World Families Forums - R-L21 in England and Wales: Britons

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 10, 2014, 01:00:00 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)
| | |-+  R-L21 in England and Wales: Britons
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-L21 in England and Wales: Britons  (Read 4295 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2010, 05:39:03 PM »


However please note that Gaelic and British remained closely related as the 'insular branch' despite the P-shift in British (and a couple of other changes) and in some ways despite the P-shift in British they remained structurally closer to each other than with Gaulish.  Basically the commonality between Gaelic and British is at the root and structural while the P-change may well be aerially transmitted fairly late on and of little significance. 

Ok, that makes perfect sense. I can see the similarities between Gaelic and Brythonic, and the patronymics are too besides the Mac/Map distinction.

Certainly before non linguists with mathematical models started to try to interfere in areas they were not expert on, linguists had a simple conclusion that the divergence of Gaelic and British (by which I suppose you could say a period of relative isolation from each other) was relatively recent feature of the Iron Age. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2010, 05:51:01 PM »

I think it was probably very easy for a Q-Celtic speaking population to switch over to P-Celtic..

The same argument applies in reverse i.e. that we don't need a mass invasion of the Highlands and Islands of Northern Britain from Ireland to explain the shift from P-Celtic to Gaelic there. The latest thinking seems to be that the migration was actually in the opposite direction - from  N Britain to N Ireland. And that these Britons (Cruithne) kept their contacts with kin across the water and so introduced Gaelic to what is now Scotland.  I'm following that idea in the latest version of Celtic Tribes.

Among the many problems with that idea is the fact that the County Antrim and Down coast facing Scotland was in the hands of the Erainn Dal Riada and Dal Fiathach peoples (the Erainn peoples were known as mariners) and the Cruithin tribes of NE Ulster who can be plotted with any level of accuracy (the DalnAriade and the Ui Echach Cobha) were overwhelmingly landlocked.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2010, 06:14:40 PM »

I think it was probably very easy for a Q-Celtic speaking population to switch over to P-Celtic, if that was the latest trend, especially among some elite newcomers bearing nice things to trade. Thus it's not hard for me to imagine Britain's move into P-Celtic, since Britain is less remote from the Continent than Ireland.

It just seems to me that when one looks at the distribution of L21 in the British Isles, he or she just has to notice how it aligns with the "Celtic fringe". Add to that the apparent dominance of L21 in Brittany (if the current trend holds).  In England and Wales what else could all that mean but Britons? And the Britons were speakers of Celtic languages, regardless of what their remote ancestors spoke or grunted in the stone ages.

Well in an uncaveated nutshell I would generalise that yes L21 is mainly down to the pre-Roman Britons, whatever their backstory.  However, I also suspect that there was a non-L21 R1b1b2 element too.  I have never looked at the project results for Wales and Cornwall in terms of R1b1b2 clades.  I thought I had heard a rumour that it wasnt so L21 dominated as expected but I may be wrong.  I do not want to go back to Myres but did they not find quite a few U152 and also their S116* in Britain.  I do remain fairly convinced that U106 west of the Rhine was largely brought by Germanics. So as a very crude barometer the U106-L21 ratio could be a hint.  However, I also would note that the Romans noted the Britons as heterogenous in terms of both the Belgae, the exterior v interior divide, the Caledoni tribe of the central Highlands of Scotland, the Silures of south Wales etc etc so I wouldnt be surprised if the pre-Roman Britons of the south and east had somewhat different mixes of clades and haplotypes of the pre-Roman Britons of the Atlantic zone (today's Celtic fringe).  It kind of depends.  If R1b1b2 mainly arrived with the first farmers then I would suspect that the clades of the ancient Britons was relatively homogenous.  If R1b1b2 mainly arrived in the beaker period or later then I think there was a much stronger contrast between the east and west at that period and it is possible that the clade balance was different from the start.  I suppose one way of looking at it is that all settlers crossing to Britain would themselves have to be coastal dwellers from a nearby land.  So, whatever the clade balance on the north coasts of France and perhaps the Low Countries would dictate what arrived in Britain. Unfortunately Myres et al didnt cover northern France.   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2010, 06:21:05 PM »

Among the many problems with that idea is the fact that the County Antrim and Down coast facing Scotland was in the hands of the Erainn Dal Riada and Dal Fiathach peoples (the Erainn peoples were known as mariners) and the Cruithin tribes of NE Ulster who can be plotted with any level of accuracy (the DalnAriade and the Ui Echach Cobha) were overwhelmingly landlocked.

Alan - that is about the strangest argument I have yet seen you put forward.

1) The Dal nAriade are placed on the coast by Koch, An Atlas for Celtic Studies (2007), map 20.2, as well as on the map I'm using on the Celtic Tribes page. The apparently related Ui Echach Cobha were somewhat more inland, which is scarcely proof that their ancestors could not possibly have arrived by sea.

2) The idea that the Dal Riada and Ulaidh were Erainn seems common, but unsupported. I looked into this after you brought it up. As you said then, it seems based on claimed descent from Daire. This falls apart when you realise that there were a whole bunch of people/legendary ancestors of this name, perhaps originating with a fertility god. No weight can be placed on this sort of stuff. Archaeologically there is a distinct difference between N and S Ireland.


« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 06:23:19 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2010, 06:26:39 PM »

Here's what I say:

Quote
Darini (Lat.), Darinoi  (Gr. ): lived next to the Robogdi on the east coast. The name indicates followers or descendants of Dáire. The name Dáire ("fertile"  or "fruitful") is common in Irish myth and legend. Although given to various figures with separate regional associations, the root may be a widely-worshipped fertility god (see Iverni). The Dál Fiatach of Down claimed descent from Fiatach Finn mac Dáire. By historical times, they were the ruling dynasty of the Ulaidh. A Dál Fiatach kindred descended from Óengus Ibdach ("Angus the Hebridean") straddled Ulster and the Hebridean island of Islay in the 6th century AD.

Sources: G. Toner, Identifying Ptolemy's Irish places and tribes, in D.N. Parsons and P. Sims-Williams (eds.), Ptolemy: Towards a Linguistic Atlas of the Earliest Celtic Place-Names of Europe (2000), pp. 73-82; J. E. Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795 (2009), pp. 159-160; J.T. Koch, Celtic Culture: a     historical encyclopedia (2006), p. 556.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 06:27:08 PM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2010, 06:27:22 PM »

I think it was probably very easy for a Q-Celtic speaking population to switch over to P-Celtic, if that was the latest trend, especially among some elite newcomers bearing nice things to trade. Thus it's not hard for me to imagine Britain's move into P-Celtic, since Britain is less remote from the Continent than Ireland.

It just seems to me that when one looks at the distribution of L21 in the British Isles, he or she just has to notice how it aligns with the "Celtic fringe". Add to that the apparent dominance of L21 in Brittany (if the current trend holds).  In England and Wales what else could all that mean but Britons? And the Britons were speakers of Celtic languages, regardless of what their remote ancestors spoke or grunted in the stone ages.

Well in an uncaveated nutshell I would generalise that yes L21 is mainly down to the pre-Roman Britons, whatever their backstory.  However, I also suspect that there was a non-L21 R1b1b2 element too.  I have never looked at the project results for Wales and Cornwall in terms of R1b1b2 clades.  I thought I had heard a rumour that it wasnt so L21 dominated as expected but I may be wrong.  I do not want to go back to Myres but did they not find quite a few U152 and also their S116* in Britain.  I do remain fairly convinced that U106 west of the Rhine was largely brought by Germanics. So as a very crude barometer the U106-L21 ratio could be a hint.  However, I also would note that the Romans noted the Britons as heterogenous in terms of both the Belgae, the exterior v interior divide, the Caledoni tribe of the central Highlands of Scotland, the Silures of south Wales etc etc so I wouldnt be surprised if the pre-Roman Britons of the south and east had somewhat different mixes of clades and haplotypes of the pre-Roman Britons of the Atlantic zone (today's Celtic fringe).  It kind of depends.  If R1b1b2 mainly arrived with the first farmers then I would suspect that the clades of the ancient Britons was relatively homogenous.  If R1b1b2 mainly arrived in the beaker period or later then I think there was a much stronger contrast between the east and west at that period and it is possible that the clade balance was different from the start.  I suppose one way of looking at it is that all settlers crossing to Britain would themselves have to be coastal dwellers from a nearby land.  So, whatever the clade balance on the north coasts of France and perhaps the Low Countries would dictate what arrived in Britain. Unfortunately Myres et al didnt cover northern France.   

What about Haplogroup I clades in Britain? Did they come in with L21, or were they already there? I think that the Celtic language and culture that defined the Britons was brought in by an L21 majority.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2010, 05:55:37 AM »

Among the many problems with that idea is the fact that the County Antrim and Down coast facing Scotland was in the hands of the Erainn Dal Riada and Dal Fiathach peoples (the Erainn peoples were known as mariners) and the Cruithin tribes of NE Ulster who can be plotted with any level of accuracy (the DalnAriade and the Ui Echach Cobha) were overwhelmingly landlocked.

Alan - that is about the strangest argument I have yet seen you put forward.

1) The Dal nAriade are placed on the coast by Koch, An Atlas for Celtic Studies (2007), map 20.2, as well as on the map I'm using on the Celtic Tribes page. The apparently related Ui Echach Cobha were somewhat more inland, which is scarcely proof that their ancestors could not possibly have arrived by sea.

2) The idea that the Dal Riada and Ulaidh were Erainn seems common, but unsupported. I looked into this after you brought it up. As you said then, it seems based on claimed descent from Daire. This falls apart when you realise that there were a whole bunch of people/legendary ancestors of this name, perhaps originating with a fertility god. No weight can be placed on this sort of stuff. Archaeologically there is a distinct difference between N and S Ireland.




Jean-the devil is in the detail and you cant use generalised maps when creating a model like this or it will be misleading.  In reality the tribal boundaries of Antrim and Down can be reconstructed in great detail.  Its highly specialised and you will not find any published maps  on this subject that are not generalised to the point of being useless.  In fact, I do not think anyone credible has ever actually made a sufficiently detailed map of this as such.  However,  the boundaries are often actually known in great detail and decent maps could be made.  I think the problem is when you get down to the level of one or two counties you get into the territory of local history and that does not tend to attract the few academics and experts who have a detailed knowledge of this (there is a considerable amount of amateur inaccurate stuff).  

Its so speciailised that even in Ireland only a very tiny percentage of people involved in archaeology have a grip on the subject.  I know of only two people who have a good grip on the subject and one of them is retired.  I am not going to go into detail but a lot of the Early Christian tribal boundaries were preserved in now-obscure pre-Norman ecclesiastical divisions like rural deaneries and indeed these often took the name of the tribe.  There boundaries can generally be reconstructed to a high level of accuracy using the ancient townland and parish divisions.  There are also the early Christian records of many types which name places in the kingdoms and even sometimes state borders.  Its a huge corpus of material and it takes years of obsession and post-grad study/thesis research to get a grip of.  Finally there  are some major natural boundaries like rivers and large upland boggy watersheds that separated areas of good land.  Between all of this it is possible to reconstruct with surprising detail the tribal boundaries of Antrim and Down.  

The starting point for anyone wanting to understand the tribal set up in Antrim and Down in a sufficient level of detail to make comment is looking at the incredible foot noting in the book 'Ecclesiastical antiquities of Down, Connor and Dromore by William Reeves. It may seem bizzare because this is a very old book that is primarily about the 1306 papal taxation relating to the Crusades but it is THE source for extremely detailed knowledge of Early Christian tribes of NE Ireland.  It was personally recommended to me nearly 20 years ago by the biggest (only) archaeological expert in the field of Ulster tribes as THE source and basically without reading and getting to understand it (which requires a good detailed geographical knowledge too) one would be working in the dark.  Its very old but very little of what he said has dated and his level of detailed knowledge is decimal points greater than anything else you will read that has been published. The guy was simply a genius.  There are of course specialist journals although they tend to focus on genealogies rather than close-up geography.  Reeves is pretty well the only reliable source in extreme close-up.  

By and large the coasts were held by the Dal Fiathach and Dalriada  during the Early Chrisitian period from Bushmills in on the north coast (which faces out to the edge of the Hebrides) to the south County Down border (where the view is more towards the Isles of Man and the Solloway Firth area).  South and north-west of those points are not in prime spots in terms of access to Scotland and access would have to cross the waters dominated by Erainn peoples anyway.  There was some Cruithin access to the coasts facing Britain around a small area of south Antrim coast around Larne and a narrow area of Antrim around Coleraine but the vast majority of the Cruithin people were strikingly land locked and no naval power relating to them is ever referred to in Irish records.

Skepticism may be raised to the attributing of the Dalriada as Erainn (and all of this stuff needs a skeptical eye) but there was no reason for anyone to claim to be Erainn.  There was absolutely no prestige in being designated Erainn in Irish records.  In general they were seen as marginalised peoples of the past who only survived on the coastal edges in the NE and SW corners of Ireland. There was simply no logical reason to make up an Erainn origin if it wasnt true.   Similarly, there was also no reason for other tribes to be designated Cruithin if there was not some truth in it.  Also, the Errain story is generally backed up by the evidence of Prolemy's map and Oghams (both early centuries AD) which confirm a link between some NE (Darini) and SW (Iverni, Corcu Duibne etc) Irish tribes and Daire and his geneaology (albeit he was a god rather than a person). O'Rahilly also believe much as the name Voluntii is a distorted version of Ulaid, the Robogdi on Ptolemy may be from Redodi, an early form of Riada.  There is no reason to be skeptical of an Errain origin for Dalriada when its neighbour to the south was the Darini and in later times the Dal Fiathach in a similar area were also considered Errain.  There is even an arguement that the Darini may actually be the Dal Riada. Certainly in later times there was no Erainn group north of the Ulaid (Dal Fiathach) other than Dalriada. There is multiple evidence for an Erainn presence in the NE of Ireland.  

The land lubber aspect of the  vast majority of the Cruithin tribal area recorded in the Early Christian era is in total contrast to the Erainn tribes which are strikingly coastal and were known for their naval skill.  The reality is that it was the Erainn tribes who were known to be in contact with Britain in the period say 500-700AD and the simple geographical reason for this is they held almost all of the coast of Ulster that faces Britain, especially northern Scotland.  The naval power of the Erainn peoples Dal Riada and Dal Fiathach (as well as the Erainn peoples in the south of Ireland) was proverbial in early Irish sources and is demonstrated in the annals.  The Dal Fiathach at one stage dominated the Isle of Man (which along with the SW Scots-English border area is visible from their lands).  I just see a model that has a largely landlocked group credited with some sort of reflux movement bringing Gaelic to Scotland as no sort of replacement for the normal explantation that the naval coastal Erainn groups like the Dal Riada and Dal Fiathach brought Gaelic to Scotland and the Isle of Man.  Its just so counterintuitive.  The annals are full of references to these naval Erainn peoples having contacts with northern Britain but I am not aware of any Early Christian references to contact with Britain.  I am not saying they had none but I am saying that its counterintuitive to emphasize the role of a group with the less likely geography, no known naval tradition and no known history of interaction with Scotland and relegate the peoples who are predominantly coastal, have a big naval tradition and are the very tribes the records associate with interaction with Britain.  If, as the name Cruithin=Pretani=Britons/Picts) implies, there is some ancient link or commonality between the Irish Cruithin tribes and north Britain then it was in the prehistoric period.

I would also note that in County Down at least, the Ui Echach Cobha tribe (Cruithin) were not only very landlocked in the Early Christian period but they also occupied the less attractive heavier lands.  In contrast the Dal Fiathach occupied virtually all the coast and the better land.  That is why I wonder if it is possible that the coastal Erainn tribes actually settled the Cruithin tribes as a buffer between their coastal lands and their enemies further west.  There is an exact parallel for this in later times in exactly the same area.  The Anglo-Norman Earldom of Ulster was something pretty close (although not exactly identical) to a take over of the old coastal lands formerly held by the Dalriada and Dal Fiathach. Despite their power the Normans actually left the less attractive inland parts of Antrim and Down to native tribes who they allied with as a buffer- the Ui Echach Cobha in inland Down (Iveagh-McGuiness, McCartan) and to the Ui Thuirtre (O'Flynns) in inland Antrim.  


Finally you say 'Archaeologically there is a distinct difference between N and S Ireland'. If you are talking about the period 500-700 or so then you couldnt be more wrong.  Ireland had an oddly homogenous culture in terms of the major monuments and smaller finds. Early Irish law shows that Ireland was a politically extremely disunited island but that the learned classes and craftsmen were afforded protected mobility throughout the island creating a very homogenous material culture.  If you want the opinion of an archaeological giant on the matter of distinctiveness or otherwise of Ulster read Jim Mallory's A(and McNeill's) archaeology of Ulster.  He (an American with no axe to grind) uses a theme of searching for evidence of a distinctiveness of Ulster through the whole of prehistory and often recaps on the issue throughout the book.

For what it is worth I think

1. Erainn=indigenous 'people of Ireland' (at least since the Bronze Age). Meaning probably was fairly unspecific.  

2. Cruithin=Iron Age small scale movement from northern England c. 300BC or a little later.  

I think probably prior to 300BC everyone was thought of as Erainn.  It is non-specific in its apparent original meaning and simply meant 'Ireland people'.   I would see these as an amalgam rather than a wave.  A kind of default.  Possibly claiming descent from Daire was another way of saying you were indigenous Irish.  Perhaps he was a variance on the theme of national ancestor god for the locals.    

BY say 100AD or earlier these 'Ireland people' seem to have lost their power in much of Ireland due to the incoming or rise of other groups like the Cruithin, the Laigin. Fir Domnann. Eoghanachta  etc in the late BC and early AD period.  I believe that the true meaning of an Erainn label meant that a tribe was remembered as being older and predating the others I have just listed.

Anyway over and out on this subject from me as its taking up too much time and it is way off topic for the thread.  
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 07:21:05 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2010, 08:34:56 AM »

In fact, I do not think anyone credible has ever actually made a sufficiently detailed map of this as such.

Alan - have you actually seen the Atlas for Celtic Studies? This is not the product of local amateurs. However brilliant you may consider Reeves to have been, he cannot have had any other sources than the ones Koch and other academics like Fraser have used.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 08:42:26 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2010, 08:58:16 AM »

Skepticism may be raised to the attributing of the Dalriada as Erainn (and all of this stuff needs a skeptical eye) but there was no reason for anyone to claim to be Erainn.

But did they ever claim to be Erainn? Where? As far as I can tell there are two sources on their origins, neither of which says anything about Erainn or claims descent from Daire. The most useful is Senchus Fer N'Alban. It is intent on trying to make sense of the various Gaelic-speaking kindreds in Britain (Alba). To do so, it claims that they all descend from Eochaid Munremar. This neat scheme we can translate as more symbolic than historic. It is pretty late. It supplants an earlier story, with which Bede was familiar. Here's what I say:

Quote
Epidii: lived next to the Damnoni, by the promontory of Epidium [Kintyre].[1] The name means "people of the horse" from Old Celtic equos = horse. The form here is P-Celtic epos. Interestingly the equestrian theme remained after this area became part of the Gaelic-speaking Argyll (O.Ir. airir  "coastland" + Goídel). The first king of Kintyre and Cowell of reasonable historicity is Domangart Réti, whose death in 507 AD is noted in the Irish Annals. Adomnán's Life of Saint Columba refers to Corcu Réti, meaning "descendants of Réta", but réti (Early O. Ir.) or riata (its later form) generally denotes a riding horse. A kin-group of Lorn was supposed to descend from an uncle of Domangart, while yet another kin-group which held sway in Islay seems an offshoot of the Dál Fiatach of Ireland (see Darini). By contrast the dominant kindred on Skye (Cenél nGartnait) begins with Pictish names, yet spent three years in exile in Ireland in the 660s, probably evicted by the growing power of the Corcu Réti. An 10th-century genealogy lumps all these lineages together as Dál Riata (a united kingdom by about 700). It constructs an improbably neat connection, perhaps more symbolic than historic, giving all of them a descent from Eochaid ("horseman"). How can we reconcile cultural continuity with a change of language? The Cruithni mentioned above in Ireland may have been British incomers who mixed with Gaels and adopted Gaelic, while retaining links with kin in what is now Argyll and the Western Isles, so introducing Gaelic there through a web of alliances, with threads of religion, politics and marriage. [2] Another unresolved question is whether the horse was a tribal totem, or whether the tribe were horse-breeders. Although a connection with the Gallic horse-goddess Epona has been postulated, her worship is unattested outside the Roman Empire.

1. Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, II.2.
2. J. E. Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795 (2009), pp. 121, 146-148, 159-160, 203-6; J.T. Koch (ed.), Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006), pp. 555-7, 1593.

  
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 10:10:33 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2010, 10:03:42 AM »

 Also, the Errain story is generally backed up by the evidence of Prolemy's map and Oghams (both early centuries AD) which confirm a link between some NE (Darini) and SW (Iverni, Corcu Duibne etc) Irish tribes and Daire and his geneaology (albeit he was a god rather than a person). O'Rahilly also believe much as the name Voluntii is a distorted version of Ulaid, the Robogdi on Ptolemy may be from Redodi, an early form of Riada.

The problem here is that you have a mountain of interpretation resting on ambiguous scraps of actual data. You are accustomed to reading a particular interpretation and so take it for granted. But Koch, Fraser et al have taken a fresh look at the evidence and tossed a lot of the old certainties out of the window.

Ptolemy places the Darini in what is now Ulster. Since scholars of early Irish texts were accustomed to thinking of the Érainn as Dáirine, it seemed to them that this was proof that Ulster people were Érainn. But in fact the name Dáire appears in the genealogies of a number of peoples and does not necessarily refer to the same person. There isn't one genealogy of Dáire. There are a number of separate figures with this name.

I am aware of the idea that Robogdi could be linked to Riata and included it in my earliest draft, though it seemed dubious and reliant upon a misreading by Ptolemy. But having now delved deeper into the origins of Dal Riata, it's clear that there is no connection.
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #35 on: October 05, 2010, 01:00:34 AM »

The fact is that no one knows who the hell the Irish are, where we got our language and from where on the Continent R1b1b2 and/or L21 arrived. It's all conjecture.

Kaybee said it well years ago when speaking of her family in Ireland. All they want to know is where the Irish came from and when. It's all I want to know as well. Ah, well, you could add knowing from where the Gaelic language arrived in Ireland.

Our Book of Invasions is wrong, our Genealogies are suspect, archaeology doesn't answer the questions of language and/or genetics. We simply fell from the sky and were simply, uniquely, Irish. Everyone knows what we're like, how we act, how we talk, how we write, how we dance, how we tell stories, how we're superstitious, etc., but no one knows from where we came.

It's funny, we are loved and we are hated. We are thought to be geniuses by some and simian by others. We are the best known mystery there is. Everyone knows us, and yet, it's as if we really don't exist.

We have genetic traits, and that is as far as it goes genetically. There is no Irish DNA. There is no DNA that can identify a person as Irish.

All I know, is that I used to be Irish. My father was Irish and all his family. My Mom's father was Irish and all his family. And that means nothing either genetically or linguistically. We are descendants of some mysterious Continental folk. We are a people lost to time.

Agus ni miste liom sa diabhal! Maolmordha MacEochadha
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 11:32:10 AM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2010, 09:56:12 AM »

...We are a people lost to time.

Wow! What you are is a people with the blarney. :)

You may feel that the Irish have some special problem in the prehistory department, but that's because you weren't born a Slav. And you haven't been trying to write The Peopling of Europe. I thought it was hard going all the way. But then I hit the Slavs. You have no IDEA. They don't even get MENTIONED until the 6th century AD. And then it's all a mass of controversy and politics. I'm covering the Irish to console myself.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 09:56:39 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2010, 10:16:10 AM »

Don't worry about Alan and I arguing over everything. It's what I come here for. It's part of the Method. Critique should pick up weaknesses in deduction, or just plain errors that I have overlooked. Alan and I actually agree over a lot more than you might think.

I don't see the Irish as any more mysterious than the Welsh, Scottish or English. There are definite plus points to genetic genealogy with the Irish, because of the surname system. It may not universally apply. But it helps.   

 
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2010, 10:45:07 AM »

There are definite plus points to genetic genealogy with the Irish, because of the surname system.

I was once asked if I could help trace a John Roberts who shipped out of Cardiff around the beginning of the 19th C. :)
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2010, 03:12:30 PM »

...We are a people lost to time.
Wow! What you are is a people with the blarney. :)  .... But then I hit the Slavs

I feel like I can partake in some self-deprecation. Jean, I don't think it's just blarney. It's some kind of intense passion or emotion.  My father was known for his Irish temper but apparently he couldn't help it.

Quote from: Sidney_Littlewood
The Irish don't know what they want and are prepared to fight to the death to get it.

Quote from: G_K_Chesterton
For the great Gaels of Ireland
Are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry
And all their songs are sad.

My family knows we are Irish, and I have a kind of a pride in an Irish temper so I particularly like the 2nd verse above. Imagine how disappointed I was when I found a family history book written several generations ago where we (my ancestor) said we weren't Old Irish (Gael) but Anglo-Norman. No worry, it turns out I have it covered either way as I am also a Kelly (O'Ceallaigh.)

Well, we are not really sure what we are.  By the way, I'm Slavic too... or rather "Bohunk."
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 03:44:03 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2010, 05:41:55 PM »

Jean, I don't think it's just blarney. It's some kind of intense passion or emotion.

I know. The wellspring of Celtic eloquence is different in kind from the Anglo-Saxon.  I saw that decades ago when I first fell in love with the English language. I didn't know exactly where to place my taste - Anglo-Saxon control, with a curl of Celt? Plainsong and descant? 

So it's no great surprise to find myself with Irish matches in 23andMe, though I don't know where the link may be.   
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2010, 07:15:24 PM »


I was once asked if I could help trace a John Roberts who shipped out of Cardiff around the beginning of the 19th C. :)

Do you mean there was more than one?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 07:16:05 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2010, 07:36:51 PM »

Well, who knows where their ancestors came from?

Try being brickwalled in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1804.

I would be thrilled if I could trace my y-dna line ancestor to Ireland . . . or anywhere in Europe.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 07:37:37 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2010, 07:41:18 PM »


I was once asked if I could help trace a John Roberts who shipped out of Cardiff around the beginning of the 19th C. :)

Do you mean there was more than one?

Hmmm there were a few, I seem to remember the words needle and haystack being involved in my reply. Of course it could have been worse 1 in 4 people living in Caernarvonshire in 1881 carried the name Jones.

Actually I just noticed it was almost 1 in 3 in Glamorgan
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 07:45:46 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2010, 07:44:00 PM »


I was once asked if I could help trace a John Roberts who shipped out of Cardiff around the beginning of the 19th C. :)

Do you mean there was more than one?

:) As bad as John Smith from London.
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2010, 07:50:52 PM »


I was once asked if I could help trace a John Roberts who shipped out of Cardiff around the beginning of the 19th C. :)

Do you mean there was more than one?



:) As bad as John Smith from London.

Probably
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2010, 07:52:58 PM »



:) As bad as John Smith from London.

Or the surname Stevens in colonial Virginia.
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2010, 08:01:15 PM »

Or the surname Stevens in colonial Virginia.

No clue at all? Nothing passed down in the family?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #48 on: October 06, 2010, 08:06:21 PM »

Or the surname Stevens in colonial Virginia.

No clue at all? Nothing passed down in the family?

We have a family genealogy book, but on the y-dna line it ends (or begins) with the birth of my ggg-grandfather in 1804 in Wheeling, West Virginia (just west of Pittsburgh).
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2010, 07:05:59 AM »

I see your problem. I get no match with that data from the new beta search at  https://beta.familysearch.org/

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 07:06:55 AM by Jean M » 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 0.197 seconds with 18 queries.