Genetic make up of the British Isles

No. Why do you post links to such charlatan websites, anyways?

firstly, the link i provided was only for the maps as they are accurate.

I honestly find it incomprehensable that you make such a claim about the Pictish language, especially given that the same source that you cite claims otherwise. If you take a look at the quote below (found on page 1593 of the link you provided):

"For Pictish, the language of the Pictish kingdom(s) north of the Firth of Forth, only proper-name and epigraphic evidence remains. At least from the former, it is clear that it was a P-Celtic language, closely related to Cumbric and hence to early Welsh and the other Brythonic languages."

By the way, I also recommend reading this concerning the language of the Picts.

So its recorded that the celts arrived in Britain around 500BC, then what was the pictish language before this?

Some historians say the picts where from western France related to the basques, some say they are related to the spanish Galicians and others say they where scandinavian people as they where great seafarers.

The Romans only mentioned them once physically
"Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferronque notatas Perlegit examines Picto moriente figuras"


- The Romans called this pre-Celtic people Pictii, or "Painted ones"
- The Picts spoke a non-Celtic language, although many Celtophiles feel the Picts spoke a Brythonic-Gaulish form of Celtic language. As I stated, since celtic only arrived in britain from 500BC, the pre langauge of the islands was not celtic based.

Again I will ask the question, is celtic related to a language or a people. .........my answer is that it is a language.
 
phenotype i associate with celtic people and also with pontid like people of eastern europe
05burt.jpg

234333862.jpg

Roberto-Bolle.jpg

cota-roberto-lapresse--488x255.jpg

Vasco-Rossi.jpg

ballando8.JPG

Festival-di-Sanremo-2012-Gianni-Morandi-non-conduce-sarà-direttore-artistico.jpg

alessandra.jpg
 
I think more eastwards you go on the british isles you enconter more germanic types, also blondism studies says the eastern parts of the british isles are more lighter haired and more germanic, while the western parts are more celtic as well as more dark haired
 
phenotype i associate with celtic people and also with pontid like people of eastern europe
05burt.jpg

234333862.jpg

Roberto-Bolle.jpg

cota-roberto-lapresse--488x255.jpg

Vasco-Rossi.jpg

ballando8.JPG

Festival-di-Sanremo-2012-Gianni-Morandi-non-conduce-sar%C3%A0-direttore-artistico.jpg

alessandra.jpg

apart from the last one, they all look Austrian
 
firstly, the link i provided was only for the maps as they are accurate.



So its recorded that the celts arrived in Britain around 500BC, then what was the pictish language before this?




there is no good answer today:
firstable, we do not know seriously if there were not Celtic speakers before the dates you mention -
It is sure than the historical Pictish (Cruithni/Pretani?) people of Eastern Scoltand spoke PRINCIPALLY a brittonic celtic language - it is of no worth dispute that - someones speak about an other language spoken there and that would be neither celtic nor indo-european - let's note that non-celtic does not signify non-indo-européean (some old rivers names of Scotland could be of a previous indo-european stock) -


Some historians say the picts where from western France related to the basques, some say they are related to the spanish Galicians and others say they where scandinavian people as they where great seafarers.

for western France, this is based on the name of the gaulish tribe of PICTONS? I suppose - nothing more to prove nothing only maybe the too quick conclusions about Y-DNA - What I red and applies to the proto-historical territory of future Picts lands is that people came there from EASTERN GAUL, practizing cremation and coming not far from present Switzerland - in their mixture a lot of them was phenotypically 'alpine-looking' (brachycephalic) as a lot of Celts of Eastern Gaul (a little taste of 'dinaric' too, surely, from the Beaker period along the Rhine) - the pure 'nordic' concept of Celts is a dream - today Fifeshire is still a place of mesocephaly in the Isles (index more than 80 in the 30's), with Western Ireland - imput of gaulish Celts !

The Romans only mentioned them once physically
"Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferronque notatas Perlegit examines Picto moriente figuras"


- The Romans called this pre-Celtic people Pictii, or "Painted ones"
- The Picts spoke a non-Celtic language, although many Celtophiles feel the Picts spoke a Brythonic-Gaulish form of Celtic language. As I stated, since celtic only arrived in britain from 500BC, the pre langauge of the islands was not celtic based.

Pict is an historical concept I believe - SO, before that, there were Caledonians that looked physically closed enough to some sorts of Celts too - I'm not the Bible, so you could find more precise and reliable details on the forum BREIZH BERTAEYN BRITTANY on the web -

Again I will ask the question, is celtic related to a language or a people. .........my answer is that it is a language.

related to a language because surely the first proto-historical Celts did acculture some 'indigene' people of the Alps and Western Europe, their demic previous imput being erased in the historical celtic populations
 
precise: these 'swiss' celtic people came about the Urnfields period if I do'nt mistake
 
Well according to the history of Rollo (which etnicity I will not start to discuss now,since is contested if he was danish or norwegian) he came with danish (and I say with svear and geatish ) vikings and settled to Normandy,in France.
No ideea where is told that Rollo had also norwegian/norse vikings since that is not veryfied by Y DNA tests,because you barely can find any R1A1 in Normandy.
From Normandy where they adopted a french-like language,these vikings were called normans.From here they went and conquered England in 1066.
According to some map from here there is a lot of R1B germanic in England,the U106 clade.There are also good percentages of I1A and of I2B which I think are pretty clearly linked again with vikings. (think is about 20% I1A+I2B in England).
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26700-New-map-of-R1b-S21-(U106)
So here is a part of genetic make-up of Brittish Isles,which can be hardly denied since is confirmed by both history and Y DNA analysis and more,by the change the old english language suffered.

As for percentages of R1A1 in Scotland and Ireland from here,I do not know how accurate they are,I read in some other places that you can found in Scotland in some places even 33% R1A1,which can be linked to norse vikings who settled here.

Look what is told about Icelandic women,which they say are in proportion of 60% scottish,brought by norse vikings who settled in Scotland and after came back from there.
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/iceland/icelandic_women.htm
Sorry did not found any better site to link this article.
But here is told also that a lot of icelandic women are of british isles descent:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n4/fig_tab/5201578t2.html#figure-title
According to the table above,in Scottish NW coast 15% of Y DNA is from Scandinavia and 15% of mt DNA is from Scandinavia.
In Orkney 30% of mt-dna and 30% of Y DNA is from Scandinavia.
As a curiosity most women from Faroe Islands and Iceland are from Brithish Isles.
So is clear that at least in Scotland people are pretty mixed with norse vikings.
 
as a whole, Scotland shows more germanic imput than Ireland and Wales, and Cornwall too (but what is Cornwall today?) and among these, a more strong imput of Norwegian Viking origin than England and Ireland - but this imput is not so important as in England in a whole - the strong viking imput is in the Isles and far North lands and not homogenous: well balanced for fathers and mothers in Caithness (a few) and Shetland and Orkney,unbalanced in the Hebrieds (more males, less females) as in Iceland and the Faroe's - I believe that the weight of british females is exageratedin some surveys because phenotypically Icelandmen are closer to Norwegians than to british Celts, Scottish Highlanders or Irishmen...
I suppose the high percentages of Y-R1a in Scotland was found in these Vikings areas but demographically these regions have almost no importance -
I think we have to be carefull and wait more data about french Normandy because the samples we have are too scarce to prove something for the lower percentages of HGs... and don't forget that other germanic peoples as Saxons and Franks settled there too, long time before big William -
 
So its recorded that the celts arrived in Britain around 500BC, then what was the pictish language before this?

Nobody actually recorded when Celtic-speaking peoples arrived in Britain. The Mediterranean world was entirely unaware of Britain until the 4th century BC (the journeys of Pytheas of Massilia), and the Romans didn't visit Britain until the 1st century BC (Caesar's expedition during the Gallic Wars).

From the archaeological perspective, the people known to the Greeks/Romans as Celts/Gauls were the bearers of the iron age culture of La-Tène. Iron working entered Britain around 800 BC (it entered Ireland even later), but the typical La-Tene style didn't arrive in Britain until ca. 500 BC. Does that mean that Celtic languages as a whole arrived only then? I find that highly doubtful, especially considering that Ireland was wholly Celtic by historic times yet from the archaeological only received a peripherial influence from the La-Tene culture.

It is thus my opinion that there probably were several waves of Celtic migrations towards the British Isles. The first wave during the great upheavals of the bronze age (13-12th century BC, coinciding roughly with the collapses of the civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean) bringing a Proto-Celtic (Q-Celtic) language to Britain, and a second wave during the iron age bringing a P-Celtic language to Britain.

From the genetic perspective, this may be reflected by Y-Haplogroups R1b-L21 and R1b-U152, but I'd be cautious with such an interpretation.

There are some people who propose that the Beaker-Bell Culture (3rd millennium BC) was already Celtic, but I have my serious doubts that it was even Indo-European at all, partially due to it's continuity with the earlier Megalithic traditions, partly due to it's age and due to it's very widespread nature (including North Africa and Sardinia).

Some historians say the picts where from western France related to the basques, some say they are related to the spanish Galicians and others say they where scandinavian people as they where great seafarers.

From my expirience, these are just urban legends. At least, I am unaware of a single reference in peer-reviewed sources of any of the above statements.

The Romans only mentioned them once physically
"Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferronque notatas Perlegit examines Picto moriente figuras"


- The Romans called this pre-Celtic people Pictii, or "Painted ones"
Caesar clearly stated that the British as a whole painted themselves blue.


Bello Gallico, Book 5, chapter 14:


"Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem, atque hoc horridiores sunt in pugna aspectu."


"All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad, which occasions a bluish color, and thereby have a more terrible appearance in fight."


- The Picts spoke a non-Celtic language, although many Celtophiles feel the Picts spoke a Brythonic-Gaulish form of Celtic language. As I stated, since celtic only arrived in britain from 500BC, the pre langauge of the islands was not celtic based.

The little evidence that there is of the Pictish language that there is in Graeco-Roman and (much later) Gaelic sources suggests that it was a P-Celtic language akin to ancient Brythonic and Gaulish.

It is my opinion that prior to the Roman invasion of Britain (1st century BC/AD), there probably was little difference between inhabitants of southern and northern Britain, and the difference between "Britons" and "Picts" was a product of the Hadrian's Wall. So, by the time the Romans withdrew from Britain (5th century AD), Brythonic and Pictish were two different languages.

Again I will ask the question, is celtic related to a language or a people. .........my answer is that it is a language.

In the context of linguistics, "Celtic" obviously refers to the Celtic language family.
 
The little evidence that there is of the Pictish language that there is in Graeco-Roman and (much later) Gaelic sources suggests that it was a P-Celtic language akin to ancient Brythonic and Gaulish.

It is my opinion that prior to the Roman invasion of Britain (1st century BC/AD), there probably was little difference between inhabitants of southern and northern Britain, and the difference between "Britons" and "Picts" was a product of the Hadrian's Wall. So, by the time the Romans withdrew from Britain (5th century AD), Brythonic and Pictish were two different languages.

In the context of linguistics, "Celtic" obviously refers to the Celtic language family.

to confirm the brittonic quality of the prédominent languages spoken in the historical pictish territory there is a book written by W/. NIcolaisen where he affirms there was a big density of brittonic celtic placenames in the lands of Picts: important, they are not big town been official centers but at the contrary everyday things naming where nature was concerned, not 'Bigchiefmagos' or 'Bigchiefbriga'... some studies affirm that there were two different languages in these lands !???
kouskit mad ha gwrit hunvreoù c'hweg!
 
to confirm the brittonic quality of the prédominent languages spoken in the historical pictish territory there is a book written by W/. NIcolaisen where he affirms there was a big density of brittonic celtic placenames in the lands of Picts: important, they are not big town been official centers but at the contrary everyday things naming where nature was concerned, not 'Bigchiefmagos' or 'Bigchiefbriga'... some studies affirm that there were two different languages in these lands !???
kouskit mad ha gwrit hunvreoù c'hweg!

I must admit I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there. The idea that there were two Pictish languages has been suggested, that is a P-Celtic and a non-Indo-European (it is also discussed here), but I find it unlikely for such an arrangement to exist over a period of many centuries.
 
I must admit I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there. The idea that there were two Pictish languages has been suggested, that is a P-Celtic and a non-Indo-European (it is also discussed here), but I find it unlikely for such an arrangement to exist over a period of many centuries.


I said that PEOPLE affirm they was an other language in the pictish area and that this language was not indo-european (I have no competence to judge it, it is just a report) -
on an other side Nicolaisen seams thinking that yet a not too much differentiated indo-european language was spoken in the Isles before Celts arrived... I would be glad if I could find more knowledge on that, as you I suppose...
 
The existence of the celts if first atested by the galeic languages (which are celtic languages),as irish,scotish,welsh are.You are living in Germany, you say you are irish,you ever visited Ireland?
If you did not,go search on youtube and see there people speaking in irish language,which is a celtic language.
Second,there is some nordid profile clearly asociated with celtic ancestry, called keltic nordid,as a lot of people in UK looks (about 25%-30% from the people in UK).
If you have some R1b branch on paternal line,that is good only for history,what matters most is how you look like,for example even if you find common R1b subclades in Italy/Spain and UK,people are not looking same.
Those from Italy are usually brown/dark brown/black eyed and darker skin,with softer facial lines etc while those in UK are usually with green/blue eyes/light eyes and diferent look of their faces,a little straighter lines,etc.
In old Europe only thracians and celts were red haired,so in UK you have a lot of people red haired,because of the celts first and second because of those vikings who came and raided there and some even settled there,who were red haired also.(I do consider those vikings red haired,descendants of thracians from Troy).That red haired pretty present in UK (think most common is in Scotland) is a serious proof of celtic ancestry.
Beside,except Y DNA there is also maternal DNA,H is a large group for mt-dna (which is most common in Europe ),for sure it haves a lot of sub-branches,but research should be done to see them.
Go search a little on google images "keltic nordid" to make an ideea,about how people of this profile looks.
Just searched on google,highest percent of red heads from Europe is in Scotland,about 13% of the population and 2nd in Ireland,10% of the people.
Since you asked about genetics,if you see R1a in Scotland/Ireland is very very likely viking norse ancestry.
That's bull-crap and you know it. Especially with the "darker skin" part. You can find PLENTY of Italians with Blue/Green eyes. I'm living proof of that. Not all Italians have dark skin either. They're pretty much on average with the rest of Southern Europe, skin pigmentation wise. Yes, they're not as light as a Dutchman, but they're not as Dark as a North/SSA either. You're Romanian huh? You lot actually look a lot like darker Italians. Not much difference.
 
That's bull-crap and you know it. Especially with the "darker skin" part. You can find PLENTY of Italians with Blue/Green eyes. I'm living proof of that. Not all Italians have dark skin either. They're pretty much on average with the rest of Southern Europe, skin pigmentation wise. Yes, they're not as light as a Dutchman, but they're not as Dark as a North/SSA either. You're Romanian huh? You lot actually look a lot like darker Italians. Not much difference.
Lighten up a bit wormhole, and try not to offend members of Eupedia.
Welcome to Eupedia.
 
Lighten up a bit wormhole, and try not to offend members of Eupedia.
Welcome to Eupedia.
Nah, I'm fine. That comment was uncalled for and intentional. "try not to offend members", ahh the Irony in that statement :rolleyes:

Thanks.
 
First as for the Celts in England yes they are still there,England really is a mixed Anglo-Celtic land today and it varies depending on where you are in England.There are people from places like Somerset and the South-West who have large amounts of British Celtic dna as well as Alpine-Celtic types found throughout all of SOuthern England,part of Wales and part of Northern England going up to the Eastern Scottish Lowlands.Plus there are people in southern ENgland with lagre matches for Roman and southern European autosomal dna.Of course the dominant types in England really are Germanic and Northern European but many English are mixed with Celtic genes also and some,have mostly or soley Celtic genes.But there really are 2 different Celtic types found in England not only the British Celtic type but also the Alpine or Gaullish type is frequent but none are as freqeuent as the Saxon-Germanic types.SO to answer your question,England really is a mixture of Celtic and Germanic and even Roman genes but it differs and varies depending on what part of the country you are referring to.As for the Picts and Germanic parts of Scotland the best source is to get The Scots:A genetic journey by Dr James WIlson and Alistair Moffat who used to work for ethnoancestry a Scottish dna company that specializes in British Isle dna types and tests,it changed it's name to Scottish DNA now.The Pict Y-dna is called R1b-L21 str47.and they know now the Pictish language was originally a Brythonic dialect that was related to Ancient/early Proto-Gaullish and not closely related at all to Old British or Welsh and Cumbric
 

This thread has been viewed 51936 times.

Back
Top