Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 12th, 2015, 12:41 AM   #491
Suspended until February 5th, 2018
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 4,124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viriathus View Post
Sindane,

The Irish seem to be a pretty homogeneous population in terms of ancestry though , which is surprising considering their history. But 76% of the Irish male population (3575 in a sample of 4700), are R1b-L21 haplogroup. And this marker correlates strongly with surnames of Irish Gaelic origin, though some English surnames in Ireland also have it (because they are to a large extent descendants of Britons, among whom this marker was also present, but probably not so frequent as among Gaels). There are also a few other markers which correlate well with surnames of Irish origin, mostly branches of I2, but also a few other types of Y-chromosome.

The Stuarts - descended from Bretons (who had been descended from Insular Celts) also have it.
The English are "Celts" ( whatever that means) too

Most men in western Europe are y haplo R1b. The Irish, Scots, Welsh and English also shared the same "culture". The difference in England is that with the Enclosure Acts and heavy industrialisation, they lost a lot of their old customs and countryside ways. Traditional songs, dances, festivals and so on in England were lost during the industrial revolution

"Old opinions, feelings - ancestral customs and institutions are crumbling away, and both the spiritual and temporal worlds are darkened by the shadow of change"
Bulwer Lytton 1833
Sindane is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 12th, 2015, 12:45 AM   #492
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Pyrinos Polemos
Posts: 451

But I wrote about R1b-L21, which is only part of R1b and very Irish-British-specific (outside Britain it's only frequent in areas where Britons emigrated in 4th - 6th centuries AD - Bretagne, north-western Iberia - as well as in places where Irish slaves were imported during the Viking Age - Iceland, western Norway).

Actually that 3575 given above refers to all P312, but vast majority of that in Ireland is L21 (again, a branch of P312). In 2012 "FamilyTreeDNA Ireland Y-DNA Project" had 4700 members, of whom 3575 R1b L21 or other P312, 90 I2a1, 125 R1b U106, 225 I2a2, 250 I1, 125 R1a, 95 E1b1b, 50 G and 165 other markers.

People with surnames of Irish Gaelic origin correlated most strongly with R1b-L21 and I2a.

Given that surnames in Ireland started to be used very early on, and given that typical average infidelity rate of women is only around 5%, this correlation is statistically significant.

Last edited by Viriathus; June 12th, 2015 at 12:54 AM.
Viriathus is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 12:55 AM   #493
Suspended until February 5th, 2018
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 4,124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viriathus View Post
But I wrote about R1b-L21, which is only part of R1b and very Irish-British-specific (outside Britain it's only frequent in areas where Britons emigrated in 4th - 6th centuries AD - Bretagne, north-western Iberia - as well as in places where Irish slaves settled - Iceland, Norway).

Actually that 3575 given above refers to all P312, but vast majority of that in Ireland is L21 (again, a branch of P312). In 2012 "FamilyTreeDNA Ireland Y-DNA Project" had 4700 members, of which 3575 R1b L21 or other P312, 90 I2a1, 125 R1b U106, 225 I2a2, 250 I1, 125 R1a, 95 E1b1b, 50 G and 165 other markers.
We are not really allowed to discuss genetics.
The problem with genetics is that the commercially available tests (like the genealogy sites offer) are not very sophisticated and not enough people are taking the tests outside the USA . So comparisons are meaningless because tree info is not always correct. Also these genealogy sites give strange geographical classifications and misleading information . These commercially available tests cannot tell you what part of western Europe your ancestors came from and they only test a tiny tiny part of your ancestry anyway, about 0.02% ?

Last edited by Sindane; June 12th, 2015 at 01:19 AM.
Sindane is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 01:02 AM   #494
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Then it became apparent that gasp shock horror!!! the surnames looked English , so this is when the fashion for "borderers" started and the whole "border reivers" thing got totally blown out of all proportion. These border reivers web sites are in the realms of fantasy.
I'm not sure that's right. The border reivers have been an admittedly low level weapon in the arsenal of Cumbria Tourism for may years, but there is never any suggestion that many of them were anything other than English. Even the Armstrongs (the most infamous Scottish family) were originally English. All serious minded works on the period make it quite clear that reiving culture operated on both sides of the border, involved complex webs of patronage, feuding and cross-border marriage and that the families themselves were (to plagiarise George Macdonald Fraser) Armstrongs (or whatever) first, borderers second and Scottish or English a very poor third.

That said I don't doubt you are right to point at plenty of websites written by numpties who want to reinvent history for their own ends.

Quote:
Its like the football thing "anyone but England". People cherry pick their ancestors, especially in the USA, they will choose to call themselves "Gaelic-American" or "Scotch-Irish" even if most of their ancestors are English
Yes indeed. But don't worry too much about it. For very many people, ancestry isn't about history, ethnicity or really even culture. It's about fashion. It just so happens that the English are unfashionable at the moment. Should we become fashionable again, the number of folk claiming English descent will suddenly skyrocket. In the meantime, we're like Milwall (for non-British readers, Millwall are a London football team whose fans used to have a bad reputation for violence), whose fans used to sing 'Everyone hates us and we don't care'.

Quote:
Is Loch Fyne near the border?
We both know it isn't, but I wasn't talking specifically about your family - I was talking about Appalachia more widely.

Regards,

Peter

Last edited by Peter Graham; June 12th, 2015 at 01:05 AM.
Peter Graham is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 01:11 AM   #495
Suspended until February 5th, 2018
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 4,124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Graham View Post
I'm not sure that's right. The border reivers have been an admittedly low level weapon in the arsenal of Cumbria Tourism for may years, but there is never any suggestion that many of them were anything other than English. All serious minded works on the period make it quite clear that reiving culture operated on both sides of the border, involved complex webs of patronage and cross border marraige and that the families themselves were (to plagiarise George Macdonald Fraser) Armstrongs (or whatever) first, borderers second and Scottish or English a very poor third.

That said I don't doubt you are right to point at plenty of websites written by numpties who want to reinvent history for their own ends.



Yes indeed. But don't worry too much about it. For very many people, ancestry isn't about history, ethnicity or really even culture. It's about fashion. It just so happens that the English are unfashionable at the moment. Should we become fashionable again, the number of folk claiming English descent will suddenly skyrocket. In the meantime, we're like Milwall (for non-British readers, Millwall are a London football team whose fans used to have a bad reputation for violence), whose fans used to sing 'Everyone hates us and we don't care'.

Regards,

Peter

Yes fashions
When you consider population demographics. There was probably more emigrants to the USA from Yorkshire than from Scotland. If Hollywood ever made a popular film about the Yorkshire Coiners (there are actually way more coiners recorded than border reviers) , then expect a fashion for "Yorkshire - Americans" . Or the Monmouth Rebellion and so on would be the same


Charlemagne as an ancestor was popular recently, though how anyone got back that far in their tree is miraculous.
Sindane is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 01:24 AM   #496
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Pyrinos Polemos
Posts: 451

Quote:
We are not really allowed to discuss genetics.
So if you prefer surnames instead of Y-DNA then still the majority in Ireland are Irish Gaelic surnames.

But surnames only correlate well with Y-DNA in Ireland because they already had surnames in the Dark Ages.

In some parts of Europe people started using surnames as late as the Early Modern Era, or even later.

Most of Jews only got surnames around 1800. Before that they used patronyms ("Itsek Mosesevich" = Itsek son of Moses, etc.). Around 1800 state officials decided that they need surnames too.

Last edited by Viriathus; June 12th, 2015 at 01:30 AM.
Viriathus is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 01:43 AM   #497
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Pyrinos Polemos
Posts: 451

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindane
Most men in western Europe are y haplo R1b.
R1b alone - without any deeper insight into what type of R1b it is - can't tell you much.

You could be Black African and have R1b, you could be Turkic Bashkir of Russia and have R1b, etc.

For example this Black African who died on the island of Saint Martin between 1660-1688 was also R1b, and actually around 40% of his ethnic group (who speak one of Chadic languages) have R1b:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3669.full.pdf

Quote:
"Between 1500 and 1850, more than 12 million enslaved Africans were transported to the New World. The vast majority were shipped from West and West-Central Africa, but their precise origins are largely unknown. We used genome-wide ancient DNA analyses to investigate the genetic origins of three enslaved Africans whose remains were recovered on the Caribbean island of Saint Martin. We trace their origins to distinct subcontinental source populations within Africa, including Bantu-speaking groups from northern Cameroon and non-Bantu speakers living in present-day Nigeria and Ghana. To our knowledge, these findings provide the first direct evidence for the ethnic origins of enslaved Africans, at a time for which historical records are scarce, and demonstrate that genomic data provide another type of record that can shed new light on long-standing historical questions."

One of those three 17th century Sub-Saharan Africans was a man, and he was R1b.

But his R1b is a different type than what British people have.

Last edited by Viriathus; June 12th, 2015 at 01:49 AM.
Viriathus is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 02:04 AM   #498
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
But surnames only correlate well with Y-DNA in Ireland because they already had surnames in the Dark Ages.
People had patronyms in the Dark Ages, but I don't think there were too many surnames knocking about.

PLEASE stop discussing genetics. The thread will be closed by the Beaks and you risk being suspended.
Peter Graham is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 02:05 AM   #499
Suspended until February 5th, 2018
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 4,124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viriathus View Post
So if you prefer surnames instead of genetics then still the majority in Ireland are Irish Gaelic.
I dont prefer surnames , I don't prefer genetics. It is more complicated than that but the people of north west Europe are more or less the same people, with the same culture

The history of Britain and Ireland is complicated and some parts of that history and of the migrants to the USA gets exaggerated . The "Gaels" is an example of that. Look how many times it is being mentioned, out of all real proportion, on this topic with regards to emigration into colonial America. Yet Scotlands population for example was only small (about the same as Yorkshire) and England had a much higher population than Ireland. . When you actually see the "surnames", of say early colonial Appalachia, the names are mostly English. Though you can't always tell where a surname is from . I was browsing someone elses family tree recently that is supposedly "Scotch-Irish" in the Carolina's but the names in early records this side of the pond are concentrated in England's counties. I was told that one surname is "Welsh" but it is not found in Wales at all , but it is a surname concentrated very much in the English county of Derbyshire ( England/Wales census). So why is it said that they are "Welsh"?

There is a fashion in family trees for certain romanticised histories above others. I do it myself with the English branches in my tree . They were all heroic working class warriors against aristocratic and capitalist oppression in my mind, but some of them probably weren't, infact one branch were intermarried families of rather unpleasant criminals. I'd love to find a famous Luddite, Tolpuddle Martyr or Chartist in my tree but I haven't . I could say "oh but they were related to them because they have the same surnames and came from the same area" " but that would be exaggeration and not accurate. I have ancestors who were probably at *Peterloo and who also probably attended other "monster meetings" in the West Riding and Lancashire and were involved in strikes but I can't SAY they were there because I can't actually prove it

NB * actually there is a record of the hundreds injured at Peterloo but I haven't seen the list yet

Last edited by Sindane; June 12th, 2015 at 02:55 AM.
Sindane is offline  
Old June 12th, 2015, 02:15 AM   #500
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
When you consider population demographics. There was probably more emigrants to the USA from Yorkshire than from Scotland.
I agree with you. But until English ancestry is fashionable, no-one cares that great great great great great Grandad Thistlethwostle once worked as a pit prop in Selby. What they care about is that great great great great great Grandma Mary lived in Galway.

And it isn't just our American friends who are prone to a spot of ancestor-shopping. You may have seen the TV programme Who Do You Think You Are (which was actually sold to the USA too). Both Jeremy Irons and John Hurt wanted to be Irish and were immoderately desparate to find an Irish ancestor to justify their view of Ireland as 'home'. One of them (can't remember which one - possibly Hurt) got nowhere. His disappointment was palpable until eventually the genealogists found a single Irish ancestor about eight generations back, thereby justifying what he always 'knew', viz that he was, at some deep, visceral level, Irish. Which, of course, he isn't.

Regards,

Peter

Last edited by Peter Graham; June 12th, 2015 at 02:17 AM.
Peter Graham is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
celtic, myth



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celtic chariots Salah Ancient History 3 September 11th, 2013 04:32 AM
Galatians are not Celtic? Frostwulf Ancient History 31 August 28th, 2013 10:52 AM
Best Celtic War Chiefs?? Cavanboy War and Military History 2 October 17th, 2012 11:33 AM
Does anyone know a similar story in Celtic myth or legend to this? StereoBubblegum European History 2 February 7th, 2012 01:46 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.