Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Britons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Natural forest fires do not lead to permanent deforestation, like slash and burn practising for agriculture or pastoralism does. Slash and burn techniques meant more food for people which meant more people which meant growing tendency to burn more forests. Natural fires are random, but usually a constant phenomenon over a long period.
    Last edited by 192971; 5 September 2015, 04:12 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Oliver Rackham , a renowned expert on trees said

      ‘Broad-leaved woodland burns like wet asbestos
      when posing the question of how the early inhabitants managed to deforest Britain, he offered no definite answers that I'm aware of but clearly was unimpressed with the notion that fire could have played a significant part.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Subwoofer View Post
        Oliver Rackham , a renowned expert on trees said



        when posing the question of how the early inhabitants managed to deforest Britain, he offered no definite answers that I'm aware of but clearly was unimpressed with the notion that fire could have played a significant part.
        Evidence of burning in the Mesolithic was found in northern Britain. Watch the program and you will learn.

        Comment


        • #34
          The Neolithic people cut trees that they needed. There were some post holes found outside of the Passage tombs and I think that those posts were for suspending the dead on.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
            If you read his threads about the DNA of Western Europe, the British Isles and, especially Ireland, you'll see that there's a lot of supposition and strong beliefs expressed, without much in the way of scientific evidence.
            Yes according to him or her civilization popped into existence outside of the Poison Glen.

            For someone [myself] whose family history [by blood, not mere surname connection or DNA connection but actual pedigree - my surname itself is of Gaelic origin & was founded on an aspect of ancient Celtic warfare] spans more than 1,000 years of history in Ireland such a one sided pro-Ireland mindset is frustrating. Particularly when 1798's connection to Ireland is most likely due to simple DNA - as unless I missed it I have never seen him/her mention any Irish tribe nor clan that they belong to - and as such vague at best [R1b, for example, is excessively widespread, doesn't make you anymore Irish than someone who has lived in Russia for generations].

            Now for the aspect of prehistoric Britons.

            One has to remember that Britain/UK was invaded at least three times - the Celts, the Romans and the Vikings. Ireland itself was invaded by the Fir Bolg [likely Greek or maybe Basque origins as legend says the themselves were prisoners that fled the Greeks] and the Tuath Dé [likewise also Greek or similar] and the Milesians [Iberians / Italian area]. That is, of course, not including the Celts and Vikings... and I think some Romans even wandered that far.

            This is supported by the fact that almost all Y haplogroups in Britain / UK have European origins and were most likely brought over by the conquering parties. Not surprising in the slightest seeing as when most conquering cultures take over they eliminate the "opposition" - which would be native males of fighting capabilities & if feeling vicious enough even the potential threat [so male children] - and as such reproduce with the women be they willing or not. That is how nature is [watch a lion pride after it's taken over by a new male].... you can pretty it up all you want by saying humans aren't that barbaric - we were and we still are.



            In that regard direct or close enough descendants of the old High Kings - no I do not count Niall of the Nine Hostages of whom almost every Irishman and his grandson be related to amongst these true kings for he himself is a Milesian - more accurate than a modern Irishman or a modern Englishman. I mean I do not fit with the so called "Irish" type I, II, or III being older [or a lesser number] than what is typical amongst most of the DYS.

            For example DYS 492 at 14 is predominant amongst modern Irish it is also dominant throughout Germany and into Belgium. However this is no Viking gene, this 14 is a Mediterranean or specifically Italian and guess what that would be [Milesians]. MY DYS 492 is 13 - likewise I am older in many DYS which makes finding a connection with most gene-typed "younger" people & families quite hard - I believe I have 6 matches along the DYS out of nearly 1,800 samples I've gathered over the years. Even the ysearch.org engine itself is useless for me due to this - out of thousands of samples I have a mere 15 connections and even then vague at best.

            Going back to the point of this post

            I am not saying that there may not be a Mesolithic & Neolithic group somewhere. Most likely you'd find someone amongst the Scottish Picts {not the Irish} or their descendants given their history & potential isolation. There is, also, I believe the fact that the Welsh have the oldest DNA samples / haplogroups in the UK if I remember correctly. Devon and similar southwestern areas appear to have the least amount of Viking haplogroup influence if I recall what I found months ago.

            However, to make such a discovery you'd need a) more Mesolithic & Neolithic skeletons to reference and b) LOT more genetic testing of the current living populations.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by James78 View Post
              Yes according to him or her civilization popped into existence outside of the Poison Glen.

              For someone [myself] whose family history [by blood, not mere surname connection or DNA connection but actual pedigree - my surname itself is of Gaelic origin & was founded on an aspect of ancient Celtic warfare] spans more than 1,000 years of history in Ireland such a one sided pro-Ireland mindset is frustrating. Particularly when 1798's connection to Ireland is most likely due to simple DNA - as unless I missed it I have never seen him/her mention any Irish tribe nor clan that they belong to - and as such vague at best [R1b, for example, is excessively widespread, doesn't make you anymore Irish than someone who has lived in Russia for generations].


              Going back to the point of this post

              When you go back beyond 600-900 years names are meaningless.
              Having a Gaelic name does not mean that your Y ancestor arrived in Ireland 10,000 years ago. The reason that we all are taking dna tests is to try and determine where and when our Y line arrived here. That is still a work in progress. Some people are trying to super glue R1b to the PIE so that they can claim a link to the Celts. History teaches us that the Celts arrived in Ireland around 3000-2,500 years ago.I am interested in the Y lines and Mtdna lines who were here before the Celts.

              Comment


              • #37
                I want to be young, handsome and smart

                Comment

                Working...
                X