Interestingy the Highlanders in this period used a similar system of heavy Gallowglasses and Caterans which is a variation on the same word Kern for lightly armoured fast raiders. What I do notice though in some of the illustrations of Irish Kern is that they did often have the same weapons of large swords, axes etc as the Galloglasses - the main difference was the latter had mail, cotuns and helmets.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 09:42 PM
Interestingy the Highlanders in this period used a similar system of heavy Gallowglasses and Caterans which is a variation on the same word Kern for lightly armoured fast raiders. What I do notice though in some of the illustrations of Irish Kern is that they did often have the same weapons of large swords, axes etc as the Galloglasses - the main difference was the latter had mail, cotuns and helmets.

I had never made the link between cateran and kern, but now that I think of it, it makes sense-- both variant anglicisations of ceithern. You're right that a number of illustrations show kerns with sparth ax and sword. A lot more show them carrying the sparth and the skean (which is very long indeed, in the woodcuts).

rossa
04-13-2015, 09:45 PM
Fair enough - my think the opposite line was not the right words. I pretty well agree. I am uncertain though if we have the full range of Irish iron age swords. Maybe it was a choice maybe there were also bigger ones that dont survive - Ireland has horrendous conditions for preservation of Iron. The longer view does suggest it was a preference for a fighting method with the spears, dagger, small target shield, little armour combo that goes right through from 300BC to 900AD and has echos even beyond that is the heavy use of daggers as a cheap weapon right through to the 17th century. I recently saw a reconstructed Irish skean and it really is a nasty weapon.

I would go back again to the issue of a very pastoralist lifestyle which discouraged the need to allow the enemy to chose when a fight took place. This society would kick into a short distant mobile pastoralism at time of war when attacked. There are a lot of descriptions of the frustration of the English forces at the way the Irish would just move their cattle, dismantle there houses and melt away until the invading supply chain got stretched. Then the Irish would hit the army unawares at passes, fords and woods as they retreated. The Irish would descend on the lowland settlements in lightening raids then again melt away. The Irish tended to often destroy their own castles too on retreat to prevent anything being used for a garrison. Very messy cycle of stalemate. However, you can see in this sort of setup that the desire for speed was higher than the need to form heavy lines of armour for set piece battles. A consequence of this sort of society was that in its most unstable periods such as the high Medieval era and the Elizabethan era there are practically no remains of houses in Gaelic Ireland- they clearly felt it was not worth a high investment because of endemic raiding and the need to temporarily go nomadic to avoid organised armies

When you say nomadic, what kind of distances would be involved?

Jean M
04-13-2015, 09:52 PM
Apologies, Jean, for taking this thread in a completely different direction. It is fascinating stuff, though.

You go right ahead! I'm enjoying it. There is nothing further to announce on the book at the moment, and I'd rather not discuss the content in detail right now. Once people have the chance to read it, they will be able to comment. In the meantime who could object to a fascinating discussion of a related matter? Not me anyway. :)

alan
04-13-2015, 09:57 PM
It does appear that all the non-Germanics of the isles had a preference for short swords, small shields, little in the way of mail, helmets etc. It may be that this was a result of the prevailing terrain in the Celtic fringe areas where not only was there a lot of upland but also a lot of wet areas in the lowland bits, and of course the pastoral type of agriculture which is pretty well the only reliable way to live in very rainy areas where crops are unreliable. What I would say about the fighting methods is that they appear to have been pretty successful in this sort of terrain although a great deal less so on dry lowland areas which arable land and more developed settlement or villages where a heavy line standing their ground makes more sense. As you noted, it seems that the more heavy armoured people seem to be more of a rear guard or body guards in nature. The tradition of using constricted terrain, bottlenecks, fords etc to take away the advantage of a much heavier armed army was of course was also strong in Scotland where many famous battles took this form - Nechtansmere, Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn etc. The Picts are exceptionally well represented due to their stones and we can see the norm was unarmoured spearmen, little target or occasionally square shields, light horses without saddles or spurs, very little in the way of helmets etc. So they seem to have used an almost identical form of fighting as the Irish.

There is also a strong similarity in dress with tunics and cloaks apparently the norm. I have never made up my mind whether the Picts and Irish once did have trousers in the Iron Age but dropped them emulating the Romans OR whether is wet pastoral areas long trousers are simply a liability you could do without. Having walked about in the hills of Ireland and Scotland through high vegetation I can see trousers can be a liability compared to bare legs. So they may simply not have caught on. On the surface the idea of wearing a linen tunic might seem weird in a wet climate but linen is very quick to dry. The Irish and peoples of Scotland and even parts of northern England in the Iron age only took to the La Tene safety pin type cloak fasteners in a very limited way. These areas showed a preference for iron pins rather like proto-versions of Celtic brooches. The simple reason for this is probably that the light cloaks that these la tene safety pin cloak fasteners could support were probably not up to dealing with climate and they may have had a preference of heavy cloaks of rug-like material, skins and leather. There is some historical and archaeological evidence to back this.

alan
04-13-2015, 10:08 PM
When you say nomadic, what kind of distances would be involved?

Not huge. Many Irish territories had boundary zones of large areas of boggy upland which was held in common rather than private and was used for transhumance in the summer months. It was relatively short distance but some of these upland areas are wildernesses. In Ireland the uplands are enormously more difficult to move about than their modest heights would suggest. This is due to bog and heather. It can be totally exhausting trying to walk in this unless you know the routes through. So not only was it a huge reservoir of grass that could be used for months - traditionally part of the families and clans lived up the hills in transhumance huts from 1st May to Halloween - but its would be extremely tough going to pursue people into those areas if you didnt know the ways. They would have been far worse too in the past before modern drainage. Not to mention any weight of armour or heavy horses would be a huge liability in the past if you tried to pursue people through these areas. The skill of being able to run through bogs is called 'bog trotting' and 'bog trotter' was a pejorative term for the Irish, probably starting in the Elizabethan era when the English soldiers found the Irish's skill to bounce through bogs faster than they could pursue maddening.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 10:09 PM
Again, agree with everything here including dress. The one thing I would say is that illuminated manuscripts seem to show some Irish warriors wearing very short tunics with knee length breeches. The majority, though, seem to favor long tunics (calf to ankle length) with cloaks. It's odd seeing this length of tunic at this early date, as it is so similar to Norman fashion some six hundred years later.

alan
04-13-2015, 10:23 PM
Quite often ancient Irish territories backed onto a large block of upland kind of like in a radial way with each territory terminating at the watership. While each territory technically only held part of the upland area, once up there they could in an emergency move unimpeded by fences etc all over the entire range of hills. So, there was already a 'summer dwelling' or a tradition of throwing up huts in the summer for the summer half of the year. Broadly speaking it seems most similar to Alpine transhumance. The idea of course was to save the lowland grass for the winter half of the year and use the mountain grass up in the summer. This seems to have been standard practice in Ireland from 500AD-1600AD and lingered well into the 1700s in some remote areas. It was also very common in Scotland too. In Ireland it was called Booleying and the upland huts called Booley huts. In Scotland these are called Shielings. Like I say, the culture was very mobile. Also the Irish land holding system which involved intermittent redistribution of lands within parish sized units called Ballybetagh also seems to have discouraged heavy investment in dwellings. These sort of societies of course lingered on in remote parts of Ireland and Scotland into early modern times.They must have been ridiculously hardy people who basically because they were born into it simply didnt let it bother them. Of course the heavy use of Scottish highlanders in the British army stemmed from them being exceptionally hardy people with a tradition of forming part of their chiefs private armies.

alan
04-13-2015, 10:35 PM
Again, agree with everything here including dress. The one thing I would say is that illuminated manuscripts seem to show some Irish warriors wearing very short tunics with knee length breeches. The majority, though, seem to favor long tunics (calf to ankle length) with cloaks. It's odd seeing this length of tunic at this early date, as it is so similar to Norman fashion some six hundred years later.

Yeah the tunics were adjustable in length and when active were probably worn similar length to modern Scottish kilts. Wearing them long was probably during leisure or even a status symbol of someone who doesnt need to do manual work. As for the knee length breeches they also make sense in areas where it is mainly grassland, rough uplands and a lot of rain. Denim Jeans are a complete catastrophe in these conditions and just wicks the damp all the way up your legs LOL.

Another thing that may seem peculiar is the amount of barefooted people you see in the Elizabethan Irish illustrations of people. However, very nicely made leather shoes did exist far earlier - they have been found in crannogs - but its seems that prior to the invention of really good footwear they would likely have been mainly used indoors or certainly not for work or wandering about in grass. As far as I can make out no footwear that was anything other than a soppy wet liability existed for wet grassland or upland conditions until modern times. Maybe some sandals wouldnt be too bad - there is a picture of Irish kerns with sandals.

alan
04-13-2015, 10:41 PM
Interesting to not that the term 'young foreign warrior' or Galloglach was also used in Scotland. So the 'foreign' part of that name does not originate because they were Scots in Ireland. It seems likely to me that the foreign 'Gall' bit in the name originated from the heavily armoured warrior being a Norse, or perhaps less likely Norman, thing. Gall in Scotland was the term for both Vikings and then Normans, exactly the same as in Ireland in the period 800 onwards. Interestingly, contrary to myth, the Scots Gaelic term for lowlanders is 'Gall' not sassennach. The latter term was only used for the English, not the English speaking Scottish lowlanders. It seems that the Highlanders originally linked the foreignness of the Lowlanders with the Norman settlers.

alan
04-13-2015, 10:44 PM
Anyway that is enough blethering from me for now. Goodnight folks.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 10:47 PM
Interesting to not that the term 'young foreign warrior' or Galloglach was also used in Scotland. So the 'foreign' part of that name does not originate because they were Scots in Ireland. It seems likely to me that the foreign 'Gall' bit in the name originated from the heavily armoured warrior being a Norse, or perhaps less likely Norman, thing. Gall in Scotland was the term for both Vikings and then Normans, exactly the same as in Ireland in the period 800 onwards. Interestingly, contrary to myth, the Scots Gaelic term for lowlanders is 'Gall' not sassennach. The latter term was only used for the English, not the English speaking Scottish lowlanders. It seems that the Highlanders originally linked the foreignness of the Lowlanders with the Norman settlers.

The term "Gall" does seem to be used flexibly; the name "Galbraith" comes from "Foreign Briton," and probably originated with a Strathclyde Briton who held territory somewhere on the border between British Dumbarton (Fort of the Britons) and Argyll. The name might suggest his lands were on the Argyll side.

And goodnight!

Kopfjäger
04-13-2015, 11:27 PM
I read that LaTene was p-celtic and Halstatt was Q-Celtic ...............british isles, iberian peninsula and eastern alps retaining the first migration Q-celtic...while La Tene and Gaul got a second migration of P-Celtic ..................

In Iberia the 'kw' sound (such as 'qu') was the same, making the transition easy after conquest - and so even today Spanish and Portuguese are very similar to Italian and their mutual mother, Latin - all of them being based on the Q-Celtic of the First Wave. In France (Gaul) the old tongue had altered more, and so the Gaulish version of Latin was rather strange sounding (this was the P-Celtic of Celts of the Second Wave). Naturally not all linguists accept this version of events, but it is popular and also makes very good sense.
The difference between Q-Celtic speakers and P-Celtic speakers was mirrored in later progression, with the Latins regarding the P-Celtic-speaking Gauls to be an enemy that was to be ridiculed (as well as feared).

We also know that la Tene was a mix of celtic and Helvetic ( gallic tribe ) , while Halstatt was a mix of celtic and illyrian , which is why celtic absorbed and replaced most of the illyrian language before the Romans even set foot in the Balkans ..........celts absorbed the illyrians linguistically with Q-celtic

I came across an interesting article titled The Emergence of the Celtic Languages by Joseph Eska wherein he argues that both Goidelic and Brittonic languages are grouped under a "Proto-Insular Celtic" language whose closest relative is "Transalpine Celtic", or Gaulish. This stands in contrast to the Q/P-Celtic Theory where Goidelic is grouped with Celtiberian. Here's an excerpt:



There are a fair number of innovations which demonstrate that Transalpine Celtic,
Goidelic and Brittonic are to be grouped under a single node on the Celtic family tree.
Among these are the merger of ā- stem nominal fl exional endings with those of the
ī- stems, e.g., Transalpine Celt. gen. sg. paullias (RIG L- 98 1a
12) to nom. sg. paulla (1a
10)
beside OIr. gen. sg. túaithe ‘of a tribe’ < *tōtīas to nom. sg. túath < *tōtā, and the syncretism
of inherited dat. pl. - bo by instr. pl. - bi, as in Transalpine Celt. GOBEDBI ‘to the
smiths’ (RIG L- 13) beside OIr. túathaib < *tōtābi.

David Mc
04-13-2015, 11:50 PM
...We also know that la Tene was a mix of celtic and Helvetic ( gallic tribe ) , while Halstatt was a mix of celtic and illyrian , which is why celtic absorbed and replaced most of the illyrian language before the Romans even set foot in the Balkans ..........celts absorbed the illyrians linguistically with Q-celtic

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Firstly, the Helvetii were a Celtic tribe, so to say La Tene was a mix of Celtic and Helvetic is redundant. Secondly, it seems a bit misleading to say that Hallstatt is a mix of Celtic and Illyrian. It was overwhelmingly Celtic, and the Illyrians just squeaked in to its easternmost range. They certainly took on aspects of Hallstatt culture, but I don't think they were co-creators of the cultural package. Or is that not what you meant?

Agamemnon
04-13-2015, 11:52 PM
The Q/P dichotomy is overrated if you ask me, as it occurs in other IE branches.

vettor
04-14-2015, 01:00 AM
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Firstly, the Helvetii were a Celtic tribe, so to say La Tene was a mix of Celtic and Helvetic is redundant. Secondly, it seems a bit misleading to say that Hallstatt is a mix of Celtic and Illyrian. It was overwhelmingly Celtic, and the Illyrians just squeaked in to its easternmost range. They certainly took on aspects of Hallstatt culture, but I don't think they were co-creators of the cultural package. Or is that not what you meant?

I am saying that there was no equal share, but celtic was the dominant partner, but they did not create the culture on their own.

The celts of halstatt as they absorbed the illyrians and moved through the balkans for the failed invasion of Greece spoke Q-celtic.

David Mc
04-14-2015, 01:18 AM
There was no Hallstatt Celt invasion of Greece, failed or otherwise. The only attempted invasion was a Gallic one in about 280BC, centuries after the Hallstatt culture gave way to La Tene.

David Mc
04-14-2015, 01:35 AM
And I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Celts absorbed the Illyrians, although I know there is some argument about who the Illyrians were. Having spent some time in Albania, I can say that the Albanians themselves have some fairly strong feelings on the subject.

vettor
04-14-2015, 02:42 AM
There was no Hallstatt Celt invasion of Greece, failed or otherwise. The only attempted invasion was a Gallic one in about 280BC, centuries after the Hallstatt culture gave way to La Tene.

Are not people here stating gallic and celtic are the same thing. we are fiding out about P-celtic and Q-celtic .

the celts from eastern alps ( halstatt) did the invasion of Pannonia and later the other illyrian tribes and lastly the attempt of greece. The version of celtic spoken in the balkans was q-celtic , same as what I noted before.
If people do not support a Q and P celtic, then that's up to them

David Mc
04-14-2015, 02:56 AM
Hallstatt was a culture that gave way to La Tene in the 6th century BC. That's what people mean when they say "Hallstatt Celts." The Celts who invaded the Balkans were three centuries too late to be associated with the Hallstatt culture; they were La Tene. Celts from the eastern Alps were not called "Hallstatt Celts." They might be called Cisalpine Gauls, at least from a Roman point of view.

vettor
04-14-2015, 03:00 AM
Hallstatt was a culture that gave way to La Tene in the 6th century BC. That's what people mean when they say "Hallstatt Celts." The Celts who invaded the Balkans were three centuries too late to be associated with the Hallstatt culture; they were La Tene. Celts from the eastern Alps were not called "Hallstatt Celts." They might be called Cisalpine Gauls, at least from a Roman point of view.


How ever there is archaeological evidence that the Celts in the Halstatt period (middle of the first millenium BC) gained their ability to forge iron from a previous Illyrian culture in the Middle Danube region (Elston,1934:179 f.;)

the eastern alps had no cisapline celts only the Po valley

David Mc
04-14-2015, 03:29 AM
How ever there is archaeological evidence that the Celts in the Halstatt period (middle of the first millenium BC) gained their ability to forge iron from a previous Illyrian culture in the Middle Danube region (Elston,1934:179 f.;)

the eastern alps had no cisapline celts only the Po valley

OK, so even if that was true (i.e. learning to forge iron from Illyrians), what does Hallstatt have to do with the tribes who invaded the Balkans? Why should they be called Hallstatt Celts? I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense.

Jean M
04-14-2015, 09:52 AM
How ever there is archaeological evidence that the Celts in the Halstatt period (middle of the first millenium BC) gained their ability to forge iron from a previous Illyrian culture in the Middle Danube region (Elston,1934:179 f.;)

Oh dear. You are relying once again on outdated scholarship. Iron-working arrived in the Carpathian Basin with Cimmerians from the steppe. They came up the Danube certainly, but they were not Illyrians.


Are not people here stating gallic and celtic are the same thing.

Gaulish is one form/branch of Celtic, just as Latin is one branch of Italic.

4336

Dubhthach
04-14-2015, 04:50 PM
I saw this earlier show up on my facebook timeline, it's an interesting read:

The ‘Atlantic Fringe’ hypothesis for the Celtic homeland and the Tartessian inscriptions (January 2014)
https://www.academia.edu/5980789/The_Atlantic_Fringe_hypothesis_for_the_Celtic_home land_and_the_Tartessian_inscriptions

vettor
04-14-2015, 05:19 PM
Oh dear. You are relying once again on outdated scholarship. Iron-working arrived in the Carpathian Basin with Cimmerians from the steppe. They came up the Danube certainly, but they were not Illyrians.



Gaulish is one form/branch of Celtic, just as Latin is one branch of Italic.

4336

your chart is outdated

In Iberia the 'kw' sound (such as 'qu') was the same, making the transition easy after conquest - and so even today Spanish and Portuguese are very similar to Italian and their mutual mother, Latin - all of them being based on the Q-Celtic of the First Wave. In France (Gaul) the old tongue had altered more, and so the Gaulish version of Latin was rather strange sounding (this was the P-Celtic of Celts of the Second Wave). Naturally not all linguists accept this version of events, but it is popular and also makes very good sense.
The difference between Q-Celtic speakers and P-Celtic speakers was mirrored in later progression, with the Latins regarding the P-Celtic-speaking Gauls to be an enemy that was to be ridiculed (as well as feared).

what you presented was a chart which is used by people who state there was no Q and P celtic


Cimmerians only arrived in Pannonia not earlier than 700BC, pannonia was where dacian tribe met illyrian tribes and later Celtic tribes. The noric mines in Noricum was already operating by the illyrians at this time...........Noricum is not pannonia.
Cimmerians fled southern Ukraine and Crimea not before 700BC because that's when the scythains threw them out. one branch of Cimmerians also went to eastern Turkey ( south of Trabizon )

Jean M
04-14-2015, 07:05 PM
I saw this earlier show up on my facebook timeline, it's an interesting read:

The ‘Atlantic Fringe’ hypothesis for the Celtic homeland and the Tartessian inscriptions (January 2014)
https://www.academia.edu/5980789/The_Atlantic_Fringe_hypothesis_for_the_Celtic_home land_and_the_Tartessian_inscriptions

Yes I have it thanks.

Jean M
04-14-2015, 07:14 PM
your chart is outdated ....what you presented was a chart which is used by people who state there was no Q and P celtic

Not so. The chart is neither outdated (it is based on one published very recently by a Celtic specialist), nor is it ignoring the kw > p sound change. If you look at it again you will see 'P-Celtic in Gaul'. The relationships between the various branches of Celtic are too complex to explain in full here, but the kw>p sound travelled it seems from Gaulish to Lepontic by continuing contact and into Britain by migration and contact. There is no need for a label 'Q-Celtic'. That was the original state of PIE, which, as you rightly say, was retained in Latin.

Agamemnon
04-14-2015, 10:15 PM
Not so. The chart is neither outdated (it is based on one published very recently by a Celtic specialist), nor is it ignoring the kw > p sound change. If you look at it again you will see 'P-Celtic in Gaul'. The relationships between the various branches of Celtic are too complex to explain in full here, but the kw>p sound travelled it seems from Gaulish to Lepontic by continuing contact and into Britain by migration and contact. There is no need for a label 'Q-Celtic'. That was the original state of PIE, which, as you rightly say, was retained in Latin.

True, though I'd surmise that several Gaulish dialects never actually experienced the kw>p shift.

Augustus
04-15-2015, 04:47 AM
And I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Celts absorbed the Illyrians, although I know there is some argument about who the Illyrians were. Having spent some time in Albania, I can say that the Albanians themselves have some fairly strong feelings on the subject.

I think I read something like over a hundred Illyrians and other bronze age graves were discovered in southern Albania years ago, but there has been no genetic studies conducted on them. It's a shame because it would give us a good genetic grasp on ancient Balkan IE and Hallstatt offshoot genetics.

Balkan IE bodies in Yugoslavia would also give us great insight into the effect of Slavic migrations into the Balkans.

vettor
04-15-2015, 10:15 AM
I think I read something like over a hundred Illyrians and other bronze age graves were discovered in southern Albania years ago, but there has been no genetic studies conducted on them. It's a shame because it would give us a good genetic grasp on ancient Balkan IE and Hallstatt offshoot genetics.

Balkan IE bodies in Yugoslavia would also give us great insight into the effect of Slavic migrations into the Balkans.

Is that the royal tombs of Selca in Albania, where This tomb is oriented towards the Macedonian monumental tomb from the second half of the 4th century BC.?

The Macedonians ruled all of albania and epirus for nearly 2 centuries until the Romans threw them out after 196BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tombs_of_Selca_e_Poshtme

Dubhthach
04-15-2015, 10:18 AM
True, though I'd surmise that several Gaulish dialects never actually experienced the kw>p shift.

If I recall there's some written evidence from southern France showing this, specifically around the use of EQOS instead of EPOS (my memory could be wrong about this). Obviously the word in Proto-Celtic was *ekwos (kw = "infamous Q" ;) )

Which in Old Irish gave rise to Ech which exists today as Each (likewise in Scottish Gáidhlig) though it's meaning is more general to a steed etc whereas "Capall" (from Insular-Celtic *kapallos) is more general default word for horse now adays in Irish.

Dubhthach
04-15-2015, 10:18 AM
True, though I'd surmise that several Gaulish dialects never actually experienced the kw>p shift.

If I recall there's some written evidence from southern France showing this, specifically around the use of EQOS instead of EPOS (my memory could be wrong about this). Obviously the word in Proto-Celtic was *ekwos (kw = "infamous Q" ;) )

Which in Old Irish gave rise to Ech which exists today as Each (likewise in Scottish Gáidhlig) though it's meaning is more general to a steed etc whereas "Capall" (from Insular-Celtic *kapallos) is more general default word for horse now adays in Irish.

Jean M
04-15-2015, 10:34 AM
If I recall there's some written evidence from southern France showing this, specifically around the use of EQOS instead of EPOS (my memory could be wrong about this). Obviously the word in Proto-Celtic was *ekwos (kw = "infamous Q" ;) )


Equos appears as a month on the lunar calendar inscribed on bronze which was discovered near Coligny in Eastern France. I took this as an archaic form retained by druids, since there are inscriptions to the goddess Epona all over Gaul. (Yet the archaic form Sequana was retained for the Seine.)

Needless to say, there is plenty of debate. More on the Coligny Calendar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar

alan
04-15-2015, 02:28 PM
It is interesting to recall that in Celtic society two groups of huge influence that went beyond tribal boundaries existed - the druids/related sacred or learned personnel on the one hand and the kings. As suggested above there may have been variation in the influence of the Druids vs the kings because in some areas there were kings with far reaching power and contacts while in others this may have been less developed with largely petty localised kings - which would leave the Druids are the main potential unifying force beyond local boundaries. Personally I would read Irish Iron Age archaeology with its lack of major secular looking central places and huge province serving ritual assembly sites - rather misleadingly called 'royal sites' - as indicative that the Druids may have been unusually powerful compared to the fragmented small scale kings and perhaps the reason Q retained prestige in Ireland. There is no doubt in my mind that P-Celtic influence and P-Celtic speakers did reach Ireland c. 300BC-200AD but it seems the prestige and unifying force remained with Q-Celtic. The power of the druids and poets of the Celts whose mobility, prestige and ability to form public opinion all over the island was legendary and could destroy the credibility of a king if they wished.

Dubhthach
04-15-2015, 03:28 PM
It is interesting to recall that in Celtic society two groups of huge influence that went beyond tribal boundaries existed - the druids/related sacred or learned personnel on the one hand and the kings. As suggested above there may have been variation in the influence of the Druids vs the kings because in some areas there were kings with far reaching power and contacts while in others this may have been less developed with largely petty localised kings - which would leave the Druids are the main potential unifying force beyond local boundaries. Personally I would read Irish Iron Age archaeology with its lack of major secular looking central places and huge province serving ritual assembly sites - rather misleadingly called 'royal sites' - as indicative that the Druids may have been unusually powerful compared to the fragmented small scale kings and perhaps the reason Q retained prestige in Ireland. There is no doubt in my mind that P-Celtic influence and P-Celtic speakers did reach Ireland c. 300BC-200AD but it seems the prestige and unifying force remained with Q-Celtic. The power of the druids and poets of the Celts whose mobility, prestige and ability to form public opinion all over the island was legendary and could destroy the credibility of a king if they wished.

This might tie in with the differences seen in legal tradition between Leath Mogha (eg. Munster) and Leath Cuinn (Connachta and Uí Néill). There's some debate that the legal tradition in munster reflected a trade based economy with perhaps a "king-priest" whereas the situation in Leath Cuinn is one of Swordland and expanding lordship.

What's interesting of course is during the christian period we see "King-Bishops" ruling from Cashel over Munster which by and large ignores the pretensions of the Uí Néill. Of course this suggests to me that one of reasons the "Dál Cuinn" accepted the Eoganachta into the artifical "Sons of Míl" genealogy (there was originally just the two) was to reflect this binary division of the island (which the Dál Cuinn could overcome -- if ye can't beat them enter a "Cold War").

Given that highest incidence of Ogham (written in Archaic Irish -- clearly Q-Celtic, it even retains the "kw" which was lost in Old Irish having merged with /k/) is in Munster and the lack of La Tene style material (which appears more concentrated in Leath Cuinn) my feeling is the "Dál Cuinn" are a grouping that came in from Northern Britain during the Iron age, perhaps even as late as the roman conquest of Brigantia. This would explain the presence of plenty of M222 in Northern England/Southern Scotland (there's some debate over S7073, we have one M222+/S7073- from Scotland, however I think S7073 might be affected by an STR)

rossa
04-15-2015, 03:49 PM
The period in the Iron Age where Ireland entered into a dark age, was this purely down to environmental changes?

Jean M
04-15-2015, 04:05 PM
The period in the Iron Age where Ireland entered into a dark age, was this purely down to environmental changes?

Possibly not. Economic factors may also have contributed.

Augustus
04-15-2015, 04:07 PM
Is that the royal tombs of Selca in Albania, where This tomb is oriented towards the Macedonian monumental tomb from the second half of the 4th century BC.?


No it was a place called Lofkend (not sure if Im mispelling). Hundreds of bodies from ancient Greece and Illyria ranging from Early Bronze Age to Iron Age. All somehow contaminated with modern DNA and useless to analyze. It was done by UCLA.

TigerMW
04-15-2015, 06:18 PM
The fact that Iberia was out of the loop would explain why Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic for which we have testimony. That is why I feel that Celtic arrived there with Late Bell Beaker with Eastern attributes. Think reflux.

I look forward to your book, Jean.

Let me add a slight twist to "think reflux". I suppose (speculative for sure) that it was a reflux with a heavy dose of new paternal lineages and you can "think P312."

David Mc
04-15-2015, 06:28 PM
Possibly not. Economic factors may also have contributed.

My understanding was that the collapse of the bronze trade networks played a large role in the breakdown of Irish society. Is that one of the factors you're referring to?

Jean M
04-15-2015, 06:58 PM
My understanding was that the collapse of the bronze trade networks played a large role in the breakdown of Irish society. Is that one of the factors you're referring to?

Yes indeed.

Jean M
04-15-2015, 07:30 PM
I suppose (speculative for sure) that it was a reflux with a heavy dose of new paternal lineages and you can "think P312."

That is definitely one for the list of questions we want answered by ancient DNA.

alan
04-15-2015, 11:43 PM
This might tie in with the differences seen in legal tradition between Leath Mogha (eg. Munster) and Leath Cuinn (Connachta and Uí Néill). There's some debate that the legal tradition in munster reflected a trade based economy with perhaps a "king-priest" whereas the situation in Leath Cuinn is one of Swordland and expanding lordship.

What's interesting of course is during the christian period we see "King-Bishops" ruling from Cashel over Munster which by and large ignores the pretensions of the Uí Néill. Of course this suggests to me that one of reasons the "Dál Cuinn" accepted the Eoganachta into the artifical "Sons of Míl" genealogy (there was originally just the two) was to reflect this binary division of the island (which the Dál Cuinn could overcome -- if ye can't beat them enter a "Cold War").

Given that highest incidence of Ogham (written in Archaic Irish -- clearly Q-Celtic, it even retains the "kw" which was lost in Old Irish having merged with /k/) is in Munster and the lack of La Tene style material (which appears more concentrated in Leath Cuinn) my feeling is the "Dál Cuinn" are a grouping that came in from Northern Britain during the Iron age, perhaps even as late as the roman conquest of Brigantia. This would explain the presence of plenty of M222 in Northern England/Southern Scotland (there's some debate over S7073, we have one M222+/S7073- from Scotland, however I think S7073 might be affected by an STR)

One curious thing is the large ritual assembly sites of the Iron Age in Ireland - Tara, Navan Fort and Dun Ailline being the most easy to compare - all look like they were built with the same basic template. This is despite them falling into different territories and provinces. That is curious and suggestive of a unifying force that even went beyond the major pseudo-ethnic divisions like Ulaid and Laigin etc. Again I tend to think that some class like the Druids may have been behind this.

Arch
04-16-2015, 09:03 AM
I'm really looking forward to this book and will pre-order it soon. Hopefully, and I pray, there might be sufficient text covering the Celtiberians and their neighbors. I do see some snippets in the book's table of contents that looks promising :). Nonetheless, it looks like a lot of work and quite an endeavor. Congratulations on finishing it! :cheer2:

Arch
04-16-2015, 09:10 AM
Would Veneti (Adriatic) fall under the category of Italo-Celtic in your book? It's so strange that Veneti seems to connect linguistically to Vendel, Vandal, Venetic (Gaul), Wends?, etc. The word 'Veneti' must be a common term throughout "Celticdom."

Jean M
04-16-2015, 09:36 AM
Would Veneti (Adriatic) fall under the category of Italo-Celtic in your book? It's so strange that Veneti seems to connect linguistically to Vendel, Vandal, Venetic (Gaul), Wends?, etc. The word 'Veneti' must be a common term throughout "Celticdom."

In this book, I only attempt to resolve the origin of this ethnonym within the Celtic world in a way that explains why it crops up in more than one place. The Vandals were Germani, as you know. I have no idea if their ethnonym came from the same root. The ethnonym among Balts and Slavs I covered in Ancestral Journeys (2013) at what some might think unnecessary length, ;) but I know it fascinates quite a lot of people.

tchekitchek
04-16-2015, 01:42 PM
I'm really looking forward to get a hand on that book, but meanwhile are there other (rather recent, not Seven Daughters of Eve that is) good books on DNA and haplogroups around? I can't find anything!

Jean M
04-16-2015, 02:39 PM
I'm really looking forward to get a hand on that book, but meanwhile are there other (rather recent, not Seven Daughters of Eve that is) good books on DNA and haplogroups around? I can't find anything!

My book Ancestral Journeys (2013) covers Europe, but I'm just proof-reading the 2nd edition, which should be out in the autumn.

I can't really recommend anything older, as they are all misleading on the date and origin of your own Y-DNA haplogroup, R1b. It was only in 2013 that academic geneticists began to back the three-population-sources view of the European gene pool.

avalon
04-17-2015, 08:37 PM
In the new PoBI study I think they said the Romans left no influence or insignificant influence in Britain. Also relatively speaking all the populations are very closely related and they had to use very fine scale technology to tease out these clusters. I wonder if anyone possibly Krefter knows the difference in ANE across Britain and Ireland. Could the differences be down to possibly some populations being more isolated and just retaining some older genetics? Southern England just had more input over the years from populations with less ANE. Anyway it's a very interesting thread and discussion.

I think we need more data on this. As I said in an earlier post to rms2, we are lacking data for ANE/EEF/WHG in Wales. Neither the Eurogenes project or the Haak paper has any Welsh samples so the map for ANE at Eupedia is a bit misleading.

I agree that the UK populations are all pretty similar so I don't expect Wales to be that different to the rest of the UK. It's a shame the autosomalDNA data from the POBI project isn't available because the sampling for that was the best I've seen, particularly for rural Gwynedd and Clwyd.

rms2
04-18-2015, 12:50 AM
I think someone ought to ask Maciamo what he based his ANE map on, at least when it comes to Wales. I could be wrong, but I suspect Wales will be pretty close to Ireland when it comes to ANE. Just a hunch, in part based on the fact that Wales runs about 50% R1b-L21 (and probably 70% or so R1b overall) but probably did not have an overly large native pre-R1b population to dilute the incoming level of Beaker ANE. I still suspect Roman input in the case of England that brought in a Mediterranean factor that dropped its ANE below that of the Celtic Fringe.

vettor
04-18-2015, 02:24 AM
Would Veneti (Adriatic) fall under the category of Italo-Celtic in your book? It's so strange that Veneti seems to connect linguistically to Vendel, Vandal, Venetic (Gaul), Wends?, etc. The word 'Veneti' must be a common term throughout "Celticdom."

the term wend is always confusing, the correct form is
The name of the Vandals has often been connected to that of Vendel,[citation needed] the name of a province in Uppland, Sweden, which is also eponymous of the Vendel period of Swedish prehistory, corresponding to the late Germanic Iron Age leading up to the Viking Age. The connection would be that Vendel is the original homeland of the Vandals prior to the Migration Period, and retains their tribal name as a toponym.

The etymology of the name may be related to a Germanic verb *wand- "to wander" (English wend, German wandeln).



Based on the above sources, the Veneti in antiquity were geographically contiguous to and coterminous with the various early Germanic peoples.

It is also clear that the Franks (see, e.g., Life of Saint Martinus, Fredegar's Chronicle, Gregory of Tours), Lombards (see, e.g., Paul the Deacon), and Anglo-Saxons (see Widsith's Song) referred to Slavs both in the Elbe-Saal region and in Pomerania generally, as Wenden or Winden (see Wends).

IMO , because Venedi never crossed over the vistula and lived on the coast where ptolemy place them ( north of the venedic montes of prussia ) , while the ancient vandals where between the vistula and elbe rivers, and as far as mecklenburg, then the term wend meant the vandals.
but the, wendish crusade was against the vandili ( a slavic tribe living in old vandal lands of mecklenburg ) who migrated from upper vistula river to the coast of mecklenburg.

I think the real meaning of Wend as a foreigner was lost somewhere after paul deacon and the 19th century

Jean M
04-18-2015, 08:16 AM
@Arch @Vettor

As this thread is about Blood of the Celts, I have started one on the ethonym Veneti over here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4350-The-various-uses-of-the-ethnonym-Veneti&p=79949#post79949

I have responded to Vettor there.

alan
04-18-2015, 09:36 AM
It will be very refreshing when Jean's book is published to see something on the Celts which isnt either the old Hallstatt/La Tene stuff or the Koch model. It amazing how often archaeology falls into two hostile camps and fails to considered other models or at least other models fail to get the same publicity. Its strange though because the basic idea that beakers spread some form of west IE and Celtic developed after than through networks of interaction has been around for decades but seems to have not been much talked about in the last decade or two. I actually recall Koch himself in the 90s was into the network of interaction model and pushed the interaction of the isles with the north-west and west-central Europe area in terms of metalwork in Emania on the Celticisation of the isles although he stuck with the mid-late Bronze Age and didnt commit on how the basic IE root got that far west. He didnt have the Iberia model at the time or at least he didnt mention it. I

ts always seemed a reasonable model - although Mallory didnt like it at the time - but the mystery of the beaker culture and cracking its exact nature has been a problem and I think the early dates of beaker in Iberia put people off the idea for a long time as it seemed counterintuitive.

We are still of course not quite there with unravelling beaker but at least we no know that the right branches of R1b were in beaker in Germany at the right time in the right culture. We now really need to widen the geographical area of beaker yDNA testing to really understand the culture. Nonetheless the fact that of three bell beaker tested we have a P312 an M269xU106 and an undefined M269 sounds very like all three were likely P312 and hitting three out of three of the same basic branch of R1b just cannot be chance. It suggests there is indeed a very strong beaker-P312 link. The key tranformation date in beaker appears to be around 2500BC when it went from a couple of centuries confined in SW/SW Alpine Europe to covering much of Europe in the space of a couple of generations. I would like to see pre-2500BC beaker tested which in effect means I would like to see early SW European beaker tested. Iberia seems oldest in the 2700s and southern France and adjacent by 2600BC so testing pre-2500BC samples from those areas is simply critical now to understand beaker better. Clearly we need to establish if P312 was linked to bell beaker from the outset or if it was a beakerised line around 2500BC. I have an open mind on this although I am now slightly more convinced that P312 could have been involved at the very inception of beaker.

It is very interesting phenomenon within beaker how it was quite limited in its spread for its first 2 centuries and then suddently within a couple of generations was everywhere. That change around 2500BC requires explanation in itself. Perhaps the answer lies in the Carpathians where a lot of pre-beaker metal supply to the Corded Ware groups apparently came from. Did something happen that disrupted that supply around 2500BC or just before. I suspect the spread of beaker along the Med to France and the western Alps may have been related to decline in the north Italian mines which radiocarbon dates appear to demonstrate. Did something similar happen in the Carpathian supply to the west - it could either have been technical or political. The fact Csepel beaker groups arrived in Hungary c. 2500BC - the earlier dates dont seem to stand up - is interesting as that took them relatively close to the Carpathians. Maybe parts of Europe got too reliant in pre-beaker phase on one source in the Carpathians. I believe I have read that the Corded Ware groups largely got their supply from there.

alan
04-18-2015, 10:53 AM
I think someone ought to ask Maciamo what he based his ANE map on, at least when it comes to Wales. I could be wrong, but I suspect Wales will be pretty close to Ireland when it comes to ANE. Just a hunch, in part based on the fact that Wales runs about 50% R1b-L21 (and probably 70% or so R1b overall) but probably did not have an overly large native pre-R1b population to dilute the incoming level of Beaker ANE. I still suspect Roman input in the case of England that brought in a Mediterranean factor that dropped its ANE below that of the Celtic Fringe.

I think in some places previously relatively unnatractive land of a rocky type where metals are located suddenly became a whole lot more important. I think that can be seen for example in the west of Ireland where beaker period wedge tombs tend to be spread up the rocky west and in other upland areas here and there further east. The earliest dates for these fairly unique monuments - which to me are a type of megalithic cist idea is c. 2500BC which is bang on the start of the beaker era. There are none before that date and the megalithic tombs of the Neolithic had ceased construction at least half a millenium earlier so it wasnt a follow on from an indigenous tradition. So, someone started this type of tomb at the start of the Irish beaker period and I think its fair enough to see the spread of this model throughout western Ireland as tracking human movements. If so then we can say that they do serve as a proxy for beaker period movement in Ireland. That would seem to indicate that a lot of the land they settled was not the best agricultural land. These tombs did partly overlap with the areas where Neolithic megaliths were known in numbers but the land quality where they had been built 1500 years before the beaker period had considerably deteriorated with the downturn in climate and the onset of bog formation. So, it does appear to me that the people building these tombs to some extent settled marginal to the best lands but did spread out through the rocky areas which makes sense for prospectors looking for copper ore or rivers in uplands/rocky areas where gold might be panned.

My feeling in Ireland is that the better land was less beaker settled initially although they did have influence on those pre-beaker peoples. By 2100BC we see the rise of the food vessel beaker-like cist tradition which would seem to me to be a hybrid of beaker and farmer traditions with the beaker traditions dominant. These cists are found in the good lands of eastern Ireland in big numbers. For me they represent the period of delayed acceptance of the beaker-derived traditions after a period where beaker people confined themselves mostly to prospecting and trading.

rms2
04-18-2015, 02:22 PM
Notice that the Hinxton Celts (yes, Celts) from around AD 1 were closest autosomally to modern western Irish? (At least Hinxton4 is.) Hinxton ancient genomes roundup (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html)

Of course, they were just two individuals, but they were from the southeast of what is now England. Judging by them, it looks like something happened between AD 1 and now to reduce the level of ANE in what is now England.

avalon
04-18-2015, 07:21 PM
I think someone ought to ask Maciamo what he based his ANE map on, at least when it comes to Wales. I could be wrong, but I suspect Wales will be pretty close to Ireland when it comes to ANE. Just a hunch, in part based on the fact that Wales runs about 50% R1b-L21 (and probably 70% or so R1b overall) but probably did not have an overly large native pre-R1b population to dilute the incoming level of Beaker ANE. I still suspect Roman input in the case of England that brought in a Mediterranean factor that dropped its ANE below that of the Celtic Fringe.

You may be right about the Roman impact on ANE in England. Perhaps genetic studies have under-estimated Roman genetic input.

But, what impact would the Anglo-Saxons have had on ANE?

Augustus
04-18-2015, 07:59 PM
I don't know about ANE but Anglo-Saxons lacked the Gedrosia component, and were high on the Caucasian component. So they were probably close to North-Eastern Europeans.

rms2
04-18-2015, 09:32 PM
You may be right about the Roman impact on ANE in England. Perhaps genetic studies have under-estimated Roman genetic input.

But, what impact would the Anglo-Saxons have had on ANE?

One would think the Anglo-Saxons would have increased the level of ANE, but evidently something happened either before or after them that dulled and diluted that impact. I suspect it was Roman input.

Jean M
04-19-2015, 08:00 AM
I think someone ought to ask Maciamo what he based his ANE map on, at least when it comes to Wales. I could be wrong, but I suspect Wales will be pretty close to Ireland when it comes to ANE.

As far as I can tell, squinting at the map without enlargement, Maciamo shows Wales the same as Ireland and southern Scotland, with a higher level of ANE in northern Scotland. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30763-New-map-of-Ancient-Eurasian-%28ANE%29-admixture . As he says, he based his map on data from Eurogenes 2013 http://bga101.blogspot.be/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html , which included no samples for Wales, as Avalon pointed out. So presumably Maciamo has simply made the same guess as you.

Since then we have had Haak 2015 with its estimates of Yamnaya in various populations, which shifted the picture somewhat. If we are looking specifically for Yamnaya influence, I suppose we should be looking at the latter (see below) rather than the former. But modern populations are the result of so many migrations subsequent to the Copper Age that untangling them to understand modern autosomal signatures is no easy matter. Haak 2015 has modern Norwegians highest in Yamnaya, which could mean that Viking influence has raised the level in Scotland, except for the fact that their sample of Orcadian (heavily Viking) is the same as their English sample. Frankly I threw up my hands on this and await enlightenment from ancient DNA. Notice though that Scottish and Orcadian have less EEF than the English, who are closer to the French. How much of that goes back to in-situ Neolithic survival, and how much to waves of input from Gaul, we can only guess, but either way the EEF seems to be following the best agricultural land.

4388

Jessie
04-19-2015, 11:38 AM
As far as I can tell, squinting at the map without enlargement, Maciamo shows Wales the same as Ireland and southern Scotland, with a higher level of ANE in northern Scotland. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30763-New-map-of-Ancient-Eurasian-%28ANE%29-admixture . As he says, he based his map on data from Eurogenes 2013 http://bga101.blogspot.be/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html , which included no samples for Wales, as Avalon pointed out. So presumably Maciamo has simply made the same guess as you.

Since then we have had Haak 2015 with its estimates of Yamnaya in various populations, which shifted the picture somewhat. If we are looking specifically for Yamnaya influence, I suppose we should be looking at the latter (see below) rather than the former. But modern populations are the result of so many migrations subsequent to the Copper Age that untangling them to understand modern autosomal signatures is no easy matter. Haak 2015 has modern Norwegians highest in Yamnaya, which could mean that Viking influence has raised the level in Scotland, except for the fact that their sample of Orcadian (heavily Viking) is the same as their English sample. Frankly I threw up my hands on this and await enlightenment from ancient DNA. Notice though that Scottish and Orcadian have less EEF than the English, who are closer to the French. How much of that goes back to in-situ Neolithic survival, and how much to waves of input from Gaul, we can only guess, but either way the EEF seems to be following the best agricultural land.

4388

All of Ireland is just as high in ANE as northern Scotland. The reason why Eupedia's map only shows Northern Ireland as the same as Scotland is because the figures are guess work as Ireland wasn't sampled by Haak. Any Irish person I've seen who has had the K8 done scores over 15% in ANE. Just an example my mother is from Tipperary gets over 16% ANE in the K8 (would have to look to get the exact figure). My father was from Roscommon and I get just under 16%. I've seen a couple of results on this forum from a couple of Irish and they likewise were over 15%. One was from Co. Galway. Davidski would have a few Irish samples but the Welsh are a bit of a mystery.

The map I wouldn't take as gospel due to lack of sampling.

Also if you look at the latest Eurogenes post the Irish have the highest IBD sharing with Corded Ware which is a bit of a surprise.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZeLqR6ZLukA_zseeU_AF0Y9XgQPvYwxPrnQqJpxKi4/edit?pli=1#gid=1554733045

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/ibs-similarity-analysis-60-ancient.html

Jean M
04-19-2015, 11:49 AM
The map I wouldn't take as gospel due to lack of sampling.

I urged the same caution when Lazarides et al 2013 first came out. Don't worry! ;)

rms2
04-19-2015, 11:51 AM
. . . How much of that goes back to in-situ Neolithic survival, and how much to waves of input from Gaul, we can only guess, but either way the EEF seems to be following the best agricultural land.

4388

I mentioned that before, i.e., that what is now England, especially SE England, has the best agricultural land and thus was ever a magnet for settlers. Wales, on the other hand, is largely mountainous and better suited to transhumant pastoralism than to farming.

Neolithic farmers were probably drawn to the best farmland, and of course the Romans settled what is now England to a far greater extent than anyplace else in Britain.

rms2
04-19-2015, 12:01 PM
. . .

Also if you look at the latest Eurogenes post the Irish have the highest IBD sharing with Corded Ware which is a bit of a surprise.

. . .

I saw that. It was surprising.

There was quite a lot of Irish settlement in Wales during the latter part of the Roman period and on into the post Roman period. The Irish Sea really links rather than separates Wales and Ireland. Many of the old Celtic legends link the two.

Jessie
04-19-2015, 12:41 PM
I saw that. It was surprising.

There was quite a lot of Irish settlement in Wales during the latter part of the Roman period and on into the post Roman period. The Irish Sea really links rather than separates Wales and Ireland. Many of the old Celtic legends link the two.

Yes there was a lot of interaction. I would be surprised if the Welsh weren't similar to the Irish and Scots.

Jessie
04-19-2015, 03:35 PM
All of Ireland is just as high in ANE as northern Scotland. The reason why Eupedia's map only shows Northern Ireland as the same as Scotland is because the figures are guess work as Ireland wasn't sampled by Haak. Any Irish person I've seen who has had the K8 done scores over 15% in ANE. Just an example my mother is from Tipperary gets over 16% ANE in the K8 (would have to look to get the exact figure). My father was from Roscommon and I get just under 16%. I've seen a couple of results on this forum from a couple of Irish and they likewise were over 15%. One was from Co. Galway. Davidski would have a few Irish samples but the Welsh are a bit of a mystery.

The map I wouldn't take as gospel due to lack of sampling.

Also if you look at the latest Eurogenes post the Irish have the highest IBD sharing with Corded Ware which is a bit of a surprise.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZeLqR6ZLukA_zseeU_AF0Y9XgQPvYwxPrnQqJpxKi4/edit?pli=1#gid=1554733045

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/ibs-similarity-analysis-60-ancient.html

In my comment above I meant IBS (identical by state) sharing not IBD.

Agamemnon
04-19-2015, 06:12 PM
Still, can't help thinking that we're splitting hairs at this point ;)

rms2
04-19-2015, 06:57 PM
Still, can't help thinking that we're splitting hairs at this point ;)

Well, it's getting dreadfully boring around here now that the Haak et al dust has settled. I'm just waiting for the next round of interesting ancient dna news. Then the scuffling starts all over again.

jdean
04-19-2015, 07:27 PM
: ))))

alan
04-19-2015, 08:12 PM
You may be right about the Roman impact on ANE in England. Perhaps genetic studies have under-estimated Roman genetic input.

But, what impact would the Anglo-Saxons have had on ANE?

that is a good point. The A-Ss would appear likely to have been of high ANE levels - at least similar to the isles Celts. So the drop among the English today must have either be a result of a major drop in Roman times which A-S invaders didnt entirely offset OR the drop dates to post-1066. I personally think that people underestimate potential impact of both the Romans and the Normans. The Normans were a minority but they still were a significant number and held almost all the wealth and power so their genetic impact might be far bigger than their numbers. They in all probability were genetically similar to northern French rural people today and their Norse autosomal ancestry should not be exaggerated - by 1066 it was 8 generations since the Vikings settled in Normandy and they were probably overwhelmingly autosomally just north French by then. It only takes 4 generations to leave maleline ancestral autosomal DNA diluted to very little.

avalon
04-19-2015, 08:17 PM
I mentioned that before, i.e., that what is now England, especially SE England, has the best agricultural land and thus was ever a magnet for settlers. Wales, on the other hand, is largely mountainous and better suited to transhumant pastoralism than to farming.

Neolithic farmers were probably drawn to the best farmland, and of course the Romans settled what is now England to a far greater extent than anyplace else in Britain.

True, although in Wales there is better quality farmland in some coastal areas, notably Anglesey and Pembrokeshire. I would also point out that Wales has plenty of Neolithic tombs such as portal dolmens and passage graves and the distribution of these megaliths tends to fit quite neatly with Anglesey, Pembrokeshire and other parts of West Wales.

Jessie
04-20-2015, 03:30 AM
that is a good point. The A-Ss would appear likely to have been of high ANE levels - at least similar to the isles Celts. So the drop among the English today must have either be a result of a major drop in Roman times which A-S invaders didnt entirely offset OR the drop dates to post-1066. I personally think that people underestimate potential impact of both the Romans and the Normans. The Normans were a minority but they still were a significant number and held almost all the wealth and power so their genetic impact might be far bigger than their numbers. They in all probability were genetically similar to northern French rural people today and their Norse autosomal ancestry should not be exaggerated - by 1066 it was 8 generations since the Vikings settled in Normandy and they were probably overwhelmingly autosomally just north French by then. It only takes 4 generations to leave maleline ancestral autosomal DNA diluted to very little.

ANE is higher the more north in Europe you go. Northern France is not that much different in ANE than Southern England. I think that places like Ireland and Scotland were just more isolated. Scandinavia is the same with a similar level of ANE as Ireland and Scotland and the more Eastern ANE gets a fraction higher. I'm thinking with the Irish sharing more IBS with Corded Ware and Yamnaya that they are just a less diluted population due to being more isolated. If one looks at Southern England they are a little higher in ANE than Northern France. There appears to be a cline in ANE with the lowest amount in SW Europe. Also the more isolated areas would have had smaller populations to begin with so more likely to have more input from this ANE/Yamnaya component than populations more south that would have been more dense anyway.

I think that Northern England might have higher levels of ANE as well and they would be more similar to the Irish and Scots in this regard.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-20-2015, 07:05 AM
Re the comment about the Irish influence in Wales, here is a link about a crannog at llangorse lake. South Powys,( East Wales) formerly Breconshire, the name said to have been derived from the Irish Brychan founder of the kingdom.Not far to the East would be the border with the Anglo Saxon lands. I agree from what I've read that there were very close associations between Wales and Ireland and the sea would have been a highway, not a barrier. John

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.llangorselake.co.uk%2Fthe-lake%2Fcrannog-centre.html&ei=naE0VeT5I82saZyZgIAD&usg=AFQjCNGnwfvIOttkF3ozr7fQIFKu-sGGfA

avalon
04-20-2015, 09:20 AM
All of Ireland is just as high in ANE as northern Scotland. The reason why Eupedia's map only shows Northern Ireland as the same as Scotland is because the figures are guess work as Ireland wasn't sampled by Haak. Any Irish person I've seen who has had the K8 done scores over 15% in ANE. Just an example my mother is from Tipperary gets over 16% ANE in the K8 (would have to look to get the exact figure). My father was from Roscommon and I get just under 16%. I've seen a couple of results on this forum from a couple of Irish and they likewise were over 15%. One was from Co. Galway. Davidski would have a few Irish samples but the Welsh are a bit of a mystery.

The map I wouldn't take as gospel due to lack of sampling.

Also if you look at the latest Eurogenes post the Irish have the highest IBD sharing with Corded Ware which is a bit of a surprise.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZeLqR6ZLukA_zseeU_AF0Y9XgQPvYwxPrnQqJpxKi4/edit?pli=1#gid=1554733045

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/ibs-similarity-analysis-60-ancient.html

I am probably splitting hairs but do you think there might be some variation of ANE levels across Ireland?

We obviously need more data from across the Isles but I just wondered if we might see slight differences between, say for example, Antrim in the far north and Kerry in the SW? Geographically quite distant, different histories, impact of the great famine, emigration, etc.

avalon
04-20-2015, 09:34 AM
Re the comment about the Irish influence in Wales, here is a link about a crannog at llangorse lake. South Powys,( East Wales) formerly Breconshire, the name said to have been derived from the Irish Brychan founder of the kingdom.Not far to the East would be the border with the Anglo Saxon lands. I agree from what I've read that there were very close associations between Wales and Ireland and the sea would have been a highway, not a barrier. John

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.llangorselake.co.uk%2Fthe-lake%2Fcrannog-centre.html&ei=naE0VeT5I82saZyZgIAD&usg=AFQjCNGnwfvIOttkF3ozr7fQIFKu-sGGfA

The archaeological links between Wales and Ireland go way back into prehistory. Alan will correct me if i am wrong but I believe that the Neolithic tombs of West Wales are closely related to the Irish group of portal dolmens and court cairns.

http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/economaps.htm

Jessie
04-20-2015, 09:41 AM
I am probably splitting hairs but do you think there might be some variation of ANE levels across Ireland?

We obviously need more data from across the Isles but I just wondered if we might see slight differences between, say for example, Antrim in the far north and Kerry in the SW? Geographically quite distant, different histories, impact of the great famine, emigration, etc.

Yes there is a possibility but any ANE results I've seen from Irish appears to be above 15% no matter what part of the country they are from. Also Irish do appear to be quite uniform in their genetic results looking at 23andMe and FTDNA as an example. They score the highest amount of British and Irish and also most Irish on FTDNA appear to get all British Isles. I'm only an amateur and these are only personal observations from looking at individual results. My family are from the country areas though and most people I share with are also. Possibly Dublin and the surrounding areas might be different due to more people from outside Ireland coming in as well as other town areas like Limerick, Cork etc. People from the west of Ireland do appear to be a less admixed population than other areas. In my opinion I don't think Ireland has the same differences as Britain in terms of population structure.

Hopefully the Irish DNA Atlas will be a good study and possible some differences might emerge. I'm hanging out for any information.

avalon
04-20-2015, 09:44 AM
that is a good point. The A-Ss would appear likely to have been of high ANE levels - at least similar to the isles Celts. So the drop among the English today must have either be a result of a major drop in Roman times which A-S invaders didnt entirely offset OR the drop dates to post-1066. I personally think that people underestimate potential impact of both the Romans and the Normans. The Normans were a minority but they still were a significant number and held almost all the wealth and power so their genetic impact might be far bigger than their numbers. They in all probability were genetically similar to northern French rural people today and their Norse autosomal ancestry should not be exaggerated - by 1066 it was 8 generations since the Vikings settled in Normandy and they were probably overwhelmingly autosomally just north French by then. It only takes 4 generations to leave maleline ancestral autosomal DNA diluted to very little.

Agree about Normans. Their power and wealth may have given them some sort of breeding advantage.

Helgenes50
04-20-2015, 10:23 AM
that is a good point. The A-Ss would appear likely to have been of high ANE levels - at least similar to the isles Celts. So the drop among the English today must have either be a result of a major drop in Roman times which A-S invaders didnt entirely offset OR the drop dates to post-1066. I personally think that people underestimate potential impact of both the Romans and the Normans. The Normans were a minority but they still were a significant number and held almost all the wealth and power so their genetic impact might be far bigger than their numbers. They in all probability were genetically similar to northern French rural people today and their Norse autosomal ancestry should not be exaggerated - by 1066 it was 8 generations since the Vikings settled in Normandy and they were probably overwhelmingly autosomally just north French by then. It only takes 4 generations to leave maleline ancestral autosomal DNA diluted to very little.

The Scandinavians were not enough( mainly from Danelaw) to build their new country, the Duchy of Normandy.

The first and young dukes brought, to help them, many people from outside, Bretons, Northern French, Flemish and also Germans.
All these people were the base of the old Norman aristocracy

The role of the Flemings and Britons has been important in the conquest of England.
1/3 of Normans 1/3 of French and Flemings and 1/3 of Britons (from Brittany)
in William's army. A lot of families in UK are of these different origins an not only from Normandy. All these people were already close to the British.

Helgenes50
04-20-2015, 11:07 AM
^^ I don't think your book would be that popular in France, unfortunately... There's a general phobia of population genetics here.

I agree

In France, a lot of " educated" people don't even know what means population genetics.
In french, almost impossible to find a book on this topic.

It doesn't matter, I found a good reason to improve my english.

rms2
04-20-2015, 11:49 AM
The archaeological links between Wales and Ireland go way back into prehistory. Alan will correct me if i am wrong but I believe that the Neolithic tombs of West Wales are closely related to the Irish group of portal dolmens and court cairns.

http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/economaps.htm

I don't know how Wales will come out in terms of ANE/EEF/WHG, but I remember reading a paper awhile back that concluded that the Neolithic population of Britain and Ireland was in serious decline at about the time the Beaker Folk began arriving. Jean probably knows which paper it was, but I cannot recall without trying to hunt it down.

I still suspect Wales will probably be more like the other Celtic Fringe countries in terms of ANE than England, and I think that is probably down to Roman input in the latter. If the Silures of SE Wales really were from Spain, as Tacitus speculated, that might make a difference and could mean a slightly higher rate of EEF there than elsewhere in Wales. Time will tell.

Krefter
04-20-2015, 11:56 AM
I don't know how Wales will come out in terms of ANE/EEF/WHG, but I remember reading a paper awhile back that concluded that the Neolithic population of Britain and Ireland was in serious decline at about the time the Beaker Folk began arriving. Jean probably knows which paper it was, but I cannot recall without trying to hunt it down.

I still suspect Wales will probably be more like the other Celtic Fringe countries in terms of ANE than England, and I think that is probably down to Roman input in the latter. If the Silures of SE Wales really were from Spain, as Tacitus speculated, that might make a difference and could mean a slightly higher rate of EEF there than elsewhere in Wales. Time will tell.

JohnHowellsTyrfro is Welsh maybe he has ANE K7 or K8 results. Davidski has plenty of Cornish samples and they differ little from Southwest English. I'd be kind of suprised if Welsh come out like the Iron age Britons and modern Irish.

rms2
04-20-2015, 12:27 PM
I believe POBI is showing that the Cornish and the Welsh differ autosomally and cannot be regarded as the same group.

jdean
04-20-2015, 12:39 PM
JohnHowellsTyrfro is Welsh maybe he has ANE K7 or K8 results. Davidski has plenty of Cornish samples and they differ little from Southwest English. I'd be kind of suprised if Welsh come out like the Iron age Britons and modern Irish.

No idea how well this translates into EEF, ANE & WHG but this is Mum's K7 ANE scores courtesy of Gedmatch, Mum's probably about 90% Welsh (mostly from Monmouthshire but also Glamorgan, Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire, Breconshire and Montgomeryshire) with her English ancestry mostly coming from Gloucestershire and Somerset. There's a smidgen of Irish in the mixture too.

ANE 16.00%
ASE 2.44%
WHG-UHG 65.02%
East_Eurasian 0.46%
West_African 0.53%
East_African 0.41%
ENF 15.14%

Dad on the other hand is about 10% Welsh (Monmouthshire & Radnorshire) with the other 90% coming From the SW of England

ANE 14.47%
ASE 1.44%
WHG-UHG 66.33%
East_Eurasian 1.21%
West_African 0.31%
East_African 0.20%
ENF 16.04%

Jessie
04-20-2015, 12:58 PM
Just for comparison purposes here is my Eurogenes K7. jdean's compares quite well with Irish scores as far as ANE.

Population
ANE 16.92%
ASE 1.02%
WHG-UHG 63.89%
East_Eurasian 1.17%
West_African -
East_African 0.20%
ENF 16.82%

My mother who is from Tipperary

Population
ANE 17.17%
ASE 1.75%
WHG-UHG 62.95%
East_Eurasian 0.61%
West_African -
East_African 0.45%
ENF 17.07%

Brother

ANE 16.82%
ASE 1.65%
WHG-UHG 64.03%
East_Eurasian 0.75%
West_African 0.49%
East_African 0.16%
ENF 16.10%

Helgenes50
04-20-2015, 01:39 PM
JohnHowellsTyrfro is Welsh maybe he has ANE K7 or K8 results. Davidski has plenty of Cornish samples and they differ little from Southwest English. I'd be kind of suprised if Welsh come out like the Iron age Britons and modern Irish.

Cornish samples are not Southwest English ?

I thought we were speaking of the same thing
SW English = Cornish
and
SE English = Kent

rms2
04-20-2015, 03:36 PM
No idea how well this translates into EEF, ANE & WHG but this is Mum's K7 ANE scores courtesy of Gedmatch, Mum's probably about 90% Welsh (mostly from Monmouthshire but also Glamorgan, Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire, Breconshire and Montgomeryshire) with her English ancestry mostly coming from Gloucestershire and Somerset. There's a smidgen of Irish in the mixture too.

ANE 16.00%
ASE 2.44%
WHG-UHG 65.02%
East_Eurasian 0.46%
West_African 0.53%
East_African 0.41%
ENF 15.14%

Dad on the other hand is about 10% Welsh (Monmouthshire & Radnorshire) with the other 90% coming From the SW of England

ANE 14.47%
ASE 1.44%
WHG-UHG 66.33%
East_Eurasian 1.21%
West_African 0.31%
East_African 0.20%
ENF 16.04%

I could be wrong, but I think your mother is probably about right for the Welsh at about 16% ANE.

jdean
04-20-2015, 05:02 PM
I could be wrong, but I think your mother is probably about right for the Welsh at about 16% ANE.

I suppose what would be interesting it to see a few more from across Wales (north and south) together with (more) Irish and Scottish and some from somewhere like East Anglia for comparison

Jean M
04-20-2015, 05:31 PM
Have you considered sending copies of it to anthropological institutes? You could always put it up in academic networks.

Sorry I missed your post until today. In general copies of works of academic interest will be circulated by the publisher to selected academics for review. (A few have already seen Blood of the Celts prior to publication.) University libraries will generally choose to stock it or not on the basis of requests from academics in their institution. Ancestral Journeys was stocked by a number of them.

rossa
04-20-2015, 05:53 PM
Well, it's getting dreadfully boring around here now that the Haak et al dust has settled. I'm just waiting for the next round of interesting ancient dna news. Then the scuffling starts all over again.

Go to FTDNA forums, there's a certain poster that requires a lot of corrections :behindsofa:
That will tide you over.

jdean
04-20-2015, 06:08 PM
Go to FTDNA forums, there's a certain poster that requires a lot of corrections :behindsofa:
That will tide you over.

Or correction : )

rms2
04-20-2015, 06:25 PM
Go to FTDNA forums, there's a certain poster that requires a lot of corrections :behindsofa:
That will tide you over.

I think I know whom you are talking about. He is the main reason I don't post at FTDNA's forum anymore. Correcting him is a full time job.

avalon
04-20-2015, 08:37 PM
I don't know if it has any bearing on ANE levels but according to the PoBI project, the Cornish cluster closer to the English than to the Welsh. Even more surprising was that the Scottish and English clusters were closer to each other than either was to the Welsh. (The split is in the PCA charts in the supplementary).

They did also make the point that North and South West Wales are as distinct genetically as are the Central/Southern English from the Northern English and Scottish clusters so there is clearly some level of genetic variation between North and South West Wales.

All of this may not impact too much on ANE anyway, which seems broadly similar across the Isles.

I would make a general point about Wales in that the Anglo-Normans/English have had a strong influence on Wales for over 900 years and a large proportion of the modern Welsh population have some level of English ancestry, some of which dates to medieval times, some to Tudor times, but most is from the last 250 years. A recent study on surnames said that only 35% of the population has a Welsh surname.

However, there are still parts of Wales that are more "Welsh" than others and where long standing, native Welsh ancestry is highly likely so these people may be a pretty good autosomalDNA proxy for Ancient Britons.

Map of Y Fro Gymraeg I should point out many of the Welsh speaking areas are sparsely populated rural areas.

http://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/wp-content/gallery/wales1997/1997-wales-referendum5.png

alan
04-20-2015, 08:38 PM
ANE is higher the more north in Europe you go. Northern France is not that much different in ANE than Southern England. I think that places like Ireland and Scotland were just more isolated. Scandinavia is the same with a similar level of ANE as Ireland and Scotland and the more Eastern ANE gets a fraction higher. I'm thinking with the Irish sharing more IBS with Corded Ware and Yamnaya that they are just a less diluted population due to being more isolated. If one looks at Southern England they are a little higher in ANE than Northern France. There appears to be a cline in ANE with the lowest amount in SW Europe. Also the more isolated areas would have had smaller populations to begin with so more likely to have more input from this ANE/Yamnaya component than populations more south that would have been more dense anyway.

I think that Northern England might have higher levels of ANE as well and they would be more similar to the Irish and Scots in this regard.

I tend to agree re Northern England. One thing of interest in that NE England near the Scottish border has a high amount of red hair - way above the norm for England. I have even noticed this myself before I saw stats confirming this. They also have a high level of light eyes. I think in this area the local population had a lot of light eyes and red hair even before Germanic came. Indeed, the extreme north of England actually avoided much Viking settlement and a small rump kingdom of Angles held on there. So I doubt it has much to do with Vikings. Probably a case of Angles who prob tended to light hair and eyes settling in an area that already had a lot of light eyes and red hair.

I still believe, and ancient sources back this, that the pre-Roman population of the isles varied significantly from tribe to tribe in colouring. As to the origin of the variation, I dont know but it does seem to me that areas high in ANE tend to have a higher level of light eyes. The Irish and Scots and apparently the northern English seem to have more lighter eyes than southern England and Wales. There seems to be some sort of pattern and it doesnt seem to correlate with a simple Celtic-Germanic division either. Historical period explanations do not seem to work to explain this. However, is there a hint that higher ANE carrying populations have more light eyes. There seems to be. The apparent fact that parts of the isles most remote from the continent seem to have both higher ANE and more light eyes suggests that this is something prehistoric. These areas also have somewhat less Neo farmer and correct me if I am wrong but a little more WHG too.

alan
04-20-2015, 08:45 PM
I don't know if it has any bearing on ANE levels but according to the PoBI project, the Cornish cluster closer to the English than to the Welsh. Even more surprising was that the Scottish and English clusters were closer to each other than either was to the Welsh. (The split is in the PCA charts in the supplementary).

They did also make the point that North and South West Wales are as distinct genetically as are the Central/Southern English from the Northern English and Scottish clusters so there is clearly some level of genetic variation between North and South West Wales.

All of this may not impact too much on ANE anyway, which seems broadly similar across the Isles.

I would make a general point about Wales in that the Anglo-Normans/English have had a strong influence on Wales for over 900 years and a large proportion of the modern Welsh population have some level of English ancestry, some of which dates to medieval times, some to Tudor times, but most is from the last 250 years. A recent study on surnames said that only 35% of the population has a Welsh surname.

However, there are still parts of Wales that are more "Welsh" than others and where long standing, native Welsh ancestry is highly likely so these people may be a pretty good autosomalDNA proxy for Ancient Britons.

Map of Y Fro Gymraeg I should point out many of the Welsh speaking areas are sparsely populated rural areas.

http://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/wp-content/gallery/wales1997/1997-wales-referendum5.png

I have noticed online that many Welsh do not seem to identify very closely with ancient Wales and have a bad attitude to the Welsh language. I suppose that may come from a mixed background and somehow not feeling its their heritage but personally I think its small minded and insecure to not identify to some extent with the heritage of a country you have lived in for generations just because you have a mix of bloodlines.

alan
04-20-2015, 08:48 PM
Lord we need a new ancient DNA paper HAHAHA. Its so clear now its ancient DNA or the highroad if you are into the big picture stuff rather than genealogy. Cant see progress any other way now.

avalon
04-20-2015, 09:23 PM
I have noticed online that many Welsh do not seem to identify very closely with ancient Wales and have a bad attitude to the Welsh language. I suppose that may come from a mixed background and somehow not feeling its their heritage but personally I think its small minded and insecure to not identify to some extent with the heritage of a country you have lived in for generations just because you have a mix of bloodlines.


I think the language has been in steady decline since the 19th century, only 19% speak it according to the last census and some of those probably aren't fluent speakers.

glentane
04-20-2015, 09:45 PM
Knowing the south Scottish and Northumberland region pretty well over many years, it's fairly easy to spot "locals" right into Berwickshire, Roxburgh and the Lothians. I suspect they've looked like this for a very long time indeed. The (natural) blondism is quite noticeable, and startling for Scotland, particularly in women. They're also comparatively short, men and women alike, and look as tough as old boots (and usually are), with a tendency to "weatherbeaten" (sorry, all ye Teries, Geordies and the like). I can even spot them on the street in Edinburgh, in the same way that one can suss out Protestant or Catholic in the West/N.I., if that's not too outrageous a remark (mainly to do with eyebrows and cheeks/mouth in that case). It's just the way it is. Endogamy, I suppose. Doesn't really appear in Peebles, Selkirk and Lanarkshire or further to the north and west.
"Why?" is of course an entirely different pancake. This region was actual English England, with proper towns and roads and stuff, until relatively recently.

Red hair, of which I am also culpable, is not regarded as a freakshow over there, which is a blessed relief after a childhood in the Southwest of Scotland, where everybody local looks more or less like Robbie Burns (despite his dad being from way up North. I know a not-too-distant mtDNA cousin of his from Fife with a local (place)name, who has excellent but very dark red hair).
The "red hair" maps of Europe show the Low Countries as having a great deal of rufosity, if one takes the relative population densities and turnover in the past into account, as opposed to remote, thinly populated and slightly inbred outposts in for example France, Wales, Ireland, Northern Scotland, Norway and the Urals. It takes two phaeomelanin carriers to tango, or tangerine.

rms2
04-20-2015, 11:39 PM
Lord we need a new ancient DNA paper HAHAHA. Its so clear now its ancient DNA or the highroad if you are into the big picture stuff rather than genealogy. Cant see progress any other way now.

Yes, and arguments from modern dna, y or otherwise, that in times past would have been really interesting seem so seven years ago now; in other words, they're dull and unsatisfying.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-21-2015, 06:02 AM
I live in the old Monmouthshire, the most anglicised part of Wales. It is true that some ( not all ) English speakers, particularly amongst the older generation seem to have an antipathy towards Welsh speakers. On the other hand, in the past some ( not all ) Welsh speakers have presented themselves as a sort of elite,( through accident of birth ) and have been unwelcoming to English speaking Welsh people, perhaps fuelling this antagonism. I think this antagonism on both sides has reduced considerably in recent years, perhaps partly due to the spread of Welsh Medium education across Wales.
It should be remembered though, that until comparatively recent times Welsh was spoken even in the South East of Wales. Two of my great grandparents who were "locals" were Welsh speakers and the older headstones in some of the cemeteries are in Welsh. Obviously the Industrial revolution saw a massive in-migration of newcomers, but I would guess that most of the relatively small pre-existing population is still here to some extent.
It may also be worth bearing in mind that we still tend to be fairly "tribal" communities. :) John

Dubhthach
04-21-2015, 09:04 AM
I have noticed online that many Welsh do not seem to identify very closely with ancient Wales and have a bad attitude to the Welsh language. I suppose that may come from a mixed background and somehow not feeling its their heritage but personally I think its small minded and insecure to not identify to some extent with the heritage of a country you have lived in for generations just because you have a mix of bloodlines.

Sounds exactly like Ireland, particularly here in Dublin ;)

Jean M
04-21-2015, 09:12 AM
I think the language has been in steady decline since the 19th century..

The 2001 census was the first to show that the percentage of people speaking Welsh had increased, thanks to the teaching of Welsh as a second language in schools.


I think this antagonism on both sides has reduced considerably in recent years, perhaps partly due to the spread of Welsh Medium education across Wales.

In the book I mention the importance of Welsh-medium education in preserving the language. It really is the key. It turns out fluent and confident Welsh speakers.

alan
04-21-2015, 09:50 AM
Knowing the south Scottish and Northumberland region pretty well over many years, it's fairly easy to spot "locals" right into Berwickshire, Roxburgh and the Lothians. I suspect they've looked like this for a very long time indeed. The (natural) blondism is quite noticeable, and startling for Scotland, particularly in women. They're also comparatively short, men and women alike, and look as tough as old boots (and usually are), with a tendency to "weatherbeaten" (sorry, all ye Teries, Geordies and the like). I can even spot them on the street in Edinburgh, in the same way that one can suss out Protestant or Catholic in the West/N.I., if that's not too outrageous a remark (mainly to do with eyebrows and cheeks/mouth in that case). It's just the way it is. Endogamy, I suppose. Doesn't really appear in Peebles, Selkirk and Lanarkshire or further to the north and west.
"Why?" is of course an entirely different pancake. This region was actual English England, with proper towns and roads and stuff, until relatively recently.

Red hair, of which I am also culpable, is not regarded as a freakshow over there, which is a blessed relief after a childhood in the Southwest of Scotland, where everybody local looks more or less like Robbie Burns (despite his dad being from way up North. I know a not-too-distant mtDNA cousin of his from Fife with a local (place)name, who has excellent but very dark red hair).
The "red hair" maps of Europe show the Low Countries as having a great deal of rufosity, if one takes the relative population densities and turnover in the past into account, as opposed to remote, thinly populated and slightly inbred outposts in for example France, Wales, Ireland, Northern Scotland, Norway and the Urals. It takes two phaeomelanin carriers to tango, or tangerine.

HAHAHA - I love the lack of PC in your post. I like straight talkers. I do agree with one thing that as already noted in 19th century sources. Deprived urban areas aside where poverty is to blame, it is noticeable that East coasters in Scotland are short arses compared to west coasters. Sort of short but stocky. Even in fairly sulubrious parts of Edinburgh where diet and poverty is not a factor I have been in pubs where my modest 6ft 2 made me a giant in a pub which seemed full of men about 5ft 7/8. The tallest people in Scotland seem to be in the south-west and in the west Highlands.

I agree by the way about the Dutch. I have travelled about Europe a fair bit and Holland is the only part of the continent where red hair gets anywhere near the levels in parts of the isles. I suspect its a shared trait going way way back into deep prehistory, maybe even the Mesolithic but you are right that isolation is a key factor in redhair IMO. Funny enough I have noticed, and the old 19th century studies also noticed that in Scotland the peak of red hair is in Perthshire highlands which is exactly where the best placename and other evidence places Caledoni tribe - sort of the upper Tay where the land would have supported a decent sized tribe in a key position. So when the Romans say the Caledoni had red hair I think they were actually talking specifically about that tribe rather than in blanket terms for Scotland.

Talking about religion, there is a resemblance in cheekbones between northern Irish catholics and west highland Scots but not lowlanders. The is sort of a soft contoured, broadish face type with wide cheekbones and distinctive low but wide light eyes look. I actually think northern Irish catholics look more like people in north Connaught and the west highlands of Scotland in facial bones and colouring than they look like people in Leinster or Munster. I think in Leinster and other areas of the south they - I really mean the women because its them I look at more LOL - tend to have a very different sort of facial structure -more long and thin, gaunt sort of look. I think from that we can see that long before the Plantation the north Irish and north Connaught Irish had a different look in facial structure than parts of the south and east of Ireland and IMO look rather more like Scottish west highlanders with broader faces, broad cheekbones etc than they look like many Irish to the south.

Another thing I think that is very strong in the Irish -and Hooton refers to this - is very strong sexual dimorphism where the women and men look almost like different peoples. You mentioned eyebrows. The odd thing is that where Irishmen have a tendency for bushy eyebrows as they age, the women are the opposite and tend to have very neat thin slightly sad cast of eyebrows - very characteristic of Irish women and one of their best features along with the tendency to wee cute noses compared to the British norm.

When you say about the Scottish catholic - protestant divide in looks. I think its becoming a lot harder to generalise due to the breakdown of the division and intermarriage - very few families are 'pure' on religion or the other now. I always thought that one of the main difference was cast of eyes. The catholics seemed to have the Irish sort of gentle/slightly sad cast of eyes which the protestants had an angrier look - too much old testament LOL.

alan
04-21-2015, 09:59 AM
Sounds exactly like Ireland, particularly here in Dublin ;)

Scotland is hard to describe. There is an older attitude of many lowlanders that is poor towards Gaelic but I think the younger people dont have that. Scotland is going through a period of national rediscovery at the moment with a narrow defeat in the recent independence referendum but now a surge for the Scottish National Party who look like they will win 50 of the 56 seats in the general election in a couple of weeks. However, its very much civic nationalism and there has been a studied avoidance of anything cultural or historical in it because Scots are overwhelmingly socialist Old Labour sort of voters and the SNP wanted to capture as many of them as possible and avoid accusations of old style nationalism because socialism traditionally in Scotland has been juxtaposed to cultural nationalism after WWII. The Scots nationalists are a very clever party at winning over a very varied group from all backgrounds and I think the nationalists in northern Ireland could learn a lot from them in terms of what to do and not to do if they want to gain more votes outside their traditional tribal base.

alan
04-21-2015, 10:08 AM
I am a classic case of Scottish[Irish interaction myself - they are only about 30 miles apart. Born and brought up in Scotland with a mix of Scottish and Irish bloodlines but have lived more of my life in Ireland. Have a weird hybrid accent LOL

Dubhthach
04-21-2015, 10:38 AM
Scotland is hard to describe. There is an older attitude of many lowlanders that is poor towards Gaelic but I think the younger people dont have that. Scotland is going through a period of national rediscovery at the moment with a narrow defeat in the recent independence referendum but now a surge for the Scottish National Party who look like they will win 50 of the 56 seats in the general election in a couple of weeks. However, its very much civic nationalism and there has been a studied avoidance of anything cultural or historical in it because Scots are overwhelmingly socialist Old Labour sort of voters and the SNP wanted to capture as many of them as possible and avoid accusations of old style nationalism because socialism traditionally in Scotland has been juxtaposed to cultural nationalism after WWII. The Scots nationalists are a very clever party at winning over a very varied group from all backgrounds and I think the nationalists in northern Ireland could learn a lot from them in terms of what to do and not to do if they want to gain more votes outside their traditional tribal base.

Well I meant opinion that any Welsh people had towards Welsh language is akin to extremely negative views of Irish you often see here in Ireland/particulary in Dublin. ;)

Dubhthach
04-21-2015, 10:52 AM
Scotland is hard to describe. There is an older attitude of many lowlanders that is poor towards Gaelic but I think the younger people dont have that. Scotland is going through a period of national rediscovery at the moment with a narrow defeat in the recent independence referendum but now a surge for the Scottish National Party who look like they will win 50 of the 56 seats in the general election in a couple of weeks. However, its very much civic nationalism and there has been a studied avoidance of anything cultural or historical in it because Scots are overwhelmingly socialist Old Labour sort of voters and the SNP wanted to capture as many of them as possible and avoid accusations of old style nationalism because socialism traditionally in Scotland has been juxtaposed to cultural nationalism after WWII. The Scots nationalists are a very clever party at winning over a very varied group from all backgrounds and I think the nationalists in northern Ireland could learn a lot from them in terms of what to do and not to do if they want to gain more votes outside their traditional tribal base.

Here I think it's more of an issue is general "cultural cringe" among the Guardian reading bbc watching "liberal" "elite". (Oh if only we hadn't left the UK ...)

alan
04-21-2015, 11:23 AM
Here I think it's more of an issue is general "cultural cringe" among the Guardian reading bbc watching "liberal" "elite". (Oh if only we hadn't left the UK ...)

True and the cringe is slowly being removed and now uncommon among younger people. However, the SNP realise this process will not be complete for a while due to older voters so its being pragmatically non-cultural. Not entirely non-cultural but very low key about it. There is a big generational identity divide with very few Scots feeling British below aged 60. You can see this in the identity bit in the 2011 census where a 'British' or 'Scottish and British' ID is only around a quarter with the rest 'Scottish only' and most of those who arent the latter are pensioners or nearly hitting that age. In the referendum a majority of the Scots born and brought up people did vote for independence but those born in other parts of the UK - about 10pc of the population voted about 80pc NO. The other similar demographic was pensioners. If you just looked at non-pension age Scottish born people the YES camp would have won with a bit to spare. The SNP popularity wise are now about 50pc of the vote - an incredible jump - very similar to SF in the situation in the Irish elections in 1918. However what this all hides is that approaching 70pc of Scots would back an almost-indy position of full federal autonomy which shows a lot of people fall just short of wanting independence - manly through fear of the unknown, which was hyped up to a fever during the referendum, rather than love of being ruled from Westminster.

glentane
04-21-2015, 11:32 AM
.. its becoming a lot harder to generalise due to the breakdown of the division and intermarriage - very few families are 'pure' on religion or the other now.
Flirting dangerously with the mods' Political Oubliette that's been recently brought to my notice in Another Place, I have to admit to being appallingly old, and it was a near-apartheid system when I was young.
Different schools, churches, football teams, Boy's Brigade or Scouts, frank and unapologetic workplace discriminatory hiring (on both sides), pubs, all the way into political party affiliation and those wretched Parades. And had been that way since the Dawn Of Time, according to our elders. The only times we got together was in fairly bloody mass brawls (in different uniforms, naturally) at secondary school (the segregated schools were on opposite sides of a large park with a stream running across the middle of it, and a couple of narrow footbridges. All very celtic lol), or playing or watching soccer (see previous entry).

Happily, rock music was being invented at this time, so the longhairs of both sides withdrew to the sidelines together on that basis, and L.P.s, guitars, drums (not that sort; sitting-down, civilised ones), Italian cafes, dancing, concerts and the occasional festival became the centre of our world. The constant, infernal, deafening noise of our musical passions kept the sectarian lunatics away, I guess.
Plus you could meet a lot more ♡Girls♡, and they [a] didn't know everything about you and your crazy family and [b] didn't look creepily like your sister, i.e. were much, much more attractive.

OK mods, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly ..

alan
04-21-2015, 11:32 AM
Here I think it's more of an issue is general "cultural cringe" among the Guardian reading bbc watching "liberal" "elite". (Oh if only we hadn't left the UK ...)

The problem SF have in NI is that two agressively oppositional cultures exist so the cultural nationalism route has its limitations for now. Probably a more United Irishmen type of vision might work better Of course the other problem is troubles baggage. Whatever peoples view a huge majority on both sides were not into the violence. At present there are too many people with troubles baggage and a history as politicians in NI for cross-tribal voting to happen. I only think that could happen in maybe 20 years when noone in politics has the baggage. They are still to a large degree giving of a defiance vibe harking back to the troubles. I am not making a judgement on anything or anyone but I am just a realist about this. SF will need to lose the historical backwards looking to the troubles aspects before they could extend beyond one community. SF actually have the sort of policies on the more practical aspects that would appeal to a much wider working class section but I think a fair bit of time and change of personnel would have to happen for cross community support. Otherwise its just a case of waiting on the head count to change. Again I am not saying I think that is principled but its realistic.

alan
04-21-2015, 11:37 AM
Flirting dangerously with the mods' Political Oubliette that's been recently brought to my notice in Another Place, I have to admit to being appallingly old, and it was a near-apartheid system when I was young.
Different schools, churches, football teams, Boy's Brigade or Scouts, frank and unapologetic workplace discriminatory hiring (on both sides), pubs, all the way into political party affiliation and those wretched Parades. And had been that way since the Dawn Of Time, according to our elders. The only times we got together was in fairly bloody mass brawls (in different uniforms, naturally) at secondary school (the segregated schools were on opposite sides of a large park with a stream running across the middle of it, and a couple of narrow footbridges. All very celtic lol), or playing or watching soccer (see previous entry).

Happily, rock music was being invented at this time, so the longhairs of both sides withdrew to the sidelines together on that basis, and L.P.s, guitars, drums (not that sort; sitting-down, civilised ones), Italian cafes, dancing, concerts and the occasional festival became the centre of our world, and the constant, infernal, deafening noise of our musical passions kept the sectarian lunatics away, I guess.
Plus you could meet a lot more ♡Girls♡, and they [a] didn't know everything about you and your crazy family and [b] didn't look creepily like your sister, i.e. were much, much more attractive.

OK mods, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly ..

Yeah I think this has radically changed and is seem as an old mans game as you can see from the age-profile in the marches. The rise of Scottish nationalism has united both sides of the old Ulster-inspired religious divide in western Scotland. Sure there is still a minority who think that way but its really dying a death and anyone into that stuff is seen as a Muppet now.

Dubhthach
04-21-2015, 11:43 AM
The problem SF have in NI is that two agressively oppositional cultures exist so the cultural nationalism route has its limitations for now. Probably a more United Irishmen type of vision might work better Of course the other problem is troubles baggage. Whatever peoples view a huge majority on both sides were not into the violence. At present there are too many people with troubles baggage and a history as politicians in NI for cross-tribal voting to happen. I only think that could happen in maybe 20 years when noone in politics has the baggage. They are still to a large degree giving of a defiance vibe harking back to the troubles. I am not making a judgement on anything or anyone but I am just a realist about this. SF will need to lose the historical backwards looking to the troubles aspects before they could extend beyond one community. SF actually have the sort of policies on the more practical aspects that would appeal to a much wider working class section but I think a fair bit of time and change of personnel would have to happen for cross community support. Otherwise its just a case of waiting on the head count to change. Again I am not saying I think that is principled but its realistic.

But I'm not talking about either NI or SF. I'm talking about the D4/South-Dublin mentality. ;) the only connection to NI that has is they used the troubles as a further excuse to beat on the Irish language "oh that's only language used by terrorist lovers" (as if a language innately has politics!)

alan
04-21-2015, 11:44 AM
Flirting dangerously with the mods' Political Oubliette that's been recently brought to my notice in Another Place, I have to admit to being appallingly old, and it was a near-apartheid system when I was young.
Different schools, churches, football teams, Boy's Brigade or Scouts, frank and unapologetic workplace discriminatory hiring (on both sides), pubs, all the way into political party affiliation and those wretched Parades. And had been that way since the Dawn Of Time, according to our elders. The only times we got together was in fairly bloody mass brawls (in different uniforms, naturally) at secondary school (the segregated schools were on opposite sides of a large park with a stream running across the middle of it, and a couple of narrow footbridges. All very celtic lol), or playing or watching soccer (see previous entry).

Happily, rock music was being invented at this time, so the longhairs of both sides withdrew to the sidelines together on that basis, and L.P.s, guitars, drums (not that sort; sitting-down, civilised ones), Italian cafes, dancing, concerts and the occasional festival became the centre of our world. The constant, infernal, deafening noise of our musical passions kept the sectarian lunatics away, I guess.
Plus you could meet a lot more ♡Girls♡, and they [a] didn't know everything about you and your crazy family and [b] didn't look creepily like your sister, i.e. were much, much more attractive.

OK mods, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly ..

I think sometimes we see a bit of a transatlantic cultural difference. In America politics seems to be a big no-no subject which people get hot about quickly while in the UK its open and people dont mind lampooning each other on politics as its a fun sport and generally we see all the politicians as self seeking vipers anyway. Its not a big divide anyway generally in the UK over the last couple of decades as the parties are much more similar than they once were - all just barely left or right of centre no matter what spin they put on it. Being left or right in UK politics doesnt mean a lot in terms of views on society, culture, religion, family etc - there is basically a broad UK and general north European consensus on these things these days and no party stands on the ticket of a particular worldview - its all just tweaks in economic and welfare approaches. I think in the US politics much more strongly represents different world views, values etc. N Ireland is of course an exception where politics is a dangerous sport.

alan
04-21-2015, 11:49 AM
But I'm not talking about either NI or SF. I'm talking about the D4/South-Dublin mentality. ;) the only connection to NI that has is they used the troubles as a further excuse to beat on the Irish language "oh that's only language used by terrorist lovers" (as if a language innately has politics!)

yep - I get what you are saying. I know all about the D4 thing, 'west Brits' etc. Its a cultural cringe thing. In Scotland the term 'Scottish cringe' has been about since I was a kid. It was partly the way Scottish culture and music etc was a. badly presented with cheesy people in Scotland itself in the 50s-early 80s b. that Scottish culture was and still is somewhat treated as comical on UK tv etc. As this is largely where the older generation got their info from this seems to have had a big impact on them. Thankfully it dying out and even many old people are realising this. Scotland has a very similar cultural, linguistic and musical heritage to Ireland but are about 100 years behind Ireland in shaking off the cultural cringe-D4 acceptedLOL

Mike McG
04-21-2015, 10:19 PM
Just for comparison purposes here is my Eurogenes K7. jdean's compares quite well with Irish scores as far as ANE.

Population
ANE 16.92%
ASE 1.02%
WHG-UHG 63.89%
East_Eurasian 1.17%
West_African -
East_African 0.20%
ENF 16.82%

My mother who is from Tipperary

Population
ANE 17.17%
ASE 1.75%
WHG-UHG 62.95%
East_Eurasian 0.61%
West_African -
East_African 0.45%
ENF 17.07%

Brother

ANE 16.82%
ASE 1.65%
WHG-UHG 64.03%
East_Eurasian 0.75%
West_African 0.49%
East_African 0.16%
ENF 16.10%
Another example for comparison purposes, here is an average of Eurogenes K7 results for four of my known Irish DNA relatives on Gedmatch. All have 50-100% Tipperary roots:

Population
ANE 16.74%
ASE 2.14%
WHG-UHG 64.13%
East_Eurasian 0.36%
West_African 0.27
East_African 0.70%
ENF 15.66%

My father was Irish Catholic from Tipperary and all his ancestors were from Tipperary back at least to the late 1700s and probably further back. Mother was English Protestant from the London area and all her ancestors I have found so far are from the London area in the 1800s and in nearby south east counties further back, so I was expecting to see a lower ANE than the average above. However, my results are slightly higher for ANE and within the range of results for the other components except the zero for East African.

Population
ANE 17.27%
ASE 1.97%
WHG-UHG 65.02%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.23%
East_African -
ENF 15.51%

So based my personal data, there does not seem to be a significant decline in ANE due to an admix from my English mother.

Mike

Jessie
04-22-2015, 01:44 AM
Another example for comparison purposes, here is an average of Eurogenes K7 results for four of my known Irish DNA relatives on Gedmatch. All have 50-100% Tipperary roots:

Population
ANE 16.74%
ASE 2.14%
WHG-UHG 64.13%
East_Eurasian 0.36%
West_African 0.27
East_African 0.70%
ENF 15.66%

My father was Irish Catholic from Tipperary and all his ancestors were from Tipperary back at least to the late 1700s and probably further back. Mother was English Protestant from the London area and all her ancestors I have found so far are from the London area in the 1800s and in nearby south east counties further back, so I was expecting to see a lower ANE than the average above. However, my results are slightly higher for ANE and within the range of results for the other components except the zero for East African.

Population
ANE 17.27%
ASE 1.97%
WHG-UHG 65.02%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.23%
East_African -
ENF 15.51%

So based my personal data, there does not seem to be a significant decline in ANE due to an admix from my English mother.

Mike

Tipperary appears quite high in ANE. In you result being half English there doesn't appear to be a decline but most English are 2-4% lower in ANE than Irish samples. I've seen an English girl's results with half Irish ancestry and she was over 15% on the K8 which is within Irish range. The K8 is far more accurate than the K7 and would need to be done by Davidski. There is a definite lowering of ANE in England especially the more southern areas.

I would love to know why Krefter thinks that the Welsh would have lower ANE than the Irish / Scots?

alan
04-22-2015, 07:27 PM
Tipperary appears quite high in ANE. In you result being half English there doesn't appear to be a decline but most English are 2-4% lower in ANE than Irish samples. I've seen an English girl's results with half Irish ancestry and she was over 15% on the K8 which is within Irish range. The K8 is far more accurate than the K7 and would need to be done by Davidski. There is a definite lowering of ANE in England especially the more southern areas.

I would love to know why Krefter thinks that the Welsh would have lower ANE than the Irish / Scots?

I think this will depend to some extent on how much the Welsh are in-situ descendants of pre-Roman people of Wales and how much Wales absorbed fleeing Roman Britons from what is now England. I have little doubt that the areas which saw Roman imperial settlers from outside Britain would have dropped ANE a bit because the entire former Roman empire area has lower ANE than Hixton and modern Irish and Scots. Wales was in the Roman empite albeit in a rather minimal way with a few exceptions. I just dont know the answer to that although Welsh literature does clearly refer to British kings from lowland England and also has Roman aspects. Welsh of course absorbed a significant amount of Latin vocab. My feeling is that the indigenous Welsh did absorb at least a modest amount of blood from the Roman empire phase and possibly from Britons and Roman Britons from further east in the English lowlands. However I dont expect it to be huge. So my guess is Wales may fall between southern England and Ireland in terms of ANE.

Certainly I believe there is an implication, when you consider all that north Germanic input in England should have at least matched the ANE of the pre-Roman Britons, that in the Roman period ANE dropped quite significantly before rising a bit again. Problem is it was the more Romanised Britonswhose lands fell quickest to the Anglo-Saxons. IMO they were possibly Latin speaking or a class based mix of Latin and Celtic - a division among Britons which could be one of the reasons why Germanic may have been at an advantage. People talk about the lack of British placenames in lowland England but were the Britons of those areas even speaking Celtic at the time. Was there a linguistic unity or were they divided by class or rural-urban divisions with no unified language. I think this is an often underestimated part of the story of the loss of the Celtic language in lowland England. I think it would be odd if of all wealthy areas of the empire - 400 years of it - lowland Britain was the only part that didnt develop a large Latin speaking population - I simply dont believe this was the case.

avalon
04-22-2015, 08:57 PM
I live in the old Monmouthshire, the most anglicised part of Wales. It is true that some ( not all ) English speakers, particularly amongst the older generation seem to have an antipathy towards Welsh speakers. On the other hand, in the past some ( not all ) Welsh speakers have presented themselves as a sort of elite,( through accident of birth ) and have been unwelcoming to English speaking Welsh people, perhaps fuelling this antagonism. I think this antagonism on both sides has reduced considerably in recent years, perhaps partly due to the spread of Welsh Medium education across Wales.
It should be remembered though, that until comparatively recent times Welsh was spoken even in the South East of Wales. Two of my great grandparents who were "locals" were Welsh speakers and the older headstones in some of the cemeteries are in Welsh. Obviously the Industrial revolution saw a massive in-migration of newcomers, but I would guess that most of the relatively small pre-existing population is still here to some extent.
It may also be worth bearing in mind that we still tend to be fairly "tribal" communities. :) John

Monmouthshire sounds a bit like Clwyd (Denbighshire/Flintshire) in NE Wales where one of my grandparents was from, close to the border, so subject to greater English influence over the centuries than areas further west. As a kid I remember a lot of the older generation using Welsh daily but I believe that has changed now. The North Wales coast from Prestatyn to Conwy has had popular seaside resorts since Victorian times and seems packed full of retired Scousers nowadays!!

Contrast this with Gwynedd further to the West which has a larger proportion of native Welsh speakers and remains the heartland of the Welsh language. Not sure whether it can survive long term though, even in spite of Welsh medium education.

avalon
04-22-2015, 09:18 PM
I agree by the way about the Dutch. I have travelled about Europe a fair bit and Holland is the only part of the continent where red hair gets anywhere near the levels in parts of the isles. I suspect its a shared trait going way way back into deep prehistory, maybe even the Mesolithic but you are right that isolation is a key factor in redhair IMO. Funny enough I have noticed, and the old 19th century studies also noticed that in Scotland the peak of red hair is in Perthshire highlands which is exactly where the best placename and other evidence places Caledoni tribe - sort of the upper Tay where the land would have supported a decent sized tribe in a key position. So when the Romans say the Caledoni had red hair I think they were actually talking specifically about that tribe rather than in blanket terms for Scotland.


Years ago I got my hand on some of Beddoe's data from the 19th century. I believe that he detected hot spots for red hair in Forteviot, Comrie, Athol and Selkirk. Other notable areas were in Northern England (Glendale, Hexham, Keighley, Thirsk, Durham) and in South Wales (Abergavenney, Caermarthen and Taff Vale).

I think that recent genetic studies have broadly supported these observations.

Red hair clearly has a strong celtic distribution but I guess you don't think it arrived with the Celts?

alan
04-22-2015, 09:47 PM
Years ago I got my hand on some of Beddoe's data from the 19th century. I believe that he detected hot spots for red hair in Forteviot, Comrie, Athol and Selkirk. Other notable areas were in Northern England (Glendale, Hexham, Keighley, Thirsk, Durham) and in South Wales (Abergavenney, Caermarthen and Taff Vale).

I think that recent genetic studies have broadly supported these observations.

Red hair clearly has a strong celtic distribution but I guess you don't think it arrived with the Celts?

Obviously I just dont know for sure due to zero data. However there is a clear impression that it was strong in pre-Roman times in the isles. However, I think there is a strong hint in Tacitus and indeed modern distribution that even among the prehistoric isles people its frequency varied somewhat. Classical sources dont comment on enough tribes to make any major conclusions about this variation but it cannot be a coincidence that Tacitus especially noted red hair among the Caledoni of the central Highlands where it remained a peak into modern times.

The stereotypes do have some basis although grossly exaggerated now and almost certainly also by Tacitus. A lot of phenotypical variation stereotyping in classical sources like Red haired Caledoni, lankier builds / darker hair of interior - read northern - Britons of England, dark curly haired south-east Welsh, blonder people in the south of England etc to some extent fit modern stereotyping and that is BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons.

Clearly descriptions are patchy, few individual tribes are described etc but it is interesting nevertheless that the general pattern fits modern stereotypes. So, at least part of the phenotypical variation today and stereotypes around today commenced by variation between the pre-Roman tribes of Britain.

I have to add though that I dont think there was any any significant genetic differences among the pre-Roman peoples of Britain and that sheer chance, founder effects and lineage expansions, degree of isolation preserving recessive genes etc was the real reason for phenotype variation among them.

alan
04-22-2015, 09:52 PM
Years ago I got my hand on some of Beddoe's data from the 19th century. I believe that he detected hot spots for red hair in Forteviot, Comrie, Athol and Selkirk. Other notable areas were in Northern England (Glendale, Hexham, Keighley, Thirsk, Durham) and in South Wales (Abergavenney, Caermarthen and Taff Vale).

I think that recent genetic studies have broadly supported these observations.

Red hair clearly has a strong celtic distribution but I guess you don't think it arrived with the Celts?

One thing I think the British DNA project is showing is that pre-Roman tribes have left their mark and I think most of the clustering other than perhaps the big A-S one is down to those tribes. Certainly looks like a tribal map of pre-Roman Britain. The A-S thing looks like what it is - an adstrate that hasnt erased the pre-Roman tribal clusters which unlike the A-Ss may have been forming for several thousand years before the Romans arrived.

rms2
04-22-2015, 11:28 PM
One thing I have learned about red hair is that there are quite a few different variants for it on the MC1R gene, and they have different distributions that must be taken into account.

Here is a set of maps showing the distribution of just three of the most common red hair variants, taken from an article on 23andMe's blog by Kasia Bryc entitled, "No, I'm Not Irish" (http://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/no-im-not-irish/).

4414

JohnHowellsTyrfro
04-23-2015, 05:03 AM
Years ago I got my hand on some of Beddoe's data from the 19th century. I believe that he detected hot spots for red hair in Forteviot, Comrie, Athol and Selkirk. Other notable areas were in Northern England (Glendale, Hexham, Keighley, Thirsk, Durham) and in South Wales (Abergavenney, Caermarthen and Taff Vale).

I think that recent genetic studies have broadly supported these observations.

Red hair clearly has a strong celtic distribution but I guess you don't think it arrived with the Celts?

Abergavenny is quite curious, being in Monmouthshire in the South East of Wales and not at all "isolated" from external influences. It is also very close to Brecon and "Breconshire" with it's supposed Irish connections ( Brychan). Irish influence in terms of a Red-haired cluster?

glentane
04-23-2015, 10:31 AM
.. Beddoe's data from the 19th century. I believe that he detected hot spots for red hair in Forteviot, Comrie, Athol and Selkirk.
I've learned the hard way to really watch it with towns in the Scottish Borders. Founded by Normanising kings and those multinational corporates, the monastic orders, and filled with a heterogenous mix of civilised burghers, from Guess Where. With an enormous dose of Fleming added in, to cheer things along. No doubt would have improved the ales, if nothing else ;¬) ). The probable ancestry of William Wallace is a case in point. Welshy-Englishy, following up a job with a Bretony-Normany great lord.

Then the Border was shut, and chaos ensued as the entire zone became a sort of Insular Waziristan.
When it reopened for business, the towns were either reinvigorated (rather than simply being a convenient venue for public executions and massacres) or set up from scratch by a combination of Landlords, and entrepreneurs of the new Factory Age, a bit like South Wales a bit later on.
All of which required the wholesale importation of skilled labour; roadbuilders, drainers, masons, wrights, millwrights, glazers, furnace, loom and steam-engine/waterwheel engineers, gas-lighting engineers, plumbers, weavers, spinners, doffers on, doffers off, pickers, carders ..... and so on. The list is enormous, and large numbers were women, countless "hands" to mind the round-the-clock production frenzy. All on a decent wage, most of the time, to be spent in the numbers of shops and boozers that arrived to cater to them when they weren't infesting the various denominational churches and meeting-houses (a very strange thing for the previously fundamentalist calvinism of Old Scotland, New Licht/Auld Licht, Burgher or Anti-Burgher or even downright Cameronian regardless).
This was before Beddoe's time, so unless he sampled the eighteen or so shepherds (who themselves could, if skilled or hungry enough, be headhunted from as far away as Cumbria, the Dales or even N Wales!) and ploughmen who lived outside the towns, I wouldn't like to lean too heavily on him. What else? Oh, gamekeepers were, for obvious reasons, imported. Fisherfolk were a race apart, like miners to the south and north.
Of course the railway arrived some time after the Great Exhibition, and the reinforcement of the previous setup intensified, along with manufacture (for dumping into the Empire, of course. Industry died in the 1960s along with the tied overseas "markets", with the help of Dr Beeching, and more or less disappeared after Thatcher apart from a few luxury/exotica suppliers e.g. cashmere, golf jumpers, and of course kilts (which no sane Borderer of yore would have been seen dead in, a black&white houndstooth plaid at most for the real yokels, over 'normal' clothes)).

Scratch the surface of any Scottish Border town, and you'll find, along with the age-old, basically mediaeval local surnames, a fair number of Lancashire/West Yorkshire/Black Country/Shropshire ones (think; Coalbrookdale) and Gaeilge/Ghaidlig ones.

Forteviot? Not huge, basically a village, like Comrie. Used to be, in the Late Neolithic (http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/driscoll323/) :) . And then again in the "Pictish/Scottish" era. I stayed in a house between the henge and the Dupplin Cross, many years ago, before they were famous.

Jessie
04-23-2015, 10:33 AM
One thing I have learned about red hair is that there are quite a few different variants for it on the MC1R gene, and they have different distributions that must be taken into account.

Here is a set of maps showing the distribution of just three of the most common red hair variants, taken from an article on 23andMe's blog by Kasia Bryc entitled, "No, I'm Not Irish" (http://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/no-im-not-irish/).

4414

I've got the variant which is highest in Sweden from that map but so do the other 3 members of my family that have been tested and we are all Irish. Sometimes I think maps can be inaccurate due to sampling although I'm not saying that is the case with these maps.

rms2
04-23-2015, 11:07 AM
I've got the variant which is highest in Sweden from that map but so do the other 3 members of my family that have been tested and we are all Irish. Sometimes I think maps can be inaccurate due to sampling although I'm not saying that is the case with these maps.

That's the one I and my father carry, as well. If you noticed, all three of them are fairly common in the Isles.

Reith
04-23-2015, 11:30 AM
One thing I have learned about red hair is that there are quite a few different variants for it on the MC1R gene, and they have different distributions that must be taken into account.

Here is a set of maps showing the distribution of just three of the most common red hair variants, taken from an article on 23andMe's blog by Kasia Bryc entitled, "No, I'm Not Irish" (http://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/no-im-not-irish/).

4414

I have none of the variants, but I do have a few red whiskers in my beard and a few individual red hairs close to my ears... so I must be in the 10% of that blog..

rms2
04-23-2015, 11:39 AM
I have none of the variants, but I do have a few red whiskers in my beard and a few individual red hairs close to my ears... so I must be in the 10% of that blog..

You would have to have a really thorough red hair variant test to determine whether or not you carry one of the variants. The most thorough one out there is BritainsDNA's Red Head Test. That 23andMe blog article only dealt with three of the most common variants. There are many many more, believe me.

glentane
04-23-2015, 12:03 PM
.. and another thing that ties in with alan's invocation of the Caledonii and avalon's reference of Atholl that would make you tear your hair, red or not.
Schiehallion (lenition; 'sidh' of the Caledonii) is a reasonable proxy anchor-point for that crowd. Likely their 'sacred" mountain or whatever. But the area it dominates, GlenTummel, GlenLyon, Glenshee, is simply awash with specifically Fenian Cycle references, Finn MacCool and the Fianna, and these mountain passes link Dalriada (Argyll, ".. of the Gaels") to Atholl, which actually means .. New Ireland!

moral: in thinly-populated areas, same as islands, a vigorous and unscrupulous (i.e. pre-modern) invader or proprietor can completely replace the population many times over in the time it takes to say "It's time to raise the rents!" in both Gaelic and English (or "sling yer hook!" in Old Norse), if not completely exterminate them as a preferred and amusing option.

For some semblance of genetic stability I would look to the agrarian centres, not the hills. Like with the red squares in the POBI maps (.. dives into foxhole).

avalon
04-23-2015, 12:16 PM
Abergavenny is quite curious, being in Monmouthshire in the South East of Wales and not at all "isolated" from external influences. It is also very close to Brecon and "Breconshire" with it's supposed Irish connections ( Brychan). Irish influence in terms of a Red-haired cluster?

I got all this from FG Parsons "The colour index of the British Isles" 1920 which used Beddoes figures I believe. These old anthropology studies weren't very scientific and to the modern reader they do seem quaint.

Just looking again and Brecon was also relatively high. Maybe there was an Irish connection. Reading it, it is quite obvious that red hair is more common in the Celtic fringe than in England which does ring true with the stereotypes.

alan
04-23-2015, 04:07 PM
A lot of people have said over the years that red hair has a tendency to pop up in brunette families rather than blond ones - which probably is to do with the origins of their family over the previous few generations. Its clear that red and blonde hair have very different European peak zones albeit both are in the northern fringes of Europe. Clearly there is an overlap zone where both are common enough around Holland but they are like two overlapping circles with places with a lot of red hair and little true blond hair in the far north-west Celtic fringe and places around the Baltic where it is rare but blond is far more common and red rare. That certainly has been my experience travelling. Broadly speaking one epicentre is north-western and the other is north-eastern and at the extremes of each they barely overlap.

Its like two different approaches to being pale - one using the red hair mutations and another simply dropping the levels of the regular pigment. The same mutations seem to lead to two different kinds of fair skin - super pale/ruddy or freckly in the north-west and golden 'nordic' light tan in the north-east. There also is a similar epicentre split in light eyes with blue in the north-west and pale grey in the north-east and east with little overlap at the extreme fringes - Hooton found the Irish overwhelmingly blue and blue-green rather than grey in terms of light eyes.

It would be tempting to see eastern and western hunters but we have no data for north-western hunters at all so we have no idea at what point or even if the western hunters paled out when they lived in the north-west for around 6000 years. However it is curious that the Celtic fringe areas seem to have a lot of WHG and ANE - that is their main macro-genetic difference from vanilla so it hard not to think the phenotypical differences - modest though they are - of the Celtic fringe owes something to the hunters.

The lower Neolithic farmer input in the Celtic fringe makes it seem counterintuitive for them to be the origin of the phenotypical characteristics that set them a little apart. However, bottom line is noone knows as there is no data for NW hunters. Its even possible due to the very late arrival of farming and after the continental farmers had already experienced a crash or who that the absorbing of hunter genes into the farming populations could have happened before the farmers set foot in the isles. We will see.

alan
04-23-2015, 04:27 PM
Then too there is the Hooton conclusions on the craggy large Irish skulls of Brunn type that they are radically different from typical Neolithic farmers ones. This seems to fit the elevated non-farmer input in Ireland. In my experience there are also many Scottish people with variants on these Brunn/Boreby type skulls and facial features too. They exist everywhere but the frequency is much more among the Scots/Irish. However, against the idea that these are some sort of hunter thing absorbed by the farmers is the fact that the Neolithic skulls in the isles and continent are not of this type - so if there was an absorbing of hunter genes locally then it happened after the first flush of the isles Neolithic and this requires the hunters to have survived for a few centuries after the farmers arrived - something that is controversial and not especially well attested. Also of course there is the problem that the number of pre-farming human remains in the isles is staggeringly small considering we are talking about a 4 or 5 thousand year period so it may be impossible to ever get anything other than a very broadbrush idea of the genetics.

Krefter
04-23-2015, 09:13 PM
Its clear that red and blonde hair have very different European peak zones albeit both are in the northern fringes of Europe.

"Red hair" variants aren't just most popular in NorthWest Europe, they are more popular in all of North Europe than anywhere else. I'm basing that on this data from HGDP genomes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zPH-vy9kgyQzjyj2k5tLTRi7EyztWGScg05w9QMyBug/edit#gid=1542882145) and this 23andme article (http://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/no-im-not-irish/). This surprises me because the hair-color percentage stats I've seen say red hair is as or more popular in Spain and Italy than in NorthEast Europe.

BTW, whopping 75-78% of Irish from this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665397?dopt=Abstract) have a variant in MCR1, and 30% have two variants. All that had 2/3 of Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, and Asp294His were redheads, but some redheads have 1/3 and some non-redheads did to.


It would be tempting to see eastern and western hunters but we have no data for north-western hunters at all so we have no idea at what point or even if the western hunters paled out when they lived in the north-west for around 6000 years.

IMO, we should look to more recent ancestors, like Middle Neolithic Central-West Euros and Yamna-types from East Europe. We have a lot of data from both regarding pigmentation(see here (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PVpN5zC3vW-FC_IUzFMaf6JI2XezGooJgsoIRagKyy8&authuser=0)). What they tell us in my opinion is that selection not genetics is the main cause of modern pigmentation. Yamna-types were as dark as west Asians and contributed ~50% blood to North Euros, so obviously something changed.

Hirisplex can only predict red hair with very high accuracy, and red hair is the only hair color which can be predicted with a few SNPs. In the Haak data the only red hair-carriers were EHG-SHG rich(including Motala_HGs), which is interesting. Motala_HGs, Yamna, Bell beaker, Unetice, and Urnfield all had at least one red hair-carrier.

Considering Mesolithic Russian and Swedish pigmentation-alleles it does seem possible they're a source of some of what we see today. Samara_HG and a Motala_HG shared a variant in KITLG associated with blonde hair. But Yamna and MNE make that seem unlikely.

Krefter
04-23-2015, 09:25 PM
High-red hair in the British-isles may be a recent thing. I'm hesistent from looking for sometype of genetic source, such as Beaker or Yamna.

Roman writers say it was popular there, but there's several thousand years before the Romans arrived some type of selection could have occurred. A German Bell Beaker girl from Haak was a carrier but she was the only one. 1/9 of German Beaker folk who got a call in rs1805007 and rs1805008 had a derived allele, while 30-40% of British and CEU do. I'm sure over 50% of Irish do.

Considering Haak 2015 people from the British-Isles have most of the same Late Neolithic ancestors as Scandinavians, Polish, Hungarians, Russians, etc. Red hair frequencies vary a lot between all those people. So, frequencies have may have gone in all directions in the last 5,000 years.

Nonetheless red hair has always been very rare and hard to track frequencies. There'd maybe be a handful or so in entire Central Euro Bell Beaker villages, etc.

alan
04-24-2015, 08:02 AM
"Red hair" variants aren't just most popular in NorthWest Europe, they are more popular in all of North Europe than anywhere else. I'm basing that on this data from HGDP genomes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zPH-vy9kgyQzjyj2k5tLTRi7EyztWGScg05w9QMyBug/edit#gid=1542882145) and this 23andme article (http://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/no-im-not-irish/). This surprises me because the hair-color percentage stats I've seen say red hair is as or more popular in Spain and Italy than in NorthEast Europe.

BTW, whopping 75-78% of Irish from this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665397?dopt=Abstract) have a variant in MCR1, and 30% have two variants. All that had 2/3 of Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, and Asp294His were redheads, but some redheads have 1/3 and some non-redheads did to.



IMO, we should look to more recent ancestors, like Middle Neolithic Central-West Euros and Yamna-types from East Europe. We have a lot of data from both regarding pigmentation(see here (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PVpN5zC3vW-FC_IUzFMaf6JI2XezGooJgsoIRagKyy8&authuser=0)). What they tell us in my opinion is that selection not genetics is the main cause of modern pigmentation. Yamna-types were as dark as west Asians and contributed ~50% blood to North Euros, so obviously something changed.

Hirisplex can only predict red hair with very high accuracy, and red hair is the only hair color which can be predicted with a few SNPs. In the Haak data the only red hair-carriers were EHG-SHG rich(including Motala_HGs), which is interesting. Motala_HGs, Yamna, Bell beaker, Unetice, and Urnfield all had at least one red hair-carrier.

Considering Mesolithic Russian and Swedish pigmentation-alleles it does seem possible they're a source of some of what we see today. Samara_HG and a Motala_HG shared a variant in KITLG associated with blonde hair. But Yamna and MNE make that seem unlikely.

Got to say I have been through a decent chunk of north and east Spain and red hair looked all but absent. Not very scientific but I found that striking. What I have noticed historical references during some wars centuries ago describing the Galicians of NW Spain as tough little red headed guys who were particularly good fighters. Obviously exaggeration but probably with some grain of truth. I have been in Galicia but to be honest I was in the urban tourist traps where there were far more tourists from other bits of Spain than locals so I was unable to get an impression of the native rural Gallegos and may have actually seen few. My general impression moving across the northern seaboard of Spain was at the west end they looked like Portuguese is colouring and features and as you passed through Asturias and then Cantabria they progressively got fairer and less Atlantic-Iberian in features heading east. However all of these northern seaboards Spaniards were far fairer in skin tone compared to Valencia where there seemed to be quite a lot of people who were by far the darkest skinned Europeans I have ever seen. However, IMO on the chickometer Valencia has seriously stunning women. I think in places near the West Med. you probably have genetics of a complex mix of prehistoric and historic seaborne Med. cultures, empires etc based on the Med Sea. That kind of outbreeding probably leads the high chickometer score LOL

When I was in Poland I noticed that redheads were rare as hen's teeth and then in the extreme south near the Slovak border sort of area of Poland I noticed more redheads appearing all of a sudden. That was very striking. I have no idea what that means but it was definitely a real phenomenon.

lgmayka
04-24-2015, 09:32 AM
When I was in Poland I noticed that redheads were rare as hen's teeth and then in the extreme south near the Slovak border sort of area of Poland I noticed more redheads appearing all of a sudden.
Maybe you met my relatives? :) It confuses FTDNA's MyOrigins also, which incorrectly assigns that ancient DNA to Scandinavia or the British Isles. One cousin gets told he is 12% Scandinavia; another cousin is told that he is 14% British Isles! Both are 100% rural far-southern Polish.

This is one reason that I have been pursuing Big Y tests for the R1b men in that area--to show that those lineages have been there for at least 4000 years. So far, I am succeeding.

avalon
04-25-2015, 09:02 PM
Then too there is the Hooton conclusions on the craggy large Irish skulls of Brunn type that they are radically different from typical Neolithic farmers ones. This seems to fit the elevated non-farmer input in Ireland. In my experience there are also many Scottish people with variants on these Brunn/Boreby type skulls and facial features too. They exist everywhere but the frequency is much more among the Scots/Irish. However, against the idea that these are some sort of hunter thing absorbed by the farmers is the fact that the Neolithic skulls in the isles and continent are not of this type - so if there was an absorbing of hunter genes locally then it happened after the first flush of the isles Neolithic and this requires the hunters to have survived for a few centuries after the farmers arrived - something that is controversial and not especially well attested. Also of course there is the problem that the number of pre-farming human remains in the isles is staggeringly small considering we are talking about a 4 or 5 thousand year period so it may be impossible to ever get anything other than a very broadbrush idea of the genetics.

Not that we should take physical anthropology too seriously but a study of Wales carried out in the 1910s/1930s by Fleure and Davies found that certain districts in Wales contained men who had hyper-dolichacephalic heads, and the story goes that in one district, Llandysul in Ceredigion, large, long heads with a projecting occiput were common enough that special hats had to be made for the locals.

On a more serious point, and I know you are an archaeologist, is it possible that archaeologists may in the future uncover more Mesolithic and Neolithic remains in the Isles? Boy, do we need some Ancient genomes from the Isles!

Krefter
04-25-2015, 09:22 PM
Not that we should take physical anthropology too seriously but a study of Wales carried out in the 1910s/1930s by Fleure and Davies found that certain districts in Wales contained men who had hyper-dolichacephalic heads, and the story goes that in one district, Llandysul in Ceredigion, large, long heads with a projecting occiput were common enough that special hats had to be made for the locals.

On a more serious point, and I know you are an archaeologist, is it possible that archaeologists may in the future uncover more Mesolithic and Neolithic remains in the Isles? Boy, do we need some Ancient genomes from the Isles!

Two Mesolithic and Middle Neolithic genomes from Ireland and Britain can tell us about who the pre-Celtic people of the British isles were. Bell Beaker and Bronze age genomes might tell us who the main ancestors of the two Iron age English genomes. It's safe to assume Britain and Ireland followed the same genetic trends Haak 2015 found in mainland Europe.

Maybe pre-Celtic Britain and Ireland were extremely sparsely populated. Bell beaker may have meet up with farmers not living far-above animals. So, they easily outnumbered the native pops, and replaced most of their genes. That's just a guess.

Do you think the Irish book of invasions has any historical truth to it?

avalon
04-25-2015, 09:47 PM
Two Mesolithic and Middle Neolithic genomes from Ireland and Britain can tell us about who the pre-Celtic people of the British isles were. Bell Beaker and Bronze age genomes might tell us who the main ancestors of the two Iron age English genomes. It's safe to assume Britain and Ireland followed the same genetic trends Haak 2015 found in mainland Europe.

Maybe pre-Celtic Britain and Ireland were extremely sparsely populated. Bell beaker may have meet up with farmers not living far-above animals. So, they easily outnumbered the native pops, and replaced most of their genes. That's just a guess.

Do you think the Irish book of invasions has any historical truth to it?

To be honest, I have heard of the book of invasions but don't know much about it. Irish history not my strong point

I understand that the Haak paper has suggested that Indo-Europeans replaced 75% of the ancestry of Central Europeans. Whether this figure will be replicated in the Isles, I don't know, could be more, could be less, but I guess we will just have to wait for more data.

Are two ancient genomes enough?