The Celts : a comparative analysis

[Gil]

I've read many things about "the celts", from the traditionalist view to the more avang garde theories.
My aim here is to hear YOUR opinions on the subject.
To start I would like to propose one opening question:

Celtic phenotype: Can we truly state that the "celts" were morphologically homogeneous? And if so which was their true phenotype? Did the British and Irish celts bred with the local populations to give birth to a new phenotype and to what extent were they different to their continental "cousins"? Is it plausible to state that both the culture and the physical traits of modern day Irish resemble the "celtish" phenotype of ages past.

Cheers and happy commenting

[Sciath]

Originally Posted by Manji

Is it plausible to state that both the culture and the physical traits of modern day Irish resemble the "celtish" phenotype of ages past.

Cheers Manji
Just one preliminary point : The Irish of modern day have an estimate 30% Viking admixture (more in the east, less in the west). Besides paleo component on the male side (R1b that you find also in the Basques) in Irish population is strong (97% in Connacht).
To answer you more completely (an harsh question !!) I'll let my friend Milesian speak

[Gil]

Just a note to all readers, those things written on my first post are not statements, they are possible questions you might want to answer.

Sciath: Yes, i'm aware that modern irish gene poll has abundant nordic/nordid genes, that is why I question if the "celtic" look is the irish or perhaps the welsh or even the scottish.

[Vitor]

Here is my thoughts...

What is celtic?
It's more of a cultural thing than sub-race related.

Imagine the horse/sheep domestication, more quick migration and bigger territories of hunting (more food, more people could survive), that prompted a "massive" migration irradiating from somewhere in the black sea .

Now the people travelled and usually mix with others...but the higher status of that black sea culture remained the same, with little additions in the path towards western europe.

Some centuries after, when they arrived in the west, they were just like the ones already there, but with different languages and culture, again the advantage of the horse/sheep outcompete the previous culture in there, they usually accept the new culture...or die!

Maybe because this ones (indo-europeans) usually imposed some ruling against the previous locals, with no central power, but still effective, in some ocasions genocide in others only enslaving or something...

After some time there, when genocide was not implemented, they ended up like the previous people...

After some years, more population (because of that culture advantage) and it was time to spill that culture again towards more neighbours...

Century after century, all the europe got that horse/sheep culture, the people didn't change much (in the west at least), but they had a radical different culture.

So, the Iberians ended up with a similar indo-european horse/sheep culture, than those in the north, but the people were just like the previous ones...with an slighty higher "I" haplogroup ratio.

In a sense the connections of the western parts of europe are older much older than the celts, pure celts are those with higher "I", that is my opinion, so genetically the least celtic people are really those in the british islands (even in Ireland and scotland), that is evident in the MtDNA haplogroups and in the Y-haplogroups.

Even the roman's latin is just an indo-european language, related with other indo-european languages like celtic.

[Vitor]

where this pure "celts" come from...

[Vitor]

The Portuguese are even more celtic than the Spanish, look at the "I" ratio, that is interesting...

Of course only if that "I" is celtic/indo-european related, I think it's!

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Vitor

The Portuguese are even more celtic than the Spanish, look at the "I" ratio, that is interesting...

Of course only if that "I" is celtic/indo-european related, I think it's!

The main tribe in Portugal were the Lusitani, and these are thought to have been by linguistics an early, pre-Celtic Indo-European migration. As a whole, Spain was composed of a larger numbers of tribes, and those in the East and South-East coastal areas, the Iberid tribes, would add non celtic weight to the overall composition of the Peninsula.

However I don't know if that group I is Celtic. And we must take into account that 'celticness' in Spain as with in other regions (including the British Isles) was more of a cultural spread and assimilation among R1b peoples than an ethnical spread and adstratum to the R1b subtrata.

[Vitor]

I believe you are right...

It was more of a culture expansion than anything, at least when they reached the western parts of this continent.

I don't know if that "I" haplogroup has some connection with the indo-europeans, but it makes sense...
maybe those black sea people got some R1a after their's initial expansion...who knows...

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Bone evidence indicates that the Kelts (Celts) were Nordic with light body builds and receeding foreheads with the nose in-line with the forehead. This profile fits a lot of us, I know, and the Kelts were a major player in Europe.

The central Kelts got rolling about 1000 B.C. in the area of Austria, Switzerland, Southern Germany. Later they expanded into France, Germany, Spain, Portugal. Later into the Low Countries and Britain, Ireland. Meanwhile, back in Austria, some of the more restless Kelts (Le Tene Culture) under a warlord, ventured north, east and finally west into Sweden. This brought the cult of Odin to that part of the world and it is argued that this warlord WAS Odin. This was about 500 B.C., the Golden Age of Greece. About 1000 years later, 500 B.C., these same people underwent a huge population explosion and migreated into Europe as the Germans in various tribes.

My point is that the difference between Kelt and German is chronology more than race. The Germans washed over the Kelts in Germany, Switzerland, France and Britain without ever realizing that they were "cousins" only seperated by time, distance and only lastly by genes.

[Graeme]

I totally disagree with Solar Wolff. Kelts spoke Keltic languages which in mainland Europe was Brythonic like Gaulish. No one can say they were Nordic on the basis of their skeletal remains, if those remains were of Keltic speakers, because of receding foreheads with their nose in line with their forehead. In reality the Nordic skull is not much different from the classic Mediterranid skull. The remains are slightly built. That sounds more Mediterranid than anything else. Linguistically the Kelts had more in common with Latin than with Germanic languages. In fact Germanic languages required a long separation from both Latin and Keltic to form its distinctive features as outlined by Herr Grimm. A long separation in time implies a long and distinct physical separation. It is unlikely the Kelts were that similar to Germanic speakers and more likely that they were more like Latin speakers. The Keltic speakers abutted the Latin and Greek speaking worlds long before any contact with Germanic speakers. I don't consider Keltic speakers to have been Nordics in any way. Mediterranids come in many sizes and forms, it is plausible that the Kelts were primarily Mediterranid mixed with UP. Afterall the UPs are the major genetic contributors of European not Neolithics or more recent IE speakers. La Tene may be Keltic or it may not. It is commonly accepted as being Keltic.

Haplogroup I is UP and is not Neolithic nor did it come in with the IE speaking immigrants. Haplogroup I spread from its Balkan refuge after the post glacial period in a northwest direction towards Scandinavia.

The descendents of the defunct mainland Keltic speakers are in most Europeans. The only thing I see in common with Germanic speakers and the former Keltic speakers is that they came to live side by side in the same parts of Europe and eventually amalgamated especially in Belgium, Holland, Germany, France and England.

[Vitor]

We might consider "J" as being the indo-european haplogroup, what do you say?

[Graeme]

LOL. I don't think our wannabe Vikings would like that idea. Haplogroup J contains the Cohen modal group. What I have read about the IE speakers is that they were similar to caucasians but dark skinned, wavy haired and of middle height. Sounds Indian. Maybe they are the ones who introduced haplogroup G into Europe, not the Gitano.

[WestCoastJohnny]

My guess is that Keltic is similar to the American usage of "Hispanic." That is, Guatemalan Indians are Hispanic as well as Puerto Rican negroes and mulattoes, and caucasoid Spaniards. In other words, Keltics takes in all the peoples who had their language, religion and culture changed by the Kelts.

[Vitor]

Originally Posted by WestCoastJohnny

My guess is that Keltic is similar to the American usage of "Hispanic." That is, Guatemalan Indians are Hispanic as well as Puerto Rican negroes and mulattoes, and caucasoid Spaniards. In other words, Keltics takes in all the peoples who had their language, religion and culture changed by the Kelts.

Exactly...

look here, maybe there was some influx from the black sea region...(now it's MtDNA haplogroups)
http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/geneti...ld/eleven.html

[Vitor]

Maybe also the B blood type as something to do with Indo-european influx!

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Vitor

The Portuguese are even more celtic than the Spanish, look at the "I" ratio, that is interesting...

Of course only if that "I" is celtic/indo-european related, I think it's!

In this chart, haplogroup I hasn't been broken down into further subhaplogroups yet - I1a, I1b and I1c - whose distribution differs from country to country.

Consult this study for further information: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publication...v75_Semino.pdf

[Vitor]

Interesting....

I found weird maps there, like this 2:


How the hell can you explain more of this 2 subtypes of haplogroup I in the western coastal area of Iberia?
Weird...maritime contacts?

Vicking rappings?

[Gil]

No pun mode on:
Actually there were alot of viking rapings along the coast, and some even settled in Galiza/Galicia and Santarem (Portugal). If Hg I and Hg I1C are nordic markers perhaps they have two sources (at least in Portugal and Spain): Gothic period (from visigoths and suevs) and later migrations.
Also, there was a large influx of dutch (flemish) migrants after the Reconquista.

[Graeme]

I like those maps even if they are a little unclear. It shows you that Haplogroup I, a UP haplogroup, is quite common in Europe and definitely predates the entry of IE speech into Europa.

I don't have any view on blood group B except it is the least common European blood group. You have to remember that the morality of diseases vary according to blood groups. Europe did have the black death which targets the possessers of blood group B more than any other blood group. The European population was reduced to a third by Yersinia pestis, maybe most of them were B group.