World Families Forums - British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 01, 2014, 05:06:10 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?  (Read 3635 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: December 10, 2011, 12:49:20 PM »

This would seem a ridiculous topic were it not for the efforts of some to cast doubt on the "celticity" (if there is such a word) of the ancient peoples of Britain and Ireland commonly referred to as Celts. The arguments of these so-called "Celto-Skeptics" generally turn on asserting that the Greeks and Romans never called the inhabitants of the British Isles Celts in the sense of coming right out and writing a sentence like, "The inhabitants of the British Isles are Celts" and on the assertion that the peoples of the British Isles never called themselves Celts.

Classical authors sometimes referred to the inhabitants of the British Isles in the context of discussing the Celts, where the clear implication is that they also regarded them as members of that same ethnos.

For example, in writing about the Celts, both Diodorus and Strabo quote Poseidonius as follows:

"The women [of the Celts] are as large as the men and as brave. They are mostly very fair-headed when they are born. The tribes of the north are extremely ferocious. The Irish and the British are cannibals. They used to be known as Cimmerioi; now they are called Cimbroi. They captured Rome and plundered Delphi and ended by dominating a great part of Europe and Asia. They mixed easily with the Greeks and this section of them became known as the Gallograeci or Hellenogalatai." (Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78.)

Parthenius of Apamea (1st century BC) related the Greek myth of the origin of the Celts as descendants of "Keltos", the son of Heracles by "Keltine", the daughter of King "Bretannos". Interesting choice of name for that king, if classical authors regarded the inhabitants of the British Isles as something other than Celtic.

That various Celtic peoples never referred to themselves as "Celts" is no proof that they weren't Celts as we understand the term relative to language, culture, and history. The early Anglo-Saxons never called themselves "Anglo-Saxons" either. Does that mean the Anglo-Saxons weren't Anglo-Saxons? Is a tulip not a tulip because its petals never reproduce the sound "tulip" as they sway in the breeze? When my daughter Anna was a newborn, she couldn't call herself "Anna". Does that mean she wasn't Anna back then?

The Celto-Skeptics also complain that Edward Lhuyd coined the term Celtic for what we now call the Celtic languages in the 18th century, as if that somehow invalidates the classification or excludes the insular Celtic languages from it. But the Celtic languages are what they are, regardless of what one calls them. They would still have the same essential characteristics, even if one chose to call them "Asparagus" rather than Celtic. The Celtic languages spoken in the British Isles were (and are) as Celtic as the Celtic languages spoken on the Continent.

In fact, were it not for the fact that the Celtic languages were preserved in the British Isles and Brittany (and nowhere else), we would not know much about them at all.

Much of what we know about the Celts is due to what has been preserved in medieval Irish and Welsh stories and legal codes, literature that scholars believe passes down an oral tradition of much greater antiquity. That literature matches very well what many of the classical Greek and Roman authors had to say about the Celts of the Continent.

Honestly, I am shaking my head as I begin this topic and compose this first post. Am I alone in regarding the arguments of the Celto-Skeptics as essentially so stupid as to be almost beyond belief?

Perhaps I am missing their point? Clearly they cannot be arguing that the inhabitants of the British Isles did not speak Celtic languages. So, what are they arguing then? That speaking a Celtic language, having a Celtic culture, and practicing a Celtic religion aren't what makes one a Celt?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 04:08:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2011, 01:42:44 PM »

I took Latin in a Jesuit High School, and we learned Caesar's discription of Gaul. Okay, this is going to contain misspelled words and badly constucted Latin, but I'm just going from memory... and I was a very, very poor student..

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. Quorum incolent Belgai alian Aqutannai. Tertiam qui impsora lingua Celtai.

Gaul is divided into three parts, one section is the Belgai another the Aquatanians. The third by by those who in their language call themselves Celts.

Again, maybe I have only the intended meaning correct! At least, though, we have a "Celtic" speaking people referring to themselves as Celts. And we know that people speaking languages related to these "Celts" inhabitated the Isles. That seems to be an undeniable connection between people who called themselves and the people of the Isles.  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.

I just wrote this the other day... I think it all comes down to the Irish being described as a simian race. There are people in Genetic-Genealogy who can't shake that and will doing anything to make certain they are not connected to the Irish genetically. For them, Rib was a shock and L21 is an absolute horror!

Better to be linked genetically with Celts from the Continents than simian people from Ireland. They must then break any connection between Continental Celts and the Irish.

Miles Kehoe (DF23+, M222- simian Irish)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:46:11 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2011, 01:54:04 PM »

One of the main points the Celto-skeptics use is that there is no clear or substantial archaeaological trail between the continent and the Isles in the Iron Age, particularly the La Tene period.  I've always thought this was a weak argument.   There may have not been any massive La Tene movements to the Isles, but I don't think the Isles are any less Celtic because of it.  I think the Celts in all areas have their roots in the Bronze age possibly with the Beaker phenomenon.

People were probably going back and forth across the channel rather frequently.  I think the widespread distribution of L21 has put this to rest.  The Arras culture in Yorkshire also alludes to continental connections.  Also, the widespread distribution of R1b and particularly P312+ supports the frequent cross-Channel traffic model.  Not to mention iron age crania from France and the Isles were metrically very close as opposed to contemporary Germanic ones which could be distinguished from the Celtics.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 06:32:44 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2011, 02:30:34 PM »

I took Latin in a Jesuit High School, and we learned Caesar's discription of Gaul. Okay, this is going to contain misspelled words and badly constucted Latin, but I'm just going from memory... and I was a very, very poor student..

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. Quorum incolent Belgai alian Aqutannai. Tertiam qui impsora lingua Celtai.

Gaul is divided into three parts, one section is the Belgai another the Aquatanians. The third by by those who in their language call themselves Celts.

Again, maybe I have only the intended meaning correct! At least, though, we have a "Celtic" speaking people referring to themselves as Celts. And we know that people speaking languages related to these "Celts" inhabitated the Isles. That seems to be an undeniable connection between people who called themselves and the people of the Isles.  Not only that, but the people of Ireland spoke an older form of the Celtic language found in Gaul.

I just wrote this the other day... I think it all comes down to the Irish being described as a simian race. There are people in Genetic-Genealogy who can't shake that and will doing anything to make certain they are not connected to the Irish genetically. For them, Rib was a shock and L21 is an absolute horror!

Better to be linked genetically with Celts from the Continents than simian people from Ireland. They must then break any connection between Continental Celts and the Irish.

Miles Kehoe (DF23+, M222- simian Irish)

Well, this topic was inspired by some recent exchanges on Rootsweb. In one of them, Lord Voldemort reappeared to once again argue that the inhabitants of the British Isles weren't Celts.

Since the distribution of his own y-haplogroup doesn't quite fit the entire distribution of the ancient Celts, he has to try to trim away the extra bits, the geographic areas beyond the places where his own haplogroup prevails. So, naturally, he has got to argue that the folks in the Isles weren't really Celts. Once he puts the Avada Kedrava on the "Mudbloods" of the British Isles and Iberia, he can claim the title of "Purebloods" (i.e., "true Celts") for his own y haplogroup.

In other words, you pretty much nailed it, Miles.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 02:31:15 PM by rms2 » Logged

eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2011, 03:28:52 PM »

Let me add that many of the Irish on these forums, including myself, are very sensitve to the "simian Irish" attitude and we often strike back when we sense it. Many of us have been familiar with this attitude all of our lives. I was raised knowing that some people thought this way and that they would never change.

This isn't to excuse my actions or the actions of other Irish on these forums when we have defended ourselves in an unruly matter, but it may give some understanding to our actions. Just the other day on the Yahoo L21 fourm Irish guys came out of the woodwork to decry Anti-Irish bigotry.

Maybe too often, and without just cause, we sense that people are trying to wash themselves of any genetic connection with we "simian Irish".

Miles Kehoe
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 03:29:25 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2011, 03:49:33 PM »

I've seen it, too. It's incredible.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2011, 04:29:24 PM »


Has Dr. Faux been reincarnated as Lord Voldemort?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2011, 06:31:01 PM »

One of the main points the Celto-skeptics use is that there is no clear or substantial archaeaological trail between the continent and the Isles in the Iron Age, particularly the La Tene period.  I've always thought this was a weak argument.   There may have not been any massive La Tene movements to the Isles, but I don't think the Isles are any less Celtic because of it.  I think the Celts in all areas have their roots in the Bronze age possibly with the Beaker phenomenon...
I agree. I think this is the key. The Atlantic Bronze Age is NOT well understood when compared to the later movements of Hallstatt and La Tene Celts.

I'm afraid Alan will tell us there is no such thing, but is there an Atlantic Bronze Age dig that Atantic coastal people could hang on our hats on as the Jersey Island or La Rochelle or Whittlesey Celts?   http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/archaeologists-hail-significant-bronze-age-find-in-uk-531692.html

The one that makes the most sense to me is the Amesbury Celts, but alas, since he didn't write anything down we can't prove what his language was.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 07:57:09 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2011, 07:53:41 PM »

Let me add that many of the Irish on these forums, including myself, are very sensitve to the "simian Irish" attitude .....Just the other day on the Yahoo L21 fourm Irish guys came out of the woodwork to decry Anti-Irish bigotry....
Miles,
If you are talking about the guy with the Welsh STR signature identity I don't think he has as anything to do with "simian" stuff.  That all happened in America, right? If my intuition is right, that guy is actually in the U.K. and I think the out of the woodwork Irish stuff was just his venting about me.

I booted a guy off a few weeks back in a discussion about aggressive SNP testing after he got carried with some things that were denigrating. Somewhere in there I made a joke about my good fortune this year on the SNP front and said it must be the "luck of the Irish." The discussions several weeks back with the other identity of this STR signature and were eeriely similar.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 07:54:51 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2011, 11:33:16 PM »

Ceaser described the Celts as the red hair blue eyed types  but later another Roman author there is some mention of the Silures from S Wales  as being the short dark type but I don't recall the being defined as a separate race from the rest of the inheritance of Britain. As for the anti-Irish s*** I live with it, I've been told we have no History, race culture, are in league with the devil etc. This has even been broadcast on British TV.  I'll say nothing about what I think of these people but some are given academic status and their ramblings just hinder open minded peoples search for the truth. While I'm at it I have to laugh at people who look at Wikipedia and like then tell me how to speak my own language.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2011, 09:44:06 AM »


Has Dr. Faux been reincarnated as Lord Voldemort?

As for Tom Riddle, we're still trying to locate all the horcruxes.

Who's that other fellow? ;-)
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2011, 10:06:34 AM »

Ceaser described the Celts as the red hair blue eyed types  but later another Roman author there is some mention of the Silures from S Wales  as being the short dark type but I don't recall the being defined as a separate race from the rest of the inheritance of Britain. As for the anti-Irish s*** I live with it, I've been told we have no History, race culture, are in league with the devil etc. This has even been broadcast on British TV.  I'll say nothing about what I think of these people but some are given academic status and their ramblings just hinder open minded peoples search for the truth. While I'm at it I have to laugh at people who look at Wikipedia and like then tell me how to speak my own language.  

It seems to me that, for the most part, here in the USA, people have a very positive view of Ireland and the Irish. Of course, part of that is due to the fact that the Irish provided one of the biggest immigrant groups in U.S. history, and almost everybody here has some Irish ancestry - seriously. And if they don't actually have it, they claim it anyway come St. Patrick's Day!

But the history of anti-Irish sentiment is a tangled one as it manifests itself today. Part of it is due to an animus toward the Catholic Church, and that has roots in the bitterness attendant upon the Reformation and its aftermath, with persecutions and martyrdoms on both sides.

Another factor is the old "Aryan myth", which in the British Isles manifested itself in the picture of waves of conquering blond "supermen" periodically arriving but always from the southeast (conveniently for the English). From early on, the idea was that these "Aryans" did not make much of a racial or genetic impact on the "Celtic Fringe" but only managed to change its language and culture from some sort of Neolithic Basque holdover to Celtic.

If you doubt this, read some of the older works of history.

This old view was compounded when Wells, Oppenheimer, Sykes and others propounded the idea that R1b came out of the Cantabrian Ice Age Refuge after the last Ice Age, repopulated the British Isles, and pretty much sat pat, always receiving everything they had and have from more recent arrivals from the East. Honestly, how is that much of a change from the old Aryan myth?

The notion was, and still is in some quarters, that our R1b ancestors were the passive, Stone Age recipients of linguistic and cultural innovations, which apparently washed over them as they sat like dumb starfish forever anchored in the same tidal pool.

Read Oppenheimer and Sykes. Who are their big, active players? "Sigurd" (R1a) and "Wodan" (I1), that's who!
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 12:29:04 PM by rms2 » Logged

seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2011, 12:09:27 PM »

As for the anti-Irish **** I live with it, I've been told we have no History, race culture, are in league with the devil etc. This has even been broadcast on British TV.

Well, imagine how we Jewish-Celtic-Irish-L21** folks feel... life was so much simpler when I thought I was descended from some wandering middle eastern desert pastoralists that ended up in the Promised Land. Actually, I still think so but just can't find the SNPs to support it.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

jerome72
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2011, 02:01:14 PM »

British Celts: Were They Truly Celts?

Today, the Celts are the irish, welsh, scots and bretons.
 These are the only ones who speak a Celtic language and / or who identify as Celtic culture.
 Other: English, French, Spanish, Swiss, Italian, Belgian, ect.. are not it any more, even if they were it!
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 02:01:29 PM by jerome72 » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2011, 03:06:04 PM »

To be honest the whole idea of a Celtic race rather than language/cultural group is not really seen as valid by most academics in the field.  There are a lot of very old fashioned ideas floating about on the internet and it sometimes feels like a lot of people are reading very old books.  The internet seems to have brought revived a lot of old pre-WWII ideas that really shouldnt have seen the light of day again. 

I think the problem people have is getting their head around the idea that the Celts just didnt suddenly appear fully formed in a 'wave' or number of 'waves'.  What we call Celticity was basically the outcome of a long period of interaction and evolution among the people of temperate western Europe.  The old style archaeological maps with an oval blob for the homeland somewhere near the Alps with arrows coming out of in all directions are nonsense. The formation of the Celts as they first appear in history was probably a very complex process that took thousands of years.  L21 in the isles and U152 in west-central Europe (not to mention other clades) all have local variance dates that long predate La Tene, Hallstatt, urnfield etc.  The spread of these clades judging by local variance seems to be much older in both the isles and west-central Europe than any of these cultures traditionally associated with Celts.  From memory the variance suggests the isles were settled by p312 clades very soon after there coming into existence.  However, Iberia, Italy and Scandinavia were younger , suggesting they might be secondary later settlements.   

The only thing that forms a common denominator of all the known former Celtic is p312 as a whole.  However, I dont think anyone can claim to know for sure that when P312 arrived in many area the people were already Celts as such.  West Indo-Europeans maybe .

Its good to finally see old obsession with La Tene-Hallsatt-Urnfield being challenged.  In reality all we know for sure is that in a late state of the history of the Celts, some of them adopted an art style that had become prestigious because it was used by a rich chiefdom in the Marne-Moselle area that lay on an important trade node.  The archaeology rarely indicates much more than the adoption of the metalwork and often house types, burial traditions, pottery did not change indicating only contact or very very modest movement.  I think people have been misled by the simple upheaval of Celtic tribes into Italy and the east in the late centuries BC and see this as the norm.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2011, 03:41:30 PM »

That's all true, although I do think it is possible to use y-dna to make a reasonable guess that one's ancestors were Celts rather than Germans, Balts, or Slavs, for example.

Having a British Isles surname and having tested L21+, I identify (or choose to identify) as a person of Celtic ancestry. Thus, I am very much interested in Celtic history, language, and culture. That represents the consequence of a reappraisal for me, since I grew up thinking I was some kind of Viking, Anglo-Saxon or German. It was y-dna testing that inspired that reappraisal.

I agree about P312. Its distribution matches the overall distribution of the ancient Celts much better than any single one of its subclades does. Of course, P312 also occurs fairly frequently in places like Scandinavia where the Celts either never were or left little or no archaeological trace of themselves.

What baffles me are the likes of scholars like Simon James and John Collis, chief among the "Celto-Skeptics". Their arguments don't make any sense to me. What are they driving at? That the continental Celts were the "true Celts" and the insular Celts just after-market knock-offs?

On the Rootsweb thread that inspired this one, Karkaroff (I'm sticking with the Harry Potter pseudonyms) implied that there were no Celts in Western Europe, that only R1as can claim any sort of original status as Celts, since they are the only "true" Indo-Europeans. In his view, we all, including those in Voldemort's clade, are after-market knock-offs.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 03:49:13 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2011, 06:41:55 PM »

That's all true, although I do think it is possible to use y-dna to make a reasonable guess that one's ancestors were Celts rather than Germans, Balts, or Slavs, for example.

Having a British Isles surname and having tested L21+, I identify (or choose to identify) as a person of Celtic ancestry. Thus, I am very much interested in Celtic history, language, and culture. That represents the consequence of a reappraisal for me, since I grew up thinking I was some kind of Viking, Anglo-Saxon or German. It was y-dna testing that inspired that reappraisal.

I agree about P312. Its distribution matches the overall distribution of the ancient Celts much better than any single one of its subclades does. Of course, P312 also occurs fairly frequently in places like Scandinavia where the Celts either never were or left little or no archaeological trace of themselves.

What baffles me are the likes of scholars like Simon James and John Collis, chief among the "Celto-Skeptics". Their arguments don't make any sense to me. What are they driving at? That the continental Celts were the "true Celts" and the insular Celts just after-market knock-offs?

On the Rootsweb thread that inspired this one, Karkaroff (I'm sticking with the Harry Potter pseudonyms) implied that there were no Celts in Western Europe, that only R1as can claim any sort of original status as Celts, since they are the only "true" Indo-Europeans. In his view, we all, including those in Voldemort's clade, are after-market knock-offs.

R1a?  lol  R1a has a distribution that is almost the reverse of where we know the Celts were located.  

A lot of the ideas about some sort of 'real' Celts in central Europe and pre-Celts who had learned Celtic elsewhere does come back to the Hubert idea that all the Celts were in Germany until late on, something that is very unlikely to be factual.  The reality is the best evidence for Celts is and always has been France.   The evidence for Celts east of the Rhine and north of the Danube has always been very limited and a recent book on Celtic placenames in ancient sources reiterated that most Celtic placenames do indeed correspond to Gaul with a narrow tail along the upper Danube.  I think Hubert's theory is losing ground.  After all, the Celtic part of Gaul par excellence is Gallia Celtica and that was essentially France between the Garronne and the Seine extending inland to the Swiss Alps but excluding the Med.  As has been pointed out, Celtica and indeed the position of the tribes actually called the Celti, Celtici etc bears far more resemblance to the Atlantic trade network of the later Bronze Age than it does to Urnfield which was contemporarly with it.  I think there are huge questionmarks over the whole idea of the urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene sequence as being the root of the Celts.  I am not denying that some Celts had those styles at some points.  I just no longer believe that they are at the root of Celticity.  

I have slowly been won over by the Atlantic model but IMO it needs a bit of work too.  People tend to get a little too obsessed about the Iberia connection because of the  odd internet phenomenon of obsession with the Milesian myth but the connection is actually much stronger between the isles and north and western France as far as I can see from the distribution maps of metalwork types and really the juxtaposition of two extremes - central Europe v Iberia tends to miss the centre of gravity in France (Celtic Gaul).
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 06:43:20 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2011, 08:08:53 PM »


Has Dr. Faux been reincarnated as Lord Voldemort?

As for Tom Riddle, we're still trying to locate all the horcruxes.

Who's that other fellow? ;-)

If these are references to Harry Potter, I don't know much about it, so I have no idea what you're saying.
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2011, 09:38:57 PM »

Let me add that many of the Irish on these forums, including myself, are very sensitve to the "simian Irish" attitude .....Just the other day on the Yahoo L21 fourm Irish guys came out of the woodwork to decry Anti-Irish bigotry....
Miles,
If you are talking about the guy with the Welsh STR signature identity I don't think he has as anything to do with "simian" stuff.  That all happened in America, right? If my intuition is right, that guy is actually in the U.K. and I think the out of the woodwork Irish stuff was just his venting about me.
I booted a guy off a few weeks back in a discussion about aggressive SNP testing after he got carried with some things that were denigrating. Somewhere in there I made a joke about my good fortune this year on the SNP front and said it must be the "luck of the Irish." The discussions several weeks back with the other identity of this STR signature and were eeriely similar.

Mike,
    The "simian Irish" goes way back in the History of Irish/English relations. It flared in America when the Catholic Irish arrived during the famine years, but we were long an "inhuman race" to the English in the Isles.
     When I said "out of the woodwork" I was talking about the Irish posters' response to the "Welsh guy's" post. There was a guy called Seamus O'Neill who responded and I believe he said it was his first time posting on the forum. I was very glad to see the Irish response come out of the woodwork!
     And I still believe that the "Welsh guy's" post shows the same basic fear that many have of being geneticaly connected to the inhuman and/or simian Irish people. This holds true for some British in the Isles as well as non-Irish Americans of British ancestry.
     I remember seeing William Buckley interviewing a high ranking British MP about politics in the north of Ireland, and the MP said something like, "The Irish of Northern Ireland are the only Irish who enjoy a British standard of living". Buckley went through all of his facial gyrations and said something like, "I can't speak for all Irish families, but I can safely tell you that no Irishman in my family ever asked for a British standard of living". The show was being filmed live in Boston and the crowd went wild (even though Buckley as a Conservative was in unfriendly territory)! The MP had a look of utter shock. I'm sure to him it was strange that apes wouldn't want to live as humans. I'd bet that MP wouldn't want to be found geneticaly connected to any Irish guy!

Thanks, Miles Kehoe (inhuman Irish beast!)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 09:45:31 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2011, 12:02:45 AM »

Let me add that many of the Irish on these forums, including myself, are very sensitve to the "simian Irish" attitude .....Just the other day on the Yahoo L21 fourm Irish guys came out of the woodwork to decry Anti-Irish bigotry....
Miles,
If you are talking about the guy with the Welsh STR signature identity I don't think he has as anything to do with "simian" stuff. ......
Mike,
    The "simian Irish" goes way back in the History of Irish/English relations. It flared in America when the Catholic Irish arrived during the famine years, but we were long an "inhuman race" to the English in the Isles.
     When I said "out of the woodwork" I was talking about the Irish posters' response to the "Welsh guy's" post. There was a guy called Seamus O'Neill who responded and I believe he said it was his first time posting on the forum. I was very glad to see the Irish response come out of the woodwork!
     And I still believe that the "Welsh guy's" post shows the same basic fear that many have of being geneticaly connected to the inhuman and/or simian Irish people. This holds true for some British in the Isles as well as non-Irish Americans of British ancestry.
     I remember seeing William Buckley interviewing a high ranking British MP about politics in the north of Ireland, and the MP said something like, "The Irish of Northern Ireland are the only Irish who enjoy a British standard of living". Buckley went through all of his facial gyrations and said something like, "I can't speak for all Irish families, but I can safely tell you that no Irishman in my family ever asked for a British standard of living". The show was being filmed live in Boston and the crowd went wild (even though Buckley as a Conservative was in unfriendly territory)! The MP had a look of utter shock. I'm sure to him it was strange that apes wouldn't want to live as humans. I'd bet that MP wouldn't want to be found geneticaly connected to any Irish guy!
Thanks, Miles. I didn't even know about the simian Irish thing until you brought it up.  My immigrant paternal lineage person came from Ireland to Boston in 1848/9, learned masonry, and was in Iowa by 1860.

I am very aware that my paternal lineage family folklore has a great disdain for Oliver Cromwell. They also suffered in the potato famine which is why I'm where I'm at - that and the English policies related to it and the land.

However, and this is the great thing about Americanism, as my ancestry became farmers in Iowa and Nebraska, all was water under the bridge. We are regular Americans. We married into English, Scots-Irish, German, Slavic and AmerIndian families. We were equals among dirt workers.

I am proud when the Irish speak up. I am glad that Churchill recognized
Quote
...upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell.

Nevertheless, I have listened to William Buckley and Luis Rukeyser and I've enjoyed them immensely.  That's not to say I agree with all of their commentary.  I am proud of King Alfred and the English language. Oh yes, I think Benny Hill is hilarious. Now as far as the royalty and snobbery, they are something else....  but my feelings lie with Americanism here too - no royalty here without a fight. A good one.

This may not be well understood, but I see all of these arguments as the left hand fighting the right hand or foot or whatever. They are all apart of me, including the Slav, which is whence the Russians (and Klyosov) come.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 12:29:10 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2011, 12:42:44 AM »

Well, imagine how we Jewish-Celtic-Irish-L21** folks feel... life was so much simpler when I thought I was descended from some wandering middle eastern desert pastoralists that ended up in the Promised Land. Actually, I still think so but just can't find the SNPs to support it.
You may well be. We have Skepto-Celticism, but we also have skeptism about the origins of Jewish ancestry.

R-L23xL51, as far as I'm concerned, came out of SW Asia... from where I do not know.

R-L51xL11's remnants appear to be of a single parallel clade so their geographic dispersion is of no value.

R-L11* is dispersed all over the place so we can't tell much from them either.

R-L11*, U106 and P312 are very closely related... not that many generations between their common ancestors. L21 is close to as old as P312.

L21 may have been slow or lucky to develop before its great expansion, probably starting from France, but in that slow or lucky-survival period, it could have originated a long way east. Its forefathers certainly did.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 12:47:44 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2011, 04:41:32 AM »

It is ironic that Oliver Cromwell was probably L21+ himself, since he was Welsh in his y-dna line, which descended from Morgan ap William, who married Katherine Cromwell, an elder sister of the famous Earl of Essex and minister to Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell. The family, which had the surname Williams, adopted the name Cromwell, probably because it was English and not Welsh and because of its political connections.

It is also ironic that a "Welsh guy" would mouth off about the Irish, given that the Welsh, like the Irish, have suffered at the hands of the English and Wales had so much late-Roman and post-Roman period Irish settlement that Irish ancestry is a significant part of the Welsh story.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 05:17:00 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2011, 04:47:18 AM »

If these are references to Harry Potter, I don't know much about it, so I have no idea what you're saying.

You're probably not the only one, but they are amusing to me and probably better than using the real names, especially since they are so apropos.

I've read all the Harry Potter books and found them enjoyable, plus I'm living with the Potter phenomenon right now because my nine-year-old daughter has read them all, too, loves the films, and plays the video games.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 04:47:43 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2011, 05:09:00 AM »

. . .

However, and this is the great thing about Americanism, as my ancestry became farmers in Iowa and Nebraska, all was water under the bridge. We are regular Americans. We married into English, Scots-Irish, German, Slavic and AmerIndian families. We were equals among dirt workers . . .

Well said.

How's this? Not only am I Irish on both my mother's and father's sides, but I am related to (but not descended from) Cromwell on my mother's side!

Like I said, I am NOT descended from Oliver Cromwell (saints be praised!), but I am descended from Edith Cromwell, who was the wife of Christopher Gist, my immigrant 7th great grandfather in my mom's surname line. I think she was Oliver Cromwell's niece, but I don't recall the exact relationship, since it has been awhile since I have even thought about it. Anyway, Edith Cromwell was one of my 7th great grandmothers.

Here is some more irony. Christopher Gist and his wife Edith Cromwell were Quakers who settled in Baltimore, in the Catholic colony of Maryland, in 1679, to escape religious persecution at home in England.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 05:12:58 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2011, 05:43:14 AM »



R1a?  lol  R1a has a distribution that is almost the reverse of where we know the Celts were located.  

A lot of the ideas about some sort of 'real' Celts in central Europe and pre-Celts who had learned Celtic elsewhere does come back to the Hubert idea that all the Celts were in Germany until late on, something that is very unlikely to be factual.  The reality is the best evidence for Celts is and always has been France.   The evidence for Celts east of the Rhine and north of the Danube has always been very limited and a recent book on Celtic placenames in ancient sources reiterated that most Celtic placenames do indeed correspond to Gaul with a narrow tail along the upper Danube.  I think Hubert's theory is losing ground.  After all, the Celtic part of Gaul par excellence is Gallia Celtica and that was essentially France between the Garronne and the Seine extending inland to the Swiss Alps but excluding the Med.  As has been pointed out, Celtica and indeed the position of the tribes actually called the Celti, Celtici etc bears far more resemblance to the Atlantic trade network of the later Bronze Age than it does to Urnfield which was contemporarly with it.  I think there are huge questionmarks over the whole idea of the urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene sequence as being the root of the Celts.  I am not denying that some Celts had those styles at some points.  I just no longer believe that they are at the root of Celticity.  

I have slowly been won over by the Atlantic model but IMO it needs a bit of work too.  People tend to get a little too obsessed about the Iberia connection because of the  odd internet phenomenon of obsession with the Milesian myth but the connection is actually much stronger between the isles and north and western France as far as I can see from the distribution maps of metalwork types and really the juxtaposition of two extremes - central Europe v Iberia tends to miss the centre of gravity in France (Celtic Gaul).


I think Hubert really saw the Celts as originally Beaker Folk, but he did bring them from the East originally, as I recall, rather than out of France by way of Iberia.

I agree with you about the Atlantic model. I look forward to seeing how things go with Koch's idea of Celtic having emerged as a lingua franca among IE speakers in the Atlantic Bronze Age trading network.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 19 queries.