World Families Forums - Is L21 Really Celtic?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 26, 2014, 02:16:35 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)
| | |-+  Is L21 Really Celtic?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is L21 Really Celtic?  (Read 5333 times)
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« on: July 24, 2012, 09:22:46 AM »

Moderator, the disclaimer which I posted was merely to clarify to fellow contributors that this thread and its title was not, as indicated, authored by myself but created by your decision to relocate a comment from another thread and give it the title 'Is L21 Really Celtic'. Of course I fully understand your reason in doing so, hope equally you will respect my wish to clarify.


"Disclaimer" deleted by the moderator. Don't add "disclaimers" after the fact. The decision to split off a topic is mine to make. The original post appears below unaltered and unedited.

-rms2


Indeed the attempt, minus definitive testable evidence, armed only with reasoned speculation and statistics, to pin-down particular ethnological groups to a specific  SNP /Haplogroup is akin to the task of Tantalus. That of course does not stop some from insisting that L21 is 'Celtic'. Given such claims and the fact that developments can always unearth previously discarded or unimagined results, it is understandable that folks maintain an open mind.  
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 06:26:20 AM by whoknows » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2012, 10:18:44 AM »

I think that some of the Maetae and Caledonians would belong to U198 subgroup.There are a lot of those folks in Eastern Scotland and most Bronze age graves were found there.



This sounds interesting:

Quote
He said people from south and north Wales genetically have “fairly large similarities with the ancestry of people from Ireland on the one hand and France on the other, which we think is most likely to be a combination of remnants of very ancient populations who moved across into Britain after the last Ice Age.

“And potentially also, people travelling up the Atlantic coast of France and Spain and settling in Wales many thousands of years ago”.


That "Ireland . . . and France" bit sounds like L21. There's plenty of L21 in England, too, but perhaps they're looking at overall percentages. Wales as a whole probably has a higher frequency of L21 than England. But maybe a large part of this is autosomal. It would be interesting to see the report itself.

Sounds like it is coming out of the People of the British Isles Project, since the Wellcome Trust was mentioned.

I hope they don't try to tie that "last Ice Age" stuff to L21.

I wish someone would identify the haplotypes of the early inhabitants of Scotland/Midlands, the so-called Caledonians and Maetae (sp).  These folks were "native " to the area, it is all they apparently knew until Rome came.

What if R-L21 turns out to be older than is commonly thought on this board?  Would it surprise you?  Of course, but thats because of the acceptance that variance/diversity describe the mutational Y STR process.  I think that has been shown to be questionable at best.  So, in some sense, you are back to square one on dating.

I, freely admit that I don't have a handle on times greater than 2K back in time.  What data do you have that says it is so and how did you verify it??
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2012, 10:54:07 AM »

Indeed the attempt, minus definitive testable evidence, armed only with reasoned speculation and statistics, to pin-down particular ethnological groups to a specific  SNP /Haplogroup is akin to the task of Tantalus. That of course does not stop some from insisting that L21 is 'Celtic'. Given such claims and the fact that developments can always unearth previously discarded or unimagined results, it is understandable that folks maintain an open mind.  

The only "definitive testable evidence" that will amount to absolute proof will be when ancient y-dna is obtained from the corpse of someone widely recognized to have been some kind of Celt. Even then someone will probably demand a thousand more such results before accepting that this or that y haplogroup prevailed among the Celts.

In the meantime, it is not impossible to draw reasonable inferences from the distributions of y-dna haplogroups. The distribution of P312 in general corresponds very well with that of the ancient Celts. Of course, P312 shows up in some places, like Scandinavia, that aren't known to have been occupied by the Celts in ancient times, but that is the exception to the general rule.

And some subclades of P312, like L21 and U152, fit the distribution of the ancient Celts extremely well. L21 has a more northwestern Celtic distribution that includes the Isles, while U152 fits the Central European (and into eastern and central France) Celtic profile very well. Of course, the two overlap.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It seems to me that one would have to be really ignorant of history or willfully blind to miss the glaringly obvious connection between L21 and U152 and the Celts.

But now that you have pointed out my folly, I will be sure to tell all those O'Tooles, Kellys, Murphys, Mc-Thises and Mac-Thats when they join the R-L21 Plus Project to be sure not to think of themselves as Celts! ;-)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:40:58 PM by rms2 » Logged

inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2012, 11:17:17 AM »

You forgot about the McOthers!
Logged

I-L126
H3
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2012, 11:19:28 AM »

You forgot about the McOthers!

Oh, yeah!

And I should have included your y haplogroup among the likely Celts, since I definitely think it fits the bill.

But I was answering a charge about L21, so I temporarily forgot.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:41:33 PM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2012, 11:21:00 AM »

'Reasonable inference' yes indeed, proven empirical fact, no.

As to the pretty maps they are helpful indicators, but limited in the sense of being derived from statistics which may or may not be flawed, self-selective or partial. As such they give a flavor only, not conclusive proof. As was noted elsewhere, a  problem with these theories is that they look at modern populations, not those of Europe about several thousand years ago when P312 and L21 may likely have first emerged.

Regarding those who belong to L21 who wish to consider themselves to be 'Celtic' go ahead its a free world, it may run contrary to the genetic lineage of individuals who surely have a number of contributing Haplogroups and various Clades in their familiy ancestry but never let such inconvenience get in the way of choosing to associate oneself with a specific ancient ethnology.

Those in Ireland would also need to examine with care the paucity of La Tene or Halstatt archaeology before accepting as truth the troubling equation that runs L21 dominates in Ireland,  that country is 'Celtic' therefore L21 is 'Celtic' Indeed people no doubt arrived and established a population base in that land long before the establishment of 'Celtic' culture
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 11:23:26 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2012, 11:35:54 AM »

Well, if you want "proven, empirical fact", here goes.

Celtic has to do with language and culture. Those whose culture and language are Celtic are Celts. In every single area where Celtic languages are still spoken, and where the culture is thought of as Celtic, L21 is the predominant y haplogroup.

Those are facts.

Thus far, the oldest R1b found in Europe were the two male Beaker Folk found at Kromsdorf in Germany. They were both R1b (xU106). One of them was R-M269. With the other, they got as far as R-M343 but couldn't quite nudge a result (positive or negative) out of his old y-dna for M269. A number of scholars have theorized that the Beaker Folk were responsible for the spread of Italo-Celtic. That fits the distribution of P312 and especially of L21 and U152 exceptionally well.

It isn't likely that L21 predates the Bronze Age in Ireland or anywhere else. It isn't old enough.

As for equating "Celtic" with Hallstatt and La Tene, that is an error. Celtic languages, particularly of the older, Q-Celtic variety like that spoken in Ireland, predate Hallstatt and La Tene by well over a thousand years.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:40:08 PM by rms2 » Logged

inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 11:46:55 AM »

Isn't one of the problems that the term celtic has been mis-used so much over the years, many still think of it as an ethnic label and even a racial one. It has also been used as a nationalistic label. Then there's the new agey types who have na attraction to the term.
So really the term celtic seems to be a modern umbrella term used to describe many groups of people across a wide time frame and geographical location that shared a linguitic connection and some cultural/religious ones, and two of the biggest feature/styles/phenomenons are Halstatt and La Tene?
Logged

I-L126
H3
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2012, 11:51:11 AM »

Isn't one of the problems that the term celtic has been mis-used so much over the years, many still think of it as an ethnic label and even a racial one. It has also been used as a nationalistic label. Then there's the new agey types who have na attraction to the term.
So really the term celtic seems to be a modern umbrella term used to describe many groups of people across a wide time frame and geographical location that shared a linguitic connection and some cultural/religious ones, and two of the biggest feature/styles/phenomenons are Halstatt and La Tene?

That is sometimes spoken of as the problem, but I'm afraid the idea of who and what is Celtic has come under assault very recently more for political reasons than anything else. I really don't want to go down that trail, especially since I just locked a thread down for becoming too political, so suffice it to say that it is in the interests of some to put a damper on nascent nationalist movements in the Celtic countries by disparaging the very notion that such a people even existed.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2012, 11:53:17 AM »

Here is something I have mentioned in the past with regard to whether or not the British and Irish were regarded as Celtic.

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:

Quote
"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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 11:55:22 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2012, 12:32:59 PM »

I think that some of the Maetae and Caledonians would belong to U198 subgroup.There are a lot of those folks in Eastern Scotland and most Bronze age graves were found there.


Busby et al didn't find any U198 (S29) in its Scottish samples. The highest frequency of U106 (xU198) was found in Morayshire, precisely in the area where King David I settled Northumbrians in the 12th century.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 12:39:39 PM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2012, 12:56:17 PM »

Indeed people in the past, ancient onlookers such as Greek commentators or Roman propagandists may have left us isolated references to people in Britain that associate such descriptions with the 'Celts'. However of itself such comments are not definitive nor empirical in terms of the extrapolation that seeks to assert that because Britain or Ireland has significant current frequency of L21 therefore they were 'Celtic', nor can anyone be entirely assured that simply by being L21 makes their ancestors 'Celts'. As mentioned previously there will always be some individuals who desperately wish to attach an ancient origin to themselves on the flimsy basis of an SNP or Haplogroup.

While the point concerning Ireland's 'Celtic' label remains an interesting discussion in itself. while there may well be shortcomings in terms of considering La Tene or Halstatt as being the hallmark of Celtic-ness, fact remains archaeology in Ireland has revealed scant remains of either cultures.

I am not sure how or why there appeared on this thread a reference to the equally unanswered topic of the seemingly high frequency of R U106 in North East Scotland revealed by Moffatt and Wilson. Although no doubt there will be a few rushing to explain it away by reference to any possible, no matter how unlikely, Germanic origin be it Flemish sea-farers, Normans etc etc. I recall there was a separate thread on the matter perhaps it would be of interest to revive that, rather than conflate various opinions on the matter here?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 01:00:51 PM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2012, 01:12:32 PM »

Wherever or whoever the Celts were, they became Celts at some point. No Celts existed anywhere before Proto-Celtic began to be spoken some 4,000 - 5,000 years ago.

That there were people in the British Isles before Celtic languages and culture existed does not prove that those who eventually did speak Celtic languages and had a Celtic culture in the British Isles were not Celts. Not only that, but it is highly unlikely that the Mesolithic and Neolithic population of the British Isles included any men who were L21. It just isn't an old enough y haplogroup.

As for the post on U198 and my response to it, there are limitations to splitting off a thread. Unfortunately, stoneman's U198-related post came after the topic split. That is fine, since it was also off-topic on that "Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests" thread.

It is a fact that King David I settled Northumbrians in Moray and Aberdeenshire in the 12th century. In those places both U106 (xU198) and U152 occur at somewhat elevated frequencies, out of keeping with their frequencies in the rest of Scotland. Since both U106 and U152 are more common in the old homeland of the Northumbrians (England) than they are in Scotland . . . well, draw your own conclusions.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2012, 01:30:29 PM »

Thankfully people do draw their own conclusions, wonderful too that they do not all follow one line of thought, and some assess Moffat and Wilson's findings regarding R U106 (R U198) in that region of Scotland, without the need to cobble together a Germanic explanation. As remarked by GoldenHind on the topic:

"Some people are convinced that U106 was concentrated in Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, and only entered the rest of Europe during the migration age with the movement of Germanic tribes.  They also seem to think that something somehow prevented any U106 individuals from crossing the channel into Britain prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. (Apparently P312 was the only people capable of maritime voyages before the 4th centruy AD). Both of these beliefs are necessary in order to preserve the Germanic purity of U106. Needless to say, I have never found either of these ideas very credible. "

We must celebrate the fact that not everyone shares the somewhat myopic view described above, and are prepared to be sufficiently open-minded to consider alternatives, such as differing and mixed Haplogroups having an equal opportunity and ability to migrate into the Isles. It would be unreasonable to exclude R U106 from that model, which poses the question if  there is a linkage with the numbers of that Haplogroup in NE Scotland? Now I cannot decided one way or another but I can appreciate that some may regard that as either plausible or not, if the former then of course the same reasoning that seeks to argue that L21 'became' Celtic at one point in Britain or Ireland would need to be applied to R U106 that had also arrived at a similar period and established itself.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2012, 06:10:50 PM »

I will say again you need to look at U106 on a case by case basis based on your matches.  As far as I can see FTDNA matches seem to relate to the historic period rather than older.  If a person is really a prehistoric Irish U106 then their matches within that timeframe covered by ftdna matching should be with other Irish or Irish migrants.  If you have non-Irish matches within the last 1000 years or so timespan then your y-line is probaby an historical period intrusion.  Noone can provide a cover all statment on U106 so its on an individual basis.  So, does anyone have the access privelages to look at Irish U106 people's matches?  It would be very interesting.  I know in the past someone looked at the individual matching between England and the continent for U106 so it seems it can be done.  There is no need to guess on this.  Matching will provide the answer.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 06:13:47 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2012, 09:50:13 PM »

Thankfully people do draw their own conclusions, wonderful too that they do not all follow one line of thought, and some assess Moffat and Wilson's findings regarding R U106 (R U198) in that region of Scotland, without the need to cobble together a Germanic explanation. . .

No need to cobble things together when it comes to history and the distribution of y haplogroups. Scotland has little U106 except in those areas in which David I settled Northumbrians in the 12th century. Any "cobbling together" would need to be done by those who would attempt to explain that away.

There is no reason to think much U106, if any, reached the British Isles before the Migration Period. Its distribution in the British Isles, heaviest in those areas of what is now England where Anglo-Saxon settlement was thickest, and in those places outside England where English settlement was heaviest, match Migration Period and subsequent movements too well.

But, of course, this thread was supposed to be about L21 and whether or not it should be considered Celtic.
Logged

Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2012, 01:08:10 AM »

Not sure if this is relevant, but here goes:
I understand that the Sutherland & Murray Clans were founded by Freskin, a Fleming. There is far more Flemish blood in Scotland than many think. On another tack, the Fraser's were reputedly one of the Conqueror's implants, along with many others. As stated earlier, the Northumbrians had a presence on the east coast.
Also, from memory, I recall one of the Scottish monarchs removing land from a N Eastern (?) clan & handing it to one of his supporters from the south as a thank you.
I'd imagine that testing modern populations in parts of Scotland is fraught with problems due to issues such as outlined above.
I get the impression that many experts consider parts of north east Scotland as being more 'aboriginal' than elsewhere in the country. I would hope they factored in these more recent arrivals!
Ironically, L21 was probably present in many of the incomers anyway!
Cheers,
Bob
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2012, 02:23:57 AM »

I have no problem whatsoever with the generalization that those who are L21+ and from the Isles are of a Celtic paternal lineage.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2012, 04:53:23 AM »



As for equating "Celtic" with Hallstatt and La Tene, that is an error. Celtic languages, particularly of the older, Q-Celtic variety like that spoken in Ireland, predate Hallstatt and La Tene by well over a thousand years.

If celtic was as old as you say the divrsity would be far greater! Saying that Q-celtic is a thousand years older than  Hallstatt or La Tene is highly unlikely.By the time you have inscritptions of Celtiberian and Lepontic there really isn't much difference between them.
As for the Italo-Celtic hypothesis what actaul evidence do you have for this?
Logged

LDJ
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2012, 06:10:07 AM »

Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation, any straw to cling to that may repeat the mantra that all R U106 is Germanic, but let us try to adhere to the subject matter initiated by the Moderator in starting this distinct thread, namely L21 and the related need of some to associate themselves with a specific ancient ethnological group, on the basis of an SNP or Haplogroup.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2012, 06:49:43 AM »



As for equating "Celtic" with Hallstatt and La Tene, that is an error. Celtic languages, particularly of the older, Q-Celtic variety like that spoken in Ireland, predate Hallstatt and La Tene by well over a thousand years.

If celtic was as old as you say the divrsity would be far greater! Saying that Q-celtic is a thousand years older than  Hallstatt or La Tene is highly unlikely.By the time you have inscritptions of Celtiberian and Lepontic there really isn't much difference between them.
As for the Italo-Celtic hypothesis what actaul evidence do you have for this?

Proto-Celtic, from which Q-Celtic sprang, is much older than either Hallstatt or La Tene. And Proto-Celtic is believed, at least by some scholars, to have developed from an earlier Italo-Celtic root.

Quote from: David Anthony

In most comparative studies of the Indo-European languages, Italic and Celtic would be placed among the earliest branches to separate from the main trunk (The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 55).
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 06:59:09 AM by rms2 » Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2012, 07:00:22 AM »

I tend to side with those who caution upon ascribing a particular Haplogroup to ancient cultures, including an assumption that by definition L21 is 'Celtic' or R U106 is 'Germanic' as rightly noted by rms2 in his post of August 18, 2011

"It's a gross mistake to make such generalities hard and fast rules and to tell individuals that because they are U106+ they are absolutely of Germanic descent or that because they are P312+ they are absolutely of Celtic descent.

But I don't think y-dna haplogroups were so thoroughly intermixed in prehistoric and ancient (or even early medieval) times that it is impossible to connect them to large ethno-linguistic groups - like the Germans and Celts - in general and to make statements about them that are generally true.

That doesn't mean there weren't exceptions and that no U106+ individuals made it to the British Isles before the Migration Period or that there weren't whole tribes of P312+ individuals who never spoke a word of Celtic (the Basques spring to mind)." (Emphasis Added)

Indeed :)
 
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2012, 07:01:23 AM »

Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation, any straw to cling to that may repeat the mantra that all R U106 is Germanic
I'm not familiar with the Flemish fisherman explanation. While not being a total advocate of all Beryl Platts' work, I have to say that she makes a good case for the Bruce, Lindsay, Rutherford & other clans being of Flemish stock.
I know from docs from the 12th C that a number of landowners were listed as Flemings. Turgos Brunos the Fleming, being one.
If you have time to spare, I'd like to know what the fisherman theory refers to.
Cheers,
Bob
PS Personally, I don't have the knowledge to enter the debate about R U106 being Germanic. I thought it was a U-boat!
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2012, 07:09:50 AM »

I tend to side with those who caution upon ascribing a particular Haplogroup to ancient cultures, including an assumption that by definition L21 is 'Celtic' or R U106 is 'Germanic' as rightly noted by rms2 in his post of August 18, 2011

"It's a gross mistake to make such generalities hard and fast rules and to tell individuals that because they are U106+ they are absolutely of Germanic descent or that because they are P312+ they are absolutely of Celtic descent.

But I don't think y-dna haplogroups were so thoroughly intermixed in prehistoric and ancient (or even early medieval) times that it is impossible to connect them to large ethno-linguistic groups - like the Germans and Celts - in general and to make statements about them that are generally true.

That doesn't mean there weren't exceptions and that no U106+ individuals made it to the British Isles before the Migration Period or that there weren't whole tribes of P312+ individuals who never spoke a word of Celtic (the Basques spring to mind)." (Emphasis Added)

Indeed :)
 

Notice what I wrote, whoknows. I cautioned against making such generalizations hard and fast rules. I stand by that.

However, that does not change the fact, widely recognized, that U106 has a strong connection to Germanic peoples. Its distribution reflects that. In non-Germanic places like Italy and Ireland, its distribution reflects the settlement there of Germanic peoples.

Exceptions are just that: exceptions. One has to be honest with one's self and look at the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, despite contrary emotions and the desire to be associated with this or that ethnic group.

There is only the very slimmest chance that any man with British or Irish ancestry who is U106+ is anything other than the y-dna descendant of an historical period invader or settler.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 07:15:46 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2012, 07:14:21 AM »

Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation, any straw to cling to that may repeat the mantra that all R U106 is Germanic
I'm not familiar with the Flemish fisherman explanation. While not being a total advocate of all Beryl Platts' work, I have to say that she makes a good case for the Bruce, Lindsay, Rutherford & other clans being of Flemish stock.
I know from docs from the 12th C that a number of landowners were listed as Flemings. Turgos Brunos the Fleming, being one.
If you have time to spare, I'd like to know what the fisherman theory refers to.
Cheers,
Bob
PS Personally, I don't have the knowledge to enter the debate about R U106 being Germanic. I thought it was a U-boat!

There was no "Flemish fishermen" story on this thread, Bob. I think that was an attempt to mischaracterize and thereby minimize the historical fact that King David I of Scotland settled Northumbrians (descendants of Angles, for the most part) in Moray and Aberdeenshire in the 12th century.
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 0.137 seconds with 18 queries.