World Families Forums - How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 03:49:41 PM
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)
| | |-+  How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?  (Read 9104 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2012, 04:13:36 PM »


I read elsewhere that there are now 58 different SNPs below U106. A few may be equivalent SNPs, but there is no doubt that the substructure of U106 is just as complex as that of P312. And those currently identified may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

I see no reason to assume that all these subclades have identical histories and distributions. We know that P312 subclades, which have been around for an equivalent time, differ considerably in their distribution. Looking at the variance of all of P312 combined tells one very little about the distribution of its subclades, which can be as diverse as M153 in Iberia is from L238 in Scandinavia. Would comparing the variance of P312 in Scandinavia with that in Iberia demonstrate that? As far as I am concerned, discussing U106 as if it is all identical is essentially pointless.

As I said above, I don't want to get involved in another ethnic war about U106, For reasons which are unclear to me, it arouses very strong passions in a number of people, so I will have no more to say on the subject here.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2012, 05:13:51 PM »


I read elsewhere that there are now 58 different SNPs below U106. A few may be equivalent SNPs, but there is no doubt that the substructure of U106 is just as complex as that of P312. And those currently identified may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

I see no reason to assume that all these subclades have identical histories and distributions. We know that P312 subclades, which have been around for an equivalent time, differ considerably in their distribution. Looking at the variance of all of P312 combined tells one very little about the distribution of its subclades, which can be as diverse as M153 in Iberia is from L238 in Scandinavia. Would comparing the variance of P312 in Scandinavia with that in Iberia demonstrate that? As far as I am concerned, discussing U106 as if it is all identical is essentially pointless.

As I said above, I don't want to get involved in another ethnic war about U106, For reasons which are unclear to me, it arouses very strong passions in a number of people, so I will have no more to say on the subject here.

I am sure you are right about the prematurity of interpreting U106 before it is divided into many more of its subclades and a decent sample looked at.  It is kind of frustrating though that only L21 and Z196 seem to spectacularly resolving into closer focus while others like U106 are not.  L21 lost its monolithic block status very quickly over the last year or two so lets hope the same happens for U106 and U152
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2012, 05:36:57 PM »

... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

I think the last bit is the crux.  How long ago was U106 in the Low Countries?  That is the reason I asked whether there is a really strong variance difference between the east and west for U106.  If U106 is say 4000 years old and it only arrived in the Low Countries in late BC (say 2300 years ago) then there should originally anyway have been a major distinction in variance between east and west.   If there is not then that would make a strong case that U106 was on the shores directly opposite SE England for far too long for it not to have made some impact.  In the late Bronze Age the Hilversum culture in the Low Countries and contemporary cultures in SE England were very closely linked. If U106 was in the Low Countries at the time then it is very hard to believe it didnt cross.  For me everything hinges on establishing the position of U106 in 2000BC, 1000BC, 500BC, 0BC etc on the continent.   Obviously a major problem is the lack of clade resolution and it is possible that they will eventually show multi-period movements of U106 into SE England from the beaker period to the Anglo-Saxons and beyond.  I am definately a believer that the SE Britons in immediate pre-Roman times were already a different mix from most of the Britons and that the simple use of everything but L21 as a proxy for the degree of Anglo-Saxon settlement could be flawed for that reason.  However, I just dont know.  Only close comparison of variance by area may help and it will remain guesswork until U106 is more resolved.  What I think its fair enough to conclude though is that U106 probably (in isles terms) denote a vastly higher chance of having SE/eastern origins within the isles and ultimate ancestry somewhere from Flanders eastwards.  I think the problem comes when trying to apportion the degree what period is responsible for these influxes into SE Britain and the temptation to give ethnic labels from the early historical period.  
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 05:39:25 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2012, 07:55:57 PM »

... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.

I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.

The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.

Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place. If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers. It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.

The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 07:58:53 PM by rms2 » Logged

Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2012, 08:10:31 PM »

As some of you may know, I'm somewhat involved in the research on Z18 and below (e.g. L257). We think to have a reasonable idea about the various migrational streams of Z18 in the past and on how to research those.

The biggest hurdle we experience in the R-Z18 group in relation to Ireland is the Complete Lack of Willingness to Communicate of Irish (and in some cases of Scotish) people once they discover to be in a "Germanic" U106/Z18/L257 clade.

We sometimes tend to make simple jokes about this, but in reality it IS a serious issue.

Is there anybody who would be able to help us get in contact ? e.g. by proposing a piece of text that might help convince an individual that we will only find out about U106/Z18 in Ireland before 0AD if the Irish join research in this area.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 04:52:36 AM by Peter M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2012, 08:18:01 PM »

Have you found very many with old Catholic, Gaelic surnames whose ancestry is well established as coming from outside those areas settled by the English and other folks with high frequencies of U106?

I just haven't seen that among U106+. Those with readily identifiable Gaelic surnames are very scarce. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are just too few and far between to be indicative of any kind of very old U106 presence in Ireland.

Good luck with establishing that there was any kind of ancient Irish U106.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2012, 09:50:48 AM »

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.
I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

Quote from: rms2
I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Quote from: rms2
The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Quote from: rms2
Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place.
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

Quote from: rms2
If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England.

I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

Quote from: rms2
It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

Quote from: rms2
The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 10:46:50 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2012, 11:06:31 AM »

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era.
'What exacly do you mean with "much further back" ? Do you mean before 0AD ? or before 250 AD ? or what ??

Would you be able to demonstrate this "good reason" with actual data ? As far as I'm aware, there isn't much (reasonably SNP tested) profile data for the Low Countries - most Dutchmen are scared to death of even the word DNA Test  $:-)

Living in the Low Countries myself, I'm very interested in your point. There's a lot of discussion going on about Low Country History on local Dutch forums and I personally am convinced DNA will tell us more about who's right and to what extent.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 11:19:47 AM by Peter M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2012, 01:05:28 PM »

... Then look at the modern distribution of U106, which speaks for itself. In Britain it is generally most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons were thickest, and where it occurs in Ireland, it is most frequent where the English held sway and settled.
Most of your arguments are fine, but this is one has little substance. I've seen Vince V argue time and time again that frequency was of little (actually no) value in determining origin. I understand that we are not arguing the origin of U106 here, but rather how it got to the Isles. Still, it is based on historical knowledge that we typically super-impose a modern frequency onto historically known groups.  

However, that is with a lack of knowledge of early or prehistoric cultures and U106 is of prehistoric age. We may be totally missing the boat because we don't understand these.  There are authors who argue there was a long period of pre-Anglo-Saxon contact/exchange across the North Sea from the Jutland/Low Countries and East/SE England.

I'm not saying any pre-Anglo-Saxon migration/contact/exchange across the North Sea was non-Germanic. It may have been Germanic. I don't know who was in England prior to the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. There is no gaurantee it was 100% Celtic. How can one prove that it was 100% Celtic?

I suppose that is the question I should ask you - Can you show strong evidence that Britain was 100% Celtic? 99% Celtic in pre-Anglo-Saxon times? pre-Roman times?
I think the Netherlands and neighboring Friesland were in non-Germanic hands until comparatively late (2nd or 3rd century BC, if I recall correctly), so U106 and I1 would not have been in position to make much of an impact before then. as early as the 3rd century AD.
We don't have to prove that Germanic languages existed at 0 AD. We know that U106 is much older (i.e. 4000 years or more) than Germanic languages. It's hard to show U106 wasn't in Britain pre-Anglo-Saxon, particularly if the Low Countries were riddled with U106 in BC times.  If you can show diversity in the Low Countries is much lower than to the east in the Baltic area or Poland/Hungary/Ukraine then it make sense that U106 burst west to the Low Countries and into England in one fairly contiguous swoop at a late  date - post AD.

If diversity in the Low Countries and Poland/Hungary/Ukraine is about the same, its hard to say U106 hasn't been in the Low Countries for a long time, since pre-Anglo-Saxon Invasion era times.  If so, it's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Low Countries to England. Do you have any genetic data that supports that U106 didn't reach the Low Countries pre-BC?

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.

I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.

The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.

Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place. If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers. It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.

The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.

I think there is little doubt that lowland Britain received more easterly pulses than the west did but the question is simply were the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings just the most recent of a pattern that was present over a much longer period of time.  I certainly wouldnt go as far as Oppenheimer and his school of thought that the Germanic aspect of lowland England is prehistoric.  Shortly after he published there was a new major study of classical references to Celtic placenames and that basically debunked the idea that there was anything other than Celtic speakers in Britain when the Romans arrived.  The upshot of that is I dont think that the influences from much beyond the Lower Rhine were strong.  I personally am in a sort of middle place between Rich and Mike on this.  I suspect that U106 was in the shores opposite SE England somewhat later than L21 and therefore lacked the first-in advantage.  However, although I think U106 was later, the question remains how much later?  It didnt have to arrive in the Low Countries as late as 100BC etc to already experience the disadvantage of being blocked by a dense non-U106 population.  Britain was described as being very densely populated by the Romans.   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2012, 01:20:33 PM »

We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millennia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Several linguists have argued for an Afro-Asiatic substrate in specifically Insular Celtic, akin to Ancient Egyptian/Coptic. That might be a clue that the incoming farmers brought an A-A language to the British Isles, just as they did to North Africa.

Quote
I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.... If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans left us evidence of the linguistic status of the British Isles when they first encountered it. See Celtic tribes of the British Isles. The whole of the isles had tribes and places with Celtic names. There are no exceptions, and that includes Belgic SE England. In the Post-Roman period that changed, and Germanic names appeared. Pretty straightforward.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 01:21:28 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2012, 01:29:07 PM »

Mike, honestly, compared with the evidence I cited, what you are talking about above is really unconvincing. Just my opinion.

It's more, "Well, maybe a little U106 leaked over to SE Britain". Maybe. But there is no evidence it did and plenty of evidence that the Migration and Viking Periods account for the vast bulk of the U106 in what is now England.
I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

Quote from: rms2
I know of no evidence for anything other than Celtic languages in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Place and topographical names attest to that. Even the idea that the Picts once spoke a non-Celtic language is not certain, and there is no evidence of Germanic languages in Britain prior to the Romans and their own German troops.
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

Quote from: rms2
The names of the tribal leaders the Romans encountered in Britain were Celtic. There are no signs of anything else. If there were non-Celtic peoples in Britain immediately prior to the  arrival of the Romans, there is no evidence of it. It seems by that time whatever non-Celtic folk there had been had become Celtic by adopting Celtic language and culture. So, I would say, yeah, by the time the Romans got to Britain, it was 100% Celtic.
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Quote from: rms2
Let's suppose for a moment that U106 got to the Low Countries early. Absent some solid evidence of early movement of U106 into SE Britain, mere proximity does not prove that immigration took place.
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

Quote from: rms2
If U106 was in the Low Countries prior to the 2nd or 3rd century BC, perhaps the bearers of it lacked the capability or opportunity to expand into Britain. There were strong Celtic tribes there. It may not have been possible for U106ers to settle in Britain in any kind of numbers.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England.

I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

Quote from: rms2
It wasn't until the Romans had worked their depredations and nearly emasculated the British Celts that Britain was ripe for Germanic settlement. As it is, the British Celts, weakened and disorganized as they were, came very near to driving the Anglo-Saxons out of Britain. When they were strong and warlike - before the Romans - the British Celts may not have been open to allowing non-Celtic settlers from the opposite coast.
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

Quote from: rms2
The pattern of U106 distribution in the British Isles, even after all this time, and after so much movement of the English in recent history, retains the imprint of the Migration and Viking Periods, with U106 (and I1) most frequent in those places where the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings settled. As one moves into the "Celtic Fringe", U106 fades.

If there was early U106 settlement in Britain, which I doubt, it is buried under what happened subsequently, in the historical period. That's when the U106 deluge took place, the deluge that altered the language of lowland Britain and created England.
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.

Mike-what sort of date would the variance of U106 in the low countries imply for its arrival there.  I am aware it is significantly lower in variance than the east.  I think last time we discussed this U106 as a whole seemed younger than p312 by a few centuries and low countries U106 somewhat younger than that.  That would sound to me like Low Countries U106 was post-beaker in date which might allow us to rule out that particular lowland British-Low Countries contact phase for U106. 

If it did arrive post-beaker in the Low Countries then that takes us to the Wessex etc period in England.  The main Low Countries cultural link with SE Britain in this period was the Hilversum culture which was essentially south Holland and Belgium rather than east of the Rhine.  So, again unless U106 was already over the Rhine by then the Hilversum culture is not likely to have seen a gene flow involving U106. 

So, in short it is important to know if variance suggests low countries U106 dates to after 2000BC or post 1500BC or whatever.  How does the variance of U106 in the Low Countries compare to the variance of L21 or U152 in the isles and France for instance.  I am guessing that the variance may suggest U106 in the Low Countries is maybe c. 1500BC but if anyone has any information I would be interested.  I think we have done this before but I cant recall. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2012, 01:50:10 PM »

I found this last round of variance discussions on U106

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10221.100

Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.  I know that there are a lot of ifs and buts in this but it would be useful if we can nail down the period when U106 arrived close to SE England.  Then we can look at the archaeological evidence for contact in a tighter timeframe.  
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 01:52:06 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Peter M
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2012, 02:33:32 PM »

Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.
What does this mean ? What kind of entity is "Low Countries U106" that one can estimate its age like this ??

Do you assume all U106 in the Low Countries descend from a single person ?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 02:34:59 PM by Peter M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2012, 02:38:35 PM »

...and for those interested in the complex prehistory of the Low countries between the end of the beakers and the Iron Age, this is probably the best summary on the net

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

In general my impression is that if U106 is signficantly post-beaker in the Low Countries then not only is the beaker period impossible as a source of U106 either there or in Britain but I would add that the post-beaker Hilversum culture of the Low Countries west of the Rhine 1800-800BC is also very unlikely to be a horizon when U106 arrived in the Low countries as it is more like the eastern extremity of Atlantic influence than anything coming from the east.  I suppose that would tend to support the notion that U106 in the Low Countries west of the Rhine is less likely to date before a fairly late period of prehistory.  That would clearly have implications for U106 in Britain.  However, it doesnt rule out some U106 entering Britain from contacts to the east of the Rhine in the later Bronze Age although I am not aware of this as a major thing.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2012, 02:44:25 PM »

Looks to me that Low Countries U106 is maybe only 60% as old as the oldest U106 areas.  If U106 as a whole dates to c. 2000BC then that could be taken as suggesting Low Countries U106 only dates to c. 1200BC.
What does this mean ? What kind of entity is "Low Countries U106" that one can estimate its age like this ??

Do you assume all U106 in the Low Countries descend from a single person ?


In the absence of detailed clade breakdown and a large enough sample all that can be done is to look at U106 as a monolith on a geographical basis.  The link to the old thread shows the results of this by both Myres et al and Mike W of this site.  It indicated that U106 'all' in the west of its main distribution had a significantly lower variance than to the east.  Its far from ideal but its the only way it how clade and haplogroup geographical prehistory is normally analysed. 

The one other method that was brought up in the last discussion is looking at U106 links between Britain and the continent though individual matching similar to that done by FTDNA on the customer's homepages.  I think this has also been looked at by Mike in a past thread.
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2012, 05:16:15 PM »

Ciaran Boylan is an Irish Catholic with a native Irish surname and he's U106. He lives in the midlands somewhere, I think.

Thanks,  Miles Kehoe
Logged

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

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2012, 07:46:21 PM »

Ciaran Boylan is an Irish Catholic with a native Irish surname and he's U106. He lives in the midlands somewhere, I think.

Thanks,  Miles Kehoe

He is nearly alone in that, and there are other Boylans who are L21+. Odd, don't you think?

As you know, there are any number of ways one can acquire a surname. If his y-dna ancestor were a Viking who fathered a male child on an Irish woman, that child would have been raised among the Irish as Irish. His male descendants would have been Irish, except for their y-dna. When surnames came along, they were in line for an Irish one.

Of course, some other scenario is also possible. The biological father could have been a Norman or an Englishman or a Lowland Scot.

An old Catholic, Gaelic surname on someone who is U106 is rare.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 07:46:58 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2012, 08:24:48 PM »

I don't disagree with you. I can't find evidence to say U106 was in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.  All I am saying is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an old adage that even Barry Cunliffe uses.

That might be the case if it was all there is, but it isn't all there is. There is the tremendous weight of known history, rather than speculation.

Quote from: Mikewww
We know there had to be other languages spoken in Britain. People had to be Britain for a couple of millenia before Indo-European languages arrived and surely the IE languages took time to become dominant.

I thought we were talking about Britain being 100% Celtic when it was possible to be Celtic, not before Celtic even existed. Of course, people in Britain spoke something else way back when. But there is no evidence they were speaking anything other than Celtic when the Romans arrived, and there is plenty of evidence that Celtic was being spoken when the Romans did arrive.

That is what I meant by "100% Celtic".

Quote from: Mikewww
I don't really care so I'm not going to dispute it but it has to be pretty hard to demonstrate an all-inclusive affirmative like "Britain was 100% Celtic."

I feel like I'm missing something here.  I thought part of the point of all of that Anglo-Saxon dominance research was how Celtic place-names were so "wiped out" in England.  Help?  What's the status of Celtic place-names in England? If they aren't very common, that doesn't necessarily mean they were "wiped out", maybe they just weren't that prevalent in the first place.

What about the Belgae and the bit about the coinage?  Is it for certain they were Celtic speakers?

Celtic influence on English is minimal, but plenty of Celtic place names and topographical names survive.

The leaders of the Belgae all had Celtic names, and their tribes had Celtic names. Could there have been a few U106ers among them? Possibly. But their advent in Britain, according to Caesar, was within living memory when he set foot in Britain.

Quote from: Mikewww
I agree, but you will have to admit that the reciprocal is not "proven" either. The absence of evidence does not prove absence.

I think you also have to admit that travel across the North Sea was not that big of a deal back in this timeframe.  We know for sure the Beakers were traveling all up and down the coasts and rivers hitting Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Iberia, etc.

What was wrong with the U106 people that they couldn't have crossed from the Low Countries to Britain early?  That's pretty hard to believe they were so "bottled up" there if they were in the Low Countries early.

But it isn't just "absence of evidence". There is plenty of evidence that people from U106-rich areas invaded Britain in the Migration and Viking periods. So, the argument is not made from an "absence of evidence".

The argument that they didn't come earlier than that (in any numbers, anyway) is connected to the distribution of U106 in Britain, its connection to Germanic peoples (no part of Britain was Germanic before the historical period), and to the fact that U106 in Britain is easily accounted for by the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions.

I don't think the danger that we might miss an "ancient British U106" is all that great that we should restrain ourselves from calling the U106 in Britain Germanic.

Quote from: Mikewww
Perhaps, but perhaps not.  All of your arguments could also be used to explain how U106 did not expand out of England to any great extent early on as well. If you admit that then you have trouble with your whole thesis that U106 must be all (or almost all) Anglo-Saxon because it is primarily restricted to England. I don't think the North Sea was really that great a barrier. Not any more so than possible tribal barriers/frontiers along what are now Wales and Scotland

I don't understand what you just wrote, because I don't see a problem.

Perhaps, again, perhaps, the Celtic tribes in Britain were a formidable barrier preventing U106 settlement before the eventual collapse that accompanied the withdrawal of Roman troops.

U106 is much more frequent in England than elsewhere in the Isles, and it is most frequent in England where the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings settled.



Quote from: Mikewww
I think you are imagining the Celts were a mighty nation. The were just bands of people who probably fought each other probably more than anybody else. I think lack of unity was their greatest weakness.
Look at the Irish Kings and how one invited in the Normans.  Of course we know of the British "scoundrel" king who invited in the Anglo-Saxons.  Do we really think these are the only two cases of Celtic leaders who allied with foreigners to fight a neighbor.  This has probably been going on for a long time.

I'm not "imagining" anything. Of course the British Celts weren't a single nation, but they were formidable enough against other barbarians whose level of organization and military did not greatly exceed their own. Before they were beaten down by the much more advanced Romans, they very easily could have kept Germans from across the North Sea - people who lived on piles of manure erected in flood zones - at bay.

It is a fact that the Germans were kept at bay, penned up in the north, for centuries by the Celtic tribes of continental Europe. After the Romans broke the backs of the continental Celts, the Germans were free to flood south and west, which they subsequently did.

Prehistoric U106ers versus prehistoric Celts would not be a contest analogous to the medieval Irish versus the well-organized, well-armed, and sophisticated Normans.

Quote from: Mikewww
Again, I'm not saying the bulk of U106 didn't come in with the traditional Anglo-Saxon era. I'm just saying there could be some, maybe more than we think, U106 coming in pre-Anglo-Saxon time-frames.

Given frequency and STR diversity, we have good reason to think U106 was in the Low Countries and the Jutland (and its neck) for a long time, much further back in time than the Anglo-Saxon era. I doubt they were inferior by any many means so it is pretty hard to believe they didn't reach Britain during or before Roman times.  How many? I don't know, but I certainly would NOT tell an U106 Irishman that he had to an "Anglo-Saxon" descendant. He very well could be, but maybe not.

That's where we differ. The evidence says it is very likely that a U106 Irishman is descended from an historical period invader. That evidence, I think, is overwhelming.

It may be remotely (very remotely) possible that there were Gaelic U106ers in Ireland in the distant, ancient past, but does that seem at all likely?

Really?

Nah.

I remember a guy (whose name I will withhold) a few years ago whose y-dna testing revealed he belonged to y-haplogroup H. At first he claimed all sorts of things about y-haplogroup H. It was "Frankish". It was some kind of Germanic barbarian. Of course, it could have been. But really? How likely was that?

Slowly but surely it dawned on him that H is primarily an Indian (as in from India) y-haplogroup. Since he could trace his paper trail back to England pretty far back in time, he finally figured out that his y-dna progenitor had probably been a gypsy (Romany). H is found among European gypsies but is otherwise rare in Europe.

I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

I would never have told that man he could be right, that maybe his ancestor was a "Frank". At the time, I pointed out to him that H is primarily an Indian y-haplogroup.

So, I'm not going to tell a U106 Irishman he descends from the ancient Irish.

Because I don't think he does.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 08:31:35 PM by rms2 » Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2012, 10:40:23 AM »

As some of you may know, I'm somewhat involved in the research on Z18 and below (e.g. L257). We think to have a reasonable idea about the various migrational streams of Z18 in the past and on how to research those.

The biggest hurdle we experience in the R-Z18 group in relation to Ireland is the Complete Lack of Willingness to Communicate of Irish (and in some cases of Scotish) people once they discover to be in a "Germanic" U106/Z18/L257 clade.

We sometimes tend to make simple jokes about this, but in reality it IS a serious issue.

Is there anybody who would be able to help us get in contact ? e.g. by proposing a piece of text that might help convince an individual that we will only find out about U106/Z18 in Ireland before 0AD if the Irish join research in this area.


Yes, I recall a quite hysterical thread on DNA-Forums by an Irish person with (he said) a Celtic surname who was desperate to "prove" that his U106 ancestry could not have been linked with anything "German" given that they were so barbarous, etc, and nothing like Celts. His arguments against U106 being of Germanic origin were 100% emotional; he would not accept any scientific argument. He only went away when we said he was completely free to believe what he liked about the origin of U106.

I have been trying to recruit more Irish men to the surname project, with limited success. So far those who have joined seem to know very little about their own family history and are looking to answers in the DNA.

I'm hoping that the Irish DNA Atlas Project will kick-start significant interest in genetic genealogy in Ireland and perhaps change some entrenched attitudes when its results are published:

http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=110&a=1966

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 10:41:17 AM by gtc » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2012, 12:02:29 PM »

The Ancient Greeks and Romans left us evidence of the linguistic status of the British Isles when they first encountered it. See Celtic tribes of the British Isles. The whole of the isles had tribes and places with Celtic names. There are no exceptions, and that includes Belgic SE England. In the Post-Roman period that changed, and Germanic names appeared. Pretty straightforward.
These are not trick question. I've just never had clarity on this.  What is the nature of the Belgic tribes? Were they purely Celtic, Germanic (I guess not), somehow mixed or some kind of variant of Celtic languages and practices?

That begs another question on the whole topic.  Is there any reason to think the Belgic tribes did not carry some U106 with them? They had Gaul on one side and Germania on the other.  The Low Countries are pretty thick U106 now.

I'll read up on your writing: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/belgicengland.shtml
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 12:18:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2012, 12:35:40 PM »

That begs another question on the whole topic.  Is there any reason to think the Belgic tribes did not carry some U106 with them? They had Gaul on one side and Germania on the other.  The Low Countries are pretty thick U106 now.

I'll read up on your writing: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/belgicengland.shtml
When I look at the Belgic "coins" map that Jean has posted and look at the R1b subclades frequency maps there is a pattern where both U152 and U106 overlay the Belgic areas to some degree.

I'll double check all of this, but I think there is a timing difference between U152 and U106 in England.  U152's diversity is lower in England that further south on the continent whereas U106's is not so discernible.  The implication being that U106 got there first.  I need to update my U106 stuff.  They do have a number of new subclades now to look at.

um.... U152's distribution in the Belgium area vis a vie U106's in the Netherlands would lead one to think there is a possible Belgae U152 link.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2012, 05:47:50 PM »

These are not trick question. I've just never had clarity on this.  What is the nature of the Belgic tribes?

They were Celts pushed out of their lands east of the Rhine by the expansion of the Germani. Once upon a time Celtic-speakers lived both east and west of the Rhine, descendants of the Hallstatt and La Tene Cultures. By 500 BC Germani had expanded right up to the Rhine, pushing Belgic tribes over the Rhine into North-East Gaul, where Caesar found them when he invaded Gaul, and also into Britain.

The big confusion has arisen because Caesar knew that these tribes had come from the territory by then known as Germania, and actually labelled some of them as Germani, while the linguistic evidence is that they were Celts. This is not to say that there hadn't been some mixing going on during the centuries. There certainly was cultural exchange as people coming out of Jutland met the Hallstatt Culture, from which Proto-Germanic borrowed the Celtic words for "iron" and "king".
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #47 on: March 29, 2012, 07:23:34 PM »

Just adding to what Jean wrote, modern Dutch and Flemish descend from Old Low Franconian, i.e., the language of the Salian Franks (a Germanic tribe), who moved into that region as the Romans withdrew. The area was originally Celtic but east of the Rhine had become Germanic in the historical period.

The Belgae may have had a lot of U152; I don't know. They could have even had a bit of U106; again, I don't know. But in either case we aren't talking prehistory for their arrival in Britain. We are talking about a time within living memory of Caesar's.

From what I last heard, the U106 distribution versus the U152 distribution in Belgium corresponds pretty well to the old Fleming (Germanic)/Walloon (Gallo-Roman) divide. The Flemish tend to be predominantly U106, while the Walloons tend to be more U152.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 07:25:49 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #48 on: March 29, 2012, 07:38:06 PM »

Just adding to what Jean wrote, modern Dutch and Flemish descend from Old Low Franconian, i.e., the language of the Salian Franks (a Germanic tribe), who moved into that region as the Romans withdrew. The area was originally Celtic but east of the Rhine had become Germanic in the historical period.

The Belgae may have had a lot of U152; I don't know. They could have even had a bit of U106; again, I don't know. But in either case we aren't talking prehistory for their arrival in Britain. We are talking about a time within living memory of Caesar's.

From what I last heard, the U106 distribution versus the U152 distribution in Belgium corresponds pretty well to the old Fleming (Germanic)/Walloon (Gallo-Roman) divide. The Flemish tend to be predominantly U106, while the Walloons tend to be more U152.


As I recall from Busby, L21 in NE France runs at about 10% right up to pretty close to the Belgian border. Did Busby have any Belgian samples? I don't recall.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know how frequent L21 is in Belgium and whether it, like U152, is mainly a Walloon y haplogroup there.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 07:38:33 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2012, 08:35:51 AM »

My general blurb on the Belgae in Britain is at the end of my introduction to the Celtic tribes of Britain and Ireland. It gives references.



Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 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 0.166 seconds with 19 queries.