World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: whoknows on July 24, 2012, 09:22:46 AM



Title: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows 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.  


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: stoneman 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??


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.

(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7587/haplogroupr1bl21.th.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/haplogroupr1bl21.gif/)

(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9290/haplogroupr1bs28.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/haplogroupr1bs28.gif/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://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! ;-)


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: inver2b1 on July 24, 2012, 11:17:17 AM
You forgot about the McOthers!


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: whoknows 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


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: inver2b1 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?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows 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?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob 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


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Richard Rocca 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 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?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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).


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows 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 :)
 


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob 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!


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 25, 2012, 07:24:34 AM
Aaah! Thanks Rich. I'm a little new to this style of combative research.
I know that Flemings were the major castle builders in Scotland (& destroyers, for that matter). Jordan Fantosme describes Flemish mercenaries at the siege of Brough Castle, Cumberland, fighting for William the Lion.
I thought it was generally accepted that the Angles' descendants had ventured up the Scottish east coast?
Too early for a drink!
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 07:50:17 AM
Well I consider your words on the subject to be balanced and reasonable, in that as you assert so confidently R U106 may well have entered the Isles prior to later Germanic movements, moreover you are correct too in asserting that a person belonging to L21 is not by definition of Celtic descent. Of course the degree to which this may be the case is a matter of opinion and debate and no doubt those seeking to force a horned helmet onto all R U 106 would seek to argue the case. However such discussion remains as noted previously at best in an arena of speculation, albeit informed or supported by statistical analysis. So we are left with opinion and chosen interpretation, hence some insist L21 as being definitively 'Celtic' others choose to retain a more open mind on such subjects, including as evidenced by your comments, our esteemed Moderator. I agree also that those who have an emotional investment to attach themselves to say L 21 as being Celtic should review such an attachment, my position is indifferent as I am simply noting the folly of asserting as fact, what in truth is merely informed opinion and reasoned speculation.

As to Flemish settlement in those regions of Scotland during the 12/13th Centuries, may well be the case, however it is a leap of considerable distance to then claim that the degree of R U 106 in NE Scotland is therefore all due to such settlement.Such an assertion, to be considered with any seriousness, would require some meaningful evidence and testing to establish, scientifically, the case or not. Until that is possible we are forced to rely upon 'likely-hood' which of itself cannot in any empirical sense support a conclusion one way or another. Given that we should not dismiss alternative perspectives or models which may account for the Haplogroup's presence in that region.

Regarding 'Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation' sorry to disappoint but the reference had nothing to with dark. covert efforts to misrepresent, but arose spontaneously with the humorous thought of Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau intoning that. :)


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 08:31:07 AM
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.


What? Could you provide evidence for this?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 25, 2012, 08:37:10 AM
No emotional attachment to being Celtic on my part. In fact, I grew up thinking I was some kind of Germanic. I always thought Vikings and Germanic barbarians were cool. When I submitted my first 37-marker y-dna test sample, I expected and was hoping for an I1 (I-M253, called "I1a" back then) result. When I got an "R1b1" result (that was as far as they went in May of 2006), I was a little disappointed, but not too awfully much.

About that time, the distribution of "S21" (U106) was becoming known and was widely discussed on Rootsweb and elsewhere. The more that became known about it, the more it looked Germanic (that trend hasn't changed). Back then, only Ethnoancestry had a test for S21, which was called the "S Series". It also included S28 (U152), S26 (L1), and S29 (U198). I was excited about that, like many other R1b guys, so I ordered the S Series test. Needless to say, I came up negative for the whole thing. When FTDNA added tests for U106 and U152, I tested with them, as well. The results merely confirmed Ethnoancestry's findings.

For a couple of years thereafter, I and many men like me were stuck at R-M269, which was known as "R1b1c*" back then. Someone on dna-forums called us the "Lost Asterisk Boys" (but I can't remember who that was; it might have been Mike). Then P312 came along in early 2008 and, subsequently, in late October of the same year, L21.

It soon became clear what the distribution of L21 in Europe was. Rather than hold onto some childish desire to be a Viking, an Anglo-Saxon, a Goth, or a Vandal, I just rolled with reality and accepted what the evidence showed.

I guess it was probably relatively easy for me, being an American, since my attachment to the Germanic/Viking thing wasn't all that strong. It was really just a holdover from childhood, more of an attachment to something I thought of as fun and kind of macho cool. I also think it is relatively easy to switch from one sense of Northern European identity to another. I have encountered people on various dna chat forums who have had to deal with far more radical reassessments.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 25, 2012, 08:40:20 AM
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.


What? Could you provide evidence for this?

Have you got Anthony's book?

How about Chadwick's and Dillon's The Celtic Realms?

Hubert's book, History of the Celtic People?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 08:41:57 AM

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.

Notice by some scholars part,also some scholars think that celitc existed in the Paleolithic!

Quote
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).

How does Anthony come to these conclusions does that mean that Q-Italic is older than P-Italic?What evidence is there for an italo-Celtic language?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 25, 2012, 08:45:03 AM

Regarding 'Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation' sorry to disappoint but the reference had nothing to with dark. covert efforts to misrepresent, but arose spontaneously with the humorous thought of Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau intoning that. :)

I think Herge's Tintin,  while not as amusing, would tick the box nicely!!!
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 25, 2012, 08:55:01 AM

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.

Notice by some scholars part,also some scholars think that celitc existed in the Paleolithic!


Name one.

Quote
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).

How does Anthony come to these conclusions does that mean that Q-Italic is older than P-Italic?What evidence is there for an italo-Celtic language?

He cites "most comparative studies" in the sentence I quoted from page 55 of his book.

That would do it, I'm guessing.

Get his book and read it, if you haven't.

Other reputable scholars (not Paleolithic-Celtic weirdos) have believed that it was the Beaker Folk who brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles and elsewhere. That's what Chadwick and Dillon say in their book, The Celtic Realms. That is also what Hubert said in his book.

I believe Koch puts the origin of Celtic back in the Bronze Age, as well.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 09:11:04 AM
I might stir the pot and post Rokus' blog link on the concept of Celtic origin, a little over two years ago where Rokus overviews Cunliffe and Koch's book:

http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-celtic-origin-revise/

and a review of:

Barry W. Cunliffe, John T. Koch (ed.), Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language, and Literature. Celtic Studies

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: ironroad41 on July 25, 2012, 09:57:16 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

I'm not sure I'm picking up your point?  I happen to believe that all R -L21 is not celtic.  From what I understand the Urnfield culture is the source of Celticity?  If true, and since I also believe that R - L21 is older than the Urnfield culture, then by those inferences there are R- L21's who indeed not celtic.

I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on.  That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11.  391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes.

With Y STR nomenclature we are creating a new lexicon of words.  Trying to fit them into the historical framework requires at least the consideration of time and possibly location as names often changed as either on of these terms changed.

If your point includes the above perspectives, then I agree with you?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 10:10:11 AM
I am not possessive about any interpretive aspects on the subject, as I hoped was clear from my comments, I am trying to fly the flag for maintaining an open mind on this matter. In that context of course the points you raise are a welcome insight and as valid as any other.


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 25, 2012, 10:16:52 AM
...
I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on.  That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11.  391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes. ...
I respectfully disagree that DYS391 is that important of a divider. It is obvious that it has mutated from 11 to 10 in many, many lineages of L21 separately. It can not be used as indicative of some deep, ancient branching. SNPs like DF13, or like DF21, Z253, L513, DF49, are more useful for this purpose.

People complain that L69 is unstable because it may have four or five independent occurrences under L21. DYS391 mutations are many, many times more frequent within L21.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 10:22:47 AM

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.

Notice by some scholars part,also some scholars think that celitc existed in the Paleolithic!


Name one.

Quote
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).

How does Anthony come to these conclusions does that mean that Q-Italic is older than P-Italic?What evidence is there for an italo-Celtic language?

He cites "most comparative studies" in the sentence I quoted from page 55 of his book.

That would do it, I'm guessing.

Get his book and read it, if you haven't.

Other reputable scholars (not Paleolithic-Celtic weirdos) have believed that it was the Beaker Folk who brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles and elsewhere. That's what Chadwick and Dillon say in their book, The Celtic Realms. That is also what Hubert said in his book.

I believe Koch puts the origin of Celtic back in the Bronze Age, as well.

Koch puts it back in the late bronze age! Problem with the Beaker folk idea is that you would expect a far greater diversity than is observed particularly concerning Brittonic and Gaulish.

There is ample opputunity for there to have been an immigration dueing the Bronze age collapse and the trasnsition to the early iron age.

Here's an interesting article on this by the BBC:

What caused Britain's Bronze Age 'recession'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12989605


"There are all sorts of explanations that people have suggested, including climatic change, environmental destruction caused by over-exploitation or even internal revolution by the exploited peasantry.

"Alternatively, it could be external invasions - there is no generally agreed explanation for what looks like a major event."



Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 10:25:35 AM
I might stir the pot and post Rokus' blog link on the concept of Celtic origin, a little over two years ago where Rokus overviews Cunliffe and Koch's book:

http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-celtic-origin-revise/

and a review of:

Barry W. Cunliffe, John T. Koch (ed.), Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language, and Literature. Celtic Studies

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

Thanks I was just about to post the Brynmawr review!


Title: Re: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
Post by: ironroad41 on July 25, 2012, 10:54:52 AM
...
I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on.  That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11.  391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes. ...
I respectfully disagree that DYS391 is that important of a divider. It is obvious that it has mutated from 11 to 10 in many, many lineages of L21 separately. It can not be used as indicative of some deep, ancient branching. SNPs like DF13, or like DF21, Z253, L513, DF49, are more useful for this purpose.

People complain that L69 is unstable because it may have four or five independent occurrences under L21. DYS391 mutations are many, many times more frequent within L21.
  That is the purpose of the SNPs to help us better understand the segmentation of the different historical cultures.  Whoknows seems to be asking how well we are doing in assigning names to the SNP's we find and correlating them with the history/archaeology.  Note the big disagreement on who is a Pict and Scotti.

I would love to have a name for R Z253?  If you were to pick a name, which would you use.

My observation is mostly based on my studies of the different scottish clans.  Its an observation, not a fact.

We not have a plethora of new SNP's, but other than a number how do we meaningfully label them?  I would like to have something better than a 10 letter/number sequence that I can't remember.

I think Whonos question is appropriate at this time and points out the discontinuity between our ability to sort DNA out and our ability to correlate it with more common nomenclature.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 11:38:16 AM
I might stir the pot and post Rokus' blog link on the concept of Celtic origin, a little over two years ago where Rokus overviews Cunliffe and Koch's book:

http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-celtic-origin-revise/

and a review of:

Barry W. Cunliffe, John T. Koch (ed.), Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language, and Literature. Celtic Studies

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

This bit is interesting:

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6

and this

To sum up, Koch’s analysis reflects the author’s superior scholarship, but is not really convincing. The reader is left with a number of inconsistencies, in form and content, ad hoc solutions and divergencies from the results of the other Hispano-Celtic sources. Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach. As in the case of Lusitanian, it may very well be a hybrid language with a non-Celtic matrix and extensive Celtic loanwords (as previously assumed by Francisco Villar) or vice versa.  


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 11:48:42 AM

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

This bit is interesting:

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6
I am no Linguist. Why would this occur?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 11:50:04 AM
Also U106 was said to have the highest variance in Northeastern europe. MikeW is that still holding


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 25, 2012, 11:51:54 AM

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

This bit is interesting:

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6
I am no Linguist. Why would this occur?

I have no idea! Regarding Tartesian,I'm sure this was discussssed a few years ago on this forum!


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 12:34:30 PM
Also U106 was said to have the highest variance in Northeastern europe. MikeW is that still holding

Ok, I found what I was looking for, what MikeW posted a few months ago on the U106 forum.


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b1c_U106-S21/message/5728

Re: Zeni, Northern Italy - U106*


On another forum, I've brought up a speculative thought on the direction of U106
expansion driven by STR diversity calculations that I've done.

I've been finding for U106 "all" that:

- STR variance is about the same in Scandinavia as it is in England, actually,
slightly lower (implying younger.)

- STR variance in Scandinavia is lower than in Germany.

- STR variance is higher in Poland (think Pomerania) than in Germany.

- I've tried to reconcile this with the fact that U106 is of low frequency
Ireland. I've always thought that the Low Countries (Benelux) is so closed to
England that U106, as a 4000 year-old (or more) haplogroup should have leaked
over into the Isles and scattered to a greater degree to Ireland if U106 was in
the Low Countries and Scandinavia if U106 was in the Low Countries for a long
period of time. Travel across the North Sea and Channel was not a problem for
Bronze Age Scandinavians or for many Bronze Age cultures.

>> My speculative supposition is that U106 must NOT have been in Scandinavia or
in the Low Countries until some time shortly before BC. A good candidate for
expansion might be the Jastorf culture. This is an Iron Age material culture in
what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC. Some people
think the proto-Germanic language was founded here. I don't know, but from a
genetic data perspective, it is viable that U106 was either south or east of
Northern Germany prior to the Jastorf culture but became a founding element in
it. I1 might have come down from Scandinavia as another key founding element.
Jastorf then expanded north up the Jutland Peninsula as well as west into the
Low Countries. In this case, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era in England was just
an extension of the drive west from Jastorf. This also implies that in the
Nordic Bronze Age, Scandinavia was light on U106, not necessarily devoid though.
I'd also say the same could be true for Ireland. This does not mean zero U106
didn't leak over to there.

Food for thought. That's all.

Regards,
Mike W


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 12:50:49 PM

Reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html

This bit is interesting:

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6
I am no Linguist. Why would this occur?

I have no idea! Regarding Tartesian,I'm sure this was discussssed a few years ago on this forum!

Could this be a big jump geographically, from the eastern edge to western edge of the centum-satem dialectal division?

MJost


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 01:19:21 PM
Interesting food for thought, but with a distinct whiff of bratwurst and all R U 106 is 'Germanic', a sort of mirror image to topic of the thread, which in essence questions if all L21 is really 'Celtic'. Of course as noted in an earlier post, while some patterns, and current frequency distributions and locations may suggest that, we cannot in any genuinely scientific sense affirm that as a definitive truth. We have after all only informed speculation and extrapolated statistics when trying to force any ancient culture onto a particular Haplogroup. This appears to be so with L21 which some regard as a credential for 'Celtic-ness' that is clearly a very large assumption, as much as claiming that simply belonging to R U106 determines a lineage of Germanic origins. Both may of course equally be so for any individual, but to insist such for an entire population/Haplogroup is highly questionable.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Mark Jost on July 25, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
Back to the topic. Yes.

And U106, as a Celtic L11 decendent, would be Pre-Germanic Celtic as well, but later morphed into hybrid culture of Celtic-Germanic, a distinct group.

As such on the link below, L11 should be Labled Pre Celtic or plain Celtic but the U106 should be labled Celtic-Germanic (as well as Celtic-Italo instead of reversed as shown).

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

As posted by Taranis
Thread: Celtic and Pre-Germanic
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26447-Celtic-and-Pre-Germanic

The major event that takes place in this time span is the Roman conquest of Gaul, and the expansion of the Roman sphere to the Rhine (and for a brief period, beyond), as well as the effective end of the continental Celtic peoples as a separate culture. One can speculate now that the disruption of trade routes, and the disconnection of trade routes between Gallia and Germania also triggered a linguistic disjunction between the Celtic and Germanic peoples, and that these drastic changes, which brought about the language shifts that brought about the Common Germanic language in the wake of this.
 

I feel that U106 is Celtic as a base core.

MJost


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 02:02:17 PM
Your position on that would I imagine find agreement with people,and surely having emerged before the birth of either Germanic or Celtic culture, the Haplogroups in question would have established themselves sufficiently to eventually adopt and consolidate either of those cultural identities. The area of debate rests not with that eminently reasonable model but in views that categorize L21 or R U106 as definitively 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' respectively, on the basis of present frequency and distribution. It is an alluring position and I can see how persuasive it is to some, yet in order to accept that perspective as valid there appears to be a requirement to see R U106 as not able to cross the seas to the Isles or to sufficiently secure a presence there to create a lineage. Whereas P312/L21 we are asked to accept, without critique, was far more mobile, vigorous and unlike its DNA brother easily able to enter the Isles. Now I may have my thinking wrong on that but such a conclusion is making some colossal assumptions, which I guess lead to the understand that L21 is 'Celtic' and that belonging to that Haplogroup is proof positive of descending from a 'Celt'.  


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Dubhthach on July 25, 2012, 02:18:56 PM
What doesn't help is we don't know enough about the distrubition of U106 sub-clades. From a phylogenical point of view U106 is at same level as P312. We rightly don't regard P312 as a single monolith mainly as we have a good idea of it's major sub-clades and their distrubition (DF27, U152, L21, L238 etc.)

In comparison studies such as Busby only used U106 and U198. If you look at the current tree you can see that the multiple dividing SNP's under U106, the distrubition of these older SNP's would be interesting.

In sceanrio where there were some early movement of U106 into Ireland and Britain you would expect that they would belong to subclades that may be somewhat different from what is seen in mainland Europe (due to age of spilt etc.)

Unfortantely until a new study is released we don't have any relevant data.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
I think the most compelling evidence that L21 was Celtic or at least the major group who became Celtic in the north Atlantic area is its date.  It is rather young in prehistoric terms and it is hard to image a non-IE wave into the isles as late as the Bronze Age.  The Iron Age is too late to explain initial Celticity of many areas and the idea Celtic languages were primariily down to La Tene and Hallstatt has been all but disproved.  That only really leaves the copper/bronze Age.  L21 is the main element in the isles which dates to that period.  The clusters of L21 look very like the result of growth of the elites established in the Bronze Age.  I think it is virtually certain that the Bronze Age elites of the isles were Celtic.  The sheer dominance and cluster structure of L21 really do look like the people with power in the Celtic north-west were predominantly L21.  Elsewhere the Celtic areas are dominanted by other P312 clades.  The only common denomenator of all the Celtic speaking areas is P312.  The only P312 clade that has any doubts about it are the DF27 ones but that is largely down to the Basques and Catalans.  However the Catalans are not linguistically non-Celtic.  They seem to be Romanised people closely linked to Romanised Gauls of western France.  I do not believe the Basque exception should change that.  Its like the tail wagging the dog.  I am pretty sure DF27 has a Celto-Italic base.  In general L21 has an uncanny resemblance to the best survivals of the Celtic languages and the where the reigns of power remained in Celtic hands longest.  I suspect when P312 spread it may not have been fully developed Celtic though, perhaps some sort of western IE or Italo-Celtic branch not yet developed into Celtic but soon to develop into the Celtic languages. Its also about common denomenators.  P312 and the beaker period is the only common denomenator that linked all of the future Celtic world.  Nothing later linked every part of the Celtic language spread.  The date of P312 coincides very well indeed with the beakers.  Having said that some outlying beaker people beyond the main block would have had competition from other groups and were probably much smaller and their dialect may not have prevailed ultimately.  

As for U106, clearly it also at the point of its appearance must have been very similar in language to P312 given there similar date and close L11 shared ancestor.  However, U106 is only on a par in terms of variance with P312 in the area east of the Elbe. West of the Elbe it seems to be far younger (lower variance) and appears to have only expanded west at the end of the Bronze Age.  By then it would have been within the cultures of north Germany, Holland etc that are considered by all to be proto-Germanic.  I think the history of U106 is probably a beaker group that headed east in L11* form and the U106 SNP occured only a century or so after they had arrived in the east.  It then became isolated among other non-beaker groups and took part in the German ethnogenesis in the late Bronze Age when it spread west again as far as the Rhine.   The first appearance west of the Rhine was probably among Belgae who had encorporated some Germanic groups, perhaps in Belgium.  In theory the Belgae spread in numbers to Britain but the links of Britain to the Belgae seem to have been with its more Celtic western elements in Belgic France so I would not expect much U106 to be involved.

I think that is a pretty rational outline based on what we know about the variance of L21, P312 in general and U106 in the west.  Rational analysis should be based on the dates of clades in various areas indicated by variance as well as the archaeological evidence.  I think the evidence is being underused in the arguements in this thread.  I was fairly frosty towards the idea that U106 in the isles was ALL late UNTIL I realised just how young U106 west of the Elbe was.  When that dawned on me that tied in beautifully the DNA, lingusitic and archeological patterns and my skepticism disolved.  The key here is that U106 west of the Elbe only has variance of a 3000 year old clade at best while L21 west of the Rhine has variance indicative that is 50% older than that.  If you reversed it and compared L21 east of the Rhine to U106 east of the Elbe you would find the total reverse with L21 only being 2000 years or so old and U106 being 4000 years old or so.  Its pretty clear they occurred in very different areas, expanded in different direction to different extents and at different times.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: stoneman on July 25, 2012, 02:41:58 PM
What would you call close matches?
I havent any close matches with any English,Germans,Scandinavians or people from Normandy.




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.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
Your position on that would I imagine find agreement with people,and surely having emerged before the birth of either Germanic or Celtic culture, the Haplogroups in question would have established themselves sufficiently to eventually adopt and consolidate either of those cultural identities. The area of debate rests not with that eminently reasonable model but in views that categorize L21 or R U106 as definitively 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' respectively, on the basis of present frequency and distribution. It is an alluring position and I can see how persuasive it is to some, yet in order to accept that perspective as valid there appears to be a requirement to see R U106 as not able to cross the seas to the Isles or to sufficiently secure a presence there to create a lineage. Whereas P312/L21 we are asked to accept, without critique, was far more mobile, vigorous and unlike its DNA brother easily able to enter the Isles. Now I may have my thinking wrong on that but such a conclusion is making some colossal assumptions, which I guess lead to the understand that L21 is 'Celtic' and that belonging to that Haplogroup is proof positive of descending from a 'Celt'.  

U106 appears to be descended from and L11* outlier group west of the Elbe judging by variance and U106 seems to have developed in situ there.  its variance pattern suggests it did not reach the Rhine until the late Bronze Age and perhaps Belgium by the Iron Age.  It is true that the L11* group who gave birth to U106 in the east would have spoken the L11* language (for want of a better term) but at the L11 stage the changes that moved to Celtic from Celto-Italic or west IE had not yet happened.  They couldnt have as even P312 also includes Italic groups.  The changes that formed Celtic probably occurred west of the Rhine through interaction of beaker-descended groups in the late beaker and immediate post-beaker era.  The pocket of L11*/ U106* east of the Elbe was in a seperate interaction zone beyond the Celtic zone and I would think that the first extant dialect that they spoke would have been Germanic after a long period in some langauge half way between western-IE and Germanic.  So, I dont believe that many U106 people spoke Celtic languages until U106 crossed the Rhine in the Iron Age and mixed in with Celtic groups in the eastern part of the Belgic area. If (as variance seems to imply) U106 was east of the Elbe until the cusp of the late Bronze Age then I dont think it was in striking distance of the isles.  Once it was spread as far as the Rhine shortly in the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age it was within striking distance of England.  However the area between the Elbe and Rhine had distinctive non-Celtic cultures that almost all agree were proto-Germanic and there is no sign of these cultures in Britain in prehistory.  When sunstantial arrivals from that area did happen as Rome fell they are easily recognisable as Germanic settlers.  So, all in all I doubt much U106 even in England pre-dates the Roman period.  That is based on the variance evidence, archaeology and linguistics.  HAD U106 been west of the Elbe at an earlier stage it would be a different matter as there were clearly contacts with the area west of the Elbe and eastern Britain (including beakers) but the low variance of U106 until fairly late and its bottling up further east until relativley late hugely reduce the chances of it having made it even to England in prehistory. Believe me I was a skeptic about U106 not making it to Britain in prehistory until I realised that the variance indicates it was bottled up around the Baltic until the late Bronze Age.  


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2012, 03:10:38 PM
What would you call close matches?
I havent any close matches with any English,Germans,Scandinavians or people from Normandy.




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.

Are you tested to 67 markers?  Actually as far as I can see FTDNA matching really doesnt stretch into prehistory much if at all.  My furthest matches on my FTDNA page seem to be within the AD period and probably mostly within the last 1000 years.  Even their furthest matches seem to be not especially ancient.  What I mean is who are your matches other than people who are clearly very closely related? Actually the slighly more distant matches estimated to about 1-2000 years back probably tell you more than very close matches which relate to what you could call the post-migration period in many areas.  Where are your more distant matches from?  Remember that even the furthest matches on your FTDNA page probably are not that old and probably post-date prehistory.  Of course better than STR matching (which becomes problematic back in prehistoric time) is who shares your SNPs downstream of U106. Do you share an SNP below U106 with others?  I certainly think that U106 people should seek their answers in SNP and STR matches given the lack of detailed resolution of the clade compared to L21 for example.    


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
I admire your assemblage of opinion and the flexibility of mind, which you demonstrate that enabled you to now accept the 'all R U106 is Germanic' view, you elaborate upon your change of mind with some attractive ideas, they remain however reasoned speculation, not proven fact, as understood in a scientific sense. It is this limitation which enables various positions to be taken on L 21 being 'Celtic' or the mirror case of R U106 being 'Germanic'. My own position is that both had every opportunity to embrace and display each cultural identity and that despite the somewhat limited statistical indications on the subject, that these Haplogroups had an opportunity to migrate and settle across North Western Europe, including into the Isles. It may well be that further examination of various sub-clades can shed further light into this, however on the basis of reason alone I can find no objection to imagining that like L21, R U106 was able to migrate across the sea to the Isles, possibly before the Germanic expansions of later centuries. Hopefully at some future stage we shall be in a more informed position to establish more conclusively the facts, however for the present it is difficult to be convinced by a statistical analysis dependent upon what some may consider partial and  selective data. Which is hardly  exhaustive or comprehensive and based upon current distributions, that may not, of themselves, be a faithful representation of population/Haplogroup frequency or variance several millenia ago.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2012, 04:01:06 PM
I admire your assemblage of opinion and the flexibility of mind, which you demonstrate that enabled you to now accept the 'all R U106 is Germanic' view, you elaborate upon your change of mind with some attractive ideas, they remain however reasoned speculation, not proven fact, as understood in a scientific sense. It is this limitation which enables various positions to be taken on L 21 being 'Celtic' or the mirror case of R U106 being 'Germanic'. My own position is that both had every opportunity to embrace and display each cultural identity and that despite the somewhat limited statistical indications on the subject, that these Haplogroups had an opportunity to migrate and settle across North Western Europe, including into the Isles. It may well be that further examination of various sub-clades can shed further light into this, however on the basis of reason alone I can find no objection to imagining that like L21, R U106 was able to migrate across the sea to the Isles, possibly before the Germanic expansions of later centuries. Hopefully at some future stage we shall be in a more informed position to establish more conclusively the facts, however for the present it is difficult to be convinced by a statistical analysis dependent upon what some may consider partial and  selective data. Which is hardly  exhaustive or comprehensive and based upon current distributions, that may not, of themselves, be a faithful representation of population/Haplogroup frequency or variance several millenia ago.
]]

I agree that the resolution of U106 is unsatisfactory as a clade.  However, as it stands on the variance evidence, U106 was not within the normal striking distance of the isles until rather late on if it was on the Baltic beyond Denmark.  If that is correct, it didnt have the opportunities to reach the isles that othe clades had.  Even a trip to England from Norway and Denmark would be more likely and variance would not even place U106 there until the end of the Bronze Age.  OK this does need to be shown to stand when U106 is better resolved but it it still has these variance patterns at that stage then I would stand by my reasoning that U106 was not in a position to reach even England until fairly late and that probably explains the lack of it among the Celtic fringe areas today. I have no problem in priciple with the idea of U106 being earlier and you can find me on several threads (including the one about NE Scottish U106 arguing for it but that was before the low variance of U106 west of the Elbe dawned on me.  I would agree though that U106 needs broken down much more into subclades before its definitive.  I think I will leave it at that as I dont have anything to add to that.  As for proof, this entire hobby (other than actual ancient DNA) is about making the best of a bad lot and using the best logic of inference we can using what little we have.  Proof may never happen if by that you mean a statistically significant sample of ancient R1b DNA resolved to subclades below L11.     
   


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Dubhthach on July 25, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
Well hopefully this is where work on ancient-DNA will eventually help alot. For example there are countless samples of early medieval remains held in the likes of the National Musuem of Ireland from digs etc. Hopefully over the next 10 years improvements in ancient DNA extraction should lead to more data regarding historic population structure.

Of course one problem is the fact that cremation was quite popular at various stages in history. No doubt this could lead to gaps in the historical record.



Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 25, 2012, 04:13:54 PM
Well hopefully this is where work on ancient-DNA will eventually help alot. For example there are countless samples of early medieval remains held in the likes of the National Musuem of Ireland from digs etc. Hopefully over the next 10 years improvements in ancient DNA extraction should lead to more data regarding historic population structure.

Of course one problem is the fact that cremation was quite popular at various stages in history. No doubt this could lead to gaps in the historical record.



Thats true there are going to be major problems in terms of the Mesolithic (only one site with cremations from Limerick and a couple of stray human bones representing the first 4000 years of human settlement on Ireland), the mid-late Bronze Age and BC part of the Iron Age (I am not aware of any non-cremation burials from that c. 2000 year span).  However there should be a reasonable amount of non-cremated Neolithic bobes (although cremation was far more common) and luckily the Early Bronze Age immediate post-beaker food vessel phase had a decent amount of inhumations in cists.  As you posted, there is also the pre-Viking part of the Early Christian period too which although late still probably represent an essentially prehistoric population.

I would be happy with a couple of handfuls of ancient Irish DNA results from each of the Early Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Roman Iron Age/Early Christian period.  That would tell us a lot.  Its a shame about the Mesolithic though.  I am kind of fascinated by them as they were the first people in Ireland and had the place to themselves for 4000 years.  I believe there was a late Mesolithic uncremated stray human bone from Ferriters Cove in SW Ireland that was tested to ascertain the . 


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: inver2b1 on July 25, 2012, 04:26:27 PM
There was kind of grave found near where I'm from about 25 years ago.
I think it was a cist burial (think it was dated to 1,500 - 2,000 bc); some pottery that looked like a small vase with zig zag markings, I'm almost certain there were also bone fragments found in it. i think the  find is in the natural history museum in the big smoke.
What kind of burials were cists, from the point of view of similarities to other regions etc


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: stoneman on July 25, 2012, 04:43:13 PM

Cists are bronze age burials.


There was kind of grave found near where I'm from about 25 years ago.
I think it was a cist burial (think it was dated to 1,500 - 2,000 bc); some pottery that looked like a small vase with zig zag markings, I'm almost certain there were also bone fragments found in it. i think the  find is in the natural history museum in the big smoke.
What kind of burials were cists, from the point of view of similarities to other regions etc


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 25, 2012, 04:57:44 PM
Indeed ancient DNA analysis that could more definitively establish early population migrations, settlements and related Haplogroups will be a very welcome development, until the let is hope that further SNP testing and looking more closely at sub-Clades will shed more light. Until then, while I respect the choice of others to be satisfied to reach a conclusion on prevailing views and statistical information, I prefer to maintain an open mind on L21, in terms of it be being definitively 'Celtic' or R U106 claimed as 'Germanic' only. Beyond that I feel any further comments would be restating my position.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 25, 2012, 09:48:23 PM
Man, you just have to laugh at all this verbiage expended because a couple of Irish guys are unhappy with their y-dna test results.

I'm not sure what it's most like: a Benny Hill skit or an episode of The Twilight Zone.

But carry on.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Maliclavelli on July 25, 2012, 10:37:00 PM
Indeed ancient DNA analysis that could more definitively establish early population migrations, settlements and related Haplogroups will be a very welcome development, until the let is hope that further SNP testing and looking more closely at sub-Clades will shed more light. Until then, while I respect the choice of others to be satisfied to reach a conclusion on prevailing views and statistical information, I prefer to maintain an open mind on L21, in terms of it be being definitively 'Celtic' or R U106 claimed as 'Germanic' only. Beyond that I feel any further comments would be restating my position.
I don’t know if this may help, but in these recent data from South-East Europe (“Begoña Martinez-Cruz et al., Y-Chromosome Analysis in Individuals Bearing the Basarab Name of the First Dynasty of Wallachian Kings, PLoS ONE 7(7): e41803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041803) 5 out of 6 R-U106 found have DYS390=24 and 1 has 23, and that is a zone of German migration. This to say what? That probably, as I have said in the past about Italy, these R-U106 could be very ancient and perhaps U106*.



Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Bren123 on July 26, 2012, 02:22:04 AM
I think the most compelling evidence that L21 was Celtic or at least the major group who became Celtic in the north Atlantic area is its date.  It is rather young in prehistoric terms and it is hard to image a non-IE wave into the isles as late as the Bronze Age.  The Iron Age is too late to explain initial Celticity of many areas and the idea Celtic languages were primariily down to La Tene and Hallstatt has been all but disproved.  .

Assumed to be disproved? Placing the celtic languages back to the copper age has no material evidence(inscriptions) to back it up at all!
This is similar but not as extreme as when Stephen Oppenheimer claimed that the palaeolithic Brtons were speakers of the Basque language,unbelievable!
Where's  the inscritptions to show this?


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 02:31:48 AM
Man, you just have to laugh at all this verbiage expended because a couple of Irish guys are unhappy with their y-dna test results.

I'm not sure what it's most like: a Benny Hill skit or an episode of The Twilight Zone.

But carry on.

You ended by saying "carry on", Rich. I've just re-read some past threads to get a gist of the  issue you describe. As a result, forget Benny Hill & The Twilight Zone, I fancy a new film in the 1960s British 'Carry On' film series.
We've had 'Carry On Doctor', 'Carry On Camping', 'Carry On Up the Khyber' etc, but I think the time has arrived for a Y-DNA based film. How's this for a title for U106+ film buffs?:
'Carry On I'm Germanic'.

Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 04:13:50 AM
The discussion on this thread was initiated by the Moderator having determined to relocate comments from a separate discussion, it is slightly misleading therefore to denigrate the various exchanges on the subject matter as "verbiage" and the consequence of Irish people unsatisfied with the results of Y DNA testing.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 04:29:21 AM
I think many of us can't totally prove our ancient tribal origins. However, although an expert in Y-DNA studies feels I'm of probable Brythonic Celt stock, I know I'd find plenty to be proud of/interested in if I was of Germanic stock, or whatever.
The great thing about all these discussions is that there is so much to be learned. Because I'm not 100% sure of my ancient origins I've researched many of the alternatives. To me they're all fascinating.
Be proud whatever is my motto.
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 05:08:42 AM
It is not about proving anything, your assertion on R U106 simply panders to a straw-man argument offered by someone with a fossilized view on the Haplogroup. As made very clear during this thread, with respect to L21 and those who claim it proof certain of being descended from a Celt, we simply cannot affirm such in any empirical sense, speculate yes, offer statistics, but not go beyond likely hood, which is not evidence as understood by scientific rigor. As to the parallel assumption that all R U106 is Germanic that claim too is clearly troubling and requires a whole number of assumptions and prejudices in order to be believed. This is the core of the discussion, to question, retain a willingness to consider a range of possibilities, not to  a drum that insists a particular Haplogroup belongs to some ancient ethnology. Concerning the fallacy that people are engaging ideas on this topic as a consequence of some disappointment on receiving YDNA results is a nonsense and presumably is targeted at those who belong to R U106. For the record there are a number of contributors here who perhaps do not belong to that Haplogroup who are open-minded enough to consider that R U106 may well have migrated and established across North West Europe prior to the emergence of Germanic culture. Maliclavelli has offered some informed and interesting comments on this recently and we have read equally important and valid posts here and on other threads from Mike, Ironroad, Goldenhind, Alan and others too. At this moment, minus any Ancient DNA testing, reliant upon current variance/frequency data on location and distribution of Haplogroups, that may well have no meaningful representation (compared to ancient patterns) we are reliant upon informed speculation and data extrapolation. Compared to science where a case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt we simply do not know for sure, all we have is various degrees of probability, of course that circumstance, leaves room for error or indeed another perspective to have equal validity or at the very least be given consideration. What cannot be declared as 'fact' is that an entire people belonging to any one Haplogroup must be either Celtic or Germanic in origin, cases must surely be examined on a case by case basis, further SNP study, and sub-clade analysis conducted (especially within R U106) is required, along with the dreamed of ability to test and determine more consistently and accurately Ancient YDNA before  we can make such declarations with any confidence. Until then the questions remain valid, be they 'Is L21 Really Celtic?' or 'Is All R U106 Germanic?'


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 05:58:54 AM
My Carry On film ref was a humorous aside (or meant to be!). My serious point re all this is that nothing is set in stone at present. It's the same in genealogy: Few serious researchers expect to uncover an 'Adam & Eve' couple representing each surname. The best that can usually be hoped for are vague statements claiming '75% of Clan X are R1b's' , or whatever.
In some ways, being a minority in a country may make finding one's tribal origins on the continent of Europe, or wherever, a considerably easier task.
I'm assuming you may be one of the U106+ folk? If it's not a rude question, may I ask you this?
If it is eventually found that you are via Germanic stock, or something definitely not closely related to Ireland, would that disappoint you? If so, why? I have a Scottish friend who turns out to have Middle Eastern origins - probably brought here with the Romans. Initially he was hugely disappointed, but now he's thoroughly fascinated by his exotic roots!
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 06:24:32 AM
I have previously made it entirely clear that my personal circumstances are not the motivation for exchanging views on this subject, and I have stated also that I am indifferent to attaching my sense of identity to any particular Haplogroup, be it L21 or whatever. What concerns my interest is simply representing the value of retaining an open mind on the subject and discussing various alternative perspectives to the orthodoxy that tries to claim all R U106 is by definition 'Germanic'. Within that context I can most certainly empathize with anyone from Ireland, who in attempting to reasonably consider non-Germanic theories which may explain the Haplogroup's presence in that country, who are shouted-down or belittled simply because they choose to hold a view which does not conform to one which itself is not proven in terms of science.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 06:32:49 AM
OK, I understand. I don't know what your surname is, but perhaps it could reveal clues to demonstrate ancient Irish roots?
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 06:39:21 AM
Appreciate you are seeking to be helpful and welcome the kind suggestion, however as I stated I feel no compulsion or interest in trying to establish any association between a Haplogroup and a particular ethnology relating to my background. It is the topic itself not any personal quest.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 26, 2012, 06:44:25 AM
The discussion on this thread was initiated by the Moderator having determined to relocate comments from a separate discussion, it is slightly misleading therefore to denigrate the various exchanges on the subject matter as "verbiage" and the consequence of Irish people unsatisfied with the results of Y DNA testing.

No, it's not.

It's the truth. You know it, and everyone else knows it. Every chance you get, you bring up the U106-might-really-be-native-Irish thing. The attack on the "Celtic" status of L21 was merely a variation on that constant theme, something like, "If I can't be 'Celtic', then no one can!"

It got split off into a separate thread in this case because it had nothing to do with the thread in which it first appeared.



Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 07:01:47 AM
The subject matter of this thread is, as you interestingly titled 'Is L21 Really Celtic' I remain happy to continue exchanging views on that and of course there was tangential and salient reference to other Haplogroups, as the general points, in terms of the shortcomings and folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'. Looking for snakes were none are present and issuing personal attacks is not really helpful, nor is misrepresenting what my views actually are. As you know we have been through this before and I wish to stay on topic as the alternative leads to a cul-de-sac.


Title: Re: Is L21 Really Celtic?
Post by: rms2 on July 26, 2012, 07:09:07 AM
The subject matter of this thread is, as you interestingly titled 'Is L21 Really Celtic' I remain happy to continue exchanging views on that and of course there was tangential and salient reference to other Haplogroups, as the general points, in terms of the shortcomings and folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'. Looking for snakes were none are present and issuing personal attacks is not really helpful, nor is misrepresenting what my views actually are. As you know we have been through this before and I wish to stay on topic as the alternative leads to a cul-de-sac.

The only misrepresentation here occurs in your posts.

This is absolutely not about the supposed "folly of insisting an entire Haplogroup is either 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'".

No one has "insisted" on any such thing.

What this is about is an upsetting y-dna result, the inability to cope with it, and the now years-long effort to get someone, anyone, to say, "Yes, I think that variety of U106 is actually native to Ireland!"

Now it's time to move past this and put a stop to it.

Last word on the subject. Thread closed.