PDA

View Full Version : Here's another one for you - Living DNA results [relative]



Calas
02-16-2017, 02:13 AM
I got the results of another relative for ya's all.

23&me
British & Irish - 93.8%
Broad NW - 3.5%
Iberian - 2%
Broad European 0.3%
Unknown 0.4%

FTDNA
95% British Isles
3% Southern European
2% Eastern Middle Eastern


Living DNA
Ireland - 83.7%
NW Scottish - 3.5%
NW English 2.5%
Lincolnshire - 2.1%
Devon - 1.9%
Cornwall - 1.4%
Northumbria - 0.8%
North Wales - 0.5%

96.4%

Unassigned - 1.5%

97.9% British Isles

2% European South (Iberian Peninsula)


Seriously what kind of a goofball only sends this as the image but writes everything below & heads the email with hahaha. Family, as they say, you can't pick them but you're still stuck with them.

https://i.imgsafe.org/50a2a79e62.png

Calas
02-16-2017, 02:37 AM
Ah, let's make it a two for one deal. He's only done this one so, unfortunately, no comparables. Just really bored a few months ago and as we were visiting talked him into doing this.

Living DNA
South Wales - 19.4%
Cornwall - 18.3%
Devon 13.9%
South Border Wales - 12.4%
North Wales - 8.4%
South Central England - 7.6%
Lincolnshire - 3.5%
Central England - 2.8%
Northwest Scotland - 1.4%

87.7 British Isles

2.7% Unassigned

90.4% British

Europe - South - 1.8% Basque
Europe - South - 1.1% Aegean
Europe - East - 1% Mordovia

94.3% European

Asia - Central - 1.2% Chechnya
Near East - 2.6% Levant
Asia (South) - 2.1% Burusho

ADW_1981
02-16-2017, 02:44 AM
First guy is Irish, second guy Welsh?

Jessie
02-16-2017, 03:36 AM
I got the results of another relative for ya's all.

23&me
British & Irish - 93.8%
Broad NW - 3.5%
Iberian - 2%
Broad European 0.3%
Unknown 0.4%

FTDNA
95% British Isles
3% Southern European
2% Eastern Middle Eastern


Living DNA
Ireland - 83.7%
NW Scottish - 3.5%
NW English 2.5%
Lincolnshire - 2.1%
Devon - 1.9%
Cornwall - 1.4%
Northumbria - 0.8%
North Wales - 0.5%

96.4%

Unassigned - 1.5%

97.9% British Isles

2% European South (Iberian Peninsula)


Seriously what kind of a goofball only sends this as the image but writes everything below & heads the email with hahaha. Family, as they say, you can't pick them but you're still stuck with them.

https://i.imgsafe.org/50a2a79e62.png

I'm impressed with their percentage of Ireland. I'd love to see more of these results.

sktibo
02-16-2017, 06:26 AM
Where are the Irish relative's people from? if we were placing bets, my money would be on western Connacht.

Jessie
02-16-2017, 06:54 AM
Where are the Irish relative's people from? if we were placing bets, my money would be on western Connacht.

Possibly Donegal so Western Ulster is a possibility. Just going on what the Irish DNA Atlas shows, Ulster 12 and Ulster 13 are the most distant. Map below was posted by Heber in Irish DNA Atlas thread.

6350

Edit: Ulster 12 is the most distant with Ulster 13 obviously mixed in with the Scots so the two Ulster areas are actually the most distant to each other which is very interesting but obviously one is Ulster Scots and the other Ulster Irish (hope that's not politically incorrect). The other Irish areas are in between with Leinster closest to Britain after Ulster 13.

sktibo
02-16-2017, 07:17 AM
Possibly Donegal so Western Ulster is a possibility. Just going on what the Irish DNA Atlas shows, Ulster 12 and Ulster 13 are the most distant. Map below was posted by Heber in Irish DNA Atlas thread.

6350

Interesting! I wasn't aware they had charted out the Irish regions like that. I'll have to skim through the Irish DNA Atlas thread again and see if there's anything else cool that I've missed.

CillKenny
02-16-2017, 09:18 AM
Heber and I were at Ed Gilbert's talk last July. They seem to have identified up to 9 separate groups. First split is north south along the Esher Riada (with Clare in the North). The southern part was split into two with the "Leinster" group wrapping over into North Tipperary. The north had a lot more groups, which again seemed to map well into ancient kingdoms. What is surprising is the difference North/South. If the UK was any guide it would point to a large and later arrival in the south. Could be post Cambro Norman rather than ancient. We will have to wait until the paper is published or Living DNA beat them to it.

Calas
02-16-2017, 11:34 AM
The first guy is indeed Irish.

As for the idea Cambro-Norman, his ancestry is Donegal, some Tyrone, going back to the early 16th century. All Irish names, all Irish surnames. There are no Cambro-Norman/Hiberno-Norman surnames [e.g. Fitzgeralds, Joyces, Butlers, etc.]. There's also the little fact he is not a pale burns-lobster-red (he tans) Irishman but one of those so called "Black" [a dub not necessarily due to actual African ancestry but rather such were perceived as not-quite-white compared to the stereotypical Irish phenotype] Irish. His complexion is, by degrees, the same of Italian friends. There's a photo of him with his colleagues during the summer and the only one of darker complexion is the Sicilian/southern Italian. Another forum mentions a potential pre-northern [pre-nordic] Celtiberian ancestral tie for such complexions.

Yes, that god-awful Iberian myth. The Spanish Armada is amusing. How many of you have heard of the Basque whalers? Or the shell remains / snail DNA that ties northern Italy & even Portugal with Ireland?




As for the second guy he's partially Welsh, partially southwestern English. Part of mom's ancestry has chased this side around Taunton, Southhampton, & Cheltenham for as long as you hold up one hand with fingers spread. While the Welsh is Living DNA's definition of "southern" to a T. The northern Welsh is a bit surprising as they're not really northerners.

I found the south Asian interesting. You see there has never really been much merit to a Romani/Traveller connection but this rouses new thoughts on some rather ridiculous names. The Burusho could possibly support a Romani tie as Burusho/Hunza do have a Sinti genetic tie apparently.

Jessie
02-16-2017, 12:10 PM
The first guy is indeed Irish.

As for the idea Cambro-Norman, his ancestry is Donegal, some Tyrone, going back to the early 16th century. All Irish names, all Irish surnames. There are no Cambro-Norman/Hiberno-Norman surnames [e.g. Fitzgeralds, Joyces, Butlers, etc.]. There's also the little fact he is not a pale burns-lobster-red (he tans) Irishman but one of those so called "Black" [a dub not necessarily due to actual African ancestry but rather such were perceived as not-quite-white compared to the stereotypical Irish phenotype] Irish. His complexion is, by degrees, the same of Italian friends. There's a photo of him with his colleagues during the summer and the only one of darker complexion is the Sicilian/southern Italian. Another forum mentions a potential pre-northern [pre-nordic] Celtiberian ancestral tie for such complexions.

Yes, that god-awful Iberian myth. The Spanish Armada is amusing. How many of you have heard of the Basque whalers? Or the shell remains / snail DNA that ties northern Italy & even Portugal with Ireland?




As for the second guy he's partially Welsh, partially southwestern English. Part of mom's ancestry has chased this side around Taunton, Southhampton, & Cheltenham for as long as you hold up one hand with fingers spread. While the Welsh is Living DNA's definition of "southern" to a T. The northern Welsh is a bit surprising as they're not really northerners.

I found the south Asian interesting. You see there has never really been much merit to a Romani/Traveller connection but this rouses new thoughts on some rather ridiculous names. The Burusho could possibly support a Romani tie as Burusho/Hunza do have a Sinti genetic tie apparently.

Yes it is a myth and if you've looked at dna studies over the past few years you will see this. The Irish DNA Atlas once released will hopefully clear a lot of this stuff up like the PoBI has done. The best way to put it is that populations like the Irish have a similar genetic profile to people like the British, Dutch etc. These are the populations they cluster genetically with and that would not be the case if they had a larger dose of EEF. This is really why some populations have a slightly more southern pull and the English are the population with a little more EEF than the Irish which explains why they get more Southern Europe in all these tests. Another pointer is R1b-L21; this is the most dominant ydna in places like Ireland and R1b-L21 came with people like Rathlin.

simdadams
02-16-2017, 05:49 PM
Yes it is a myth and if you've looked at dna studies over the past few years you will see this. The Irish DNA Atlas once released will hopefully clear a lot of this stuff up like the PoBI has done. The best way to put it is that populations like the Irish have a similar genetic profile to people like the British, Dutch etc. These are the populations they cluster genetically with and that would not be the case if they had a larger dose of EEF. This is really why some populations have a slightly more southern pull and the English are the population with a little more EEF than the Irish which explains why they get more Southern Europe in all these tests. Another pointer is R1b-L21; this is the most dominant ydna in places like Ireland and R1b-L21 came with people like Rathlin.

Hi

I am R-MC21 which I think is under L21 and not heard of Rathlin, is that relevant to me?

Regards
Simon

CillKenny
02-16-2017, 07:07 PM
Hi

I am R-MC21 which I think is under L21 and not heard of Rathlin, is that relevant to me?

Regards
Simon

See thread

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6111-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age-migration-to-Ireland-and-establishment-of-the-insular-Atlant

avalon
02-16-2017, 08:24 PM
https://i.imgsafe.org/50a2a79e62.png

One thing that struck me is that this individual, even inspite of livingdnas limited Irish dataset, still managed to get a high irish % whereas most other posters got less irish than expected.

According to their website, livingdna are particularly short of volunteers from north munster, leinster and ulster so I'm wondering if regional sampling variation might be having an impact on results.

Calas
02-16-2017, 09:56 PM
Yes it is a myth and if you've looked at dna studies over the past few years you will see this. The Irish DNA Atlas once released will hopefully clear a lot of this stuff up like the PoBI has done. The best way to put it is that populations like the Irish have a similar genetic profile to people like the British, Dutch etc. These are the populations they cluster genetically with and that would not be the case if they had a larger dose of EEF. This is really why some populations have a slightly more southern pull and the English are the population with a little more EEF than the Irish which explains why they get more Southern Europe in all these tests. Another pointer is R1b-L21; this is the most dominant ydna in places like Ireland and R1b-L21 came with people like Rathlin.

Ah, what do you know, sarcasm just doesn't translate well on paper does it? God-awful Iberian myth. Lol.


As for those studies, well.... I'll just saya close friend & school buddy tells me quite a bit about them seeing as that's his field.


Such doesn't explain why the occasional Brit, Welsh or Irishman will have a darker complexion and stout, almost southern European [almost Greek or Spaniard] like stature, when they don't possess any recent ancestry either by DNA or paper trail from that region. Is it, like the other forum assumed, a potential pre-Nordic/Germanic ancestor?



But I do hope you know until it becomes law to DNA test no research will ever get a complete representation of a given population.

Calas
02-16-2017, 10:52 PM
One thing that struck me is that this individual, even inspite of livingdnas limited Irish dataset, still managed to get a high irish % whereas most other posters got less irish than expected.

According to their website, livingdna are particularly short of volunteers from north munster, leinster and ulster so I'm wondering if regional sampling variation might be having an impact on results.


Regional variation impacts.

But different areas in Ireland have different areas of settlement. Germans, Huguenots, Scots, British, etc. As like the "British" American families who found out that a number of their roots are actually German, or Swiss, or even French this migrational flow means that there will be "Irish" who are actually rather British or Scottish or otherwise.

Jessie
02-17-2017, 02:00 AM
Ah, what do you know, sarcasm just doesn't translate well on paper does it? God-awful Iberian myth. Lol.


As for those studies, well.... I'll just saya close friend & school buddy tells me quite a bit about them seeing as that's his field.


Such doesn't explain why the occasional Brit, Welsh or Irishman will have a darker complexion and stout, almost southern European [almost Greek or Spaniard] like stature, when they don't possess any recent ancestry either by DNA or paper trail from that region. Is it, like the other forum assumed, a potential pre-Nordic/Germanic ancestor?



But I do hope you know until it becomes law to DNA test no research will ever get a complete representation of a given population.

It's just normal variation in a population. It doesn't mean that people that are blond are Vikings or that someone darker is Iberian. No matter what sort of colouring someone has they will cluster with their fellow countrymen. This is what genetics show and something like ENF, EHG or ANE for example will stabilize in a population so it's not as if someone who has a certain colouring will differ in that regard.

They can get a good representation of a certain population if they get the right samples and this is what they have attempted to do with projects like the Irish DNA Atlas.

What is noticeable is that the hobbyists many times are more ahead of academic publications in this topic. A lot of these papers take ages to come out e.g. the big Bell Beaker paper that everyone is eagerly awaiting. It is just that they notice certain trends. Many people on here are involved in FTDNA projects and some great posters are Project Managers so they see a lot of data. I've learned such a lot from this forum and always recommend it if people want to explore genetics more in-depth. There are people on here that have a very high level of understanding of the topic. I just have a basic grasp of the topic and one way of understanding a population is seeing where they cluster and who they cluster with.

Sorry I missed the sarcasm. :) Yes it is sometimes difficult when people post to know if they are being serious or not.

Calas
02-17-2017, 02:21 AM
It's just normal variation in a population. It doesn't mean that people that are blond are Vikings or that someone darker is Iberian. No matter what sort of colouring someone has they will cluster with their fellow countrymen. This is what genetics show and something like ENF, EHG or ANE for example will stabilize in a population so it's not as if someone who has a certain colouring will differ in that regard.

They can get a good representation of a certain population if they get the right samples and this is what they have attempted to do with projects like the Irish DNA Atlas.


The interesting part is you will find phenotypic differences, or at least you once did, based on location. Dark haired, light eyed, light to mid (tanning even) western Irish & pale all-round [skin, hair, eyes] eastern Irish.

However, a curious thing, is R-M167 which I believe is of probable Basque & southern French origin found throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland even in low numbers. As well as other countries where people are noted, such as Bavarian Germans, as being a bit darker than their pallid brethren.


I find it all interesting. Maybe in due time they'll figure it out.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-17-2017, 08:02 AM
The first guy is indeed Irish.

As for the idea Cambro-Norman, his ancestry is Donegal, some Tyrone, going back to the early 16th century. All Irish names, all Irish surnames. There are no Cambro-Norman/Hiberno-Norman surnames [e.g. Fitzgeralds, Joyces, Butlers, etc.]. There's also the little fact he is not a pale burns-lobster-red (he tans) Irishman but one of those so called "Black" [a dub not necessarily due to actual African ancestry but rather such were perceived as not-quite-white compared to the stereotypical Irish phenotype] Irish. His complexion is, by degrees, the same of Italian friends. There's a photo of him with his colleagues during the summer and the only one of darker complexion is the Sicilian/southern Italian. Another forum mentions a potential pre-northern [pre-nordic] Celtiberian ancestral tie for such complexions.

Yes, that god-awful Iberian myth. The Spanish Armada is amusing. How many of you have heard of the Basque whalers? Or the shell remains / snail DNA that ties northern Italy & even Portugal with Ireland?




As for the second guy he's partially Welsh, partially southwestern English. Part of mom's ancestry has chased this side around Taunton, Southhampton, & Cheltenham for as long as you hold up one hand with fingers spread. While the Welsh is Living DNA's definition of "southern" to a T. The northern Welsh is a bit surprising as they're not really northerners.

I found the south Asian interesting. You see there has never really been much merit to a Romani/Traveller connection but this rouses new thoughts on some rather ridiculous names. The Burusho could possibly support a Romani tie as Burusho/Hunza do have a Sinti genetic tie apparently.

Whatever the explanation for the Welsh / Welsh Borders chap, we seem to have something in common in terms of geographical location of some ancestors and in terms of the Burusho. I also get North Wales as well which hasn't appeared on my paper trail as yet, but that may not mean anything as I certainly had ancestors from Radnorshire but that's as far North as I've found. :) John

Mine

Asia (Central) 2.3% Northwest Caucasus
Near East 1.8% North Turkey
Asia (South) 1.5% Burusho

sktibo
02-17-2017, 08:21 AM
The interesting part is you will find phenotypic differences, or at least you once did, based on location. Dark haired, light eyed, light to mid (tanning even) western Irish & pale all-round [skin, hair, eyes] eastern Irish.

However, a curious thing, is R-M167 which I believe is of probable Basque & southern French origin found throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland even in low numbers. As well as other countries where people are noted, such as Bavarian Germans, as being a bit darker than their pallid brethren.


I find it all interesting. Maybe in due time they'll figure it out.

I think this topic of "phenotype" is interesting as well. I don't necessarily believe it's true, but I think it's a fun topic to discuss. I'll share one of my observations about it:
As I may have mentioned before, I used to study Scottish Gaelic. It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I think one of the reasons I got into it is that more of my ancestors had origins in Scotland than in any other country. One of the great things about studying Gaelic was that I got to meet a lot of native speakers, usually from the Hebrides (I'm going to put this in here for clarification now, as I wrote about this in another thread quite a while ago and was asked about it to a degree that actually became frustrating: When I mention people from the Hebrides here, I am referring to people who 1. Spoke Gaelic as their first language, and 2. Do not have ancestry from any other place, except possibly Scandinavia, hundreds of years ago when the Norse came). What I noticed about all of these people was that they didn't look a thing like me. Even the lightest of them were darker than I am. A lot of them had dark brown eyes. I hope this isn't offensive, but most of them seemed to look like leather. I expected to see a bunch of freckled red-heads, and I found a bunch of people who wouldn't at all look out of place in Spain (perhaps this is one of the sources of that awful Iberian myth?). Now, I'm definitely not saying that there are no light-skinned Hebridean people, I'm sure there are. I just couldn't help but notice that the majority of the native speakers I encountered more or less fit this description... I think "Black Irish" is the term that Calas used... Can that be applied to Scottish people?
Anyhow, one aspect of the whole Gaelic experience I was interested in was that I wanted to find people who were similar to myself, from a physical appearance perspective. I know, it's pretty stupid. I took the Ancestry DNA test (which I believe does have a good population reference for Ireland) and to my horror I only got 6% Irish. One of the reasons I ordered from Living DNA was that I wanted to double check this. 0% NW Scotland, 0% Ireland, and only 1.9% SW Scotland/NI. It could be argued that it confirmed my observation: I ain't like these people.
Anyhow, I hope this small rant was interesting

avalon
02-17-2017, 08:21 AM
Regional variation impacts.

But different areas in Ireland have different areas of settlement. Germans, Huguenots, Scots, British, etc. As like the "British" American families who found out that a number of their roots are actually German, or Swiss, or even French this migrational flow means that there will be "Irish" who are actually rather British or Scottish or otherwise.

Are the Scots not British now? :biggrin1:

And if we're going to go down that route, then let's make a distinction between English and Welsh.

Calas
02-17-2017, 09:39 AM
Are the Scots not British now? :biggrin1:

And if we're going to go down that route, then let's make a distinction between English and Welsh.

The genetics insist that we do.

14102

That's a wide scale comparable using multiple samples. Not quite what I am talking about. If you used the genetics of separate individuals where would they place? Some Irish are going to swing English/Scottish, some are going to swing fringes, and others will even swing Continent. It is a given. Humans aren't robots. We aren't mass produced one after the other of the same programming nor genetic background.

I also find the Travellers interesting. Given as Travellers have been proven by research as a separate group to Irish, hence why they are actually being acknowledged nowadays as such and not just viewed as vagabonds, I wonder at all but Traveller 4. Are they from old Traveller families? Or among the growing number of "New Age Travellers", who like the hippie drum-beating / peacepipe smoking "aboriginals", think cause they do a few Traveller things that makes them Travellers. As another forum said about Travellers who and what they are has changed in some places quite a bit from who and what they were prior to the War.

Calas
02-17-2017, 10:09 AM
When I mention people from the Hebrides here, I am referring to people who 1. Spoke Gaelic as their first language, and 2. Do not have ancestry from any other place, except possibly Scandinavia, hundreds of years ago when the Norse came). What I noticed about all of these people was that they didn't look a thing like me. Even the lightest of them were darker than I am. A lot of them had dark brown eyes. I hope this isn't offensive, but most of them seemed to look like leather. I expected to see a bunch of freckled red-heads, and I found a bunch of people who wouldn't at all look out of place in Spain (perhaps this is one of the sources of that awful Iberian myth?). Now, I'm definitely not saying that there are no light-skinned Hebridean people, I'm sure there are. I just couldn't help but notice that the majority of the native speakers I encountered more or less fit this description... I think "Black Irish" is the term that Calas used... Can that be applied to Scottish people?

Anyhow, I hope this small rant was interesting


Rants are always interesting.

However, having been to the Hebrides, I can confirm that darker complexion. Mostly in the northern areas. Some Pictish [short, dark skinned] dregs maybe. The original Picts, after all, were not Irish Celts otherwise St. Columba wouldn't have need a translator to speak with their King Bridei IV. It is interesting in a way. "Black"/Dark Scots, "Black"/dark Irish [Picts did migrate to northern Ireland] and "Black"/dark Welsh [they've been finding indication Pictish may have fled to Wales]. You will also, occasionally, find Scots (and Irish) who look sort of Asatic. Are they? Or it is more the same way Finns were once considered Mongolians in that it is the set of their features/eyes. Then there's the rather robustic Highlander stature, if dad's "Modern 11" from MLPD is any clue an ancestral Germanic maybe [e.g. Frankish], that is dying out.

But a friend has a good comparison actually. His granduncle-in-law [married grandfather's sister] was from the Hebrides. He had two sons prior from a woman of Hebrides ancestry and they were quite "leather" in their complexion of the Spaniard/Mediterranean type. His third son, and their half-brother, was like mama [Kent ancestry] in sort of resembling a ghost he was so pale in comparison.


Though such is a good indication. People say phenotypes don't mean much. They possibly can. Some of the oldest horse, cattle & dog breeds are rather basal in their appearances. Well duh. Isolation is going to keep "odd" phenotypes and that same "odd" phenotype might just carry odd/ancestral genes that you wouldn't find among the mixed bag populations elsewhere in a country.

avalon
02-17-2017, 10:22 AM
That's a wide scale comparable using multiple samples. Not quite what I am talking about. If you used the genetics of separate individuals where would they place? Some Irish are going to swing English/Scottish, some are going to swing fringes, and others will even swing Continent. It is a given. Humans aren't robots. We aren't mass produced one after the other of the same programming nor genetic background.

I also find the Travellers interesting. Given as Travellers have been proven by research as a separate group to Irish, hence why they are actually being acknowledged nowadays as such and not just viewed as vagabonds, I wonder at all but Traveller 4. Are they from old Traveller families? Or among the growing number of "New Age Travellers", who like the hippie drum-beating / peacepipe smoking "aboriginals", think cause they do a few Traveller things that makes them Travellers. As another forum said about Travellers who and what they are has changed in some places quite a bit from who and what they were prior to the War.

The Travellers paper is an interesting read, you can see it here.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep42187#s1

From my reading of it the Travellers 4 group are Cant speakers (Shelta dialect!?) who have experienced greater genetic drift through isolation from the settled Irish population.

Calas
02-17-2017, 10:45 AM
From my reading of it the Travellers 4 group are Cant speakers (Shelta dialect!?) who have experienced greater genetic drift through isolation from the settled Irish population.

Travellers 1 & 2 are Gammon. Travellers 3 & 4 are Cant. Travellers 1 & 2 have few Rathkeales and Travellers 3 & 4 are majority Rathkeale Travellers.

Against what many a "gypsy" or "traveller" website will try to say there is a Cant & a Gammon distinction. This bit from A Dictionary of Hiberno-English: The Irish Use of English edited by Terence Patrick Dolan was interesting for another reason. What's it say by the orange star?

https://i.imgsafe.org/6d31de2366.png


So, given the Traveller placement on the chart, that distinction in language & appearance likely serves to separate an ancestral Traveller from a modernised/Irish Traveller.

sktibo
02-17-2017, 11:18 AM
Rants are always interesting.

However, having been to the Hebrides, I can confirm that darker complexion. Mostly in the northern areas. Some Pictish [short, dark skinned] dregs maybe. The original Picts, after all, were not Irish Celts otherwise St. Columba wouldn't have need a translator to speak with their King Bridei IV. It is interesting in a way. "Black"/Dark Scots, "Black"/dark Irish [Picts did migrate to northern Ireland] and "Black"/dark Welsh [they've been finding indication Pictish may have fled to Wales]. You will also, occasionally, find Scots (and Irish) who look sort of Asatic. Are they? Or it is more the same way Finns were once considered Mongolians in that it is the set of their features/eyes. Then there's the rather robustic Highlander stature, if dad's "Modern 11" from MLPD is any clue an ancestral Germanic maybe [e.g. Frankish], that is dying out.

But a friend has a good comparison actually. His granduncle-in-law [married grandfather's sister] was from the Hebrides. He had two sons prior from a woman of Hebrides ancestry and they were quite "leather" in their complexion of the Spaniard/Mediterranean type. His third son, and their half-brother, was like mama [Kent ancestry] in sort of resembling a ghost he was so pale in comparison.


Though such is a good indication. People say phenotypes don't mean much. They possibly can. Some of the oldest horse, cattle & dog breeds are rather basal in their appearances. Well duh. Isolation is going to keep "odd" phenotypes and that same "odd" phenotype might just carry odd/ancestral genes that you wouldn't find among the mixed bag populations elsewhere in a country.

Interesting! So I'm not the only one who observed that then. One thing I'll debate, however, is the Pictish influence in the Hebrides. While I have no reason to believe they weren't dark, I think the only source we have about them claims they were short and dark, I think the Gaels populated the Western parts of Scotland long before dal riata. I get the impression people think they inhabited these areas because there are some Pictish stones on Skye (4?) And one on an islet off of Lewis and Harris IIRC. I don't think this is sufficient evidence. It might mean they were there, but it's not overwhelmingly indicitave of their territory like it is in eastern Scotland. I am told the Romans recorded the Picts as inhabiting the north and north east, but the Scots as inhabiting the north-west. It seems that the north-west would indicate the coast and the Hebrides. I think this is logical because, as I'm sure you know, the water was more of a highway than a barrier in these early times, while mountainous terrain was a barrier. We can read in the story of cu chulainn that he travelled to train with the warrior woman Scathach who was on the isle of Skye. this indicates an earlier Gaelic and Western Scottish connection than the time of dal riata. I wish I had access to this study I'm about to talk about but unfortunately I'm going off memory. If anyone is interested I'll try to dig it up upon request. In university, I had the good fortune to get into a class where we spoke about Picts, Irish, and all kinds of early medieval goodness. We spent a class discussing crannogs, and being somewhat familiar with the topic, I eagerly spoke about how they came from Ireland to Scotland. My professor, much to my surprise, told me I was wrong. She referred us to a more recent study which claimed that the dendrochronological dating indicates the crannogs in question ( Western Scottish IIRC), were all older than those found in Ireland. She went on to say that it appears that the connection between Ireland and Scotland is older than we often think. So, while I don't disbelieve that the Picts may have inhabited or been to the Hebridean islands, I think it's likely the west coast of Scotland has deeper Irish roots than is often thought

Edit: I just noticed you mentioned that the Picts moved to Northern Ireland. Can you tell me more about this? It's something I haven't heard of and I'd love to know more. Thanks!

Jessie
02-17-2017, 12:52 PM
I think this topic of "phenotype" is interesting as well. I don't necessarily believe it's true, but I think it's a fun topic to discuss. I'll share one of my observations about it:
As I may have mentioned before, I used to study Scottish Gaelic. It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I think one of the reasons I got into it is that more of my ancestors had origins in Scotland than in any other country. One of the great things about studying Gaelic was that I got to meet a lot of native speakers, usually from the Hebrides (I'm going to put this in here for clarification now, as I wrote about this in another thread quite a while ago and was asked about it to a degree that actually became frustrating: When I mention people from the Hebrides here, I am referring to people who 1. Spoke Gaelic as their first language, and 2. Do not have ancestry from any other place, except possibly Scandinavia, hundreds of years ago when the Norse came). What I noticed about all of these people was that they didn't look a thing like me. Even the lightest of them were darker than I am. A lot of them had dark brown eyes. I hope this isn't offensive, but most of them seemed to look like leather. I expected to see a bunch of freckled red-heads, and I found a bunch of people who wouldn't at all look out of place in Spain (perhaps this is one of the sources of that awful Iberian myth?). Now, I'm definitely not saying that there are no light-skinned Hebridean people, I'm sure there are. I just couldn't help but notice that the majority of the native speakers I encountered more or less fit this description... I think "Black Irish" is the term that Calas used... Can that be applied to Scottish people?
Anyhow, one aspect of the whole Gaelic experience I was interested in was that I wanted to find people who were similar to myself, from a physical appearance perspective. I know, it's pretty stupid. I took the Ancestry DNA test (which I believe does have a good population reference for Ireland) and to my horror I only got 6% Irish. One of the reasons I ordered from Living DNA was that I wanted to double check this. 0% NW Scotland, 0% Ireland, and only 1.9% SW Scotland/NI. It could be argued that it confirmed my observation: I ain't like these people.
Anyhow, I hope this small rant was interesting

My family members have every colour combination but they were in the majority blue eyed but there was some with green eyes and brown eyes. My father's side from Sligo/Roscommon had quite a few redheads but also some blonds and brunettes. My mother's side from North Tipperary had no redheads but she did carry the gene herself. They were mostly blue/green eyed and out of 8 children 3 had fair hair and the rest were brown haired. Nothing unusual about them really. My mother's family all had that extremely fair skin with rosy cheeks whilst my father's side had more freckles but himself and his sister had skin that tanned very well.

sktibo
02-17-2017, 01:30 PM
My family members have every colour combination but they were in the majority blue eyed but there was some with green eyes and brown eyes. My father's side from Sligo/Roscommon had quite a few redheads but also some blonds and brunettes. My mother's side from North Tipperary had no redheads but she did carry the gene herself. They were mostly blue/green eyed and out of 8 children 3 had fair hair and the rest were brown haired. Nothing unusual about them really. My mother's family all had that extremely fair skin with rosy cheeks whilst my father's side had more freckles but a himself and his sister had skin that tanned very well.

Sounds more or less like my family. In the end, white people are white people, I suppose. Thanks for your input on this strange topic

ADW_1981
02-17-2017, 02:35 PM
Rants are always interesting.

However, having been to the Hebrides, I can confirm that darker complexion. Mostly in the northern areas. Some Pictish [short, dark skinned] dregs maybe. The original Picts, after all, were not Irish Celts otherwise St. Columba wouldn't have need a translator to speak with their King Bridei IV. It is interesting in a way. "Black"/Dark Scots, "Black"/dark Irish [Picts did migrate to northern Ireland] and "Black"/dark Welsh [they've been finding indication Pictish may have fled to Wales]. You will also, occasionally, find Scots (and Irish) who look sort of Asatic. Are they? Or it is more the same way Finns were once considered Mongolians in that it is the set of their features/eyes. Then there's the rather robustic Highlander stature, if dad's "Modern 11" from MLPD is any clue an ancestral Germanic maybe [e.g. Frankish], that is dying out.

But a friend has a good comparison actually. His granduncle-in-law [married grandfather's sister] was from the Hebrides. He had two sons prior from a woman of Hebrides ancestry and they were quite "leather" in their complexion of the Spaniard/Mediterranean type. His third son, and their half-brother, was like mama [Kent ancestry] in sort of resembling a ghost he was so pale in comparison.


Though such is a good indication. People say phenotypes don't mean much. They possibly can. Some of the oldest horse, cattle & dog breeds are rather basal in their appearances. Well duh. Isolation is going to keep "odd" phenotypes and that same "odd" phenotype might just carry odd/ancestral genes that you wouldn't find among the mixed bag populations elsewhere in a country.

From the people I have seen, highland Scots are more stout and have a tendency for dark hair. Yet the Scots reported by the Romans were allegedly long limbed and light/red haired. Then again, these were men and women in the south east of the modern country. I suspect they were derived from a different people. Perhaps they were Britons pushed north? Would that make them Belgae I wonder?

Oddly enough, I'd say my father's side(my grandparents too) has a definite Roman look to them (mistaken for "jewish" in the past). Some might consider this a Spanish or Italian look, aquiline featured and brunet. It could be coincidence that we're also R1b-Z220 but I look like my mother's side.

Calas
02-18-2017, 12:31 AM
My family members have every colour combination but they were in the majority blue eyed but there was some with green eyes and brown eyes. My father's side from Sligo/Roscommon had quite a few redheads but also some blonds and brunettes. My mother's side from North Tipperary had no redheads but she did carry the gene herself. They were mostly blue/green eyed and out of 8 children 3 had fair hair and the rest were brown haired. Nothing unusual about them really. My mother's family all had that extremely fair skin with rosy cheeks whilst my father's side had more freckles but himself and his sister had skin that tanned very well.

Jessie there is a difference between "tanning well" and actual olive skin. And not all Irish, despite the stereotypes screaming that Irish are cursed to only ever turn lobster red in the sunlight, are incapable of tanning. I just said earlier western Irish were known to tan. The Travellers avalon and I were going on about - the Cant speaking Travellers [those that can be considered more authentic ancestral] are noted by a peer as dark - dark of hair & dark of skin and likely dark of eye - yet how can that be when there's no known Romani [dark skinned sinti, etc.] ancestry to Irish Travellers?

I, for example, tan very well. But only a very short-sighted individual would say I have olive skin because anything that is covered remains porcelain fair skin. I don't doubt that your "well tanning" relative is of the same. The fact that you indicate your father has freckles supports this pale in the winter, "tanned" in the summer complexion.

Welsh were once, and still are in some areas, well known to have olive complexions. There's actually an entire chapter, or it is a book, can't remember going on about this. Less common certainly, as it isn't as widespread, but Scottish [Hebride] have the same olive complexion. It is, as mentioned, a rather Spanish look. Now would you go to Spain and tell the locals they're just "well tanned" British?

Calas
02-18-2017, 11:57 AM
From the people I have seen, highland Scots are more stout and have a tendency for dark hair. Yet the Scots reported by the Romans were allegedly long limbed and light/red haired. Then again, these were men and women in the south-east of the modern country. I suspect they were derived from a different people. Perhaps they were Britons pushed north? Would that make them Belgae I wonder?

Never heard that. What are viewed as actual legitimate Picts were described as short dark skinned [the word swarthy is used many times] individuals who painted themselves with blue dye. Pytheas - Prettanike, of what is believed to be Cornwall; then Diodorus - Pretani, people of the shapes; and last just generic Romans - Picts. It is ironic that Pictish is tied with the Insular Celtic Brittonic of which both Welsh & Cornish are potential sister groups.

The Pictish language is something of Brittonic but not quite. I mentioned elsewhere Saint Columba, a Gael, in the 8th century needing a translator. The writer of that passage specifically says the Picts spoke something quite different from Britons & Irish and what did Britons speak but Brittonic. Regardless, Gaelicisation [by Irish] started in the 5th century, seeing to the likely demise of Pictish by the 11th century if not earlier.


Regarding the red haired "Picts". Caesar himself said all Britons paint themselves with woad [dye]. Such a generic term as Pict doesn't separate the actual people/tribes as each likely had specific patterns they used to differ their tribal alliances. But as indicated above the word Pict could have possibly been applied to Cornish and Welsh alike.

But Tacitus refers to the Scottish by the word Briton, not Pict to my knowledge, as long limbed & red haired which Ammianus Marcellinus ironically said of the Gauls. Tacitus was a great storyteller by the way what with his grandeous and likely fictious speech by Calgacus at Mons Graupius. Calgacus, himself, was a Caledonian [they themselves were once seen as Britons, nowadays considered Picts for whatever reason] which ironically was marked in the 2nd century as the Highlands. Given as where exactly Mons Graupius happened is something of debate Tacitus might have been talking of Gauls, he might have been talking of Britons [Strathclyde]. He might have been talking of the Scotti, a perceived Irish influenced culture given as Ireland is not as far from Scotland as let's say Japan so pre-5th century movement isn't entirely out of the question, that existed alongside the Picts but separated by the Grampian mountains.

Personally, I highly doubt Tacitus [and whatever other Romans mentioned such a long-limbed / red haired description about "Picts"] was talking of legitimate Pretani/Picts.

sktibo
02-18-2017, 07:55 PM
"the red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point to a Germanic origin" is the translation I found of this Tacitus quote. Unfortunately, it isn't clear whether he's referring to people north of Hadrian's Wall in general or specifically to the Caledonii. I think I remember reading an account of a Scottish man described as giant and red haired killing a Scandinavian who went there by boat in a saga (with his bare hands). I tried to search it but was unable to find anything except for the warning given in Erik the red's saga to avoid the Scottish people if one lands there. If anyone recalls this source as well could you refresh my memory as to which saga it was in? Of course it's possible I'm remembering incorrectly.
I suspect the case in Scotland in Roman times was that they resembled modern northern European people. I've read accounts of Gauls and Germans being described as blonde in some accounts, red haired in others. This indicates by this time these people looked like we do today: multiple hair colours. I'm assuming a lot of them were dark haired too, but that probably wasn't as interesting to write about. A Japanese student I was giving a tour to once told me that "he didn't like Canadian girls because they're all yellow haired" I suppose when one comes from a place where almost all hair colours are dark, the light ones must be rather striking. Blondes aren't incredibly common here, the vast majority are brown haired (talking about white people).
There's some good evidence for the mixing of Gaelic and Pictish cultures prior to dal riata, I think Gaelic was encroaching on Pictish territory well before 5th c AD. It appears that Pictish language was influenced by Gaelic for quite a while before it's eventual assimilation. This article provides some evidence this, but, what I think is most interesting is that it gives a break down of a place name recorded in Pictish, old Gaelic, and old Welsh.
http://www.newsnet.scot/nns-archive/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4265:the-language-of-the-picts&catid=29:scots-leid&Itemid=104
Pictish, largely regarded as a P-celtic language, could imply they were more similar to the Britons than the Gaels from a physical perspective... Although I'm betting there was mixing with these groups fairly early on.
Another idea about Pictish physical appearance could be that due to their northern location, one that is probably more isolated, they may have hung on to the dark colouring of the original European hunter gatherers for longer. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
This article suggests that pale skin arrived a lot more recently than previously thought, (I think being brought in by indo Europeans from north of the black Sea, as well as developing in Scandinavia). It seems like this trait spread rapidly and would have been desirable (makes sense in really cloudy places with limited sunlight). I don't think it's terribly far fetched to think that because of their geographic position, the Picts received these genes later than other European people. They were described as short and dark, which is how the first arrivals into Western Europe were also described in the article.
Like always, hope this is interesting

Calas
02-18-2017, 11:42 PM
I suspect the case in Scotland in Roman times was that they resembled modern northern European people. I've read accounts of Gauls and Germans being described as blonde in some accounts, red haired in others. This indicates by this time these people looked like we do today: multiple hair colours. I'm assuming a lot of them were dark haired too, but that probably wasn't as interesting to write about. A Japanese student I was giving a tour to once told me that "he didn't like Canadian girls because they're all yellow haired" I suppose when one comes from a place where almost all hair colours are dark, the light ones must be rather striking. Blondes aren't incredibly common here, the vast majority are brown haired (talking about white people).

Picts were rather likely as being olive skinned. I said prior dark skinned. Likely, given their origins, so were Romans. Welsh are olive skinned. Far less common but you'll get olive skinned Scots and given the commentary to Avalon regarding a Traveller about other Travellers possibly Irish too.

I've actually yet to encounter a Swede or Russian who was olive skinned. Bavarian Germans sure, some southern French definitely. Northern Europeans not that common and those that do are likely of Turkish or Jewish root.


And that's the thing about hair color. It is in a way meaningless.

It is not very indicative of actual regional locations after all. Unless one is born with neon green hair you don't quite stand out. Point to a country and say that's where you get all black haired people, you get all blondes. You can't. Many people like saying Russians or eastern Slavics are very blonde. Yes, they certainly are, as per google images and stereotypes. But visit the countryside, particularly beyond the cities, and your eyes may just pop out of your head at the dark haired individuals wandering around. I am sure dark haired Scandinavians get starred at by people who have never travelled in their lives. But you get blonde Asians & red-haired Asians. You also get them in the Mid-East too. I actually have a close Korean friend, due to his Chinese ancestry, with natural auburn hair that some Irish may have just started drooling over had they met. Northern Chinese are well known for their rather "European" appearance. Same with the Ainu of Japan.


Though still generalized you can still point to a region in the world about skin tone more "accurately" than you can hair color.

sktibo
02-19-2017, 01:04 AM
Picts were rather likely as being olive skinned. I said prior dark skinned. Likely, given their origins, so were Romans. Welsh are olive skinned. Far less common but you'll get olive skinned Scots and given the commentary to Avalon regarding a Traveller about other Travellers possibly Irish too.

I've actually yet to encounter a Swede or Russian who was olive skinned. Bavarian Germans sure, some southern French definitely. Northern Europeans not that common and those that do are likely of Turkish or Jewish root.


And that's the thing about hair color. It is in a way meaningless.

It is not very indicative of actual regional locations after all. Unless one is born with neon green hair you don't quite stand out. Point to a country and say that's where you get all black haired people, you get all blondes. You can't. Many people like saying Russians or eastern Slavics are very blonde. Yes, they certainly are, as per google images and stereotypes. But visit the countryside, particularly beyond the cities, and your eyes may just pop out of your head at the dark haired individuals wandering around. I am sure dark haired Scandinavians get starred at by people who have never travelled in their lives. But you get blonde Asians & red-haired Asians. You also get them in the Mid-East too. I actually have a close Korean friend, due to his Chinese ancestry, with natural auburn hair that some Irish may have just started drooling over had they met. Northern Chinese are well known for their rather "European" appearance. Same with the Ainu of Japan.


Though still generalized you can still point to a region in the world about skin tone more "accurately" than you can hair color.

I tried to figure the difference out between "dark skinned" "olive skinned" and "swarthy" it looks to me like these are all terms to describe the same thing. The only thing that comes to mind is that the Romans wrote of the Picts as being "dark skinned" and i interpret this to possibly mean darker than the Romans, who, if i remember correctly, along with the Greeks considered themselves to be the perfect medium between light and dark.

So you say Picts were likely olive skinned, and I noticed this is also how you describe you yourself... do you fancy yourself as something of a modern Pict then?

Calas
02-19-2017, 10:53 AM
So you say Picts were likely olive skinned, and I noticed this is also how you describe you yourself... do you fancy yourself as something of a modern Pict then?

Huh? Where exactly did I say this? I mean my response to Jessie regarding skin tone on page 3 is below:


I, for example, tan very well. But only a very short-sighted individual would say I have olive skin because anything that is covered remains porcelain fair skin. I don't doubt that your "well tanning" relative is of the same. The fact that you indicate your father has freckles supports this pale in the winter, "tanned" in the summer complexion.

sktibo
02-19-2017, 05:32 PM
Huh? Where exactly did I say this? I mean my response to Jessie regarding skin tone on page 3 is below:

I thought you attributed this olive colour to yourself earlier on, looks like I was mistaken

A Norfolk L-M20
02-19-2017, 05:51 PM
Personally, i'm so fair that I can get sun burnt in January - but I think you guys are barking down a dark alley by chasing phenotypes and melanin levels like this. Okay, I'm just an admixed mutt Englishman - but if I walk into a local pub, I'll see all sorts of mixes of physical traits. Variety is the spice of life, and of selection.

MacEochaidh
02-19-2017, 05:56 PM
"Putting an Irishman in the sun may sound like a good idea, but it's like putting a fork into a microwave". Louis CK

Cascio
02-19-2017, 06:08 PM
I tried to figure the difference out between "dark skinned" "olive skinned" and "swarthy" it looks to me like these are all terms to describe the same thing. The only thing that comes to mind is that the Romans wrote of the Picts as being "dark skinned" and i interpret this to possibly mean darker than the Romans, who, if i remember correctly, along with the Greeks considered themselves to be the perfect medium between light and dark.

So you say Picts were likely olive skinned, and I noticed this is also how you describe you yourself... do you fancy yourself as something of a modern Pict then?

Was it not the Silures of Wales that were described by Tacitus as swarthy and curly-haired like the Spanish.

sktibo
02-19-2017, 06:09 PM
Personally, i'm so fair that I can get sun burnt in January - but I think you guys are barking down a dark alley by chasing phenotypes and melanin levels like this. Okay, I'm just an admixed mutt Englishman - but if I walk into a local pub, I'll see all sorts of mixes of physical traits. Variety is the spice of life, and of selection.

Got a sunburn in the rain once. Completely lacking in any ability to tan whatsoever, and then my sister can just step into the sun for ten minutes and it's a perfect tan. Stole all the good family genes, I tell you.
Totally agree with you, I do try to put a disclaimer in about it being just for fun (as in I don't take it seriously) when I post about this sort of thing. It seems to me like white folk have been decently mixed since at least 5000-6000 BCE. It's just fun and strange to discuss phenotypes and the like, and I greatly enjoy that type of conversation.
Maybe there is something to it, I can't discuss this topic with any certainty. Of course, even if there is a distinguishable pattern, I'm sure there will always be an exception.

sktibo
02-19-2017, 06:10 PM
Was it not the Silures of Wales that were described by Tacitus as swarthy and curly-haired like the Spanish.

Yeah I remember Tacitus writing that some of the tribes must be related to the Iberians, perhaps this is the source of that "awful Iberian myth" discussed earlier in the thread?

Calas
02-19-2017, 07:16 PM
Was it not the Silures of Wales that were described by Tacitus as swarthy and curly-haired like the Spanish.

Uh-huh. And you still get that sort in Wales.

Calas
02-19-2017, 07:34 PM
Okay, I'm just an admixed mutt Englishman - but if I walk into a local pub, I'll see all sorts of mixes of physical traits. Variety is the spice of life, and of selection.

The majority of whom can still likely pass in western & northern Europe, and even eastern Europe, without many batting an eye. I mean, to go with Jessie, my family is a mix of physical traits too. All ranges of hair colour - from platinum blonde to pitch black, "carrot-top" orange to deep burgundy; eye colors from light blue/green to dark blue/green & browns from light to ones like dad which are very dark brown. Some people tan, others don't. They'd still widely pass almost anywhere in western & northern Europe like many a UKer would. I mean I've seen pictures of British/UKers and all that comes to mind is "German" or "Dutch" or "French".

Olive skinned Welshman with that curly black hair they typically possess, for example, though wouldn't quite get such a free-pass card. I mean my mother's brother was once highly amused when some yobbo told him to get his "Greek arse" out of the pub. The only thing "Greek" lol about him is that Romanic / "Jewish" nose and that his not quite fair [light olive] skin tans doesn't burn.