Proto-Celtic/Celtic ethnogenesis?

[Curtis24]

I have somewhat of an obsession with the Celts. Recently, because of the works of some geneticists, some have postulated that the Celtic ethnogenesis happened in Spain. Others keep with the traditional idea that the ethnogenesis happened in Central Europe, specifically Southern German/Austria.

Here are outlines of the two basic theories, keep in mind I'm no expert:

1) Central Europe ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Celts are descendants of the Kurgan culture from Southern Russia. They slowly invaded Europe, conquering and then mingling with Bell Beaker peoples, and adapting to their new surroundings. This settlement and interaction resulted in the development of the culture associated with Hallstatt - "Celtic culture". The new ethnic Celts then pushed into France, Spain, and eventually Britain and Ireland.

From a racial viewpoint, Coon argued that the warrior types found at Hallstatt and La Tene tended to correspond Corded Ware and Kurgan types(Nordid, basically). These Nordids then mixed a little with the Bell Beakers(Dinarids), before invading France and then the Isles. Coon actually thought the "Celtic type" made a majority in Britain and were stereotypically associated with the English.

However, as I'll explain, some genetic research seems to contradict this...


2) Spanish ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Megalithic people who settled Spain and then Britain and Ireland spoke Celtic languages. Rather than spread through military conquests from Southern Russia - "Kurgan Hypothesis" - this different idea of the spread of Indo-European languages sees them resulting from Neolithic farming settlement of the Mediterranean, associated with the Megalith builders. Essentially, one branch of the Indo-European languages originated in Turkey, spread from their to Greek, from thence to Italy, and then to Spain, the Isles, and then to France. I guess in this theory, Celtic languages develop out of Latin rather than the other way around - and the people who brought farming to Britain and Ireland already spoke Celtic.

The main support for this theory is genetic information. Genetically, it seems very hard to prove a Celtic invasion of the British Isles during the Iron Age. Rather, most Britains and Irish genetically seem related most to Neolithic Megalith builders - as does Northern Spain and Northwest France - all areas where Celtic languages were spoken.

There's also some support from Celtic mythology - the Irish, for example, saw themselves as being descended from settlers from Iberia, and these legends don't speak of an invasion or conquering another peoples - as would have happened in the Kurgan hypothesis. There's also little archaeological evidence in either Britain or Ireland for any military invasion during the Iron Age - the implication being that the Celtic-speaking settlements of the Isles happened in a period where they held little indigenous population, and thus did not require a "conquest" as the Kurgan hypothesis holds.

There is definite evidence of a warlike Iron Age culture in Central FRance and Central Germany, however. In the Spanish hypothesis, thus, Celtic invasions of central Europe would have begun from either the British Isles or Spain, and would have been violent in nature due to the established agriculture/large populations in those areas when the Megalith builders came around.

[Jaska]

However, as I'll explain, some genetic research seems to contradict this...
Hmmm...
Genetic research cannot contradict with linguistic research, because these are independent levels. There are genes from different directions, even from Spain, but the Celtic language was still born in Central Europe. We have Italo-Celtic common features, we have contacts between Celtic and Germanic etc.

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

[Lábaru]

Hmmm...
Genetic research cannot contradict with linguistic research, because these are independent levels. There are genes from different directions, even from Spain, but the Celtic language was still born in Central Europe. We have Italo-Celtic common features, we have contacts between Celtic and Germanic etc.

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

"According to the theory of John T. Koch and others, the Tartessian language may have been the earliest directly attested Celtic language with the Tartessian written script used in the inscriptions based on a version of a Phoenician script in use around 825 BC"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tartessian1.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessian_language#Tartessian_as_Celtic

[Foxy]

Hmmm...
Genetic research cannot contradict with linguistic research, because these are independent levels. There are genes from different directions, even from Spain, but the Celtic language was still born in Central Europe. We have Italo-Celtic common features, we have contacts between Celtic and Germanic etc.

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

Celts urheimat

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/La_T%C3%A8ne_Culture.jpg/250px-La_T%C3%A8ne_Culture.jpg

Hallstatt (yellow) vs La Téne (green)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png

[Lábaru]

The first thing we must ask is whether the genetic origin of the Celts is the same as the origin of language later.

About the Celts in Spain, I can tell you about the origin of my people, one of many Celts of Iberia.

The Cantabri (Greek: Kantabroi) were a pre-Roman Celtic people which lived in the northern Atlantic coastal region of ancient Hispania, from the 4th to late 1st centuries BC.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Cantabros.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabri

[Comte Arnau]

Are the two theories that incompatible?



In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

Er... what??? :confused:

[Don]

As a lover of my country and knower of its traditions and people, when I read things about these archetypes of celtic culture I can only conclude 2 things:

1.- Spain is probably one of the most celtic nations in Europe (with France, Ireland, Scotland and Portugal).

or

2.- Whatever the ancient roots of spaniard cultures (megalithism western) are the traits of these, many of the main elements of these have been STOLEN by others (as usual) to incorporate to them and their idea of Celtism.


When I imagine a Celt, a pure celt, I don't see a redhaired viking, as many efforts and propaganda by these stealers of cultures and identities insist in doing...

I see a Spaniard or any other ancient Atlantic european. I just know the matter and my lands and our cultural substratum.

http://www.jerez.es/fileadmin/Image_Archive/PRENSA/Manufoto/Agosto_08/27-08-08/Carlos_Nunez_01.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SFC-L0I9dVk/SE20-Sbn1ZI/AAAAAAAAAC0/ThEYa5EY-u4/s400/connery.jpg

http://sobregalicia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/miniatura-de-las-cantigas-de-santa-maria.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nofHGbvHmBM/SnnVl8EYseI/AAAAAAAALc4/qOp0d7dogyc/s400/Grupo+de+gaiteros.JPG

http://www.adic-cantabria.org/servidor/gaita.07d.jpg

http://albokari2.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dulmaraz5b35d.jpg



I really don't like when foreigner people try to deny or steal our identity and the real traditions of our old men and women... and what it the funny thing: many of these attackers don't even have a real idea about what is the real Spain, only fables for dumbs. Antipreservationists 100%.

Of course, modern science as genetic and ancient anthropology, as oral traditions, conclude in the same truth, no matter how much efforts do the propagandists and stealers.

...

Curtis, your ideas of Celts, if you are a student and lover of them, would link with the paradigm of Milesians.

These picture up there are the modern Milesians. If you look for the celtic world, travel in the core of old and Real Spain (I'm talking about pueblos and villages with more thousands of years of history).

It's a must if you like these matters.

[Peasant]

You forgot Cymru!

[Treffie]

1.- Spain is probably one of the most celtic nations in Europe (with France, Ireland, Scotland and Portugal).



If Spain is one of the most Celtic, where are its Celtic languages?

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.

[Lábaru]

If Spain is one of the most Celtic, where are its Celtic languages?

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.

Our celtics lenguages died here, in this moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_Wars

But the language does not mean all that matters, people are the same.

[Comte Arnau]

1.- Spain is probably one of the most celtic nations in Europe

Ergo, the Vasconic-Iberian area is not Spain. :p

[Don]

If Spain is one of the most Celtic, where are its Celtic languages?

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.

That is the recurrent element that confirms the rule. Where is the Language if we have all the other elements bold and confirmed by other celtic nations and ancient greek anthropologists?

There are elements in castilian's pronunciation that are linked to gaelic languages...

there is a context in Spain very different than other western nations, one with elements that affect dramatically the land and the people, like reconquista and high unity in the kindgomds of Spain, strong christianization... the language, as was probably the first victim and it seems the only one.

Although, in Spain there is a "purity" of blood from ancient times that preserve the pedigree of the original celtic people, something that does not happen in the other "celtic nations", in particular in britain, with many non-ancient western blood due to invasions from the east that stablished in there. Seems that in there the pressence of ancient dwellers and the celtic elements correlate.
Probably you could confirm.

[Treffie]

Our celtics lenguages died here, in this moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_Wars

But the language does not mean all that matters, people are the same.

Spain historically was one of the most Celtic areas of Europe, but this is no longer the case. As we say in Wales, `Gwlad Heb Iaith, Gwlad Heb Cenedl` - a land without language, is a land without a nation.

[Lábaru]

In the current Castilian language there are a few Celtic words, only a handful, but well, are a witness to our past.

"abedul, camino, cerveza, carro, camisa y braga" for example.

[Comte Arnau]

There are elements in castilian's pronunciation that are linked to gaelic languages...

Not only in Castilian. In all Western Romance languages except Aragonese.


As we say in Wales, `Gwlad Heb Iaith, Gwlad Heb Cenedl` - a land without language, is a land without a nation.

Couldn't agree more with that. :thumb001:

[Lábaru]

Spain historically was one of the most Celtic areas of Europe, but this is no longer the case. As we say in Wales, `Gwlad Heb Iaith, Gwlad Heb Cenedl` - a land without language, is a land without a nation.


I do not agree, the language not is so important, blood is important.

[Don]

Spain historically was one of the most Celtic areas of Europe, but this is no longer the case. As we say in Wales, `Gwlad Heb Iaith, Gwlad Heb Cenedl` - a land without language, is a land without a nation.

Well, that is somewhat true, but a land without purity of blood, as we call it "limpieza de sangre", is a land without identity.



Anyway, we kept being the same ones, just rebuilt our selves modeling that latin to our taste and use.

So yes, you are right, we are no longer a Celtic Nation (despite we call our ancestors Celtíberos) to become España. Spain is different, and we like it.

[Treffie]

I do not agree, the language not is so important, blood is important.

But you're not Celtic, so how would you know?

[Wyn]

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.

North Wales or the south/west of Ireland, definitely.

[Lábaru]

But you're not Celtic, so how would you know?

I am from Cantabria, my ancestors were Celtic peoples, regardless of the language I speak now. Is a chinesse speiaking Celt a true Celt?

[Treffie]

I am from Cantabria, my ancestors were Celtic peoples, regardless of the language I speak now. Is a chinesse speiaking Celt a true Celt?

Indeed they were, but are you? Language is a huge part of the Celtic identity. As I mentioned earlier, no place in Iberia is Celtic these days, because of the lack of a Celtic language. Being a Celtic romanticist doesn't mean that one is Celtic either. If we look back in history, then fine, Iberia was definitely a Celtic area.

[Lábaru]

Indeed they were, but are you? Language is a huge part of the Celtic identity. As I mentioned earlier, no place in Iberia is Celtic these days, because of the lack of a Celtic language. Being a Celtic romanticist doesn't mean that one is Celtic either. If we look back in history, then fine, Iberia was definitely a Celtic area.

I understand your point of view but I am not agree. In the same way that a future wales full of black/asians immigrants (I hope no, only is a example) speaking a Celtic language to me it would be no Celtic. For me the language no is the priority.

Either way if we talk about preserving Celtic culture, that's a different thing.

[Treffie]

In the same way that a future wales full of black/asians immigrants (I hope no, only is a example) speaking a Celtic language to me it would be no Celtic.

Of course not, they would be Welsh speaking blacks/Asians etc.

[Lábaru]

Of course not, they would Welsh speaking blacks/Asians etc.

That's the point, I speak a Latin changed or distorted by time, but as a Cantabrian my origins are Celtic people of my signature.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Estela_2.jpg

This is a "Lábaru Cántabru" an ancient Celt flag of my people.



"Etymologically, the word comes from (p)lab- which means to speak in a number of Celtic languages, many of which have derivatives. For example, in Welsh llafar means "speech", "language", "voice". Ancient Cornish and Breton have lavar, "word", and ancient Irish has labrad: "language", "speech".[1]"

"Through the Cantabrian War and the surrender of the Cantabri and Astures to Rome, the Roman legions adopted from them the solar symbol of twin crosses and lunar symbols, such as the Cantabri lábaro. They would still be carrying this standard 300 years later. The Roman army also copied from the Cantabri the cavalry tactics circulus cantabricus and cantabricus impetus as already mentioned."

http://usuarios.multimania.es/asutil/labaru.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1baru

[Ibericus]

If Spain is one of the most Celtic, where are its Celtic languages?

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.
Welsh the most Celtic place why ? They are mostly english speakers today, a germanic language, and have a large germanic ethnic component. Only 22% of Welsh can speak welsh language. About 3/4 of Iberia was celtic-speakin area, the only difference is that Spain was Romanized and Latin made it's official language, while Wales not.

[Comte Arnau]

Welsh the most Celtic place why ?

Because it is the traditionally Celtic place on Earth with the largest number of Celtic speakers in the world?

[Don]

Welsh the most Celtic place why ? They are mostly english speakers today, a germanic language, and have a large germanic ethnic component. Only 22% of Welsh can speak welsh language. About 3/4 of Iberia was celtic-speakin area, the only difference is that Spain was Romanized and Latin made it's official language, while Wales not.

Racially speaking, the modern Iberians are the most pure inheritors of these ancient tribes of the Western Europe, these owners of the traits related (wrongly or not) to the modern concept of Celts.

A random guy from wales whose ancestors came to these ancient atlantic lands from central Europe or Northern Europe claiming himself celt, linking himself to the Stonenhenge and ancient cults of the west and speaking a gaelic language, is a fake, as a African calling himself American or a Muslim Calling himself Spaniard just because he and his children live in here and speak castilian.

Behind all these facts there is the main reason of so many ethno-stealing propaganda by the usurpers of cultures.


I guess it depends on visions, I have mine very clear:


http://www.mpt.es/ministerio/delegaciones_gobierno/delegaciones/cantabria/actualidad/notas_de_prensa/notas/2008/11/2008_11_28-1/image_es/CLAUSURA_TALLER_CARTES_TAPIA_PORTADA.jpg
Teach these random spaniard men and women their lost language and you will have an Authentic "Celt".

Their traditions do the rest:
http://www.hotel-santillana.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/c.jpg

http://www.guerrascantabras.net/imgs/guerrascantabras34.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/4974675783_aa906757da_z.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8569/lavijanerauk7.jpg

http://www.altocarrion.com/Images/histoWebGrande/chozo_cantabros.jpg

http://www.robertodiego.com/graph/FOTOS/Rober_Diego_Romero_Palaciu_03-Praos.jpg

http://imagenes.infojardin.com/subiendo/images/opt1206199803t.jpg

http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/prensa/noticias/200908/10/fotos/1136048.jpg

http://www.cunadelebro.es/recursos/archivos/contenidos/recordar/CentrosInterpretacion/PobladoCantabro.JPG -Notice that these are exclusively pictures from only one of the Tribes and regions of Spain, the Cántabros (dedicado a Caballo Loco)-




Anyone can learn a language.
But no one can change his genes and blood.

[Comte Arnau]

Anyone can learn a language.
But no one can change his genes and blood.

Learning the language doesn't make you become part of an ethnicity.
But losing the language gets you out of that ethnicity too.

[Ibericus]

Because it is the traditionally Celtic place on Earth with the largest number of Celtic speakers in the world?
Celtic is not only language. It's culture, it's ancestry. Because Celts don't exist today anymore. Or do you consider a japanese who knows spanish to be...spanish ?

[Comte Arnau]

Celtic is not only language. It's culture, it's ancestry. Because Celts don't exist today anymore. Or do you consider a japanese who knows spanish to be...spanish ?

Do you consider Spanish a Russian whose grandfather was Spanish?

[Ibericus]

Do you consider Spanish a Russian whose grandfather was Spanish?
No.

[Lábaru]

It makes no sense to argue that nation is more Celtic, obviously more than twenty centuries things have changed too much and leaves us with the past and little traditions. A Celtic person from 2500 years ago can not recognize any one of us in the present as one of them, a Celt from Iberia, undoubtedly, recognize in the past as alien to a "British" Celt.

The Celts never were a unique people, were hundreds of tribes with common features and a lot of diferences.

The origin of the Celts? if you ask me, genetically came from Iberia, migrating long before being known as Celts, undoubtedly culturally forged in the heart of Europe, and later matured in the British Isles and Iberia, returning to their native origins and meeting their primitive ancestors, acquiring unique nuances.

[Osweo]

Celts here, Celts there. Celts now, Celts then. Four different things.

The affinities of the ancient common language suggest a central European origin. Aspects of the modern languages hint at other substrata. The affinities of the modern speakers' genetics likewise point mostly to an older linguistic layer.

There's not a Celt alive today who doesn't have a LARGE proportion of his ancestry who learnt Celtic as a second language.

I'm intensely sceptical of an Iberian Urheimat, given the non-IE presence there. Even if Tartessian is demonstrated to be so Celtic as Koch and co. would like, this still doesn't mean that Celtic speech was first heard there, just that it got there earlier than we expected. (I'm not impressed with the Celtic 'translations' of Tartessus, though.)

Sadly, the Milesians are a scholarly fiction from early Christian times, more inspired by Irish admiration of Hispanic learning (especially of Sevilla's great Isidorus) than by tradition. Native stories point as much to Britain and Gaul, and tend to indicate a multi-pronged advance of Celticism.

By the way, as a proven MacR1b1b2a1a2f2, I'm the direct descendant of the clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C3%AD_N%C3%A9ill) that did most to celticise Ireland, and don't want our achievement slighted by crazy claims that it was already Celtic in the first place. ;)

[Treffie]

Welsh the most Celtic place why ? They are mostly english speakers today, a germanic language, and have a large germanic ethnic component. Only 22% of Welsh can speak welsh language.

In Gwynedd, Ynys Môn, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire, parts of Powys and north Pembrokeshire, Welsh is the most commonly used language. In Gwynedd and Carmarthenshire, Welsh is the only used language - English is used when speaking to non-Welsh speaking people. Compare the Irish Gaeltacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaeltacht) to the Welsh Fro Gymraeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Fro_Gymraeg). If we look at Irish and Welsh medium education, there are approximately 10,000 children (3.3%) taught through the medium of Irish at secondary level, whereas the figure in Wales is approximately 42,000 (20.4%) and is increasing by almost 4% per year. I guess the figures speak for themselves.


About 3/4 of Iberia was celtic-speakin area, the only difference is that Spain was Romanized and Latin made it's official language, while Wales not.

Wales was Romanized, why do you think we were called Romanized Brits? The Welsh language is now virtually unrecognisable compared to what it used to look like before the Romans arrived.

[antonio]

I'm intensely sceptical of an Iberian Urheimat, given the non-IE presence there. Even if Tartessian is demonstrated to be so Celtic as Koch and co. would like, this still doesn't mean that Celtic speech was first heard there, just that it got there earlier than we expected. (I'm not impressed with the Celtic 'translations' of Tartessus, though.)


But at least historical logic tells Tartessos kingdom had to be necessary ruled by Indoeuropean Iron-Age conquerors. As, for example, at Gallaecia with its rivers full of gold-pipes. Some inhabitants of Gallaecia claimed they were Celtics recruited around Anas river (former Tartessian area) which finally deserted and settled down in Gallaecia.


Sadly, the Milesians are a scholarly fiction from early Christian times, more inspired by Irish admiration of Hispanic learning (especially of Sevilla's great Isidorus) than by tradition. Native stories point as much to Britain and Gaul, and tend to indicate a multi-pronged advance of Celticism.


Milesian legends at Spain came to a second life when ignited Galician romantic historicians celtism into thinking Ireland was conquered by the son of a Celtic king of Gallaecia which saw that lands across the sea from the highest tower. In fact it's still somewhat alive in that form whilst earlier(if not trulier) claims of Greek foundations of some Galician cities are just matter of laugh.



By the way, as a proven MacR1b1b2a1a2f2, I'm the direct descendant of the clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C3%AD_N%C3%A9ill) that did most to celticise Ireland, and don't want our achievement slighted by crazy claims that it was already Celtic in the first place. ;)

And you should be praised for. :D

[Curtis24]

Hmmm...
Genetic research cannot contradict with linguistic research, because these are independent levels. There are genes from different directions, even from Spain, but the Celtic language was still born in Central Europe. We have Italo-Celtic common features, we have contacts between Celtic and Germanic etc.

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

It can't directly contradict; perhaps "argues against" or "makes less likely" seems better.

[Ibericus]

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.
:confused: Elaborate.

[Curtis24]

Hmmm...
Genetic research cannot contradict with linguistic research, because these are independent levels. There are genes from different directions, even from Spain, but the Celtic language was still born in Central Europe. We have Italo-Celtic common features, we have contacts between Celtic and Germanic etc.

In Spain there were other languages: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian. There are no traces of old contacts with them and Celtic.

Furthermore, as I look back, I said the genetic research seemed to contradict Coon's idea that the Celts descended from the Corded Ware culture. I never said it contradicted any of the linguistics studies on Celtic languages. or proto-Celtic.

[Aviane]

If Spain is one of the most Celtic, where are its Celtic languages?

I hate to sound biased, but Wales is probably the most Celtic place on earth.

For true it could be and why not since they are supposed to be one of the earliest peoples to the island.


But you're not Celtic, so how would you know?

Yeah true, that's it countries that have lost parts of their Celtic origins aren't considered such.


North Wales or the south/west of Ireland, definitely.

Totally Agreed.


Indeed they were, but are you? Language is a huge part of the Celtic identity. As I mentioned earlier, no place in Iberia is Celtic these days, because of the lack of a Celtic language. Being a Celtic romanticist doesn't mean that one is Celtic either. If we look back in history, then fine, Iberia was definitely a Celtic area.

Indeed, Iberia might have been a Celtic area once but today it is not due to the disappearence of language so it probably doesn't make much sense to call it Celtic, plus there is other places in Europe (like South Germany, Austria etc) that used to be considered Celtic which are not anymore. A romanticist could just as well be played by anyone but that doesn't mean much.


Welsh the most Celtic place why ? They are mostly english speakers today, a germanic language, and have a large germanic ethnic component. Only 22% of Welsh can speak welsh language. About 3/4 of Iberia was celtic-speakin area, the only difference is that Spain was Romanized and Latin made it's official language, while Wales not.

Welsh speaking a Germanic language is true but that doesn't still exclude them from being a Celtic nation unlike Iberia or Germany for example so that's a bit of a weak point.


Because it is the traditionally Celtic place on Earth with the largest number of Celtic speakers in the world?

Surely the most last standing nation of speakers. :thumb001:


Racially speaking, the modern Iberians are the most pure inheritors of these ancient tribes of the Western Europe, these owners of the traits related (wrongly or not) to the modern concept of Celts.

A random guy from wales whose ancestors came to these ancient atlantic lands from central Europe or Northern Europe claiming himself celt, linking himself to the Stonenhenge and ancient cults of the west and speaking a gaelic language, is a fake, as a African calling himself American or a Muslim Calling himself Spaniard just because he and his children live in here and speak castilian.

Behind all these facts there is the main reason of so many ethno-stealing propaganda by the usurpers of cultures.


I guess it depends on visions, I have mine very clear:


Teach these random spaniard men and women their lost language and you will have an Authentic "Celt".


Anyone can learn a language.
But no one can change his genes and blood.

Iberians are probably the earliest of Western tribes or whatever but to call a person from Wales a fake is just as bad as calling a Englishman a fake Briton plus they are just as native as the rest if not the most, it seems like you don't like the idea of someone expressing his views just let him be.

They could say the same about you Iberians.


Celts here, Celts there. Celts now, Celts then. Four different things.

The affinities of the ancient common language suggest a central European origin. Aspects of the modern languages hint at other substrata. The affinities of the modern speakers' genetics likewise point mostly to an older linguistic layer.

There's not a Celt alive today who doesn't have a LARGE proportion of his ancestry who learnt Celtic as a second language.

I'm intensely sceptical of an Iberian Urheimat, given the non-IE presence there. Even if Tartessian is demonstrated to be so Celtic as Koch and co. would like, this still doesn't mean that Celtic speech was first heard there, just that it got there earlier than we expected. (I'm not impressed with the Celtic 'translations' of Tartessus, though.)

Sadly, the Milesians are a scholarly fiction from early Christian times, more inspired by Irish admiration of Hispanic learning (especially of Sevilla's great Isidorus) than by tradition. Native stories point as much to Britain and Gaul, and tend to indicate a multi-pronged advance of Celticism.

By the way, as a proven MacR1b1b2a1a2f2, I'm the direct descendant of the clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C3%AD_N%C3%A9ill) that did most to celticise Ireland, and don't want our achievement slighted by crazy claims that it was already Celtic in the first place. ;)

Indeed and well said. :thumb001: :cool:

[Osweo]

Furthermore, as I look back, I said the genetic research seemed to contradict Coon's idea that the Celts descended from the Corded Ware culture. I never said it contradicted any of the linguistics studies on Celtic languages. or proto-Celtic.

Coon wasn't talking of modern (linguistic and self-identifying) Celts when he was talking about Corded Ware. He was talking about the very first people to speak Celtic, BEFORE their absorption of hundreds of thousands of others to north, south, east and west of them.

His 'Keltic Nordid', or 'Keltic' for short is understood by him to be the bringer of Celtic speech to Britain, presumably not too altered yet from the original Alpine variety.

[Albion]

Are the two theories that incompatible?



Er... what??? :confused:

Not if you consider this theory (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40504) which seems to fit the evidence very well.

[awyr dywyll]

The affinities of the ancient common language suggest a central European origin. Aspects of the modern languages hint at other substrata. The affinities of the modern speakers' genetics likewise point mostly to an older linguistic layer.
Central Europe had nothing to do with Celtic homeland



I'm intensely sceptical of an Iberian Urheimat, given the non-IE presence there. Even if Tartessian is demonstrated to be so Celtic as Koch and co. would like, this still doesn't mean that Celtic speech was first heard there, just that it got there earlier than we expected. (I'm not impressed with the Celtic 'translations' of Tartessus, though.)
According to written sources Celts lived in Iberia in Iron Age.Between Guadiana and Tejo rivers near hypothethetical Tartessus kingdom


Sadly, the Milesians are a scholarly fiction from early Christian times, more inspired by Irish admiration of Hispanic learning (especially of Sevilla's great Isidorus) than by tradition. Native stories point as much to Britain and Gaul, and tend to indicate a multi-pronged advance of Celticism.
Real fiction was groundless theory of La Tene and Halstatt Celtic homeland

And of course Celts and celtic-speaking people didn't arrive in Iberia in La Tene period through Pirenees mountains.They'd already lived in Portugal and north-western Spain. The only explanation is that one of the homelands of Celts was there and connected with Castro Culture and another cultures to the north,along Atlantic coast

[Geni]

That's the point, I speak a Latin changed or distorted by time, but as a Cantabrian my origins are Celtic people of my signature.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Estela_2.jpg

This is a "Lábaru Cántabru" an ancient Celt flag of my people.



"Etymologically, the word comes from (p)lab- which means to speak in a number of Celtic languages, many of which have derivatives. For example, in Welsh llafar means "speech", "language", "voice". Ancient Cornish and Breton have lavar, "word", and ancient Irish has labrad: "language", "speech".[1]"

"Through the Cantabrian War and the surrender of the Cantabri and Astures to Rome, the Roman legions adopted from them the solar symbol of twin crosses and lunar symbols, such as the Cantabri lábaro. They would still be carrying this standard 300 years later. The Roman army also copied from the Cantabri the cavalry tactics circulus cantabricus and cantabricus impetus as already mentioned."

http://usuarios.multimania.es/asutil/labaru.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1baru

Labaru ..curious..LLafe...LLafos in albanian =speech,to discute..:confused:

[TheOldNorth]

Spanish/Atlantic ethnogenesis=true ethnogenesis

[PaleoEuropean]

I have somewhat of an obsession with the Celts. Recently, because of the works of some geneticists, some have postulated that the Celtic ethnogenesis happened in Spain. Others keep with the traditional idea that the ethnogenesis happened in Central Europe, specifically Southern German/Austria.

Here are outlines of the two basic theories, keep in mind I'm no expert:

1) Central Europe ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Celts are descendants of the Kurgan culture from Southern Russia. They slowly invaded Europe, conquering and then mingling with Bell Beaker peoples, and adapting to their new surroundings. This settlement and interaction resulted in the development of the culture associated with Hallstatt - "Celtic culture". The new ethnic Celts then pushed into France, Spain, and eventually Britain and Ireland.

From a racial viewpoint, Coon argued that the warrior types found at Hallstatt and La Tene tended to correspond Corded Ware and Kurgan types(Nordid, basically). These Nordids then mixed a little with the Bell Beakers(Dinarids), before invading France and then the Isles. Coon actually thought the "Celtic type" made a majority in Britain and were stereotypically associated with the English.

However, as I'll explain, some genetic research seems to contradict this...


2) Spanish ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Megalithic people who settled Spain and then Britain and Ireland spoke Celtic languages. Rather than spread through military conquests from Southern Russia - "Kurgan Hypothesis" - this different idea of the spread of Indo-European languages sees them resulting from Neolithic farming settlement of the Mediterranean, associated with the Megalith builders. Essentially, one branch of the Indo-European languages originated in Turkey, spread from their to Greek, from thence to Italy, and then to Spain, the Isles, and then to France. I guess in this theory, Celtic languages develop out of Latin rather than the other way around - and the people who brought farming to Britain and Ireland already spoke Celtic.

The main support for this theory is genetic information. Genetically, it seems very hard to prove a Celtic invasion of the British Isles during the Iron Age. Rather, most Britains and Irish genetically seem related most to Neolithic Megalith builders - as does Northern Spain and Northwest France - all areas where Celtic languages were spoken.

There's also some support from Celtic mythology - the Irish, for example, saw themselves as being descended from settlers from Iberia, and these legends don't speak of an invasion or conquering another peoples - as would have happened in the Kurgan hypothesis. There's also little archaeological evidence in either Britain or Ireland for any military invasion during the Iron Age - the implication being that the Celtic-speaking settlements of the Isles happened in a period where they held little indigenous population, and thus did not require a "conquest" as the Kurgan hypothesis holds.

There is definite evidence of a warlike Iron Age culture in Central FRance and Central Germany, however. In the Spanish hypothesis, thus, Celtic invasions of central Europe would have begun from either the British Isles or Spain, and would have been violent in nature due to the established agriculture/large populations in those areas when the Megalith builders came around.

There three distinct Celts, The Alpine Celts, Iberian/Basque Celts and the Germanic Celts. They like most cultures were a patchwork of peoples brought together by language and intermarriage. The only true Celts are Alpine Celts, they started the culture and from there it spread and mutated, much like many others have before and after.

[TheOldNorth]

There three distinct Celts, The Alpine Celts, Iberian/Basque Celts and the Germanic Celts. They like most cultures were a patchwork of peoples brought together by language and intermarriage. The only true Celts are Alpine Celts, they started the culture and from there it spread and mutated, much like many others have before and after.

the alpine celts gained their language from the iberian celts, making the iberian celts the true celts

[PaleoEuropean]

the alpine celts gained their language from the iberian celts, making the iberian celts the true celts

Alpine Celts invented all the cool helmets and shit though XD

[TheOldNorth]

Alpine Celts invented all the cool helmets and shit though XD

pots aren't people! and neither are helmets

[SharpFork]

The Atlantic fringe hypothesis has to be the most retarded theory you could make up about Celtic ethnogenesis, the only reason it's maybe supported it's because it conveniently puts the homeland where modern Celtic larpers from both Spain, France and the British isles live as opposed to the Central European hypothesis.

[Grace O'Malley]

The Atlantic fringe hypothesis has to be the most retarded theory you could make up about Celtic ethnogenesis, the only reason it's maybe supported it's because it conveniently puts the homeland where modern Celtic larpers from both Spain, France and the British isles live as opposed to the Central European hypothesis.

I don't think Celtic is from the West but it remains to be explained why places like Ireland were/are Celtic speakers without having much contact with Hallstatt. It's still a bit of a mystery.

[SharpFork]

I don't think Celtic is from the West but it remains to be explained why places like Ireland were/are Celtic speakers without having much contact with Hallstatt. It's still a bit of a mystery.
The question is when did Ireland become Celtic speaking, I heard some fringe(in his views at least) linguist claim that Ireland became Celtic pretty late(after La Tene even) but even discounting that, do we have to believe that Ireland became Celtic during the Hallstatt period?

[Grace O'Malley]

We are going to be getting a great study from France which will have Gauls. Gauls will be very similar to Irish and British and they were undoubtedly Celts.


The aim of ANCESTRA is to reconstruct the peopling of the territory of present-day France by characterizing the different waves of human populations since the Neolithic and until the beginning of the Middle-Ages. By means of ancient DNA studies, we can directly access the genetic make-up, the ancestry, the phenotypes, the pathogens and the adaptation to diet and environmental conditions of ancient populations characterized archaeologically in time and space. We will then be able to depict the ancient population structure in this geographic region and compare it with the structure of the modern French population as well as with other geographic regions from which data are already available. The study will bring about the scientific basis to put in a broad context the last century of immigration as the continuation of the “French Story” over the last 6000 years and help to better understand the integration process of migrants.

https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-15-CE27-0001

Should be released in 2020 Yay!

[Grace O'Malley]

The question is when did Ireland become Celtic speaking, I heard some fringe(in his views at least) linguist claim that Ireland became Celtic pretty late(after La Tene even) but even discounting that, do we have to believe that Ireland became Celtic during the Hallstatt period?

As I've said it's a bit of a mystery as Irish don't appear to have much genetics or materials from Hallstatt but they speak a Celtic language. Irish genetically are very much a Northwestern European population most similar to their neighbours but they have a lot in common with Bretons and Normans. The problem is these populations have a lot of shared history with people moving back and forth so it is difficult to sort out. These studies looking at ancient genomes are the answer though and both studies on the French and Irish are coming out next year.

[SharpFork]

We are going to be getting a great study from France which will have Gauls. Gauls will be very similar to Irish and British and they were undoubtedly Celts.



https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-15-CE27-0001

Should be released in 2020 Yay!

Problem is that I don't think genetics are particularly useful there, the populations involved there are all very similar, if anything what would be interesting to see is how genetics factored in the Celtic presence in Spain which seems very weird.

[Grace O'Malley]

The question is when did Ireland become Celtic speaking, I heard some fringe(in his views at least) linguist claim that Ireland became Celtic pretty late(after La Tene even) but even discounting that, do we have to believe that Ireland became Celtic during the Hallstatt period?

Irish were definitely speaking Celtic before La Tene or Halstatt. In fact there are no signs of non-Indo-European languages in Ireland.

[SharpFork]

As I've said it's a bit of a mystery as Irish don't appear to have much genetics or materials from Hallstatt but they speak a Celtic language. Irish genetically are very much a Northwestern European population most similar to their neighbours but they have a lot in common with Bretons and Normans. The problem is these populations have a lot of shared history with people moving back and forth so it is difficult to sort out. These studies looking at ancient genomes are the answer though and both studies on the French and Irish are coming out next year.

I guess Celtic spread to Ireland through Celtized but non-Hallstatt British groups, not even all of Britain was Hallstatt or La Tene

[SharpFork]

Irish were definitely speaking Celtic before La Tene or Halstatt. In fact there are no signs of non-Indo-European languages in Ireland.

If you are interested I could find you that linguist and where he put those claims, in any case I'm not sure why you are so confident that Ireland was Celtic speaking so early on, the earliest written attestation of Celtic is like in 500 BCE and the lack of non-IE in Ireland might be simply down to the presence of other IE varieties before the Celts came, no real contradiction there.

[Grace O'Malley]

I guess Celtic spread to Ireland through Celtized but non-Hallstatt British groups, not even all of Britain was Hallstatt or La Tene

Possibly through trade but we don't have the answers yet. I believe France will give a lot of answers to this question. A Gaul from Empuries was very British like. There are still a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle but I think these will all be answered in the next few years with ancient genomes.

[Grace O'Malley]

If you are interested I could find you that linguist and where he put those claims, in any case I'm not sure why you are so confident that Ireland was Celtic speaking so early on, the earliest written attestation of Celtic is like in 500 BCE and the lack of non-IE in Ireland might be simply down to the presence of other IE varieties before the Celts came, no real contradiction there.

This post from alan on Anthrogenica explains it better than I could.


I’m not a believer in the Celtic from Iberia model but I also don’t believe urnfield is a good fit either. Urnfield hardly touched the bulk of Gallia Celtica and it’s distribution in France and Iberia is a terrible mismatch as it was actually strongest in areas where non celtic languages like Ligurian and Iberian dominated. So neither model works IMO. Then you have Ireland which has almost no urnfield material, no Hallstatt except some local copies of swords but yet it has a Q Celtic dialect which can’t have come in the La Tene culture because even Britain was P Celtic by 350BC. It looks clear to me that ireland was Celtic speaking before the Hallstatt era, in the local golden age of the Dowris phase and probably before that. There is a period c 1200-1000BC where the Bronze Age in Ireland seemed to have an especially international flavour in terms of metalwork.

I think we don't have enough information yet.

[Jana]

We are going to be getting a great study from France which will have Gauls. Gauls will be very similar to Irish and British and they were undoubtedly Celts.



https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-15-CE27-0001

Should be released in 2020 Yay!

Study from France, finally!
I expect Gauls to be autosomally close to modern Brits.

Probably Roman contribution was quite big and shifted modern French more south. We have seen in recent Iberian paper how Roman admix was much greater than believed.

Even southern England was affected by this to a degree.

Looking forward to both French and Irish papers:thumb001:

[Grace O'Malley]

Study from France, finally!
I expect Gauls to be autosomally close to modern Brits.

Probably Roman contribution was quite big and shifted modern French more south. We have seen in recent Iberian paper how Roman admix was much greater than believed.

Even southern England was affected by this to a degree.

Looking forward to both French and Irish papers:thumb001:

All my wishes have come true. :) I can't believe we are getting a study like this from France. I agree with your post. I think France like Spain had a big shift from the Roman colonisation.

[SharpFork]

This post from alan on Anthrogenica explains it better than I could.



I think we don't have enough information yet.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic there, we have plenty of language spreading without clear archaeological signs.

Is the degree of difference between Irish Celtic and other continental Irish languages enough to warrant such early dating?

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm not sure I agree with the logic there, we have plenty of language spreading without clear archaeological signs.

Is the degree of difference between Irish Celtic and other continental Irish languages enough to warrant such early dating?

I'm not up with the linguistic debate but there are others that no a lot more than me on that front. I think it is highly likely that Bell Beaker spoke an Indo-European language that developed into Celtic. I've seen a lot on this topic so I'd have to find the relevant posts on various forums. I'm really open on whatever way the chips fall on this and don't have a vested interest as I've come to the conclusion a long time ago that the Irish might not be that Celtic genetically. However they are Celts linguistically and culturally but I think Celt is a very broad term and we might have a very different idea of who Celts were and were not in the future. I might look for more relevant info if this thread still keeps going. What are your opinions on the topic?

[SharpFork]

I'm not up with the linguistic debate but there are others that no a lot more than me on that front. I think it is highly likely that Bell Beaker spoke an Indo-European language that developed into Celtic. I've seen a lot on this topic so I'd have to find the relevant posts on various forums. I'm really open on whatever way the chips fall on this and don't have a vested interest as I've come to the conclusion a long time ago that the Irish might not be that Celtic genetically. However they are Celts linguistically and culturally but I think Celt is a very broad term and we might have a very different idea of who Celts were and were not in the future. I might look for more relevant info if this thread still keeps going. What are your opinions on the topic?
I think Celts as a ethno-linguistic group probably were around the upper Rhine, upper Elbe and upper Danube basin and spread during the transition to iron usage, some areas would have experience Celtiziation during the Hallstatt period(Spain? Britain?) others during the La Tene period(Hungary, Transylvania etc.)

I'm really not sure about Spain, as far as I understood Celtiberians seem to be more recent arrival of Celts and the nature of people such as Lusitanians, Turdetanians and their Celtiness or relation to Indo-European is questioned, for this reason I find the "Celtic from the West" hypothesis a bit weak, because not only it presumes an early Celtic presence in such areas but also has this weird concept of "lingua franca" originating and spreading through mere trade but also leaves us with those large gaps in terms of Celtic presence in Spain, while somehow Celtic spread so much in Central Europe.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised by how much flat out wrong stuff on genetics and anthrpology goes on with Britain and Ireland, I keep hearing about "Basque-Celtic migration/connection" or "Most of the population of the British isles is from the neolithic" etc. and I feel like this theory is not that much better, I mean I even like Barry Cunliffe's work on the topic of Celts but the fact we are not only entertaining such hypothesis without much real support but also entertaining the idea that Celtic is as old as the Bell Beaker culture is simply ridiculous, I feel like it's the same kind of mentality, I don't think such theories can be accepted if they didn't feed into some kind of convenient narrative, even if not particularly nefarious.

I mean what the poster you previously quote theorized is at the very least miles better than what Cunliffe says, a late Bronze Age celtization of Ireland makes much more sense than "Bell Beaker = Celtic".

I think the only real solution to this topic is from a paleolinguistical perspective, genetics may mislead us or maybe make us miss some important in-between steps(for example Celtic branches replacing one another or back-migrations and such)

Small edit: I really want to drive home that the entire concept of Celtic rising as a lingua franca in the Atlantic is so weak and unproven that it makes the theory far weaker than a later Celtic spread, it can be argued that maybe this speech was some Centum IE conglomerate that gave rise to Celtic and maybe even Lusitanian(if it's not Celtic itself) but the idea that a cohesive and homogenous Celtic language would have risen without migrations or strong political bonds over such large areas is extremely questionable. a Bell Beaker Celtic would have given rise to very different branches, as different as Germanic to Italic even.

[TheOldNorth]

I think Celts as a ethno-linguistic group probably were around the upper Rhine, upper Elbe and upper Danube basin and spread during the transition to iron usage, some areas would have experience Celtiziation during the Hallstatt period(Spain? Britain?) others during the La Tene period(Hungary, Transylvania etc.)

I'm really not sure about Spain, as far as I understood Celtiberians seem to be more recent arrival of Celts and the nature of people such as Lusitanians, Turdetanians and their Celtiness or relation to Indo-European is questioned, for this reason I find the "Celtic from the West" hypothesis a bit weak, because not only it presumes an early Celtic presence in such areas but also has this weird concept of "lingua franca" originating and spreading through mere trade but also leaves us with those large gaps in terms of Celtic presence in Spain, while somehow Celtic spread so much in Central Europe.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised by how much flat out wrong stuff on genetics and anthrpology goes on with Britain and Ireland, I keep hearing about "Basque-Celtic migration/connection" or "Most of the population of the British isles is from the neolithic" etc. and I feel like this theory is not that much better, I mean I even like Barry Cunliffe's work on the topic of Celts but the fact we are not only entertaining such hypothesis without much real support but also entertaining the idea that Celtic is as old as the Bell Beaker culture is simply ridiculous, I feel like it's the same kind of mentality, I don't think such theories can be accepted if they didn't feed into some kind of convenient narrative, even if not particularly nefarious.

I mean what the poster you previously quote theorized is at the very least miles better than what Cunliffe says, a late Bronze Age celtization of Ireland makes much more sense than "Bell Beaker = Celtic".

I think the only real solution to this topic is from a paleolinguistical perspective, genetics may mislead us or maybe make us miss some important in-between steps(for example Celtic branches replacing one another or back-migrations and such)

Small edit: I really want to drive home that the entire concept of Celtic rising as a lingua franca in the Atlantic is so weak and unproven that it makes the theory far weaker than a later Celtic spread, it can be argued that maybe this speech was some Centum IE conglomerate that gave rise to Celtic and maybe even Lusitanian(if it's not Celtic itself) but the idea that a cohesive and homogenous Celtic language would have risen without migrations or strong political bonds over such large areas is extremely questionable. a Bell Beaker Celtic would have given rise to very different branches, as different as Germanic to Italic even.

There is a lot of evidence to say that Iberia and Britain were speaking Celtic long before the Hallstatt culture, if it were to spread rather then originate there like is likely, the it probably would’ve been through trade between the Atlantic Bronze Age system and the Urnfields

[TheOldNorth]

We are going to be getting a great study from France which will have Gauls. Gauls will be very similar to Irish and British and they were undoubtedly Celts.



https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-15-CE27-0001

Should be released in 2020 Yay!

Excellent news! I’d love to see the results, personally I think that over the years the celts divided between two main ancestries, continental ‘converted’ celts and Atlantic ‘originally’ celts, which can Ben seen between the divisions between ‘British and irish’ and ‘French and German’ in 23&me, where as ‘broadly northwest european’ represents Germanic.
I say this because the closer it gets to the Germanic homeland, the stronger it and ‘Scandinavian’ becomes, while ‘french And German’ ancestry is centered around the Rhine and northwestern alps

[SharpFork]

There is a lot of evidence to say that Iberia and Britain were speaking Celtic long before the Hallstatt culture, if it were to spread rather then originate there like is likely, the it probably would’ve been through trade between the Atlantic Bronze Age system and the Urnfields

Evidence such as?

No it's ridiculous to say that trade would spread a language and have it maintain a certain cohesiveness for so long.

[Creoda]

Even if Iberians and/or British were speaking some sort of Celtic family language before Hallstatt, so what? The genetic evidence is that both were invaded by people from Central or Central Western Europe from roughly that time on, and not the other way around. Whatever cultural continuity that spanned the Atlantic coast of Europe from North to South was almost certainly provided by those invasions.

[TheOldNorth]

Even if Iberians and/or British were speaking some sort of Celtic family language before Hallstatt, so what? The genetic evidence is that both were invaded by people from Central or Central Western Europe from roughly that time on, and not the other way around. Whatever cultural continuity that spanned the Atlantic coast of Europe from North to South was almost certainly provided by those invasions.

Not really... that’s the whole controversy over the Hallstatt theory to begin with, is that there is little to no genetic evidence for it

[Creoda]

Not really... that’s the whole controversy over the Hallstatt theory to begin with, is that there is little to no genetic evidence for it
Not really what? You can easily use Global25 and compare Bronze Age Iberians with Iron Age Celtiberians, and Bronze Age Britons/Irish with Iron Age (and modern) Britons/Irish to see that both were impacted by a Hallstatt-like population in that interval.

[TheOldNorth]

Not really what? You can easily use Global25 and compare Bronze Age Iberians with Iron Age Celtiberians, and Bronze Age Britons/Irish with Iron Age (and modern) Britons/Irish to see that both were impacted by a Hallstatt-like population in that interval.

how much was iron age irish impacted?

[Creoda]

how much was iron age irish impacted?
There are no Iron Age Irish samples, but see this earlier post from Token.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?276882-The-Celtic-Conquest-of-Britain-and-Ireland&p=5780952&viewfull=1#post5780952


qpAdm run targeting Iron Age Britons. It looks like a mass replacement to me.

England_IA
Britain_&_Ireland_BA 0.555±0.172
Hallstatt 0.445±0.172
chisq 18.513
tail prob 0.100973

Modern-day Irish people also shows substantial Hallstatt-like contribution, no matter which sample from the Bronze Age British Isles you are using as reference.

"distance%=2.1656"
Irish
Ireland_EBA,68.6
Hallstatt_Bylany,31.4
Modern Irish ought to have similar or less amounts of Hallstatt-like influence compared to Iron Age Irish (considering later Germanic influence).

All peoples of the British Isles are noticeably southern shifted compared to their Bronze Age counterparts. IMO that can only be from one thing.

[Grace O'Malley]

There are no Iron Age Irish samples, but see this earlier post from Token.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?276882-The-Celtic-Conquest-of-Britain-and-Ireland&p=5780952&viewfull=1#post5780952


Modern Irish ought to have similar or less amounts of Hallstatt-like influence compared to Iron Age Irish (considering later Germanic influence).

All peoples of the British Isles are noticeably southern shifted compared to their Bronze Age counterparts. IMO that can only be from one thing.

The only way we will know is by using ancient genomes from different periods and comparing. While the model above is interesting the Hallstatt amount would be inflated because the Irish have changed from Rathlin. Personally I doubt Hallstatt had mach an impact on the Irish but I'm waiting on the Cassidy paper which I'm sure will cover this.

This is what you get using different models.

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.2669,
"England_Saxon": 100,
"IRL_BA": 0,

{"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.6765,
"SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 81.67,
"IRL_BA": 18.33,

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.073,
"England_Saxon": 88.33,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 11.67,
"IRL_BA": 0,

So I don't think using the Bronze Age Irish and something else is going what further populations contributed to the Irish. By May next year the Cassidy paper will be released and hopefully we will have a lot more Irish samples.

[SharpFork]

The only way we will know is by using ancient genomes from different periods and comparing. While the model above is interesting the Hallstatt amount would be inflated because the Irish have changed from Rathlin. Personally I doubt Hallstatt had mach an impact on the Irish but I'm waiting on the Cassidy paper which I'm sure will cover this.

This is what you get using different models.

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.2669,
"England_Saxon": 100,
"IRL_BA": 0,

{"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.6765,
"SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 81.67,
"IRL_BA": 18.33,

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.073,
"England_Saxon": 88.33,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 11.67,
"IRL_BA": 0,

So I don't think using the Bronze Age Irish and something else is going what further populations contributed to the Irish. By May next year the Cassidy paper will be released and hopefully we will have a lot more Irish samples.
How come Irish have so little Bronze Age indigenous component when using Viking samples as well?

[TheOldNorth]

How come Irish have so little Bronze Age indigenous component when using Viking samples as well?

the samples might have been from the northern or eastern regions of Ireland

[SharpFork]

the samples might have been from the northern or eastern regions of Ireland
It shouldn't matter, it's not like Scandinavians and Irish experienced the same genetic drift, one would still mostly Bronze Age admixture.

[TheOldNorth]

It shouldn't matter, it's not like Scandinavians and Irish experienced the same genetic drift, one would still mostly Bronze Age admixture.

not unless the neolithic 'black irish' genes were more common among the lower class, who are less likely to marry outwards

[Creoda]

It shouldn't matter, it's not like Scandinavians and Irish experienced the same genetic drift, one would still mostly Bronze Age admixture.
It's very probable that the Irish are descended mostly from Bronze Age Irish/British, those particular models just aren't very good.

[Dick]

The only way we will know is by using ancient genomes from different periods and comparing. While the model above is interesting the Hallstatt amount would be inflated because the Irish have changed from Rathlin. Personally I doubt Hallstatt had mach an impact on the Irish but I'm waiting on the Cassidy paper which I'm sure will cover this.

This is what you get using different models.

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.2669,
"England_Saxon": 100,
"IRL_BA": 0,

{"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.6765,
"SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 81.67,
"IRL_BA": 18.33,

"sample": "Irish:Average",
"fit": 1.073,
"England_Saxon": 88.33,
"CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany": 11.67,
"IRL_BA": 0,

So I don't think using the Bronze Age Irish and something else is going what further populations contributed to the Irish. By May next year the Cassidy paper will be released and hopefully we will have a lot more Irish samples.

Try using only Bronze Age samples