Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Britons

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

  • alfiem
    replied
    I want to be young, handsome and smart

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • James78
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Subwoofer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 192971
    replied
    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, 05:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Re: About woodlands cleared by fire

    The forests in Europe are not what they used to be thousands of years ago.

    To understand forest fires in the temperate climate one should visit NW US.

    Possibly this long weekend there will be fires to watch.

    The forest fire aftermath is acutely visible all year round, as long as there is no snow cover. It is not a jungle...

    Thousands years ago, each year, natural fires would surely clear more land than any non-farmers could adapt/use.

    Farmers might had been the first ones to use fire to clear more land, but only if they had axes capable of preparing the containment area...

    Mr. W

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by MerryB View Post
    The book 1491 by Charles Mann details how the Native Americans used fire on a yearly (?) basis to clear out woodlands. Neat, and makes sense, to understand Mesolithic Britons did the same. I remember as a kid puzzling over slash and burn agriculture in the Americas being believed to be a pre-contact practice, since metal axes came after Columbus, but I was not smart enough to figure out that slash and burn agriculture came AFTER Columbus, and the Native Americans had used a different method before then. (Always assuming I remember the book 1491 correctly, which might be a problematic assumption.)
    Our Mesolithic ancestors were clever and the animals that would have lived on the new vegetation would have been easily caught.The first farmers must have used controlled burning also.

    Our M269 and L11 ancestors must have lived in the forest as the bottlenecks suggest. We must have lived like the isolated tribes in the Amazon and elsewhere. The deforestation during the Neolithic may have forced them out from the woods.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    About woodlands cleared by fire

    An alternative hypothesis.

    They moved to the areas cleared by natural forest fires (i.e. caused by lightning strikes). And possibly only enlarged them using fire.

    When comparing them to us we say that they were primitive, but they were not stupid. Control and containment of forest fires is challenging even in the 21st century.

    Mr. W

    Leave a comment:


  • MerryB
    replied
    Native Americans are said to have used fire to clear woodlands also-- interesting

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    There was a documentary about the first Britons on the TV last night. The Mesolithic people used fire to clear woodland which makes sense and they did it long before the first farmers arrived. Cutting trees with a stone axe would not be the cleverest method. I think that the program showed that the dna of the Mesolithic people still lives on in the modern Britons.
    The book 1491 by Charles Mann details how the Native Americans used fire on a yearly (?) basis to clear out woodlands. Neat, and makes sense, to understand Mesolithic Britons did the same. I remember as a kid puzzling over slash and burn agriculture in the Americas being believed to be a pre-contact practice, since metal axes came after Columbus, but I was not smart enough to figure out that slash and burn agriculture came AFTER Columbus, and the Native Americans had used a different method before then. (Always assuming I remember the book 1491 correctly, which might be a problematic assumption.)

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    This has also been discussed ad nauseum.

    The calculators may fit for some people, based on what they know about their ancestry.

    The calculators do not work in every instance
    .



    And no room for any other possibilities or developments. Congratulations.
    The K15 oracles must be autosomal dna from the very distant past. The 2000 ybp Hinxton 4 had links to the German population. Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.858814
    I think that the NS and Atlantic proportions from the K15 are accurate enough and goes back 8000 years to Lochsbour.
    Last edited by 1798; 2 September 2015, 06:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    The 8000 year old Lochsbour is the oldest West European remains tested to date. We need more tests from 10,000,20,000 and 30,000 ybp to compare with modern western European populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • N21163
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The Eurogenes K15 calculator is accurate enough for me.
    This has also been discussed ad nauseum.

    The calculators may fit for some people, based on what they know about their ancestry.

    The calculators do not work in every instance.

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I have learned all I need to know about my ancient dna lines from it.
    And no room for any other possibilities or developments. Congratulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    These results for the NA Clovis seems like the calculators are good enough and what one would expect.

    NA Clovis F999919 12,500ybp K15
    # Population Percent
    1 Amerindian 88.51
    2 Siberian 4.58
    3 Eastern_Euro 3.52
    4 Southeast_Asian 1.63
    5 North_Sea 0.95
    6 Oceanian 0.34
    7 Northeast_African 0.26
    8 Atlantic 0.14
    9 Baltic 0.08

    Clovis K7
    Population *
    ANE 34.01%
    ASE 3.52%
    WHG-UHG 5.15%
    East_Eurasian 55.30%
    West_African 0.08%
    East_African 1.95%
    ENF - * *

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X