The Celts : a comparative analysis

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Awar

The only explanation for a faster mutation-rate would be ... more generations within a smaller time-frame...
I doubt that happened really.

It could be indicative of enviromental pressures being exerted on the population group. some reason causes mortality to rise, life expectancies to fall, reproduction occurs earlier to survive, a higher turnover of generations. It could be caused by famine, drought, disease, war, etc

Just a theory.

I just think R1b originated in Central Asia/Eastern Europe,
then spread into W.Europe where it got stuck due to the ice-age.

That would be interesting. That would propose a new model. Namely, that the first Western Europeans didn't enter the continent from North Africa or travel from the near east, but rather came from Central Asia.

As for R1b being clealry 'Celtic', I doubt that too...
The original Celts were from central Europe, where they could easily have been ANY of the hg's.

I dislike the comparison between something I see as primarly a cultural term on one hand, an specific genetics on the other. I generally don't regard the Celtic culture as being comprised of a single homogenous people, considering an area from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, the Mediterranian to the North Sea has been Celtic at some point.

It is undoubtedly Celtic in so far as it is overwhelmingly common in people with a Celtic culture today. Whether it was the sole Y-Chromosome marker in the people of the Northern Urnfield culture who went on to be known as the Celts is, as you say, questionable.

With W.Europe being a less turmoilous area than Central and Eastern Europe,
the natives of W.Europe could've easily adopted the Celtic languages and identities,
and continued to spread them further to the west, with no change to Y-lineages of the area.

That is one possibility. Personally though, I dislike the idea of static, stationery peoples who apparently don't migrate yet their culture spreads through entire continents with neighbouring peoples suddenly abandoning their own to embrace new foreign ones. I think it possibly happened to some degree, but not without population movement as well to some degree.

In the words of Dean R. Snow,professor of anthropology at the Pennsylvania State University, - "There are so many good examples of change associated with the migration of whole societies or dominant subsets of them, that any major change over time that can be observed archaeologically is likely to have involved migration in one of its many forms, however minor. We should be assuming population movement as a first principle rather than denying it."

As for no change in Y-Chromosome frequency, it could merely mean that the early Celts had same genetic marker frequencies as the people they spread out and encountered in the west.

If, for example, the populations situated on both sides of the English Channel had broadly similar Y chromosome haplotype frequencies immediately before the neolithic transition, it is perfectly possible in theory that a very substantial population movement could have taken place across the Channel without significantly changing the haplotype frequencies...............


..........As noted above, very significant gene flow could have occurred at that time without notable impact on haplotype frequencies if the donor and receptor populations were themselves not distinguishable in that respect. Such may well have been the case.

http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/s...58&postcount=4

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I've seen that before, but I'm not sure what to make of it.



I think I'm right in saying that because the Russian-Baltic group has the largest variation then it is assumed as being the earliest. However, an alternative explanation could be that it has simply mutated faster for some reason?

These seem to be old rather than recent mutations. When a sub-population branches off from its parent group, the former usually doesn't inherit the whole spectrum of diversity of the latter.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski

These seem to be old rather than recent mutations. When a sub-population branches off from its parent group, the former usually doesn't inherit the whole spectrum of diversity of the latter.

That's interesting indeed. So the suggestion then is that before the Indo-European movement west from Central Asia to Europe, there was a much earlier yet similar migration during the Paleolithic era which brought the first modern humans to the continent.

It's an idea that deserves to be considered in light of everything else.
Only through comparing all these models will we arrive at the truth of the past.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Milesian

That's interesting indeed. So the suggestion then is that before the Indo-European movement west from Central Asia to Europe, there was a much earlier yet similar migration during the Paleolithic era which brought the first modern humans to the continent.

Well, who do you think the UP people were? West European Cro-Magnons were cariers of haplogroup R.

[Gil]

The problem, as Milesian has said, is that "Celt" and "Celtic" should be used as an umbrella term that describes a cultural type that at some given point in the past covered most of Western Europe and more specifically the Atlantic Facade.

Instead of Celt/Celtic we should refer to both the Urnfield culture and the Hallstatt culture as the origin for the dispersion of the "celtic" culture. Regardless of genetic dominance of the R1b type in western europe, we know that the Halstatt culture came from central/eastern europe to western europe and I believe that, like had happened before, the local populations were neither displaced nor "erased" but simply assimilated in several degrees.

Now, in my opinion, the newcomers weren't different from the locals, meaning: the celtic tribes who slowly migrated into the west were not different from the indigenous tribes, more even because individual variation can sometimes occur without phenotype differentiation. Also, a "celtic" tribe might conquer a region and impose their domain and therefore transform the other culture also into "celtic" without modifying the original lineages.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

It could be indicative of enviromental pressures being exerted on the population group. some reason causes mortality to rise, life expectancies to fall, reproduction occurs earlier to survive, a higher turnover of generations. It could be caused by famine, drought, disease, war, etc

Just a theory.

True, but that kind of influence would have to span for some 10.000 years,
constantly.

That would be interesting. That would propose a new model. Namely, that the first Western Europeans didn't enter the continent from North Africa or travel from the near east, but rather came from Central Asia.

Nothing new really. R people did make that route.

I dislike the comparison between something I see as primarly a cultural term on one hand, an specific genetics on the other. I generally don't regard the Celtic culture as being comprised of a single homogenous people, considering an area from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, the Mediterranian to the North Sea has been Celtic at some point.

It is undoubtedly Celtic in so far as it is overwhelmingly common in people with a Celtic culture today. Whether it was the sole Y-Chromosome marker in the people of the Northern Urnfield culture who went on to be known as the Celts is, as you say, questionable.

What today's Micks, Spicks and Frogs have as HG is of no consequence

That is one possibility. Personally though, I dislike the idea of static, stationery peoples who apparently don't migrate yet their culture spreads through entire continents with neighbouring peoples suddenly abandoning their own to embrace new foreign ones. I think it possibly happened to some degree, but not without population movement as well to some degree.

Of course. I dislike absolute theories.

In the words of Dean R. Snow,professor of anthropology at the Pennsylvania State University, - "There are so many good examples of change associated with the migration of whole societies or dominant subsets of them, that any major change over time that can be observed archaeologically is likely to have involved migration in one of its many forms, however minor. We should be assuming population movement as a first principle rather than denying it."

But, I honestly doubt that migrations happened in the way historians
imagine it... with big hordes of men conquering shit, raping and pillaging etc. I think that in previous times, people simply weren't 'nationalists' holding on to their culture like it's a part of their 'identity'.

As for no change in Y-Chromosome frequency, it could merely mean that the early Celts had same genetic marker frequencies as the people they spread out and encountered in the west.

Could be... but I'd sooner bet my money on original Celts making a cultural impact on their most immediate R1b neighburs, and then, the R1b neighbours making an impact on their western R1b neighbours, and so on, and so on...

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Milesian

That's interesting indeed. So the suggestion then is that before the Indo-European movement west from Central Asia to Europe, there was a much earlier yet similar migration during the Paleolithic era which brought the first modern humans to the continent.

It's an idea that deserves to be considered in light of everything else.
Only through comparing all these models will we arrive at the truth of the past.

Please consider the following graphics:










Read the study I attached. It's surprisingly simple and understandable.

[Milesian]

Thanks, I will when I have the time.
It might still be too complicated for me however. Inferior Celtic brain, you see

So what is the gist of it? We are all Asians after all?

[Awar]

Hey, where am I on that map?

[Milesian]

Interesting stuff. If I interpret the map right then it's saying that R1a and R1b entered Europe first. Then some point later, I entered from the Med region?

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Interesting stuff. If I interpret the map right then it's saying that R1a and R1b entered Europe first. Then some point later, I entered from the Med region?

Yep... 'I' stands for bloody middle-eastern Immigrants.

[johnraciti]

As I reading more into the R1b group - I'm starting to feel that it is could be more Norman than Celtic.

It's French... no matter how you look at it.

They really got around

[Milesian]

The Normans originated in western Ireland and the Basque land?
That's one for the historians

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The Normans originated in western Ireland and the Basque land?
That's one for the historians

Perhaps he should tell us what exactly he is reading?