How Celtic or Germanic are the English?

[Stevo]

I have also noticed the following genetic shift across the populations of Indo European speakers:

1. Lots of R1b; little or no R1a -the population is inclined to speak a Celtic or Italic language.

2. Lots of R1b; a lower but significant percentage of R1a -the population is more inclined to speak Germanic language.

3. Lots of R1a; a lower but significant percentage of R1b -the population is more inclined tp speak a Slavic language.

4. Lots of R1a; little or no R1b -the population is more inclined to speak an Indic language.

I know know if this observation really has any linguistic or genetic significance, but it seems to be generally true, so I thought I would point it out.

Timothy Peterman

I think those are very astute observations.

I would also add to your #2 above a fairly significant level of I1 in Germanic areas and to your #3 a significant level of I2a in Slavic-speaking areas.

[T E Peterman]

I have read on other websites that R1a may have ventured into Europe before R1b. I could easily see where an early R1a population would have fused with whatever locals were there & been influenced by their language. I1 may have pulled R1a to the Germanic languages & I2b may have pulled R1a to the Slavic.

It seems that if R1b populations don't mix with either of the above, they are more likely to be Celtic or Italic. As I have it, the U106+ branch crossed the forests of Germany & mingled with the locals (R1a & I1) & thus began speaking a more German language.

Timothy Peterman

[BlackWolf]

I think this school of thought about England or any other place for that matter being more Germanic or Celtic is pretty much outdated. I find it frustrating that it lacks content of Bronze Age, Neolithic or even older Mesolithic genetic input. Mesolithic having the largest time span would produce the greatest numbers in many areas and should be widespread.

The concept of Germanic versus Celtic seems pointless to me. What defines Celtic in the first place? If we go that route, then Celtiberia is the most Celtic region since its the region with the oldest attested Celtic language. Unless Dr Koch proves Tartessian is the oldest Celtic which will really change the way we see the Celtic world as Iberia being more Celtic than Ireland. But we need to be careful with Atlantocentric views about Celts like any other centric views and the dividing lines between Germanic, Latin, Ligurian, Iberian, Aquitani, Berber, etc. because it's just not that neat. It's messy as heck.

Arch

When I say or think "Celtic" I think Western European, Cro Magon. The East is from later arrivals. Although these populations are genetic related cousins, they are indeed separate populations. I am infuriated at Sykes for lumping a total "Celtic" British.

What is the agenda? He knows better than that. That the Celts or ancient British, if you will, are closer to Iberia has been well known. That they are different from the English is well know i.e. Prince Charles does not look like a Irishman laddies.

In fact, some of the darker Irish, like a Collin Farrel type, look more like people around the Black Sea area

Like many Americans, I am a total mix of both "Celtic", Irish, Welsh, Scots and the English, Dutch, Swiss German, French and even some Orkney Viking, but that is here not there, even in modern Europe

[rainbow]

I think that natural redheads have the most Celtic/Western European (autosomal) genes. Natural blondes obviously have mostly Scandinavian genes. The dark hair genes must be from Italian, Arab, or Mediterranean (etc) genes. Even before the Romans invaded Britain and made slaves of the conquered indigenous British people, Britain exported slaves (and gold and silver) to Rome/Roman Empire. The Romans would even cut/ shave the slaves hair to create wigs and hairpieces for the wealthy Romans. I think Spaniards today who have dark hair have a lot of Arabian/Moor genes combined with Italian (Roman) genes, while the dark haired British have a lot of genes from the Roman soldiers that lived there and mixed with some of the indigenous women for centuries.

[BlackWolf]

I think that natural redheads have the most Celtic/Western European (autosomal) genes. Natural blondes obviously have mostly Scandinavian genes. The dark hair genes must be from Italian, Arab, or Mediterranean (etc) genes. Even before the Romans invaded Britain and made slaves of the conquered indigenous British people, Britain exported slaves (and gold and silver) to Rome/Roman Empire. The Romans would even cut/ shave the slaves hair to create wigs and hairpieces for the wealthy Romans. I think Spaniards today who have dark hair have a lot of Arabian/Moor genes combined with Italian (Roman) genes, while the dark haired British have a lot of genes from the Roman soldiers that lived there and mixed with some of the indigenous women for centuries.

Actually Rainbow the Spanish do not have a lot of Arabian or Moor in them. The Irish mostly match the Basque, as do the Welsh, the darker or "Black" Irish are said to be the original native Irish in the legends.ll

[T E Peterman]

I think it is incorrect to suggest that today's British royal family is genealogically or biologically representative of the English population. Most of their ancestors are from the continent. Matter of fact, it seems that most European royalty & nobility are, although closely related to each other, hardly related at all to their countries' populations.

The real question here regards the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles. Most tribes were supposedly Celtic. The Romans then conquered Britain & over the next few centuries, left their DNA on the island, with Wales supposedly getting the most. The Romans were simply from the Empire & many, particularly in the later centuries, were probably from Gaul or Iberia, rather than Italy. I doubt the Romans changed the genetic content of the British population very much.

The next wave of settlers were the Anglo-Saxons. Did they exterminate the British, push them westward, or simply intermingle with them? The point that Sykes has made is that the Anglo-Saxons didn't change the population near as much as we have been led to believe. Much of the change was really local: the Angles along the North Sea coast; the Saxons in Kent, Middlesex, Wessex, Susses, Essex, & nearby; later -the Danes & other Vikings in Yorkshire.

At the time of the Norman invasion, I doubt that the Anglo-Saxon content of England's population was over 50%. The Normans had a vast impact on England's political structure, but almost no impact on the population.

I have to concur with Sykes that the majority of England's recent population is Celtic, with large minorities of Anglo-Saxons in select regions of the country. Most of today's English are descended from both. However, few have maintained a Celtic identity since the days of the Romans.

Timothy Peterman

[rainbow]

^ Yes, TE Peterman, that's what I think too. Britain today is a mix of the groups that invaded it. I think that the purest surviving Celts are in remote areas, far from the coastline.

Actually Rainbow the Spanish do not have a lot of Arabian or Moor in them. The Irish mostly match the Basque, as do the Welsh, the darker or "Black" Irish are said to be the original native Irish in the legends.ll

I think that pre-Roman British were redheads. Queen Boadicea was a redhead. And I think that Boticelli's Venus/Aphrodite was based on a Celtic woman or a woman in Italy descended from Celts or Caledonians (from Scotland).

I would like to see the DNA Tribes results of Redheads Conan O' Brien and Ron Howard and compare them to "Black Irish types" Colin Ferrel and George Clooney and Minnie Driver or Black Scot Craig Ferguson or Welsh Catherine Zeta-Jones. My guess is that the dark types have a large amount of Aegean or Meditteranean or Greek or something other than NW European.

[T E Peterman]

I have also wondered if the complexion type associated with red hair was derived from a different mutation & in a different population than blond hair.

Even though both seem to have a lot of representation in NW Europe, that could be a coincidence.

Timothy Peterman

[gtc]

I have also wondered if the complexion type associated with red hair was derived from a different mutation & in a different population than blond hair.

It seems that both are characterized by low levels of the dark pigment eumelanin, a black to brown pigment produced by melanin:

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

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

[BlackWolf]

I think it is incorrect to suggest that today's British royal family is genealogically or biologically representative of the English population. Most of their ancestors are from the continent. Matter of fact, it seems that most European royalty & nobility are, although closely related to each other, hardly related at all to their countries' populations.

The real question here regards the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles. Most tribes were supposedly Celtic. The Romans then conquered Britain & over the next few centuries, left their DNA on the island, with Wales supposedly getting the most. The Romans were simply from the Empire & many, particularly in the later centuries, were probably from Gaul or Iberia, rather than Italy. I doubt the Romans changed the genetic content of the British population very much.

The next wave of settlers were the Anglo-Saxons. Did they exterminate the British, push them westward, or simply intermingle with them? The point that Sykes has made is that the Anglo-Saxons didn't change the population near as much as we have been led to believe. Much of the change was really local: the Angles along the North Sea coast; the Saxons in Kent, Middlesex, Wessex, Susses, Essex, & nearby; later -the Danes & other Vikings in Yorkshire.

At the time of the Norman invasion, I doubt that the Anglo-Saxon content of England's population was over 50%. The Normans had a vast impact on England's political structure, but almost no impact on the population.

I have to concur with Sykes that the majority of England's recent population is Celtic, with large minorities of Anglo-Saxons in select regions of the country. Most of today's English are descended from both. However, few have maintained a Celtic identity since the days of the Romans.

Timothy Peterman

That is good point, although I would concur that Celtic is in the English, I believe they are more Saxon than what is thought. I do not believe the Celts were exterminated, but, I do believe their is more Saxon there than what Sykes believes at only 20%.

Rainbow:

I think that pre-Roman British were redheads. Queen Boadicea was a redhead. And I think that Boticelli's Venus/Aphrodite was based on a Celtic woman or a woman in Italy descended from Celts or Caledonians (from Scotland).

I would like to see the DNA Tribes results of Redheads Conan O' Brien and Ron Howard and compare them to "Black Irish types" Colin Ferrel and George Clooney and Minnie Driver or Black Scot Craig Ferguson or Welsh Catherine Zeta-Jones. My guess is that the dark types have a large amount of Aegean or Meditteranean or Greek or something other than NW European.




I don't believe they were all Redheads, perhaps as Mr. Peterman suggest that it was a genetic mutation in the darker Celtic majority. Let us remember that there are many Blond and even some Redhead Spanish people.

I do not believe the Celts are true Mediterraneans, as in Agean or Greek, however, they are Mediterraneans as far as the Spanish go, who are a totally different people than the Eastern Mediterranean. The Spanish, have a lot of Ancient South Asian autosomal in them, they average about 15%.

I just bet, that the Irish, the so called "Black Irish" have quite a bit of South Asian autosomal in them from ancient Indo-Europeans, I know I do at 17%.

[rainbow]

What I meant was that I think the dark types of "Celts", who have considered themselves Celts for many centuries or thousands of years, actually have genes from other populations. It could be Italian or Greek or Egyptian or Aegean or South Asian or all of that and more. The Greeks and Phoenicians were trading with and traveling to the British Isles before the Romans did. I googled 'redhead' and found out that the Ancient Egyptians used to burn hundreds of redheads alive as human sacrifices. I wonder where they got the redheads. Were they imported (some) 'slaves' from the British Isles.
I think the redhead and blonde genes were created (mutations occurred) in NW Europe/British Isles during the Ice Age / LGM.
I think they were the original inhabitants and they lived through the toughest climatic conditions. That's what I consider a true Celt, genetically.
The dark haired peoples eventually moved up there, after the big thaw. People in the Isles are a blend of many groups, in varying amounts.

[T E Peterman]

What about the supposed genetic link between lactose tolerance in adults & fair complexions?

I also wonder if the genetic code for red heads & blonds & their associated complexion differences was there all long, going all the way back to the source population in East Africa. Such differences could have been occluded in the phenotype by the darker melanin pigment. When, through whatever genetic fluke, the melanin pigment was disabled, the complexion differences between red heads & blonds became apparent.

I don't know of any selective advantage for having fair complexions. Once they appeared, they may have been favored through cultural selection.

If the genes for fair complexions are as ancient as I suggested above, the same genes that enable each of the fair complexions must also enable something that does have a selective advantage; otherwise the genes for fair complexions would have been withered away by mutations a long time ago.

Timothy Peterman

[gtc]

I don't know of any selective advantage for having fair complexions.

Fair complexions take up vitamin D from sunlight more effectively. So, if you live close to the pole, where there's a long winter, the lighter your skin, the better.

Reverse situation for those living close to the equator.

[T E Peterman]

So there would have been a selective advantage for the formerly dark complexioned people in the north who were carrying a new mutation that disabled the melanin pigment.

Regarding the resulting complexions & associated hair colors that appeared after the melanin pigment was largely disabled: Was it the product of a new genetic mutation? Or was it something had simply always been there, but was occluded by the darker complexions?

The real gist of these questions is whether, when the melanin pigment was disabled, did it happen independently in several populations? Or was there one mutation event? If the disabling happened twice, did one incident leave us with red heads & their associated complexion & the other incident leave us with blonds & their associated complexion? I get the impression that red heads & blonds are not mixed equally throughout the population, but are concentrated in different geographical areas. Some have estimated that the melanin disabling event occurred as recently as 6,000 years ago. If that is the case, I doubt that red heads & blonds have diverged from one another in that short of an amount of time.

The melanin disabling event could have occurred once & simply diffused across the European population. But if this is what happened, it seems that red heads were revealed within some populations & blonds revealed in other populations. My question about the selective advantage of fair complexions didn't pertain so much to the disabling of melanin, but rather whether selection favors blonds in one area & red heads in another. If both were present (but occluded) before the melanin disabling, what was the advantage at that time. Do their supporting genes also create other aspects of the phenotype?

Timothy Peterman

[Stevo]

Usually when people talk of dark-complected Irish it is evidence that such a thing is an anomaly, something unusual or unexpected. It is the exception that proves (tests) the rule, as they say. By far, most Irish are fair-skinned and blue-eyed, even if dark hair tends to prevail among them.

Here is something on the physical appearance of the Irish that is excerpted from Carleton Coon's old The Races of Europe. Regardless of what you think of that book, the following info was taken from a study of 10,000 Irishmen conducted by Harvard's Anthropology Department.

The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category (Fischer #11-19). Thus the hair color of the Irish is darker than that of most regions of Scandinavia, but not much darker than Iceland; it is notably different from Nordic hair, as exemplified by eastern Norwegians and Swedes, in its almost total lack of ash-blondism. The rufous hair color pigment reaches a world maximum here; not so much in reds as in the prevalance of golden hues in blond and brown shades. The lightest hair is found in the Aran Islands, where the commonest shade is, nevertheless, medium brown; in the southwestern counties there are more goldens and at the same time more dark-browns than in Ireland as a whole, while the Great Plain runs fairest of all. Red hair, with a regional maximum of 8 per cent, is commonest in Ulster, rarest in Waterford and Wexford.

In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color. Regional differences, while not great, are of some importance. The ratio of pure blue eyes falls to 33 per cent in Kerry and Clare, and rises to 50 per cent in other regions - Carlow and Wicklow in the southeast, and Armagh, Monaghan, and eastern Cavan in the North. On the whole, the east is lighter eyed than the west, as it is lighter haired. At the same time the Presbyterians are blonder than the Catholics, who are in turn fairer than the members of the Church of Ireland.