Ancient peoples of the British Isles

[nikepilas]

According to the Book of Invasions, these are the first peoples who populated Ireland after the glaciations:

Fomorians

Nemedians

Fir Bolg

Tuatha Dé Danann

Milesians


Wich were their respective race? And the one of the other groups wich populated the British Islands in ancient times?
I would like to share my point of view about this matter, in simple and not scholar terms.
I am not used to ethnic terminology, so i will simplify the racial features to the colour of hair, skin and eyes.


I would like to suggest that Nemedians and Tuatha Dé Danann, wich are said to come from Scythia, could be the ancestors of the redhead people of Ireland.
A similar group of redhead people could be the so called scottish Picts (wich mean "tatooed" in latin, just as the scythians were).
In Britain must have existed the same redhead population, although later migrations blurred it (and example can be the redhead Queen Boudica).
These migrations happened during the bronze age and were pre-celtic.

Milesians (name derived from the chief Míl Espaíne, the "soldier of Spain" in latin) are the final population stablished in Ireland. They seem to be the celtic Gaels, coming from Gaelicia (northwest Spain).
This invasion is part of the great Celtic migrations happened during the iron age across Europe. So other celtic migrations surely arrived to Britain from the continent.
After the Roman occupation of Britain, gaelic tribes called scots migrated from Ireland to western Scotland.
I am not sure of the racial features of all Celtic peoples, but the ones arriving to Ireland must have been black haired, white skin and dark eyes, just as is common to be in northern Spain.

Roman occupation of Britain must have left some degree of mediterranean people around and maybe other races from the Empire (like the famous sarmatians).

Germanic Invasions:
My proposition is that in this period starts the origin of the blondes of the British Isles.
Anglo-Saxons from Jutland, Danes, Vikings and Normands must have been mainly blonde people with blue-grey eyes.
They occupied mostly Britain, creating England, and colonized few parts of Scotland and Ireland. Later English domination of these countries increased the racial influence of germanic kind.

Basically that's my point of view. I am not a scholar, so any comments, corrections and further informations about the issue would be appreciated.

One test of what i have said above could be checking the racial features of the members of the traditional irish group The Dubliners:


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/dubliners11.jpg


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/dubliners08.jpg


Luke Kelly (the readhead one) can be a clear example of Tuatha Dé Danann (Scythian).
The one with black hair and dark eyes can be an example of Gaelic type.
The other 3 members can be mixed in some level. Two of them have dark hair and very clear eyes. The last one, with germanic features, must have some Anglo-Saxon or Danish influence.

[Curtis24]

Very interesting post :) I too am interested in how hair color correlates with ancestry from ancient peoples.

I have a few comments/questions. Weren't the Vikings known for having red hair? Perhaps they could represent its origin in Ireland. Also, most "red-haired" Irish are actually auburn, which is a mix of brown and red. which would imply that there was great admixture between the native Irish and whatever peoples introduced red hair, being either the Vikings or Scythians.

Another comment would be that(I could be wrong on this, this is just my general knowledge from memory), but that the pre-Celtic population is typically described as having black hair. Whereas, the Celts are supposed to have midtone brown or dark brown.

[nikepilas]

In present times, according to Wikipedia:

Redheads constitute approximately 4% of the European population.
Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads; 13% of the population has red hair and approximately 40% carries the recessive redhead gene.
Ireland has the second highest percentage; as many as 10% of the Irish population has red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair. It is thought that up to 46% of the Irish population carries the recessive redhead gene.
Red or reddish-tinged hair is also found in other European populations particularly in the Nordic and Baltic countries.

In the case of the vikings, redhead was part of the common phenotypes but not as usual as blonde (see the famous "Erik the Red", being redhead makes him remarkable).
Ireland and Scotland were the shelters where a recessive redhead gene can be easily traced today, so must have been very common in old times (2500 years before vikings colonized few coastal areas of those countries).


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/793px-Viking_Expansion_svg.jpg


Identifying redheads with scythians is a simplified hypothesis. I will try to explain a little more.

The so called "Scythian migration" to Ireland happened around 2000 B.C. long time before the term Scythian was first used.
Was the greek Herodotus who made the first accounts of the scythian people around 450 B.C. (but didnt describe the racial features).
In old days Scythia boundaries were not fixed (for example the greek Pitheas from Marseille, who travelled to the British Islands reaching Thule, says that Scythians stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic region).
The Book of Invasions is an irish christian chronicle of very old times in wich mithology and historic misconceptions are the rule, and the use of the word scythian can be considered only a reference.

So then what are the facts? And what was the race of scythians?

The only proofs I know are the burials of scythians in wich the bodies have been preserved as frozen mummies, found as far as the Tarim Basin (present China).


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Scythian_mummy_02.jpg


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Taklamakanmummy.jpg


Redheads phenotypes were common in Central Asia in ancient times.
The great migrations of huns, mongols, khazars, turks, etc. make almost impossible to retrace those old populations, but still examples can be seeing in remote areas from Afghanistan for example.


About the celtic phenotypes I dont have a clear thinking.
Their great extension in Europe could make them multi-racial. I suppose a celtic population from the Rhin must have been more blonde than a celtic group from Spain.

The fact is that black hair, white skin and dark eyes is the common phenotype in northern Spain, the same for regions that are said to be celtic (Gaelicia) or pre-celtic (Basques).
And the same phenotype appears in those celtic peoples of Ireland and Scotland.
Here an example, Neil Oliver, presenter of the BBC Series The History of Scotland, who shares the common phenotype of northern Spain peoples.


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/neiloliver.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hG01ZzlKxI&feature=related

[Osweo]

Comrade, that version of Irish history was invented in the Ninth Century by upstart new elites anxious to give themselves impressive pedigrees. It also shows traces of euhemerisation of pre-Christian deities, in an attempt to undermine surviving paganism at that time. By showing the Gods as mortals, their power was diminished in the popular imagination. Monks wrote elaborate stories of how each divine personage died, detailing when, where and how this happened. Very political!

The Tuatha De Danaan are the Gods. This is undisputed. You should not attempt to find any population history in them. The Fomori also seem to be supernatural figures, perhaps comparable to the Giants of Germanic mythology.

The Nemedians are a scholarly fiction, and don't appear in other Irish traditions as a distinct people.

The Fir Bolg, or simpler Builg appear to be a P Celtic people, with connections to Britain.

The Milesians are presented as Gaels, but the story of their origin in the Lebor Gabala is too full of learned Classical accretions to be of any use to the historian, never mind the anthropologist!

...............................

The above scheme omits many other peoples known from Irish history. Ancient Irish society was based on layers of sovereignty, with High Kings over Provincial Kings, over Kings, over SubKings, over SubSubKings, over Vassal Tribes... and on and on...

Some of the lower layers appear to originate from earlier populational layers. We have the Cruthin, allied with the Picts of Scotland. We have the Fothairt, Loigis, Partraige, Grecraige, Mendraige, Muscraige, ....

Irish history is IMMENSELY more complicated than I can do justice here. :p

[nikepilas]

I agree with you about the complexity of ancient History and the suspicious use of mithology interpretations.

The goal of my post was to reach a point in European history where races where not so mixed as today. Times where different peoples could easily be distinguished for their phenotypes, as to say Goths were blonde, Scythians were redheaded and Basques were black haired. And so i tried to use Ireland as a testing zone for this.

The names can be incorrect. And maybe also the interpretation. Maybe the celts that occupied Ireland were already a mixed culture of blondes, redheaded and black haired. But in this case the issue still gets unresolved, as there must have existed a previous time where those different races joined in a single multi-racial people.

[Osweo]

No, you understand it wrong. There's NO need whatsoever to hypothesise entire ethnoses of near identical clones. That's not how genetics works. There has never been sufficient isolation in Europe to allow this. It's artificial. The populations have always had genetic variation.

You need a proper biologist to explain WHY, I can't do it. I can say simply, though, that you're 'barking up the wrong tree' with this idea. :p

[Curtis24]

Argh, so much information, I can't process it all :/

I always understood there were two main migrations to Ireland - Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and then the late Bronze Age Celts, with a West-East divide between the two genetic stocks.

It seems to me that while there may have been great admixture between Ireland and Europe in prehistoric times, there have been few new introductions to the gene pool since the MIddle Ages. It also seems that the rate of admixture in Europe in general would decrease over the span of history - as marriage became more important, societies could protect themselves better, and mass stealing/usurpation of women tended to decrease(which I guess was extremely common in the hunter-gatherer days).

[nikepilas]

The official historian tesis is that at least 3 great migrations happened in Ireland before christian times.

They were the mesolithic hunter gatherers, the neolithic farmers and the celtic invasions.

The following guidelines are extracted from a conference by Henry P. McNally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_HYUbgOJCg



Mesolithic (8.000 - 4.000 B.C.)

Hunter Gatherers



Neolitihic (4.000 - 2.500 B.C.)

New people arriving

Farmers

In this time megalithic structures were build, as for example Newgrange in the Brú na Bóinne complex:


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Newgrange.jpg



Early Bronze Age (2.500 - 1.200 B.C.)

Migration of few people, incorporation of new technologies

Bronze, copper and gold



Late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age (1.200 - 500 B.c.)

Catastrophic climatic events (dropping of crops)

Appearance of hill forts

Evidence of wars and battles

Arrival of the first Celts

[Treffie]

The first settlement of Britain occurred during the Paleolithic period - approx 800k years ago, since then there have been 7 other stages of settlement during glaciation periods.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17145

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml

[Curtis24]

Yes, three general migrations makes sense according to the skull record. Three types are predominate in Ireland: Keltic Nordids, Brunnids/Daelofids, and Atlanto-Mediterranids.

Brunnids/Daelofids are carry-overs from ancient Northwest European Mesolithic hunters. Most likely, they are the original Mesolithic hunters who came to Ireland while a landbridge with continental Europe still existed.

The Megalithic-building farmers who colonized much of Western Europe during the Neolithic, were probably the Atlanto-Mediterranids.

And of course, the Celtic invasions are most likely Keltic Nordids. The skull record shows there was a distinctive Celtic type that was responsible for spreading Celtic language and culture, and these people settled in bulk in Ireland, pushing out other peoples rather than intermixing.

However, there is also a fourth major, though lesser than the others, invasion of Ireland: the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons colonized the southeast of the country.

The Viking invasions seem not to have left a singificant genetic imprint, because there was not major admixture and eventually they were forced out of the country by the Gaelics.

Brunnids/Dalofaelids dominate in the West of Ireland, and are actually the largest group and the type most associated with the stereotypical Irishman. This is especially true in America, where they immigrated to in great numbers. Keltic Nordids dominate in the east of the country. These two make up about two-thirds of Irish people; the remaining third is split between the Atlanto-Meditteranids, the Anglo-Saxon Nordids, and various minor groups.

[Curtis24]

And just to clarify, but there were many more migrations than just four My point is that there were four major peoples who colonized Ireland. Each of these peoples probably immigrated to the country in succesive series of many migrations.

[Osweo]

However, there is also a fourth major, though lesser than the others, invasion of Ireland: the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons colonized the southeast of the country.
Eh? What's this? The Anglo-Saxons raided a little bit, went on pilgrimages, studied and took political asylum there, now and then. There was nothing you could call 'colonisation'. The odd individual, sure, why not, but nothing significant!??!

Are you talking, rather, of the Anglo-Cambro-Norman incomers? 'Anglo-Saxon' is rather anachronistic for that period.

The Viking invasions seem not to have left a singificant genetic imprint, because there was not major admixture and eventually they were forced out of the country by the Gaelics.
There was major admixture. A fusion occured. And you're thinking of when the High King expelled the Norse from Dublin, but... they came back! They are still there. And the Norse were never expelled from Waterford, Wexford or Limerick.

Brunnids/Dalofaelids dominate in the West of Ireland, and are actually the largest group and the type most associated with the stereotypical Irishman. This is especially true in America, where they immigrated to in great numbers. Keltic Nordids dominate in the east of the country. These two make up about two-thirds of Irish people; the remaining third is split between the Atlanto-Meditteranids, the Anglo-Saxon Nordids, and various minor groups.
Where are your proportions/numbers from?

And just to clarify, but there were many more migrations than just four My point is that there were four major peoples who colonized Ireland. Each of these peoples probably immigrated to the country in succesive series of many migrations.
'Racial types', surely???

[Ibericus]

Yes, three general migrations makes sense according to the skull record. Three types are predominate in Ireland: Keltic Nordids, Brunnids/Daelofids, and Atlanto-Mediterranids.

Brunnids/Daelofids are carry-overs from ancient Northwest European Mesolithic hunters. Most likely, they are the original Mesolithic hunters who came to Ireland while a landbridge with continental Europe still existed.

The Megalithic-building farmers who colonized much of Western Europe during the Neolithic, were probably the Atlanto-Mediterranids.

And of course, the Celtic invasions are most likely Keltic Nordids. The skull record shows there was a distinctive Celtic type that was responsible for spreading Celtic language and culture, and these people settled in bulk in Ireland, pushing out other peoples rather than intermixing.

However, there is also a fourth major, though lesser than the others, invasion of Ireland: the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons colonized the southeast of the country.

The Viking invasions seem not to have left a singificant genetic imprint, because there was not major admixture and eventually they were forced out of the country by the Gaelics.

Brunnids/Dalofaelids dominate in the West of Ireland, and are actually the largest group and the type most associated with the stereotypical Irishman. This is especially true in America, where they immigrated to in great numbers. Keltic Nordids dominate in the east of the country. These two make up about two-thirds of Irish people; the remaining third is split between the Atlanto-Meditteranids, the Anglo-Saxon Nordids, and various minor groups.
Eastern Ireland has viking admixture and it is not minor. The anglo-saxon impact was not huge, but indirectly via the English who settled yes it had an impact. By the way im still waiting on those nordid celtic skulls...

[Curtis24]

Eh? What's this? The Anglo-Saxons raided a little bit, went on pilgrimages, studied and took political asylum there, now and then. There was nothing you could call 'colonisation'. The odd individual, sure, why not, but nothing significant!??!

Are you talking, rather, of the Anglo-Cambro-Norman incomers? 'Anglo-Saxon' is rather anachronistic for that period.

There was major admixture. A fusion occured. And you're thinking of when the High King expelled the Norse from Dublin, but... they came back! They are still there. And the Norse were never expelled from Waterford, Wexford or Limerick.

Where are your proportions/numbers from?

'Racial types', surely???

Yes, racial types would be a more accurate description.

As for the percentages:

http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

[Curtis24]

Keltic Nordic



Etymology: Although the Kelts, during their migrations in Europe and elsewhere, brought with them a conglomeration of physical types unified under one language and one culture, this special Nordic type seems to have represented by far the most numerous racial element, and was probably (to some extent) phenotypically representative of the Kelts as a whole.

Other names:
- Iron Age Nordic (Coon; used as an alternative to Keltic Nordic)


Origin:
Central European Nordic slightly modified through divergent evolution, and possibly by absorption of Alpine, Dinaric and other non-Nordic strains, to greater extent than what is the case with its Scandinavian counterpart.


Description:
To an American, Englishman, or Belgian, the Keltic Nordic phenotype represents a "normal" or "average" appearance. Likewise, in the minds of those who are neither American, English, nor Belgian, nor belonging to any other predominantly Keltic population, the Keltic look will usually stand synonymous with the descriptive tags "American" or "English". This is the most numerous of the two Nordic types - a type which gains in variability with the constant infusion of non-Nordic blood, particularly in North America and Australia. Thanks to one of the most popular phenomena of the 20th Century, the Silver Screen, the Keltic Nordic is quite possibly the most recognized and familiar of all Nordish phenotypes throughout the world.
The modern Keltic Nordic type is tall, slender, and moderately broad-shouldered. The head form is typically mesocephalic, with a mean cephalic index of 79, which is slightly higher than the present Hallstatt mean.
Nordics of this type are low-vaulted, with foreheads of much greater recession than those of the Hallstatt type. The Keltic face is long and narrow, and the chin is strongly developed. The temples, malars, and gonial angles are typically compressed and not visible.
The nose is long and high-bridged, and narrow to medium in breadth. The profile is usually straight, but wavy or concavo-convex forms are also common. The characteristic prominence of the Keltic nose is a good diagnostic for distinguishing between extremes of the two Nordic types.
The lips are thin to medium, and little everted.
The hair, which ranges in color from a blackish brown to a platinum-like ash-blond, is most commonly medium brown in pigment. Keltic hair is generally of a much darker tone than what is common among Hallstatt Nordics, a fact well illustrated by some the more recent photographic material presented below. The eyes are predominantly light-mixed.


Illustrations:
The main photo section deals with the most distinct, typical cases, where there is little doubt as to the subracial classification of the individuals. Note, however, that these cases represent a minority within the racial types to which they belong; 'typical' does not mean 'common'.
Examples from The Races of Europe:

(Ipswich, England) (Clare, Ireland)


Recent examples (celebrities):

.... Mel Gibson .... Michelle Pfeiffer ....... Tony Blair
..-.... (USA) ............... (USA) ................ (England)


Deborah Shelton ... Janine Turner .......... Liz Hurley
...... (USA) ................. (USA) ................. (England)


...- Vivien Leigh .......... Meg Ryan ......... Diana Rigg
.-.... (England) ................ (USA) ...-......... (England)


..-. Hugh Grant ..... Olivia Newton-John Sheena Easton
...... (England) ............. (Welsh-German) .... (Scotland)


Jean-Claude van Damme
........ (Netherlands)


Recent examples (non-celebrities):
[-]

Less distinct Keltic Nordics:
The "less distinct" category applies to less typical examples of the types in question, either because they are more generalized in phenotype (and thus very often reflecting a more common racial condition), or because they are of mixed racial ancestry, yet still eligible for inclusion within the wider range of the type.
[-]



Geographical distribution:
Modern Keltic Nordic populations are descended from Keltic and Frankish tribes on the northwestern European mainland and on the Isles across the British Channel. The type is concentrated in the British Isles and in the Benelux nations, and an old Keltic enclave in the Swiss Alps forms a secondary center.
Elsewhere, the Keltic Nordic racial type has found breeding ground overseas in North America, down under in Australia, and in South Africa, and it still figures as the predominant Caucasian racial type in most extra-European British and Dutch former colonies.
Percentage estimates of Keltic Nordic in European populations (McCulloch):
Belgium: --------.------------_.-60% (mostly in Flanders)
Netherlands: ------------------.--50%
Switzerland:----------------.--..--40% (mostly in the north, west, and center)
England:----------------...-------30%
Scotland:------------------------.30%
Ireland:------------------.-------30% (mostly in the east)
Wales:------------------.-------.30%
Austria:------------------.-------15%
Germany:------------------.------6% (mostly in the old Frankish s-w)


http://forum.stirpes.net/nordid/4703-what-exactly-keltic-nordic.html

[Osweo]

As for the percentages:

http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

LOL......

I mean, come on! For Christ's sake, Man, the URL alone is enough to make you think it's going to be a load of bullshit!

Then I open it;

Ireland = 40% Brünn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common in the east), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Trønder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Nordish (86% central and 14% periphery types)
LOL. As if life were so simple. No references to publications or studies or statistics or anything! Just 'Trust me, I wrote an article on the internet.'!!!!!!!!!

:tsk:

[Curtis24]

Now, is this genetic study wrong(Not saying its not possible):


The Vikings (or Norse) played a prominent role in Irish history but, despite this, their genetic legacy in Ireland, which may provide insights into the nature and scale of their immigration, is largely unexplored. Irish surnames, some of which are thought to have Norse roots, are paternally inherited in a similar manner to Y-chromosomes. The correspondence of Scandinavian patrilineal ancestry in a cohort of Irish men bearing surnames of putative Norse origin was examined using both slow mutating unique event polymorphisms and relatively rapidly changing short tandem repeat Y-chromosome markers. Irish and Scandinavian admixture proportions were explored for both systems using six different admixture estimators, allowing a parallel investigation of the impact of method and marker type in Y-chromosome admixture analysis. Admixture proportion estimates in the putative Norse surname group were highly consistent and detected little trace of Scandinavian ancestry. In addition, there is scant evidence of Scandinavian Y-chromosome introgression in a general Irish population sample. Although conclusions are largely dependent on the accurate identification of Norse surnames, the findings are consistent with a relatively small number of Norse settlers (and descendents) migrating to Ireland during the Viking period (ca. AD 800–1200) suggesting that Norse colonial settlements might have been largely composed of indigenous Irish. This observation adds to previous genetic studies that point to a flexible Viking settlement approach across North Atlantic Europe.

.................................................. .............
There is little convincing evidence for substantial Scandinavian patrilineal ancestry in a cohort of Irish men bearing surnames of putative Norse origin. The absence of an appreciable legacy in both the general Irish population sample and this subgroup with a potential historical/cultural link to Norse society suggests a very limited general Norse genetic legacy in Ireland dating to the Viking period (ca. AD 800–1200). Substantial Irish ancestry in the NSG is not unexpected given historical evidence of assimilation between the native Irish and Norse settlers. However, the Norse genetic component of the distinctive hybrid Hiberno–Norse culture appears absent. It may be that the number of Norse and their descendents who settled and remained in Irish Norse colonies was small compared to their overall population; perhaps restricted to a thin, upper, stratum of these societies. The bulk of the Hiberno–Norse settlement population over the longer term may simply have been culturally adapted indigenous Irish.


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201709a.html

[Osweo]

Now, is this genetic study wrong(Not saying its not possible):

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201709a.html

That's more like it.

It can be criticised, of course;

It tests surname transmission as much as it test 'Norseness'.
It relies on unbroken transmission from father to son.
It uses modern Irish data (could the Norse in the cities have been more likely to join the later Anglo culture, and convert to Protestantism and ultimately leave the country in large numbers in recent times?)

It was mostly too obscure for me, so I can't honestly evaluate their technique. Perhaps another member could??

[nikepilas]

LOL. As if life were so simple.

:tsk:

That is the problem we are trying to solve.
Ancient historic migrations and its impact in racial features today are still for study.
Osweo, as I see for your quotes, you seem to have important knowledge about the ancient history of the British Islands. So I see you can criticize easily but still dont know your full point of view.
Could you make a brief explanation of your thesis about the racial origins of the islands?

[Ibericus]

Yes, racial types would be a more accurate description.

As for the percentages:

http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html
This is pseudo-science bullshit made by some amateur. Don't fall into it.

[Osweo]

Osweo, as I see for your quotes, you seem to have important knowledge about the ancient history of the British Islands. So I see you can criticize easily but still dont know your full point of view.
Could you make a brief explanation of your thesis about the racial origins of the islands?

:embarrassed

This is a problem for message boards like this. It doesn't take TOO much time and effort to argue against, but to write something positive is much harder work. I'm too lazy, sorry. :p

But all I know is just from continuous research and exposure over periods of years. Hard to encapsulate in a thread. And if I did collate it all into a coherent whole, I'd be more anxious to publish it in a real book format than post here for anyone to 'steal' it... ;)

[nikepilas]

It doesn't take TOO much time and effort to argue against, but to write something positive is much harder work. I'm too lazy, sorry. :p




Lazy? Dont think so. Maybe you dont have it clear enough and dont want others to point your possible mistakes.

The matter is not so complicated as to make impossible to have an opinion.
There are not so many ancient races in the British Islands.

For me the mistery is mainly the redhead phenotype origin (seems to me that spreads in neolithic times around Eurasia) and the phisical appearance of celtic groups. I am in serious doubt about the black hair, white skin and dark eyes phenotype. Commonly is said to be pre-indoeuropean (like the basques) but could it be the main phenotype of the celtic populations?

Here a dutch football player, Van Bommel. What is the origin of his phenotype?

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/H06_VanBommel.png

[Ibericus]

Lazy? Dont think so. Maybe you dont have it clear enough and dont want others to point your possible mistakes.

The matter is not so complicated as to make impossible to have an opinion.
There are not so many ancient races in the British Islands.

For me the mistery is mainly the redhead phenotype origin (seems to me that spreads in neolithic times around Eurasia) and the phisical appearance of celtic groups. I am in serious doubt about the black hair, white skin and dark eyes phenotype. Commonly is said to be pre-indoeuropean (like the basques) but could it be the main phenotype of the celtic populations?

Here a dutch football player, Van Bommel. What is the origin of his phenotype?

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/H06_VanBommel.png

The majority of Europeans are dark-haired. It's not shocking news.

[nikepilas]

The majority of Europeans are dark-haired. It's not shocking news.


I am more intrigued in how Europeans were in old times, in order to know the origins of the present situation.

Do you think that ancient european celts were dark-haired, mixed or more light-haired?

[Ibericus]

I am more intrigued in how Europeans were in old times, in order to know the origins of the present situation.

Do you think that ancient european celts were dark-haired, mixed or more light-haired?
Yes, I believe that celts were mostly dark-haired. One has to look at where celts originated and where celts settled, and those are mostly dark-haired areas, whereas the blondism in these areas has more to do with Germanic invasions. Iberia had one of the largest celtic settlements of all Europe (if not the largest). I am talking about France, Iberia, Brittany, Ireland, Switzerland,etc

[nikepilas]

Trying to catch an impression of the basque phenotype (proto-european, pre-indoeuropean) i looked for Athletic Club Bilbao football players.
Source: http://k2k.galeon.com/plantilla.html
The mentioned club has a policy of only basque-born players, but as many of them have non-basque spanish origin, I picked only those who had only basque names (I am not philologist, so accuracy can be not perfect).

Here the results:

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Basque_AitorLarrazabalBilbao.jpg http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Basque_AndoniImazGarmendia.jpg http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Basque_JosebaEtxeberriaLizardi.jpg http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Basque_PabloOrbaizLesaka.jpg

[Aviane]

I agree with you about the complexity of ancient History and the suspicious use of mithology interpretations.

The goal of my post was to reach a point in European history where races where not so mixed as today. Times where different peoples could easily be distinguished for their phenotypes, as to say Goths were blonde, Scythians were redheaded and Basques were black haired. And so i tried to use Ireland as a testing zone for this.

The names can be incorrect. And maybe also the interpretation. Maybe the celts that occupied Ireland were already a mixed culture of blondes, redheaded and black haired. But in this case the issue still gets unresolved, as there must have existed a previous time where those different races joined in a single multi-racial people.

That could of been a possiblity with the Celts they could of had mixture of hair colours or even slighty different phenotypes good points though.

[Aviane]

Yes, three general migrations makes sense according to the skull record. Three types are predominate in Ireland: Keltic Nordids, Brunnids/Daelofids, and Atlanto-Mediterranids.

Brunnids/Daelofids are carry-overs from ancient Northwest European Mesolithic hunters. Most likely, they are the original Mesolithic hunters who came to Ireland while a landbridge with continental Europe still existed.

The Megalithic-building farmers who colonized much of Western Europe during the Neolithic, were probably the Atlanto-Mediterranids.

And of course, the Celtic invasions are most likely Keltic Nordids. The skull record shows there was a distinctive Celtic type that was responsible for spreading Celtic language and culture, and these people settled in bulk in Ireland, pushing out other peoples rather than intermixing.

However, there is also a fourth major, though lesser than the others, invasion of Ireland: the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons colonized the southeast of the country.

The Viking invasions seem not to have left a singificant genetic imprint, because there was not major admixture and eventually they were forced out of the country by the Gaelics.

Brunnids/Dalofaelids dominate in the West of Ireland, and are actually the largest group and the type most associated with the stereotypical Irishman. This is especially true in America, where they immigrated to in great numbers. Keltic Nordids dominate in the east of the country. These two make up about two-thirds of Irish people; the remaining third is split between the Atlanto-Meditteranids, the Anglo-Saxon Nordids, and various minor groups.

Those three phenotypes in Ireland I've definitely seen alot more than I seen any other and for the Bruenns which I've seen alot (not only in Ireland) but also some in Scotland which I've also visited. :thumb001:

[Curtis24]

ab

[Curtis24]

ab

[Curtis24]

I hate to triple post, but I keep finding new stuff.


Celts and Scythians Linked by Archaeological Discoveries
The Celtic Hallstatt culture and the Scythian Vekerzug or Thracian culture are excellent examples that show how closely these two peoples interacted with one another. Historians and archaeologists label the people who established the Hallstatt Culture (700-450 B.C.) as either proto-Celts or just plain Celts. The culture, as represented by the grave goods of the Hallstatt aristocracy, is remarkably universal and distinct.

The Hallstatt Celts were innovative metal workers. Their iron weapons provided them with a distinct military advantage. Like the Scythians, they also brought with them an improved breed of horses that could run faster with great stamina in comparison to the horses already in northern-central Europe, giving them greater mobility.

Many of the richest Hallstatt burial places contain sturdy four-wheeled wagons that show a significant technical competency. Their spoke wheels were fitted with iron tires shrunken and nailed around the composite wooden rims. Their wooden yokes were decorated by patterns of bronze nail heads.

These artifact-rich sites seem to have been initially concentrated from the area of the Upper Danube to Bohemia. Later in the 500s B.C., however, the Celts' Hallstatt cultural zone of control expanded to the west.

Significantly, vehicle burials were also a distinctive trademark of the Scythian culture. The late eighth and seventh centuries B.C. were a time of disruption and change not only at the headwaters of the Danube, but also in the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, where there were migrating tribes of Scythians.

The Hallstatt Celts' lifestyle had many similarities to that of the Scythians. A Hallstatt sword in Vienna's Natur-Historisches Museum has ornamentation that shows a Celt wearing profusely decorated trousers. This is comparable to the Scythian dress as pictured on the Chertomlyk vase (from the Black Sea area). This Vienna sword also depicts a tailcoat strikingly similar to Eastern Scythian apparel found by Russian archaeologists at Katanda in the southern Altai (Siberia). Another Celtic sword found at Port Bern, Switzerland, was stamped during its manufacture with a decoration of two standing horned animals flanking a tree of life-a classic Near Eastern, Scythian theme.


http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/usbbp/ch4discoveries.html

[nikepilas]

Thanks for all the above information, in some way makes sense a lot.

One thing more, just a curiosity. I was checking the hair colour of Otzi, the Man of Hauslabjoch (the copper age mummy discovered in the Alps) and it seems to have been reddish. Later on I read somewhere that hair in old mummies tends to adquire that kind of colour. Anyway, here an artistic recreation of that man.


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/nikepilas/Oetzi_07.jpg

[Osweo]

Also Osweo, I am eager to learn of your opinions as to the origins of the proto-Celtic language, if it did develop or break off from a language in Asia Minor, Central Asia, or South Russia, or if you believe it developed in North Europe or Scandinavia.
Asia!?!?!?!?! How the hell would it have come all the way from there!!?!? :confused:

Celtic speech was a close cousin of Italic. And probably of the poorly attested Lusitanian language in Iberia. Archtypal Celtic material culture is seen as coming from Central Europe, just north of the Alps, round Austria, Bohemia sort of places.

A millenium or so before, its ancestor was part of some 'western Indo-European' linguistic group, probably spoken in Pannonia and Austria. I personally favour a Danubian origin for Proto-IndoEuropean itself.

I hate to triple post, but I keep finding new stuff.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/usbbp/ch4discoveries.html
Man...... the page you link to has THIS embedded on it;
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/usbbp/united-states-britain-bible-prophecy.jpg
... and can therefore be dismissed as rubbish. :rolleyes: You really need to get your bullshit-radar up and running, you know.

As for your long post.... well, almost every statement in it was unsubstantiated, or even unsubstantiatable. There were so many theories and hypotheses in it that you appeared to pass off as fact that I don't know where to start discussing it. :(

[Curtis24]

reedited.

[Treffie]

Asia!?!?!?!?! How the hell would it have come all the way from there!!?!? :confused:

Celtic speech was a close cousin of Italic. And probably of the poorly attested Lusitanian language in Iberia. Archtypal Celtic material culture is seen as coming from Central Europe, just north of the Alps, round Austria, Bohemia sort of places.


Within the next few weeks, John T Koch from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (Dept of Advanced Celtic Studies) will be publishing a study on how Tartessian maybe the original Celtic language.

[Curtis24]

looking back I do seem to have gone off half-cocked(too much adderall) and the long post does go way too far in theorizing. Specifically, I don't have any working model of the way racial admixture happens; and there was no real evidence in tying the Celts to the Scythians and Central Asia. Nor for the phenotypic descriptions of the different ethnicities I mentioned. I'll try to speak more carefully in the future. .

Thanks for the info though about Proto-Celtic, and proto-IndoEuropean for that matter.

[Curtis24]

Within the next few weeks, John T Koch from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (Dept of Advanced Celtic Studies) will be publishing a study on how Tartessian maybe the original Celtic language.

Well, maybe there is evidence, we'll have to wait and see I guess.

[Osweo]

Within the next few weeks, John T Koch from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (Dept of Advanced Celtic Studies) will be publishing a study on how Tartessian maybe the original Celtic language.
How I hate that charlatan! :rage :p

Thanks for the info though about Proto-Celtic, and proto-IndoEuropean for that matter.
:thumb001: THeorising, and flights of fantasy are all well and good, just as long as you make clear that they ARE that!